Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:30:42.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shorn and unshorn Awassi sheep III. Respiration rate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

E. Eyal
E. Eyal
Affiliation:
Division of Animal Husbandry, National and University Institute of Agriculture, Rehovot, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Respiration rate of shorn and unshorn sheep was compared; animals were maintained in the shade and in direct sunlight during various seasons of the year, and at different hours of the day. The average respiration rate, for all seasons when sheep were maintained in the shade, was 55 and 32 respirations per minute, for the unshorn and shorn sheep, respectively.

The diurnal trend of the respiration rate of shorn sheep resembled that of the ambient temperature. There was a delay in the lowering of respiration rate of the unshorn sheep during the evening hours.

2. The critical temperature for the increase in respiration of animals maintained in the shade was 22° C. and 26–30° C. for the unshorn and shorn sheep, respectively.

When the animals were exposed to the direct sunlight the critical ambient temperature for the increase in respiration rate was 15–18° C. and 18–22° C. for the unshorn and shorn sheep, respectively. The respiration rate of the shorn sheep exceeded that of the unshorn but decreased very steeply when the animals returned to the shade.

3. The effect of humidity was noted particularly with ambient temperatures exceeding 27° C. The respiration rate of the unshorn sheep increased and that of the shorn decreased with the rise in the relative humidity. In the sun there was a rise in the respiration rate of both groups with increase in humidity. The rise was steeper in the shorn animals.

4. The effect of the wind in reducing respiration rate was particularly noted on shorn sheep and at elevated ambient temperatures.

5. With equal rectal temperature, the respiration rate of shorn sheep was lower than that of the unshorn ones. Assumed critical rectal temperature for the rise in respiration rate was lower in the unshorn sheep.

6. The differences between the respiration responses of the unshorn and shorn sheep stemmed from the variation in their thermal balance. The latter resulted from the differences in the insulating characteristics of body surface and the differences between the macroclimate and the microclimate existing in the fleece.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 60 , Issue 2 , April 1963 , pp. 175 - 181
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1963

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). Progress in the Physiol. of Farm Animals, p. 252. Hammond.Google Scholar
Beakley, W. R. & Findlay, J. D. (1955). J. Agric. Sci. 45, 452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. (1947). J. Agric. Sci. 38, 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Graham, N. McC. & Wainman, F. W. (1959 b). J. Agric. Sci. 52, 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Graham, N. McC., Wainman, F. W. & Armstrong, D. G. (1959 a). J. Agric. Sci. 52, 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bligh, J. (1957 a). J. Phys. 136, 404.Google Scholar
Bligh, J. (1957 b). J. Phys. 136, 413.Google Scholar
Bonsma, J. C. (1940). Fmg in S. Afr. 18, 101.Google Scholar
Brody, S. (1945). Bioenergetics and Growth. Reinhold.Google Scholar
Brody, S. (1948). Bull. Mo. Res. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 423.Google Scholar
Eyal, E. (1963 a). J. Agric. Sci. 60, 159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eyal, E. (1963 b). J. Agric. Sci. 60, 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Findlay, J. D. (1950). Bull. Hannah Dairy Res. Inst. no. 9.Google Scholar
Findlay, J. D. (1957). J. Phys. 136, 300.Google Scholar
Lee, D. H. K. (1950). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 1, 200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D. H. K. & Robinson, K. W. (1941). Proc. Roy. Soc. Qd, 53, 189.Google Scholar
Macfaelane, W. V., Morris, R. J. H. & Howard, B. (1958). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 9, 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, R. E. (1958). J. Hered. 59, 52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, R. E., Lee, D. H. K., Fohrman, M. H. & Anderson, R. S. (1953). J. Anim. Sci. 12, 573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patchell, M. R. (1954). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. 36, 1.Google Scholar
Priestly, G. H. B. (1957). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 8, 271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richet, C. (1898). Diet. Physiol. 3, 175.Google Scholar
Riek, R. F., Hardy, M. H., Lee, D. H. K. & Carter, H. B. (1950). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 1, 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, K. W. & Lee, D. H. K. (1947). J. Anim. Sci. 6, 182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sihler, C. (1880). J. Phys. 3, 1.Google Scholar