ABSTRACT:The ability to predict the effects of extreme climatic variables on livestock is important in terms of welfare and performance. An index combining temperature and humidity (THI) has been used for more than 4 decades to assess heat stress in cattle. However, the THI does not include important climatic variables such as solar load and wind speed (WS, m/s). Likewise, it does not include management factors (the effect of shade) or animal factors (genotype differences). Over 8 summers, a total of 11,669 Bos taurus steers, 2,344 B. taurus crossbred steers, 2,142 B. taurus × Bos indicus steers, and 1,595 B. indicus steers were used to develop and test a heat load index (HLI) for feedlot cattle. A new HLI incorporating black globe (BG) temperature (°C), relative humidity (RH, decimal form), and WS was initially developed by using the panting score (PS) of 2,490 Angus steers. The HLI consists of 2 parts based on a BG temperature threshold of 25°C: HLI BG>25 = 8.62 + (0.38 × RH) + (1.55 × BG) − (0.5 × WS) + e (2.4−WS) , and HLI BG<25 = 10.66 + (0.28 × RH) + (1.3 × BG) − WS, where e is the base of the natural logarithm. A threshold HLI above which cattle of different genotypes gain body heat was developed for 7 genotypes. The threshold for unshaded black B. taurus steers was 86, and for unshaded B. indicus (100%) the

Cattle production plays a significant role in terms of world food production. Nearly 82% of the world's 1.2 billion cattle can be found in developing countries. An increasing demand for meat in developing countries has seen an increase in intensification of animal industries, and a move to cross-bred animals. Heat tolerance is considered to be one of the most important adaptive aspects for cattle, and the lack of thermally-tolerant breeds is a major constraint on cattle production in many countries. There is a need to not only identify heat tolerant breeds, but also heat tolerant animals within a non-tolerant breed. Identification of heat tolerant animals is not easy under field conditions. In this study, panting score (0 to 4.5 scale where 0 = no stress and 4.5 = extreme stress) and the heat load index (HLI) [HLI(BG<25°C) = 10.66 + 0.28 × rh + 1.30 × BG - WS; and, HLI (BG> 25°C) = 8.62 + 0.38 × rh + 1.55 × BG - 0.5 × WS + e((2.4 - WS)), where BG = black globe temperature ((o)C), rh = relative humidity (decimal form), WS = wind speed (m/s) and e is the base of the natural logarithm] were used to assess the heat tolerance of 17 genotypes (12,757 steers) within 13 Australian feedlots over three summers. The cattle were assessed under natural climatic conditions in which HLI ranged from thermonuetral (HLI < 70) to extreme (HLI > 96; black globe temperature = 40.2°C, relative humidity = 64%, wind speed = 1.58 m/s). When HLI > 96 a greater number (P < 0.001) of pure bred Bos taurus and crosses of Bos taurus cattle had a panting score ≥ 2 compared to Brahman cattle, and Brahman-cross cattle. The heat tolerance of the assessed breeds was verified using panting scores and the HLI. Heat tolerance of cattle can be assessed under field conditions by using panting score and HLI.

Experiments were conducted to evaluate the heat tolerance of the following breeds: Hereford (H), Brahman (B), H x B, H x Boran (H x Bo), and H x Tuli (H x T). Heat tolerance was evaluated in a climatically controlled room (Exp. 1) and under summer environmental conditions (Exp. 2) by comparing rectal temperatures (RT), respiration rates (RR), and sweating rates (SW). In Exp. 1, under extremely hot conditions (mean temperature-humidity index [THI] > 90), purebred B had significantly (P < .05) lower RT and RR than other genotypes, which may be indicative of greater surface area per mass to dissipate heat and a lower metabolic rate than other genotypes. Boran and Tuli crosses had RT (39.5 degrees C) that were intermediate to those of B (39.0 degrees C) and H x B (40.0 degrees C). The H genotype had the greatest RT at 40.3 degrees C. Among the breeds, trends in RR were similar to RR observed at THI < 77; B had the lowest RR, and H x B were intermediate. However, in these extreme conditions, RR did not differ among the purebred H and the Boran and Tuli crossbred steers, but H x B steers had lower RR than the other H crossbred steers. Sweating rates were significantly greater for the Bos indicus x Bos taurus crosses (H x B and H x Bo) than for the purebred genotypes (H and B) and the Bos taurus cross (H x T). In Exp. 2, mean RT for B, H x B, H x Bo, and H x T were very similar to those recorded under the moderate heat stress conditions found in Exp. 1. There were no differences in RT among B, H x Bo, and H x T genotypes. The RR increased over time for H only, and RR for other genotypes tended to be elevated only slightly over time. Among genotypes, SW was significantly greater for the H x Bo steers. The ability of the Bos indicus crosses to dissipate heat through enhanced SW and associated evaporative cooling was evident. However, the heat-tolerant nature of the Bos taurus cross (H x T) was not evident through enhanced RR or SW in either experiment. Compared with other genotypes, the lower RR of B steers was clearly evident and is assumed to be due to greater surface area and other skin characteristics that allow them to dissipate heat to maintain lower RT. These data suggest that the H x Bo and H x T are similar to H x B and intermediate to H and B genotypes in maintaining homeostasis when exposed to a high heat load.

Three experiments were conducted to evaluate the effect of different management strategies on body temperature of feedlot steers finished in the summer months. In Exp. 1, 24 crossbred steers were chosen to assess the effect of altered feed intake and feeding time on tympanic temperature (TT) response. Managed feeding (MF) treatments were applied for 22 d only and provided 1) ad libitum access to feed at 0800 (ADLIB), 2) feed at 1600 with amount adjusted so that no feed was available at 0800 (BKMGT), 3) feed at 1600 at 85% of predicted ad libitum levels (LIMFD). During heat stress conditions on d 20 to 22 of MF, LIMFD and BKMGT had lower (P < 0.05) TT than ADLIB from 2100 through 2400. A carryover effect of limit-feeding was evident during a severe heat episode (d 36 to 38) with LIMFD steers having lower (P < 0.05) TT than ADLIB. In Exp. 2, TT were obtained from 24 crossbred steers assigned to three treatments, consisting of no water application (CON), water applied to feedlot mound surfaces from 1000 to 1200 (AM) or 1400 to 1600 (PM). From 2200 to 0900 and 1200 to 1400, steers assigned to morning sprinkling treatment had lower (P < 0.05) TT than steers assigned to afternoon sprinkling treatment. In Exp. 3, 24 steers were utilized in a 2 x 2 factorial arrangement of treatments with factors of feeding time [0800 (AMF) and 1400 (PMF)] and sprinkling (WET and DRY). Tympanic temperatures were monitored under hot environmental conditions on d 30 to 32 and 61 to 62. A feeding time x sprinkling interaction (P < 0.001) was evident on d 30 to 32, although AMF/DRY steers had the highest (P < 0.05) TT. On d 61 to 62, TT of PMF steers was higher (P < 0.05) than AMF between 1500 to 1800. Use of sprinklers can effectively reduce TT of feedlot cattle, whereas shifting to an afternoon vs morning feeding time was most beneficial when bunks were empty several hours prior to feeding.

Eighty-four Bos taurus crossbred steers were used to investigate effects of level and duration of limit-feeding feedlot cattle in a hot environment. Pens (four/treatment) of steers (seven/pen) were fed feedlot finishing diets and randomly assigned to the following treatments: 1) restricted to approximately 75% of feed consumed when offered ad libitum for 21-d duration (RES21); 2) restricted to approximately 75% of ad libitum for 42-d duration (RES42); and 3) feed offered ad libitum (ADLIB). Tympanic temperatures (TT) were measured via thermistors placed in the ear canal and attached to data loggers. Restricting feed intake for both 21- and 42-d reduced tympanic temperature when compared with ADLIB treatment groups under hot environmental conditions. Temperature reductions exceeded 0.5 degrees C (P < 0.05) depending on time of day. The reduced tympanic temperature is likely due to a reduction in metabolic heat load and/or a concurrent reduction in metabolic rate. Within respective periods, no differences (P > 0.05) were found among treatments for panting or bunching score. However, different proportions of cattle were found to be bunching and panting with ADLIB cattle displaying a greater number of bunched steers that were panting when compared with the other groups. When averaged across diet treatments, dark-colored cattle had the greatest percentage of cattle showing moderate to excessive panting, while light-colored cattle displayed the least panting under thermoneutral climatic conditions. Under hot (mean daily temperature-humidity index >74) conditions, dark-colored cattle tended to bunch more (P = 0.073) and pant more (P < 0.01) than light-colored cattle. Mean TT were 0.2 to 0.6 degrees C (P < 0.05) greater for dark- vs light-colored cattle under hot conditions. Limit-feeding feedlot cattle during early summer is a successful tool for enhancing animal comfort by alleviating the combined effects of high climatic and metabolic heat load.