Heat Transfer Properties of Dry and Wet Furs of Dairy Cows

Arkin, H.; Kimmel, Eitan; Hermán, A.; Broday, David M.

doi:10.13031/2013.31905

Cited by 35 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the current study, the other portions of the trunk were cooler than the rear area probably due to their higher thermal insulation due to the skin thickness and fur density differences (Arkin et al, 1991). The trunk surface temperature observed (34.0 1C) is an intermediate value in comparison to the IR scan temperatures observed by Kotrba et al (2007) for this same body location at environmental temperatures of 12.5 and 29.2 1C, which are close to the upper and lower boundaries of the room temperatures in the present study (Table 2).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

Application of infrared thermography as an indicator of heat and methane production and its use in the study of skin temperature in response to physiological events in dairy cattle (Bos taurus)

Montanholi

Odongo

Swanson

et al. 2008

Journal of Thermal Biology

159

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

Application of infrared thermography as an indicator of heat and methane production and its use in the study of skin temperature in response to physiological events in dairy cattle (Bos taurus)

Montanholi

Odongo

Swanson

et al. 2008

Journal of Thermal Biology

159

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Nevertheless, as long as animal temperature remains greater than the environmental temperature, then as the animal and environmental temperature gradient decreases, nighttime WSPD becomes more crucial to the cooling process. Additionally, Arkin et al (1991) showed that thermal conductivity of the boundary layer of air adjacent to the fur increased linearly with wind velocity even though the increased ability of the animal to dissipate heat reached a maximum when WSPD approached 2 mؒs −1 (NRC, 1981). For the models developed in this study, benefits of WSPD >2 mؒs −1 were apparent, as no quadratic or curvilinear response to WSPD was found.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental factors influencing heat stress in feedlot cattle1,2

Mader¹,

Davis²,

Brown–Brandl

2006

Journal of Animal Science

693

512

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data from 3 summer feedlot studies were utilized to determine the environmental factors that influence heat stress in cattle and also to determine wind speed (WSPD; mؒs −1 ) and solar radiation (RAD; Wؒm −2 ) adjustments to the temperature-humidity index (THI). Visual assessments of heat stress, based on panting scores (0 = no panting to 4 = severe panting), were collected from 1400 to 1700. Mean daily WSPD, black globe temperature at 1500, and minimums for nighttime WSPD, nighttime black globe THI, and daily relative humidity were found to have the greatest influence on panting score from 1400 to 1700 (R 2 = 0.61). From hourly values for THI, WSPD, and RAD, panting score was determined to equal −7.563 + (0.121 × THI) − (0.241 × WSPD) + (0.00082 × RAD) (R 2 = 0.49). Using the ratio of WSPD to THI and RAD to THI (−1.992 and 0.0068 for WSPD and RAD, respectively), adjustments to the THI were derived for WSPD and RAD. On the basis of these ratios and the average hourly data for 1400 to 1700, the THI, adjusted for WSPD and RAD, equals [4.51 + THI − (1.992 × WSPD) + (0.0068 × RAD)]. Four separate cattle studies, comparable in size, type of cat-

show abstract

“…Some heat may be dissipated through fluid convection when water drips from the body but this is associated with speculative concerns about mastitis (e.g., as suggested by Flamenbaum et al, 1986). To determine how much water is needed to cool via evaporation, Arkin et al (1991) estimated the evaporative potential of a wet, excised hide (≤0.23 L/m 2 ), and heat transfer models have been created for different ambient conditions Gebremedhin and Wu, 2002). However, there has been little experimental validation on live cows, and comparing cooling effectiveness across studies is challenging, as some do not report how much water is used (Araki et al, 1985;Igono et al, 1987;Valtorta and Gallardo, 2004), or use variable units of measure: most commonly liters per minute (e.g., Chen et al, 2013) or liters per hour (e.g., Gallardo et al, 2005), but also cubic meters per hour (Flamenbaum et al, 1986), millimeters per centimeter squared per hour (Granzin, 2006), milliliters per meter squared per minute , or millimeters per hour (Kendall et al, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cooling cows efficiently with sprinklers: Physiological responses to water spray

Chen

Schütz

Tucker

2015

Journal of Dairy Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dairies in the United States commonly cool cattle with sprinklers mounted over the feed bunk that intermittently spray the cows' backs. These systems use potable water-an increasingly scarce resource--but there is little experimental evidence about how much is needed to cool cows or about droplet size, which is thought to affect hair coat penetration. Our objectives were to determine how sprinkler flow rate and droplet size affect physiological measures of heat load in a hot, dry climate, and to evaluate cooling effectiveness against water use. The treatments were an unsprayed control and 6 soaker nozzles that delivered four 3-min spray applications of 0.4, 1.3, or ≥ 4.5 L/min (with 2 droplet sizes within each flow rate) and resulting in 30 to 47% of spray directly wetting each cow. Data were collected from high-producing lactating Holsteins (n = 19) tested individually in ambient conditions (air temperature = 31.2 ± 3.8°C, mean ± standard deviation). Cows were restrained in headlocks for 1h and received 1 treatment/d for 3d each, with order of exposure balanced in a crossover design. When cows were not sprayed, physiological measures of heat load increased during the 1-h treatment. All measures responded rapidly to spray: skin temperature decreased during the first water application, and respiration rate and body temperature did so before the second. Droplet size had no effect on cooling, but flow rate affected several measures. At the end of 1h, 0.4 L/min resulted in lower respiration rate and skin temperature on directly sprayed body parts relative to the control but not baseline values, and body temperature increased to 0.2°C above baseline. When 1.3 or ≥ 4.5 L/min was applied, respiration rate was lower than the control and decreased relative to baseline, and body temperature stayed below baseline for at least 30 min after treatment ended. The treatment that best balanced cooling effectiveness against water usage was 1.3 L/min: although ≥ 4.5 L/min reduced respiration rate relative to baseline by 4 more breaths/min than 1.3 L/min did (-13 vs. -9 breaths/min, respectively), each additional liter of water decreased this measure by only ≤ 0.1 breaths/min (≤ 1% of the total reduction achieved using 1.3 L/min). We found similar water efficiency patterns for skin temperature and the amount of time that body temperature remained below baseline after treatment ended. Thus, when using this intermittent spray schedule in a hot, dry climate, applying at least 1.3 L/min improved cooling, but above this, additional physiological benefits were relatively minor.

show abstract

Heat Transfer Properties of Dry and Wet Furs of Dairy Cows

Cited by 35 publications

References 0 publications

Application of infrared thermography as an indicator of heat and methane production and its use in the study of skin temperature in response to physiological events in dairy cattle (Bos taurus)

Application of infrared thermography as an indicator of heat and methane production and its use in the study of skin temperature in response to physiological events in dairy cattle (Bos taurus)

Environmental factors influencing heat stress in feedlot cattle1,2

Cooling cows efficiently with sprinklers: Physiological responses to water spray

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About