Influence of the use of air cooling means in easily assembled premises on the behavior and comfort of cows during high temperatures

O. O. Borshch^1,2, S. Yu. Ruban², O. V. Borshch¹, M. M. Fedorchenko¹

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

¹Bila Tserkva National Agrarian University,
8/1 Soborna sq., Bila Tserkva, Kyiv region, 09117, Ukraine

²National University of Life and Environmental Science of Ukraine,
15 Heroyiv Oborony str., Kyiv, 03041, Ukraine

The aim of this work was to study the influence of the use of air cooling means in easily assembled premises on the behavior and comfort of cows during periods of dangerous value of the temperature-humidity index (THI). The research was conducted during July 2020 in the central part of Ukraine (Kyiv region, Bila Tserkva district) during a long high-temperature load. The value of the daily ambient air temperature ranged from +19 to +34°С, and the relative humidity was 46–78%. Two farms with loose cows and different animal comfort options were selected for the study. The first option is to be loose in an easy-to-assemble room with fans installed above the aft table to cool the air. Fan hours from 12:00 to 17:00. The second option is loose keeping in an easy-to-assemble room on a deep, long-lasting straw litter. It was found that the use of ventilation systems allowed to reduce by 5.3°C the average daily values of air temperature compared to keeping on deep litter without ventilation systems. The values equivalent temperature index (ETI) and the index of equivalent temperature for cattle (ETIC), which indicate the level of sensitivity of the body during prolonged high temperatures, were lower by 1.63°C, and ETIC by 1.11 compared to keeping in deep litter without systems ventilation. The duration of lying down under the option of keeping cows using air cooling elements was higher by 68 min/day compared to keeping on deep litter without air cooling elements. In a cowshed with ventilation systems, the energy consumption for heat transfer of the body was 63.1 MJ, which is 5.4 MJ lower than in a cowshed on deep litter without the use of ventilation systems.

Key words: dairy cows, high temperatures, prefabricated premises, ventilation systems, behavior, comfort

1. Adamczyk K, Górecka-Bruzda A, Nowicki J, Gumułka M, Molik E, Schwarz T, Earley B, Klocek C. Perception of environment in farm animals — A review. Anim. Sci. 2015; 15: 565–589. DOI: 10.1515/aoas-2015-0031.
2. Baeta FC, Meador NF, Shanklin MD, Johnson HD. Equivalent temperature index at temperatures above the thermoneutral for lactating cows. ASAE Paper No. 874015. American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE). St. Joseph, MI, 1987.
3. Bernabucci U, Biffani S, Buggiotti L, Vitali A, Lacetera N, Nardone A. The effects of heat stress in Italian Holstein dairy cattle. Dairy Sci. 2014; 97 (1): 471–486. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2013-6611.
4. Bertocchi L, Vitali A, Lacetera N, Nardone A, Varisco G, Bernabucci U. Seasonal variations in the composition of Holstein cow’s milk and temperature–humidity index relationship. Animal. 2014; 8 (4): 667–674. DOI: 10.1017/S1751731114000032.
5. Borshch OO, Borshch OV, Sobolev OI, Nadtochii VM, Slusar MV, Gutyj BV, Polishchuk SA, Malina VV, Korol AP, Korol-Bezpala LP, Bezpalyi IF, Cherniavskyi OO. Wind speed in easily assembled premises with different design constructions for side curtains in winter. J. Ecol. 2021; 11 (1): 325–328. DOI: 10.15421/2021_49.
6. Borshch OO, Gutyj BV, Borshch OV, Sobolev OI, Chernyuk SV, Rudenko OP, Kalyn BM, Lytvyn NA, Savchuk LB, Kit LP, Nahirniak TB, Kropyvka SI, Pundyak TO. Environmental pollution caused by the manure storage. J. Ecol. 2020; 10 (3): 110–114. DOI: 10.15421/2020_142.
7. Borshch OO, Ruban SY, Gutyj BV, Borshch OV, Sobolev OI, Kosior LT, Fedorchenko MM, Kirii AA, Pivtorak YI, Salamakha IY, Hordiichuk NM, Hordiichuk LM, Kamratska OI, Denkovich BS. Comfort and cow behavior during periods of intense precipitation. J. Ecol. 2020; 10 (6): 98–102. DOI: 10.15421/2020_265.
8. Borshch OO, Ruban S, Borshch OV. Review: the influence of genotypic and phenotypic factors on the comfort and welfare rates of cows during the period of global climate changes. Agraarteadus J. Agr. Sci. 2021: 32 (1): 25–34. DOI: 10.15159/jas.21.12.
9. Calegari F, Calamari L, Frazzi E. Fan cooling of the resting area in a free stalls dairy barn. J. Biometeorol. 2014; 58: 1225–1236. DOI: 10.1007/s00484-013-0716-1.
10. Chen JM, Schütz KE, Tucker CB. Cooling cows efficiently with sprinklers: Physiological responses to water spray. J. Dairy Sci. 2015; 98 (10): 6925–6938. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2015-9434.
11. Chen JM, Schütz KE, Tucker CB. Cooling cows efficiently with water spray: Behavioral, physiological, and production responses to sprinklers at the feed bunk. Dairy Sci. 2016; 99 (6): 4607–4618. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2015-10714.
12. Das R, Sailo L, Verma N, Bharti P, Saikia J, Imtiwati Kumar R. Impact of heat stress on health and performance of dairy animals: A review. World. 2016; 9 (3): 260–268. DOI: 10.14202/vetworld.2016.260-268.
13. Dikmen S, Hansen PJ. Is the temperature-humidity index the best indicator of heat stress in lactating dairy cows in a subtropical environment? Dairy Sci. 2009; 92 (1): 109–116. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2008-1370.
14. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): The Impact of Disasters on Agriculture — Assessing the information gap. 2017. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7279e.pdf (last accessed: 21.12.2020).
15. Herbut P, Angrecka S. Relationship between THI level and dairy cows’ behaviour during summer period. J. Anim. Sci. 2018; 17 (1): 226–233. DOI: 10.1080/1828051X.2017.1333892.
16. Hulsen J. Cow signals. A practical guide for dairy farm management. 2006: 96 p. ISBN 9789075280654.
17. Kadzere CT, Murphy MR, Silanikove N, Maltz E. Heat stress in lactating dairy cows: a review. Livestock Prod. Sci. 2002; 77 (1): 59–91. DOI: 10.1016/S0301-6226(01)00330-X.
18. Krawczel P, Grant R. Effect of cow comfort on milk quality, productivity and behavior. 48^th Annual Meet. Natl. Mastit. Counc. Charlotte, NC. National Mastitis Council, Verona, WI., 2009; 15–24.
19. Ortiz XA, Smith JF, Villar F, Hall L, Allen J, Oddy A, Al-Haddad A, Lyle P, Collier RJ. A comparison of 2 evaporative cooling systems on a commercial dairy farm in Saudi Arabia. Dairy Sci. 2015; 98 (12): 8710–8722. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2015-9616.
20. Ruban S, Borshch OO, Borshch OV, Orischuk O, Balatskiy Y, Fedorchenko M, Kachan A, Zlochevskiy M. The impact of high temperatures on respiration rate, breathing condition and productivity of dairy cows in different production systems. Sci. Paper. Rep. 2020; 38 (1): 61–72. Available at: http://a192.fsi.pl/uploaded/FSiBundleContentBlockBundleModelTranslatableBlockTranslatable FilesElement/filePath/1587/str61-72.pdf
21. Shiao TF, Chen JC, Yang DW, Lee SN, Lee CF, Cheng WTK. Feasibility assessment of a tunnel-ventilated, water-padded barn on alleviation of heat stress for lactating holstein cows in a humid area. Dairy Sci. 2011; 94 (11): 5393–5404. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2010-3730.
22. Vatskyi VF. Biometrics algorithms. Guidelines. Poltava, 2005: 19 p. (in Ukrainian)
23. Wang X, Gao H, Gebremedhin KG, Bjerg BS, Van Os J, Tucker CB, Zhang G. A predictive model of equivalent temperature index for dairy cattle (ETIC). Therm. Biol. 2018; 76: 165–170. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtherbio.2018.07.013.
24. WMO Statement on the state of the global climate in 2017. No. 1212, World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Geneva, Switzerland, 2018: 40 p.