Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare cattle drinking water consumption collected electronically with that of direct human observation using water metres and to analyse whether an automated system compensates due to its greater precision. The study was conducted in the feedlot of Embrapa Pecuaria Sudeste. The reference unit had four pens: two with electronic drinkers and two with water metres. Experiment 1 utilised 52 Nelore steers and Experiment 2 utilised 44 Canchim steers. Nelore fed a conventional diet, the automated system median daily water intake (DWI) was higher than for animals drinking from the water metre, 17.9 L day-1 and 15.6 L day-1. The reverse was observed for animals fed the co-product diet, the automated system median DWI was 18.9 L day-1 and in the water metre pen was 23.0 L day-1. When the Canchim drank from water metres, the median DWI was lower than with the automated system group, 25.9 L day-1 and 27.8 L day-1, respectively. In Experiment 1, there was a statistical difference between the two sets of equipment for both diets. In Experiment 2, the animals were the same breed, had similar weights and were fed the same diet. There was no statistical difference between the equipment in these conditions. The results indicate that the water meter can have the same performance as high technology at a much lower cost. If a more simplified system for measuring water consumption has the same performance as an automated system, this will justify its use with environmental and economic advantages.
Highlights
Water is fundamental to animal agriculture and has three functions in a production system
The daily water intake (DWI) for one animal measured with a water meter is the result of total water consumed by the groups of cattles divided by the number of animals in the pen as well as the DWI measured with an electronic drinker is the average intake of all animals in the pen
The reverse was observed for animals fed the co-product diet, the Intergado median DWI was 18.9 L day-1 and the water meter pen 23.0 L day-1
Summary
Water is fundamental to animal agriculture and has three functions in a production system. It is a feed, which must be offered in quantity and quality. For a long time water in animal agriculture has been understood as an infinite and inexpensive natural resource. This did not contribute to the internalization of water-use efficiency. This culture has changed in recent years, whether due to conflicts over water, the greater intensity and frequency of climatic events or the lesser availability of water of the quality required by the production system
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Ambiente e Agua - An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Science
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
