Cited by 5Effects of Environmental Stressors on LivestockReproductive Physiology in LivestockLivestock Farming and Management

Relationships of barometric pressure and environmental temperature with incidence of parturition in beef cows1

Troxel, T. R., Gadberry, M. S.·2012·Journal of Animal Science

Abstract

The relationship between barometric pressure (BARO) and maximum (MAX_T) and minimum (MIN_T) environmental temperatures with the incidence of parturition in beef cows was examined through exploratory data analysis. Spring- and fall-calving records from a 5-yr period (2005 through 2009) collected at the University of Arkansas, Livestock and Forestry Research Station (Batesville) and the Department of Animal Science Savoy Research Unit (Savoy, AR) were used. All cows were multiparous, predominantly Angus, and naturally bred. During this period, 2,210 calves were born over a cumulative 1,547 d. Local weather station BARO and MAX_T and MIN_T data were obtained from the Southern Regional Climate Center, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. The combined calving record and climate variables were used to determine differences in BARO, MAX_T, and MIN_T on d 0 (d of calving) and -1, -2, or -3 d, respectively, before calving occurred (CALFD) or did not occur (NOCALFD). Location and season also were included in the model. For fall-calving cows, BARO on d 0 and -1, -2, or -3 was not different between CALFD and NOCALFD (P > 0.10). For spring-calving cows, BARO on d 0, -1, -2, and -3 was greater (P < 0.05) for CALFD compared with NOCALFD. The MAX_T was greater on d -1 (24.4 vs. 22.9°C) and -3 (24.8 vs. 23.4°C) for CALFD in the fall compared with NOCALFD (P < 0.05). No differences were detected in the fall for MAX_T on d 0 or -2 (P > 0.10). In the spring, a decreased MAX_T was associated with CALFD. Maximum environmental temperatures on d 0 (14.7 vs. 16.0°C), -1 (14.4 vs. 16.0°C), and -3 (14.0 vs. 15.7°C) were less for CALFD compared with NOCALFD (P < 0.05). No difference was detected on d -2 (P > 0.10). For fall, MIN_T was greater on d -1 (12.8 vs. 11.3°C), -2 (13.0 vs. 11.4°C), and -3 (13.1 vs. 11.7°C) for CALFD compared with NOCALFD (P < 0.05). In spring, MIN_T for d 0 (2.6 vs. 3.9°C), -1 (2.5 vs. 3.7°C), -2 (2.1 vs. 3.7°C), and -3 (1.8 vs. 3.8°C) were lesser (P < 0.05) for CALFD vs. NOCALFD. These data indicate that for spring-calving cows, a greater BARO and decreased MAX_T and MIN_T were associated with CALFD, whereas for fall-calving cows, an increase in MAX_T and MIN_T was associated with CALFD. Therefore, monitoring weather conditions may assist producers in preparing for the obstetric assistance of beef cattle.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2527/jas.2011-4088

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Weather patterns, such as changes in atmospheric pressure and temperature, affect timing of birth in cattle.

    “Weather patterns, such as changes in atmospheric pressure and temperature, have been reported to affect timing of birth in cattle [15], which is consistent with comparable reports for humans [1–3].”

    From Lunar Cycle Influences Spontaneous Delivery in Cows (2016) · cites this paper as [15]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Troxel, T. R., & Gadberry, M. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Arkansas System (US)
  • Department of Animal Science, Division of Agriculture, University of Arkansas, Little Rock 72204
Corresponding author
Troxel, T. R.
Venue
Journal of Animal Science
Published
2012-05-01
Volume
90
Issue
5
Pages
1583-1588
ISSN
  • 0021-8812 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-3163
OpenAlex
W1970182547
Cited by
5
References
12
Citations by year
2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Animal Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Effects of Environmental Stressors on Livestock
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Reproductive Physiology in Livestock
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Livestock Farming and Management
Keywords
atmospheric pressure, ambient temperature, childbirth, calving, beef cows, spring calving, fall calving, maximum temperature, minimum temperature, Angus cattle, multiparous cows
MeSH terms
Animals, Cattle, Computer Simulation, Environment, Female, Models, Biological, Pregnancy, Retrospective Studies, Seasons, Temperature, Parturition

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review