Affiliation:
1. Slovak Environmental Agency , Banská Bystrica , Slovakia
2. Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Faculty of Engineering , Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Transport and Bioenergetics , Nitra , Slovakia
Abstract
Abstract
The aim of the work was to test the level of daylight conditions and the heat load of animals in the summer season in two identically oriented dairy barns with different construction and material solutions. Measurements were carried out in the same farm and at the same time. A classic massive building – reconstructed barn (RB) for 158 dairy cows with a volume of 34.3 m3 per animal supplemented in summer by motor ventilation (522.15 m3 per animal, total 82,500 m3·h−1) had an indoor daylight factor DF below the limit DFavg, int
= 0.21% (against the recommended DF = 1% for housing dairy cows). In the external feeding alley, which was screened by a shelter and an adjacent building, lighting conditions were compliant with DFavg, ext
= 4.02%. However, the level of heat load as measured by indices was above the limit (THIavg, int
= 84.65) despite the motor ventilation used; in the outdoor feeder THIavg, ext
= 81.63, against the recommended stress-free level THI = 72. Similarly, according to the ETIC assessment, the results were deficient ETICavg, int
= 26.16 and in the outdoor feed ETICavg, ext
= 25.24 against the recommended level of ETIC = 20. The second building, a new barn (NB) for 444 dairy cows was a new large-cubicle indoor structure with 82.53 m3 per animal, with a translucent roof (37.87% of the total 4,927.6 m2 was of translucent polycarbonate triple-pipe roofing). This amount of translucent elements together with large window openings of a total area of 879.6 m2 was also reflected in the values of the daylight factor DFavg, int
= 7.59%. The level of heat load was not significantly lower compared to a massive RB with motor ventilation over a double row of bunks (fans with a total capacity of 82,500 m3·h−1). In NB, no animal cooling features were activated, but technically and spatially they were easily solvable (whether economical ventilation systems with laminar flow, precisely controlled sprinkling of animals, or another combination of evaporative and flow solutions). These efficient types of cooling would be almost impossible to deploy in RB or only with a special renovation of the building, which would be comprehensively costly.
Reference50 articles.
1. ACT no. 355/2007 of the National Council of the Slovak Republic of 21 June 2027 on the protection, promotion and development of public health and on the amendment of certain laws.
2. ALLEN, J. D. – HALL, L. W. – COLLIER, R. J. –SMITH, J. F. 2015. Effect of core body temperature, time of day, and climate conditions on behavioural patterns of lactating dairy cows experiencing mild to moderate heat stress. In Journal of Dairy Science, vol. 98, no. 1, pp.118–127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-7704
3. ANGRECKA, S. – HERBUT, P. – NAWALANY, G. – SOKOŁOWSKI, P. 2017. The impact of localization and barn type on insolation of sidewall stalls during summer. In Journal of Ecological Engineering, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 60–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12911/22998993/74398
4. ANDRADE, R. R. – TINÔCO, I. F. F. – DAMASCENO, F. A. – BARBARI, M. – VALENTE, D. A. – VILELA, M. O. – SOUZA, C. F. – CONTI, L. – ROSSI, G. 2020. Lighting and noise levels in compost dairy barns with natural and forced ventilation. In Agronomy Research, vol. 18, no. S1, pp. 689–698. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15159/AR.20.104
5. ARMSTRONG, D. V. 1994. Heat stress interaction with shade and cooling. In Journal of Dairy Science, vol. 77, no. 7, pp. 2044–2050. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(94)77149-6