1. WATER USE IN LIVESTOCK SYSTEMS

2. Water consumption Factors affecting water consumption –Dry feed intake Water/dry feed (w/w) Pigs2 Lactating sows3 Horses or poultry2-3 Calves6.5 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 forage90% moisture –Grain and hay 10% moisture Metabolic water gm H 2 O/gm nutrient Fats1.0 Carbohydrates0.6 Protein0.4 –Contribution to water needs % of water needs Cattle and horses5 – 10 Desert mammals16 – 26 Hibernating animals100

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 Livestock Total soluble salts Total soluble salts (ppm)Effect <1,000Safe 1,000-2,999Generally safe but may cause diarrhea 3,000-4,999May be refused when first offered. Animal performance reduced 5,000-6,999Avoid for pregnant and lactating animals. May be used if optimal performance isn’t necessary >7,000Should not be used

6. Water Quality Effects on Ruminants Nitrate Nitrate, ppmEffects 0-44Generally safe for ruminants 45-132Generally safe for ruminants if balance with low nitrate feeds 133-220Harmful over long periods 221-660Cattle at risk; possible death >661Unsafe

7. 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 Polio- 0 0 0 48 encephalomalacia

8. Water Use in Swine Production Systems Consumption, gal/hd/day –Pigs<60 lb.7 –60-119 lb2.5 –120-179 lb4 –>180 lb4 –Gilts3 –Boars8 –Gestating sow4 –Sow w/ litter5 Cleaning and cooling, gal/hd or /litter/d Pre-soakWashCool Farrowing7.53616 Nursery.12.72- Finish1.22.716

9. Water Use in Dairy Production Systems Consumption Min-Max 51-77 o FMin-Max 63-91 o F 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 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, o F 405060708090 Growing heifers or steers 4004.04.35.05.86.79.5 6005.35.86.67.88.912.7 8006.36.87.99.210.615.0 Finishing cattle 8007.37.99.110.712.317.4 10008.79.410.812.614.520.6 Pregnant cows6.06.57.48.7-- Lactating cows11.412.614.516.917.9 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 Midwest J.R. Russell 1, D.A. Bear 1, K.A. Schwarte 1, and M. Haan 2 1 Iowa State University, Ames, IA 2 Michigan State University, Hickory Corners, MI

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

15. ANNUAL SEDIMENT, PHOSPHORUS, AND NITROGEN LOADING OF ROCK CREEK LAKE FROM 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 Pollutant concentration or frequency Cattle #s Grazing DaysStream Length Cow-days/ft Diet intake and indigestibility Fecal Pollutant Load or Incidence Distribution Grazing management Plant species Shade distribution Stream Riparian zone Open area Congregation area Transport in runoff Transport in runoff Stream Climate Off-stream water

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 + 0.005x 2 (r 2 =0.61)

24. IMPLICATIONS OF PASTURE SIZE AND SHAPE ON CATTLE TEMPORAL/SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION RESEARCH Ref. (State)Approx. pasture size, ac TreatmentEst. distance from treatment to stream, ft Stream and/or riparian effects Sheffield et al., 1997 (VA) 35 - 54Offstream water 37Reduced congregation Porath et al., 2002 (OR) 30Offstream water 1600Reduced congregation Byers et al., 2005 (GA) 42Offstream water 296Reduced congregation “35Offstream water 263No significant effect on congregation Agouridis et al., 2005 (KY) 5 – 7.5Offstream water 230No effect on congregation Line et al., 2000 (NC) 104Offstream water 338No effect on NPS

25. 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.

26. PERCENTAGE OF TIME GRAZING CATTLE ARE IN AND WITHIN 110 ft OF A PASTURE STREAM IN TWO YEARS 30 ac pastures 463 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 CSU = Continuous stocking unrestricted CSR = Continuous stocking restricted 2008-09

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 – 0.314x 2 (r 2 =0.16) y = 0.1 + 0.18x – 0.009x 2 (r 2 =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) aa a a a a b b b b b b cc 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-0.00089x 2 (r 2 =0.0101) BCV: y = 2.54+0.41x-0.015x 2 (r 2 =0.0345) BRV: y = 0.27+0.11x-0.0020x2 (r 2 =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

51. 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)

52. 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 )

53. 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

54. 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???

55. 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

56. 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