Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences

Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies (아세아태평양축산학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The influence of shade allocation or total shade plus overhead fan on growth performance, efficiency of dietary energy utilization, and carcass characteristics of feedlot cattle under tropical ambient conditions

  • Castro-Perez, Beatriz I. (Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Zootechnics, Autonomous University of Sinaloa) ;
  • Estrada-Angulo, Alfredo (Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Zootechnics, Autonomous University of Sinaloa) ;
  • Rios-Rincon, Francisco G. (Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Zootechnics, Autonomous University of Sinaloa) ;
  • Nunez-Benitez, Victor H. (Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Zootechnics, Autonomous University of Sinaloa) ;
  • Rivera-Mendez, Carlos R. (Sukarne Enterprise) ;
  • Urias-Estrada, Jesus D. (Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Zootechnics, Autonomous University of Sinaloa) ;
  • Zinn, Richard A. (Department of Animal Science, University of California) ;
  • Barreras, Alberto (Veterinary Science Research Institute, Autonomous University of Baja California) ;
  • Plascencia, Alejandro (Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Zootechnics, Autonomous University of Sinaloa)
  • Received : 2019.02.07
  • Accepted : 2019.07.29
  • Published : 2020.06.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this experiment was to evaluate the effect of shade allocation and shade plus fan on growth performance, dietary energy utilization and carcass characteristics of feedlot cattle under tropical ambient conditions Methods: Two trials were conducted, involving a total of 1,560 young bulls (289±22 kg BW) assigned to 24 pens (65 bulls/pen and 6 pens/treatment). Pens were 585 ㎡ with 15 m fence line feed bunks. Shade treatments (㎡ shade/animal) were: i) limited shade (LS) to 1.2 ㎡ shade/animal (LS1.2); ii) limited shade to 2.4 ㎡ shade/animal (LS2.4); iii) total shade (TS) which correspond to 9 ㎡/animal, and iv) total shade equipped with fans (TS+F). Trials lasted 158 and 183 days. In both studies, the average weekly maximum temperature exceeded 34℃. Results: Increasing shade allocation tended (p = 0.08) to linearly increases average daily gain (ADG), and dry matter intake (DMI, quadratic effect, p = 0.03). This effect was most apparent between LS1.2 and LS2.4. Shade allocation, per se, did not affect gain efficiency or estimated dietary net energy (NE). Compared with TS, TS+F increased (p<0.05) ADG, gain efficiency, and tended (p = 0.06) to increase dietary NE. There was a quadratic effect of shade on longissimus area and marbling score, with values being lower (p<0.01) for LS2.4 than for LS1.2 or TS. Likewise, marbling score was lower for TS+F than for TS. Percentage kidney, pelvic, and heart (KPH) linearly decreased with increasing shade. In contrast, KPH was greater for TS than for TS+F. Conclusion: Providing more than 2.4 ㎡ shade/animal will not further enhance feedlot performance. The use of fans in combination with shade increases ADG and gain efficiency beyond that of shade, alone. These enhancements were not associated with increased DMI, but rather, to an amelioration of ambient temperature humidity index on maintenance energy requirement.

Keywords

References

  1. Mitlohner FM, Galyean ML, McGlone JJ. Shade effects on performance, carcass traits, physiology, and behavior of heat-stressed feedlot heifers. J Anim Sci 2002;80:2043-50. https://doi.org/10.1093/ansci/80.8.2043
  2. Barajas R, Garces P, Zinn RA. Interactions of shade and feeding management on feedlot performance of crossbred steers during seasonal periods of high ambient temperature. Prof Anim Sci 2013;29:645-51. https://doi.org/10.15232/S1080-7446(15)30296-5
  3. Umpapol H, Jitrajak T, Songvicha C, et al. Effect of raising beef cattle in the double shaded house on their fattening performance in Thailand. Pak J Nutr 2014;13:657-60. https://doi.org/10.3923/pjn.2014.657.660
  4. Sullivan ML, Cawdell-Smith AJ, Mader TL, Gaughan JB. Effect of shade area on performance and welfare of short-fed feedlot cattle. J Anim Sci 2011;89:2911-25. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3152
  5. Correa-Calderon A, Yanez-Cantabrana VM, Verdugo-Zarate FJ, et al. Physiological and productive response of feedlot steers with an open space cooling system in an arid, dry climate. Tec Pecu Mex 2007;45:345-54.
  6. Renaudeau D, Collin A, Yahav S, de Basilio V, Gourdine JL, Collier RJ. Adaptation to hot climate and strategies to alleviate heat stress in livestock production. Animal 2012;6:707-28. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731111002448
  7. Estrada-Angulo A, Aguilar-Hernandez A, Osuna-Perez M, et al. Influence of quaternary benzophenantridine and protopine alkaloids on growth performance, dietary energy, carcass traits, visceral mass, and rumen health in finishing ewes under conditions of severe temperature-humidity index. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2016;29:652-8. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.15.0300
  8. Hahn GL. Dynamic responses of cattle to thermal heat loads. J Anim Sci 1999;77(Suppl 2):10-20. https://doi.org/10.2527/1997.77suppl_210x
  9. AOAC. Official methods of analysis. 17th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: AOAC International; 2000. 69 p.
  10. Committee on Nutrient Requirement of Beef Cattle, National Research Council. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. 6th rev ed. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press; 1984.
  11. Zinn RA, Shen Y. An evaluation of ruminally degradable intake protein and metabolizable amino acid requirements of feedlot calves. J Anim Sci 1998;76:1280-9. https://doi.org/10.2527/1998.7651280x
  12. USDA. United States Standards for Grading of Carcass Beef. Washington, DC, USA: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA; 1997.
  13. SAS. User's Guide: Statistics Version SAS/STAT 9. 6th ed. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Inst., Inc.; 2000.
  14. Hinkelmann K, Kempthorne O. Design and analyses of experiment. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Willey & Son; 2005.
  15. Igono MO, Bjotvedt G, Sanford-Crane HT. Environmental profile and critical temperature effects on milk production of Holstein cows in desert climate. Int J Biometeorol 1992;36:77-87. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01208917
  16. Mader TL, Davis MS, Brown-Brandl T. Environmental factors influencing heat stress in feedlot cattle. J Anim Sci 2006;84:712-9. https://doi.org/10.2527/2006.843712x
  17. Mader TL. Mud effect on feedlot cattle. Nebraska beef cattle reports. Lincoln, NE, USA: Digital Commons University of Nebraska; 2011.
  18. Busby WD, Strohbehn DR. Evaluation of mud scores on finished beef steers dressing percent. Ames, IA, USA: Iowa State University; 2008. Anim Industry Rprt AS 654, ASL R2292.
  19. Stock R, Klopfenstein T, Shain D. Feed intake variation. In: Symposium of Feed Intake by Feedlot Cattle 1995. 1995 Jul 12-14; Stillwater OK, USA: Oklahoma State University; 1995. p. 56.
  20. Leonard MJ, Spiers DE, Hahn GL. Adaptation of feedlot cattle to repeated sinusoidal heat challenge. In: Proceeding of 7th International Livestock Environment Symposium 2001. 2001 May 21-23; Louisville KY, USA: American Society Agriculture Engineer; 2001. 119 p.
  21. Mitlohner FM, Morrow JL, Dailey JW, et al. Shade and water misting effects on behavior, physiology, performance and carcass traits of heat stressed feedlot cattle. J Anim Sci 2001;79:2327-35. https://doi.org/10.2527/2001.7992327x
  22. Gaughan JB, Bonner S, Loxton I, Mader TL, Lisle A, Lawrence R. Effect of shade on body temperature and performance of feedlot steers. J Anim Sci 2010;88:4056-67. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-2987
  23. Simroth JC, Thomson DU, Schwandt EF, Bartle SJ, Larson CK, Reinhardt CD. A survey to describe current cattle feedlot facilities in the High Plains region of the United States. Prof Anim Sci 2017;33:37-53. https://doi.org/10.15232/pas.2016-01542
  24. Correa-Calderon A, Morales M, Avendano L, et al. Artificial cooling as an alternative to increase productivity and welfare of steers under heat stress. Arq Bras Med Vet Zootec 2010;62:1199-205. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-09352010000500024
  25. Mader TL, Dahlquist JM, Gaughan JB. Wind protection effects and airflow patterns in outside feedlots. J Anim Sci 1997;75:26-36. https://doi.org/10.2527/1997.75126x
  26. Berman A. Extending the potential of evaporative cooling for heat-stress relief. J Dairy Sci 2006;89:3817-25. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72423-7
  27. Gaughan JB, Mader TL, Holt SM, Lisle A. A new heat load index for feedlot cattle. J Anim Sci 2008;86:226-34. https:// doi.org/10.2527/jas.2007-0305
  28. Zinn RA. Influence of time of day on live weight measurements for feedlot steers. J Anim Sci 1990;68:915-8. https://doi.org/10.2527/1990.684915x
  29. Committee on Nutrient Requirement of Beef Cattle, National Research Council. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. 7th rev ed. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press; 2000.