The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Economic Losses from Heat Stress by US Livestock Industries
Open accessAbstract
Economic losses are incurred by the US livestock industries because farm animals are raised in locations and seasons where effective temperature conditions venture outside their zone of thermal comfort. The objective of this review was to estimate economic losses sustained by major US livestock industries from heat stress. Animal classes considered were: dairy cows, dairy heifers (0 to 1 yr and 1 to 2 yr), beef cows, finishing cattle, sows, market hogs, broilers, layers, and turkeys. Economic losses considered were: 1) decreased performance (feed intake, growth, milk, eggs), 2) increased mortality, and 3) decreased reproduction. USDA and industry data were used for monthly inventories of each animal class in each of the contiguous 48 states. Daily weather data from 257 weather stations over a range of 68 to 129 yr were used to estimate mean monthly maximum and minimum temperatures, relative humidity, and their variances and covariances for each state. Animal responses were modeled from literature data using a combination of maximum temperature-humidity index, daily duration of heat stress, and a heat load index. Monte Carlo techniques were used to simulate 1000 times the weather for each month of the year, for each animal class, for each state, and for each of four intensities of heat abatement (minimum, moderate, high, and intensive). Capital and operating costs were accounted for each heat abatement intensity. Without heat abatement (minimum intensity), total losses across animal classes averaged $2.4 billion annually. Optimum heat abatement intensity reduced annual total losses to $1.7 billion. Annual losses averaged $897 million, $369 million, $299 million, and $128 million for dairy, beef, swine, and poultry industries, respectively. Across states, Texas, California, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and North Carolina accounted for $728 million of annual losses, or 43% of total national losses. Results point to a need for more energy and capital efficient heat abatement systems.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Knapp, J. R., Laur, G. L., Vadas, P. A., Weiss, W. P., & Tricarico, J. M. (2014) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7234 · Cited by 1,002
Probiotics and prebiotics in animal feeding for safe food production
Gaggìa, F., Mattarelli, P., & Biavati, B. (2010) · International Journal of Food Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.02.031 · Cited by 992
Physiological consequences of heat stress in pigs
Ross, J. W., Hale, B. J., Gabler, N. K., Rhoads, R. P., Keating, A. F., & Baumgard, L. H. (2015) · Animal Production Science · doi:10.1071/an15267 · Cited by 202
Hill, D. L., & Wall, E. (2015) · Animal · doi:10.1017/s1751731114002456 · Cited by 143
Ortiz-Bobea, A., Knippenberg, E., & Chambers, R. G. (2018) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aat4343 · Cited by 139
Metadata
- Authors
- St-Pierre, N. R., Cobanov, B., & Schnitkey, G.
- Venue
- Journal of Dairy Science
- Publisher
- American Dairy Science Association
- Published
- 2003-06
- Volume
- 86
- Pages
- E52-E77
- ISSN
- 0022-0302 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1990286763
- Cited by
- 1,727
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Economic Losses from Heat Stress by US Livestock Industries. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(03)74040-5
- The paper
- St-Pierre, N. R., Cobanov, B., & Schnitkey, G. (2003). Economic Losses from Heat Stress by US Livestock Industries. Journal of Dairy Science. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(03)74040-5
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.