Sprinkler flow rate affects dairy cattle preferences, heat load, and insect deterrence behavior

Abstract

Please cite this article in press as: Chen, J.M., et al., Sprinkler flow rate affects dairy cattle preferences, heat load, and insect deterrence behavior. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. (2016), http://dx.a b s t r a c t Sprinklers provide benefits for cattle, such as reducing heat load and possibly deterring insects. However, the use of this resource by cows varies across studies. Some of this variation may, in part, be explained by sprinkler flow rate. Higher flow rates provide greater heat abatement (desirable in warmer conditions, but perhaps not in milder weather) and generate greater spray impact, which cattle may avoid. Our objective was to evaluate the effects of flow rate on dairy cows' preferences for sprinklers and shade. We tested cows (n = 18) in a shaded arena (air temperature = 29 ± 3.8 • C, mean ± SD). To ensure they made informed choices and to measure insect deterrence behavior, we exposed cows to each treatment (flow rate = 0, 0.4, and 4.5 L/min, spray impact = 0, 1.1, and 8.9 kPa, respectively) ≥10 times in 12-min sessions. We then offered pairwise choices between 12-min treatments once daily for 8 consecutive d/pair. Cows preferred 0.4 L/min over shade alone [probability of choosing 0.4 L/min = 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.53-0.98]. Although cows did not prefer 4.5 L/min overall (probability of choosing 4.5 vs. 0 L/min = 0.62, CI = 0.27-0.87; vs. 0.4 L/min = 0.37, CI = 0.11-0.73), their likelihood of choosing it over shade alone tended to increase with respiration rate, body temperature, air temperature, and Temperature Humidity Index (odds ratios = 1.04, 3.57, 1.13, and 1.16, respectively). Relative to shade alone, both 0.4 and 4.5 L/min sprinklers provided the benefits of reducing insect deterrence behavior (tail flicks by 28 and 35%, respectively, and skin twitches by 32 and 48%), localized air temperature (by 0.6 and 1.1 • C, respectively, SE = 0.2 • C), and respiration rate (by 11 and 14 breaths/min, respectively, SE = 1.6 and 1.5 breaths/min). In addition, when cows chose 4.5 over 0.4 or 0 L/min, body temperature decreased by an additional 0.14 • C during treatment and stayed below starting values for 34 and 47 min longer afterward. Cows did not prefer 0.4 L/min over 4.5 L/min sprinklers, suggesting they do not avoid higher impact spray. Nonetheless, greater spray impact and heat loss may outweigh the benefits of 4.5 L/min in mild conditions, perhaps explaining why preference for this sprinkler flow rate over shade alone increased with heat load. As 0.4 L/min did not have these potential costs, this may explain why cows preferred the lower flow rate sprinkler to shade alone across all conditions tested.

Invited review: Effects of heat stress on dairy cattle welfare

“…Water for evaporative cooling, drinking water, and water needed during the milking routine are the 3 main uses of potable water on commercial dairies, and decreasing water usage and contamination is critical to the sustainability of the industry (Chen et al, 2015). Second, despite sprinklers greatly reducing respiratory rate and insect avoidance behaviors (tail flicks, hoof stamps, skin twitches, and head throws), their use also results in increased cow avoidance behaviors such as changing head position, lowering of the head, and placing the head outside the wooden structure away from the sprinklers Chen et al, 2016). We speculate that cattle likely never evolved to seek out rain as a means to cool; thus, exposing animals to water goes against the natural living of dairy cows.…”

Cooling cows with sprinklers: Effects of soaker flow rate and timing on behavioral and physiological responses to heat load and production

“…These differences could be driven by weather (maximum AT averaged 2°C higher than in this study), and spray timing (5 min on, 10 min off). Both factors can affect use of cooling resources and their effectiveness (Chen et al, 2016a;.…”

Effect of Heat Stress on Ovaries Evolution of Repeat Breeders in Dairy Cattle, Specifically Holstein Friesian

“…The Holstein Friesian breed is particularly sensitive and susceptible to heat stress (HS) among cattle breeds. Additionally, British breeds exhibit higher vaginal temperatures, indicating elevated environmental temperatures, compared to Bonsmara crosses at similar temperature and humidity levels (Chen et al, 2016). Cattle breeds are categorized as high or low immune responders based on their response to HS, with high immune responders exhibiting more severe responses to HS than low immune responders.…”