Economic feasibility of cooling dry cows across the United States

Abstract

Heat stress during the dry period reduces milk yield in the subsequent lactation of dairy cows. Our objectives were to quantify the economic losses due to heat stress if dry cows are not cooled and to evaluate the economic feasibility of dry cow cooling. We used weather data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to calculate the number of heat stress days for each of the 50 US states. A heat stress day was declared when the daily average temperature-humidity index was ≥68. The number of dairy cows in each state in 2015 was obtained from the USDA-National Agricultural Statistics Service. We assumed that 15% of the cows were dry at any time, a 60-d dry period, and a calving interval of 400d. Only cows in their second or greater parity (65%) benefitted from cooling during the dry period of the previous parity. Milk yield decreased by 5kg in the subsequent lactation (340d) if the cow experienced heat stress during the dry period based on a review of the literature. The default marginal value of milk minus feed cost was $0.33/kg of milk. The investment analysis included purchases of fans and soakers and use of water and electricity. Investment in a dry cow barn was considered separately. The average US dairy cow would experience 96 (26%) heat stress days during the year if not cooled and loses 447kg of milk in the subsequent lactation if not cooled when dry. Annual losses would be $810 million if dry cows were not cooled ($87/cow per yr). For the top 3 milk-producing states (California, Wisconsin, New York), and Florida and Texas, the average milk losses in the subsequent lactation were 522, 349, 387, 1,197, and 904kg, and reduced profit per cow per year would be $101, $68, $75, $233, and $176, respectively. The average benefit-cost ratio and payback periods of cooling dry cows in the United States were 3.15 and 0.27 yr (dry cow barn already present) and 1.45 and 5.68 yr (if investing in a dry cow barn) in the default scenario. To reach positive net present values, 6d (barn is present) and 55d (barn investment necessary) of heat stress annually were necessary (default assumptions). Other benefits of cooling, such as increased health and more productive offspring, were not considered. In conclusion, cooling of dry cows was profitable for 89% of the cows in the United States when building a new barn is required (under default assumptions) and very profitable when construction of a dry cow barn is not required (except for Alaska).

Modeled construction and operating costs of different ventilation systems for lactating dairy cows

“…The total cost per stall for all systems ranged from $2,460 to $3,180 per stall. These costs fall within the estimates made by Kammel (2015) and are similar to the economic evaluation by Ferreira et al (2016), which assumed that the barn costs were $2,500 per stall when not including electrical components.…”

“…A 30% decrease in efficiency would reduce the design ventilation rate for the 8CRO system from 53 ACH to 37 ACH. The model did not estimate the cost of maintaining each type of fan; however, Ferreira et al (2016) suggested that maintenance would cost $15 per fan per year. Using this estimate, the mean, minimum, and maximum maintenance cost from all systems and stochastic observations (n = 109) was $0.90, $0.40, and $2.20 per stall per year, respectively.…”

Transcriptome Analysis Reveals Potential Regulatory Genes Related to Heat Tolerance in Holstein Dairy Cattle

“…Heat stress causes great economic loss to the livestock industry worldwide, particularly the dairy industry [1]. Increasing evidence suggests that heat stress not only affects the physiology, feed intake, and milk production but also the reproduction efficiency of dairy cattle [2][3][4].…”

Integrating Agriculture and Ecosystems to Find Suitable Adaptations to Climate Change

“…Livestock, especially cattle, are expected to be directly impacted by climate change and increased heat stress but also indirectly though impacts on forage and feed grain yield reductions [33]. In the US, direct livestock losses due to heat stress are estimated to be $2.4 billion annually from decreased reproduction rates, feed consumption, and feed efficiency affecting animal growth rates [34][35][36][37]. Lower forage and feed quality are also expected [38] as increased temperatures negatively affect growth conditions and nutrient availability [39].…”

“…[ [23][24][25][26][27][28] Texas: warmer and drier climate-reduced crop yields and increased losses due to extreme weather events [29,30] Texas: lower soil moisture leading to increased aquifer pumping and water stress [31] Texas: increased frequency of pest, disease, and invasive species which raises crop management costs [28,32] Livestock Increased heat stress and reduced forage and feed growth [33] Livestock losses from decreased reproduction rates, feed consumption, and feed efficiency affecting animal growth rates [34][35][36][37] Lower forage and feed quality due to increased temperatures affecting growth and nutrient availability [38,39] Texas: lower stocking rates and reduced per animal production due to warmer and drier conditions [33] Texas: increased supplemental feeding due to lower grassland growth rates, quality, and acreage with the expansion of woody plants [40] Texas: decreased animal productivity due to the expansion and greater incidence of disease, ectoparasites, and other pests [30,40,41] Supply Chain…”