Water consumption - Iowa State University Department of Agronomy
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