Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T21:46:56.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of water trough type on the drinking behaviour of pasture-based beef heifers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2009

P. A. D. Coimbra ,
L. C. P. Machado Filho ,
P. A. Nunes ,
M. J. Hötzel ,
A. G. L. de Oliveira  and
U. Cecato
P. A. D. Coimbra
Affiliation:
LETA, Departamento de Zootecnia, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Avenida Admar Gonzaga, 1346, Florianópolis, SC 88034-001, Brazil
L. C. P. Machado Filho*
Affiliation:
LETA, Departamento de Zootecnia, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Avenida Admar Gonzaga, 1346, Florianópolis, SC 88034-001, Brazil
P. A. Nunes
Affiliation:
LETA, Departamento de Zootecnia, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Avenida Admar Gonzaga, 1346, Florianópolis, SC 88034-001, Brazil
M. J. Hötzel
Affiliation:
LETA, Departamento de Zootecnia, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Avenida Admar Gonzaga, 1346, Florianópolis, SC 88034-001, Brazil
A. G. L. de Oliveira
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zootecnia, Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Avenida Colombo, 5790, Maringá, PR 87020-900, Brazil
U. Cecato
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zootecnia, Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Avenida Colombo, 5790, Maringá, PR 87020-900, Brazil
*
†E-mail: pinheiro@cca.ufsc.br
Get access

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of different trough types on the water consumption and drinking behaviour of pasture-based beef heifers. Two trials were implemented with 32 beef heifers to test two different types of water troughs, namely a rectangular concrete trough (RC) and a round polyvinyl chloride water tank (PVC). In Trial 1, both troughs were simultaneously available to groups of four animals within eight paddocks. In Trial 2, the animals were distributed in pairs throughout 16 paddocks and, in a crossover design, were exposed to one type of trough at a time. In both trials, estimated water intake was per four animals. Number of drinking bouts, time spent drinking and amount of water intake from the RC and PVC trough were recorded in both trials. Data were statistically analysed by analysis of variance. In Trial 1, group and trough effect were in the model. In Trial 2, stage, pair and trough were tested. In Trial 1, where both types of troughs were available, animals had a higher number of drinking bouts (3.32 v. 0.57 ± 0.09; P < 0.01), longer drinking periods (144.21 v. 22.81 ± 7.3 s; P < 0.01) and greater intake (160.21 v. 23.76 ± 13.06 l; P < 0.01) from the PVC water tank, compared to the RC trough. In Trial 2, all groups drank more often (5.10 v. 3.28 ± 0.32; P < 0.001), for longer periods (167.23 v. 115.23 ± 15.61 s; P < 0.02) and with higher intake (141.36 v. 118.47 ± 5.01 l; P < 0.02) from the PVC than from the RC trough. Thus, heifers not only prefer, but also drink more from a PVC water tank in comparison to a RC trough.

Keywords

drinking behaviourwater troughpasture-based cattle
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 116 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albright, JL 1993. Feeding behavior of dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 485–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersson, M 1985. Effects of drinking water temperatures on water intake and milk yield of tied-up dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 12, 329–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bica, GS 2005. Animal welfare and environmental protection in supplying water for beef cattle. MSc, Federal University of Santa Catarina.Google Scholar
Bica, GS, Machado Filho, LCP, Teixeira, DL, Souza, GPP, Probst, R 2006. Behaviour and performance of beef cattle supplied with pond or trough. In Proceedings of the 43th Annual Meeting of the Brazilian Society of Zootechny. João Pessoa, Brazil, 6 pp.Google Scholar
FAO 2008. FAOSTAT Agriculture Data. Retrieved July 12, 2008, from http://apps.fao.orgGoogle Scholar
Hötzel, MJ, Machado Filho, LCP, Teixeira, DL, Wolf, FM, Coimbra, PAD, Yunes, MC, Dinon, PSL, Lopes, EJC 2003. Effects of physiological state on water consumption of water-restricted dairy cows. In Proceedings of the 9th World Conference on Animal Production, Porto Alegre, Brazil, pp. 232–234.Google Scholar
IAPAR (Instituto Agronômico do Paraná) 2005. Boletim Meteorológico Diário, Estação Meteorológica de Paranavaí.Google Scholar
Lardner, HA, Kirychuk, BD, Braul, L, Willms, WD, Yarotski, J 2005. The effect of water quality on cattle performance on pasture. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 56, 97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lardy, G, Stoltenow, C 1999. Extension Veterinarian Livestock and Water, AS-954. Retrieved January 17, 2007, from http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/ansci/livestoc/as954w.htmGoogle Scholar
Loneragan, GH, Wagner, JJ, Gould, DH, Garry, FB, Thoren, MA 2001. Effects of water sulfate concentration on performance, water intake and carcass characteristics of feedlot steers. Journal of Animal Science 79, 2941–2948.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Machado Filho, LCP, Teixeira, DL, Weary, DM, Von Keyserlingk, MAG, Hötzel, MJ 2004. Designing better water troughs: dairy cows prefer and drink more from larger troughs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 89, 185–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, U, Everinghoff, M, Gadeken, D, Flachowsky, G 2004. Investigations on the water intake of lactating dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 90, 117–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, RU, Stahl, W, Flachowsky, G 2006. Investigations on the water intake of growing bulls. Livestock Science 103, 186–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, M 1992. Nutritional factors affecting animal water and waste quality – water metabolism of diary cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 326–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, M, Davis, CL, Mccoy, GC 1983. Factors affecting water consumption by Holstein cows in early lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 66, 35–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Research Council 2000. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle, 7th edition. NRC, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
National Research Council 2001. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle, 7th edition. NRC, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Nyman, S, Dahlborn, K 2001. Effect of water supply method and flow rate on drinking behaviour and fluid balance in horses. Physiology and Behavior 73, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osborne, VR, Hacker, RR, McBride, BW 2002. Effects of heated drinking water on the production responses of lactating Holstein and Jersey cows. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 82, 267–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, PA, Fraser, D 1990. Water bowl size for newborn pigs. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 6, 79–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, PA, Fraser, D, Pawluczuk, B 2001. Determining the optimum mounting of water nipples for sows. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 17, 845–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinheiro Machado, LC 2004. Pastoreio Racional Voisin: tecnologia agroecológica para o terceiro milênio. Ed. Cinco Continentes, Porto Alegre, Brazil.Google Scholar
Rouda, R, Andersson, D, Wallace, J, Murray, L 1994. Free-ranging cattle water-consumption in south-central New-Mexico. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39, 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS 2002. Proprietary software, version 9.00. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Sheffield, RE, Mostaghimi, S, Vaughan, DH, Collins, ER Jr, Allen, VG 1997. Off-stream water sources for grazing cattle as a stream bank stabilization and water quality BMP. Transactions of the ASAE 40, 595–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, GW, Cochran, WG 1989. Statistical methods, 8th edition. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA, USA.Google Scholar
Teixeira, D 2005. Efficiency and ethics in transforming pasture on milk: ethological aspects of water supply. MSc, Federal University of Santa Catarina.Google Scholar
Teixeira, DL, Hotzel, MJ, Machado Filho, LCP 2006. Designing better water troughs: 2. surface area and height, but not depth, influence dairy cows’ preference. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 96, 169–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, JL, Burns, JC, Mochrie, RD, Gross, HD 1973. The choice of fixed or variable stocking rates in grazing experiments. Experimental Agriculture 9, 289–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, T 2003. Water Quality for Dairy Cattle. Dairy Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Retrieved August 21, 2005, from http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/dairy/facts/03-085.htmGoogle Scholar