Consumption, productivity and cost: Three dimensions of water and their relationship with the supply of artificial shading for beef cattle in feedlots. (20th November 2022)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- Consumption, productivity and cost: Three dimensions of water and their relationship with the supply of artificial shading for beef cattle in feedlots. (20th November 2022)
- Main Title:
- Consumption, productivity and cost: Three dimensions of water and their relationship with the supply of artificial shading for beef cattle in feedlots
- Authors:
- Novelli, Taisla Inara
Bium, Bianca Freire
Biffi, Carlos Henrique Cogo
Picharillo, Maria Erika
de Souza, Natália Spolaore
de Medeiros, Sérgio Raposo
Palhares, Julio Cesar Pascale
Martello, Luciane Silva - Abstract:
- Abstract: It is important to understand the relationship between beef cattle water performance and animal welfare. However, to date, there is no knowledge of studies carried out to assess the water productivity of cattle when using an animal welfare practice. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of artificial shading in the water intake and water productivity and the relationships between these indicators with animal performance and water cost in a cattle feedlot system. Animals were divided into two groups, with shade (GS) and without shade (GWS), and they were housed in four collective pens. Water intake (WI, L day −1 ), dry matter intake (DMI, kg day −1 ), and average daily gain (ADG, kg day −1 ) were obtained for all cattle individually. To calculate water productivity, water input was the direct technical water represented by animal drinking. The average daily water intake for animals under shade was 36.8 L day-1. Animals without shade consumed 9% (3.3 L day −1 ) more water than animals under shade. Animals under shade presented higher water productivities. The average water productivity per kilograms of live weight of animals under shade was 0.203 kg LW L −1 water, with a maximum of 0.264 kg LW L −1 water and a minimum of 0.159 kg LW L −1 water. These values were 0.185, 0.234, and 0.097 kg LW L −1 water, respectively, for animals without shade. This is justified due to the lower average water intake for these animals and due to the numerically higher live weight andAbstract: It is important to understand the relationship between beef cattle water performance and animal welfare. However, to date, there is no knowledge of studies carried out to assess the water productivity of cattle when using an animal welfare practice. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of artificial shading in the water intake and water productivity and the relationships between these indicators with animal performance and water cost in a cattle feedlot system. Animals were divided into two groups, with shade (GS) and without shade (GWS), and they were housed in four collective pens. Water intake (WI, L day −1 ), dry matter intake (DMI, kg day −1 ), and average daily gain (ADG, kg day −1 ) were obtained for all cattle individually. To calculate water productivity, water input was the direct technical water represented by animal drinking. The average daily water intake for animals under shade was 36.8 L day-1. Animals without shade consumed 9% (3.3 L day −1 ) more water than animals under shade. Animals under shade presented higher water productivities. The average water productivity per kilograms of live weight of animals under shade was 0.203 kg LW L −1 water, with a maximum of 0.264 kg LW L −1 water and a minimum of 0.159 kg LW L −1 water. These values were 0.185, 0.234, and 0.097 kg LW L −1 water, respectively, for animals without shade. This is justified due to the lower average water intake for these animals and due to the numerically higher live weight and carcass weights. The results showed that if a production system uses shade in the feedlot, the water payment could be reduced by 7.2%. The study demonstrated that animals had a benefit by being produced with better welfare, the environment has a benefit by producing the same output with less water input, and the consumer wins by having an available product with environmental and animal welfare values. Graphical abstract: Image 1 Highlights: Total dry matter intake showed no treatment effect. Animals without shade consumed 9% more water than animals under shade. Animals under shade presented higher water productivities. Shading in the feedlot could reduce the water payment by 7.2%. … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- Journal of cleaner production. Volume 376(2022)
- Journal:
- Journal of cleaner production
- Issue:
- Volume 376(2022)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 376, Issue 2022 (2022)
- Year:
- 2022
- Volume:
- 376
- Issue:
- 2022
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2022-0376-2022-0000
- Page Start:
- Page End:
- Publication Date:
- 2022-11-20
- Subjects:
- Artificial shade -- Climate changes -- Drinking water -- Meat -- Water saving
Factory and trade waste -- Management -- Periodicals
Manufactures -- Environmental aspects -- Periodicals
Déchets industriels -- Gestion -- Périodiques
Usines -- Aspect de l'environnement -- Périodiques
628.5 - Journal URLs:
- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09596526 ↗
http://www.elsevier.com/journals ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134088 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 0959-6526
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - 4958.369720
British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library HMNTS - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 24167.xml