Livestock Science 132 (2010) 48–52

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Livestock Science
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l i v s c i

Comparison of three cooling management systems to reduce heat stress in

lactating Holstein cows during hot and dry ambient conditions☆
L. Avendaño-Reyes a,⁎, F.D. Álvarez-Valenzuela a, A. Correa-Calderón a, A. Algándar-Sandoval a,
E. Rodríguez-González a, R. Pérez-Velázquez a, U. Macías-Cruz a, R. Díaz-Molina b,
P.H. Robinson c, J.G. Fadel c
a
Instituto de Ciencias Agrícolas, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, Blvd. Delta s/n, Ejido Nuevo León, Baja California, 21705, México
b
Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, Calle Dr. Humberto Torres S. s/n, Centro Cívico, Mexicali, Baja California, 21000, México
c
Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The aim of this study was to compare three cooling management systems to improve the
Received 1 March 2010 physiological status and lactation performance of Holstein cows during summer heat.
Received in revised form 23 April 2010 Multiparous Holstein cows, 32, were blocked according to milk yield divided into four
Accepted 26 April 2010
treatments being: C) Control group, cows cooled before milking time (0500 and 1700 h daily);
AM) cows cooled at 1100 h and before milking; PM) cows cooled at 2300 h and before milking;
Keywords: and AM + PM) cows cooled at 1100 and 2300 h, as well as before milking. Total cooling time
Dairy cattle per group was 1 h for the Control group, 2 h for AM and PM groups, and 3 h for the AM + PM
Milk production
group. Cows were moved to a holding pen daily to be cooled. Respiration rate (RR) and rectal
Hot weather
temperatures (RT) were lowered (P b 0.05) by treatment in AM + PM compared to control, but
Cooling system
Temperature–Humidity Index body condition scores were similar among groups. Glucose levels of control cows (48.41 mg/
dL) were higher (P b 0.01) than cooled cows (44.9 mg/dL) and AM + PM cows (43.12 mg/dL).
Other metabolites (i.e., cholesterol, triglycerides) did not differ among treatments, and thyroid
hormones (i.e., thyroxin, triiodothyronine) were also similar among the groups. Milk
production and milk energy output were higher (P b 0.05) in group AM + PM cows (21.12 kg
of milk and 13.6 Mcal per day) than control cows (19.1 kg of milk and 12.6 Mcal per day), but
milk fat and protein proportions were similar among the four groups. Even though cows under
the cooling management system with the higher number of coolings per day had better
performance, their physiological status does not correspond to a those non-heat stressed
lactating cows. Results show that it is necessary to increase the time of cooling to effectively
reduce heat stress during severe summer heat conditions.
© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction decades. Extended periods of excessive ambient heat negative-

The surface of our planet has undergone unprecedented
warming over the last century, principally over the last two
Abbreviations: THI, Temperature–Humidity Index; BCS, Body condition
score; RR, Respiration rate; RT, Rectal temperature; bpm, Breaths per minute.
☆ Research supported by FONDO MIXTO CONACYT-GOBIERNO DEL
ESTADO DE BAJA CALIFORNIA, México (Project Number BC-2004-C01-011),
and by the Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, Mexicali, México.
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +52 686 523 0088; fax: +52 686 523 0217.
E-mail address: lar62@hotmail.com (L. Avendaño-Reyes).
ly affect the productive performance and welfare of dairy cattle,
causing serious economic losses to the dairy industries of
several countries. Many regions of northern Mexico are
classified as arid zones and experience prolonged periods of
high temperatures in the summers. In these regions, dairying is
becoming a major activity because feedstuffs and water are
relatively available and mild winter temperatures are suitable
for dairy farming. However, the intense summer heat results in
seasonal milk production fluctuations, which means high milk
yield during winter months and the need for considerable

1871-1413/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2010.04.020
 L. Avendaño-Reyes et al. / Livestock Science 132 (2010) 48–52
volumes of imported milk from other regions during summer
months due to reduced local milk production. This is a
particular problem in the Mexicali Valley of the state of Baja
California, Mexico, where lactating Holstein cows are often
adversely affected for about six months annually because the
area is exposed to considerable heat from May to September
(Avendaño-Reyes et al., 2006).
Lactating dairy cows produce heat from ruminal fermenta-
tion and metabolic processes. In order to maintain body
temperature within a normal range, cows exchange heat with
the environment. During hot summer months and without
external cooling, it has been established that at temperatures
above 21 °C, heat loss is primarily due to moisture evaporation
from body surface and lungs, and as temperature exceeds 32 °C,
over 85% of total heat dissipation is due to vaporization of water
from the body surface and lungs. Researchers suggest that at an
air temperature of 40 °C, approximately 84% of total evapora-
tive heat loss is by means of sweating (Yousef, 1985). Thus, use
of environmental modifications such as shades and cooling
systems is essential in areas affected by heat stress in order to
maintain milk production, milk component levels, reproductive
performance, as well as animal welfare. These systems alleviate
heat stress from dairy cows by using the principle of
evaporation, combining water misting and forced ventilation
through use of spray and fans, and are frequently placed inside
free-stall barns or under shades in open space corrals (Berman,
2006). Even though responses have varied, cooling techniques
have consistently improved feed intake and milk production in
areas with high environmental temperatures (Ryan et al., 1992;
Correa-Calderón et al., 2002; Keister et al., 2002).
The objective of this study was to compare three cooling
management systems to improve physiological and produc-
tion responses during extreme summer conditions, therefore
reducing negative effects of heat stress on mid-late lactation
Holstein dairy cows.
2. Material and methods
This study was completed in a commercial dairy herd in the
Mexicali Valley, located 43 km south of Mexicali city, in the
northwestern state of Baja California, Mexico, latitude 115.3° and
longitude 32.2°. The climatic conditions of this region are similar
to that in the Sonoran Desert, reaching a maximum temperature
of 50 °C during summer, and a minimum temperature of −5 °C
in winter with an annual average precipitation of 85 mm (García,
1985). All procedures involving animals were made following
approved local techniques of animal care (NOM-051-ZOO-1995:
Humanitarian care of animals during mobilization of animals).
Thirty-two multiparous mid-lactation Holstein cows (between
110 and 160 days postpartum) were blocked into eight groups
according to milk production and assigned to one of four
treatments being: (C) Control group, eight cows cooled before
milking, which was twice a day (0500 and 1700 h); (AM) eight
cows cooled at 1100 h and before milking; (PM) eight cows
cooled at 2300 h and before milking; and (AM+PM) eight cows
cooled at 1100 and 2300 h, as well as before milking. Cooling
periods were 60 min long, except before milking which was
30 min, so that the total cooling time daily was 1 h for the control
group, 2 h for groups AM and PM, and 3 h for the AM+PM group.
The cooling system installed under the roof of the holding pen
(3.5 m from the concrete floor) consisted of four fans each of
49
64 cm diameter and containing 4 nozzle heads of 25 mm of
diameter each that delivered 7 L of water per hour, so each fan
delivered 28 L of water per hour. Each fan motor was 1.1 HP at
1000 rpm; air velocity was 8.5 mph at 6 m distance (115/230 V,
single three-phase motor with air volume of 13592 m3/h, and
water pressure of 17.58 cm3). The fans were placed in pairs with
a distance of 6 m between each other.
All cows were confined to corrals with middle pen shades and
a bunk-line feeder. Cows walked from 3 to 20 m from their
respective pen to the holding pen to receive the cooling
treatment. The cows were returned to their original pen after
the cooling was complete. Cows rotated through all treatments in
periods of 21 days and response variables were collected during
the last week of each period. There were four periods being:
period 1 from June 20 to July 10; period 2 from July 11 to 31;
period 3 from August 1 to 21; and period 4 from August 22 to
September 10. Cows were fed a basal total mixed ration twice
daily at 06:00 and 18:00 h, formulated based on NRC (2001)
recommendations (Table 1), and fresh water was available at all
times.
Response variables recorded three times in the last week of
each period in all cows were rectal temperature (RT), respiratory
rate (RR), milk production (MP), and milk components (i.e., fat
and protein proportions). The RR was determined by observing
the number of breaths in 30 s and multiplying it by 2 to obtain
breaths per minute (bpm). Cows were then moved to an adjacent
corral to obtain RT using a manual thermometer. Both of these
physiological measurements were recorded twice on each
sampling day at 9:30 and 14:30 h. Milk production was recorded
using a Waikato milk meter (Inter Ag, Hamilton, New Zealand),
and milk samples for compositional analysis were collected from
the morning milking. Milk fat analysis was completed using the
Gerber method (IDF, 1991) and milk protein analysis used a
Kjeldahl method (Barbano et al., 1991). Total fat production and
milk energy (Tyrrell and Reid, 1965) were computed using milk
production as well as protein and fat levels as:
MEO = ðf½ð40:72⁎FatÞ + ð22:65⁎ProtÞ + 102:77 = 1000g⁎2:204ÞMilk
The result of this formula is milk energy output (MEO),
that is, the total Mcal output from milk per day.
Table 1
Ingredient and chemical composition of the basal ration fed during the
experimental period to the four groups of Holstein cows.
Ingredient composition (g/kg as fed)
Alfalfa hay 380
Sudan grass 135
Commercial concentrate a 485
Chemical composition (g/kg) b
Dry matter 933.4 ± 2.44
Crude protein 183.8 ± 0.83
Fat (ether extract) 42.3 ± 0.64
Ash 113.6 ± 0.92
NDF 336.7 ± 1.93
NFC c 325.5 ± 1.81
a
Generaleche 958 (Agribrands Purina México, S.A. de C.V., México, D.F.)
Contains: 310 g/kg calcium carbonate; 180 g/kg magnesium oxide; 390 g/kg
dicalcium phosphate; 120 g/kg salt.
b
Average of four composite samples from every period during the study.
Average energy density of the ration (NEL) was 1.58 ± 0.06 Mcal/per kg DM.
c
NFC (g/kg) = [1000 − (ash + CP + NDF + fat)].
50 L. Avendaño-Reyes et al. / Livestock Science 132 (2010) 48–52
Body condition score (BCS) was assessed by the same two
persons on a 5 point scale, where ‘1’ corresponds to a very thin
cow and ‘5’ to a very obese cow (Wildman et al., 1982), and the
score was averaged within cow and period. Samples of 10 ml of
blood were collected from the coccigeous vein in vacutainer
tubes and centrifuged at 3500×g for 15 min at 5 °C and then
stored at −20 °C. These samples were used to assay glucose,
triglycerides and cholesterol using an ELISA method with an
auto-analyzer of blood chemical model DT-60 (Johnson &
Johnson Co., High Wycombe, UK). Also, serum samples were
kept until thyroxin (T4) and triiodothyronine (T3) were
determined by an ELISA method. Local weather information
was obtained from the ICA-UABC Climatic Experimental
Station, located in the Mexicali valley, about 20 km from the
experimental site, and the variables collected hourly were
maximum and minimum temperatures, and maximum and
minimum relative humidities. With these variables, the
Temperature–Humidity Index (THI) was calculated according
to Hahn (1999) as:
THI = ð0:81 × TAVEÞ + RHUMðTAVE−14:4Þ + 46:4
where: THI = Temperature–Humidity Index, TAVE = average
ambient temperature (°C), and RHUM = average relative
humidity (%).
Weekly averages from response variables (i.e., BCS, RT, RR,
and milk yield related postpartum variables) were analyzed in a
Latin square design using the RANDOM statement of the MIXED
procedure of SAS (2004). The variance–covariance structure was
selected by using the two model fit criteria: Akaike's Information
Criterion and Bayesian Information Criterion. The covariance
structure that resulted in these two criterions closest to zero (i.e.,
variance components by REML estimation method) was used
(Littell et al., 1996). The linear model for these variables contains
effects of block (classified in eight categories), treatment (four
categories), period (four categories), and the interaction
treatment by block. Cow within block was designated as the
random effect. Comparisons made by orthogonal contrasts were
as follows: C versus average of AM, PM, and AM+PM (control
cows versus average of treated cows); AM versus PM (cows
cooled during the morning versus cows cooled during the night);
and C versus AM+PM (control cows versus cows cooled during
the morning and the night). Least squares means and standard
errors of the means are reported and significance was declared if
Pb 0.05, and a trend was considered when 0.05 b Pb 0.10.
3. Results
Maximum and minimum ambient temperatures during
the study were 48 and 26 °C, and the THIs ranged from 71 to
Table 2
Averages of maximum and minimum ambient temperatures, relative humidity and THI units per period during the study.
Temperature (°C) Relative humidity (%)
Period Minimum Maximum Minimum
1 26.1 45.4 11.5
2 28.6 48.1 12.7
3 26.3 44.7 9.9
4 26.4 45.9 6.2
94 (Table 2). All THI averages were consistently higher than
75 among the experimental periods, as shown in Fig. 1.
There was no interaction of treatment by block in any
response variable, which indicated no differences in physiological
or production variables of the low and high-producing Holstein
cows in response to the cooling management systems.
3.1. Physiological variables
During the morning and afternoon, control cows had higher
(P b 0.05) respiration rate and rectal temperature compared to
all cooled cows. This difference was more extreme when C cows
(97.85 and 112.07 bpm) were compared with cows in group
AM + PM (89.19 and 106.8 bpm; Table 3). Rectal temperatures
during the morning were higher in the C group (39.53 °C) than
in the AM+ PM group (39.17 °C), but there were no differences
in rectal temperature during the afternoon in these two groups
(C group 39.96 and group AM+ PM 39.91 °C). Moreover, RR
and RT during the morning were higher (P b 0.05) in the AM
group (95.8 bpm and 39.65 °C, respectively) compared to the
PM group (92.1 bpm and 39.32 °C, respectively). Body condi-
tion scores were similar among all groups at about 3.5 units
(Table 3).
Glucose levels of C cows (48.41 mg/dL per day) were higher
(Pb 0.01) than those from treated cows (44.9 mg/dL per day),
and also from cows in the AM+PM group (43.12 mg/dL per
day). Other metabolites (i.e., cholesterol, triglycerides) did not
differ among treatments. Thyroid hormones (i.e., thyroxin and
triiodothyronine) were also similar among the groups (Table 4).
3.2. Productive responses
Milk production and milk energy output were higher
(Pb 0.05) in cows from group AM+PM (21.12 kg of milk and
13.6 Mcal per day) than C cows (19.10 kg of milk and 12.6 Mcal
per day). However, milk fat and protein proportions were similar
among the four groups (Table 5).
4. Discussion
Ambient temperatures and THIs during the experiment,
especially daytime temperatures, were all far above the thermo-
neutral zone of cattle. The homeothermic capacity of cows starts
to be affected when the THI is between 70 and 74 units; and
values of THI between 74 and 79 units are classified as a danger
situation for cattle, while those between 79 and 84 are classified
as an emergency because dairy cows may have compromised
health (Mader et al., 2006; Silanikove, 2000). Based upon the THI
values in this study (79 to 88 units), these lactating Holstein cows
were subjected to extreme distress (i.e., N78). The high severity
of heat stress is supported by the failure of the ambient
Temperature–Humidity Index
Maximum Minimum Maximum
79.3 73.4 89.4
78.7 76.6 93.9
82.2 72.4 88.7
82.0 70.9 93.2
 L. Avendaño-Reyes et al. / Livestock Science 132 (2010) 48–52
Fig. 1. Temperature–Humidity Index by day among periods during the study.
temperature to decline below 21 °C during the night, thus
reducing the ability of the cows to dissipate heat. This thermal
stress enforced by high ambient temperatures may be alleviated
by using forced ventilation and evaporation of water, which may
be attained using cooling systems based on spray and fans.
Respiration rate was reduced in the group of cows that
received the maximum cooling (i.e., AM+PM) compared to
cows that received cooling just before milking (C). During the
morning, this reduction was about 9% and during the afternoon it
was about 5%. Also, that PM cows showed better RR and RT than
AM cows during the morning indicated that the PM cooling was
able to maintain the cows less stressed than the AM cooling until
the next morning. However, the prolonged exposure to heat
caused an increase in RR in all groups of cows during the
afternoon because even cows in group AM+PM had more than
105 bpm. Respiration rate values under thermoneutral condi-
tions are from 40 to 55 bpm (Yousef, 1985). Thus, the respiration
rates and rectal temperatures of lactating cows in all groups show
that all cow groups were experiencing heat stress. Increased body
temperature and RR are normal mechanisms by which cows
dissipate heat to maintain thermoregulation in hot ambient
conditions (Yousef, 1985). Only if a cow can maintain a RT below
38.5 °C is it considered to have a normal body temperature
(Igono et al., 1992). In our study, all averages of rectal
temperatures and respiration rates were above 39 °C and
89 bpm, respectively. Thus our results, based upon the physio-
logical variables, suggest that time of cooling as a management
practice for lactating cows in this desert area during summer
should be increased to more than 3 h to substantively reduce
negative impacts of heat stress.
According to NRC (1981) predictions, a reduction of 8% in
dry matter intake can be expected when cows are exposed to
ambient temperatures of 30 to 35 °C as compared with cows
Table 3
Physiological responses (respiratory rates [breaths per minute], rectal temperatures [°C]) and body condition score (BCS units) of Holstein cows under 3 different
cooling strategies during summer.
Cooling group
C AM PM
Respiratory rate AM 97.9 95.8 92.1
Respiratory rate PM 112.1 110.2 109.2
Rectal temperature AM 39.53 39.65 39.32
Rectal temperature PM 39.96 40.05 40.00
BCS 3.48 3.49 3.47
C = control (cooling before milking); AM = control and AM cooling; PM = control and PM cooling; AM + PM = control + AM and PM cooling.
51
under thermoneutral conditions. Moreover, when adequate
supplemental cooling is provided, and/or there is enough time
at a THI below of 78 units for cows to recover partially from
heat stress, intake is not depressed so there is no need for an
increase in dietary ingredient concentrations (Kadzere et al.,
2002).
Although there were no treatment effects on the thyroid
hormones related to heat stress, the high RR and RT values of
cows in both groups show that all cows were suffering heat
stress since increased RR and RT are normal mechanisms by
which cows dissipate heat to maintain thermoregulation in
hot ambient conditions (Yousef, 1985). That cooled cows did
not have RT's below normal body temperature suggested that
the cooling strategy employed was largely ineffective.
Cows in AM+PM treatment had 10% higher milk yield and
11% lower glucose levels versus C cows. In lactating Holstein
cows, long and severe periods of heat stress can cause a reduction
in intake of up to 30%. This decrease in intake, and hence decrease
in available energy, may limit milk or milk component synthesis
and lead to a negative energy balance (Collier et al., 2008).
Glucose is the primary precursor for synthesis of lactose, which
controls milk volume by maintaining the osmolarity of milk and
glucose uptake in the mammary gland and it is considered to be a
rate-limiting factor for milk production under heat stress. Since it,
through increased insulin, is used to regulate body temperature
resulting in less glucose directed to the mammary gland
(Wheelock et al., 2010).
Wolfenson et al. (2000) indicated that, during the hotter
months of the summer, lactating dairy cows exhibited mild to
severe heat stress. However, the level of heat stress is
dependent on heat intensity, milk yield, and whether
appropriate cooling systems are implemented. In the current
study, cows were cooled by sequentally wetting the hair coat
and evaporating the water using forced ventilation. This air
movement over the animal's surface makes evaporation from
the wet coat practically independent of surrounding relative
humidity. The effectiveness of this cooling system was
confirmed since cows started to ruminate after 15 to 20 min
after cooling was initiated, and they walked directly to the
feedbunk immediately after cooling. High-producing cows
are more affected by heat stress than low producing cows
because they have to dissipate great amounts of heat derived
from metabolism of high energy diet used for body
maintenance and milk synthesis. However, provision of
cooling systems in Israel and USA has shown and increased
milk yield of about 0.5 to 3.0 kg/d in cows with different
levels of milk production (Her et al., 1988; Kadzere et al.,
2002); these values are similar to the values obtained in the
Contrasts and P values
AM + PM SEM C versus all AM versus PM C versus AM + PM
89.2 1.29 b 0.01 0.02 b 0.01
106.8 1.33 0.01 0.52 b 0.01
39.17 0.063 b 0.01 b0.01 b 0.01
39.91 0.052 0.54 0.31 0.35
3.49 0.033 0.96 0.52 0.91
52 L. Avendaño-Reyes et al. / Livestock Science 132 (2010) 48–52

Table 4
Serum metabolites (glucose, cholesterol and triglycerides) and thyroid hormones (T3 and T4) of Holstein cows under 3 different cooling strategies during summer.

Cooling group Contrasts and P values

C AM PM AM + PM SEM A versus all AM versus PM C versus AM + PM

Glucose mg/dL 48.4 47.6 43.9 43.1 0.67 b0.01 b 0.01 b 0.01
Cholesterol mg/dL 128 127 124 131 6.4 0.60 0.45 0.49
Triglycerides mg/dL 21.2 22.1 21.6 22.0 0.75 0.44 0.61 0.46
Triiodothyronine (ng/ml) 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 0.25 0.15 0.73 0.10
Thyroxin (ng/ml) 52 51 54 50 4.0 0.82 0.16 0.34

C = control (cooling before milking); AM = control and AM cooling; PM = control and PM cooling; AM + PM = control + AM and PM cooling.

Table 5 References
Productive responses of Holstein cows subjected to 3 different cooling
strategies during summer. Avendaño-Reyes, L., Álvarez-Valenzuela, F.D., Correa-Calderón, A., Saucedo-
Quintero, S., Robinson, P.H., Fadel, J.G., 2006. Effect of cooling Holstein
Cooling group Contrasts and P values
cows during the dry period on postpartum performance under heat
stress conditions. Livest. Sci. 105, 198–206.
C AM PM A M SEM C A M C
Barbano, D.M., Lynch, J.M., Fleming, J.R., 1991. Direct and indirect
+ PM versus versus v e r s u s
determination of true protein content of milk by Kjeldahl analysis:
ALL PM A M
collaborative study. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 74, 281–288.
+ PM Berman, A., 2006. Extending the potential of evaporative cooling for heat-
Milk yield 19.1 19.0 18.6 21.1 0.23 0.88 0.37 0.04 stress relief. J. Dairy Sci. 89, 3817–3825.
(kg/d) Collier, R.J., Collier, J.L., Rhoads, R.P., Baumgard, L.H., 2008. Genes involved in
the bovine heat stress response. J. Dairy Sci. 91, 445–454.
Milk fat 33.4 34.7 35.8 34.6 0.53 0.06 0.45 0.20
Correa-Calderón, A., Avendaño, L., Villanueva, A.R., Armstrong, D.V., Smith, J.F.,
(g/kg)
Denise, S.K., 2002. Efecto de un sistema de enfriamiento en la productividad
Milk protein 27.6 27.5 26.8 27.2 0.74 0.24 0.12 0.30
de vacas lecheras bajo estrés calórico. Agrociencia 36, 531–535.
(g/kg) García, E., 1985. Modificaciones al Sistema de Clasificación Climática de
Milk energy 12.6 12.6 12.5 13.6 0.28 0.12 0.65 0.02 Köppen (para adaptarlo a las condiciones de la República Mexicana).
output Instituto de Geografía. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2a
(Mcal/d) edición. México, D.F.
Hahn, G.L., 1999. Dynamic responses of cattle to thermal heat loads. J. Dairy
C = control (cooling before milking); AM = control and AM cooling; PM =
Sci. 82 (Suppl 2), 10–20.
control and PM cooling; AM + PM = control + AM and PM cooling.
Her, E., Wolfenson, D., Flamenbaum, I., Folman, Y., Kaim, M., Berman, A., 1988.
Thermal, productive, and reproductive responses of high yielding cows
exposed to short-term cooling in summer. J. Dairy Sci. 71, 1085–1092.
present study and confirm the lack of interaction between Igono, M.O., Bjotvedt, G., Sanford-Crane, H.T., 1992. Environmental profile
milk yield and cooling management system. and critical temperature effects on milk production of Holstein cows in
desert climate. Int. J. Biometeorol. 36, 77–87.
International Dairy Federation, 1991. Milk and milk products—fat content.
General Guidance on the Use of Butyrometric Methods. FIL-IDF Stand. 52.
5. Conclusions Int. Dairy Fed., Brussels, Belgium.
Kadzere, C.T., Murphy, M.R., Silanikove, N., Maltz, E., 2002. Heat stress in
Holstein cows cooled at 1100 and 2300 h and before milking lactating dairy cows: a review. Livest. Prod. Sci. 77, 59–91.
Keister, Z.O., Moss, K.D., Zhang, H.M., Teegerstrom, T., Edling, R.A., Collier, R.J.,
were more productive than cows cooled fewer times per day as
Ax, R.L., 2002. Physiological responses in thermal stressed Jersey cows
judged by physiological and production responses, which were subjected to different management strategies. J. Dairy Sci. 85, 3217–3224.
improved by using a cooling system based on water spray and Littell, R.C., Milliken, G.A., Stroup, W.W., Wolfinger, R.D., 1996. SAS System for
fans. This suggests that it was an effective cooling mechanism Mixed Models. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.
Mader, T.L., Davis, M.S., Brown-Brandl, T., 2006. Environmental factors
and it led to increased production of milk and milk energy. influencing heat stress in feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 84, 712–719.
There was also evidence of decreased respiration rate and rectal National Research Council, 1981. Effect of Environment on Nutrient Requirements
temperatures in cows cooled 4 times per day. Moreover, results of Domestic Animals. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.
National Research Council, 2001. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy CattleSe-
of this study highlight the fact that lactating dairy cows need venth ed. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.
more time of cooling to reach normal physiological and Ryan, D.P., Boland, M.P., Kopel, E., Armstrong, D., Munyakazi, L., Godke, R.A.,
production levels. In the hot and dry summer climatic Ingraham, R.H., 1992. Evaluating two different evaporative cooling manage-
ment systems for dairy cows in a hot, dry climate. J. Dairy Sci. 75, 1052–1059.
conditions of the Mexicali valley, implementation of cooling SAS Institute, 2004. SAS/STAT User's Guide: Release 9.12. SAS Institute Inc,
systems in dairy herds can improve milk performance of Cary, NC, USA.
lactating Holstein cows, and lessen the severity of heat stress Silanikove, N., 2000. Effect of heat stress on the welfare of extensively
managed domestic ruminants. Livest. Prod. Sci. 67, 1–18.
during summer months. Tyrrell, H.F., Reid, J.T., 1965. Prediction of the energy values of cow's milk. J.
Dairy Sci. 48, 1215–1223.
Wheelock, J.B., Rhoads, R.P., VanBaale, M.J., Sanders, S.R., Baumgard, L.H.,
Acknowledgments 2010. Effects of heat stress on energetic metabolism in lactating Holstein
cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93, 644–655.
Wildman, E.E., Jones, G.M., Wagner, P.E., Boman, R.L., Troutt, H.F., Lesch, T.N.,
The first author appreciates MVZ Domingo Alberto Méndez 1982. A dairy cow body condition scoring system and its relationship to
Otero for his kind availability in using cows from his dairy herd selected production characteristics. J. Dairy Sci. 65, 495–501.
ESTABLO SANTO DOMINGO, and to DISTRIBUIDORA ELECTRICA Wolfenson, D., Roth, Z., Meidan, R., 2000. Impaired reproduction in heat-stressed
cattle: basic and applied aspects. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 60–61, 535–547.
AVEHER, S.A. DE C.V., for their invaluable support during the Yousef, M.K., 1985. Stress physiology in livestock. In: Yousef, M.K. (Ed.), Basic
equipment acquirement and installation. Principles, Vol. 1. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.