Abstract #M262
Section: Production, Management and the Environment
Session: Production, Management and the Environment I
Format: Poster
Day/Time: Monday 7:30 AM–9:30 AM
Location: Gatlin Ballroom
Session: Production, Management and the Environment I
Format: Poster
Day/Time: Monday 7:30 AM–9:30 AM
Location: Gatlin Ballroom
# M262
A comparison of two evaporative cooling systems on a commercial dairy farm in Saudi Arabia.
Xavier A. Ortiz*1, John F. Smith1, Fernando Villar1, Laun W. Hall1, Jamison D. Allen2, Andrew Odde3, Adnan al-Haddad3, Peter Lyle4, Robert Collier1, 1The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 2Northwest Missouri State University, Maryville, MO, 3Al Safi Dairy Company, Al-Kharj, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 4Schaefer Ventilation Equipment, Sauk Rapids, MN.
Key Words: heat stress, dairy cow, evaporative cooling
A comparison of two evaporative cooling systems on a commercial dairy farm in Saudi Arabia.
Xavier A. Ortiz*1, John F. Smith1, Fernando Villar1, Laun W. Hall1, Jamison D. Allen2, Andrew Odde3, Adnan al-Haddad3, Peter Lyle4, Robert Collier1, 1The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 2Northwest Missouri State University, Maryville, MO, 3Al Safi Dairy Company, Al-Kharj, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 4Schaefer Ventilation Equipment, Sauk Rapids, MN.
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 4 hundred multiparous Holstein dairy cows randomly assigned to one of 4 cooled California style shade pens (2 shade pens per cooling system). Each shaded pen contained 100 cows (DIM = 58 ± 39 d, milk production = 56 ± 18 kg/day and lactation = 3 ± 1). Production data (milk yield and reproductive performance) were collected during 4 mo (May–August, 2013) and physiological responses (core body temperature, respiration rates, skin 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 (P < 0.05) and lower skin temperatures in June and July (P < 0.05). However, no differences were observed in the core body temperature of cows, resting time, DMI, milk yield, services/cow and conception rate between systems. The FF system utilized less water and electricity during this study (P < 0.05). In conclusion, both cooling systems (KK and FF) were effective in mitigating the negative effects of heat stress on cows housed in arid environments while the FF system consumed less water and electricity and did not require use of curtains on the shade structure.
Key Words: heat stress, dairy cow, evaporative cooling