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

X. A. Ortiz, J. F. Smith, F. Villar, L. Hall, J. Allen, A. Oddy, A. al-Haddad, P. Lyle, Robert J Collier

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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 3 mo (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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Dairy Science
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Mar 24 2015

Fingerprint

cooling systems
Saudi Arabia
dairy farming
Electricity
Milk
cows
electricity
Respiratory Rate
Body Temperature
shade
respiratory rate
body temperature
Temperature
surface temperature
Water
milk yield
Lactation
Drinking
Ventilation
ventilation systems

Keywords

  • Efficacy
  • Evaporative cooling
  • Heat stress
  • Milk yield

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Animal Science and Zoology
  • Food Science
  • Genetics

Cite this

A comparison of 2 evaporative cooling systems on a commercial dairy farm in Saudi Arabia. / Ortiz, X. A.; Smith, J. F.; Villar, F.; Hall, L.; Allen, J.; Oddy, A.; al-Haddad, A.; Lyle, P.; Collier, Robert J.

In: Journal of Dairy Science, 24.03.2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ortiz, X. A. ; Smith, J. F. ; Villar, F. ; Hall, L. ; Allen, J. ; Oddy, A. ; al-Haddad, A. ; Lyle, P. ; Collier, Robert J. / A comparison of 2 evaporative cooling systems on a commercial dairy farm in Saudi Arabia. In: Journal of Dairy Science. 2015.
@article{c33c99e36d0448cbb92de379cc4d2b2d,
title = "A comparison of 2 evaporative cooling systems on a commercial dairy farm in Saudi Arabia",
abstract = "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 3 mo (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.",
keywords = "Efficacy, Evaporative cooling, Heat stress, Milk yield",
author = "Ortiz, {X. A.} and Smith, {J. F.} and F. Villar and L. Hall and J. Allen and A. Oddy and A. al-Haddad and P. Lyle and Collier, {Robert J}",
year = "2015",
month = "3",
day = "24",
doi = "10.3168/jds.2015-9616",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Journal of Dairy Science",
issn = "0022-0302",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of 2 evaporative cooling systems on a commercial dairy farm in Saudi Arabia

AU - Ortiz, X. A.

AU - Smith, J. F.

AU - Villar, F.

AU - Hall, L.

AU - Allen, J.

AU - Oddy, A.

AU - al-Haddad, A.

AU - Lyle, P.

AU - Collier, Robert J

PY - 2015/3/24

Y1 - 2015/3/24

N2 - 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 3 mo (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.

AB - 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 3 mo (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.

KW - Efficacy

KW - Evaporative cooling

KW - Heat stress

KW - Milk yield

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84950133488&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84950133488&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3168/jds.2015-9616

DO - 10.3168/jds.2015-9616

M3 - Article

C2 - 26409968

AN - SCOPUS:84950133488

JO - Journal of Dairy Science

JF - Journal of Dairy Science

SN - 0022-0302

ER -