Literature DB >> 27743663

Economic feasibility of cooling dry cows across the United States.

F C Ferreira1, R S Gennari2, G E Dahl2, A De Vries3.   

Abstract

Heat stress during the dry period reduces milk yield in the subsequent lactation of dairy cows. Our objectives were to quantify the economic losses due to heat stress if dry cows are not cooled and to evaluate the economic feasibility of dry cow cooling. We used weather data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to calculate the number of heat stress days for each of the 50 US states. A heat stress day was declared when the daily average temperature-humidity index was ≥68. The number of dairy cows in each state in 2015 was obtained from the USDA-National Agricultural Statistics Service. We assumed that 15% of the cows were dry at any time, a 60-d dry period, and a calving interval of 400d. Only cows in their second or greater parity (65%) benefitted from cooling during the dry period of the previous parity. Milk yield decreased by 5kg in the subsequent lactation (340d) if the cow experienced heat stress during the dry period based on a review of the literature. The default marginal value of milk minus feed cost was $0.33/kg of milk. The investment analysis included purchases of fans and soakers and use of water and electricity. Investment in a dry cow barn was considered separately. The average US dairy cow would experience 96 (26%) heat stress days during the year if not cooled and loses 447kg of milk in the subsequent lactation if not cooled when dry. Annual losses would be $810 million if dry cows were not cooled ($87/cow per yr). For the top 3 milk-producing states (California, Wisconsin, New York), and Florida and Texas, the average milk losses in the subsequent lactation were 522, 349, 387, 1,197, and 904kg, and reduced profit per cow per year would be $101, $68, $75, $233, and $176, respectively. The average benefit-cost ratio and payback periods of cooling dry cows in the United States were 3.15 and 0.27 yr (dry cow barn already present) and 1.45 and 5.68 yr (if investing in a dry cow barn) in the default scenario. To reach positive net present values, 6d (barn is present) and 55d (barn investment necessary) of heat stress annually were necessary (default assumptions). Other benefits of cooling, such as increased health and more productive offspring, were not considered. In conclusion, cooling of dry cows was profitable for 89% of the cows in the United States when building a new barn is required (under default assumptions) and very profitable when construction of a dry cow barn is not required (except for Alaska).
Copyright © 2016 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  dry cow; economic feasibility; heat stress; temperature-humidity index

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27743663     DOI: 10.3168/jds.2016-11566

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Dairy Sci        ISSN: 0022-0302            Impact factor:   4.034


  9 in total

1.  Physiological, health, lactation, and reproductive traits of cooled dairy cows classified as having high or low core body temperature during the dry period1.

Authors:  Alexandre L A Scanavez; Benjamin E Voelz; Joao G N Moraes; Jonathan A Green; Luis G D Mendonça
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 3.159

2.  Association between 4-day vaginal temperature assessment during the dry period and performance in the subsequent lactation of dairy cows during the warm season.

Authors:  A L A Scanavez; B Fragomeni; L Rocha; B E Voelz; L E Hulbert; L G D Mendonça
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 3.159

3.  PHYSIOLOGY SYMPOSIUM: Effects of heat stress during late gestation on the dam and its calf12.

Authors:  Sha Tao; Geoffrey E Dahl; Jimena Laporta; John K Bernard; Ruth M Orellana Rivas; Thiago N Marins
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-04-29       Impact factor: 3.159

4.  Carry-over effects of dry period heat stress on the mammary gland proteome and phosphoproteome in the subsequent lactation of dairy cows.

Authors:  Amy L Skibiel; Jin Koh; Ning Zhu; Fanchao Zhu; Mi-Jeong Yoo; Jimena Laporta
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-04-22       Impact factor: 4.996

5.  In utero exposure to thermal stress has long-term effects on mammary gland microstructure and function in dairy cattle.

Authors:  Amy L Skibiel; Bethany Dado-Senn; Thiago F Fabris; Geoffrey E Dahl; Jimena Laporta
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-10-16       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Projected heat stress challenges and abatement opportunities for U.S. milk production.

Authors:  Kpoti M Gunn; Michael A Holly; Tamie L Veith; Anthony R Buda; Rishi Prasad; C Alan Rotz; Kathy J Soder; Anne M K Stoner
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-03-28       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Whole Genome Mapping Reveals Novel Genes and Pathways Involved in Milk Production Under Heat Stress in US Holstein Cows.

Authors:  Anil Sigdel; Rostam Abdollahi-Arpanahi; Ignacio Aguilar; Francisco Peñagaricano
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2019-10-04       Impact factor: 4.599

8.  Dry period heat stress induces microstructural changes in the lactating mammary gland.

Authors:  Bethany Dado-Senn; Amy L Skibiel; Thiago F Fabris; Geoffrey E Dahl; Jimena Laporta
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-09-19       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Transcriptome Analysis Reveals Potential Regulatory Genes Related to Heat Tolerance in Holstein Dairy Cattle.

Authors:  Shenhe Liu; Tingting Yue; Muhammad Jamil Ahmad; Xiangwei Hu; Xinxin Zhang; Tingxian Deng; Yan Hu; Changjiu He; Yang Zhou; Liguo Yang
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2020-01-07       Impact factor: 4.096

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.