Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:01:41.746Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Species and breed differences in the thermal reaction mechanism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. L. Badreldin  and
M. A. Ghany
A. L. Badreldin
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt
M. A. Ghany
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A total of fifty buffaloes, thirty-five Shorthorn and Shorthorn grades and twenty-nine Egyptian (Baladi) cows of different ages were used to study the thermal reaction mechanism by exposing the animals to direct solar radiation followed by shade. The thickness of the skin was also measured in all animals as it is one of the main factors in heat regulation. The results were as follows:

1. There were species and breed differences in the thermal reactions. Buffaloes were more hyperthermic when exposed to direct solar radiation than either Shorthorn or Egyptian cattle. The Shorthorns were more affected by ambient heat than Egyptian cattle.

2. The skin thickness of the buffalo was double that of the cattle. In all animals the thickness of the skin increased with age.

3. It is suggested that the adaptability of farm animals to tropical and subtropical zones is better assessed under shade and under normal husbandry conditions than by exposing them to direct sunlight.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , April 1954 , pp. 160 - 164
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1954

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 Science, 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
Bonsma, J. C. (1940). Fmg in S. Afr. 15, 166.Google Scholar
Khishin, A. F. El (1949). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 17, 83.Google Scholar
Kibler, H. E., Brody, Samuel & Werstell, M. (1949). Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. Res. Bull. no. 435.Google Scholar
Mullick, D. N. & Kehar, H. D. (1951). J. Anim. Sci. 10, 1078.Google Scholar
Parker, H. W. (1935). Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. pt. 1, 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragab, M. T., Ghany, M. A. & Asker, A. A. (1953). Ind. J. Vet. Sci. Anim. Husb. 23 (in the Press).Google Scholar
Rhoad, A. O. (1938). Proc. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 284.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. (1946). Statistical Methods, 4th ed.Ames, Iowa: Iowa State Coll. Press.Google ScholarPubMed