J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J. Anim Sci. 1951. 10:907-915.
© 1951 American Society of Animal Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Heitman, H.
Right arrow Articles by Kelly, C. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Heitman, H., Jr.
Right arrow Articles by Kelly, C. F.

Effects of Elevated Ambient Temperature on Pregnant Sows1

Hubert Heitman, Jr.2, E. H. Hughes2 and C. F. Kelly3

University of California and U. S. Department of Agriculture

Abstract

Results are reported on the reactions of 14 sows to ambient temperatures ranging as high as 99° F. Thirteen were 85 or more days pregnant and one was open. Increasing the ambient temperature elevated markedly the respiratory rate and body (rectal) temperature of the pregnant swine. Feed and water consumptions were lowered. Of the 13 pregnant sows, 11 successfully farrowed following their return to normal conditions after being under experiment for periods averaging 8 days.

During these experimental periods, they were exposed to high temperatures for 24 to 72 hours. The 12th sow died from heat prostration carrying a litter which was apparently normal. The remaining sow aborted, but the majority of her litter gave evidence that it was undergoing resorption before the experiment was started. No evidence was accumulated that indicated that rise in body temperature under these conditions would cause abortion of a normal litter. The open sow lost weight and had a lowered feed and water consumption comparable to the pregnant sows. However, her respiratory and body temperature responses were much less pronounced.

Footnotes

1 This paper is a result of a cooperative project between the Division of Farm Buildings and Rural Housing, Bureau of Plant Industry, Soils, and Agricultural Engineering, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, and the Divisions of Animal Husbandry and Agricultural Engineering of the University of California.

2 Division of Animal Husbandry, Davis, California.

3 U. S. Department of Agriculture. Now with: Division of Agricultural Engineering, University of California, Davis. California.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1951 by the American Society of Animal Science.