The characterization of the cow-calf, stocker and feedlot cattle industry water footprint to assess the impact of livestock water use sustainability

2020 ◽  
Vol 158 (5) ◽  
pp. 416-430
Author(s):  
H. M. Menendez ◽  
L. O. Tedeschi
Keyword(s):  
Beef Cattle ◽  
Water Use ◽  
Water Footprint ◽  
Current Model ◽  
The United States ◽  
Independent Study ◽  
Model Parameters ◽  
Cattle Industry ◽  
Freshwater Use ◽  
The Impact

AbstractPerception of freshwater use varies between nations and has led to concerns of how to evaluate water use for sustainable food production. The water footprint of beef cattle (WFB) is an important metric to determine current levels of freshwater use and to set sustainability goals. However, current WFB publications provide broad WF values with inconsistent units preventing direct comparison of WFB models. The water footprint assessment (WFA) methodologies use static physio-enviro-managerial equations, rather than dynamic, which limits their ability to estimate cattle water use. This study aimed to advance current WFA methods for WFB estimation by formulating the WFA into a system dynamics methodology to adequately characterize the major phases of the beef cattle industry and provide a tool to identify high-leverage solutions for complex water use systems. Texas is one of the largest cattle producing areas in the United States, a significant water user. This geolocation is an ideal template for WFB estimation in other regions due to its diverse geography, management-cultures, climate and natural resources. The Texas Beef Water Footprint model comprised seven submodels (cattle population, growth, nutrition, forage, WFB, supply chain and regional water use; 1432 state variables). Calibration of our model replicated initial WFB values from an independent study by Chapagain and Hoekstra in 2003 (CH2003). This CH2003 v. Texas production scenarios evaluated model parameters and assumptions and estimated a 41–66% WFB variability. The current model provides an insightful tool to improve complex, unsustainable and inefficient water use systems.

scholarly journals 144 A modeling framework to assess the impact of the texas beef cattle water footprint on livestock sustainability

2019 ◽  
Vol 97 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. 147-147
Author(s):  
Hector M Menendez ◽  
Benjamin L Turner ◽  
Luis O Tedeschi
Keyword(s):  
Beef Cattle ◽  
Water Use ◽  
Evaluation System ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Water Footprint ◽  
Phase Region ◽  
Beef Production ◽  
Modeling Framework ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Anticipated growth in the demand for beef products driven by increased protein consumption, brings into question the efficiency, sustainability, profitability, and social dimensions of water use for U.S. beef production. Current assessment of U.S. beef production provides a wide range (695 to 14,191 L H2O/kg) of water footprint (WF) measurements of green (rainfed), blue (ground or surface), and grey (waste treatment) water use, but lacks defined region-specific estimates. The objective of this ongoing study is to develop a dynamic mathematical model for Texas beef cattle WF (TXWFB) that allows users to estimate a Texas WF, evaluate assumptions and parameters of current WF methodologies, identify water-use inefficiencies, and provide policy recommendations for a sustainable WF. The TXWFB was developed using Vensim DSS™ and evaluated with the Model Evaluation System™. The TXWFB model correctly replicated the previously published Chapagain and Hoekstra (2003; CH2003) water footprint results for beef cattle with a 36-month lifespan in both grazing [11,915 m3/t (0.4 t)] and industrial beef cattle [9636 m3/t (0.545 t)] systems. Then, parameters (diet composition and water footprints) from the CH2003 model were used as inputs into the TXWFB model to develop baseline scenarios for Texas, using ten climate regions (36-month lifespan; baseline grazing µ = 26,389 m3/t and industrial µ = 24,615 m3/t). The baseline results were then compared to grazing and industrial scenarios with regionalized Texas parameters for pasture, forage, and crop production (evapotranspiration, drought), diet/phase/region (cow-calf, stocker, and feedlot; 24 months). The TXWFB predictions for regional grazing (µ = 7,591 m3/t) and industrial (µ = 5,948 m3/t) results were 71 to 75% less than the baseline scenarios (P < 0.05). We concluded that the TXWFB estimates were considerably smaller than those previously published, suggesting that current WF methodologies can be refined to more adequately assess beef cattle WF in the US.

scholarly journals A spatially detailed blue water footprint of the United States economy

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 3007-3032 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard R. Rushforth ◽  
Benjamin L. Ruddell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Water Use ◽  
Water Footprint ◽  
Virtual Water ◽  
The United States ◽  
Energy Information Administration ◽  
Blue Water ◽  
Consumptive Use ◽  
The Us ◽  
Per Capita

Abstract. This paper quantifies and maps a spatially detailed and economically complete blue water footprint for the United States, utilizing the National Water Economy Database version 1.1 (NWED). NWED utilizes multiple mesoscale (county-level) federal data resources from the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), the US Department of Transportation (USDOT), the US Department of Energy (USDOE), and the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to quantify water use, economic trade, and commodity flows to construct this water footprint. Results corroborate previous studies in both the magnitude of the US water footprint (F) and in the observed pattern of virtual water flows. Four virtual water accounting scenarios were developed with minimum (Min), median (Med), and maximum (Max) consumptive use scenarios and a withdrawal-based scenario. The median water footprint (FCUMed) of the US is 181 966 Mm3 (FWithdrawal: 400 844 Mm3; FCUMax: 222 144 Mm3; FCUMin: 61 117 Mm3) and the median per capita water footprint (FCUMed′) of the US is 589 m3 per capita (FWithdrawal′: 1298 m3 per capita; FCUMax′: 720 m3 per capita; FCUMin′: 198 m3 per capita). The US hydroeconomic network is centered on cities. Approximately 58 % of US water consumption is for direct and indirect use by cities. Further, the water footprint of agriculture and livestock is 93 % of the total US blue water footprint, and is dominated by irrigated agriculture in the western US. The water footprint of the industrial, domestic, and power economic sectors is centered on population centers, while the water footprint of the mining sector is highly dependent on the location of mineral resources. Owing to uncertainty in consumptive use coefficients alone, the mesoscale blue water footprint uncertainty ranges from 63 to over 99 % depending on location. Harmonized region-specific, economic-sector-specific consumption coefficients are necessary to reduce water footprint uncertainties and to better understand the human economy's water use impact on the hydrosphere.

scholarly journals Applications of an Animal Model in the United States Beef Cattle Industry

1988 ◽  
Vol 71 ◽  
pp. 35-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
L.L. Benyshek ◽  
M.H. Johnson ◽  
D.E. Little ◽  
J.K. Bertrand ◽  
L.A. Kriese
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Animal Model ◽  
Beef Cattle ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cattle Industry

New approaches to genetic evaluation of beef cattle

1988 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 99-110
Author(s):  
E. John Pollak
Keyword(s):  
Animal Model ◽  
Beef Cattle ◽  
Mixed Model ◽  
The United States ◽  
Genetic Evaluation ◽  
Beef Industry ◽  
Widespread Application ◽  
Cattle Industry ◽  
Reduced Animal Model ◽  
Genetic Evaluations

The beef cattle industry in the United States has undergone dramatic changes over the past decade with the adoption of genetic evaluation programs. The method of choice has been Henderson's mixed model methodology for best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP). The most prevalently used model is the animal model (Henderson and Quaas, 1976) computed by the equivalent reduced animal model (Quaas and Pollak, 1980).Neither the methodology or the models being used are particularly new. What is new in this industry is the widespread application of these techniques to the analysis of the data banks maintained by the breed organizations. Today many breed associations publish a national sire evaluation, and most of these have published their first in the last three years. This rapid proliferation of published evaluations has coincided with an attitude in the industry of promoting specification beef and predictable performance. Genetic evaluations provide information not only to achieve goals in selection but as well for merchandizing cattle based on quantifiable potential. The enthusiasm for genetic evaluations right now in the U.S. beef industry is high.

scholarly journals Blue Water Footprints of Ontario Dairy Farms

Water ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (16) ◽  
pp. 2230
Author(s):  
Mariam Al-Bahouh ◽  
Vern Osborne ◽  
Tom Wright ◽  
Mike Dixon ◽  
Andrew VanderZaag ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Water Use ◽  
Water Conservation ◽  
Water Footprint ◽  
Wash Water ◽  
Conservation Practices ◽  
Blue Water ◽  
Total Water ◽  
Plate Cooler ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Seasonal Water Use

The blue water footprint (WF) is an indicator of freshwater required to produce a given end product. Determining the blue WF for milk production, the seasonal water use and the impact of water conservation are important sustainability considerations for the dairy industry in Ontario (Canada). In this study, a water footprint network (WFN) method was used to calculate the seasonal blue WF’s from in-barn water use data and the fat–protein-corrected milk (FPCM) production. Various water conservation options were estimated using the AgriSuite software. Results showed that the total water use (L of water·cow−1·d−1) and the average blue WF (L of water·kg−1 of FPCM) were 246.3 ± 6.8 L·cow−1·d−1 and 7.4 ± 0.2 L·kg−1, respectively. The total water use and the blue WF could be reduced to 182.7 ± 5.1 L·cow−1·d−1 (25.8% reduction) and 5.8 ± 0.1 L·kg−1 (21.6% reduction), respectively, through adaptive water conservation measures as the reuse of the plate cooler and milk house water. For example, conservation practices could reduce the milk house wash water use from 74.3 ± 8.8 L·cow−1·d−1 to 16.6 ± 0.1 L·cow−1·d−1 (77.7% overall reduction).

scholarly journals The impact of direct-maternal genetic correlations on international beef cattle evaluations for Limousin weaning weight

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renzo Bonifazi ◽  
Jérémie Vandenplas ◽  
Jan ten Napel ◽  
Roel F Veerkamp ◽  
Mario P L Calus
Keyword(s):  
Beef Cattle ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
Current Model ◽  
Genetic Correlations ◽  
Regression Method ◽  
Linear Regression Method ◽  
Pedigree Data ◽  
Weaning Weight ◽  
The Impact

Abstract In beef cattle maternally influenced traits, estimates of direct-maternal genetic correlations (rdm) are usually reported to be negative. In international evaluations, rdm can differ both within countries (rdm_WC) and between countries (rdm_BC). The rdm_BC are difficult to estimate and are assumed to be zero in the current model for international beef cattle evaluations (Interbeef). Our objective was to investigate re-ranking of international EBV (IEBV) in international beef cattle evaluations between models that either used estimated values for rdm or assumed them to be 0. Age-adjusted weaning weights and pedigree data were available for Limousin beef cattle from ten European countries. International EBV were obtained using a multi-trait animal model with countries modelled as different traits. We compared IEBV from a model that uses estimated rdm_BC (ranging between -0.14 and +0.14) and rdm_WC (between -0.33 and +0.40) with IEBV obtained either from the current model that assumes rdm_BC to be 0, or from an alternative model that assumes both rdm_BC and rdm_WC to be 0. Direct and maternal IEBV were compared across those three scenarios for different groups of animals. The ratio of population accuracies from the Linear Regression method was used to further investigate the impact of rdm on international evaluations, for both the whole set of animals in the evaluation and the domestic ones. Ignoring rdm_BC, i.e. replacing estimated values with 0, resulted in no (rank correlations > 0.99) or limited (between 0.98 and 0.99) re-ranking for direct and maternal IEBV, respectively. Both rdm_BC and rdm_WC had less impact on direct IEBV than on maternal IEBV. Re-ranking of maternal IEBV decreased with increasing reliability. Ignoring rdm_BC resulted in no re-ranking for sires with IEBV that might be exchanged across countries, and limited re-ranking for the top 100 sires. Using estimated rdm_BC values instead of considering them to be to 0, resulted in null to limited increases in population accuracy. Ignoring both rdm_BC and rdm_WC resulted in considerable re-ranking of animals’ IEBV in all groups of animals evaluated. This study showed the limited impact of the current practice of ignoring rdm_BC in international evaluations for Limousin weaning weight, most likely because the estimated rdm_BC were close to 0. We expect that these conclusions can be extended to other traits that have reported rdm values in the range of rdm_WC values for weaning weight in Limousin.

scholarly journals A Spatially Detailed and Economically Complete Blue Water Footprint of the United States

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard R. Rushforth ◽  
Benjamin L. Ruddell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Water Use ◽  
Water Footprint ◽  
The United States ◽  
Irrigated Agriculture ◽  
Energy Information Administration ◽  
United States Geological Survey ◽  
United States Department ◽  
Blue Water ◽  
The U.S

Abstract. This paper quantifies and maps a spatially detailed and economically complete blue water footprint for the United States, utilizing the National Water Economy Database version 1.1 (NWED). NWED utilizes multiple mesoscale federal data resources from the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE), and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to quantify water use, economic trade, and commodity flows to construct this water footprint. Results corroborate previous studies in both the magnitude of the U.S. water footprint (F) and in the observed pattern of virtual water flows. The median water footprint (FCUMed) of the U.S. is 181 966 Mm3 (FWithdrawal: 400 844 Mm3; FCUMax: 222 144 Mm3; FCUMin: 61 117 Mm3) and the median per capita water footprint (F'CUMed) of the U.S. is 589 m3 capita−1 (F'Withdrawal: 1298 m3 capita−1; F'CUMax: 720 m3 capita−1; F'CUMin: 198 m3 capita−1). The U.S. hydro-economic network is centered on cities and is dominated by the local and regional scales. Approximately (58 %) of U.S. water consumption is for the direct and indirect use by cities. Further, the water footprint of agriculture and livestock is 93 % of the total U.S. water footprint, and is dominated by irrigated agriculture in the Western U.S. The water footprint of the industrial, domestic, and power economic sectors is centered on population centers, while the water footprint of the mining sector is highly dependent on the location of mineral resources. Owing to uncertainty in consumptive use coefficients alone, the mesoscale blue water footprint uncertainty ranges from 63 % to over 99 % depending on location. Harmonized region-specific, economic sector-specific consumption coefficients are necessary to reduce water footprint uncertainties and to better understand the human economy's water use impact on the hydrosphere.

scholarly journals Effect of different cleaning procedures on water use and bacterial levels in weaner pig pens

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (11) ◽  
pp. e0242495
Author(s):  
Shilpi Misra ◽  
Corina E. van Middelaar ◽  
Kieran Jordan ◽  
John Upton ◽  
Amy J. Quinn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Water Use ◽  
Water Footprint ◽  
Bacterial Load ◽  
Production Chain ◽  
Pork Production ◽  
Pig Production ◽  
Cleaning Procedures ◽  
Effect Of Treatment ◽  
Freshwater Use ◽  
On Farm

Pork is one of the most globally eaten meats and the pig production chain contributes significantly to the water footprint of livestock production. However, very little knowledge is available about the on-farm factors that influence freshwater use in the pig production chain. An experiment was conducted to quantify the effect of three different washing treatments on freshwater use, bacterial levels [(total bacterial counts; TBC), Enterobacteriaceae and Staphylococcus] and cleaning time in washing of pens for weaning pigs. Three weaner rooms were selected with each room having 10 pens and a capacity to hold up to 14 pigs each. Pigs were weaned and kept in the pens for 7 weeks. Finally, the pens were cleaned before the next batch of pigs moved in. The washing treatments used were power washing and disinfection (WASH); presoaking followed by power washing and disinfection (SOAK), and presoaking followed by detergent, power washing and disinfection (SOAK + DETER). A water meter was used to collect water use data and swab samples were taken to determine the bacterial levels. The results showed that there was no overall effect of washing treatments on water use. However, there was an effect of treatment on the washing time (p<0.01) with SOAK and SOAK+DETER reducing the washing time per pen by 2.3 minutes (14%) and 4.2 minutes (27%) compared to WASH. Nonetheless, there was an effect of sampling time (before or after washing) (p<0.001) on the levels of TBC and Staphylococcus, but no effect was seen on Enterobacteriaceae levels. Thus, the washing treatments used in this study had no effect on the water use of the pork production chain. Although there was no difference in both water use and bacterial load, from a producer perspective, presoaking and detergent use can save time and labour costs, so this would be the preferred option.

scholarly journals 97 Impact of Regionalized Forage Quality and Quantity and Feed Grain Water Use on the Daily Texas Beef Cattle Water Footprint and Supply Chain Efficiency

2020 ◽  
Vol 98 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. 30-30
Author(s):  
Hector M Menendez ◽  
Luis O Tedeschi
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Beef Cattle ◽  
Water Use ◽  
Biomass Production ◽  
Water Footprint ◽  
Cynodon Dactylon ◽  
Lolium Multiflorum ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Forage Quality ◽  
Beef Products

Abstract Livestock water use sustainability is a growing concern in the beef cattle sector. The Water Footprint Assessment (WFA) method has been used to quantify the water footprint (WF) of beef products but does not suggest any specific management strategies to decrease the WF of beef cattle (WFB) within and across the beef supply chain. The WFB is primarily influenced by forage and grain production water uses (m3/t), which are directly linked to dry matter (kg/d) and water intake (L/d) and cattle growth (kg/d). Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess the alteration of forage quality and above-ground biomass production (t/ha) of annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) and bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), in addition to published WF estimates for corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) production (m3/t) on the daily Texas WFB. A dynamic Texas Beef Water Footprint Model (TXWFB) was developed to predict WFB, using the System Dynamic methodology and equations from the Ruminant Nutrition System (RNS) and Beef Nutrient Requirements (NASEM) models. Results indicated that forage and crop biomass production is a high-leverage solution to offset the daily Texas WFB (%∆ = -55 to 130). The alteration of forage TDN had less of an impact on the Texas WFB (%∆ = -39 to 17). An ANOVA with a Tukey Posthoc test indicated that all WFB scenarios were significantly different (P &lt; 0.05) except for the low versus base TDN under low water use conditions scenario. The variability in the use of green and blue waters for grains indicated that the final WFB, in the feedlot phase, may be lower than the WFB in the cow-calf or stocker stages under certain efficiency conditions. Identification of high and low-leverage solutions may help Texas cattle stakeholders implement systemic strategies that aid in the efforts for sustainable beef water use.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document