water use in livestock systems. water consumption factors affecting water consumption –dry feed...
TRANSCRIPT
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
Se
dim
en
t, M
T/h
a
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Sediment Total P Total N
Watershed 1 2 3
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0 P a
nd
N, k
g/h
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
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Temperature (C)
Pro
bab
ilit
y, %
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
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0
Total Pasture Size, ha
GP
S R
ea
din
gs
wit
hin
th
e W
ate
rsid
e Z
on
es
,%
of
To
tal
GP
S R
ea
din
gs
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
1600 Reduced congregation
Byers et al., 2005 (GA)
42 Offstream water
296 Reduced congregation
“ 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
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Period Cow-days / stream m
Ave
rag
e B
are
Gro
un
d,
%
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Period Cow-days / stream m
Man
ure
-Co
vere
d G
rou
nd
, %
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
CSU = Continuous stocking unrestrictedCSR = Continuous stocking restrictedRS = Rotational stocking
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)
a a
a
a
a
a
bb
bb
bb
cc
c
CONTRIBUTIONS OF PRECIPITATION RUNOFF, DIRECT FECAL DEPOSITION, AND CUT BANK EROSION TO
ANNUAL SEDIMENT LOADING OF PASTURE STREAMS
CSU = Continuous stocking unrestrictedCSR = Continuous stocking restrictedRS = Rotational stocking
CONTRIBUTIONS OF PRECIPITATION RUNOFF, DIRECT FECAL DEPOSITION, AND CUT BANK EROSION TO
ANNUAL SEDIMENT LOADING OF PASTURE STREAMS
CSU = Continuous stocking unrestrictedCSR = Continuous stocking restrictedRS = Rotational stocking
CONTRIBUTIONS OF PRECIPITATION RUNOFF, DIRECT FECAL DEPOSITION, AND CUT BANK EROSION TO
ANNUAL PHOSPHORUS LOADING OF PASTURE STREAMS
CSU = Continuous stocking unrestrictedCSR = Continuous stocking restrictedRS = Rotational stocking
CONTRIBUTIONS OF PRECIPITATION RUNOFF, DIRECT FECAL DEPOSITION, AND CUT BANK EROSION TO
ANNUAL PHOSPHORUS LOADING OF PASTURE STREAMS
CSU = Continuous stocking unrestrictedCSR = Continuous stocking restrictedRS = Rotational stocking
GRAZING SYSTEMS EFFECTS ON
STREAM BANK EROSION
SUSCEPTIBILITY (1 – 60) OVER FIVE
YEARS
CSU = Continuous stocking unrestrictedCSR = Continuous stocking restrictedRS = Rotational stocking
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