Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:18:51.368Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of environmental temperature and humidity on the temperature of the skin of the scrotum in ayrshire calves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

W. R. Beakley  and
J. D. Findlay
W. R. Beakley
Affiliation:
The Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Kirkhill, Ayr
J. D. Findlay
Affiliation:
The Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Kirkhill, Ayr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The temperature of the surface of the scrota of three 4-month-old Ayrshire calves has been measured in environments of 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40° C. at a low humidity of 17 mg./l. absolute humidity and in environments of 30, 35 and 40° C. at a high humidity of 7 mg./l. saturation deficit. Five replicate experiments were performed at each environment on each animal and the animals were exposed to each environment for 6 hr.; measurements of scrotal temperature were made once every 5 min.

2. The scrotal surface temperature increased with increasing environmental temperature ranging from 32° C. at 15° C. to 39° C. at 40° C. The rates of increase in scrotal surface temperature with environmental temperature were curvilinear for two of the animals and rectilinear for the other. For the two whose rates of increase were curvilinear the rate of increase was constant at 0·2° C./° C. environmental temperature in the range 15–25° C.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , February 1955 , pp. 365 - 372
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1955

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

REFERENCES

Beakley, W. R. & Findlay, J. D. (1954 a). J. Agric. Sci. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Beakley, W. R. & Findlay, J. D. (1954 b). J. Agric. Sci. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Bonsma, J. C. (1940). Fmg S. Afr. 15, 373.Google Scholar
Fukui, N. (1923 a). Japan Med. World, 3, 27.Google Scholar
Fukui, N. (1923 b). Japan Med. World, 3, 160.Google Scholar
Griffiths, J. (1893). J. Anat. Physiol. 27, 482.Google Scholar
Gunn, R. M. C., Sanders, R. N. & Granger, W. (1942). Bull. Coun. Sci. Industr. Res. Aust. 148.Google Scholar
Harrison, R. G. & Weiner, J. S. (1950). J. Exp. Biol. 26, 304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koller, R. (1950). Wien. tierärtzl. Wschr. 37, 657.Google Scholar
Lagerlöf, N. (1934). Acta path, microbiol. scand. Suppl. 19.Google Scholar
Lageblöf, N. (1936). Vet. Rec. 48, 1159.Google Scholar
Lewis, R. C. (1948). J. Anim. Sci. 7, 214.Google Scholar
MacLeod, J. & Hotchkiss, R. S. (1941). Endocrinology, 28, 780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, C. R. (1924). Amer. J. Anat. 34, 337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moule, G. R. & Khapp, B. (1950). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 1, 456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, R. W. & McKenzie, F. F. (1934). Res. Bull. Mo. agric. Exp. Sta. no. 217.Google Scholar
Riemerschmid, G. & Quinlan, J. (1941). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 17, 123.Google Scholar
Young, W. C. (1927). J. Exp. Zool. 49, 459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar