Environmental effects on water intake and water intake prediction in growing beef cattle1,2

Abstract

Water is an essential nutrient, but there are few recent studies that evaluate how much water individual beef cattle consume and how environmental factors affect an individual's water intake (WI). Most studies have focused on WI of whole pens rather than WI of individual animals. Thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of environmental parameters on individual-animal WI across different seasons and develop prediction equations to estimate WI, including within different environments and management protocols. Individual daily feed intake and WI records were collected on 579 crossbred steers for a 70-d period following a 21-d acclimation period for feed and water bunk training. Steers were fed in 5 separate groups over a 3-yr period from May 2014 to March 2017. Individual weights were collected every 14 d and weather data were retrieved from the Oklahoma Mesonet's Stillwater station. Differences in WI as a percent of body weight (WI%) were analyzed accounting for average temperature (TAVG), relative humidity (HAVG), solar radiation (SRAD), and wind speed (WSPD). Seasonal (summer vs. winter) and management differences (ad libitum vs. slick bunk) were examined. Regression analysis was utilized to generate 5 WI prediction equations (overall, summer, winter, slick, and ad libitum). There were significant (P < 0.05) differences in WI between all groups when no environmental parameters were included in the model. Although performance was more similar after accounting for all differences in weather variables, significant (P < 0.05) seasonal and feed management differences were still observed for WI%, but were less than 0.75% of steer body weight. The best linear predictors of daily WI (DWI) were dry mater intake (DMI), metabolic body weights (MWTS), TAVG, SRAD, HAVG, and WSPD. Slight differences in the coefficient of determinations for the various models were observed for the summer (0.34), winter (0.39), ad libitum (0.385), slick bunk (0.41), and overall models (0.40). Based on the moderate R 2 values for the WI prediction equations, individual DWI can be predicted with reasonable accuracy based on the environmental conditions that are present, MWTS, and DMI consumed, but substantial variation exists in individual animal WI that is not accounted for by these models.

Prediction of water intake to Bos indicus beef cattle raised under tropical conditions1

“…5 to be 0.6 kg/d, which appears low. Similarly, Meyer et al (2006) and Ahlberg et al (2018) reported minimum WI to be zero, or close to that, respectively. Meyer et al (2006) reported low minimal values of WI in consequence of temporary health problems.…”

“…Several factors that affect WI are known to exist in beef cattle, such as climatic variables, type of diet, breed, BW, and physiological status. The most recent report examining factors that influence WI in feedlot cattle was published by Ahlberg et al (2018), confirming the importance of environmental parameters and BW on WI prediction.…”

“…Recently, Ahlberg et al (2018) proposed five equations to predict WI, based on season (winter and summer) and bunk management protocols. Crossbreed and Angus steers were divided into five groups, which allowed data collection during winter and summer.…”

“…Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2012) reported that beef cattle demands one-third of the global water footprint of animal production. Drinking water is an important component of total water demands, water intake (WI) ranges from 8.0% to 9.8% of BW (Ahlberg et al, 2018). However, droughts negatively impact livestock production across of the world (Ward and Michelsen, 2002;Pluske and Schlink, 2007).…”

Growth Measurments of Male Goat Kids Nourished on Unconventional Rice Straws Ensiled by Corn Steep Liquor and Conventional Rice Straws Ensiled by Urea

“…Kids in T2 could be achieved lower (P>0.05) consumption of water than kids in T1 and T3 in middle and late stage of trial (Table 3). Hence, the water consumption increased within advanced kids' age (Abdelhamid et al, 2017) and within changing in environmental conditions (Ahlberg et al, 2018). Also, the lowest water consumption with ration containing CSL may be related to available of energy source as given by Barreto et al (2012) who displayed that goats fed diet of high energy had significant decrease in consumption of water compared to those fed a diet of low energy.…”