Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T18:57:12.939Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Photoperiodic effect on live-weight gain of bull calves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

Y. Aharoni ,
A. Brosh  and
Z. Holzer
Y. Aharoni
Affiliation:
Department of Beef Cattle, Agricultural Research Organization, Newe Ya'ar Research Center, PO Box 90000, Haifa 31900, Israel
A. Brosh
Affiliation:
Department of Beef Cattle, Agricultural Research Organization, Newe Ya'ar Research Center, PO Box 90000, Haifa 31900, Israel
Z. Holzer
Affiliation:
Department of Beef Cattle, Agricultural Research Organization, Newe Ya'ar Research Center, PO Box 90000, Haifa 31900, Israel
Get access

Abstract

The effects of day length, of the daily change in day length and of heat load, together with age effect, on live-weight gain of Holstein-Friesian bull calves, were studied using 8205 gain records of 1019 calves that were maintained in the experimental herd at Newe Ya'ar during a 5-year period (1991 to 1995). The age range of the calves was 150 to 450 days. Effects of day length (h) and of day length change (min/day) were assumed to be linear and effect of age was assumed to be quadratic. Three heat load indexes were calculated, accounting for day temperatures above 27°C, or night temperatures above 18°C, or both, and their effect was assumed to be linear also. Random effect of calf and fixed effect of the year were also accounted for by the regression analysis. The mean gain was 1·274 kg/day. The effect of day length was 0·027 (s.e. 0·003) kg/day per h, and effect of day length change was 0·042 (s.e. 0·003) kg/ay per min/day both effects being highly significant (P < 0·0001). The effects of heat load according to each of the three indexes were either not significant, or tended to be positive, which implies increased gain with increasing heat load. Effect of age was positive (P = 0·0005), and of age2 was negative (P < 0·0001). Based on the regression model that did not include heat load effect, the peak gain was obtained on 19 May, 33 days before the longest day and the trough was obtained on 18 November, with a difference of 0·206 kg/day (proportionately 0·15 of the peak gain) between peak and trough gains. It was calculated by the regression coefficients for the photoperiod effects, that a calf that enters the feedlot at the age of 150 days and a live weight of 180 kg on 1 January, will be 23 kg heavier at the age of 350 days than a calf that enters the feedlot at the same age and weight on 1 July. This difference is reduced to 10 kg at the age of 450 days.

Keywords

bull calveslive-weight gainphotoperiod
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 65 , Issue 2 , October 1997 , pp. 165 - 171
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bilodeau, P. P., Petitclerc, D., St-Pierre, N., Pelletier, G. and St-Laurent, G. J. 1989. Effects of photoperiod and pair-feeding on lactation of cows fed corn or barley grain in total mixed rations. Journal of Dairy Science 72:2999–3005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chemineau, P., Daveau, A., Maurice, F. and Delgadillo, J. A. 1992. Seasonality of estrus and ovulation is not modified by subjecting female Alpine goats to a tropical photoperiod. Small Ruminant Research 8:299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, M. and Bergstrom, P. L. 1989. [The effect of increased day length in winter on the growth of beef bulls.] Instituut voor Veeteeltkundig Onderzoekvoor ‘Schoonoord’ (Dutch, English abstract), no. B-337, p. 34.Google Scholar
Fell, L. R. and Clarke, M. R. 1993. Behaviour of lot-fed cattle. In Recent advances in animal nutrition in Australia (ed. Farrell, D. J.), pp. 107–116. University of New England, Armidale.Google Scholar
Guertin, G., Lachance, B., Pelletier, G., St-Laurent, G. J., Roy, D. L. and Petitclerc, D. 1995. Effects of photoperiod and feeding whole maize, whole barley, or rolled barley on growth performance and diet digestibility in veal calves. Livestock Production Science 44:27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingvartsen, K. L., Anderson, H. R. and Foldager, J. 1992. Random variation in voluntary dry matter intake and the effect of day length on feed intake capacity in growing cattle. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 42:121–126.Google Scholar
Kashiwamura, F., Furumura, K., Iketaki, T., Shinde, Y., Aotani, H., Suda, T. and Sato, F. 1991. Relationship between photoperiod and seasonality of milk production in dairy cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology 62:1156–1158.Google Scholar
Mossberg, I. and Jöson, H. 1996. The influence of day length and temperature on food intake and growth rate of bulls given concentrate or grass silage ad libitum in two housing systems. Animal Science 62: 233–240.Google Scholar
Piva, G., Navarotto, P., Repetti, S. and Fusconi, G. 1992. Effect of photoperiod on the performance of dairy cows. Atti della Societa Italiana di Buiatria 24: 114–119.Google Scholar
Ringuet, H., Petitclerc, D., Sorensen, M. T., Guadreau, P., Pelletier, G., Morisset, J., Couture, Y. and Brazeau, P. 1989. Effect of human somatotropin-releasing factor and photoperiods on carcass parameters and mammary gland development of dairy heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 72: 2928–2935.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schillo, K. K., Hall, J. B. and Hileman, S. M. 1992. Effects of nutrition and season on the onset of puberty in the beef heifer. Journal of Animal Science 70:3994–4005.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1989. SAS/STAT user's guide, version 6, 4th edition. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Walkden-Brown, S. W., Norton, B. W. and Restall, B. J. 1994. Seasonal variation in voluntary feed intake and growth in cashmere bucks fed ad libitum diets of low or high quality. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 45: 355–366.Google Scholar