Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T11:20:08.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physiological responses of feedlot heifers provided access to different levels of shade

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2016

T. M. Brown-Brandl ,
C. G. Chitko-McKown ,
R. A. Eigenberg ,
J. J. Mayer ,
T. H. Welsh Jr ,
J. D. Davis  and
J. L. Purswell
T. M. Brown-Brandl*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, PO Box 166, Clay Center, NE 68933, USA
C. G. Chitko-McKown
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, PO Box 166, Clay Center, NE 68933, USA
R. A. Eigenberg
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, PO Box 166, Clay Center, NE 68933, USA
J. J. Mayer
Affiliation:
Settje Agri-Services & Engineering, 4700 W Rock Creek Rd, Raymond, NE 68428, USA
T. H. Welsh Jr
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University, Department of Animal Science, Room 410B Kleberg, 2471 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-2471, USA
J. D. Davis
Affiliation:
Auburn University, Biosystems Engineering, 220 Tom E. Corley Building, Auburn, AL 36849, USA
J. L. Purswell
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Poultry Research Unit, PO Box 5367, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Heat stress has a significant impact on all livestock and poultry species causing economic losses and animal well-being concerns. Providing shade is one heat-abatement strategy that has been studied for years. Material selected to provide shade for animals greatly influences the overall stress reduction provided by shade. A study was conducted to quantify both the environment and animal response, when cattle had no shade access during summertime exposure or were given access to shade provided by three different materials. A total of 32 Black Angus heifers were assigned to one of the four treatment pens according to weight (eight animals per pen). Each pen was assigned a shade treatment: No Shade, Snow Fence, 60% Aluminet Shade Cloth and 100% Shade Cloth. In the shaded treatment pens, the shade structure covered ~40% of the pen (7.5 m2/animal). Animals were moved to a different treatment every 2 weeks in a 4×4 Latin square design to ensure each treatment was applied to each group of animals. Both environmental parameters and physiological responses were measured during the experiment. Environmental parameters included dry-bulb temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, black globe temperature (BGT), solar radiation (SR) and feedlot surface temperature. Animal response measurements included manual respiration rate (RRm), electronic respiration rate (RRe), vaginal temperature (body temperature (BT)), complete blood count (CBC) and plasma cortisol. The environmental data demonstrated changes proportional to the quality of shade offered. However, the animal responses did not follow this same trend. Some of the data suggest that any amount of shade was beneficial to the animals. However, Snow Fence may not offer adequate protection to reduce BT. For some of the parameters (BT, CBC and cortisol), 60% Aluminet and 100% Shade Cloth offers similar protection. The 60% Aluminet lowered RRe the most during extreme conditions. When considering all parameters, environmental and physiological, 60% Aluminet Shade Cloth offered reductions of BGT, SR, feedlot surface temperature and the best (or equal to the best) overall protection for the animals (RRe, RRm, BT, blood parameters).

Keywords

body temperaturecattleheat stressrespiration rateshade
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 8 , August 2017 , pp. 1344 - 1353
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016. This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 

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

Anderson, BH, Watson, DL and Colditz, IG 1999. The effect of dexamethasone on some immunological parameters in cattle. Veterinary Research Communications 7, 399–413.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, JK and Blackshaw, AW 1994. Heat stress in cattle and the effect of shade on production and behaviour: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 34, 285–295.Google Scholar
Bond, TE, Kelly, CF, Morrison, SR and Pereira, N 1967. Solar, atmospheric, and terrestrial radiation received by shaded and unshaded animals. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers 10, 622–627.Google Scholar
Brown-Brandl, TM, Eigenberg, RA and Nienaber, JA 2006. Heat stress risk factors of feedlot heifers. Livestock Science 105, 57–68.Google Scholar
Brown-Brandl, TM, Eigenberg, RA and Nienaber, JA 2013. Benefits of providing shade to feedlot cattle of different breeds. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers 56, 1563–1570.Google Scholar
Brown-Brandl, TM, Eigenberg, RA, Nienaber, JA and Hahn, GL 2005. Dynamic response indicators of heat stress in shaded and non-shaded feedlot cattle, part 1: analyses of indicators. Biosystems Engineering 90, 451–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busby, D and Loy, D 1997. Heat stress in feedlot cattle: producer survey results. Iowa Beef Research Report, 1996, paper No. 26. Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA.Google Scholar
Cockrum, RR, Speidel, E, Salak-Johnson, JL, Chase, CCL, Peel, RK, Weaber, RL, Loneagan, GH, Wagner, JJ, Boddhireddy, P, Thomas, MG, Prayaga, K, DeNise, S and Enns, RM 2016. Genetic parameters estimated at receiving for circulating cortisol, immunoglobulin G, interleukin 8, and incidence of bovine respiratory disease in feedlot beef steers. Journal of Animal Science 94, 2770–2778.Google Scholar
Collier, RJ, Dahl, GE and VanBaale, MJ 2006. Major advances associated with environmental effects on dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 1244–1253.Google Scholar
Curley, KO Jr, Paschal, JC, Welsh, TH Jr and Randel, RD 2006. Technical note: exit velocity as a measure of cattle temperament is repeatable and associated with serum concentration of cortisol in Brahman bulls. Journal of Animal Science 84, 3100–3103.Google Scholar
Eigenberg, R, Brown-Brandl, T and Nienaber, J 2010. Shade material evaluation using a cattle response model and meteorological instrumentation. International Journal of Biometeorology 54, 601–607.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eigenberg, RA, Brown-Brandl, TM, Nienaber, JA and Hahn, GL 2005. Dynamic response indicators of heat stress in shaded and non-shaded feedlot cattle, part 2: predictive relationships. Biosystems Engineering 91, 111–118.Google Scholar
Eigenberg, RA, Hahn, GL, Nienaber, JA, Brown-Brandl, TM and Spiers, D 2000. Development of a new respiration rate monitor for cattle. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers 43, 723–728.Google Scholar
Federation of Animal Science Societies 2010. Guide for the care and use of agricultural animals in research and teaching, 3rd edition. FASS, Champaign, IL, USA.Google Scholar
Gaughan, JB, Bonner, S, Loxton, I, Mader, TL, Lisle, A and Lawrence, R 2010. Effect of shade on body temperature and performance of feedlot steers. Journal of Animal Science 88, 4056–4067.Google Scholar
Gaughan, JB, Holt, SM, Hahn, GL, Mader, TL and Eigenberg, RA 2000. Respiration rate – is it a good measure of heat stress in cattle? Journal of Animal Science 13, 329–332.Google Scholar
Gaughan, JB, Mader, TL, Holt, SM and Lisle, A 2008. A new heat load index for feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 86, 226–234.Google Scholar
Gupta, S, Earley, B, Ting, STL and Crowe, MA 2005. Effect of repeated regrouping and relocation on the physiological, immunological, and hematological variables and performance of steers. Journal of Animal Science 83, 1948–1958.Google Scholar
Hillman, PE, Gebremedhin, KG, Willard, ST, Lee, CN and Kennedy, AD 2009. Continuous measurements of vaginal temperature of female cattle using a data logger encased in a plastic anchor. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 25, 291–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hungerford, LL, Buhman, MJ, Dewell, RD, Mader, TL, Griffin, D, Smith, DR and Nienaber, JA 2000. Investigation of heat stress mortality in four Midwest feedlots. In International Symposia of Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics Proceedings – ISVEE 9: Proceedings of the 9th Symposium of the International Society for Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics, Society of Veterinary Epidemiology Economics, Breckenridge, CO, USA, pp. 661–663.Google Scholar
Kelly, CF and Bond, TE 1958. Effectiveness of artificial shade materials. Agricultural Engineering 39, 758–764.Google Scholar
Livestock Conservation Inc. (LCI) 1970. Patterns of transit losses. LCI, Omaha, NE, USA.Google Scholar
Lomborg, SR, Nielsen, LR, Heegaard, PMH and Jacobsen, S 2008. Acute phase proteins in cattle after exposure to complex stress. Veterinary Research Communications 32, 575–582.Google Scholar
Mader, TL, Holt, SM, Hahn, GL, Davis, MS and Spiers, DE 2002. Feeding strategies for managing heat load in feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 80, 2373–2382.Google Scholar
Mitloehner, FM, Morrow, JL, Dailey, JW, Wilson, SC, Galyean, ML, Miller, MF and McGlone, JJ 2001. Shade and water misting effects on behavior, physiology, performance, and carcass traits of heat-stressed feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 79, 2327–2335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, CJC, Botha, JA, Coetzer, WA and Smith, WA 1994. Effect of shade on various parameters of Friesian cows in a Mediterranean climate in South Africa. 2. Physiological responses. South African Journal of Animal Science 24, 56–60.Google Scholar
Pierre, NR, Cobanov, B and Schnitkey, G 2003. Economic losses from heat stress by U.S. livestock industries. Journal of Dairy Science 86, E52–E77.Google Scholar
Roman Ponce, H, Thatcher, WW, Collier, RJ and Wilcox, CJ 1981. Hormonal responses of lactating dairy cattle to TRH and ACTH in a shade management system within a subtropical environment. Theriogenology 16, 131–138.Google Scholar
Scharf, B, Leonard, MJ, Weaber, RL, Mader, TL, Hahn, GL and Spiers, DE 2011. Determinants of bovine thermal response to heat and solar radiation exposures in a field environment. International Journal of Biometeorology 55, 469–480.Google Scholar
Sullivan, ML, Cawdell-Smith, AJ, Mader, TL and Gaughan, JB 2011. Effect of shade area on performance and welfare of short-fed feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 89, 2911–2925.Google Scholar
Tornquist, SJ and Rigas, J 2010. Interpretation of ruminant leukocyte responses. In Schalm’s veterinary hematology, 6th edition (ed. DJ Weiss and KJ Wardrop), pp. 307–313. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Ames, IA, USA.Google Scholar
Tucker, CB, Rogers, AR and Schütz, KE 2008. Effect of solar radiation on dairy cattle behaviour, use of shade and body temperature in a pasture-based system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 109, 141–154.Google Scholar
Valtorta, SE, Leva, PE and Gallardo, MR 1997. Evaluation of different shades to improve dairy cattle well-being in Argentina. International Journal of Biometeorology 41, 65–67.Google Scholar
Wise, ME, Armstrong, DV, Huber, JT, Hunter, R and Wiersma, F 1988. Hormonal alrerariqrs in the lactating dairy cow in response to thermal stress. Journal of Dairy Science 71, 2480–2485.Google Scholar
Wood, D and Quiroz-Rocha, GF 2010. Normal hematology of cattle. In Schalm’s veterinary hematology, 6th edition (ed. DJ Weiss and KJ Wardrop), pp. 829–835. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Ames, IA, USA.Google Scholar