Heat Stress Lessons Learned and Reducing the Impact 134 Call Hall Manhattan, KS Dr. Micheal Brouk OABP Spring Meeting April 13 & 14, 2011 Guelph, Ontario

Background and Experience  Family farm in Missouri - Crop production  20 years service to feed industry and university  Currently Associate Professor & Extension Dairy Specialist  General nutritionist – KSU Dairy  lb/cow rolling herd milk production  989 lb/fat per cow  861 lb/protein per cow

15 to 20 pound drop each summer !!!! How long does it last?

Average Daily Milk NY Holstein Herds

Effective Temperature  Air Temperature  Relative Humidity  Air Movement  Solar Radiation Buffington, 1983

Heat Stress  Reduce Feed Intake  Increased Water Intake  Increased Respiration Rate  Increased Evaporated Water Loss  Increased Body Temperature  Changes in Metabolic Rate & Hormones è Reduced Milk and Reproduction Armstrong & Welchert, 1994

Methods to Reduce Heat Stress  Shade  Fans  Misting  Evaporative  Zone  Air conditioning

Cost Vs. Quality If you can see your shadow, spend more money!!!

Absorption of Solar Radiation 5450 BTU/Hr 84 o F & 21% HumidityTHI = 73 (Armstrong and Hillman, 1998)

Shade Design  Orientation  North-South  Allows shade to travel  ft 2 /cow)  ft tall  Material  Cost Vs Shade Quality  Useful Life

Where to Shade?  Holding Pen  Resting Area  Feed Area  Order is important!!!!!!

Nonevaporative Cooling Evaporative Cooling Respiratory Tract Evaporative Cooling Outer Body Surface

Effect of Sprinkling Frequency and Supplemental Air Movement on Respiration Rate KSU Cow Comfort Consortium 2001 (Brouk, M.J., J.F. Smith and J.P. Harner, III)

Effect of Sprinkling Frequency and Fan Cooling on Udder Skin Temperature KSU Cow Comfort Consortium 2001 (Brouk, M.J., J.F. Smith and J.P. Harner, III)

Message for conventional barns  Cooling is a combination of  Soaking cycles u Temperature Dependent –Increased Frequency of soaking with increased temperature  Increased air movement

Holding Pen Factors  Duration  2x (1hr)3x (.75 hr)4x (.5 hr)  Density  Increase in Heat Load  Rapid increase in body temperature  Cooling effective u Decreased Body Temperature 3 o F u Increased Milk 1.75 lb/c/d (Wiersma & Armstrong, 1983)

Holding Pen Cooling  Fans  1000 ft 3 /min/cow  inch =10, ,000 cfm)  1 per 10 cows or 150 ft 2  Spacing  Holding Pen Width <24 ft u Sidewalls6-8 ft  Holding Pen Width >24 ft u Perpendicular to cows u 6-8 ft u Rows 20 ft (36 in) or 40 ft (48 in) Harner, 1999

Sprinklers  Wet the Cow  Dry the Cow  Prevent Excess Water  Design  0.03 gal/ft 2  8 x 8 ft grid  Water Hose Harner, 1999

2000 Study 36” Fan over stalls & feedline 36” Fan over feedline

Average Milk Production P<.01

Economic Analysis of Cooling Systems Four-Row Barn FF + S Additional Feed Cost, $/pen 1,3982,516 Gross Income, $/pen 6,73012,114 Total Annual Expense, $/pen 3,0745,420 Net Return, $/pen 3,6566,693

Missed Opportunity = Lower Production!!! Last 5 pounds of milk most profitable!!!!!!

Quick TeeJet ® Nozzle Body, Check Valve and Cap Turbo FloodJet ® Nozzle – TF-VP5 ($1.50) Quick TeeJet Cap and Gasket NYR ($0.60) Nozzle Body and Check Valve QJ8360-NYB ($3.54) Total Cost $5.64

Cooling the Air

Evaporative Cooling  Effective in Arid Conditions  Evaporate Water in Air  Decrease Temperature  Increase Humidity  Evaporation Rate Function of Temperature and Humidity

40 Evaporative Cooling

41 Cellulose Evaporative Pad WATER AIR

Potential THI Change Due to Water Evaporation in a Low Relative Humidity Environment KSU Cow Comfort Consortium 2001 (Brouk, M.J., J.F. Smith and J.P. Harner, III)

Potential THI Change Due to Water Evaporation in a High Relative Humidity Environment KSU Cow Comfort Consortium 2001 (Brouk, M.J., J.F. Smith and J.P. Harner, III)

44 Low Profile Cross Ventilation

45 Low Profile Cross Ventilation

46 Two 5 foot evaporative pads – 10 ft wide x 360 ft long Winter inlet – parlor transfer lane Air inlet with an evaporative pad

47 Average Temperature – LPCV July 17 to August 16, 2007

48 Water Usage Per Cow Per Day  24 hr Fence Line Soaker u 8’ nozzle spacing, 120 cycles per day (1 on – 11 off)  0.5 gpm – 15 gal/dy/cow  1.0 gpm - 30 gal/dy/cow  16 hr Evaporative Pad u 0.33 gal/hr / sq ft pad area  4.5 sf/cow – 24 gal/dy/cow (8 row )  2.75 sf/cow - 15 gal/dy/cow (16 row )

Advantages of Cross Ventilation  Increased cow density  Control of cow environment  Improved feed efficiency  Ease of construction  Improved efficiency of water use

Disadvantage of Cross-ventilation  Energy usage  Maintenance – Pads and Fans  Lighting  Day/night patterns  Issues with door damage  Summertime vs Winter Ventilation  Cow vs people

Pad Maintenance Maintain Air Flow Cleaning Replacement

Impact of Evaporative Pad on Temperature KSU Maternity Barn (07/25 to 08/31/07) Hourly averages based on 432 data points

Impact of Evaporative Pad on THI KSU Maternity Barn (07/25 to 08/31/07) Hourly averages based on 432 data points

Impact of Evaporative Pads on Vaginal Temperatures of Close-up Cows

Summary  Cow Comfort and Heat Stress Affects  Cow Intake  Milk Production  Reproduction  Profit  Key Issues  Heat Accumulation  Periods of Heat Exchange  Working with what you have  React to the response of the cow