The influence of day length and temperature on food intake and growth rate of bulls given concentrate or grass silage <i>ad libitum</i> in two housing systems

Mossberg, I.; Jonsson, Hans

doi:10.1017/s1357729800014533

Cited by 21 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The pLWG showed a clear maximum which preceded the longest day by about 1 month and a minimum at 1 month before the shortest day. The difference between trough and peak LWG estimated by Mossberg and Jonsson (1996) for a 200-kg calf given a concentrate diet ad libitum, is between 1-25 and 1-55 kg/day ( Figure, 4 of Mossberg and Jonsson, 1996) slightly larger than the difference estimated in the present study. Figure 3 presents the combined effects of age and of photoperiod on gain in a three-dimensions chart (model 1).…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 73%

“…The upper limit of pLWG at each date was distinct, and the pLWG below this limit was diffused, because of the positive age and negative age 2 effects of this regression. Chemineau et al, 1992) but all the studies that examined the response of quantitative traits such as food intake (Ingvartsen et al, 1992;Walkden-Brown et al, 1994;Mossberg and Jonsson, 1996), milk yield (Kashiwamura et al, 1991) and growth rate (Mossberg and Jonsson, 1996) suggest a progressive response to photoperiod. The highest gain was predicted for 19 May, and the lowest for 18 November, which means that the gain sinusoid preceded that of the day length by 33 days, as a result of the combined positive effects of DL and DLC.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies indicated photoperiodic effects on a wide range of traits: age of puberty (Schillo et ah, 1992) and body development of heifers (Ringuet et ah, 1989), milk yield and voluntary food intake of dairy cows (Bilodeau et ah, 1989;Piva et ah, 1992) and liveweight gain (LWG) and food intake of calves (Dijkstra and Bergstrom, 1989;Guertin et al, 1995). Mossberg and Jonsson (1996) were the first, to our knowledge, to describe the annual changes in both food intake and growth rate of bull calves as a continuous function of the photoperiod. All the above mentioned studies compared a long-day with a short-day regime, without taking into account the possible effect of the daily change in day length imposed by the natural photoperiod.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Photoperiodic effect on live-weight gain of bull calves

1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of day length, of the daily change in day length and of heat load, together with age effect, on live-weight gain of Holstein-Friesian bull calves, were studied using 8205 gain records of 1019 calves that were maintained in the experimental herd at Newe Ya'ar during a 5-year period (1991 to 1995). The age range of the calves was 150 to 450 days. Effects of day length (h) and of day length change (min/day) were assumed to be linear and effect of age was assumed to be quadratic. Three heat load indexes were calculated, accounting for day temperatures above 27°C, or night temperatures above 18°C, or both, and their effect was assumed to be linear also. Random effect of calf and fixed effect of the year were also accounted for by the regression analysis. The mean gain was 1-274 kg/day. The effect of day length was 0-027 (s.e. 0-003) kg/day per h, and effect of day length change was 0-042 (s.e. 0-003) kg/day per min/day both effects being highly significant (P < 0-0001). The effects of heat load according to each of the three indexes were either not significant, or tended to be positive, which implies increased gain with increasing heat load. Effect of age was positive (P = 0-0005), and of age 2 was negative (P < 0-0001). Based on the regression model that did not include heat load effect, the peak gain was obtained on 19 May, 33 days before the longest day and the trough was obtained on 18 November, with a difference of 0-206 kg/day (proportionately 0-15 of the peak gain) between peak and trough gains. It was calculated by the regression coefficients for the photoperiod effects, that a calf that enters the feedlot at the age of 150 days and a live weight of 180 kg on 1 January, will be 23 kg heavier at the age of 350 days than a calf that enters the feedlot at the same age and weight on 1 July. This difference is reduced to 10 kg at the age of 450 days.

show abstract

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 73%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Photoperiodic effect on live-weight gain of bull calves

1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Changes observed in the growth rate or milk yield of ruminants with long day length appear to be independent of nutrient intake (Forbes, 1982;Petitclerc et al, 1983;Phillips and Schofield, 1989;Mossberg and Jonsson, 1996), although ad libitum 173 food availability increased the stimulatory effect of long day length on the growth rate of sheep (Forbes et al, 1981). However, Forbes et al (1979) observed that in sheep at least half of the observed increase in body weight is due to changes in the weight of the contents of the gastrointestinal tract.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Peters et ah, 1980;Mossberg and Jonsson, 1996), while others show no effect (e.g. Some have shown increased growth rates with long day length light (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of supplementary light during winter on the growth, body composition and behaviour of steers and heifers

Phillips

Johnson²,

Arab

1997

Anim. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two experiments the growth, body composition and behaviour of steers and heifers kept in a building with natural day length only (average 9-7 h/day, treatment N) were compared with similar groups of animals kept in identical housing with the day length artificially extended to 16 h/day, (treatment L). The effects were recorded for 126 days in steers and 180 days in heifers, with both groups of animals being slaughtered in March when the two experiments ended. There were no effects over the entire experiment on the growth rate or food intake of either steers or heifers. The growth of the steers was reduced in the first 2 weeks after the lights were switched on but they gained more weight to compensate over the next 8 weeks. Over the whole experiment there was no treatment effect on food conversion ratio for either steers or heifers but it was reduced for steers on treatment L over the first 10 weeks. Steers in treatment N produced fatter carcasses than those on treatment L. Ultrasonic scanning of the heifers showed that those on treatment N deposited more fatty tissue between autumn and winter and less between winter and spring compared with those on treatment L.The behaviour of steers on treatment L did not vary over the experiment but steers on treatment N changed their behaviour with season. They slept for more time in winter and less in spring. Over the whole experiment steers on treatment L slept less and spent more time lying ruminating than those on treatment N but the total time spent lying was not affected by treatment. In contrast, the heifers on treatment L lay down for longer than those on treatment N, suggesting that the effect of supplementary light on lying time, which has been observed previously with dairy cows, is confined to female cattle. Heifers on treatment L started mounting each other earlier than heifers on treatment N and, like the steers, they spent less time sleeping It is concluded that extending the photoperiod for cattle in winter reduced body fatness in both steers and heifers and increased the time heifers spend lying down but that there were no major effects on growth rate or food intake.

show abstract