Water consumption - Iowa State University Department of Agronomy

January 14, 2018 | Author: Anonymous | Category: Math, Statistics And Probability
Share Embed Donate


Short Description

Download Water consumption - Iowa State University Department of Agronomy...

Description

WATER USE IN LIVESTOCK SYSTEMS

Water consumption • Factors affecting water consumption – Dry feed intake Pigs Lactating sows Horses or poultry Calves Cattle

Water/dry feed (w/w) 2 3 2-3 6.5 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 – Grain and hay

90% moisture 10% moisture

• Metabolic water Fats Carbohydrates Protein – Contribution to water needs Cattle and horses Desert mammals Hibernating animals

gm H2O/gm nutrient 1.0 0.6 0.4 % of water needs 5 – 10 16 – 26 100

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 Livestock Total soluble salts Total soluble salts (ppm) 7,000

Effect Safe Generally safe but may cause diarrhea May be refused when first offered. Animal performance reduced Avoid for pregnant and lactating animals. May be used if optimal performance isn’t necessary Should not be used

Water Quality Effects on Ruminants Nitrate Nitrate, ppm 0-44 45-132 133-220 221-660 >661

Effects Generally safe for ruminants Generally safe for ruminants if balance with low nitrate feeds Harmful over long periods Cattle at risk; possible death Unsafe

Water Quality Effects on Ruminants Sulfates 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 Polio0 0 0 48 encephalomalacia

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

Pigs180 lb Gilts Boars Gestating sow Sow w/ litter

.7 2.5 4 4 3 8 4 5

• Cleaning and cooling, gal/hd or /litter/d Pre-soak Wash Farrowing 7.5 36 Nursery .12 .72 Finish 1.2 2.7

Cool 16 16

Water Use in Dairy Production Systems • Consumption Min-Max 51-77oF Min-Max 63-91oF Milk prod, lb/day Water 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 Wash bulk tank Wash pipeline Cow prep. Wash parlor Calf feeding and clean-up Free stall manure removal (flush system) Cow cooling

Gallons/cow/day .06 .44 .88 .24 .24 40 ??

Water Use in Beef Production Systems •

Consumption, gal/hd/day Temperature, oF 50 60 70

40 Growing heifers or steers 400 4.0 4.3 5.0 600 5.3 5.8 6.6 800 6.3 6.8 7.9 Finishing cattle 800 7.3 7.9 9.1 1000 8.7 9.4 10.8 Pregnant cows 6.0 6.5 7.4 Lactating cows 11.4 12.6 14.5 • Dust control (Southern Plains feedlots) – ¼ inch/day – 2 gal/hd/day

80

90

5.8 7.8 9.2

6.7 8.9 10.6

9.5 12.7 15.0

10.7 12.6 8.7 16.9

12.3 14.5 17.9

17.4 20.6 19.2

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, IA 2Michigan State University, Hickory Corners, MI

IMPAIRMENTS TO IOWA’S WATER RESOURCES 2008 Impaired Waters List (357 streams & 77 lakes) 60

Number of impaired lakes

50

40

30

20

10

0

(Iowa DNR, 2008)

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

Sediment Total P Total N

6.0 5.0

60 50

4.0

40

3.0

30

2.0

20

1.0

10 0 Watershed 1

10

15

20

2

25

3

30

35

40

Pasture, % of total land

45

P and N, kg/ha

Sediment, MT/ha

70

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 Cattle #s

Grazing Days

Stream Length Diet intake and indigestibility

Cow-days/ft

Pollutant concentration or frequency Climate Off-stream water Grazing management

Fecal Pollutant Load or Incidence

Distribution Stream

Plant species Shade distribution

Riparian zone Open area

Transport in runoff

Stream

Congregation area

Transport in runoff

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 45.00 40.00

Probability, %

35.00 30.00

Farm A

25.00

Farm B Farm C

20.00

Farm D

15.00

Farm E

10.00 5.00 0.00 -10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

Temperature (C)

25

30

35

40

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 GPS Readings within the Waterside Zones, % of Total GPS Readings

50.0

y = 35.4 - 0.83x + 0.005x2 (r2 =0.61) 40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0 0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

Total Pasture Size, ha

100.0

120.0

140.0

IMPLICATIONS OF PASTURE SIZE AND SHAPE ON CATTLE TEMPORAL/SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION RESEARCH Ref. (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.

30 ac pastures 463 ft stream reach (Haan et al., 2010)

CSU

2.5 2 1.5 1

0.5 0 May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Avg

Month

% of observations within 33 m of a stream

PERCENTAGE OF TIME GRAZING CATTLE ARE IN AND WITHIN 110 ft OF A PASTURE STREAM IN TWO YEARS

% of observations in stream

2006-07 3

2006-07 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

CSU

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Avg

Month

CSU = Continuous stocking unrestricted

(Haan et al., 2010)

% of observations in stream

CSU

2.5

CSR

2 1.5 1 0.5 0 May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Avg

Month

% of observations within 33 m of a stream

EFFECT OF RESTRICTING STREAM ACCESS TO STABILIZED CROSSING ON CONGREGATION OF CATTLE IN OR NEAR PASTURE STREAMS IN TWO YEARS

2006-07

3

2006-07

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

CSU CSR

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Avg

Month

CSU = Continuous stocking unrestricted CSR = Continuous stocking restricted

(Haan et al., 2010)

% of observations in stream

2006-07

3

CSU

2.5

CSR

2

RS

1.5 1 0.5 0 May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Avg

Month

% of observations within 33 m of a stream

EFFECT OF RESTRICTING STREAM ACCESS BY ROTATIONAL GRAZING ON CATTLE CONGREGATION IN OR NEAR PASTURE STREAMS IN TWO YEARS

2006-07

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

CSU

May

June

CSR

July

RS

Aug

RS (actual)

Sept

Avg

Month

CSU = Continuous stocking unrestricted CSR = Continuous stocking restricted RS = Rotational stocking

CSU = Continuous stocking unrestricted CSR = Continuous stocking restricted w/W or open = with offstream water and mineral

% of observations within 33 m of a stream

2006-07 16 14 12 10

CSU

8

CSU w/W

6

CSR

4

CSR w/W

2 0 May

July

2008-09 % of observations within 33 m of a stream

EFFECT OF SHORTTERM ACCESS TO OFFSTREAM WATER AND MINERAL SUPPLEMENTATION ON CONGREGATION OF CATTLE IN OR NEAR PASTURE STREAMS

16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2%

0%

Sept CSU Closed CSU Open CSR Closed CSR Open

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 2008-09 Estimated Probability

0.3 CSU

0.25

CSR

0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 50

75

100

Black globe temperature-humidity index

CSU = Continuous stocking unrestricted CSR = Continuous stocking restricted

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 Net Erosion

Erosion/deposition activity

20 15 10 5

cm

0 -5 -10 -15

CSU

CSR

RS

Winter CSU = Continuous stocking unrestricted CSR = Continuous stocking restricted RS = Rotational stocking

CSU

CSR Grazing Season

RS

GRAZING MANAGEMENT MAY NOT ALWAYS PREVENT STREAM BANK EROSION

50.0

Average Bare Ground, %

40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

Period Cow-days / stream m

2.5

y = 0.1 + 0.18x – 0.009x2 (r2 =0.35) Manure-Covered Ground, %

EFFECTS OF STOCKING RATE BETWEEN BIMONTHLY MEASUREMENTS OF THE PROPORTION OF BARE AND MANURECOVERED GROUND WITHIN 50 FT OF STREAMS IN 13 PASTURES

y = 10.4 + 3.73x – 0.314x2 (r2 =0.16)

45.0

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

Period Cow-days / stream m

10.0

12.0

2.5

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

CSU CSR RS

CSU CSR RS

% Manure

2 1.5 1

2005

2006

Year

2007

2008

2005

CSU = Continuous stocking unrestricted CSR = Continuous stocking restricted RS = Rotational stocking

2006

Year

2007

May June July Aug Sept Oct

May June July Aug Sept Oct

May June July Aug Sept Oct

0

May June July Aug Sept Oct

May June July Aug Sept Oct

May June July Aug Sept Oct

May June July Aug Sept Oct

0.5

May June July Aug Sept Oct

% Bare

GRAZING SYSTEM EFFECTS ON PROPORTIONS OF BARE AND MANURE-COVERED GROUND WITHIN 15 TO 110 FT OF PASTURE STREAMS

2008

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) Proportion of applied

Runoff a

0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

a

b b c

CSU CSU Bare CSR RS Vegetated Vegetated Vegetated

RS Bare

Sediment 3000

Phosphorus 7000

a

6000

2500

5000

a

1500 1000

g/ha

kg/ha

2000

500

a

3000 2000

b

c

b

0

a

4000

1000

b c

b

0 CSU CSU Bare CSR RS RS Bare Vegetated Vegetated Vegetated

CSU CSU Bare CSR RS RS Bare Vegetated Vegetated Vegetated

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

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

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

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

GRAZING SYSTEMS EFFECTS ON STREAM BANK EROSION SUSCEPTIBILITY (1 – 60) OVER FIVE YEARS

CSU = Continuous stocking unrestricted CSR = Continuous stocking restricted RS = 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

View more...

Comments

Copyright � 2017 NANOPDF Inc.
SUPPORT NANOPDF