International Journal of Biometeorology

, Volume 58, Issue 7, pp 1443–1450 | Cite as

Body temperature and respiratory dynamics in un-shaded beef cattle

Original Paper

Abstract

In this study body temperature (BT, °C) and panting score (PS, 0–4.5; where 0 = no panting/no stress and 4.5 = catastrophic stress) data were obtained from 30 Angus steers housed outside over 120 days Steers were implanted with a BT transmitter on day −31, BT was recorded at 30-min intervals to a data logger and downloaded each day to a database. The cattle were housed in ten outdoor un-shaded pens with an earthen floor, eight of which had a pen floor area of 144 m2 (three transmitter steers plus five non-transmitter steers; 18 m2/steer) and two had an area of 168 m2 (three transmitter steers and six non-transmitter steers; 18.7 m2/steer). Only data from the transmitter steers were used in this study. The PS of the steers was obtained daily (± 15 min) at 0600 hours (AM), 1200 hours (MD) and 1600 hours (PM). At the same times climate variables (ambient temperature, black globe temperature, solar radiation, relative humidity, wind speed and rainfall) were obtained from an on-site weather station. PS observations were made from outside the pens so as not to influence cattle responses. The two closest BT values to the time when PS was obtained were downloaded retrospectively from a logger and averaged. A total of 8,352 observations were used to generate second order polynomial response curves: (AM) y = 39.08 + 0.009 x + 0.137x2 (R2 = 0.94; P < 0.001) (MD) y = 39.09 + 0.914x − 0.080x2 (R2 = 0.89; P < 0.001) and (PM) y = 39.52 + 0.790x − 0.068x2 (R2 = 0.83; P < 0.001) where y = BT (°C) and  x PS. These data suggest that PS is a good indicator of body temperature. The BT at MD corresponded to slightly lower PS compared with PM, e.g., for PS 1; BT at MD = 39.1 ± 0.05 °C whereas BT at PM = 39.5 ± 0.05 °C. However during AM, BT was lower (P < 0.05) at PS 1, 2 and 2.5 compared with MD and PM. For example, when PS was 2.5 the BT at AM was 40.2 ± 0.04 °C, at MD it was 40.9 ± 0.04 °C and at PM BT was 41.1 ± 0.04 °C. When PS was 0 the BT at AM and MD were similar. The AM response curve suggests animals attempt to increase heat dissipation during the cooler AM period relative to MD and PM. Morning observation of cattle (before feeding) are crucial for effective heat load management especially on days when high heat load is expected. The MD and PM observations provide a good indication of the impact of high environmental heat load on cattle. Differences in PS between AM and PM observations suggest that more research is needed to determine the effect of night time conditions on BT, PS and overall respiratory dynamics of cattle during periods of hot weather.

Keywords

Respiratory dynamics Panting Heat stress Cattle 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Funding for this study was provided by Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA), North Sydney, NSW, Australia. The authors would like to acknowledge the staff at the Brigalow Research Station feedlot for their assistance in data collection, and the daily care and maintenance of the cattle. Figures 1a, and Fig. 2a, b, supplied by A. Lees.

References

  1. Al-Haidary A, Spiers DE, Rottinghaus GE, Garner GB, Ellersieck MR (2001) Thermoregulatory ability of beef heifers following intake of endophyte-infected tall fescue during controlled heat challenge. J Anim Sci 79:1780–1788Google Scholar
  2. Beatty DT, Barnes A, Taylor E, Pethick D, McCarthy M, Maloney SK (2006) Physiological responses of Bos taurus and Bos indicus cattle to prolonged, continuous heat and humidity. J Anim Sci 84:972–985Google Scholar
  3. Bianca W (1962) Tolerance of severe heat and the behaviour of respiratory minute volume in cattle. Nature 195:1208–1209Google Scholar
  4. Bianca W, Findlay JD (1962) The effect of thermally-induced hyperpnea on the acid-base status of the blood of calves. Res Vet Sci 3:38–49Google Scholar
  5. Bligh J (1985) Temperature regulation. In: Yousef MK (ed) Stress physiology in livestock. Vol 1, basic principles. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 75–96Google Scholar
  6. Brosh A, Aharoni Y, Degen AA, Wright D, Young BA (1988) Effects of solar radiation, dietary energy, and time of feeding on thermoregulatory responses and energy balance in cattle in a hot environment. J Anim Sci 76:2671–2677Google Scholar
  7. Brown-Brandl TM, Nienaber JA, Eigenberg RA, Mader TL, Morrow JL, Dailey JW (2006) Comparison of heat tolerance of feedlot cattle of different breed. Livest Sci 105:19–26Google Scholar
  8. Findlay JD (1957) The respiratory activity of calves subjected to thermal stress. J Physiol 136:300–309Google Scholar
  9. Gaughan JB, Mader TL, Holt SM (2008) A new heat load index for feedlot cattle. J Anim Sci 86:226–234Google Scholar
  10. Gaughan JB, Mader TL, Holt SM, Sullivan ML, Hahn GL (2010a) Assessing the heat tolerance of 17 beef cattle genotypes. Int J Biometeorol 54:617–627Google Scholar
  11. Gaughan JB, Bonner S, Loxton I, Mader TL, Lisle A, Lawrence R (2010b) Effect of shade on body temperature and performance of feedlot steers. J Anim Sci 88:4056–4067Google Scholar
  12. Hahn GL (1999) Dynamic responses of cattle to thermal heat loads. J Anim Sci 77:10–20Google Scholar
  13. Hahn GL, Parkhurst AM, Gaughan JB (1997) Cattle respiration rate as a function of ambient temperature. ASAE Mid-Central Conf. Paper MC97-121. ASAE, St. Joseph, MIGoogle Scholar
  14. Hales JRS, Webster MED (1967) Respiratory function during thermal tachypnoea in sheep. J Physiol 190:241–260Google Scholar
  15. Hammond AC, Chase CC Jr, Bowers EJ, Olson TA, Randel RD (1998) Heat tolerance of Tuli-, Senepol-, and Brahman-sired F1 Angus heifers in Florida. J Anim Sci 76:1568–1577Google Scholar
  16. Hammond AC, Olson TA, Chase CC Jr, Bowers EJ, Randel RD, Murphy CN, Vogt DW, Tewolde A (1996) Heat tolerance in two tropically adapted Bos taurus breeds, Senepol and Romosinuano, compared with Brahman, Angus, and Hereford cattle in Florida. J Anim Sci 74:295–303Google Scholar
  17. Kibler HH, Brody S (1950) Influence of temperature, 5o to 95o F., on evaporative cooling from the respiratory and exterior body surfaces in Jersey and Holstein cows. Res Bull Mo Agric Exp Sta No. 461 pp 1–19Google Scholar
  18. Lawrence RJ (1998) A comparison of feedlot bunk management strategies and their influence on cattle performance and health. Anim Prod Aust 22:177–180Google Scholar
  19. Mader TL, Davis MS, Brown-Brandl T (2006) Environmental factors influencing heat stress in feedlot cattle. J Anim Sci 84:712–719Google Scholar
  20. Mader TL, Kreikemeier WM (2006) Effects of growth-promoting agents and season on blood metabolites and body temperature in heifers. J Anim Sci 84:1030–1037Google Scholar
  21. Maia AS, DaSilva RG, Loureiro CMB (2005) Respiratory heat loss of Holstein cows in a tropical environment. Int J Biometeorol 49:332–336Google Scholar
  22. Robertshaw D (2006) Mechanisms for the control of respiratory evaporative heat loss in panting animals. J Appl Physiol 101:664–668Google Scholar
  23. Taylor CR, Robertshaw D, Hofmann R (1969) Thermal panting: a comparison of wildebeest and zebu cattle. Am J Physiol 217:907–910Google Scholar
  24. Thom EC (1959) The discomfort index. Weatherwise 12:57–59Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ISB 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Agriculture and Food Sciences, Animal Science GroupThe University of QueenslandGattonAustralia
  2. 2.Haskell Agricultural LaboratoryUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnConcordUSA

Personalised recommendations