ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Water required for feed production accounts the major part of livestock requirement and primarily influences the livestock water productivity. Water requirement to produce a kg DM of common green fodder, protein and energy feeds varied from 267 (sorghum) to 713.3 liter (lucerne), 1,000.0 (linseed) to 2,000.0 liter (soybean) and 690.0 (maize grain) to 850.0 liter (oat grain), respectively. Total water requirement estimated for livestock population 2003 and 2010 were 16.30 and 16.15 MCM, where cattle (both indigenous and crossbred) had highest water requirement (10.11 and 9.51 MCM). To meet the green fodder and concentrate requirement of livestock 151.72, 156.83 and 161.81 and 142.76, 157.67 and 172.04 BCM water required in year 2015, 2020 and 2025, respectively. Livestock water productivity to produce 1 kg milk ranged from 475.0 to 3,751.0 liter depending on the animal rearing system (extensive to intensive system), while to produce a kg of meat water requirement ranges from 8,215.0 to 9,680.0 liter depending on the animal species. Livestock water requirement for drinking and washing is very low (3.6%) than for feed and fodder production, while the livestock water productivity varies widely with their rearing system (extensive vs. intensive system) and animal species.
Content may be subject to copyright.
58
Present address: 1,2,7Principal Scientist (singh.sultan
@rediffmail.com, asimkmisra@gmail.com, anil.igfri@mail.com),
Plant Animal Relationship Division,3,4,5Principal Scientist
(jbs_igfri@rediffmail.com, baig_igfri@yahoo.co.in, suchitrai67
@yahoo.co.in), Crop Production Division, 8Principal Scientist
(opsverma.igfri@ernet.in), Crop Improvement Division.
6Principal Scientist (nagratana123@gmail.com), Regional
Research Station, Dharwad.
Nearly 29% of the water in agriculture is directly or
indirectly used for animal production (Hoekstra and
Mekonnen 2012). Animal type, activity, feed intake and
diet, water quality, water temperature and environment
temperature are the main factors influencing water
requirement for livestock production (Lardy et al. 2008).
Feed production constitutes the largest amount of water used
in livestock production and the amount of feed produced is
growing globally (Deutsch et al. 2010). Water needed for
drinking, washing and for other services such as cooling
and washing, cleaning of production facilities and animal
product processing constitutes less than 1%. Livestock
water productivity for the unit animal product is influenced
by 3 factors namely feed conversion efficiency (amount of
feed consumed per unit of meat/milk produced), diet
composition (roughage to concentrate ratio), and the feed
origin (Gerbens-Leenes et al. 2013). To produce the
maintenance diet for 1 tropical livestock unit (TLU:
Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 84 (10): 1090–1094, October 2014/Article
Water requirement estimates of feed and fodder production for Indian livestock
vis a vis livestock water productivity
SULTAN SINGH1, A K MISHRA2, J B SINGH3, S K RAI4, M J BAIG5, N BIRADAR6,
A KUMAR7 and O P S VERMA8
Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh 284 003 India
Received: 11 November 2013; Accepted: 26 June 2014
ABSTRACT
Water required for feed production accounts the major part of livestock requirement and primarily influences
the livestock water productivity. Water requirement to produce a kg DM of common green fodder, protein and
energy feeds varied from 267 (sorghum) to 713.3 liter (lucerne), 1,000.0 (linseed) to 2,000.0 liter (soybean) and
690.0 (maize grain) to 850.0 liter (oat grain), respectively. Total water requirement estimated for livestock population
2003 and 2010 were 16.30 and 16.15 MCM, where cattle (both indigenous and crossbred) had highest water
requirement (10.11 and 9.51 MCM). To meet the green fodder and concentrate requirement of livestock 151.72,
156.83 and 161.81 and 142.76, 157.67 and 172.04 BCM water required in year 2015, 2020 and 2025, respectively.
Livestock water productivity to produce 1 kg milk ranged from 475.0 to 3,751.0 liter depending on the animal
rearing system (extensive to intensive system), while to produce a kg of meat water requirement ranges from
8,215.0 to 9,680.0 liter depending on the animal species. Livestock water requirement for drinking and washing is
very low (3.6%) than for feed and fodder production, while the livestock water productivity varies widely with
their rearing system (extensive vs. intensive system) and animal species.
Key words: Feed, Fodder, Livestock, Water requirement and productivity
measured at 250kg live weight) about 450m3 of water is
required annually. Feeds have highly variable water
productivity, ranging from 0.5 kg above-ground dry matter
/m3 water (US grasslands on 300 mm annual rainfall) to 8
kg/m3 (irrigated forage sorghum, Sudan (Peden et al. 2007).
Livestock industry across the globe uses about 8% of total
water used. The major part of it goes to irrigate the feed
crops used for livestock feeding. Zimmer and Renault
(2003) demonstrated that a survival diet require 1m3 of
water/head/day, whereas an animal product based diet of
humans needs some 10 m3 water/capita/day. Schlink et al.
(2010) has discussed global position of water requirement
for livestock production in detail. Mekonnen and Hoekstra
(2012) carried out a comprehensive global study of the water
foot print of farm animals and animal products. Present
study was done to estimate the water requirement of Indian
livestock for drinking, washing and to produce the feed and
fodders based on their availability and demand projections
as well as water requirement to produce unit milk and meat.
METHODOLOGY
Many workers have included several processes and
factors involved in animal rearing while calculating the
water requirement. For the present study many assumptions
and following factors have been included for determining
livestock water productivity.
October 2014] WATER REQUIREMENTS OF FEED PRODUCTION FOR INDIAN LIVESTOCK 1091
59
1. Water requirement for drinking and washing/cleaning
2. Water requirement for feed and fodder (green fodder,
straw/stover/crop residues, protein and energy source)
production.
Drinking and washing requirements of water were taken
from Indian literature (Kidan 1976, Pal et al. 1973 and
Radadia et al. 1980). For calculation it was assumed that
only half of the livestock population in India is washed
daily. It was further assumed that only female stock of cattle
and buffaloes are washed daily. For male stock, calves of
less than a year and breeding and working bulls of crossbred
cattle and indigenous cattle respectively are washed. For
livestock species like sheep, goats, yak, mithun, camel, pigs,
donkeys, mules etc. no water was taken into consideration
for washing.
Crop residues yield were estimated for different crops
(both Rabi and Kharif crops) using their production data
from agricultural statistics (MoA, GOI 2003) and grain
straw ratio factors (Ramchandra et al. 2007, Jain et al. 1996).
It was assumed that the crop residues had 90% DM contents.
Further for green fodder, crop residues and concentrates,
dry matter contents of 30, 61.48 and 90 %, respectively
were taken into account to estimate the dry matter
availability from these feed and fodder resources. To
calculate the water requirement for unit (kg) feed and fodder
production, total water requirement of crops (green fodder
and grain/seed crops) and their yield was taken into account
(Menhi lal and Shukla 1988). As the cereal crops are grown
mainly for grains which are used as ingredient of livestock
concentrate/feed for which the water used was taken into
account and to avoid the double accounting no water was
accounted for straw and stover production.
Animal population and their categories
India had 185.18 million cattle, 97.92 million buffaloes,
61.47 million sheep, 124.36 million goats and 15.82 million
other livestock including pig, donkey, mule, camel, horse,
yak and mithun, which constitute about 20% of the world’s
ruminant population (GOI 2003). Classification of species
into different categories, viz. calves below 1 year, between
1–1.5 year, heifers, working, lactating, breeding, breeding
plus working and others is based on Livestock Census 2003
of India.
Many assumptions were used to calculate the livestock
water productivity (to produce 1liter milk or 1 kg meat) for
different ruminant species. For milk production these
includes: animal weight (400 kg), dry matter intake (2.2%
of body weight), diet composition (concentrate 1/3, roughage
2/3 of which 2/3 dry roughage and 1/3 green fodder), milk
yield (7.5 liter) etc. It was also considered that the concentrate
mixture consists of 33 parts protein, 65 parts energy source
and rest 1 part each of mineral mixture and common salt.
Animals producing up to 4 liter of milk/day do not require
additional water for milk production. For each 0.453 liter of
additional milk production 2.5 liter of extra water is required.
Water required for drinking and cleaning mentioned earlier
was also taken into account.
In intensive system of rearing animals were fed straw,
green fodder and concentrate following thumb rule of 1/3
concentrate and 2/3 roughage. For calculating the water
requirement, the mean values of water efficiency mentioned
in protein, energy and green fodder were considered
assuming this will represent the average water requirement
for different sources of protein, energy and green
fodder.
In semi extensive system of rearing system, it was
assumed that animal is getting 1% (nearly 40% of its DM
requirement) of its dry matter requirement from 4 h grazing
and rest amount of DM is met through roughage and
concentrate distributed in 2/3 and 1/3 parts, respectively.
This roughage part consists of dry roughage and green in
2/3 and 1/3 part. For calculating water requirement the green
fodder and concentrate offered at stall was taken into
account. The DM consumed by animal through grazing was
not taken into account for calculating as it was assumed
that biomass/dry matter grazed by the animal receives water
from rain as no water was supplied to produce that biomass
or dry matter. In extensive system, it was assumed that
animal is getting 1.5 % (nearly 60% of its DM requirement)
of its DM requirement through 8 h grazing. Only 60% to
40% of the balance (4 kg DM) is supplied with nearly 2.0
kg straw/grass and ½ kg of kitchen waste or flour and does
not meet the production requirement of the animal. In this
system of rearing water requirement was accounted only
for ½ kg of feed supplemented to animal in the form of
flour. The DM consumed through grazing was not taken
into account for calculation assuming that biomass/dry
matter grazed by the animal produced from rain water.
For meat production it was assumed that birth weight of
sheep and goat is 2.5 kg, while that of buffalo and cattle
birth weight is 25.0 kg. Slaughter weight and meat yield
was assumed 25.0 kg and 22.5 kg for both sheep and goat
and 250.kg and 225 kg for both cattle and buffalo,
respectively. A dressing per cent of 0.40 and 0.38 was
assumed for small and large ruminants, respectively. Feed
conversion efficiencies of 14.2, 12.5 and 10 % were
assumed for sheep, goat and large ruminants (cattle and
buffaloes), respectively. To attain a body weight of 25 kg,
goat and sheep consume 200 and 175 kg feed DM, while a
buffalo to attain a body weight of 250 kg consumes 2,500
kg feed DM. For buffalo/cattle 30 liter/d water for drinking
and another 30 liter/d for other purpose were considered. It
was assumed that sheep and goat require 4.0 and 4.5 liter
water/d for drinking and 1 liter water for processing of each
kg meat.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Water requirement for feed and fodder production: The
water requirement of the crop varies mainly with genetic
makeup, crop duration and environment conditions during
crop growth. Crops like berseem and alfalfa; lucerne and
cowpea require more water than sorghum and oat. The water
requirement to produce 1 kg of dry matter for different
fodder crops is given in Table 1.
1092 SINGH ET AL. [Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 84 (10)
60
Since straw is byproduct of rice and wheat grain, so for
straw production no water is accounted for as the wheat
and rice crops are primarily grown for grain production
and not for straw production. The amount of water required
to produce 1 kg of protein and energy source is given in
Table 1. The water requirement for soybean production is
more than oilseed production. The amount of water required
for cereal grain production varied from 690 in maize to
850 L for oat. Renault and Wallender (2000) reported about
1,159, 1,408, 710, 2,547 and 2,860 liter of water/kg of
product for wheat, rice, maize, groundnuts and beans,
respectively, for intensive system of production. Most of
the water consumed is used to grow feed (Oltjen 1991).
Barthelemy et al. (1993) reported that 2,752, 710, 542,
2,374, 1,159 and 1,910 litre of water is required to produce
1 kg of each soybean, maize, sorghum, oats, wheat and
barley grain, respectively. A wide variability in water
requirement to produce 1 kg of wheat, barley, sorghum grain
and alfalfa hay from different locations was reported
(Beckett and Oltjen 1993). Water requirement to produce 1
kg product/grain from wheat, soybean and other agricultural
products for developed countries was also reported
(Hoekstra and Chapagain 2007).
Livestock water requirement for drinking and washing/
cleaning
Water requirement (drinking and washing) estimated for
livestock population of 2003 and 2010 were 16.30 and 16.15
MCM, respectively. Among the livestock species water
requirement for cattle (both indigenous and crossbred) was
higher (10.11 and 9.51 MCM) followed by buffaloes (4.72
and 5.15 MCM) than other livestock species (Table 2).
Demand and supply of feed/fodders and water
Data revealed that dry matter and green fodder will be
deficit by 24.92 and 64.87 %, respectively by year 2025;
concentrate will be deficit by the tune of 60.4 % by the
year 2025 (Table 3). Likewise 146.74 and 128.12 BCM
water is required to produce the green fodder and
concentrate for livestock in year 2010 against 161.81 and
172.04 for green fodder and concentrate production,
respectively, in year 2025. Thus there is a need of 92.08
and 39.40 BCM water to produce green fodder and
concentrate, respectively, to meet livestock needs in year
2010. It is obvious from Table 1 that deficit in green and
dry fodder is increasing every year, while for concentrate
gap is almost static. But this gap is critical and is going to
determine the type of animal and husbandry practices to be
followed in future.
Estimates of livestock water productivity to produce an unit
animal product
Estimated water requirement were 475, 2,451 and 3,751
liter for production of 1 liter milk in extensive, semi-
extensive and intensive system of livestock rearing. This
variation may be attributed to types of feed ingredients of
ration fed to animals/livestock and slaughter weight of the
animal. Animal products from industrial systems generally
consume and pollute more ground- and surface-water
resources than animal products from grazing or mixed
systems (Mekonnen and Hoekstra 2012). Reports of
Gerbens-Leens (2013) that globally industrial systems have
the largest blue and grey water foot prints for beef, and
grazing systems have the smallest blue and grey water foot
prints, are on the pattern of present observations. Water
productivity was as low as 0.3 L of milk / m3 of water;
however global water requirement for milk production is
reported to be 1.1 liter/m3 of water (Singh and Kishore
2004). Water productivity estimates in terms of water
requirement were 8,215, 9,338 and 9,680 liter for sheep,
goat and buffalo for 1 kg of meat production. For meat
production the reported water productivity ranged from
0.04–0.07kg/m3 of water (Zimmer and Renult 2003,
Chapagain and Hoekstra 2003, Oki et al. 2003). They
reported requirement of 15,497, 4,043, 6,143 and 900 liter
of water /kg of product from beef, chevon, mutton and milk
production, respectively, in developed countries. The water
requirement to produce animal product i.e. beef and milk
was 13,500 and 790 liters, respectively. This water
requirement to produce 1 kg of food/fodder crop and milk
product varies between the countries. In developing and
underdeveloped world livestock are usually fed on crop
residues requiring less water than those fed on high grain
and green fodder based diet in developed countries. Use of
irrigation water under intensive system of rearing increases
the water requirement to produce animal product. Water
requirement estimates for beef production was 20,864 litre/
kg of meat (Robbins 1987) and 20,559 litre/kg of boneless
beef (Kreith 1991). Water used for beef cattle can be divided
into that drunk by animals that used for producing feed,
and that used for processing the cattle into beef. As per
estimate (Barthelemy et al. 1993) 13,500 litre water is
Table 1. Water requirements (L) to produce 1 kg dry matter of green fodder, protein and energy feeds*
Green fodder Water (L) Protein feeds Water (L) Energy feeds Water (L)
Berseem 454.5 Groundnut 1111.0 Wheat grain 800.0
Lucerne 713.3 Soybean 2000.0 Maize grain 690.0
Oat 312.5 Mustard 1250.0 Barley grain 700.0
Sorghum 267.0 Linseed 1000.0 Oat 850.0
Cowpea 555.0 Mean 1340.0 Mean 760.0
Mean 461.0
* Values extracted from the data of water applied through irrigation and yield of crop.
October 2014] WATER REQUIREMENTS OF FEED PRODUCTION FOR INDIAN LIVESTOCK 1093
61
Table 2. Estimates of drinking and washing/cleaning water requirements for different categories of livestock
Livestock Category Year 2003 Year 2010 Projections
Numbers ‘000 Water requirement Numbers ‘000 Water requirement
(MCM) (MCM)
Cattle
Crossbred male 0–1 year 1505.92 0.04 1849.30 0.05
1– 3 Years 1493.72 0.06 1834.30 0.08
> 3 Years 188.20 0.01 231.10 0.01
Working 3396.21 0.18 4170.50 0.22
Breeding + Work 475.31 0.03 583.70 0.04
Others 147.64 0.01 181.30 0.01
Crossbred female 4–12 month 2849.67 0.08 3500.40 0.10
1–3 years 3312.91 0.20 4069.40 0.24
Milking 6957.38 0.47 8546.10 0.57
Dry 3132.21 0.16 3847.50 0.20
Heifers 987.51 0.07 1213.00 0.08
Others 236.78 0.01 293.00 0.02
Indigenous male 0–12 months 6743.50 0.17 6053.60 0.15
1–3 years 12515.49 0.52 11235.00 0.47
<3 Years breeding 7750.15 0.40 6957.20 0.36
Working 47728.49 3.20 42845.40 2.87
Breeding + work 7362.62 0.38 6609.30 0.34
Others 667.80 0.03 599.50 0.03
Indigenous female 4–12 month 9313.22 0.28 8360.60 0.25
1–3 years 17341.46 0.72 15567.70 0.65
Milking 24437.86 1.64 21938.20 1.47
Dry 21292.49 1.11 19114.60 1.00
Heifers 3754.54 0.25 3370.50 0.23
Others 1586.44 0.08 1424.20 0.07
Total cattle 185177.52 10.11 174395.30 9.51
Buffaloes
Buffalo males 0–12 months 5109.94 0.15 5565.60 0.16
1–3 years 4518.15 0.27 4921.10 0.29
<3 Years breeding 607.06 0.04 661.20 0.04
Working 6603.68 0.44 7192.60 0.48
Breeding + work 2545.29 0.17 2772.30 0.19
Others 212.76 0.01 231.70 0.01
Buffaloes Female 0–1 years 11091.34 0.33 12069.30 0.36
1–3 Years 13358.65 0.79 14546.80 0.87
Milking 31827.80 2.14 34667.10 2.33
Dry 17749.56 1.19 19328.20 1.30
Heifers 3471.66 0.23 3780.40 0.25
Others 832.98 0.04 907.10 0.05
Total buffaloes 97928.87 4.72 106643.30 5.15
Goat
<1 year 56222.84 0.14 56970.00 0.14
> 1 year 68134.16 0.48 69041.90 0.48
Total goat Total 124357.00 0.62 126011.90 0.63
Sheep 61469.00 0.43 65716.50 0.46
Pigs 13518.00 0.30 13751.50 0.30
Yaks 65.00 0.00 71.60 0.001
Mithuns 682.00 0.01 436.60 0.01
Horses and ponies 751.00 0.03 682.00 0.03
Mules 176.00 0.01 140.20 0.006
Donkeys 650.00 0.02 479.10 0.01
Camels 488760.20 0.05 438.00 0.03
Total livestock 485002.39 16.30 488760.2 16.15
1094 SINGH ET AL. [Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 84 (10)
Table 3. Water requirement for crop residue, green forage and
concentrate feeds production (projections)
Year Requirement Availability
DM Water (BCM) DM Water (BCM)
Crop residues (DM basis)
2000 337.53 156.78 263.13 122.23
2005 349.82 162.49 272.36 126.51
2010 362.12 168.20 277.27 128.79
2015 374.41 173.91 286.50 133.08
2020 387.32 179.91 290.80 135.08
2025 399.62 185.62 300.02 139.36
Green forages (DM basis)
2000 296.40 136.64 115.35 53.18
2005 307.50 141.76 116.97 53.92
2010 318.30 146.74 118.56 54.66
2015 329.10 151.72 120.18 55.40
2020 340.20 156.83 121.77 56.14
2025 351.00 161.81 123.39 56.88
Concentrate feeds (DM basis)
2000 99.63 98.83 34.74 34.46
2005 114.38 113.47 41.54 41.20
2010 129.15 128.12 48.33 47.94
2015 143.91 142.76 55.13 54.69
2020 158.94 157.67 61.94 61.44
2025 173.43 172.04 68.76 68.21
BCM, Billion cubic meters.
required to produce 1 kg meat from bovine, sheep and goat,
which is higher than the present values. Dressing per cent
and per cent of the boneless yield in carcass influence the
water requirement for meat production.
REFERENCES
Barthélemy F, Renault D, Wallender W. 1993. Water for
Sustainable Human Nutrition: Inputs and Resources Analysis
for Arid Areas. pp.70.UC Davis Internal Report.
Beckett J L and Oltjen J W. 1993. Estimation of the water
requirement for beef production in the United States. Journal
of Animal Sciences 71: 818–26.
Chapagain A K and Hoekstra A Y. 2003. Virtual water trade: a
quantification of virtual water flows between nations in relation
to international trade of livestock and livestock products.
International Expert Meeting on Virtual Water Trade. (Ed.)
Hoekstra A Y. Value of Water Research Report Series, 12, IHE,
Delft, Netherlands.
Deutsch L, Falkenmark M, Gordon L, Rockström J and Folke C.
2010. Water-mediated ecological consequences of
intensification and expansion of livestock production.
Livestock in a Changing Landscape. pp 97– 111. (Eds)
Steinfeld H, Mooney H A, Schneider F and Neville L E.
Washington DC, USA.
Gerbens-Leenes P W, Mekonnen M M and Hoekstra A Y. 2013.
The water foot prints of poultry, pork and beef: A comparative
study in different countries and production systems. Water
Resources and Industry 1–2: 25–36.
GOI. 2003. 17th Livestock Census, Ministry of Agriculture.
Government of India 2005, New Delhi.
Hoekstra A Y and Chapagain A K. 2007. Water footprints of
nations: water use by people as a function of their consumption
pattern. Water Resource Management 21: 35–48.
Hoekstra A Y and Mekonnen M M. 2012. The water foot prints
of humanity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
109 (9): 3232–37.
Jain D K, Sharma K N S, Walli T K and Rai S N. 1996. Estimates
of nutrition requirements and availability for bovine population
across major states of India. Dairy Economics, Statistics and
Management Division, NDRI, Karnal, ICAR New Delhi.
Kidan N B.1976. ‘Water requirements for young buffalo calves
and heifers and other operations at the farm.’ M Sc Thesis,
Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, Haryana, India.
Kreith M. 1991. Water Inputs in California Food Production.
Water Education Foundation, Sacramento, CA.
Lardy G, Stoltenhow C and Johnson R. 2008. Livestock and Water.
North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota.
Mekonnen M M and Hoekstra A Y. 2012. A global assessment of
the water foot prints of farm animal products. Ecosystems 15
(3) 401–15.
Menhi Lal and Shukla N P. 1988. Water management in forage
crops. Pasture and Forage Crop Research. A State of
Knowledge Report. pp. 211–20. (Ed.) Singh P. Range
management Society of India, Indian Grassland and Fodder
Research Institute, Jhansi, UP, India
Oki T, Sato M, Kawamura A, Miyake M, Kane S and Musiake K.
2003. Virtual water trade to Japan and in the world.
International Expert Meeting on Virtual Water Trade. (Ed.)
Hoekstra A Y. Value of Water Research Report Series, 12, IHE,
Delft, Netherlands.
Oltjen W. 1991. Water needs for meat production. Journal of
Animal Science 69 (Suppl 1): 227 (Abstract).
Pal S, Pal R N and Thomas C K. 1973. Water intake by Murrah
buffalo cows. Indian Journal of Dairy Science 26: 253.
Peden D, Tadesse G and Misra A. 2007. Water and livestock for
human development. Water for Food, Water for Life: A
Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in
Agriculture. pp.485–514. (Ed.) Molden D. London, UK:
Earthscan; Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI.
Radadia N S, Pal R N, Juneja I J and Sastry S N R.1980. Studies
on the effect of certain in summer managemental practices on
lactating Murrah buffaloes. 3. Physiological reactions and
some attributes of blood. Haryana Agricultural University
Journal of Research 10: 142–47.
Ramchandra K S, Taneja V K, Anandan S and Angadi. 2007.
Livestock feed resources in different agro ecosystems of India:
Availability, requirement and their management. National
Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology, Bengaluru,
ICAR, New Delhi.
Renault D and Wallender W. 2000. Nutritional water productivity
and diets. Agriculture Water Management 45: 275–96.
Robbins J. 1987. Diet for a New America. Still point Press,
Walpole, NH.
Schlink A C, Nguyen M L and Viljoen J. 2010. Water requirements
for livestock production: a global perspective. Revue
scientifique et technique (International Office of Epizootics)
29 (3): 603–19.
Singh O P and Kishore A. 2004. Groundwater Intensity of North
Gujarat’s Dairy Industry: Why Should Dairy Industry Take a
Serious Look at Irrigation? Water and Welfare: Critical Issues
in India’s Water Furue. IWMI-Tata Annual Partners’ Meet,
17–19 February, Anand, India.
Zimmer D and Renault D. 2003. Virtual water in food production
and global trade. Review of methodological issues and
preliminary results. International Expert Meeting on Virtual
Water Trade (Ed.) Hoekstra A Y. Value of Water Research
Report Series, 12, IHE, Delft, Netherlands pp. 93–109.
62
... Ration 2 which was based on alfalfa and wheat straw (CS) can reduce the whole VW for milk production below 1.0 m³. These matters displayed a difference, which was attributed to sorts of feed elements of ration and slaughter weight of the animal (Singh et al. 2014). ...
... Our study confirmed the result of Singh et al. (2014) which indicates that livestock water requirement for drinking and washing was very low (3.6%) in comparison with feed and fodder production, while the livestock water productivity varied widely with their rearing system (extensive vs. intensive system) and animal species. ...
Article
Nutritionists have liberty to choose various feeds for formulating a balanced ration depending upon the nutritive value, availability and feed cost. Although final target in an alternative ration is to obtain similar energy, protein and other nutrients, it would be favourable to consider virtual water (VW) requirement which must be spent while making a balanced ration. This paper compared two isonitrogenous and isocaloric balanced dairy cow rations for their VW requirements. VW in the maize silage-based ration was greater than that of alfalfa and wheat straw-based diet (39.73 versus 34.45 m3). It was also found that by-product feeds such as molasses, beet sugar pulp, corn gluten, and soybean meal require a lesser amount of VW, thus, they could be the best candidates to be used as much as conventional main feeds in the ration of dairy cattle for decreasing VW requirement of milk. Using feeds with less water utilization could reduce water requirement for milk production up to 12%.
... In lactating dairy animal, insufficient supply of nutrient requirements led to a decline in milk yield, severe and prolonged energy and protein deficiency depresses reproductive function (NRC, 2001) [13] . Pressure on land and fodder resources and diminishing grazing land coupled with poor quality feed resources are one of the major challenges in dairy farming, especially widespread macro-and micromineral deficiency (Singh et al., 2014;Kumaresan et al., 2010) [14,15] . The mineral concentration in crops and forages depends on the genus, species, variety, form of soil, environment and stage of maturity of the fodder (Gowda et al., 2001) [16] . ...
... In lactating dairy animal, insufficient supply of nutrient requirements led to a decline in milk yield, severe and prolonged energy and protein deficiency depresses reproductive function (NRC, 2001) [13] . Pressure on land and fodder resources and diminishing grazing land coupled with poor quality feed resources are one of the major challenges in dairy farming, especially widespread macro-and micromineral deficiency (Singh et al., 2014;Kumaresan et al., 2010) [14,15] . The mineral concentration in crops and forages depends on the genus, species, variety, form of soil, environment and stage of maturity of the fodder (Gowda et al., 2001) [16] . ...
Article
Full-text available
Nutrients requirement plays a very crucial role in regulating biological systems, immunological, health, lactation and reproductive performance in dairy cattle.Therefore, the present study was conducted to assess the effect of area specific mineral mixture supplementation on milk yield, reproductive performance and economic of dairy cattle for a period of 120 days. Experimental animals were selected randomly from four villages of Dima Hasao district of Assam. Twenty lactating crossbred cattle (n=20) were divided into two groups (10 milch cows/group) viz., treatment (T2-supplement of 50gm mineral mixture/cattle/day) and control (T1-no supplementation) in a completely randomized designed. Results revealed significant (P<0.05) improvement in milk yield by 1.36 litre per day (18.68%), reproductive performance and benefit cost ratio (3.55 vs 3.11) in the studied. Thus, mineral mixture supplementation in the diet of dairy cattle gave better results in improving milk yield and reproductive efficiency for sustainability livelihood in smallholders’ dairy farming in hilly regions.
... Yaks prefer fresh grass and high temperature affects their feed intakes. Yaks normally drink water from rivers and in the absence of water, particularly in the winter season, they lick ice to meet their water requirement (26). Ma et al. (27) concluded that the addition of glutamine in the diet of yaks improved the growth of slow-growing yaks, as wel l as gastrointestinal morphology and barrier function. ...
Article
Full-text available
Yaks play an important role in the livelihood of the people of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau (QTP) and contribute significantly to the economy of the different countries in the region. Yaks are commonly raised at high altitudes of ~ 3,000–5,400 m above sea level. They provide many important products, namely, milk, meat, fur, and manure, as well as social status, etc. Yaks were domesticated from wild yaks and are present in the remote mountains of the QTP region. In the summer season, when a higher quantity of pasture is available in the mountain region, yaks use their long tongues to graze the pasture and spend ~ 30–80% of their daytime grazing. The remaining time is spent walking, resting, and doing other activities. In the winter season, due to heavy snowfall in the mountains, pasture is scarce, and yaks face feeding issues due to pasture scarcity. Hence, the normal body weight of yaks is affected and growth retardation occurs, which consequently affects their production performance. In this review article, we have discussed the domestication of yaks, the feeding pattern of yaks, the difference between the normal and growth-retarded yaks, and also their microbial community and their influences. In addition, blood biochemistry, the compositions of the yaks' milk and meat, and reproduction are reported herein. Evidence suggested that yaks play an important role in the daily life of the people living on the QTP, who consume milk, meat, fur, use manure for fuel and land fertilizer purposes, and use the animals for transportation. Yaks' close association with the people's well-being and livelihood has been significant.
... Based on 100% of ET 0 irrigation regime to produce 1 kg of fresh barley green fodder under conventional farming was 571.4 L, while 628.9 L are required to produce1 kg of dry matter. These results corroborated with [29]. On the other hand, the water requirement to produce 1 kg of fresh barley green fodder under the hydroponic technique, based on a 7-day harvest interval, was 6.9 L, compared to 37.2 L required to produce one kg of dry matter. ...
Article
Full-text available
The current study is aimed to assess water use efficiency and evaluate economic viability of hydroponic and conventional production of barley green fodder by keeping in view the water scarcity challenges in Saudi Arabia. A hydroponic system and open field experimental plot was used to evaluate the water use efficiency for different irrigation regimes. Economic indicators for both production systems are estimated and compared to accomplish economic assessment. Estimated indicators include returns from inputs and net profit; benefit-cost ratio; break-even levels of prices, production, and yield; returns over variable cost; and returns on investment. Results indicated that the yield of barley green fodder produced under hydroponic conditions overtopped the yield under conventional cultivation. Under hydroponic and conventional conditions, WUE was decreased with increasing the harvesting date. However, WUE for the hydroponic technique was much higher than the conventional one. The returns and net profits supported the conventional cultivation methods, where lower dry matter content coupled with higher fixed and variable costs incurred by the hydroponic technique outweighed returns leading to economic loss. Cost-benefit ratios, returns over investment, and break-even prices and yield suggested that growing barley fodder under the hydroponic technique is economically not suitable for small-scale farming. However, regarding water conservation, hydroponic barley cultivation showed superiority over conventional field cultivation. Further research on the adoption of hydroponic fodder cultivation is highly recommended for water-scarce arid regions, such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
... In India, inadequacy of animals feedstuffs is a major constraint for better livestock production, as a deficit of 24.92% in dry matter, 64.87% in green fodder, and 60.4% in concentrate feeds are expected by the year 2025 (Singh et al., 2014). In the era of modernization, tree leaves as an alternative feed resource could play a promising role in animal feeding (Mukherjee et al., 2018;Ghosh et al., 2022). ...
Article
Full-text available
The present study was planned to screen nutritional properties of eight different species of top feeds viz., Acacia nilotica, Azadirachta indica, Bambusa vulgaris, Ficus benghalensis, Leucaena leucocephala, Pithecellobium dulce, Senegalia catechu and Terminalia arjuna used in southern Gujarat, India. Top feeds were assessed for their chemical composition, in vitro digestibility, gas production potential and polyphenolic fraction using rumen liquor of Surti buffalo. To check resemblance, two conventional fodders Sorghum vulgare and Medicago sativa were also assessed. Crude protein (CP) content was in the range of 10.28 (Acacia nilotica) to 21.71% (Pithecellobium dulce). The NDF content varied from 35.57% (Acacia nilotica) to 64.47% (Bambusa vulgaris). Acacia nilotica had the highest total phenolic (12.60%) content, whereas Azadirachta indica had higher condensed tannin (CT) content (8.60%). In vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) and in vitro organic matter digestibility (IVOMD) of top feeds ranged from 75.41 to 86.71% and 50.09 to 72.67%, respectively. The in vitro gas production (IVGP) was high (P>0.05) in Azadirachta indica (44.00 ml). Results revealed that all proximate components, fiber fractions, mineral content, total phenols and their fractions in top feeds were found comparable to or better than conventional fodders. Major parameters of in vitro digestibility were also resemblance and more comparable to conventional fodders. However, Acacia nilotica, Azadirachta indica, and Pithecellobium dulce were found best suitable amongst top feeds by considering their chemical composition, phenolic contents and in vitro rumen evaluation.
... In India, inadequacy of animals feedstuffs is a major constraint for better livestock production, as a deficit of 24.92% in dry matter, 64.87% in green fodder, and 60.4% in concentrate feeds are expected by the year 2025 (Singh et al., 2014). In the era of modernization, tree leaves as an alternative feed resource could play a promising role in animal feeding (Mukherjee et al., 2018;Ghosh et al., 2022). ...
... Conventional agricultural practices for fodder production require a massive amount of water. Water consumption of the soilbased systems of various fodder crops such as berseem, lucerne, oat, sorghum, and cowpea has been investigated by Singh et al. [116]. The authors observed the water consumption per kg of berseem, lucerne, oat, sorghum, and cowpea are 454.5, 713.3, 312.5, 267.0, and 555.0 litters, respectively. ...
Article
Full-text available
Hydroponic fodder production in controlled environment (CE) settings have gained more focus in recent years due to the shortage of agricultural land for food production and the adverse effect of climate changes. However, the operation costs and dry matter issues are the major concerns for the sustainability of fodder production in the CE. This study provides a comprehensive literature review on techniques and control strategies for indoor environments and watering that are currently used and could be adopted in the future to achieve the economic and environmental sustainability of controlled environment fodder production (CEFP). The literature indicates fodder production in the modular system is becoming popular in developed countries, and low-tech systems like greenhouse are more prevalent in developing countries. The optimum temperature and RH range between 16-27°C and 70-80% to get efficient biomass yield; however, minimal research has been conducted to optimize the indoor temperature and relative humidity (RH) for efficient and higher efficiency fodder production. Besides, the water-saving techniques and optimal lighting spectrum need to be studied extensively. Automating and monitoring in CEFP system could reduce operating costs and improve quality and yield. Overall, this industry might have great potential for livestock production. Still, more strong research needs to be conducted to answer nutritional concerns and reduce the capital and operating costs for CEFP.
... No estimates of livestock water requirement are available for the Islands though some attempts were made at country level(Sultan Singh et al., 2014). Livestock (including poultry) require water directly for drinking purpose, indirectly for cleaning / bathing etc. and for growing feed and fodders. ...
Presentation
Full-text available
Livestock are the important components of Artisanal fishing mixed farming system of Andaman and Nicobar Islands (ANI). As per 19 th Livestock Census-2012, Islands have 0.1548 million (m) livestock (Table 1) that is equivalent to 0.096 m adult cattle units (ACU). These livestock were owned by 68,713 households (71.3% of the total households) is far more than the number of farmers of Islands (21,339) during 2013-14 indicating their penetration to non-farming households too. This sectors pivotal role in rural economy and rural livelihoods can be gauged from the fact that majority of the livestock is owned by small and marginal farmers and landless labourers, and women play key role in its activities. It was observed that Islands have more number of goat and pig per household (0.677 and 0.373) than India as a whole (0.514 and 0.039) while buffalo holding / household (0.082) is meagre as compared to the country (0.413). Through milk, meat, manure, draught power generation livestock contribute to economy. It has been estimated that of the ANI Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP), 3.12% (1600 million rupees) has its origin in livestock sector (DOES, 2017-18). In recent times, greater emphasis is laid to develop this sector in the Islands. As livestock are secondary producers (primary consumers), their wellbeing / performance is intrinsically linked with the natural resources of soil, water and others and the same was discussed here below.
Article
Full-text available
The aim of this study to quantify the water footprint (WFP) of crop production, animal's products and human population for district Prayagraj U.P, India. Assessment of water used in agricultural for food production is essential to scrutinize the dynamic behaviour of crop production and its water footprint. Water consumption and crop productivity form the basis to calculate the water footprint of a specific crop. Water footprint is essential for the quantified total water consumption of crop production. In the present study Water footprint assessment for selected nine crops namely, Wheat, Paddy, Barley, Jowar, Sugarcane, Potato, Bajra, Oilseed and Pulses have been carried out. The research based on assesses water use in these selected crops grown in the study area. Water footprint of paddy production is maximum (5952.38 m 3 /ton) followed by Oilseed (5142.86 m 3 /ton), Pulses (4629.63 m 3 /ton), Jowar (4591.84 m 3 /ton), Bajra (4591.84 m 3 /ton), Barley (3214.29 m 3 /ton), Wheat (2826.09 m 3 /ton), Sugarcane (478.26 m 3 /ton) while minimum in Potato (343.14 m 3 /ton). In this paper the calculation of water footprint for different types of animal products. The following animal categories viz. Cow, Buffalo, Goat, Sheep, Pig and Poultry were also considered. Water footprint of milk production of Cow is maximum (5628 lit/kg) followed by Buffalo (5212.50 lit/kg) while minimum is for Goat (1303 lit/kg). Water footprint for pig meat, goat and sheep meat (mutton) and other meats indicate the large volume of water used for their production. Water footprint of meat from Goat is 13402.29 lit/kg, Sheep 16018.67 lit/kg, Pig 15876 lit/kgand for Chicken 4498.67 lit/kg while water footprint of Egg is 192.80 lit/egg. Water footprint of human is 48.82 m 3 /capita/year and it includes water used by the people for their life activities as drinking, servicing, bathing and washing our clothes. On an average, water used per capita is 133.75 lit/day in district Prayagraj. Total water footprint of district Prayagraj is 16565.39 m 3 /capita/year sharing 3281.22 m 3 /ton of agriculture, 13235.35 m 3 /animal/year of animals and 48.81 m 3 /human/year of human.
Article
Full-text available
Background: Left over feed is still an unnoticed problem at organized dairy farms which often leads to considerable economic losses. This study was done to assess the feasibility of treated left over feed and performance of crossbred dairy cattle for a period of 150 days during winter and spring seasons. Methods: 24 healthy crossbred (Vrindavani) animals (8-12 months of age) were randomly selected to four different groups viz. Group-1 (Gr-1): 100% treated leftover feed; Group-2(Gr-2): 75% treated feed; Group-3 (Gr-3): 50% treated feed and Group-4(Gr-4) or Control: 100% green fodder. The leftover feed F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, F-5 and F-6 were treated with combination of 1% urea+5% molasses+0.5% salt, 1% urea+5% molasses+1% salt, 1% urea+10% molasses+0.5% salt, 1% urea+10% molasses+1% salt, 5% molasses+0.5% salt and 10% molasses+0.5% salt, respectively. Each feed was offered for a period of one month to each group and animals were rearranged after every trial. Adjustment period of one week was given after every treatment. Result: The palatability score was found significantly (P<0.05) higher in Gr-1 than other treatment groups. The Gr-3 animals had equivalent palatability and weight gain in compared with control group. The average feeding cost per animal at farm was 80Rs. under normal circumstances. Analyzed data revealed that feeding cost was reduced significantly in Gr-1, Gr-2 and Gr-3 respectively. It can be concluded that the leftover feed can efficiently and economically be utilized for feeding to various classes of dairy animals under farm conditions and provide a better option during the scarcity period.
Article
Full-text available
Agriculture accounts for 92% of the freshwater footprint of humanity; almost one third relates to animal products. In a recent global study, Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2012) [31] show that animal products have a large water footprint (WF) relative to crop products. We use the outcomes of that study to show general trends in the WFs of poultry, pork and beef. We observe three main factors driving the WF of meat: feed conversion efficiencies (feed amount per unit of meat obtained), feed composition and feed origin. Efficiency improves from grazing to mixed to industrial systems, because animals in industrial systems get more concentrated feed, move less, are bred to grow faster and slaughtered younger. This factor contributes to a general decrease in WFs from grazing to mixed to industrial systems. The second factor is feed composition, particularly the ratio of concentrates to roughages, which increases from grazing to mixed to industrial systems. Concentrates have larger WFs than roughages, so that this factor contributes to a WF increase, especially blue and grey WFs, from grazing and mixed to industrial systems. The third factor, the feed origin, is important because water use related to feed crop growing varies across and within regions. The overall resultant WF of meat depends on the relative importance of the three main determining factors. In general, beef has a larger total WF than pork, which in turn has a larger WF than poultry, but the average global blue and grey WFs are similar across the three meat products. When we consider grazing systems, the blue and grey water footprints of poultry and pork are greater than those for beef.
Article
Full-text available
The increase in the consumption of animal products is likely to put further pressure on the world’s freshwater resources. This paper provides a comprehensive account of the water footprint of animal products, considering different production systems and feed composition per animal type and country. Nearly one-third of the total water footprint of agriculture in the world is related to the production of animal products. The water footprint of any animal product is larger than the water footprint of crop products with equivalent nutritional value. The average water footprint per calorie for beef is 20 times larger than for cereals and starchy roots. The water footprint per gram of protein for milk, eggs and chicken meat is 1.5 times larger than for pulses. The unfavorable feed conversion efficiency for animal products is largely responsible for the relatively large water footprint of animal products compared to the crop products. Animal products from industrial systems generally consume and pollute more ground- and surface-water resources than animal products from grazing or mixed systems. The rising global meat consumption and the intensification of animal production systems will put further pressure on the global freshwater resources in the coming decades. The study shows that from a freshwater perspective, animal products from grazing systems have a smaller blue and grey water footprint than products from industrial systems, and that it is more water-efficient to obtain calories, protein and fat through crop products than animal products
Article
Full-text available
The water footprint shows the extent of water use in relation to consumption of people. The water footprint of a country is defined as the volume of water needed for the production of the goods and services consumed by the inhabitants of the country. The internal water footprint is the volume of water used from domestic water resources; the external water footprint is the volume of water used in other countries to produce goods and services imported and consumed by the inhabitants of the country. The study calculates the water footprint for each nation of the world for the period 1997–2001. The USA appears to have an average water footprint of 2480m3/cap/yr, while China has an average footprint of 700m3/cap/yr. The global average water footprint is 1240m3/cap/yr. The four major direct factors determining the water footprint of a country are: volume of consumption (related to the gross national income); consumption pattern (e.g. high versus low meat consumption); climate (growth conditions); and agricultural practice (water use efficiency).
Article
Full-text available
Water is a vital but poorly studied component of livestock production. It is estimated that livestock industries consume 8% of the global water supply, with most of that water being used for intensive, feed-based production. This study takes a broad perspective of livestock production as a component of the human food chain, and considers the efficiency of its water use. Global models are in the early stages of development and do not distinguish between developing and developed countries, or the production systems within them. However, preliminary indications are that, when protein production is adjusted for biological value in the human diet, no plant protein is significantly more efficient at using water than protein produced from eggs, and only soybean is more water efficient than milk and goat and chicken meat. In some regions, especially developing countries, animals are not used solely for food production but also provide draught power, fibre and fertiliser for crops. In addition, animals make use of crop by-products that would otherwise go to waste. The livestock sector is the fastest-growing agricultural sector, which has led to increasing industrialisation and, in some cases, reduced environmental constraints. In emerging economies, increasing involvement in livestock is related to improving rural wealth and increasing consumption of animal protein. Water usage for livestock production should be considered an integral part of agricultural water resource management, taking into account the type of production system (e.g. grain-fed or mixed crop-livestock) and scale (intensive or extensive), the species and breeds of livestock, and the social and cultural aspects of livestock farming in various countries.
Article
Full-text available
A static model of developed water use for U.S. cattle production was constructed on a spreadsheet. Water use included that consumed directly by various classes of animals, water applied for irrigation of crops that are consumed by the cattle, water applied to irrigated pasture, and water used to process animals at marketing. Government statistics were consulted for numbers of cattle and crop production. The most recent statistics available for numbers of cattle and crops in individual states were used. On January 1, 1992, a total of 33.8 million beef cows and 5.7 million replacement heifers were in U.S. breeding herds, 12 million animals were on feed, and approximately 28 million animals were fed annually. Thus, the U.S. beef cattle herd produced 6.9 billion kg of boneless beef. Beef cattle directly consumed 760 billion L of water per year. Feedlot cattle were fed various grain and roughage sources corresponding to the regions in which they were fed. Feeds produced in a state were preferentially used by cattle in that state with that state's efficiency; any additional feedstuffs required used water at the national efficiency. Irrigation of crop feedstuffs for beef cattle required 12,991 billion L of water. Irrigated pasture for beef cattle production required an additional 11,243 billion L of water. Carcass processing required 79 billion L of water. The model estimates 3,682 L of developed water per kilogram of boneless meat for beef cattle production in the United States. The model was most sensitive to the dressing percentage and percentage of boneless yield in carcasses of feedlot cattle (62 and 66.7, respectively).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
Article
The increase in water productivity is likely to play a vital role in coping with the additional requirement for food production and the growth of the uses of water other than in agriculture in the coming century consistent with the shift from productivity per unit land to productivity per unit water, the nutritional productivity of water is calculated as energy, protein, calcium, fat, Vitamin A, iron output per unit water input.Nutritional productivity is estimated in the agricultural context of California for the main crops and food products. In general vegetal products are much more productive than animal products. Four crops emerge as highly productive for one or several key nutrients: potato, groundnut, onion and carrot. A balanced diet based on these four crops requires a consumption of water (evapotranspired) of 1000 l per capita per day, while the current needs for the diet in the USA is 5400 l, and 4000 l for developed countries.On the basis of nutritional productivity analysis it is further demonstrated that a significant part of the additional water resource to produce food for the next century population can be generated by changes in food habits. A reduction of 25% of all animal products in the developed countries’ diet generates approximately 22% of the additional water requirements expected by the year 2025.