A model of the bioclimatic value of shelter to beef cattle

Higgins, Kieran; Dodd, V.A.

doi:10.1016/0021-8634(89)90047-4

Cited by 8 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, the results from Year 1 provide a useful comparison to results from Year 2. Although cattle are highly resistant to cold weather, and can be kept outside in temperatures that range from 2108C to 2208C without negative effects (Young, 1981), wind and rainfall both lower the insulating effect of the animals' coat (Higgins and Dodd, 1989). Animal production efficiency is affected by both feed intake and maintenance energy requirement, which are in turn increased in adverse environmental conditions (NRC, 1981).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, HEL was higher in both of the unsheltered treatments than in the sheltered treatments. The thermal balance of a cow is dependent not only upon the rate of heat production and loss, but also upon the net radiation heat (as opposed to sensible heat and latent heat) gained or lost to the environment, and the heat retained as a temperature change per unit surface area (Higgins and Dodd, 1989). We applied the model using the assumption that the body temperature for each animal was constant, and thus that no temperature change occurred.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Year 2, HEP was estimated for all cows, for 5 weeks between days 47 and 78. Calculations were based on the model of Higgins and Dodd (1989), as per Hickey et al (2002). Thus, the rate of heat production (H w ) for each animal was calculated from the following equation: H w 511.5 (ME 2 E ret ), where ME 5 metabolisable energy intake from feed (MJ/day) and E ret 5 energy retained in live weight gain (MJ/day; Higgins and Dodd, 1989).…”

Section: Feeding Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Calculations were based on the model of Higgins and Dodd (1989), as per Hickey et al (2002). Thus, the rate of heat production (H w ) for each animal was calculated from the following equation: H w 511.5 (ME 2 E ret ), where ME 5 metabolisable energy intake from feed (MJ/day) and E ret 5 energy retained in live weight gain (MJ/day; Higgins and Dodd, 1989). In order to convert H w to W/m 2 , body surface area was calculated from the following equation: 0.14 3 L w 0.57 (L w 5 live weight; Brody (1945) as cited by Berman (2003)).…”

Section: Feeding Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Heat lost comprises sensible and latent heat loss. Latent heat loss was assumed to have a constant value of 17 W/m 2 (Higgins and Dodd, 1989). SHL was estimated using the following equation: SHL 5 (T b -T a -(r. R n .…”

Section: Feeding Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The effect of dry cow winter management system on feed intake, performance and estimated energy demand

O’Driscoll

Hanlon

Buckley

et al. 2010

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research compared three wood-chip out-wintering pad (OWP; an unsheltered OWP; a sheltered OWP (both with a concrete feed apron); and an unsheltered OWP with silage provided directly on top of the wood-chip bedding (self-feed OWP)) designs and cubicle housing with regard to dairy cow performance during the pre-partum period, and for 8 weeks post partum. Data were compared during 2 years. In Year 1, the unsheltered (space allowance 5 12 m 2 per cow) and sheltered (6 m 2 per cow) OWPs were compared with cubicle housing (n 5 49 cows per treatment). In Year 2, all three OWP designs (12 m 2 per cow) were compared with cubicle housing (n 5 24 cows per treatment, split into two replicates). Animals were dried off and assigned to treatment in the autumn, and remained there until calving in spring. Subsequently, they were managed at pasture during lactation. Outcome measures for analysis during the pre-partum period were feed intake, live weight, body condition score (BCS), heat production and heat loss, and post-partum were live weight, BCS, milk yield and milk composition. In Year 1, all cows had a similar live weight, but both pre-partum and at calving cows on the unsheltered OWP had a lower BCS than cows in cubicles ( P , 0.05). However, in Year 2, there were no differences in either live weight or BCS. In Year 1, cows in the unsheltered OWP produced less heat than in cubicles ( P , 0.05), but in Year 2, there was no treatment effect. In both years, cows in unsheltered OWPs lost more heat than cows in the sheltered OWP ( P , 0.001). Treatment had no effect on milk composition either year. However, in Year 2, cows in the self-feed OWP had higher milk yields than the other treatments ( P , 0.05). The lower BCS and heat production values in unsheltered treatments during Year 1 were probably because of higher rainfall and wind-speed values of that year. However, in both years, live weight in all treatments increased pre partum, and BCS did not decrease, indicating that unsheltered cows did not need to mobilise body reserves. Thus, OWPs could be a suitable pre-partum alternative to cubicle housing for dry dairy cows with regard to some aspects of dairy cow productive performance. However, further research should be carried out to investigate longer-term effects.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%