Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T20:49:10.499Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of cutaneous evaporation rates in cattle exposed to heat in a climate laboratory and in the field

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. M. Murray
D. M. Murray
Affiliation:
Department of Livestock Husbandry, University of New England, Armidale, N. S. W.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The cutaneous evaporation rates of three animals of different genotype have been determined under artificial heating in a climate laboratory and during exposure to field conditions. Cutaneous evaporation rates were measured from the backthoracic region using a ventilated capsule technique.

2. In both climate-laboratory studies and field observations cutaneous evaporation showed little relationship with either rectal temperature, respiratory rate or skin temperature.

3. Basal cutaneous evaporation rates in the unheated chamber at 10 a.m. were found to be 40% lower in animals which were housed overnight than in those which entered the chamber following exposure to the early morning sunlight.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 66 , Issue 2 , April 1966 , pp. 175 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

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

Allen, T. E. (1962). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 13, 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aoki, T. & Wada, M. (1951). Science, 114, 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, M. R., Branton, C, Johnston, J. E., Guidry, A. J. & Breidenstein, C. P. (1964). Proc. South. Div. Amer. Dairy Sci. Assoc. (Abs. in J. Dairy Sci. 47, 346).Google Scholar
Brook, A. H. & Short, B. F. (1960). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 11, 557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, K. A. & Dowling, D. F. (1955). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 6, 640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, M. C. (1957). C.S.I.R.O. Leaflet Ser. no. 16.Google Scholar
Ishii, S. (1964). Bull. Kyushu Agric. Exp. Sta. 9, 399.Google Scholar
Kibler, H. H. & Yeck, R. G. (1959). Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 701.Google Scholar
McLean, J. A. (1963a). J. Agric. Sci. 61, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLean, J. A. (1963 b). J. Physiol. 167, 427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nay, T. & Hayman, R. H. (1956). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 7, 482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhoad, A. o. (1944). Trop. Agric. Trin. 21, 162.Google Scholar
Symington, R. B. (1960). J. Agric. Sci. 55, 295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taneja, G. C. (1958). J. Agric. Sci, 50. 73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taneja, G. C. (1959). J. Agric. Sci. 52, 50.Google Scholar
Turner, H. G. & Schleger, A. V. (1965). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 16, 92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar