ANIMAL SCIENCE

Characterization of the temperature-humidity index and heat stress in dairy cattle in two dairy units in Mayabeque province, Cuba

Ana Valeria Enríquez Regalado^{1  *} 
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4517-8916

Adrián Álvarez Adán² 

¹Instituto de Ciencia Animal, Apartado Postal 24, San José de las Lajas, Mayabeque, Cuba.

²Facultad de Geografía, Universidad de La Habana, Calle L, No. 353 e/ 21 y 23, Vedado, La Habana, Cuba.

Abstract

The influence of environmental factors in dairy cows was evaluated. A database that included twelve years (2005-2016) was used. The variables ambient temperature, relative humidity, rainfalls and temperature - humidity index in heat stress levels were studied. The INFOSTAT program was used for the analysis. The results show a high level of the average annual maximum temperature (30.2^oC). The same performance showed the relative humidity (76.0 %), while rainfalls did not behave in the same way, and tended to decrease by 150 mm during the analyzed period. The average temperature - humidity index was 78 in the period 2005-2016, with marked contrast in its annual distribution. Between November and March, the animals were in slight stress, as opposed to the June-September period, in which the values reached levels of 83, so the animals were exposed to severe stress conditions. During the study period, the average annual relative humidity in the research area was 76 %. Seven months maintained their average monthly value above this value (78 %). In general, an area with high relative humidity can be considered, which has its direct effect on thermal sensation and the temperature-humidity index, which considerably affects the animal welfare. It was proved that during the studied period (2005-2016) the cows were with a level from slight to severe heat stress in all months of the year, which could affect homeostasis and animal welfare.

Key words: stress; temperature; humidity; precipitations

Introduction

Climate change is one of the most important environmental realities that human faces in this century. Not only because of the effects it has on the different human spheres, but because it represents a challenge for the development model that human has assumed since the industrialization period (Estenssoro 2010 and ^{Lemaire et al. 2019}).

High temperatures and variations in the relative humidity of the environment are common in tropical summers and are considered as the most influential factors in animal welfare. Often, animals exceed the capacity of their normal mechanisms for heat dissipation they generate. On this aspect, ^{Correa-Calderón et al. (2004)} argue that cattle are homeothermal animals and maintain their temperature at approximately 38°C, by controlling internal heat production and external heat gain and loss.

The performance of the meteorological variables (temperature and humidity) causes stress conditions, which affect the physiology and homeostasis of the animal (^{Neri and Briones 2011}), and are reflected in the decrease in voluntary intake, milk production and reproductive efficiency of production cows (^{Hernández et al. 2007} and ^{Ghiano, et al. 2014}). Several authors consider that dairy cattle are particularly sensitive to heat stress, due to the high metabolism of the dairy cow during lactation (^{Swan and Broster 1982}, ^{Bernabucci et al. 2014}, ^{Carabaño et al. 2016} and ^{Nguyen et al. 2016}).

In cattle livestock, animal welfare has become a determining factor to achieve their best productive expression (^{Sirven 2015}). At present, the temperature-humidity index (THI) is the indicator of animal welfare most used to assess the comfort level of animals (^{Leva and Valtorta 1996}, ^{Olivares et al. 2013}, ^{Carabaño et al. 2016} and ^{Nguyen et al. 2016}). The objective of this study was to determine the temperature-humidity levels (THI) and heat stress in dairy units of the Instituto de Ciencia Animal (ICA), Mayabeque province, Cuba.

Materials and Methods

The average monthly records of ambient temperature (maximum and minimum) and relative humidity, corresponding to the database of the agrometeorological station of ICA (22^o02 north latitude and 82⁰02 west longitude), for 2005-2016 period were analyzed. These records were applied to both dairy units, which were at a distance less than 5 km, in a straight line with the station.

Both dairy units had Siboney cattle, Guinea grass (Megathyrsus maximus). They also had a biomass bank with Cenchus purpureus cv. Cuba CT 115 (dairy 4) and with Leucaena leucocephala in silvopastoral system (dairy 3). The cows were supplemented with commercial concentrate or Norgold, depending on availability and production.

The proposed methodology for the analysis of both meteorological variables is inserted between the statistical procedures typical of the analysis of temporal series (^{Bruzual and Hernández-Szczurek 2005}), which contemplates the seasonality and the tendency of each of variables.

The comfort temperature for this type of animal is equal to 25^oC, with a high ambient humidity, from which the cow experiences heat stress (^{Espinoza et al. 2011}).

The THI (^{Thom 1959}) was calculated from the ^{Valtorta and Gallardo (1996)} equation:

[TeX:] THI = 0. 8*At + ((RH/100) *(At - 14.3)) + 46.4

where:

THI	- temperature-humidity index
At	- average temperature
RH	- relative humidity

The stress in cattle, according to the THI, was classified as shown in table 1.

Table 1 Stress levels in cattle  

THI	Clasification
≤ 72	Slight
72-78	Moderate
≥ 78	Severe

Results and Discussion

The maximum, average and minimum monthly temperatures in the ICA have a similar performance to that described for Cuba (^{Fonseca and García 2012}), with two statistically well-established heat periods, which correspond to the seasonal precipitation (figure 1).

Figure 1 Monthly distribution of the average temperature in the ICA (2005-2016) 

The average annual value of the average temperature during 2005 - 2016 was 23.0ºC with a heat oscillation of 3.4ºC, between the coldest month (February) and the warmest month (July). In the rainy season, it reached 23.9ºC. The maximum temperature had an average of 29.7ºC and the minimum 19.2ºC, with a tendency to increase in the analyzed period, higher in the latter. The heat oscillation was also higher 1.8ºC for the minimum temperature, with a value of 7.9ºC between the coldest month, January, and the warmest, July.

During 2005 - 2016, the number of days with maximum temperatures higher than 35ºC, and minimum temperatures lower than 15 ºC were not significant. In all months of this period there were days with maximum temperatures higher than 27ºC. Therefore, during all months the animals were subjected to stress (moderate or high), due to high temperatures (^{Arias, et al. 2008}). The temperature-humidity index (THI) in the ICA, during 2005 - 2016, had a monthly performance similar to that of temperature (figure 2). Throughout the year, it maintained values not recommended for animal comfort (^{Valtorta et al. 1997}). That is, the herd was maintained, as average, with slight stress levels (dry season) and moderate (rainy season).

Figure 2 Performance of the number of days with maximum temperatures higher than 27ºC in the ICA (2005-2016) 

This performance of extreme temperatures not only influences the daily mean, but also has a marked effect on daytime and nighttime temperatures (figure 3).

Figure 3 Average monthly performance of daytime and nighttime temperatures in the ICA (2005-2016). 

In the ICA, during 2005 - 2016, an average annual daytime temperature of 27.1ºC and nighttime temperatures of 21.8ºC were reported. This showed a daily heat differential of 5.3°C, being higher in the winter season of the year. Their tendencies showed opposite performances. In the same way happened with the extreme temperatures. For the daytime, a significant decrease was observed.

The average annual relative humidity during 2005 - 2016 was 77 %. Seven months maintained their average monthly value above this value, with very similar variability in all months (figure 4). In general, an area with high relative humidity can be considered, which has a direct effect on heat sensation, since it accentuates the adverse conditions of high temperatures and the THI ^{Domínguez et al. 2007}, ^{López et al. 2016} and ^{Guerra 2019}).

Figure 4 Performance of the monthly average relative humidity in the ICA. (2005 - 2016). 

THI and heat stress. The average of the THI was 74 during 2005-2016, so it was classified as moderate with marked contrast in its annual distribution (figure 5).

Figure 5 Average monthly performance of stress levels in animals during the year at the ICA (2005 - 2016) 

The marked effect of the rainy and dry season is corroborated, which determines that during the dry months conditions of slight stress for cows were established. In this period, the average temperature is significantly reduced and variations in relative humidity occur in a significant way (P <0.001) with respect to the marked heat stress (moderate and severe) of the rainy season.

Several authors have described and discussed the vulnerability of dairy cattle, specifically of cows, to heat stress, and objectify it through THI (^{Bernabucci et al. 2014}, ^{Carabaño et al. 2016} and ^{Nguyen et al. 2016}).

This situation is more complicated, if it is taking into account that there are also marked differences between the day and night performance of the THI (figure 6). According to ^{López et al. (2016)}, during the study period, the animals were maintained with an annual average of 80, which places them under severe daytime stress for ten months of the year, except in January and February, which was moderate. Hence the importance of taking into account not only the average THI, but the daytime.

Figure 6 Average monthly performance of stress levels in animals during the days and nights in the ICA (2005 - 2016) 

In this study, the animals actually suffered ten months of severe stress, and not four, as it would have seemed if only the average THI had been taken into account. During the nights, according to the increase in night temperatures, the stress was slight in the dry season, and moderate in the rainy season, with an annual average of 70.

According to ^{Alvarez (2014)}, in the ICA units there are structural and non-structural vulnerabilities, which can condition the comfort status of the animals, and accentuate the effect of high THI values. Among them it can mentioned that, although the location of the buildings is correct (east - west), they have concrete and fiber concrete roofs, which causes an increase in the internal temperature of the building and, consequently, in the animal's body temperature. Another aspect that should be considered inside the buildings is that they are cleaned with water. This cause increase in relative humidity, which, combined with the mentioned conditions, can cause higher levels of THI than those recorded outside. Although the units do not cover their accommodation capacities, overcrowding is sometimes observed, due to the poor management of the animals, which remain grouped in small spaces.

In grazing there are also problems that accentuate the lack of comfort of cows, such as the lack of shade trees and the lack of water in the paddocks (^{Murgueitio et al. 2016} and ^{Lemaire et al. 2019}). In all cases, the animals graze from 6:00 a.m. at 10:00 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. at 5:00 a.m. Water intake is carried out only in the resting buildings.

Different measures, such as tree sowing and the establishment of silvopastoral systems with multipurpose plants, can be applied to mitigate the effect of heat stress and contribute to improving the comfort of cows. In the case of Genetico 3, not all the dairy unit has silvopastoral system. In addition, the THI was calculated from the ICA meteorology station, and not from the temperature and relative humidity that exists under the trees. If so, surely the THI values would have been more benign in the silvopastoral area of that dairy unit.

To build artificial shadows with different alternatives (constructed of metal, shade mesh, nylon, among other materials, fixed or mobile), as well as having good access to fresh and clean water in paddocks and buildings, are measures of great importance for production, and that they can contribute to improve the physiological parameters in dairy cows, which are highly sensitive to stress, thus increasing productive, reproductive indicators and animal welfare (^{FAO 2012}, ^{Gerber et al.2013} and ^{Palma and González-Rebeles 2018}) .

Conclusions

The ICA can be considered an area with high relative humidity, which has a direct effect on heat sensation and the THI. In the rainy period, the highest values of THI are produced and, consequently, the animals are exposed to conditions of moderate to severe heat stress. While, the rest of the year remains in slight conditions. The daytime THI showed heat stress every month of the year. The use of the temperature-humidity index, as an element to determine the heat stress in the animal, is a factor that can contribute to modifying the living conditions of animals in the enterprises.

Similar studies in other regions are recommended, where livestock activity constitutes the fundamental line of production.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Dr. Pedro Carlos Martín for his help in rectifying this article and to the ICA Farm for the contribution of the analyzed information.

References

Álvarez, A. 2014. “El cambio climático y la producción animal”. Revista Cubana de Ciencia Agrícola, 48(1): 7-10, ISSN: 0034-7485

Arias, R.A., Mader, T.L. & Escobar, P.C. 2008. “Factores climáticos que afectan el desempeño productivo del ganado bovino de carne y leche”. Archivos de Medicina Veterinaria, 40(1): 7-22, ISSN: 0301-732X

Bernabucci, U., Biffani, S., Buggiotti, L., Vitali, A., Lacetera, N. & Nardone, A. 2014. “The effects of heat stress in Italian Holstein dairy cattle”. Journal of Dairy Science, 97(1): 471-486, ISSN: 0022-0302, DOI: 10.3168/jds.2013-6611

Bruzual, V.T. & Hernández, D. 2005. “Estudio de la variabilidad temporal y espacial de las lluvias anuales de la Depresión de Carora, estado Lara, Venezuela”. In: Evaluación de Parámetros y Procesos Hidrológicos en el Suelo. Compendio de los trabajos presentados en la VII Escuela Latinoamericana de Física de Suelos. Eds: Deyanira Lobo Luján, Donald Gabriels & Guido Soto. París, Francia, p. 53, ISBN 92-9220-031-3

Carabaño, M.J., Logar, B., Bormann, J., Minet, J., Vanrobays, M.L., Diaz, C., Tychon, B., Gengler, N. & Hammami, H. 2016. “Modeling heat stress under different environmental conditions”. Journal of Dairy Science , 99(5): 3798-3814, ISSN: 0022-0302, DOI: 10.3168/jds.2015-10212

Correa, A., Yáñez, V., Verdugo, F., Pérez, A., Avendaño, L., González, V.M., Ponce, F. & Tarazón, M. 2004. “Efecto de un sistema de enfriamiento a espacio abierto en la eficiencia productiva de novillos holstein durante el verano”. Interciencia, 29(2): 86-88, ISSN: 0378-1844

Domínguez, R.R.L., Peláez, C.G.V. & Padilla, E.G. 2005. “Efecto del estrés calórico y su interacción con otras variables de manejo y productivas sobre la tasa de gestación de vacas lecheras en Aguascalientes, México”. Veterinaria México, 36(3): 245-260, ISSN: 0301-5092

Espinoza, J., Ortega, R., Palacios, A. & Guillén, A. 2011. “Tolerancia al calor y humedad atmosférica de diferentes grupos raciales de ganado bovino”. Revista MVZ Córdoba, 16(1): 2302-2309, ISSN: 1909-0544

FAO. 2012. Impact of animal nutrition on animal welfare - Expert Consultation 26−30 September 2011. In: Animal Production and Health Report. No. 1. Rome, Italy, ISBN: 978-92-5-107437-4

Fonseca, Y.B. & García, G. 2012. “Análisis de indicadores de extremos climáticos en la isla de Cuba”. Revista de Climatología, 12: 81-91, ISSN: 1578-8768

Gerber, P.J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A. & Tempio, G. 2013. Enfrentando el cambio climático a través de la ganadería - Una evaluación global de las emisiones y oportunidades de mitigación. Ed: Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura (FAO), Rome, Italy, p. 153, ISBN 978-92-5-307921-6

Ghiano, J., Taverna, M., Gastaldi, L., Walter, E. 2014. Manejo del estrés calórico. In: 5ta Jornada Nacional de Forrajes Conservados. 1st Ed. Ed. INTA, CABA. Córdoba, Argentina, p. 211.

Guerra, R. 2019. Variación genética y ambiental de la producción de leche de vacas Holstein en la cuenca lechera en Ciriquí, Panamá. PhD Thesis. Instituto de Ciencia Animal, Mayabeque, Cuba.

Hernández, A., Cervantes, P., Salinas, V.M., García, R., Tejeda, A., Gallardo, F. & Álvarez, J.L. 2007. “Respuesta al estrés por calor en la vaca criollo lechero tropical bajo un sistema de doble propósito en México”. Revista de Salud Animal, 29(2): 85-90, ISSN: 0253-570X.

Lemaire, G., Giroud, B., Bathily, B., Lecomte, P., & Corniaux, C. 2019. Toward integrated crop-livestock systems in West Africa: a project for dairy production along Senegal river. In: Agroecosystem Diversity. 1st Ed. Ed. Academic Press, Elsevier, London, England. p. 275-285, ISBN: 978-0-12-811050-8, DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-811050-8.00017-0

Leva, P.E., Valtorta, S. & Fornasero, L.V. 1996. “Disminución de la producción lechera estival: situación actual y efecto del cambio global. Resúmenes del 20o Congreso de Producción Animal, AAPA. Argentina”. Revista Argentina de Producción Animal, 16(1): 26, ISSN: 2314-324X.

López, G., Brizuela, A., Rondán, G., Lissaso, C., Kemerer, A. & de los Santos, M. 2016. “Determinación del índice de temperatura y humedad (ITH) para vacas lecheras, en el Departamento Nogoyá, entre ríos”. Revista Científica Agropecuaria, 20(1-2): 57-65, ISSN: 0329-3602.

Murgueitio, E., Uribe, F., Molina, C., Molina, E., Galindo, W., Chará, J., & Solarte, L. 2016. Establecimiento y manejo de sistemas silvopastoriles intensivos con leucaena. Ed. CIPAV, Cali, Colombia, p. 220, ISBN 978-958-9386-75-0

Neri, C. & Briones, F. 2011. Cada quien su sequía. Caracterización de la vulnerabilidad en Sonora, México. In: Perspectivas de investigación y acción frente al cambio climático en Latinoamérica.1st Ed. Ed. Red de Estudios Sociales en Prevención de Desastres en América Latina, Ciudad de Panamá, República de Panamá, p.119-150, ISBN: 978-980-7519-00-7

Nguyen, T.T.T., Bowman, P.J., Haile-Mariam, M., Pryce, J.E. & Hayes, B.J. 2016. “Genomic selection for tolerance to heat stress in Australian dairy cattle”. Journal of Dairy Science, 99(4): 2849-2862, ISSN: 0022-0302, DOI: 10.3168/jds.2015-9685.

Olivares, B.O. 2014. “Aplicación del índice de confort térmico como estimador del estrés calórico en la producción pecuaria de la Mesa de Guanipa, estado Anzoátegui”. Zootecnia Tropical, 31(3): 221-235, ISSN: 0798-7269.

Palma, J.M., & González-Rebeles, C. 2018. Recursos arbóreos y arbustivos tropicales para una ganadería bovina sustentable. 1st Ed. Ed. Universidad de Colima, Colima, Mexico, p. 133, ISBN: 978-607-8549-32-0.

Sirvén, M. 2015. Manejo y bienestar animal en vacas lecheras. 1st Ed. Ed. Dunken, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina, p. 120, ISBN: 978-987-02-8059-0

Swan, H. & Broster, T. 1982. Principios para la producción ganadera (No. 636.08). Ed. Hemisferio Sur, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina, p. 429.

Thom, E.C. 1959. “The discomfort index”. Weatherwise, 12: 57-61, ISSN: 1940-1310, DOI: 10.1080/00431672.1959.9926960.

Valtorta, S. & Gallardo, M. 1996. “El estrés por calor en producción lechera”. Miscelánea, (81): 173-185, ISSN: 2314-3126.

Valtorta, S.E., Leva, P.E., Gallardo, M., Fornasero, L.V, Veles, M.A. & García, M.S. 1997. “Producción de leche: respuestas a la alta temperatura”. Archivos Latinoamericanos de Producción Animal, 5(1): 399-401, ISSN: 2314-3126.

Received: February 02, 2019; Accepted: November 26, 2019

^*Email: [e-mail]