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)
<1,000
1,000-2,999
3,000-4,999
5,000-6,999
>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
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Pigs<60 lb
60-119 lb
120-179 lb
>180 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