Effect of pad water flow rate on evaporative cooling system efficiency in laying hen housing

Published: 23 December 2020
Abstract Views: 2056
PDF: 702
HTML: 1653
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

An experiment was conducted in three commercial laying hen houses with 32-week-old hens in the summer of 2017 in a commercial farm in Gharbia Province, Egypt (31.06ºN, 31.16ºE) using an evaporative pad cooling system to determine the most suitable water flow rate for maintaining indoor air temperature within the thermal comfort zone. The experiment was conducted using three different water flow rates, i.e. 4.76, 5.65, and 6.35 L min–1.m–2, to assess the effect of different water flow rates on evaporative pad cooling system performance and determine the most suitable water flow rate for maintaining the thermal comfort zone of laying hens. The evaporative pad cooling system maintained the mean indoor air temperature below 28°C. The mean indoor air relative humidity during the experimental period ranged from 72.6 to 73.8%. The 4.76 L min–1.m–2 water flow rate resulted in the highest saturation efficiency (ca. 73.75%). In contrast, the 6.35 L min–1 m–2 water flow rate resulted in the lowest saturation efficiency (70.63%). The mean cooling energy values were 69.11, 66.0, and 66.65 kwh for water flow rates of 4.76, 5.56, and 6.35 Lmin–1m–2, respectively. The highest temperature-humidity index was 27.78°C, which indicated that birds were not stressed in all treatments.

Dimensions

Altmetric

PlumX Metrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations

How to Cite

Ghoname, M. S. (2020) “Effect of pad water flow rate on evaporative cooling system efficiency in laying hen housing”, Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 51(4), pp. 209–219. doi: 10.4081/jae.2020.1051.

Similar Articles

<< < 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.