Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-cx56b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-07T06:15:19.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on the adaptability of three breeds of sheep to a tropical environment modified by altitude III. The response of mature and young rams to a thermal burden induced by exercise

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. B. Symington
R. B. Symington
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Salisbury
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Mature and young Merino, Persian and Native rams were compelled to run 1 mile in 10–12 min. The response to the thermal burden induced by this exercise was measured in terms of body and skin temperatures, rate of respiration and length and temperature of the scrotum.

1. Marked increases were recorded in every body response immediately after the exercise. Body, skin and scrotal temperatures returned to normal within 2 hr. but respiratory rate remained elevated for a further 4 hr.

2. There were breed differences in the initial and subsequent measurement of every response. At 7.0 a.m. when there was no thermal stress body temperatures and rates of respiration were: Merino 102·9° F.; 3·-6 cyc./min. Persian 101·4° F.; 23·8 cyc./min. Native 102·1° F.; 28·9 cyc./min. Merino rams had the greatest ability to combat rising ambient temperature, Native rams the least. Persian rams recuperated quickest after exercise, Native rams slowest. The different responses of wool and hair breeds were apparently due to their coats. Merino fleece stabilized body temperature, did not aggravate the effects of exercise unduly and did not greatly hamper elimination of heat from the body after exercise.

3. In all breeds respiratory evaporation was the principal thermolytic process. Rate of respiration was a sensitive indicator of thermal stress but it could not be used as an index of heat tolerance because the associated changes in respiratory volume were not known.

4. Age was seldom of significant importance to determine response to thermal burden. In general young rams were affected less adversely by exercise and more adversely by rising ambient temperature than were mature rams. These differential effects were probably due to leggy conformation, low live weight and physical fitness in young rams on one hand, and incomplete development of the thermoregulatory system on the other.

5. Increase in scrotal pendulance was related inversely to ability to maintain normal body temperature.

6. In view of the influence of age and body conformation on the response to exercise it was questioned whether comparable heat tolerance indices could be obtained by this method.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , December 1960 , pp. 303 - 310
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

Beakley, W. R. & Findlay, J. D. (1955 a). J. Agric. Sci. 45, 339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beakley, W. R. & Findlay, J. D. (1955 b). J. Agric. Sci. 45, 365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benezra, M. (1954). J. Anim. Sci. 13, 1015.Google Scholar
Bonsma, J. C. (1955). Breeding Cattle for Unfavourable Environments. Symposium at King Ranch, Centennial Conf.Google Scholar
Dowling, D. F. (1956). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 7, 469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eyal, E. (1954). Bull. Res. Counc. Israel, 4, 3.Google Scholar
Findlay, J. D. (1950). Bull. Hannah Dairy Inst. no. 9.Google Scholar
Findlay, J. D. (1957). 1st Congr. Int. Soc. Bioclimatology and Biometeorology, part 3, sect. 3.Google Scholar
Fletcher, J. & Reid, G. (1953). J. Anim. Sci. 12, 666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafez, E. S. E., Badreldin, A. L. & Sharafeldin, M. A. (1956). J. Agric. Sci. 47, 280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knapp, A. J. & Robinson, K. W. (1954). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 5, 570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D. H. K. (1950). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 1, 200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, R. E., Lee, D. H. K., Fohrman, M. H. & Anderson, R. S. (1953). J. Anim. Sci. 12, 573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priestley, C. H. B. (1957). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 8, 271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinlan, J. & Mare, G. S. (1931). D.V.S. Report, no. 8, S. Africa.Google Scholar
Rhoad, A. O. (1938). Proc. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod., p. 284.Google Scholar
Rhoad, A. O. (1944). Trop. Agric. 21, 162.Google Scholar
Symington, R. B. (1960 a). J. Agric. Sci. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Symington, R. B. (1960 b). J. Agric. Sci. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Symington, R. B. (1960 c). Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of London.Google Scholar
Symington, R. B. (1960 d). J. Agric. Sci. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Yeck, R. G. & Kibler, H. H. (1958). J. Anim. Sci. 17, 1228.Google Scholar