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

net/publication/320183228

Influence of temperature-humidity index on comfort indices in dairy cows

Article  in  Sylwan · June 2017

CITATIONS READS

2 805

5 authors, including:

Dimo Dimov Ivaylo Marinov

Trakia University Trakia University
15 PUBLICATIONS   15 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   13 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Toncho Penev Z. Gergovska

Trakia University Trakia University
49 PUBLICATIONS   60 CITATIONS    14 PUBLICATIONS   47 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Effect of lighting on the growth, development, behaviour, production and reproduction traits in dairy cows View project

ниво на шум View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Toncho Penev on 03 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Influence of temperature-humidity index on comfort indices in
dairy cows
D. Dimov1*, I. Marinov2, T. Penev1, Ch. Miteva1, Zh. Gergovska2
1
Department of Applied Ecology and Animal Hygiene, Faculty of Agriculture, Trakia University,
6000 Stara Zagora, Bulgaria.
2
Department of Animal Science – Ruminants and Dairy Farming, Faculty of Agriculture, Trakia
University, 6000 Stara Zagora, Bulgaria.

Summary
The study is conducted in three dairy cattle farms located in southern Bulgaria, in climatic
zone with transitional continental climate. In all farms cows are reared in freestall barns. The
influence of temperature humidity index (THI) and the indices of comfort - Cow Comfort Index
(CCI), Stall Usage Index (SUI) and Stall Standing Index (SSI) is studied. In the regions of the
three farms in the summer season values of THI - a daily average of over 75 are reported, which
create conditions for the occurrence of heat stress in dairy cows. The regressions between THI
and CCI and SUI are negative and statistically significant. Increasing the values of THI with 1
over 68 reduces the value of SUI with 1.41% and with 0.84% of CCI. When increasing the values
of THI over 68 the number of lying cows is reduced, but the number of ones standing in the stalls
does not increased significantly. Cows prefer to stay in other areas of the building where they
conceivably feel better in a cooler place.

Keywords: dairy cattle, heat stress, cow welfare, comfort indices, temperate climate zone,
freestall barn

Introduction
Climate change, defined as long-term imbalance of normal weather conditions, such as
temperature, wind and rainfall typical of a given region is likely to be one of the major challenges
confronting humanity in our century (Bertocchi èt al., 2014). In the course of climate change, it is
assumed that in regions traditionally characterized by less extreme weather, cows also will face
temperatures outside their "comfort zone" (Brügemann et al. 2012). The growing interest in
thermal comfort of farm animals is justified, not only for the countries located in tropical areas,
but also for those in the temperate zone, where high ambient temperatures are becoming a
problem (Segnalini et al., 2013; Nardone et al., 2010). Except the climate change the problem
with the thermal comfort in dairy cows is exacerbated due to their increased sensitivity to heat

[SYLWAN., 161(6)]. ISI Indexed 68

 stress as a result of increased milk yield, which reduces the temperature threshold on which cows
react with reduction of milk yield (Berman, 2005). This is due to the fact that the released
metabolic heat increases with an increase in productivity of the animals.
Heat stress directly and indirectly affects feed intake, body temperature of cows,
metabolic processes, feed efficiency, milk yield, reproductive performance, cow behavior and the
risk of diseases (Kadzere et al., 2002; West, 2003 ; Jordan, 2003; Cook et al., 2007; Rhoads et al.,
2009; Bernabucci et al., 2010).
The majority of studies on heat stress in livestock are based on temperature and relative
humidity (Igono and Johnson, 1990; Bouraoui et al., 2002; St-Pierre et al., 2003; West, 2003;
Correa-Calderon et al., 2004), because the data on the amount of thermal radiation produced by
animals, wind speed and rainfall are not publicly available. On the other hand, the data of
temperature and humidity can be obtained by ordinary meteorological stations located in the
vicinity of the object. Temperature humidity index (THI) is a value representing the combined
effect of air temperature and relative humidity, associated with the level of heat stress
(Bohmanova et al., 2007).
According to Allen et al. (2013) only recently, scientists are trying to understand the
correlation between one of the most studied indicators in heat stress (elevated body temperature),
and one of least studied (change in the behavior of cows) and the eventual impact of this
correlation on the lower limit of productivity. The behavior of the cows is considered as a good
indicator of their welfare and stress level (Overton et al., 2002; Cook et al., 2005). Indices based
on the time spent by cows in various activities (e.g., lying, standing, eating, drinking) were used
to be assessed the animal welfare and comfort from several authors (Cook et al. 2005; Overton et
al. 2003). Allen et al. (2013) show that heat stress affects several aspects of milk production,
including the behavior of cattle. In heat stress time of standing of the animal is increased, or the
resting time is decreased.
Geers et al. (2014) show that most of the published studies in this aspect are associated
with extreme climatic conditions. It is interesting to know how the climatic conditions affect
dairy cows when they are reared in regions with temperate climate.
The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of temperature humidity index on the
behavior of dairy cows assessed by indices of comfort.

Material and methods

The study is conducted in three dairy cattle farms located in three different districts in
Southern Bulgaria - Stara Zagora, Haskovo and Plovdiv. All three farms are in one climatic zone
- with transitional continental climate. This climatic zone covers the entire Upper Thracian
lowland, low-Balkan hollows, the northern part of Tundzha hilly and low mountainous area and
Eastern Stara Planina.

[SYLWAN., 161(6)]. ISI Indexed 69

 In all farms Holstein Frisian cows are reared. The average milk yield per cow in the farms
ranges from 8000 to 9000 kg milk for 305 day lactation. In all the three farms cows are reared in
semi-open freestall barns. Cows are fed with a total mixed ration ad libitum.
The study included only technological groups of lactating cows up to the 150th day of
lactation - a total of 8 groups and 450 cows. The number of cows in these technological groups
ranges from 50 to 80, following the requirements corresponding to the number of cows,
individual freestalls and feeding front. The monitoring is conducted as the farms are visited twice
monthly for the period from July 2014 to July 2015. At each visit all indicators five times per day
are measured, respectively, in 10.00, 12.00, 14.00, 16.00 and 18.00 h. The requirement of
recording the data for indices of comfort to be about two hours after milking and about 1 hour
before feeding is complied.
In all visits the temperature and relative humidity of the air outside the buildings and in
the area of freestalls in the three farms in the pointed hours are measured, using a combined
device for measuring of temperature and relative humidity - Lutron MCH-383SDB.
For calculation of temperature humidity index the formula proposed by Kibler, (1964) (by
Bouraoui et al. 2002, Gantner et al. 2010) is used:
THI=1.8 x Та - (1-RH) x (Та – 14.3) + 32
Where: Ta is the temperature in ° C, and RH is the relative humidity in parts of the unit.
To obtain a better approximation in the analysis of variance, the values of temperature
humidity index are distributed in the following classes: <50; of ≥50 to ≤58; of ≥58 to ≤68; of ≥68
to ≤72; of 72 to ≥74 and> 74.
For calculating the comfort index the following indicators are reported: number of cows
lying in stalls; number of cows standing with the four or just two feet in stalls; number of cows
feeding at the manger; total number of cows in the group.

On the basis of the reported indicators the respective comfort indices (Grant, R. 2009) are
calculated, as follows:

Cow Comfort Index (CCI)

cows lying in stalls
CCI=………………………………………… x 100
cows either lying or standing in stalls

Stall Usage Index (SUI)

[SYLWAN., 161(6)]. ISI Indexed 70

 cows lying in stalls
(SUI)=………………………………………… x 100
cows which do not feed

Stall Standing Index (SSI)

cows standing up or with front legs in stalls
(SSI)=………………………………………………. x 100
all cows in the group

For primary statistical data processing Exsel MS package is used, and for obtaining the
mean values, the errors and analysis of variance, the relevant modules of STATISTICA of
StatSoft (Copyright 1990-1995 Microsoft Corp.) is used.
For assessment of the influence of factors on the values of temperature humidity index the
following model is used:

Yijkl = μ + Fi + Sj + Нk + eijkl
Where:
Yijkl is the dependent variable (THI); μ is the mean effect; Fi is the effect of the farm, Sj
is the effect of the season of reporting, Hk is the effect of time of reporting during the day and
eijkl is the random residual effect.
For assessment of the influence of factors on values of the comfort indices the following
model is used:
Yijk = μ + Fi + ТНIj + eijk
Where:
Yijk is the dependent variable (the CCI, SUI and SSI); μ is the mean effect; Fi is the
effect of farm, TNIj the effect of THI and eijkl is the random residual effect.
By analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the model are obtained by classes of fixed factors
the least squares of mean (LSM).

Results and Discussion

[SYLWAN., 161(6)]. ISI Indexed 71

 The differences in average temperatures for the different seasons by location of the farms
are within the range of 2-3 ° C, Table 1. With the greatest deviation is the average daily
temperature for autumn in the region of Farm 3 – 21.77 ° C, while for the other two farms it is
17.74 ° C and 17.68 ° C respectively. However, these differences are not statistically significant
because of the greater variation. The same trend for the winter season is reported - in the region
of Farm 3 average daily temperature is the highest 9,66 ° C versus 8,77 ° C and 6,71 ° C for the
regions of the other two farms, as the difference between the temperature in the regions of Farm 1
and Farm 3 is statistically significant.

Table 1. Mean daily values and standard deviation for temperature, relative humidity and
temperature humidity index for the regions of farms by the season of reporting
Farm Observ Temperature (°С) Relative humidity (%) THI
ations x ± SE SD x ± SE SD x ± SE SD
Summer
Farm 1 25 29,59±0,67 3,35 45,13±2,21a 11,03 76,56±0,60 3,01
Farm 2 25 27,81±0,89 7,89 52,53±2,41a 12,04 75,27±0,96 4,79
Farm 3 25 28,77±0,53 2,63 50,90±1,85 9,27 75,52±0,57 2,85
Autumn
Farm 1 20 17,74±1,69 7,59 59,13±3,46 15,47 61,55±2,18 9,73
Farm 2 20 17,68±1,76 7,89 60,31±3,39 15,14 61,44±2,32 10,37
Farm 3 15 21,37±1,97 7,63 59,83±5,74 22,24 66,08±2,58 9,99
Winter
Farm 1 15 6,71±0,99a 3,86 46,93±2,80a 10,83 47,95±1,38 5,34
Farm 2 15 8,77±0,71 2,75 53,90±4,49 17,40 50,40±0,95 3,66
Farm 3 15 9,66±0,91a 3,52 57,04±3,41a 13,21 51,40±1,29 4,99
Spring
Farm 1 10 23,91±1,27 4,01 38,19±2,23a 7,04 69,22±1,63 5,17
Farm 2 10 24,89±0,70 2,22 40,62±2,28 7,20 70,44±0,76 2,39
Farm 3 10 24,58±1,06 3,35 45,22±1,81a 5,72 70,46±1,18 3,74
Between the farms marked with the same letter by seasons а statistically significant difference - P
<0.05 is observed
At the indicator relative humidity a significant and logical differences were reported,
particularly between the regions of farms 1 and 3. The farm with the lowest air humidity for
almost all seasons is Farm 1, as the only exception is the season autumn (Table 2). The air
humidity in the area of the Farm 1 is lower in comparison with the other two farms for all seasons
except the autumn.
Highest values for temperature humidity comfort over 72 are reported in all three farms
for the summer season. At the borderline and values of the THI for season spring are reported -

[SYLWAN., 161(6)]. ISI Indexed 72

 from 69.22 to 70.46 for the three farms. With the lowest values of THI is Farm 1, except for the
summer season, for which the highest values are reported. The area of farm 1 is characterized by
a higher temperature in summer, lower during the winter and with lower air humidity in
comparison with the regions of the other two farms. As a consequence, in the area of this farm the
highest daily average of THI (76.56) in summer and lowest in other seasons is reported.
From the presented daily mean values of THI for the regions of the farms can be
summarized, that during the summer season values determining conditions for heat stress in dairy
cows - an daily mean over 75 are reported. There is a risk of such conditions also in the spring - a
daily mean over 69.
Temperature humidity index is usually distributed in classes, which indicate the level of
heat stress. However, the definitions of these levels vary in different indices and authors. For
example, Armstrong (1994) classified index below 71 as comfort zone, values from 72 to 79 as
mild stress, from 80 to 89 as moderate stress, and above 90 as severe stress. Huhnke et al. (2001),
divided THI into 2 categories: 79 ≤ THI ≤ 83 - a dangerous situation and THI ≥ 84 - an
emergency. Segnalini et al. (2013) offer an even lower threshold for assessing the effect of THI
on dairy cows, respectively 68 ≤ THI <72 (mild discomfort).
From these classifications is obvious that during the summer in the regions of the
surveyed three farms daytime values of THI that fall outside the comfort zone of dairy cows are
reported. They are defined by various authors as mild stress and uncomfortable conditions till
alert for a risk of heat stress. According to recent studies (Segnalini et al. 2013) similar conditions
- for mild heat discomfort are reported and in the spring - THI over 69.
The studies on heat stress in dairy cows conducted in Europe are a limited number,
although these studies indicate the presence of such conditions in many countries. For example,
in Slovakia in 2003, Broucek et al. (2007) found 80 days with mean values of THI over 72,
defined as upper threshold. Reiczigel et al. (2009) found that in Hungary over the past 30 years
the number of days per year with heat stress (THI> 68) has increased from 5 to 17 days. Gantner
et al. (2010) found conditions suggesting heat stress, with a daily means of THI> 72 during
spring and summer in different regions of Croatia. The highest rate exceeded THI is observed in
the Mediterranean region (15 days in the spring and 38 days in summer). The lack of conditions
for heat stress during autumn and winter refers to all these studies. Silanikove, (2000) points, that
farm animals reared in the central and western part of Spain or in the southern regions of France,
Italy and Greece are exposed annually for 3-5 months at high ambient temperatures, and
considerable heat stress.
Bertocchi et al. (2014) reported that weather conditions in the summer are critical for the
heat stress in dairy cows in Italy, but not in the spring. Bouraoui et al. (2002) also reported a lack
of conditions for heat stress in the spring in terms of a Mediterranean climate. Daily average
values of THI are 68 ± 3.75, as 8% of all test days for the 10-year period were with THI values
above the critical 72. In summer, over 96% of the test days were with a daily means of THI over
72, which means that the cows were exposed to heat stress. The authors found lower values of

[SYLWAN., 161(6)]. ISI Indexed 73

 THI of 69 as a lower threshold for heat stress and negative impact on the productivity of dairy
cows, compared to the recommended values above 72 of Du Prezz et al. (1990) and Johnson,
(1985).
Brouček et al. (2006) reported in Slovakia high temperatures in May and September apart
from those in the summer. This is the reason why the authors consider not only the usual months
from June to August as summer period, but also the months of May and September.
Temperature and relative humidity are reported also in the buildings of the lactating cows
in the area of the freestalls, table. 2
.

Table 2. Average daily temperatures, relative humidity and temperature humidity index in the
area above the freestalls in the farms by seasons

Farm Obser Temperature (°С) Relative humidity (%) THI

vatio x ± SE SD x ± SE SD x ± SE SD
ns
Summer
аб
Farm 1 250 27,35±0,21 2,55 49,51±0,79аб 9,69 74,48±0,55 2,76
Farm 2 250 26,64±0,23ас 3,69 55,66±0,66ас 10,38 74,17±0,84 4,21
Farm 3 250 25,81±0,16бс 2,59 59,27±0,47бс 7,50 73,86±0,72 3,62
Autumn
а
Farm 1 120 16,31±0,48 5,25 64,56±1,25 13,66 60,09±1,59 7,11
Farm 2 200 16,48±0,43б 6,09 66,42±0,98 13,85 60,23±1,89 8,47
аб
Farm 3 150 19,08±0,48 5,82 66,17±1,47 18,15 63,92±1,86 7,65
Winter
Farm 1 90 7,08±0,33аб 3,14 52,35±1,05аб 9,92 48,10±1,14а 4,40
Farm 2 150 8,68±0,16ас 1,92 57,49±1,44ас 17,63 50,14±0,61 2,36
Farm 3 150 9,76±0,21бс 2,61 61,99±0,86бс 10,56 51,24±1,02а 3,95
Spring
Farm 1 60 21,58±0,45а 3,49 42,73±1,00аб 7,76 66,79±1,54 4,85
Farm 2 100 23,18±0,24аб 2,42 45,39±0,64ас 6,42 68,85±0,94 2,96
Farm 3 100 21,48±1,45б 14,4 56,99±0,77бс 7,69 67,34±1,33 4,21
Between the farms marked with the same letter by seasons there is a statistically significant
difference at - P <0,05,
A significant difference in temperature in the area above the freestalls in the three farms
are reported (Table. 2). The highest average temperature in the summer months is reported on a
farm 1 – 27.35 ° C, which corresponds to the highest temperature in the region of this farm. For
farm 3 can be said, that it has the most favorable temperatures both in the region and in the
building - the lowest in summer and highest in the winter and autumn.

[SYLWAN., 161(6)]. ISI Indexed 74

 Lowest humidity for all seasons in the area above the freestalls is reported on a farm 1,
and the highest on a farm 3. The differences between the farms for the various seasons are
statistically significant, except for the autumn.
Daily average values of THI for the summer season are the highest in the area of the
freestalls in all farms with small differences - from 73.86 to 74.48, followed by spring season,
where the variation of the average daily values are of 66.79 up to 68.85.With the highest THI for
all seasons is farm 3 except the summer season, when values lower than the other two farms are
reported.
In all the three farms significant differences in the values of THI outside and inside the
building in resting area are not reported, Fig. 1. The differences are in the range of 2.38 ° C to
0.09 ° C, respectively for spring and winter. This indicates that buildings and especially the area
above the stalls do not provide comfortable temperature conditions. In many farms, including the
researched by us, farmers set different cooling systems - fans, sprinklers and others, mainly in the
feeding area, but not above the resting area.

Fig.1. values of THI outside and inside the buildings of the farms by seasons

Erbez et al (2010) studied the differences between temperature, relative humidity and THI
outside and inside the semi-open barns for dairy cows rearing. This type of building offers
possibility for maximum ventilation. Irrespective of this, no significant difference in the monthly
values of temperature, relative humidity and THI inside and outside the building is reported, the
differences are for temperature 3.48 ° C, for relative humidity 13.21% and for THI 5.96. The

[SYLWAN., 161(6)]. ISI Indexed 75

 average difference between the values of THI inside and outside the building is the lowest in
December (0.07) and highest in October (5.96).
Dunn et al. (2014) showed that heat stress can be a serious problem in the summer,
especially at yearly reared in barn dairy cows than at pasture. The implementation of temperature
regulation with different cooling systems is beneficial to the animals and production, although it
is more expensive.
Brouček et al.(2006) conclude, that the majority of farmers are not ready to deal with the
situation of global warming, so it can lead to considerable economic losses. The number of days
with extremely high temperatures increases in recent years, which affects the quality of the
animals, and this trend will continue as expected. This will influence the management in dairy
farming. When designing an optimal environment in the farms must be considered buildings and
technological systems that will reduce this negative effect of climatic extremes. From the analysis
of variance is found that statistically significant effect on the values of THI inside the building
have the season of reporting (P <0,001) and the time of day (P <0,001), Table. 3. The farm has no
significant effect on this climate indicator, which confirms presented in the material and
methods, that there is no significant difference in the type of the buildings in the three studied
farms.

Table 3. Analysis of variance for influence of the controlled factors on the values of THI
reported in the building

THI

Sources of variation Degrees of freedom MS F P

Total for the model 9 2009,4 80,33 ***

Farm 2 41,6 1,66 -

Season 3 5834,8 233,26 ***

Time of reporting 4 117,1 4,68 **

Error 197 25,0

* - Significance at P <0.05; ** - Significance at P <0,01; *** - Significance at P <0,001; - No

significant effect
From presented on Fig. 2. LS-means of THI by season and time of reporting is seen the
general tendency for lowest values in the morning hours (10.00 h) for all seasons. There is a
gradual increase of the values in the afternoon, with the highest values occurred about 14-16.00h,
then a gradual decrease is observed.

[SYLWAN., 161(6)]. ISI Indexed 76

 Fig.2. values of THI by season and time of reporting
The highest values of THI are reported in the summer. The lowest values recorded at
10.00 o'clock are on average 72.04, and the highest average value is reported at 14.00 o'clock -
75.43. The highest value for THI reported in the study was 80.45, and there are quite close to it
values between 79.00 and 80.00.
High values of THI are reported and in the spring. The lowest mean value recorded at
10.00 o'clock is 63.53, and the highest - reported at 16.00 o'clock is 69.89. In autumn and winter
THI values are much lower, the maximum in the autumn are 62.9 and 52.4 in the winter. The
lowest value of THI reported in the study is 41.87.
The effect of factors farm and THI values (in classes) on three indices of comfort (Table
4) is studied. Both factors have a statistically significant effect on the comfort index (P <0,001).

Table 4. Analysis of variance for the impact of farm and THI on the values of the three indices
of comfort

Sources of Degrees CCI SUI SSI

variation of
MS F P MS F P MS F P
freedom
For the model 5 2359,04 20,01*** 4412,1 24,67*** 381,85 20,24***
Farm 2 3647,7 30,95*** 5892,0 32,95*** 692,57 36,70***
THI 3 1435,1 12,17*** 3230,2 18,06*** 162,68 8,62***
Error 201 117,9 178,8 18,87
* - Significance at P <0.05; ** - Significance at P <0,01; *** - Significance at P <0,001; - No
significant effect

[SYLWAN., 161(6)]. ISI Indexed 77

 Provolo and Riva, (2008) indicate that the activities of the cows are limited during the
night and are not influenced of the seasonality or THI. Therefore the information that can be
obtained about the cow behavior during the night is minimal. The values reported in our study for
the three indices of cow comfort also refer only to daylight, respectively from 10.00 to 18.00 h.
On Fig. 3 the LS-means of the three indices of comfort by farms are presented. With the
highest average values of CCI and SUI for all seasons and time of reporting is Farm 1,
respectively 81.53 and 58.99. This farm is also with the lowest average of SSI - 8.28. The next by
value of the index is Farm 3, with a small difference of Farm 2. Farm 3, however, is with the
highest percentage cows preferring to stand in the stalls - 14.51. These differences are likely due
to some differences in the design of boxes and the materials used for bedding.

Fig. 3. LS-means of comfort indices by farms

For measuring the effect of THI on the three indices of comfort, its values are distributed
in five classes. For this distribution mainly the classification of Segnalini et al. (2013) is used,
respectively values of THI <68 (no risk), 68 ≤ THI <72 (mild discomfort), 72 ≤ THI <75
(discomfort), 75 ≤ THI <79 (alert), 79 ≤ THI <84 (danger), and THI ≥84 (emergency). From this
classification in our study the last two classes are missing, because the values above 79 are

[SYLWAN., 161(6)]. ISI Indexed 78

 relatively few. Additionally, values up to 68 are distributed into two classes - to 58 and from 58
to 68 in order to include also а class of optimal temperature range in the barns of high-productive
dairy cows. Moran (2012) defines the zone of comfort for cows of Friesian breed 6-18 ° C.
Within this range, fluctuations in their physiological processes are not reported, all of the body
processes functioning in their expected range.
Table 5 presents the LS-mean values of the three indices of comfort, depending on the
values of THI in classes. In CCI and SUI is reported clear trend of decreasing the values with an
increase in values of THI over 68, as this is more pronounced in SUI. At the values of THI below
68, which include temperatures up to 20-21 ° C differences in the two indices are not reported.
Cows do not react by changing their desire to lie in the stalls.

Table 5. LS-means for indices of comfort, depending on the temperature humidity index
THI - class Number of CCI, % SUI,% SSI, %
observations
Up to 58 69 77,23 ± 1,31 54,65 ± 1,62 10,59 ± 0,52
Of 58 to 68 31 77,43 ± 1,96 54,27 ± 2,42 9,83 ± 0,78
Of 68 to 72 42 72,75 ± 1,69 47,12 ± 2,08 12,32 ± 0,67
Of 72 to 75 32 69,69 ± 1,93 45,23 ± 2,38 13,57 ± 0,77
Over 75 33 64,98 ± 1,89 35,43 ± 2,33 14,06 ± 0,76

The percentage of cows in the stalls, which are lying down (CCI) decreases by 12.45%
when the values of THI are from ≥ 58 to ≤ 68 to values above 75. More indicative is SUI, which
shows that of all the cows in the group, which do not feed, only 35.43% prefer to lie in the stalls
at values of THI over 75. The rest of the cows prefer to stand, as inside the stalls (CCI - 64.98%)
so and in other technological areas. Moran 2005 shows that there are many symptoms of heat
stress, one of them is that the cows refuse to lie.
A lower threshold for the animal response to the values of THI of 68 and not over 72 is
reported. Other authors also point lower threshold of temperature comfort of Holstein cows.
The sensitivity of cattle to heat stress is increased when the milk yield increases,
(Berman, 2005). This is due to the fact that the released metabolic heat increases with an increase
in the productivity of the animals. Studies show, that by increasing the milk yield from 35 to 45
kg / day the temperature threshold for heat stress is reduced by 5 ° C (Berman, 2005). The
physiological effects based on the THI forecast for milk yield at present underestimate the
severity of the heat stress in Holstein cattle.
Brügemann et al. (2012) show for a lower threshold in Holstein cows in Germany values
of THI 60. Geers et al. (2014) summarize, that for a lower limit of heat stress should be taken

[SYLWAN., 161(6)]. ISI Indexed 79

 values of THI between 60 and 65, over these values а negative effect on milk production and
conception rate is reported.
Grant et al. (2012) show that dairy cows have a strong behavioral need of complete, full
rest. Lactating cows are highly motivated for lay down for about 12 hours per day (Cook et al.,
2005; Drissler et al., 2005; Gomez and Cook, 2010). Cook et al. (2007) note that, when the THI
increases from 56 to 74, the lying time is reduced from 10.9 to 7.9 hours a day, and the standing
in the alleys increases from 2.6 to 4.5 hours per day. Lameness and foot lesions increase
considerably with the prolongation of time standing. Similar to Collier et al. (2011), they
reported, that the activity of cows is shifted around THI 68, which requires the use of more
aggressive strategies to reduce heat stress, than those used traditionally.
In SSI the opposite trend is reported, but less pronounced. With the rising of values of
THI from ≥ 58 to ≤68 to values over 75, the percentage of cows of the total number in the group,
which stand in stalls is increased by 4.23%. This disparity between the low percentage lying (SUI
35.43%) and standing in stalls (SSI 14.06) is due to the fact that at the high daytime temperatures
cows stand mostly in other areas - in technological alleys, stall, etc., looking for cooler places.
This disparity between the low percentage lying (SUI 35.43%) and standing in stalls (SSI 14.06)
is due to the fact that at high daytime temperatures cows mostly stand in other areas - in
technological alleys, feed manger, etc., looking for cooler places. Placing fans over the feed
mangers farmers provide some temperature comfort of the animals during feeding, but they
continue to stay there even when they do not feed because of the higher temperature in the area of
stalls.
To increase the heat losses, irrespective of the environment, dairy cows in regions with an
elevated temperature, often are standing to increase the available surface area for heat release
(Igono et al., 1987; Anderson et al., 2012, Smith et al., 2012). Even a slight increase in ambient
temperature can cause an increase in the time of standing (Smith et al. 2012). Reduction of the
resting time leads to lower milk productivity (Bach et al., 2008, Grant 2007).
Mahdy et al. (2014) found a positive dependence between the values of THI and SSI.
With increasing the values of THI also the number of animals which prefer to stand for
increasing the ability of the body to cooling by evaporation is increased. In the summer season
the percentage of cows that prefer to stand varies between 10% and 30%.
Herbut and Angrecka (2012) recommended determining of the THI values for the various
areas, not for the entire building, which would allow to provide more suitable zones for animals
during heat waves.
Regression coefficients between THI and the three comfort indices are calculated in two
versions - involving all observations and with the inclusion only of values of over 68 and their
corresponding values of the three comfort indices Table. 6. The regressions in both variants are
with the same sign, but with a different value and significance. When all the data set is included,
regressions are low, although statistically significant. This is due to the fact, that when THI

[SYLWAN., 161(6)]. ISI Indexed 80

 values are below 68, almost no variation in the three comfort indices is recorded. When using
only values of the indices corresponding to THI over 68, the regressions are much higher.
Between THI and CCI and SUI the regressions are negative and statistically significant. With a
higher value is SUI (-1.41), which means that the increase in the values of THI with 1 over 68
will lead to a decrease in the values of SUI with 1.41% and of CCI with 0.84%. With the lowest
and positive value is the regression between THI and SSI - 0.20, this means that the increase in
THI over 68 will lead to a slight tendency of increasing the percentage of cows standing in stalls
with 0.20%. This difference once again confirms, that the cows besides the fact that they refuse
lie in stalls, they refuse to stand in stalls area, when the values of THI are increased over 68. They
prefer to stay in other areas, which are cooler for them.

Table 6. Values of regression coefficients (ryx (b)) between THI and comfort indices
CCI SUI SSI
b ± SEb b ± SEb b ± SEb
THI –all reported values -0,41 ± 0,08*** -0,61 ± 0,10*** 0,15 ± 0,03***
THI –values over 68,0 -0,84 ± 0,37** -1,41±0,38*** 0,21 ± 0,16 -
* - significance at P <0,05; ** - significance at P <0,01; *** - significance at P <0,001; - no
significant effect
The results obtained demonstrate that the reporting of reduction of the number of cows
lying in the stalls during the day, is a temperature signal of discomfort. More appropriate for this
purpose is SUI.
Allen et al. (2013) suggest that heat stress affects several aspects of milk production,
including the behavior of cattle. In heat stress standing time is increased, or the resting time is
decreased. Prolonged standing results in a reduction of productivity and additionally increases the
risk of lameness. The good knowledge of environmental and physiological parameters, that affect
the behavior for longer standing of cows will improve the industry's efforts to minimize heat
stress in dairy cows. The authors indicate that the correlation between the THI and behavior of
cattle is not yet established. However, the cattle are more likely to stand at values of THI 68,
which is consistent with our results.

Conclusion
Average daily values of THI for areas of the three farms (South Bulgaria) during the
summer season suggest conditions of heat stress in dairy cows - daily averages over 75. Risk of
such conditions there is also in the spring - a daily average over 69. In all three farms significant
differences in the values of THI are not reported as outside the building so and in the rest area

[SYLWAN., 161(6)]. ISI Indexed 81

 inside the building. This indicates that buildings and especially the area of stalls do not provide
comfortable temperature conditions in the summer.
The percentage of cows in stalls which lie (CCI) decreases by 12.45% at values of THI of
≥ 58 to ≤68 to values above 75. More indicative is SUI, which shows that of all the cows in the
group who do not feed, only 35.43% prefer to lie in stalls at values of THI over 75. The rest of
the cows prefer to stand in the stalls (CCI - 64.98%) and in other technological areas.
Calculated negative and statistically significant regressions between THI and CCI and
SUI mean that increasing the values of THI with 1 over 68 will lead to a decrease in the value of
SUI with 1.41%, and of CCI with 0.84%. The THI increase of over 68 leads to a slight tendency
of increasing the percentage of cows standing in the stalls. Cows prefer to stay in other areas,
where eventually is cooler for them.

References
1. Allen J.D., S.D. Anderson, R.J. Collier, and J.F. Smith. 2013.
Managing Heat Stress and Its Impact on Cow Behavior. Western Dairy Management
Conference. March 6-8 Reno, NV
2. Anderson, S. D., B. J. Bradford, J. P. Harner, C. B. Tucker, C. Y.
Choi, J. D. Allen, L. W. Hall, S. Rungruang, R. J. Collier, and J. F. Smith. 2012.
Effects of adjustable and stationary fans with misters on core body temperature and lying
behavior of lactating dairy cows in a semiarid climate. J. Dairy Sci. 96 :4738–4750
3. Armstrong, D. V. 1994. Heat stress interactions with shade and cooling. J.
Dairy Sci. 77:2044-2050.
4. Bach, A., N. Valls, A. Solans, and T. Torrent. 2008. Associations
between nondietary factors and dairy herd performance. J. Dairy Sci. 91:3259-3267.
5. Berman, A. J. 2005. Estimates of heat stress relief needs for Holstein
dairy cows. J. Anim. Sci. 83:1377-1384.
6. Bernabucci U, Lacetera N, Baumgard LH, Rhoads RP, Ronchi B and
Nardone A 2010. Metabolic and hormonal acclimation to heat stress in domesticated
ruminants. Animal. 4, 1167–1183.
7. Bertocchi L., A. Vitali, N. Lacetera, A. Nardone, G. Varisco and U.
Bernabucci. 2014. Seasonal variations in the composition of Holstein cow’s milk and
temperature–humidity index relationship. Animal, 8: 4, 667–674
8. Bewley, J.M., R.E. Boyce, J. Hockin, L. Munksgaard, S. D. Eicher, M.
E. Einstein, and M. M. Schutz. 2010. Influence of milk yield, stage of lactation, and
body condition on dairy cattle lying behaviour measured using an automated activity
monitoring sensor. J. Dairy Res. 77:1-6.
9. Bohmanova J., I. Misztal, and J. B. Cole. 2007. Temperature-Humidity
Indices as Indicators of Milk Production. Losses due to Heat Stress. J. Dairy Sci.
90:1947–1956

[SYLWAN., 161(6)]. ISI Indexed 82

 10. Bouraoui R., M. Lahmar, A. Majdoub, M. Djemali, R. Belyea. 2002.
The relationship of temperature-humidity index with milk production of dairy cows in a
Mediterranean climate. Anim. Res. 51 479–491
11. Broucek J, Ryba S, Mihina S, Uhrincat M, Kisac P .2007, Impact of
thermal-humidity index on milk yield under conditions of different dairy management. J
Anim Feed Sci. 16, 329-344
12. Brouček J., Š. Mihina, Š. Ryba, P. Tongeľ, P. Kišac, M. Uhrinčať, A.
Hanus. 2006. Effects оf High Air Temperatures оn Milk Efficiency in Dairy Cows.
Czech J. Anim. Sci., 51, (3): 93–101
13. Brügemann K., E. Gernand, U. K. von Borstel and S. König. 2012.
Defining and evaluating heat stress thresholds in different dairy cow production systems.
Archiv Tierzucht, 55, 1, 13-24,
14. Collier R. J., R. B. Zimbelman, R.P. Rhoads, M.L. Rhoads, and L. H.
Baumgard. 2011. A Re-evaluation of the Impact of Temperature Humidity Index (THI)
and Black Globe Humidity Index (BGHI) on Milk Production in High Producing Dairy
Cows. Proc. of the Western Dairy Management Conference, March 9-11 Reno, NV,
Pages 113-126
15. Cook, N. B., R. L. Mentink, T. B. Bennett, and K. Burgi. 2007. The
effect of heat stress and lameness on time budgets of lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci.
90:1674-1682.
16. Cook, N.B., T.B. Bennett, and K.V. Nordlund. 2005. Monitoring indices
of cow comfort in free-stall housed dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3876-3885.
17. Correa-Calderon, A., D. Armstrong, D. Ray, S. DeNise, M. Enns, and
C. Howison. 2004. Thermoregulatory responses of Holstein and Brown Swiss heat-
stressed dairy cows to two different cooling systems. Int. J. Biometeorol. 48:142–148.
18. Drissler, M., M. Gaworski, C.B. Tucker, and D.M. Weary. 2005.
Freestall maintenance: effects on lying behavior of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 88:2381-
2387.
19. Du Prezz J.H., Giesecke W.H., Hattingh P.J. 1990. Heat stress in dairy
cattle and other livestock under southern African conditions. I. Temperature-humidity
index mean values during the four main seasons. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res., 57, 77–78.
20. Dunn R. J. H., N. E. Mead, K. M. Willett and D. E. Parker. 2014.
Analysis of heat stress in UK dairy cattle and impact on milk yields. Environmental
Research Letters. 9, 064006 (11pp)
21. Erbez M, Falta D and Chládek G .2010. The relationship between
temperature and humidity outside and inside the permanently open-sided cows’ barn Acta
Universitatis Agriculturae et Siliviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis (Brno, Česká
Republika), LVIII 91–6
22. Gantner V., P. Mijić, K. Kuterovac, D. Solić, R. Gantner. 2010.
Temperature-humidity index values and their significance on the daily production of dairy
cattle. Mljekarstvo 61 (1), 56-63

[SYLWAN., 161(6)]. ISI Indexed 83

 23. Geers R., L. Vermeulen, M. Snoeks1 & L. Permentier. 2014. Do Dairy
Cattle Need Protection against Weather in a Temperate Climate? A Review. Journal of
Agricultural Science. 6, 12; 9-21
24. Gomez, A., and N.B. Cook. 2010. Time budgets of lactating dairy cattle
in commercial freestall herds. J. Dairy Sci. 93:5772-5781.
25. Grant R. 2012. Economic Benefits of Improved Cow Comfort William
.
H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute Chazy, NY 12921. www.novusint.com
.
26. Grant, R. 2007. Taking advantage of natural behavior improves dairy cow
performance. Pages 225- 236 in Proc. Western Dairy Management Conf., Reno, NV.
27. Grant, R. 2009. A quick check for cow comfort. Dairy basics. In:
Excerpts from William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute Farm Report, September
2009.
28. Herbut P., S. Angrecka. 2012. Forming of temperature-humidity index
(THI) and milk production of cows in the free-stall barn during the period of summer
heat. Animal Science Papers and Reports vol. 30. 4, 363-372
29. Huhnke, R. L., L. C. McCowan, L. C. Meraz, S. L. Harp, and M. E.
Payton. 2001. Determining the frequency and duration of elevated temperature-humidity
index. ASAE Annu. Int. Mtg., Sacramento, CA. Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng., St. Joseph,
MI
30. Igono, M. O., and H. D. Johnson. 1990. Physiological stress index of
lactating dairy cows based on diurnal pattern of rectal temperature. J. Interdiscip. Cycle
Res. 21:303–320.
31. Igono, M. O., B. J. Steevens, M. D. Shanklin, and H. D. Johnson. 1985.
Spray cooling effects on milk production, milk, and rectal temperatures of cows during a
moderate temperate summer season. J. Dairy Sci. 68:979–985.
32. Igono, M. O., H. D. Johnson, B. J. Steevens, G. F. Krause, and M. D.
Shanklin. 1987. Physiological, productive, and economic benefits of shade, spray, and
fan system versus shade for Holstein cows during summer heat. J. Dairy Sci. 88:2454-
2461.
33. Johnson H.D., 1985. Physiological responses and productivity of cattle,
in: Yousef M.K. (Ed.), Stress physiology in livestock. Basic principles, Vol. 1, 4-19, CRC
Press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 4–19.
34. Jordan ER 2003. Effects of heat stress on reproduction. Journal of Dairy
Science 86, 104–114
35. Kadzere CT, Murphy MR, Silanikove N, Maltz E (2002) Heat stress in
lactating dairy cows: a review. Livest Prod Sci. 77, 59-91
36. Kibler H.H., 1964. Environmental physiology and shelter engineering.
LXVII. Thermal effects of various temperature-humidity combinations on Holstein cattle
as measured by eight physiological responses, Res. Bull. Missouri Agric. Exp. Station, p.
862.
37. Mader T.L., Johnson L.J., Gaughan J.B. (2010) A comprehensive index
for assessing environmental stress in animals. J Anim Sci. 88, 2153-2165

[SYLWAN., 161(6)]. ISI Indexed 84

 38. Mahdy C. El., S. Popescu, C. Borda, A. Boaru. 2014. Aspects of the
Welfare of Dairy Cows in Farms with Tied-Stall Maintenance System and Action of the
Upstream Factors. Part I. Bulletin UASVM Animal Science and Biotechnologies 71(2)
159-167,
39. Moran J. 2012. Managing High Grade Dairy Cows in the Tropics. CSIRO
PUBLISHING. Australia. Pp. 265.
40. Nardone A, Ronchi B, Lacetera N, Ranieri MS and Bernabucci U
2010. Effects of climate changes on animal production and sustainability of livestock
systems. Livestock Science 130, 57–69.
41. Overton, M. W., D.A. Moore, and W.M. Sischo. 2003. Comparison of
commonly used indices to evaluate dairy cattle lying behavior. ASAE Paper No
701P0203. St Joseph, Mich.: ASAE.
42. Provolo G., Riva E. 2008. Daily and seasonal patterns of lying and
standing behaviour of dairy cows in a frestall barn. International Conference: “Innovation
Technology to Empower Safety, Health and Welfare in Agriculture and Agro-food
Systems”. September 15-17, 2008. Ragusa – Italy
43. Reiczigel J, Solymosi N, Könyves L, Maróti-Agóts A, Kern A, Bartyik
J. 2009. Examination of heat stress caused milk production loss by the use of
temperature-humidity indices. Magy Allatorv, 131, 137-144
44. Rhoads, M. L., R. P. Rhoads, J. J. VanBaale, R. J. Collier, S. R.
Sanders, W. J. Weber, B. A. Crooker, and L. H. Baumgard. 2009. Effects of heat
stress and plane of nutrition on lactating Holstein cows: I. Production, metabolism, and
aspects of circulating somatropin. J. Dairy Sci. 92:1986-1997.
45. Segnalini M., U. Bernabucci, A. Vitali, A. Nardone, N. Lacetera. 2013.
Temperature humidity index scenarios in the Mediterranean basin.Int J Biometeorol.
57:451–458
46. Silanikove N. 2000. Effects of heat stress on the welfare of extensively
managed domestic ruminants. Livestock Production Science, 67 , 1–18
47. Smith J F, Collier R J, Harner J P III and Bradford B J 2012
Strategies to reduce heat stress in dairy cattle Proc. 27th Annual Southwest Nutrition and
Management Conf. http:// animal.cals.arizona.edu/swnmc/Proceedings/2012.pdf pp 65–84
48. St-Pierre, N. R., B. Cobanov, and G. Schnitkey. 2003. Economic loses
from heat stress by US livestock industries. J. Dairy Sci. 86(E Suppl.):52–77.
49. West, J. W. 2003. Effects of heat-stress on production in dairy cattle. J.
Dairy Sci. 86:2131–2144.

[SYLWAN., 161(6)]. ISI Indexed 85

View publication stats