Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T16:22:18.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of humidity and exposure to sun on the pulse rate, respiration rate, rectal temperature and haemoglobin level in different sexes of cattle and buffalo

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. N. Mullick
D. N. Mullick
Affiliation:
Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, U.P., India
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Observations in the shed were made for 3 years on groups of cattle and buffaloes of both sexes for pulse rate, respiration rate, rectal temperature and haemoglobin level during the summer months under low and high humid conditions.

The average figures for these physiological reactions were always less for buffaloes than for cattle under both dry and humid conditions.

Under high humidity conditions cattle cows showed a significant increase in the pulse rate and decrease in rectal temperature whereas respiration rate remained unchanged. In the buffalo cows these physiological reactions showed less change. In both the haemoglobin level was significantly lower during the rainy season.

On exposure to direct sun, the buffalo reacted very badly; the Iberia index was 88 for cattle and 61 for buffalo.

Because of the smaller variation in the physiological reactions due to increase in humidity at higher temperature in buffaloes (85–93° F.), this species may be considered a better dairy animal than cattle in humid tropical zones if they are protected from direct sun, which can be easily done by altering the time of grazing from day to night.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , June 1960 , pp. 391 - 394
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1960

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

Asker, A. A., Ghany, M. A. & Ragab, M. T. (1952). Indian J. Dairy Sci. 5, 171.Google Scholar
Badreldin, A. L., Oloufa, M. M., Asker, A. A. & Ghany, M. A. (1951). Bull. Fouad I Univ. Fac. Agric. no. 4.Google Scholar
Badreldin, A. L. & Ghany, M. A. (1952). Nature, Lond., 170, 457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beakley, W. R. & Findlay, J. D. (1955). J. Agric. Sci. 45, 353, 461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, S. (1948). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 423.Google Scholar
Findlay, J. D. (1950). Bull. Hannah Dairy Res. Inst. no. 9.Google Scholar
Findlay, J. D. (1953). N.A.A.S. Quart. Rev. no. 19, 285.Google Scholar
Findlay, J. D. (1955). Met. Monogr. no. 8.Google Scholar
Findlay, J. D. & Beaklby, W. R. (1954). Environmental physiology of farm animals. In Recent Advances in Physiology of Farm Animals, ed. Hammond, J.London: Butterworth.Google Scholar
Kibler, H. H. & Brody, S. (1953). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 522.Google Scholar
Morrison, F. B. (1947). Feeds and Feeding. Morrison Publishing Works, U.S.A.Google Scholar
Mullick, D. N. & Kehar, N. D. (1951). J. Anim. Sci. 10, 1078.Google Scholar
Mullick, D. N. & Kehar, N. D. (1952). Indian J. Vet. Sci. 22, 61.Google Scholar
Newcomer, H. S. (1923). J. Biol. Chem. 55, 569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, R. W. (1948). F.A.O. Agric. Stud. no. 1.Google Scholar
Phillips, R. W. (1950 a). F.A.O. Development Paper, no. 6.Google Scholar
Phillips, R. W. (1950 b). F.A.O. Development Paper, no. 8.Google Scholar
Ragab, M. T., Ghany, M. A. & Asker, A. A. (1953). Indian J. Vet. Sci. 23, 205.Google Scholar
Reick, R. F. & Lee, D. H. K. (1948 a). J. Dairy Res. 15, 219.Google Scholar
Reick, R. F. & Lee, D. H. K. (1948 b). J. Dairy Res. 15, 227.Google Scholar
Rhoad, A. O. (1944). Trop. Agric. 21, 162.Google Scholar
Worstell, D. M. & Brody, S. (1953). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 515.Google Scholar