1 / 56

WATER USE IN LIVESTOCK SYSTEMS

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

tamira
Download Presentation

WATER USE IN LIVESTOCK SYSTEMS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WATER USE IN LIVESTOCK SYSTEMS

  2. 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

  3. Sources of water • Drinking water • Bound water • Fresh forage 90% moisture • Grain and hay 10% moisture • Metabolic water gm 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. Water Quality Effects on RuminantsNitrate Nitrate, ppmEffects 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

  7. 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

  8. 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/d Pre-soakWashCool Farrowing 7.5 36 16 Nursery .12 .72 - Finish 1.2 2.7 16

  9. Water Use in Dairy Production Systems • Consumption Min-Max 51-77oFMin-Max 63-91oF Milk prod, lb/dayWater intake, gal/d 0 11.2-12.6 14.6-16.1 40 18.6-20.7 22.0-24.2 80 24.9-27.2 27.5-29.8 100 31.2-33.7 32.6-35.0 • Non-consumptive uses of water Gallons/cow/day Wash bulk tank .06 Wash pipeline .44 Cow prep. .88 Wash parlor .24 Calf feeding and clean-up .24 Free stall manure removal 40 (flush system) Cow cooling ??

  10. Water Use in Beef Production Systems • Consumption, gal/hd/day Temperature, oF 40 50 60 70 80 90 Growing heifers or steers 400 4.0 4.3 5.0 5.8 6.7 9.5 600 5.3 5.8 6.6 7.8 8.9 12.7 800 6.3 6.8 7.9 9.2 10.6 15.0 Finishing cattle 800 7.3 7.9 9.1 10.7 12.3 17.4 1000 8.7 9.4 10.8 12.6 14.5 20.6 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

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

  12. WATER USE IN ETHANOL PRODUCTION • 100 million gallon ethanol plant • Use 200 – 400 million gallons water • Produces 600 million lbs of Distillers grains

  13. Management Strategies to Minimize the Impacts of Grazing on Non-point Source Pollution of Pasture Streams in the MidwestJ.R. Russell1, D.A. Bear1, K.A. Schwarte1, and M. Haan21Iowa State University, Ames, IA2Michigan State University, Hickory Corners, MI

  14. IMPAIRMENTS TO IOWA’S WATER RESOURCES2008 Impaired Waters List (357 streams & 77 lakes) (Iowa DNR, 2008)

  15. ANNUAL SEDIMENT, PHOSPHORUS, AND NITROGEN LOADING OF ROCK CREEK LAKEFROM TRIBUTARIES WITH DIFFERENT PROPORTIONS OF PASTURELAND (Downing et al., 2000)

  16. PHOSPHORUS DELIVERY TO THE GULF OF MEXICO (Alexander et al., 2008) http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow/gulf_findings/

  17. HYPOTHETICAL ROUTES OF NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION BY GRAZING CATTLE Direct manure deposition Stream bank erosion or is it cut bank erosion? Surface run-off

  18. 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)

  19. FACTORS CONTROLLING THE EFFECTS OF GRAZING ON WATER QUALITY • Location of grazing • Timing of grazing • Intensity of grazing • Length of grazing (CAST, 2002)

  20. EFFECTS OF COW DISTRIBUTION ON DISTRIBUTION OF FECES AND URINE IN PASTURES

  21. MODEL FOR QUANTIFYING THE EFFECTS OF GRAZING MANAGEMENT ON NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION OF PASTURE STREAMS Grazing Days Stream Length Cattle #s Diet intake and indigestibility Cow-days/ft Pollutant concentration or frequency Climate Off-stream water Fecal Pollutant Load or Incidence Grazing management Distribution Riparian zone Stream Plant species Shade distribution Congregation area Open area Transport in runoff Transport in runoff Stream

  22. 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

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

  24. IMPLICATIONS OF PASTURE SIZE AND SHAPE ON CATTLE TEMPORAL/SPATIAL DISTRIBUTIONRESEARCH

  25. IMPLICATIONS OF PASTURE SIZE AND SHAPE ON CATTLE TEMPORAL/SPATIAL DISTRIBUTIONRegulatory • Treatments to control NPS of pasture streams • seem likely to be most effective on small or • narrow pastures.

  26. PERCENTAGE OF TIME GRAZING CATTLE ARE IN AND WITHIN 110 ft OF A PASTURE STREAM IN TWO YEARS30 ac pastures463 ft stream reach (Haan et al., 2010) CSU = Continuous stocking unrestricted

  27. 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 unrestricted CSR = Continuous stocking restricted

  28. 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 unrestricted CSR = Continuous stocking restricted RS = Rotational stocking

  29. EFFECT OF SHORT-TERM ACCESS TO OFFSTREAM WATER AND MINERAL SUPPLEMENTATION ON CONGREGATION OF CATTLE IN OR NEAR PASTURE STREAMS CSU = Continuous stocking unrestricted CSR = Continuous stocking restricted w/W or open = with offstream water and mineral

  30. 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)

  31. CONSIDER ENVIROMENTAL FACTORS

  32. 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 2008-09 CSU = Continuous stocking unrestricted CSR = Continuous stocking restricted

  33. 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)

  34. EFFECTS OF AMBIENT TEMPERATURE ON THE PROBABILITY OF COWS SEEKING SHADE (Haan et al., 2010)

  35. EFFECTS OF GRAZING MANAGEMENT ON NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION OF PASTURE STREAMS

  36. EFFECTS OF STOCKING RATE BETWEEN MEASUREMENT PERIODS ON STREAM BANK EROSION MEASURED QUARTERLY ON 13 FARMS IN THE RATHBUN LAKE WATERSHED OVER THREE YEARS

  37. EFFECTS OF GRAZING MANAGEMENT ON ANNUAL EROSION/DEPOSITION ACTIVITY AND NET EROSION OF STREAM BANKS IN 2008 AND 2009

  38. GRAZING MANAGEMENT MAY NOT ALWAYS PREVENT STREAM BANK EROSION

  39. EFFECTS OF STOCKING RATE BETWEEN BIMONTHLY MEASUREMENTS OF THE PROPORTION OF BARE AND MANURE-COVERED GROUND WITHIN 50 FT OF STREAMS IN 13 PASTURES y = 10.4 + 3.73x – 0.314x2 (r2 =0.16) y = 0.1 + 0.18x – 0.009x2 (r2 =0.35)

  40. GRAZING SYSTEM EFFECTS ON PROPORTIONS OF BARE AND MANURE-COVERED GROUND WITHIN 15 TO 110 FT OF PASTURE STREAMS CSU = Continuous stocking unrestricted CSR = Continuous stocking restricted RS = Rotational stocking

  41. 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 b b c a a a a b b b c b c

  42. CONTRIBUTIONS OF PRECIPITATION RUNOFF, DIRECT FECAL DEPOSITION, AND CUT BANK EROSION TO ANNUAL SEDIMENT LOADING OF PASTURE STREAMS CSU = Continuous stocking unrestricted CSR = Continuous stocking restricted RS = Rotational stocking

  43. CONTRIBUTIONS OF PRECIPITATION RUNOFF, DIRECT FECAL DEPOSITION, AND CUT BANK EROSION TO ANNUAL SEDIMENT LOADING OF PASTURE STREAMS CSU = Continuous stocking unrestricted CSR = Continuous stocking restricted RS = Rotational stocking

  44. CONTRIBUTIONS OF PRECIPITATION RUNOFF, DIRECT FECAL DEPOSITION, AND CUT BANK EROSION TO ANNUAL PHOSPHORUS LOADING OF PASTURE STREAMS CSU = Continuous stocking unrestricted CSR = Continuous stocking restricted RS = Rotational stocking

  45. CONTRIBUTIONS OF PRECIPITATION RUNOFF, DIRECT FECAL DEPOSITION, AND CUT BANK EROSION TO ANNUAL PHOSPHORUS LOADING OF PASTURE STREAMS CSU = Continuous stocking unrestricted CSR = Continuous stocking restricted RS = Rotational stocking

  46. GRAZING SYSTEMS EFFECTS ON STREAM BANK EROSION SUSCEPTIBILITY (1 – 60) OVER FIVE YEARS CSU = Continuous stocking unrestricted CSR = Continuous stocking restricted RS = Rotational stocking

  47. ROLE OF GRAZING CATTLE ON PATHOGEN LOADING OF PASTURE STREAMS

  48. 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

  49. 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)

  50. 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

More Related