The Effects of ground currents on dairy cows

A case study

Authors

  • Daniel Hartsell Alexandria, MN
  • Duane Dahlberg Alexandria, MN
  • David Lusty Alexandria, MN
  • Robert Scott Alexandria, MN

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21423/bovine-vol1994no28p71-78

Abstract

These results are especially important since the majority of studies on stray voltage have concluded that there is no noticeable effects on cows production, health, blood chemistry, SCC or water consumption when the cows are exposed to shock currents as they touch the metal parts of the stall or waterer (Southwick et. al. 1992). In the work discussed in this paper the only change on the farm was the connecting of the electric utility grounds to their neutral. This was an electrical change that increased the electric current going into the ground on the farm by means of the primary neutral. The results included both observed and measured changes in health, blood chemistry, SCC and water consumption. New models are needed which can better match the behavior, health and production of the dairy cows to their electrical exposure. Simply an analysis of the information already generated would greatly assist in this process. It is hoped that this study will trigger new research and additional debate in connection with stray voltage and the effects of EM energy with a special consideration to the effects of the electricity that gets into the earth from the multitude of sources. The results of such research and debate could reveal significant effects for all living organisms that go far beyond what is known about the effects of electrical shock. An understanding of the effects discovered in this test could be the key to dealing with the many dairies in the country that are experiencing the erosion of their profits and health. If we ignore the canaries that stop singing, we can only blame ourselves for the inevitable results.

Downloads

Published

1994-09-01

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

The Effects of ground currents on dairy cows: A case study. (1994). The Bovine Practitioner, 1994(28), 71-78. https://doi.org/10.21423/bovine-vol1994no28p71-78