Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T17:56:38.182Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A note on the influence of climatic variables and age on the response of beef calves to different housing types

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

H.-M. Kubisch ,
M. Makarechian  and
P. F. Arthur
H.-M. Kubisch
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T6G 2P5
M. Makarechian
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T6G 2P5
P. F. Arthur
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T6G 2P5
Get access

Abstract

The response of 376 weaned bull calves to two different housing types was studied in a 2-year feedlot trial. Overall, animals with shelter had a higher rate of gain than animals with no shelter. The difference in the rate of gain between the housing types was, however, restricted to the coldest periods. No significant interaction between housing type and age of calf was observed. Regression analyses showed that whilst average daily temperature appeared to have a negligible effect on growth, temperature fluctuations between weighing days appeared to affect growth of calves in both housing types. Overall, climatic variables contributed more to the variance in gain of calves with shelter than of calves with no shelter.

Keywords

beef cattleclimategrowthhousing
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , April 1991 , pp. 400 - 403
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1991

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

Berg, R. T., Goonewardene, L. A. and Makarechian, M. 1986. The University of Alberta beef breeding project 1986 update. The 62nd Annual Feeders' Day Report, The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, pp. 3–6.Google Scholar
Christopherson, R. J. 1981. Effects of cold and wind on beef cattle. Proceedings of American Society of Agricultural Engineering, Summer Meeting, Paper 81–4055.Google Scholar
Hoffman, M. P. and Self, H. L. 1970. Shelter and feedlot surface effects on performance of yearling steers. Journal of Animal Science 31: 967–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubisch, H.-M. and Makarechian, M. 1987. Effects of date of weaning on postweaning performance of bull calves of three breed groups. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 67: 941–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubisch, H.-M. and Makarechian, M. 1988a. Performance of growing beef bulls in pens with or without overhead shelter. Proceedings of 6th World Conference on Animal Production, Helsinki, Abstr. 676.Google Scholar
Kubisch, H.-M. and Makarechian, M. 1988b. Genetic factors in the response of growing beef bulls to two different housing types. Proceedings of 3rd World Congress on Sheep and Cattle Breeding, Paris, Vol. 2, pp. 182–184.Google Scholar
Leu, B. M., Hoffman, M. P. and Self, H. L. 1977. Comparison of confinement, shelter and no shelter for finishing yearling steers. Journal of Animal Science 44: 717–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehlenbacher, L. A. 1978. Programs for least squares analysis of variance and covariance. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Animal Science, The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.Google Scholar
Milligan, J. D. and Christison, G. I. 1974. Effects of severe winter conditions on performance of feedlot steers. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 54: 605–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedure of Statistics. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar