Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T13:20:23.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of supplementary light during winter on the growth, body composition and behaviour of steers and heifers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

C. J. C. Phillips ,
P. N. Johnson  and
T. M. Arab
C. J. C. Phillips
Affiliation:
School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2UW
P. N. Johnson
Affiliation:
Drayton Experimental Husbandry Farm, Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, Alcester Road, Stratford-upon-Avon CV37 9RQ
T. M. Arab
Affiliation:
School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2UW
Get access

Abstract

In two experiments the growth, body composition and behaviour of steers and heifers kept in a building with natural day length only (average 9·7 h/day, treatment N) were compared with similar groups of animals kept in identical housing with the day length artificially extended to 16 h/day, (treatment L). The effects were recorded for 126 days in steers and 180 days in heifers, with both groups of animals being slaughtered in March when the two experiments ended. There were no effects over the entire experiment on the growth rate or food intake of either steers or heifers. The growth of the steers was reduced in the first 2 weeks after the lights were switched on but they gained more weight to compensate over the next 8 weeks. Over the whole experiment there was no treatment effect on food conversion ratio for either steers or heifers but it was reduced for steers on treatment L over the first 10 weeks. Steers in treatment N produced fatter carcasses than those on treatment L. Ultrasonic scanning of the heifers showed that those on treatment N deposited more fatty tissue between autumn and winter and less between winter and spring compared with those on treatment L.

The behaviour of steers on treatment L did not vary over the experiment but steers on treatment N changed their behaviour with season. They slept for more time in winter and less in spring. Over the whole experiment steers on treatment L slept less and spent more time lying ruminating than those on treatment N but the total time spent lying was not affected by treatment. In contrast, the heifers on treatment L lay down for longer than those on treatment N, suggesting that the effect of supplementary light on lying time, which has been observed previously with dairy cows, is confined to female cattle. Heifers on treatment L started mounting each other earlier than heifers on treatment N and, like the steers, they spent less time sleeping It is concluded that extending the photoperiod for cattle in winter reduced body fatness in both steers and heifers and increased the time heifers spend lying down but that there were no major effects on growth rate or food intake.

Keywords

beef cattlebehaviourcarcass compositiongrowthphotoperiod
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 65 , Issue 2 , October 1997 , pp. 173 - 181
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1997

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

Bauman, D. E., Eisemann, J. H. and Currie, W. B. 1982. Hormonal effects on partitioning of nutrients for tissue growth: role of growth hormone and prolactin. Federation Proceedings 41:2538–2544.Google Scholar
Dechamps, P., Nicks, B., Canart, B. and Istasse, L. 1989. Influence of supplemental lighting on the resting behaviour of fattening bulls kept in a stanchion barn. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22:303–311.Google Scholar
Forbes, J. M. 1982. Effects of lighting pattern on growth, lactation and food intake of sheep, cattle and deer. Livestock Production Science 9: 361–374.Google Scholar
Forbes, J. M., Brown, W. B., Al-Banna, A. G. M. and Jones, R. 1981. The effect of daylength on the growth of lambs. 3. Level of feeding, age of lamb and speed of gut-fill response. Animal Production 32: 23–28.Google Scholar
Forbes, J. M., El Shahat, A. A., Jones, R., Duncan, J. G. S. and Boaz, T. G. 1979. The effect of daylength on the growth of lambs. 1. Comparisons of sex, level of feeding, shearing and breed of sire. Animal Production 29:33–42.Google Scholar
Hansen, P. J., Kamwanja, L. A. and Hauser, E. R. 1983. Photoperiod influences age at puberty of heifers. journal of Animal Science 57:985–992.Google Scholar
King, G. J. and Macleod, G. K. 1984. Reproductive function in beef cows calving in the spring or fall. Animal Reproduction Science 6:255–266.Google Scholar
Koprowski, J. A. and Tucker, H. A. 1973. Serum prolactin during various physiological states and its relationship to milk production in the bovine. Endocrinology 39: 645–651.Google Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1980. Censtat V, mark 4.03. Rothamsted Experimental Station, Hertfordshire, Hertfordshire.Google Scholar
Leining, K. B., Tucker, H. A. and Kesner, J. S. 1980. Growth hormone, glucocorticoid and thyroxine response to duration, intensity and wavelength of light in prepubertal bulls. Journal of Animal Science 51: 932–942.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1984. Beef carcase classification. In Beef yearbook, pp. 87. Economics, Livestock and Marketing Services, MLC, Bletchley.Google Scholar
Metz, J. H. M. 1984. The reaction of cows to short term deprivation of lying. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 19: 321–329.Google Scholar
Miles, C. A., Fursey, G. A. J. and Pomeroy, R. W. 1983. Ultrasonic evaluation of cattle. Animal Production 36: 363–370.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food/Agricultural Development and Advisory Service. 1986. The analysis of agricultural materials, third edition. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Mossberg, I. and Jonsson, H. 1996. The influence of day length and temperature on food intake and growth rate of bulls given concentrate or grass silage ad libitum in two housing systems. Animal Science 62:233–240.Google Scholar
Newbold, J. A., Chapin, L. T., Zinn, S. A., Hughes, T. L. and Tucker, H. A. 1991. Effects of photoperiod on mammary development and concentration of hormones in serum of pregnant dairy heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 74: 100–108.Google Scholar
Nicks, B., Dechamps, P., Canart, B. and Istasse, L. 1988. Resting behaviour of Friesian bulls maintained in a tie-stall under 2 patterns of lighting. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 19: 321–329.Google Scholar
Peters, R. R., Chapin, L. T., Emery, R. S. and Tucker, H. A. 1980. Growth and hormonal response of heifers to various photoperiods. Journal of Animal Science 51:1148–1153.Google Scholar
Peters, R. R., Chapin, L. T., Emery, R. S. and Tucker, H. A. 1981. Milk yield, feed intake, prolactin, growth hormone and glucocorticoid response of cows to supplemented light. Journal of Dairy Science 64:1671–1678.Google Scholar
Peters, R. R. and Tucker, H. A. 1978. Prolactin and growth hormone responses to photoperiod in heifers. Endocrinology 103: 229–234.Google Scholar
Petitclerc, D., Chapin, L. T., Emery, R. S. and Tucker, H. A. 1983. Body growth, growth hormone, prolactin and puberty response to photoperiod and plane of nutrition in Holstein heifers. Journal of Animal Science 57:892–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petitclerc, D., Chapin, L. T. and Tucker, H. A. 1984. Carcass composition and mammary development responses to photoperiod and phase of nutrition in Holstein heifers. Journal of Animal Science 58:913–919.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. J. C. 1992. Environmental factors influencing the production and welfare of farm animals: photoperiod. In Farm animals and the environment (ed. Phillips, C. J. C. and Piggins, D.), pp. 49–65. CAB International, Oxford.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. J. C. and Schofield, S. A. 1989. The effect of supplementary light on the production and behaviour of dairy cows. Animal Production 48: 293–303.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. J. C. and Weiguo, L. 1991. Brightness discrimination by cattle relative to that of humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 31: 25–33.Google Scholar
Potter, M. J. and Broom, D. M. 1987. The behaviour and welfare of cows in relation to cubicle house design. In Cattle housing systems, lameness and behaviour (ed. Wierenga, H. K. and Peterse, D. J.), pp. 129–147. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Roche, J. F. and Boland, M. P. 1980. Effect of extended photoperiod in winter on growth rate of Friesian male cattle. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 19:85–90.Google Scholar
Schein, M. W. and Fohrman, M. H. 1955. Social dominance relationships in a herd of dairy cattle. British Journal of Animal Behaviour 3:45–55.Google Scholar
Stanisiewski, E. P., Chapin, L. T., Petitclerc, D. and Tucker, H. A. 1987. Effect of photoperiod and castration on prolactin, testosterone and luteinizing hormone concentrations in male calves. Journal of Animal Science 65: 1306–1311.Google Scholar
Sweetman, W. J. 1950. Artificial breeding in Alaska and the effect of extra light during the short winter days. Journal of Dairy Science 33: 391–392 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Webster, A. J. F., Smith, J. S. and Mollinson, G. S. 1982. Energy requirements of growing cattle: effects of sire breed, plane of nutrition, sex and season on predicted basal metabolism. Proceedings of the ninth symposium on energy metabolism, Lillehammer, Norway. European Association of Animal Production, publication no. 29.Google Scholar
Weiguo, L. and Phillips, C. J. C. 1991. The effects of supplementary light on the behaviour and performance of calves. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30:27–34.Google Scholar
Zinn, S. A., Chapin, L. T., Enright, W. J. and Tucker, H. A. 1989. Failure of photoperiod to alter body growth and carcass composition in beef steers. Journal of Animal Science 67:1249–1257.Google Scholar
Zinn, S. A., Chapin, L. T. and Tucker, H. A. 1988. A note on the effects of previous photoperiod exposure and gradual transitions of light intensity at dawn and dusk on growth in Holstein heifers. Animal Production 46:300–303.Google Scholar
Zinn, S. A., Purchas, R. W., Chapin, L. T., Petitclerc, D., Merkel, R. A., Bergen, W. G. and Tucker, H. A. 1986. Effects of photoperiod on growth, carcass composition, prolactin, growth hormone and cortisol in prepubertal and postpubertal Holstein heifers. Journal of Animal Science 63: 1804–1815.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed