Physical aspects of stabling systems in agriculture as a precondition of efficient utility

  • Authors

    • Terézia PoÅ¡iváková Universtiy of Veterinary Medicine and Pharmacy of Kosice
    • Rudolf Hromada Universtiy of Veterinary Medicine and Pharmacy of Kosice
    • Peter Korim Universtiy of Veterinary Medicine and Pharmacy of Kosice
    • Ján PoÅ¡ivák Technical University of Kosice, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Department of Construction Technology and Management, Slovak republic
    • Jozef Å vajlenka
    • Margaréta Horváthová
    2019-09-04
    https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v8i3.21482
  • Agriculture engineering, Efficiency, Environment, Temperature, Humidity,

  • The need to create an appropriate welfare environment for animals, as a health and high yield factor, is increasingly coming to the fore. The environment has a continuous and direct impact on animals that quickly starts to show in their utility and health. In this respect, it is animals’ immediate surroundings that play the most important role, i.e. the air in stables, also referred to as ‘microclimate’. For example, the temperature of the air in stables has a direct effect on metabolic intensity and animal production, and an indirect impact on their health and welfare. It is therefore important to take into account thermal relationships between animals and the air in stables, as well as thermal relationships between a microclimate and the surrounding environment. The aim of this article is to assess the temperature and humidity characteristics of the indoor environment of two stabling units with different breeds of animals, taking into account performance indicators for milk production.

     

     

  • References

    1. [1] R. Bholah, A.H. Subratty, Indoor biological contaminants and symptoms of sick building syndrome in office buildings in Mauritius. Int J Environ Health Res. 12 (2002) 93-98.

      [2] P.S. Burge, Sick building syndrome. Occup Environ Med. (2004) 61, 185-190.

      [3] M.A Crowe, E.J. Williams, Triennial Lactation Symposium: Effects of stress on postpartum reproduction in dairy cows. J. Anim. Sci. 90, (2012) 1722-1727.

      [4] M. De Vries, E.A.M Bokkers, T. Dijkstra, G. van Schaik, I.J.M. de Boer, Invited review: Associations between variables of routine herd data and dairy cattle welfare indicators. J. Dairy Sci. 94, (2011) 3213-3228.

      [5] S. Dikmen, E. Alava, E. Pontes, J.M. Fear, B.Y. Dikmen, T.A. Olson, P.J. Hansen, Differences in thermoregulatory ability between slick-haired and wild-type lactating Holstein cows in response to acute heat stress. J Dairy Sci. 91, (2008) 3395-3402.

      [6] T. Garnett, M.C. Appleby, A. Balmford, I.J. Bateman, T.G. Benton, P. Bloomer, B. Burlingame, M. Dawkinsm L. Dolan, D. Fraser, M. Herrero, I. Hoffmann, P. Smith, P.K. Thornton, C. Toulmin, Vermeulen, H.C.J Godfray, Sustainable intensification in agriculture: premises and policies. Science 341, (2013) 33â€34.

      [7] S. Handler, A. Korjenic, T. Bednar, The influence of external thermal insulation composite systems on the summer performance of buildings. Bauphysik 33, (2011) 225-233.

      [8] A.M. Hansen, H.W. Meyer, F. Gyntelberg, Building-related symptoms and stress indicators. Indoor Air 18, (2008) 440-446.

      [9] E. Hillmann, C. Mayer, L. Schrader, Lying behaviour and adrenocortical response as indicators of the thermal tolerance of pigs of different weights. Animal Welfare 3, (2004) 329-335.

      [10] D. Katunsky, J. Katunska, S. Toth, Possibility of choices industrial hall object reconstruction. 15th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Geoconference SGEM 2, (2015) 389-396.

      [11] T. Kuosmanen, M. Kortelainen, Measuring Eco-efficiency of Production with Data Envelopment Analysis, J Ind Ecol 9, (2005) 59–72.

      [12] F.M. Langford, A.W. Stott, Culled early or culled late: Economic decisions and risks to welfare in dairy cows. Anim. Welf. (2012) 21, 41–55.

      [13] Lesniak, A. K. Zima, Comparison of traditional and ecological wall system using the AHP method. International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference Surveying Geology and Mining Ecology Managamentt, 5, (2015)157-164.

      [14] R. Levinson, H. Akbari, Potential benefits of cool roofs on commercial buildings: conserving energy, saving money, and reducing emission of greenhouse gases and air pollutants. Energ Effic 3, (2010) 53-109.

      [15] D.B. Lindenmayer, G.E. Likens, Effective monitoring of agriculture. J Environ Monitor 13, (2011) 1559â€1563.

      [16] V. Martins, T. Moreno, L. Mendes, K. Elftheriadis, E. Diapouli, C.A. Alves, M. Duarte, E. de Miguel, M. Capdevila, X. Querol, M.C. Minguillón, Factors controlling air quality in different European subway systems. Environ. Res. 146, (2015) 35-46.

      [17] H.F.O. Mueller Energy efficient museum buildings. Renew Energy 49, (2012) 232-6.

      [18] W. Romaniuk, T. Overby, Systems of maintenance of cattle in Polish. IBMER, 2005.

      [19] K. Specht, R. Siebert, S. Thomaier, U.B. Freisinger, M. Sawicka, A. Dierich, D. Henckel, M. Busse, Zero Acreage Farming in the City of Berlin: An Aggregated Stakeholder Perspective on Potential Benefits and Challenges. Sustainability 7, (2015) 4511-4523.

      [20] J.D. Spengler Q, Chen, Indoor air quality factors in designing a healthy building. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 25, (2000) 567-600, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.567

      [21] J. Taylor, L. Price, P. Leigh, P. Young, D. Berckmans, K. Janssens, E. Vranken, R. Geverst, Proportional-integral-plus pip control of agricultural buildings. IF AC Modelling and Control in Agriculture, 2, (2000) 143-148.

      [22] I. Veissier, A. Butterworth, B. Bock, E. Roe, European approaches to ensure good animal welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 113, (2008) 279–297.

      [23] S.A. Wahab, Sick building syndrome. Springer berlin Heidelberg, 2011.

      [24] M. Woloszyn, C. Rode, Tools for performance simulation of heat, air and moisture conditions of whole buildings. C. Build. Simul. 1, (2008) 5-24.

      [25] World Economic Forum. Realizing a new vision for agriculture. A roadmap for stakeholders. https://lnk.sk/bAPY Accessed March 8, 2019.

      [26] Food and Agriculture Organization. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Dairy Sector: A Life Cycle Assessment. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, http://www.fao.org/3/k7930e/k7930e00.pdf Accessed March 8, 2019.

      [27] J.L. Capper, R.A. Cady, D.E. Bauman, The environmental impact of dairy production: 1944 compared with 2007 J. Anim. Sci., 87, (2009) 2160-2167.

      [28] K. Javed, M. Afzal, I. Ahmad, Environmental effects on lactation milk yield of Jersey cows in Pakistan. J. Anim. Plant Sci., 12, (2002) 66-69.

      [29] D. Falta, L. Walterova, M. Skypala G. Ghladek. Effect of stable microclimate on milk production of Holstein cows on the 2nd and 3rd lactation, AWETH, 4. (2008) 104-110.

      [30] R. Gantner, Temperature-humidity index values and their significance on the daily production of dairy cattle. Mljekarstvo 61, (2011) 56-63.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Pošiváková, T., Hromada, R., Korim, P., Pošivák, J., Švajlenka, J., & Horváthová, M. (2019). Physical aspects of stabling systems in agriculture as a precondition of efficient utility. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 8(3), 284-287. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v8i3.21482