water use in livestock systems. water consumption factors affecting water consumption –dry feed...

WATER USE IN LIVESTOCK SYSTEMS

Water consumption

• Factors affecting water consumption– Dry feed intake

Water/dry feed (w/w)

Pigs 2

Lactating sows 3

Horses or poultry 2-3

Calves 6.5

Cattle 3.5 – 5.5

– Protein content of diet– Salt content of diet– Lactation

• 1 – 1.8 kg/kg feed above needs of dry cow

– Temperature

Sources of water

• Drinking water• Bound water

– Fresh forage 90% moisture– Grain and hay 10% moisture

• Metabolic watergm H2O/gm nutrient

Fats 1.0

Carbohydrates 0.6

Protein 0.4– Contribution to water needs

% of water needs

Cattle and horses 5 – 10

Desert mammals 16 – 26

Hibernating animals 100

Water losses

• Urine– 30 – 33 % of total loss– Factors affecting urinary loss

• Dietary protein• Dietary salt

• Perspiration– Factors

• Species– Cattle > Swine or poultry

• Temperature– 2 x greater at 100 F than 80 F

• Humidity– 2 x greater at 40% humidity than 80%

• Water vapor from lungs– 15 – 55% water loss in sheep– Increased with increased temperature or activity

• Fecal water loss– High in cattle and low in poultry and sheep

Water Quality Effects on LivestockTotal soluble salts

Total soluble salts (ppm) Effect

<1,000 Safe

1,000-2,999 Generally safe but may

cause diarrhea

3,000-4,999 May be refused when first

offered. Animal

performance reduced

5,000-6,999 Avoid for pregnant and

lactating animals. May be

used if optimal performance

isn’t necessary

>7,000 Should not be used

Water Quality Effects on RuminantsNitrate

Nitrate, ppm Effects

0-44 Generally safe for ruminants

45-132 Generally safe for ruminants if balance with

low nitrate feeds

133-220 Harmful over long periods

221-660 Cattle at risk; possible death

>661 Unsafe

Water Quality Effects on RuminantsSulfates

Total dissolved solids/sulfate, ppm

1200/440 2900/1700 1700/2900 7800/4600

% incidence

Morbidity 4.8 4.8 0 52

Mortality 0 0 0 33

Polio- 0 0 0 48

encephalomalacia

Water Use in Swine Production Systems

• Consumption, gal/hd/day– Pigs<60 lb .7– 60-119 lb 2.5– 120-179 lb 4– >180 lb 4– Gilts 3– Boars 8– Gestating sow 4– Sow w/ litter 5

• Cleaning and cooling, gal/hd or /litter/dPre-soak Wash Cool

Farrowing 7.5 36 16Nursery .12 .72 -Finish 1.2 2.7 16

Water Use in Dairy Production Systems

• ConsumptionMin-Max 51-77oF Min-Max 63-91oF

Milk prod, lb/day Water intake, gal/d0 11.2-12.6 14.6-16.140 18.6-20.7 22.0-24.280 24.9-27.2 27.5-29.8100 31.2-33.7 32.6-35.0

• Non-consumptive uses of water Gallons/cow/dayWash bulk tank .06Wash pipeline .44Cow prep. .88Wash parlor .24Calf feeding and clean-up .24Free stall manure removal 40(flush system)Cow cooling ??

Water Use in Beef Production Systems• Consumption, gal/hd/day

Temperature, oF40 50 60 70 80 90

Growing heifers or steers400 4.0 4.3 5.0 5.8 6.7 9.5600 5.3 5.8 6.6 7.8 8.912.7800 6.3 6.8 7.9 9.2 10.615.0

Finishing cattle800 7.3 7.9 9.1 10.7 12.317.41000 8.7 9.4 10.8 12.6 14.520.6

Pregnant cows 6.0 6.5 7.4 8.7 - -Lactating cows 11.4 12.6 14.5 16.9 17.9 19.2• Dust control (Southern Plains feedlots)

– ¼ inch/day– 2 gal/hd/day

WATER USE FOR BEEF PRODUCTION IN U.S.(1993)

WATER USE IN ETHANOL PRODUCTION

• 100 million gallon ethanol plant– Use 200 – 400 million gallons water– Produces 600 million lbs of Distillers grains

Management Strategies to Minimize the Impacts of Grazing on Non-point Source Pollution of Pasture Streams in the Midwest

J.R. Russell1, D.A. Bear1, K.A. Schwarte1, and M. Haan2

1Iowa State University, Ames, IA2Michigan State University, Hickory Corners, MI

IMPAIRMENTS TO IOWA’S WATER RESOURCES2008 Impaired Waters List (357 streams & 77 lakes)

(Iowa DNR, 2008)

ANNUAL SEDIMENT, PHOSPHORUS, AND NITROGEN LOADING OF ROCK CREEK LAKE

FROM TRIBUTARIES WITH DIFFERENT PROPORTIONS OF PASTURELAND (Downing et al., 2000)

Pasture, % of total land

Sediment Total P Total N

Watershed 1 2 3

6.0 P a

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

PHOSPHORUS DELIVERY TO THE GULF OF MEXICO (Alexander et al., 2008)

http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow/gulf_findings/

HYPOTHETICAL ROUTES OF NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION BY GRAZING CATTLE

Direct manure deposition Stream bank erosion or is it cut bank erosion?

Surface run-off

CONCENTRATIONS OF NITRATE-N, TOTAL P,TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS, AND E. COLI IN WATER SAMPLES TAKEN DURING HIGH FLOW EVENTS UPSTREAM AND

DOWNSTREAM OF A 10-ACRE PASTURE GRAZED BY 25 COWS YEAR-ROUND

(Vidon et al., 2007)

FACTORS CONTROLLING THE EFFECTS OF GRAZING ON WATER QUALITY

• Location of grazing• Timing of grazing• Intensity of grazing• Length of grazing

(CAST, 2002)

EFFECTS OF COW DISTRIBUTION ON DISTRIBUTION OF FECES AND URINE IN

PASTURES

MODEL FOR QUANTIFYING THE EFFECTS OF GRAZING MANAGEMENT ON NONPOINT SOURCE

POLLUTION OF PASTURE STREAMS

Pollutant concentration or frequency

Cattle #s Grazing Days Stream Length

Cow-days/ftDiet intake and indigestibility

Fecal Pollutant Load or Incidence

DistributionGrazing management

Plant speciesShade distribution

Stream Riparian zone

Open area Congregation area

Transport inrunoff

Transport in runoff

Stream

ClimateOff-stream water

EFFECTS OF AMBIENT TEMPERATURE ON THE PROBABILITY OF GRAZING COWS BEING IN AND WITHIN

100 ft OF A STREAM OR POND IN PASTURES ON FIVE FARMS OVER THREE YEARS

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Temperature (C)

Farm A

Farm B

Farm C

Farm D

Farm E

EFFECTS OF PASTURE SIZE ON THE CONGREGATION OF GRAZING COWS IN AND WITHIN 100 ft OF A PASTURE

STREAM OR POND ON SIX PASTURES OVER THREE YEARS

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0

Total Pasture Size, ha

y = 35.4 - 0.83x + 0.005x2 (r2 =0.61)

IMPLICATIONS OF PASTURE SIZE AND SHAPE ON CATTLE TEMPORAL/SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION

RESEARCHRef. (State) Approx.

pasture size, ac

Treatment Est. distance from

treatment to stream, ft

Stream and/or

riparian effects

Sheffield et al., 1997 (VA)

35 - 54 Offstream water

37 Reduced congregation

Porath et al., 2002 (OR)

30 Offstream water

Byers et al., 2005 (GA)

42 Offstream water

“ 35 Offstream water

263 No significant effect on

congregation

Agouridis et al., 2005 (KY)

5 – 7.5 Offstream water

230 No effect on congregation

Line et al., 2000 (NC)

104 Offstream water

338 No effect on NPS

IMPLICATIONS OF PASTURE SIZE AND SHAPE ON CATTLE TEMPORAL/SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION

Regulatory•Treatments to control NPS of pasture streams seem likely to be most effective on small or narrow pastures.

PERCENTAGE OF TIME GRAZING CATTLE ARE IN

AND WITHIN 110 ft OF A PASTURE

STREAM IN TWO YEARS

30 ac pastures463 ft stream reach

(Haan et al., 2010)

CSU = Continuous stocking unrestricted

EFFECT OF RESTRICTING

STREAM ACCESS TO STABILIZED

CROSSING ON CONGREGATION OF CATTLE IN OR NEAR PASTURE STREAMS

IN TWO YEARS(Haan et al., 2010)

CSU = Continuous stocking unrestrictedCSR = Continuous stocking restricted

EFFECT OF RESTRICTING

STREAM ACCESS BY ROTATIONAL GRAZING ON

CATTLE CONGREGATION IN OR NEAR PASTURE STREAMS IN TWO

YEARS(Haan et al., 2010)

CSU = Continuous stocking unrestrictedCSR = Continuous stocking restrictedRS = Rotational stocking

EFFECT OF SHORT-TERM ACCESS TO

OFFSTREAM WATER AND MINERAL

SUPPLEMENTATION ON CONGREGATION OF

CATTLE IN OR NEAR PASTURE STREAMS

CSU = Continuous stocking unrestrictedCSR = Continuous stocking restrictedw/W or open = with offstream water and mineral

EFFECT OF OFF-STREAM WATER OR RESTRICTED STREAM ACCESS ON CONGREGATION OF CATTLE WITHIN 110 FT OF A PASTURE STREAM IN 10 (small)

OR 30 (large) ACRE PASTURES OVER 5 MONTHS (2010)

CONSIDER ENVIROMENTAL FACTORS

EFFECTS OF BLACK GLOBE TEMPERATURE-HUMIDITY INDEX ON THE PROBABILITY OF CONGREGATION OF

CATTLE WITHIN 33 m OF A PASTURE STREAM IN TWO GRAZING SEASONS

CSU = Continuous stocking unrestrictedCSR = Continuous stocking restricted

2008-09

EFFECT OF THE TEMPERATURE-HUMIDITY INDEX ON THE AMOUNTS OF TIME CATTLE WERE IN THE

RIPARIAN AREAS OF BERMUDAGRASS-TALL FESCUE PASTURES WITH OR WITHOUT OFFSTREAM WATER

(Franklin et al. 2009)

EFFECTS OF AMBIENT TEMPERATURE ON THE PROBABILITY OF COWS SEEKING SHADE

(Haan et al., 2010)

EFFECTS OF GRAZING MANAGEMENT ON NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION OF

PASTURE STREAMS

EFFECTS OF STOCKING RATE BETWEEN MEASUREMENT PERIODS ON STREAM BANK EROSION

MEASURED QUARTERLY ON 13 FARMS IN THE RATHBUN LAKE WATERSHED OVER THREE YEARS

EFFECTS OF GRAZING MANAGEMENT ON ANNUAL EROSION/DEPOSITION ACTIVITY AND NET EROSION

OF STREAM BANKS IN 2008 AND 2009

GRAZING MANAGEMENT MAY NOT ALWAYS PREVENT STREAM BANK EROSION

EFFECTS OF STOCKING RATE

BETWEEN BIMONTHLY MEASUREMENTS OF THE PROPORTION OF BARE AND MANURE-COVERED GROUND

WITHIN 50 FT OF STREAMS IN 13

PASTURES0.0

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

Period Cow-days / stream m

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

Period Cow-days / stream m

y = 10.4 + 3.73x – 0.314x2 (r2 =0.16)

y = 0.1 + 0.18x – 0.009x2 (r2 =0.35)

GRAZING SYSTEM EFFECTS ON PROPORTIONS OF BARE AND MANURE-COVERED GROUND

WITHIN 15 TO 110 FT OF PASTURE STREAMS

GRAZING SYSTEM EFFECTS ON PROPORTIONS OF APPLIED PRECIPITATION AND AMOUNTS OF SEDIMENT AND P

TRANSPORTED IN RUNOFF FROM SIMULATED RAIN APPLIED TO BARE AND VEGETATED SITES ON STREAMBANKS AT 7.5 cm/hr

(P < 0.10)

CONTRIBUTIONS OF PRECIPITATION RUNOFF, DIRECT FECAL DEPOSITION, AND CUT BANK EROSION TO

ANNUAL SEDIMENT LOADING OF PASTURE STREAMS

ANNUAL PHOSPHORUS LOADING OF PASTURE STREAMS

GRAZING SYSTEMS EFFECTS ON

STREAM BANK EROSION

SUSCEPTIBILITY (1 – 60) OVER FIVE

ROLE OF GRAZING CATTLE ON PATHOGEN LOADING OF PASTURE

STREAMS

STOCKING RATE EFFECTS ON MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF TOTAL COLIFORMS IN BIWEEKLY WATER SAMPLES FROM UP- AND DOWNSTREAM SAMPLING SITES IN 13

PASTURES OVER 3 YEARS

STOCKING RATE EFFECTS ON THE INCIDENCES OF BOVINE ENTEROVIRUS (BEV), CORONAVIRUS (BCV), AND ROTAVIRUS (BRV) IN BIWEEKLY WATER SAMPLES FROM

STREAMS IN 13 PASTURES FOR THREE YEARS

BEV: y = 1.98+0.017x-0.00089x2 (r2=0.0101)

BCV: y = 2.54+0.41x-0.015x2 (r2=0.0345)

BRV: y = 0.27+0.11x-0.0020x2 (r2=0.0708)

EFFECTS OF PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF CATTLE IN PASTURES FOR 0 TO 6 DAYS PRIOR TO SAMPLING ON THE INCIDENCES OF

BOVINE ENTEROVIRUS, CORONAVIRUS, AND ROTAVIRUS IN UP- OR DOWNSTREAM WATER SAMPLES FROM 13 PASTURES FOR 3 YEARS

INCIDENCE OF BOVINE ENTEROVIRUS AND CORONAVIRUS SHED BY 90 GRAZING COWS IN 3

MONTHS OVER TWO YEARS(No E. coli O157:H7 or Bovine rotavirus shed)

INCIDENCE OF BOVINE ENTEROVIRUS IN RUNOFF FROM RAINFALL SIMULATIONS ON STREAM BANKS OF PASTURES WITH

UNRESTRICTED STREAM ACCESS IN TWO YEARS

(No E. coli O157:H7, Bovine coronavirus, or Bovine rotavirus observed)

CONCLUSIONS

• Stream bank erosion is primarily related to hydrologic processes that supersede possible grazing effects

• Improper grazing management may increase:– Bare ground near pasture streams– Manure concentration near pasture streams– Sediment and nutrient loading of precipitation runoff

• Pathogen loading of pasture streams by grazing cattle is:– Poorly related to presence of total coliforms

• Bovine enterovirus may be a better indicator– Confounded by upstream loading

• Domestic and wildlife species– Rare and controlled by:

• Seasonal incidence of shedding of the pathogens• Manure distribution• Transport of the pathogens to the stream

CONCLUSIONS

• Risks of grazing on nonpoint source pollution of pasture streams may be controlled by maintaining streamside vegetation by use of:– Stabilized crossings with riparian buffers– Rotational grazing– Off-stream shade? – Off-stream water and/or nutrient supplementation???

CONCLUSIONS

• The Best Management Practices to control nonpoint source pollution on individual pastures will be site specific.– Small, narrow pastures will likely need more restrictive practices

to control distribution of grazing cattle than large, wide pastures– Other characteristics to consider

• Cattle stocking rate• Cattle breed, age, and physiological state• Distance to off-stream water• Shade distribution• Botanical composition• Stream order and evolution

Acknowledgements:• This project is supported in part by:

• The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Award No. 2006-51130-03700 •The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Award No. 2007-35102-18115•The Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture•Iowa Beef Center•Rathbun Land and Water Alliance

water use in livestock systems. water consumption factors affecting water consumption –dry feed...

Documents

attitudes to conservation and water consumption · 2013. 4....

total water management water...specific water consumption...

boiler feed water

international forum -...

feed water

water consumption · source: ccwater/discover water water...

qdpi 24ml/1000 head-on-feed 25 feed) 85% 100% 92 %72% 81%...

feed water system

factors afecting feed consumption in chicken

feed water heater

feed water heater - presentation.pdf

hei feed water heater

closed feed water heaters

condenser & feed water heaters

based on german hourly feed-in and consumption data for

feed water tanks

feed water system components

boiler feed water pumps

mufi hannemann water consumption

water consumption