Beef Cattle Selection and

Management for Adaptation to

Drought

Megan Rolf

State Beef Extension Specialist

Oklahoma State University

Available precipitation (difference between monthly precipitation and potential

evapotranspiration [PET], sum of months with nonzero values) for the

conterminous United States. (Source: USGS Circular 1323; Ne.water.usgs.com)

Figures from Agcensus.usda.gov and Ne.water.usgs.com

Beef Cattle Water Intake

Consume 760 Billion L per year (Beckett and Oltjen, 1993)

Influenced by physiological and environmental parameters Size/weight (i.e. Brody et al. 1954; Ittner et al.

1951,1954) DMI (Ritzman and Bendict 1924; Leitch and Thompson,

1944) Ambient temperature and solar radiation (Mader and

Davis 2004; Amundson et al. 2006; Mader et al. 2006)

Sexson et al. 2012 estimated individual WI from environmental data utilizing 8,000 pen records R2=0.32 Significant individual animal variation

Water

Consumptive water use in the beef industry

Not as important on a LCA scale

Irrigation of pre-harvest water and feed ~95%

Underscores importance of feed efficiency

Critical for an individual farmer

Decreased water availability Amplified by increased evaporation if hot

Decreased water quality from increase in adulterants May affect taste and odor, palatability (Lardner

et al. 2005) Decreased performance likely due to reduced

water and feed intakes (Lardner et al. 2005)

Increased water temperature Typically increase water demand Particularly apparent in taurine cattle (Ittner et

al. 1951)

Need to consume more water, when we have less available and they are less likely to want to drink it

Water restriction Increases the spread of maximum and minimum

body temperatures (interferes with body temperature regulation; Finch 1985)

What to Expect During Drought

J. Anim. Sci Vol. 62 No. 2, p. 531-542

Australian Journal of Agricultural Research. 56: 97–104

Project Overview

5 year integrated USDA project Climate change and mitigation RFA

Adaptability to abiotic stresses Water availability and quality, temperature-related

stresses

Includes research and extension components

Goal: Develop beef cattle selection and management tools that address conservation of water resources and adaptation to climate variability (drought)

Insentec System

21 Day acclimation period

Commence test protocol

Study Design

70 day baseline feed and water intake test Individual animal (n=840, n=120 each round)

Water intake

Feed intake

Periodic weights (ADG)

Behavioral data (temperament, posture, social interactions, shade use, motion index, etc.)

Health status (blood cell counts, treatment data for health interventions, electrolyte balance, hematocrit, etc.)

Heat stress measures (respiration rates, subset with rumen boluses)

Cold stress measures (behavioral data)

Rumen and fecal samples

Pedometers on a subset of animals in each pen

Study Design

70 day adaptation test Every animal serves as its own control 35 day step-down phase

Water intake restricted by 10% each week until reach 50% of baseline

35 day extended water restriction period Maintained at 50% of normal intake for 5 weeks

Feed intake Periodic weights (ADG) Behavioral data (temperament, posture, social interactions, shade

use, motion index, etc.) Health status (blood cell counts, treatment data for health

interventions, electrolyte balance, hematocrit, etc.) Heat stress measures (respiration rates, subset with rumen

boluses) Cold stress measures (behavioral data) Rumen and fecal samples Pedometers on a subset of animals

Study Design

Feed samples (high roughage) Analyzed for dry matter weekly Stored for future nutrient analysis

Water Samples (TCFA) Water quality monitored once/month throughout the

study Tested in on-campus water lab

Calves maintained in the feedlot through finishing phase Impacts on carcass performance

140 control steers (20 in each group)

Collection of tissues at harvest (where possible)

Summary Statistics

Summary Statistics (Cont.)

Number of

Animals

Mean Restriction

Level*

Feed Intake

Reduction

Average Daily

Gain Reduction

Low Water Intake

Group39 53%ac 22%c 30%d

Medium Water

Intake Group39 55%ab 19%c 22%de

High Water Intake

Group39 52%ac 17%c 19%e

Results

y = 1.5076x + 0.0729

R² = 0.0756

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03

Wa

ter

Inta

ke

(a

s %

of

mid

-te

st

bo

dy w

eig

ht)

Feed Intake (as % of mid-test body weight)

Ad-libitum feed intake and water intake

Figure 1: Graph of ad-libitum water and feed intake expressed as a percentage of mid-test body

weight (to correct for bias due to body size) for steers in group 1 (n=117) over a 70 day feed and water

intake test.

y = -0.0004x + 0.102

R² = 7E-05

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Wa

ter

Inta

ke

(a

s %

of

mid

-te

st

bo

dy w

eig

ht)

Mean Average Daily Gain (kg)

Ad-libitum Water Intake and Average Daily Gain

Results

More Still to Come!

6 more rounds of calves (Group 2 will move to finishing April 1 2015) 70K genotyping data (GGP-HD)

Water intake and efficiency Feed efficiency Adaptability to abiotic stresses Heritability estimates and GWAS for these traits

WI highly heritable in laboratory animals (~70%)

Other traits with data collected

Metagenomic sequencing How is the rumen affected by water quality and availability?

>60% of protein requirement generated by microbes (Church 1993)

10 high and 10 low water intakes 10 most and 10 least adaptable Rumen and fecal samples before and during water restriction

GHG emissions predictions through modeling Tissue collections and GHG emissions data (head boxes)?

Extension Outcomes

Long-term business viability, stewardship of natural resources, and responsibility to community, family, and animals

Economic

Environment Social

Focus on Sustainability

Extension Outcomes

Evaluation of consumer perceptions on beef production sustainability and natural resource usage

Provide consumer education to fill knowledge gaps and misconceptions

Online educational modules

Tools for Producers

Cattle water demand tool

Expansion of the cattle comfort advisor

Extension Outcomes

Long-term business viability, stewardship of natural resources, and responsibility to community, family, and animals

Economic

Environment Social

Focus on Sustainability

Cattle comfort advisor:Reduce economic losses due

to not planning for heat stress

Water Demand Tool:

Manage on-farm natural resources

Surveys:Assess consumer attitudes towards sustainability and

natural resource usageCattle comfort advisor:

Animal well-being

Project Team

Oklahoma State UniversityMegan Rolf

Michelle Calvo-Lorenzo

Sara Place

Chris Richards

Clint Krehbiel

Udaya DeSilva

University of FloridaRaluca Mateescu

CollaboratorsDL Step-OSU Center for Veterinary Health Sciences

Al Sutherland-Oklahoma Mesonet

This project was supported by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant no. 2014-67004-21624 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

Graduate Students

Rolf Lab Cashley Ahlberg Kristi Allwardt Ashley Broocks Justin Buchanan Kimberly Branham

Others Catherine Haviland Jake Reed Justin Lyles Emily Andreini Andrew Grimes

Thank you!

http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/research/labs/genetics/rolf/home