Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:40:36.535Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of environmental temperature on the energy metabolism of cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. Rogerson
A. Rogerson
Affiliation:
East African Veterinary Research Organization, Muguga, Kenya
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. A relatively inexpensive closed-circuit respiration chamber for cattle is described.

2. Experiments with two steers are reported in which heat production and energy retention data were measured at different levels of food intake and at different environmental temperatures.

3. The energy lost in faeces increased with improving plane of nutrition but was not significantly affected by the environmental temperature. Urine energy losses fell with increasing environmental temperature at low planes of nutrition. Methane losses increased with improving nutritional plane but were reduced by high environmental temperatures at high levels of food intake.

4. The heat production of fasting animals, or animals on low planes of nutrition was not influenced by the environmental temperature in the range 20–40° C. On higher planes of nutrition an increasing environmental temperature increased the animals' heat production.

5. The major factor determining energy retention in different environments is the heat production of the animal. Net energy values consequently vary with temperature.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , December 1960 , pp. 359 - 364
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1960

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

Armstrong, D. G. & Blaxter, K. L. (1957). Brit. J. Nutr. 11, 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, D. G., Blaxter, K. L., Graham, N. McC. & Wainman, F. W. (1959). Anim. Prod. 1, 1.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Graham, N. McC. (1955). J. Agric. Sci. 46, 292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Graham, N. McC. & Wainman, F. W. (1959). J. Agric. Sci. 52, 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, N. McC., Wainman, F. W., Blaxter, K. L. & Armstrong, D. G. (1959). J. Agric. Sci. 52, 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, J. E., Hamblin, F. B. & Schrader, G. T. (1958). J. Anim. Sci. 17, 473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kibler, H. H. (1957). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 643.Google Scholar
Kibler, H. H. & Brody, S. (1950). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 464.Google Scholar
Kibler, H. H. & Brody, S. (1951). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 473.Google Scholar
Kibler, H. H. & Brody, S. (1954 a). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 552.Google Scholar
Kibler, H. H. & Brody, S. (1954 b). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 574.Google Scholar
Kibler, H. H. & Brody, S. (1956). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 601.Google Scholar
Kibler, H. H., Brody, S. & Worstell, D. M. (1949). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 435.Google Scholar
Magee, H. E. (1924). J. Agric. Sci. 14, 506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar