Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports
2004; Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station contribution; no. 05-112-S; Report of progress (Kansas State University. Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service); 941; Dairy; Heat stress abatement; Cow comfort; Cow cooling
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Life Sciences
Responses Of Lactating Holstein Cows To Low-Pressure Soaking Or High-Pressure Misting During Heat Stress (2004), Joseph P. Harner, John F. Smith, W.F. Miller, B. Cvetkovic
Responses Of Lactating Holstein Cows To Low-Pressure Soaking Or High-Pressure Misting During Heat Stress (2004), Joseph P. Harner, John F. Smith, W.F. Miller, B. Cvetkovic
Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports
Lactating dairy cattle were used to evaluate three different cooling systems. Eight cows were arranged in a replicated Latinsquare design and assigned to each of four treatments. Treatments were control, lowpressure soaking (LPS), high-pressure misting with 1.7 gallons per minute of water (HP-1.7), or high-pressure misting with 3.4 gallons per minute of water (HP-3.4). Cows were allowed to become heat stressed in a free-stall facility, and then were moved to a tie-stall barn for 2 hours of observations during four hot and humid afternoons. Respiration rates declined when heat abatement systems were used. Respiration rates at the end of the …
Responses Of Lactating Holstein Cows To Differing Levels And Direction Of Supplemental Airflow (2004), Joseph P. Harner, John F. Smith, W.F. Miller, B. Cvetkovic
Responses Of Lactating Holstein Cows To Differing Levels And Direction Of Supplemental Airflow (2004), Joseph P. Harner, John F. Smith, W.F. Miller, B. Cvetkovic
Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports
Seven heat-stressed, lactating Holstein cows were exposed to six different cooling systems to evaluate the effects of air velocity and direction of airflow. Cows were arranged in a 7 x 7 Latin-square design. Six cooling treatments were compared with a control. Supplemental airflow was provided by axial flow at one of three velocities: 500, 750, or 900 cubic feet per minute (CFM). Airflow was either from the front to rear (FRT) or from the right side (SIDE) of the cow. Combined cooling treatments were FRT-500, FRT- 750, FRT-900, SIDE-500, SIDE-750, or SIDE-900. All cooling systems used a lowpressure soaking system …