See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/334084837

An ASABE Meeting Presentation Review of methods to mitigate heat stress

among sows

Conference Paper · June 2019

DOI: 10.13031/aim.201900741

CITATIONS READS
6 274

5 authors, including:

Bjarne Bjerg Pia Brandt

University of Copenhagen University of Copenhagen
80 PUBLICATIONS 1,269 CITATIONS 15 PUBLICATIONS 117 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Poul Pedersen Guoqiang Zhang

SKOV Aarhus University
15 PUBLICATIONS 332 CITATIONS 193 PUBLICATIONS 3,073 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Smart Indoor Climate and Air Quality Control View project

Green precision ventilation for future livestock housing (GreenLiv) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bjarne Bjerg on 28 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 An ASABE Meeting Presentation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.13031/aim.201900741
Paper Number: 1900741

Review of methods to mitigate heat stress among sows

Bjarne Bjerg1, Pia Brandt1, Kasper Sørensen2, Poul Pedersen3 and Guoqiang Zhang4
1Univesity of Copenhagen, 2SEGES, 3Skov A/S, 4Aarhus University

2019 ASABE Annual International Meeting

Sponsored by ASABE
Boston, Massachusetts
ABSTRACT. This paper reviews methods to mitigate heat stress among high productive sows. The investigated methods
comprise increased ventilation, increased air velocity, snout cooling, air cooling, floor cooling, radiative cooling, drip
cooling, sprinkling of water onto the sows and increased insulation. The review shows that it is very different how well the
expected effect of the different methods is documented in the scientific literature. For floor cooling, snout cooling and drip
cooling scientific evidence shows that these methods are effective at reducing respiration rate, increasing feed intake,
increasing weight gain among piglets during lactation and reducing rectal temperature. In contrast, no studies are found
that demonstrates how effective increased velocity is at mitigating heat stress among sows. A relatively good existing
knowledge on how air temperature affects different parameters that is associated with heat stress is useful in the assessment
of methods that targets the room temperature. Among these methods, the potentials of increased ventilation are expectably
well utilized in modern pig housing. The potentials associated with air cooling are generally large, however for air
conditioning it involves large energy costs, and for evaporative cooling it requires relatively low air humidity.
Keywords. [Click here to enter keywords and key phrases, separated by commas, with a period at the end] Air conditioning.
Drip cooling, Evaporative cooling, Floor cooling, Heat stress, Snout Cooling, Sows, Tunnel ventilation.

1. Introduction
Successful breeding programs in the intensive pig industry has resulted in increased productivity, including that sows
delivers many more piglets per litter and produces more milk to feed their offspring. As a consequence the sows also produce
more heat, which they have to dissipate to avoid heat stress. The negative consequences of heat stress among sows are e.g.
decreased fertility (Tummaruk et al., 2004), decreased piglet weight gain (Quiniou and Noblet, 1999), decreased milk
production (Black et al 1993), increased weight loss through lactation (Quiniou and Noblet, 1999), and increased death rate
(D’Allaire et al., 1996). Therefore, housing systems for high productive sows must have the capability to cool sows when
the heat load increases. In temperate regions of the World, heat stress may occur during relatively short periods of time with
high outdoor temperatures. However, in many parts of the World it is a crucial issue due to long periods with hot weather.
Increased pig production in hot regions in East Asia and Latin America exacerbates the challenges.
This paper aims to review existing knowledge on methods to manipulate the thermal conditions in the surroundings in
ways that enhance the potentials for dissipation of heat, and in that way mitigate heat stress among high productive sows.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of this meeting presentation. The presentation does not necessarily reflect the official position of the
American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE), and its printing and distribution does not constitute an endorsement of views
which may be expressed. Meeting presentations are not subject to the formal peer review process by ASABE editorial committees; therefore, they are
not to be presented as refereed publications. Publish your paper in our journal after successfully completing the peer review process.
See www.asabe.org/JournalSubmission for details. Citation of this work should state that it is from an ASABE meeting paper. EXAMPLE: Author’s
Last Name, Initials. 2019. Title of presentation. ASABE Paper No. ---. St. Joseph, MI.: ASABE. For information about securing permission to reprint
or reproduce a meeting presentation, please contact ASABE at www.asabe.org/permissions (2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659 USA).1

ASABE 2019 Annual International Meeting Page 1

 2. Methods to mitigate heat stress among sows
Methods to cool sows in hot environments have been investigated for many years, and comprise methods that promote
the sows’ ability to release heat through all four fundamental heat transfer processes: convection, conduction, radiation and
evaporation. Table 1 constitutes an overview of the methods treated in this study.
Table 1. Overview of methods to mitigate heat stress among sows.

Method Opportunities to assess Found scientific studies that Assessment of the potential to mitigate
the effect by physical documents that the method heat stress among sows by the method.
calculations. can mitigate heat stress
among sows
Increased ventilation rate Good None, however the effect of Some, though limited, especially if the
reduced temperature is ventilation rate already is high.
documented by eg.
Quiniou & Noblet
(1999)1,2,3,4,5,7
Eichen et al. (2008)1,4,7
Williams et al (2013)1,4,7
D’Allaire et al. (1996)8
Increased Tunnel ventilation Poor None Large, because practical experience
air velocity indicates that, though the knowledge about
the effects is limited.
Directing inlet air Poor Heard et al. (1986)1 Expected large, though the knowledge
towards the animals about the effects is limited.
Directing Poor None Probably large, though the knowledge
recirculated air about the effects is limited.
towards the animals
Snout cooling (combined effect of air Poor Heard et al. (1986)1,2,3 Large, it is well documented in scientific
cooling and increased air velocity) Raap et al. (1988)1 studies.
Perin et al. (2016)2,3,4,5
McGlone et al. (1988)2
Stansbury et al. (1987)2
Air cooling Air Conditioning Good None Large, from a technical perspective.
Limited from an economical perspective,
due to expected large energy costs.
Evaporative cooling, Relatively good, though Kiefer et al (2011)2,3 Large, especially in relatively dry regions
e.g. pad cooling or it is uncertain how much and when it is combined with methods to
high pressure of the effect that is increase air velocity. The potential can be
automatizing of water. compromised by the limited in regions with high humidity.
increased moist content
in the air.
Floor cooling Relatively poor Wagenberg et al (2006)2,3 Large, it is documented in scientific
Bull et al (1997)1 studies.
Silva et al (2009)1
Oliveira et al (2011)1
Cabezón et al. (2017)1,4,6,7
Maskal et al. (2018)1,4,7
Radiative cooling Relatively poor Pang et al (2011)1 Probably poor due to technical challenges
Drip cooling Poor Murphy et al. (1987)1,2,3,5 Large, it is documented in scientific
Dong et al. (2001)1,4 studies.
McGlone et al. (1988)1
Sprinkling of water on the sows Poor None Probably large, however it is not well
documented.
Increased insulation Relatively good None Small for already well insulated buildings,
large for poorly insulated buildings.
1
Reduced respiration rate. 2Increased feed intake. 3Increased weight gain among piglets during lactation. 4Reduced rectal temperature
5
Reduced weight loss of sows during lactation. 6Reduced vaginal temperature. 7Reduced skin temperature. 8Reduced mortality.

2.1. Increased ventilation

Ventilation can reduce air temperature to a level that approaches the temperature in the inlet air. The reduced air
temperature will directly promote the sows’ potential to release heat through convection and evaporation, and indirectly also
through conduction and radiation. Ventilation is the preferred cooling method as long the temperature in the available inlet
ASABE 2019 Annual International Meeting Page 2
air is sufficiently low. Quiniou and Noblet (1999) investigated the effect of ambient temperature on production and
physiological parameters among lactating sows. Their results are reproduced in Figure 1, and indicate that respiration rate
and skin temperature begins to increase with air temperature already at temperatures below 18 °C. The figure also indicates
that 22 °C could be the threshold determining when increased air temperature begins to cause undesired effects on feed
intake, body weight loss, weight gain for the piglets and rectal temperature.

Figure 1. Performance and physiological responses of lactating sows at increased ambient temperatures (based on data by Quiniou and Noblet
(1999)).

The potential of using an increased ventilation rate is illustrated in Figure 2, where the curve shows how the ventilations
rate affect the outdoor temperature that results in an indoor temperature of 22 °C. Danish facilities for sows are often
designed with a capacity to replace 300 m3 h-1 HPU-1 (Heat Production Unit) which will prevent temperatures above 22 °C
as long as the outdoor temperature is below 16 °C. Under these conditions doubling the air change will make it possible to
maintain the 22 °C at an outdoor temperature of 19 °C. This change will naturally increases the time where an indoor
temperature can be maintained at 22 °C, and based on Danish weather data (Møller and Lund, 1995) the increase will be
from 87 to 94 % of the yearly hours. Figure 2 also indicates a declining additional effect of ventilation rate when the
ventilation rate is further increased.
Changes in the ventilation system may also introduce designs that to a large extend direct the air towards the sows and in
this way creates air movements that promote their ability to release heat (see section 2.2.3).

ASABE 2019 Annual International Meeting Page 3

 Figure 2. Outdoor temperature where an indoor temperature of 22 °C can be maintained at increased ventilation rate. Estimations were based
on a sensible heat production of 592 W HPU-1 (CIGR 2002), and transmission heat loss was ignored.

2.2 Increased air velocity

Increased air velocity increases the chilling of animals as long as the air temperature is below the skin (body) temperature
of the animal. Unfortunately, the literature does not seem to include investigations on how sows kept in hot environments
react to increased air velocities. Based on published studies on physiological reactions of growing pigs exposed to different
combinations of air temperature, air humidity and velocity at hot conditions, Bjerg et al (2018) developed a thermal index –
The Effective Temperature (Equation 1):
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝑇𝑇 + 0.0015(𝑟𝑟ℎ − 50)𝑇𝑇 + (−1.0(42 − 𝑇𝑇)(𝑣𝑣 e − 0.2e )) (1)
where T is air temperature (°C), rh is relative humidity (%), v is the velocity magnitude (m s-1) and e is a constant that
indicates the effect of velocity and based on the included data set to 0.66. The included studies considered pigs of different
weights within the range from 3 to 120 kg. In another study including skin temperature modelling, Bjerg et al. (2017) found
that a value of 0.25 was more suitable for the constant e in Equation 1. Using Equation 1 with the constant e equal to either
0.66 or 0.25 Figure 3 shows the required air velocity to maintain an Effective Temperature of 22 °C, if the relative humidity
is held constant at 50 %.

Figure 3. Required air velocity to maintain an Effective Temperature of 22 °C, when using the constant e equal to either 0.25 or 0.66 in Equation
1.

Practical solutions for obtaining an increased air velocity in sow housing includes methods such as tunnel ventilation,
direct air inlet towards the animals or recirculation of air towards the animals.
2.2.1. Tunnel ventilation
Tunnel ventilation is a method that aims to generate a uniform high longitudinal or transverse air velocity in the entire
room. The method is often used in housing of poultry and finishing pigs, and extensive experience with the system suggests
that it is effective to mitigate the negative consequences of high air temperatures among housed animals. However, the
literature is scarce with regard to documentation of the relationships between air velocity and performance or physiologically
responses of animals housed in tunnel ventilated facilities, which constitutes a challenge when aiming to suggest optimal
design recommendations for the method.

ASABE 2019 Annual International Meeting Page 4

 Tunnel ventilation is suitable in very long enclosures, which are appropriate for broiler and finisher pig production,
whereas, shorter rooms are often better suited for design of sow housing. In addition, tunnel ventilation may not deliver the
full potential of using increased air velocity to chill sows since the air velocity may be reduced among the sows because
they create shelter for each other.
2.2.2. Directing inlet air towards the animals
Improved conditions for heat release can be established by directing the inlet air towards the animals during hot periods.
It can be done by using adjustable wall or ceiling air inlets, or by using channel systems to transport the inlet air sufficiently
close to the animals. Besides the effect of increased velocity, the methods – compared to mixing ventilation systems – may
have the advantage of less mixing of the inlet air with warmer air from the room before it reaches the animals. The methods
are undoubtedly effective to mitigate heat stress among sows at moderate heat loads, however the lack of scientific
documentation on sow responses to the increased velocity makes the dimensioning and control of the potential systems
subject to uncertainty.
2.2.3. Directing recirculated air towards the animals
Increasing air velocity among sows can be created using recirculating fans, as it is known from cattle housing. Also this
method maybe be effective in sow housing at a moderate heat load, however, there are different challenges to design and
control such a system.

2.3 Snout cooling

Snout cooling is a method to provide cooled air locally close to where sows are expected to benefit most from it. Snout
ventilation is a similar method where uncooled air is used instead of cooled air. Heard et al. (1986) investigated the effects
of snout cooling and snout ventilation on lactating sows and their litters during three summer periods where the outdoor
monthly daily maximum temperature ranged from 20.8 to 32.7 °C. The used snout cooling system delivered 60 m3 h-1 of
cooled air (8 to 11 °C below ambient temperature) into each crate, and the snout ventilation system delivered the double
amount of uncooled outside air. Both systems operated whenever temperatures in the farrowing rooms exceeded 24°C. PVC
pipes (0.1 m diameter) were attached to the front of the crates directing air at the sow's snout. The results was that snout
cooling increased sow feed consumption by five percent and, also increased piglet average daily weight gain during lactation
by five percent. Both snout cooling and snout ventilation reduced sow respiration rate, where snout cooling resulted in the
largest reduction. In a subsequent study in a similar environment Raap et al. (1988) did not find significant effects of snout
cooling on feed consumption, sow weight loss or piglet weight gain. However, they found a highly significant reduction of
respiration rate from 94 breaths per minute in the control group to 68 breaths per minute in the group with snout cooling.
Both Stansbury et al. (1987) and McGlone et al. (1988) found that snout cooling (with air movement of 0.9 m s-1)
increased feed intake among lactating sows kept at 30 ºC.
In a preference study with access to snout cooling, drip cooling, floor and no cooling, Bull et al (1997) found no significant
effect of snout cooling as a method to delimit the increase of respiration frequency caused by increase heat load among gilts.
In addition, the gilts used the stalls with snout cooling less frequently than corresponding stalls with floor cooling or drip
cooling. The authors informed that the room temperature during daytime was 34.4°C and that the snout cooling system
delivered 44 m3 h-1 stall-1 h-1 with an air temperature of 27.7 °C. The air velocity was not quantified, however, it was informed
that “air movement could be slightly detected by the human hand”.
In a newer study, Perin et al. (2015) investigated the effects of snout cooling on lactating sows in a farm with 5500 sows
located in a subtropical region in Brazil. The used snout cooling system delivered 250 m3 h-1 evaporative cooled air through
a 0.075 m (diameter) duct ending just above each farrowing crate and directing the air flow towards the neck of the sows.
The average room temperature was approximately 26 °C, but unfortunately, no information about the temperature of the
cooled air was mentioned. The results was that the used snout cooling system reduced rectal temperature of the sows from
40.2 to 39.2 °C, increased sow feed intake from 4.8 to 5.8 kg day-1 sow-1, decreased the weight loss of the sows through
lactation from 5.3 to 2.2 %, and increased litter weight at weaning by 8 percent.

2.4. Air cooling

Air cooling comprises air conditioning and evaporative cooling. The effects of reduced air temperatures on sows are
treated in section 2.1. In addition, air cooling has the side effect that it increases the relative humidity, which to a certain
extent compromises the positive effect of reduced temperature. Estimated by Equation 1 the increased relative humidity
reduced the effect of air cooling by approximately 12 % for air conditioning and approximately 20 % for evaporative cooling.
2.4.1. Air conditioning
Air conditioning of animal houses is - due to expected high energy costs – normally used only for experimental facilities.
Estimations described in Annex 1 of this paper suggest that the requirement of an air conditioning system to reduce air
temperature in pig houses should be that it is able to remove heat corresponding to the magnitude of 1.5 kW per Heat
Production Units (HPU).

ASABE 2019 Annual International Meeting Page 5

2.4.2. Evaporative cooling
Evaporative cooling utilizes the heat of evaporation of water to reduce air temperature. Evaporation of one gram of water
per cubic meter of air reduces the air temperature by approximately 2 °C. The method is widely used and highly effective in
hot, dry regions. The two best-known versions of the method is either air inlet through evaporative cooling pads or high
pressure atomization of water in the air. Nozzles for the latter can be place inside the housing facility, in the inlets or in front
of the inlets. Whichever design is used, the method causes increased air humidity (especially the relative) and is not effective
at high relative air humidity.
The potentials of evaporative cooling are large in hot dry climates, and as an example it can convert 35 ºC warm air with
30 % RH to 25 ºC warm air with 75 % RH. The energy consumption to operate the evaporative cooling systems is generally
low, whereas, challenges exist in relation to optimal design, control and maintenance of the systems, and to the fact that the
systems are ineffective in humid weather.
Kiefer et al (2011) reported that evaporative cooling of the air at farrowing resulted in increased feed intake by the sow
and litter weight gain. The study compared the performance of sows in an evaporative cooled room with sows in a room
without cooling, however, unfortunately, the authors did not inform differences in air temperatures and relative humidities
between the rooms.

2.5. Floor cooling

Floor cooling can increase the potential for the sows to release heat through conduction and may also lead to a little lower
air temperature and, consequently, a small increase of convective heat release. Wagenberg et al. (2006) investigated the
effect of cooling a plastic coated metal floor beneath restrained farrowing sows. The floor was cooled by a pipe system with
circulated water (3.3 L/min per pen) where the inlet temperature was 17°C. The experiment was conducted at moderate
Dutch weather conditions. Results were that cooled sows had a 14 % larger feed intake and their piglets grew 9 % faster. In
addition, the authors informed that the floor cooling caused an average heat removal (directly from the sow) of 49 W per
pen. Bull et al (1997) found that floor cooling significantly delimited the increase of respiration rate among gilts exposed to
34.4 °C during daytime. In addition, the animals chose the floor cooling option significantly more than snout cooling and
drip cooling. The investigated floor cooling stalls were equipped with expanded metal flooring cooled by an iron pipe
system beneath, and connected to a tap water system. The temperature of the water inlet was 19.5 °C and water flow was 4
L min-1 stall-1. Silva et al. (2009) and Oliveira et al. (2011) found that floor cooling reduced respiration rate in lactating sows
when they were exposed to air temperatures in the ranges of 21.5-29.5 and 21.0-25.7 °C, respectively.
Under Danish summer conditions (room temperature of 23 °C) floor heating at farrowing followed by floor cooling
resulted in more control sows lying in the solid floor area than sows in pens with floor cooling. The reason could be that
floor surface temperatures were too low to meet the comfort zone of the sows (Brandt, (2010).
Both Cabezón et al. (2017) and Maskal et al. (2018) investigated the effect of floor cooling on sows under acute heat
stress and used a similar aluminum floor cooling pad (1.23 x 0.61 m) beneath each sow. The study by Cabezón et al. (2017)
included 10 late lactation sows. Before the trial the sows where kept with the floor cooling turned off and an air temperature
of 29 °C. Acute heat stress was imposed by increasing the air temperature to 35 ºC. After that the temperature was maintained
for one hour before the floor cooling was turned on. The water inlet temperature in the cooling pad was approximately 22 °C,
and the flow rate was varied at four levels (0, 0.27, 0.56 and 0.84 l h-1 sow-1). During the first hour with the increased air
temperature, the respiration rate increased from approximately 85 to approximately 105 breathes per minute. Continued
exposure to the high temperature without floor cooling in 80-100 minutes caused an additional increase in respiration rate
of approximately 15 breathes per minute. All three levels of floor cooling reduced respiration rates compared with the level
before the trails, and the respiration rate was consistently, negatively related to the level of floor cooling. Similar, however
less consistent, relationships where found for vaginal temperature, rectal temperature and skin temperature (see Figure 4).

ASABE 2019 Annual International Meeting Page 6

 Figure 4. Effect of water flow in a cooling pad on respiration rate, vaginal temperature, rectal temperature and skin temperature for lactating
sows (data from Cabezón et al. (2017)).

Using the same type of floor cooling pad as Cabezón et al. (2017), Maskal et al. (2018) studied the effectiveness of floor
cooling during lactation for sows kept in mild and moderate heat stress conditions. The targeted temperature in the room
with mild heat stress conditions was 22 °C during nights and 27 °C during days, and both of these temperatures were 5 °C
higher in the room with moderate heat stress conditions. The water inlet temperature in the cooling pads was 16-20 ºC.
Measurements where conducted before the temperature was raised in the morning, and before it was lowered in the
afternoon. Measured respiration rate, skin temperature and rectal temperature appear from Figure 5.

Figure 5. Effect of water flow in a cooling pad on respiration rate, skin temperature and rectal temperature for lactating sows (data from
Maskal et al. (2018)).

2.6. Radiative cooling

Radiative cooling comprises that the animals are placed in an environment where some of the surrounding surfaces are
cooled to a temperature below the air temperature, and therefore promote the animals’ potential to release radiative heat
from the part of their body pointing towards these surfaces. Pang et al (2011) investigated the efficiency of a water-cooled
cover attached to sow stalls with regard to the thermal environment and physiological response of the sows. The results
showed that the method reduced the black globe temperature in the stalls by 4.8 °C when the indoor air temperature was
34.3 °C. In addition, access to the cooled stalls reduced respiratory rate and surface temperature of the sows. The temperature
of the cooling water inlet was not mentioned in the article; however, it was informed that the cooling water was provided
directly from a well and “that increase in water flow rate beyond 4 l min-1 brought about little additional benefit”. Because
they state the effect on thermal conditions as black globe temperatures, it is not clear how much of the heat that is released
by radiation and how much that is released by convection, when cooled stalls causes the reduced air temperature.

ASABE 2019 Annual International Meeting Page 7

2.7. Drip cooling
The intention of drip cooling is to add moisture directly to the skin surface of the sows or on floor surfaces in the pen.
On the skin, it increases the sows’ potential to release heat through evaporation, and on the floor it might evaporate. This
evaporation will reduce air and floor temperature and enhance the sows´ potential to release heat through convection,
conduction and radiation. Bull et al (1997) found no significant effect of drip cooling as a method to delimit the increase of
respiration frequency caused by increased heat load among gilts. The drip cooling system “were constructed of 3-mm tubing
and installed so that each dripper ran continuously at a rate of 3.5 L h-1.” “The tubing was suspended above the stall, 46
cm back from the front of the free stall”.
During the last 19 days of lactation Murphy et al. (1987) investigated the effect of drip cooling on the performance of
sows kept at average air temperatures of 30.5 °C and average relative humidities of 68 %. The sows were wetted with a drip
irrigation system where a dripper were centered above each sow to wet the neck with a water rate of 4 L h-1 per sow. The
ventilation rate was approximately 85 m3 h-1 per farrowing pen and was distributed by a central duct system. The drip
cooling system caused a reduction in respiration rate from 64 to 29 breaths per minute, a 10 % increase in litter weight at
weaning, a 70 % decrease in sow weight loss, and a 20 % increase in daily feed intake.
In a newer study Dong et al. (2001) investigated drip cooling as a method to mitigate heat stress among farrowing sows
housed in a facility where three different ventilation configurations were available. The ventilation configurations were; (1)
tunnel ventilation, (2) tunnel ventilation with head–zone ventilation, and (3) horizontal ventilation. The drip nozzle in each
crate “were installed at 1.2 m above the crate floor and 0.3 m behind the head gate of the stall so that the water droplets fell
onto the shoulder area of the sow without wetting the feed. The output rate of the nozzle was approximately 2 L h-1”. The
experiments were conducted on days with average indoor temperatures around 32 °C and a relative humidity of around
80 %. Drip cooling significantly reduced body temperature (0.4–0.8 °C) and respiration rate (33-35 breaths min-1) when
ventilation configuration 1 or 2 was used. If ventilation configuration 3 was used then drip cooling did not affect body
temperature and a numerical reduction in respiration rate of 15 breaths min-1 was found. These differences is presumably
related to the fact that both body temperature and respiration rate was lower when using ventilation configuration 3 compared
to using ventilation configuration 1 or 2 if no drip cooling was used. Unfortunately, the authors did not mention details about
how the ventilation configurations functioned.
McGlone et al. (1988) found that drip cooling (water drip for 3 min each 10 min) reduced respiration rate among lactating
sows kept at 30 ºC.

2.8. Sprinkling of water onto the sows

Sprinkling of water onto the sows increases their potential to release heat through evaporation from the skin, and if some
water ends up on the floor it might evaporate, and thereby cool the floor and the air. Sprinkling with water is the dominant
method to meet the requirement of providing additional cooling for pigs above 20 kg stated in the Danish animal welfare
legislation (Anonymous, 2017). The method has the same potential effects on the heat release processes as drip cooling,
however, the effect on sows is less well documented than for drip cooling.

2.9. Increased insulation

Increased insulation reduces the temperature on the inner side of building constructions, of which the outer side catches
direct sun radiation. This will promote the animals´ option for radiative heat release. The effect of increased insulation may
be significant for poorly insulated constructions, however, for already well-insulated constructions, the effect will be
insignificant.

3. Discussion
The review showed large differences in how well the effect of different methods for cooling of sows is documented in
scientific studies. Especially, it is remarkable that no available documentation exists on how increased air velocity affects
sows kept at warm conditions, whether it is in the tunnel ventilation system or in other systems which can increase air
velocity around the sows. In contrast, the probably less frequent used systems such as floor cooling, snout cooling and drip
cooling has been investigated in several studies, indicating that methods are effective to reduce respiration rate, increase
feed intake, increase weight gain among piglets during lactation and reduce rectal temperature.
Other methods such as increased ventilation, air cooling and increased insulation can, to some extent, be evaluated by
relating estimations of their potentials to reduce the air temperature, by the relatively good documentation on how sows are
affected by increased temperature. Among these methods, the potentials of increased ventilation or increased insulation are
expectably already nearly fully utilized in modern pig housing. The potentials associated with air cooling are generally large,
however for air conditioning it involves large energy costs, and for evaporative cooling it requires relatively low air humidity.

ASABE 2019 Annual International Meeting Page 8

 References
Anonymous. 2017. Announcement of the law on indoor keeping of gilts, dry sows and gestation sows (in
Danish) https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/r0710.aspx?id=186206. Assessed April 12 2019.
Bjerg, B., Rong, L., Zhang, G (2018). Computational prediction of the effective temperature in the lying area of pig pens. Computers and
Electronics in Agriculture 149, 71–79.
Bjerg, B., Pedersen, P., Morsing, S., Zhang, G (2017). Modeling skin temperature to assess the effect of air velocity to mitigate heat stress
among growing pigs. ASABE Annual International Meeting 1700631.(doi:10.13031/aim.201700631).
Black, J.L., Mullan, B.P., Lorschy, M.L., Giles L.R. (1993). Lactation in the sow during heat stress. Livestock Production Science, 35 153-
170.
Bull, R. P., Harrison, P. C., Riskowski, G. L., Gonyou, H. W. (1997). Preference among cooling systems by gilts under heat stress. Journal of
Animal Science, 75(8), 2078-2083.
Brandt, P. (2010). The impact of floor surface temperature on piglet survival and use of the creep area. Master Thesis. University of
Copenhagen.
Cabezón, F. A., Schinckel , A. P., Marchant-Forde, J.N., Johnson, J. S., Stwalley, R. M. (2017) Effect of floor cooling on late lactation
sows under acute heat stress. Livest Sci. 206:113–20.
CIGR, (2002). Forth Report of Working Group on Climatization of Animal Houses. CIGR. Research Centre Bygholm, Horsens, Denmark.
ISBN 87-88976-60-2. http://cigr.org/documents/CIGR_4TH_WORK_GR.pdf. Accessed April 5 2019.
D’Allaire, S., R. Drolet, D. Brodeur. (1996). Sow mortality associated with high ambient temperatures. Can. Vet. J. 37:237–239.
Dong, H. M., Tao, X. P., Li, Y., Liu, J. T., Xin, H. W. (2001). Comparative evaluation of cooling systems for farrowing sows. Applied
Engineering in Agriculture, 17(1): 91–96.
Eichen, P. A., Lucy, M. C., Safranski, T. J., Coate, E. A., Williams, A. M., Spiers D. E. (2008). Heat Stress Effects on Sow Reproductive
Performance Using Simulated Forced Air and Evaporative Cooling Systems Proceedings of the Livestock Environment VIII Conference
(Iguassu Falls, Brazil) ASABE Publication Number 701P0408.
Heard, L. R., Froehlich, D. P., Christiansen, L. L., Woerman, R. Witmer, W. (1986). Snout Cooling Effects on Sows and Litters.
Transactions of the ASABE. 29 (4): 1097-1101.
Kiefer, C., Martins, L.P., Fantini, C.C (2012) Evaporative cooling for lactating sows under high ambient temperature. R. Bras. Zootec.,
v.41, n.5, p.1180-1185.
Maskal, J., Cabezón, F.A., Schinckel, A.P., Marchant-Forde, J.N., Johnson, J.S., Stwalley, R.M. (2018). Evaluation of floor cooling on
lactating sows under mild and moderate heat stress, The Professional Animal Scientist, Volume 34, Issue 1, 2018.
McGlone, J. J., W. F. Stansbury, and L. F. Tribble. 1988. Management of lactating sows during heat stress: Effects of water drip, snout
coolers, floor type and a high energy-density diet. J. Anim. Sci. 66:885-891.
Murphy, J. P., Nichols, D. A., Robbins, F. V. (1987). Drip cooling of lactating sows. Appl. Engin. Agri.3(2):200-202.
Møller, J.M., Lund, H., (1995). Design reference Year, DRY. Meddelelse nr 281. Laboratoriet for varmeisolering. Danmarks Tekniske
Universitet (in Danish).
de Oliveira Junior, G. M., Ferreira, A. S., Oliveira, R. F. M., Silva, B. A. N., de Figueiredo, E. M., and Santos, M. (2011). Behaviour and
performance of lactating sows housed in different types of farrowing rooms during summer. Livestock Science, 141(2), 194-201.
Pang, Z., Li, B., Xin, H., Xi, L., Cao, W., Wanga, C., LI, W. (2011). Field evaluation of a water-cooled cover for cooling sows in hot and
humid climates. Biosystems Engineering 110 (2011) 413-420.
Perin, J., Gaggini, T.S., Manica, S., Magnabosco, D., Bernardi, M.L., Wentz, I., Bortolozzo, F.P., 2016. Evaporative snout cooling system on
the performance of lactating sows and their litters in a subtropical region. Ciência Rural, St. Maria v.46 (n.2), 342–347.
Raap, D. L., Froehlich, D. P., Julson, J. L., Woerman, R. (1988). Zone and Drip Cooling Comparisons for Lactating Swine, Transactions of
the ASABE. 31 (6): 1774-1781.
Quiniou, N., Noblet, J. (1999). Influence of high ambient temperature on performance of multiparous lactating sows. Journal of Animal
Science, 77(8), 2124-2134.
Silva, B. A. N., Oliveira, R. F. M., Donzele, J. L., Fernandes, H. C., Abreu, M. L. T., Noblet, J., Nunnes, C.G.V. (2006). Effect of floor
cooling on performance of lactating sows during summer. Livestock Science, 105, 176-184.
Silva, B.A.N., Oliveira, R.F.M., Donzele, J.L., Fernandes. H.C., Lima, A.L.,Renaudeau, D., Noblet, J. (2009). Effect of floor cooling and
dietary amino acids content on performace and behaviour of lactating primiparous sows during summer. Livest. Sci. 120, 25–34.
Tummaruk, P., Tantasuparuk, W., Techakumphu, M., Kunavongkrit, A. (2004). Effect of season and outdoor climate on litter size at birth in
purebred landrace and yorkshire sows in Thailand. J Vet Med Sci. 2004 66(5):477-82.
Van Wagenberg, A. V. Van der Peet-Schweing, C. M. C., Binnendijk, G. P., Claessen, P. J. P. W. (2006). Effect of floor cooling on
farrowing sow and litter performance: field experiment under Dutch conditions. Transactions of ASABE, 49(5), 1521–1527
Williams, A. M., Safranski, T. J., Spiers, D. E., Eichen, P. A., Coate, E. A. Lucy, M. C. (2013) Effects of a controlled heat stress during late
gestation, lactation, and after weaning on thermoregulation, metabolism, and reproduction of primiparous sows. J Anim Sci. 2013
Jun;91(6).

ASABE 2019 Annual International Meeting Page 9

 ANNEX 1.
Estimation of cooling requirement for air conditioning of pig houses.

Preconditions for estimations.

• Room temperature (t in ) of 25 °C.
• Room humidity of 65 %.
• Outdoor temperature (t out ) between 25 and 40 °C.
• Outdoor humidity of (70 - t out ) %.
• Ventilation air change is 100 m3 HPU-1 h-1.
• Equations in CIGR, 2002 are used for estimation of sensible and latent heat production.
• Transmission heat gain from outside to the building constitutes 10 W HPU-1 (t out – t in )-1.

The air conditioning system will have to remove the following contributions;
• The sensible heat productions from the animals.
• The cooling of air from outdoor temperature to the room temperature.
• The condensation heat releases by the removal of humidity to meet the specified room humidity (high absolute water
content in warm outdoor air makes it impossible to remove humidity by increased air change only).
• The transmission heat transfer from outside to inside, through the building constructions.

The resulting heat removal requirement per HPU (Heat Production Unit) as function of outdoor temperature is indicated
in the below graph:

ASABE 2019 Annual International Meeting Page 10

View publication stats