CASE STUDY: Evaluation of Different Cooling Systems in Lactating Heat-Stressed Dairy Cows in a Semi-Arid Environment

Burgos, Rafael A.; Odens, L.J.; Collier, Robert J.; Baumgard, L. H.; VanBaale, M.J.

doi:10.1532/s1080-7446(15)31018-4

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The FF system used less water in the month of July compared with the KK system (365 vs. 390 L/d, respectively). This difference agrees with previous estimations of water utilization of the KK system (305 to 460 L/d; Burgos et al, 2007). Although this level of water utilization is high, it must be balanced with the cost of shipping in milk from more distant dairy producing regions.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

A comparison of 2 evaporative cooling systems on a commercial dairy farm in Saudi Arabia

Ortiz

Smith

Villar

et al. 2015

Journal of Dairy Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Efficacy of 2 cooling systems (Korral Kool, KK, Korral Kool Inc., Mesa, AZ; FlipFan dairy system, FF, Schaefer Ventilation Equipment LLC, Sauk Rapids, MN) was estimated utilizing 400 multiparous Holstein dairy cows randomly assigned to 1 of 4 cooled California-style shade pens (2 shade pens per cooling system). Each shaded pen contained 100 cows (days in milk=58±39, milk production=56±18 kg/d, and lactation=3±1). Production data (milk yield and reproductive performance) were collected during 3mo (June-August, 2013) and physiological responses (core body temperature, respiration rates, surface temperatures, and resting time) were measured in June and July to estimate responses of cows to the 2 different cooling systems. Water and electricity consumption were recorded for each system. Cows in the KK system displayed slightly lower respiration rates in the month of June and lower surface temperatures in June and July. However, no differences were observed in the core body temperature of cows, resting time, feed intake, milk yield, services/cow, and conception rate between systems. The FF system used less water and electricity during this study. In conclusion, both cooling systems (KK and FF) were effective in mitigating the negative effects of heat stress on cows housed in arid environments, whereas the FF system consumed less water and electricity and did not require use of curtains on the shade structure.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

A comparison of 2 evaporative cooling systems on a commercial dairy farm in Saudi Arabia

Ortiz

Smith

Villar

et al. 2015

Journal of Dairy Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Low and heavy weight heifers also had longer peak period (40 days) and days to reach peak yield (55.9 days) than mature cows (34.5 and 48.5 days) (Figure 1). The advantages of microclimatic improvement of the cooling system on primiparous over multiparous cows for TMY, and average DMY of all BCS groups agree with the results reported by Ryan et al (1992) and Meyer et al (1998) for an average milk yield of primiparous cows, but disagree with Burgos et al (2007) for overall milk production of multiparous cows. Regarding to milk yield of multiparous cows, it appeared to be more noticeable than those of the primiparous lactating cows (Meyer et al, 1998).…”

Section: Parity Effectsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…The inconsistent effect of BCS at calving (low vs moderate vs high) on subsequent milk production traits of cows under investigation was also reported by Ruegg and Milton (1995), Markusfeld et al (1997) and Roche et al (2007). The non-sig-nificant variation between the two cooling systems or changes in BCS groups for SCS and counts regardless of parity stage were also indicated by Burgos et al (2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

Body Condition Scores at Calving and Their Association with Dairy Cow Performance and Health in Semiarid Environment Under Two Cooling Systems

Mandour

Al-Shami

Al-Eknah

2015

Italian Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Under tropical environments cow's body condition at calving may influence productivity and health performance. Therefore, the current research evaluated the impact of body condition score (BCS) at calving on milk production traits and health problems of primiparous and multiparous cows raised under two cooling systems in semi-arid environment. Milk yield parameters and health disorders data at different parities were obtained from 1700 Holstein cows, which were managed under Korral Kool (KKC) and fan (FC) cooling systems in Saudi Arabia. The results revealed that KKC system induced high level of milk production improvement (305TM, days in milk, daily milk yield) (P<0.05) compared to FC, especially in multiparous cows. There was an advantage of the high BCS group under KKC system over the FC system for peak yield and period. Cows from both cooling systems having moderate BCS outdid the other groups for total milk yield. Low BCS primiparous cows reared under KKC system were the most to suffer from stillbirth (18%), and calving ease (26.1%) in winter, while high BCS were the most to be treated for mastitis (8.5% in summer). On the other hand, spring calved multiparous cows raised under FC system suffered more from lameness (21.57% -high BCS) and milk fever (4.4% -moderate BCS). Further, cows having moderate BCS kept under KKC system had the highest incidence of lameness (62.2%), and abomasum displacement (4.4%). In conclusion, achieving correct BCS at calving and cooling system is important to avoid calving subsequent lactation performance and metabolic disease losses. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). ©Copyright M.

show abstract

“…Thermal stress reduces animal productivity and decreases feed efficiency of agriculturally important species. Despite remarkable advances in construction design of animal housing facilities and cooling technology (Armstrong, 1994;Burgos et al, 2007), heat stress remains an incredibly costly issue for the dairy industry During period 2, cows were heat-stressed and allowed to eat ad libitum or pair-fed and kept in TN conditions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of heat stress and plane of nutrition on lactating Holstein cows: I. Production, metabolism, and aspects of circulating somatotropin

Rhoads

VanBaale

et al. 2009

Journal of Dairy Science

Self Cite

587

450

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Heat stress is detrimental to dairy production and affects numerous variables including feed intake and milk production. It is unclear, however, whether decreased milk yield is primarily due to the associated reduction in feed intake or the cumulative effects of heat stress on feed intake, metabolism, and physiology of dairy cattle. To distinguish between direct (not mediated by feed intake) and indirect (mediated by feed intake) effects of heat stress on physiological and metabolic indices, Holstein cows (n = 6) housed in thermal neutral conditions were pair-fed (PF) to match the nutrient intake of heat-stressed cows (HS; n = 6). All cows were subjected to 2 experimental periods: 1) thermal neutral and ad libitum intake for 9 d (P1) and 2) HS or PF for 9 d (P2). Heat-stress conditions were cyclical with daily temperatures ranging from 29.7 to 39.2 degrees C. During P1 and P2 all cows received i.v. challenges of epinephrine (d 6 of each period), and growth hormone releasing factor (GRF; d 7 of each period), and had circulating somatotropin (ST) profiles characterized (every 15 min for 6 h on d 8 of each period). During P2, HS cows were hyperthermic for the entire day and peak differences in rectal temperatures and respiration rates occurred in the afternoon (38.7 to 40.2 degrees C and 46 to 82 breaths/min, respectively). Heat stress decreased dry matter intake by greater than 35% and, by design, PF cows had similar reduced intakes. Heat stress and PF decreased milk yield, although the pattern and magnitude (40 and 21%, respectively) differed between treatments. The reduction in dry matter intake caused by HS accounted for only approximately 35% of the decrease in milk production. Both HS and PF cows entered into negative energy balance, but only PF cows had increased (approximately 120%) basal nonesterified fatty acid (NEFA) concentrations. Both PF and HS cows had decreased (7%) plasma glucose levels. The NEFA response to epinephrine did not differ between treatments but was increased (greater than 50%) in all cows during P2. During P2, HS (but not PF) cows had a modest reduction (16%) in plasma insulin-like growth factor-I. Neither treatment nor period had an effect on the ST response to GRF and there was little or no treatment effect on mean ST levels or pulsatility characteristics, but both HS and PF cows had reduced mean ST concentrations during P2. In summary, reduced nutrient intake accounted for just 35% of the HS-induced decrease in milk yield, and modest changes in the somatotropic axis may have contributed to a portion of the remainder. Differences in basal NEFA between PF and HS cows suggest a shift in postabsorptive metabolism and nutrient partitioning that may explain the additional reduction in milk yield in cows experiencing a thermal load.

show abstract

CASE STUDY: Evaluation of Different Cooling Systems in Lactating Heat-Stressed Dairy Cows in a Semi-Arid Environment

Cited by 11 publications

References 10 publications

A comparison of 2 evaporative cooling systems on a commercial dairy farm in Saudi Arabia

A comparison of 2 evaporative cooling systems on a commercial dairy farm in Saudi Arabia

Body Condition Scores at Calving and Their Association with Dairy Cow Performance and Health in Semiarid Environment Under Two Cooling Systems

Effects of heat stress and plane of nutrition on lactating Holstein cows: I. Production, metabolism, and aspects of circulating somatotropin

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About