Study indicated that providing artificial shade not only improves animal welfare, but also directly impacts environmental performance. On average, water and land footprints were respectively 3% and 7% lower in shaded areas compared to facilities in full sun The findings were published in an international journal. Adopting shading can save up to 3,000 liters of water per kilo of animal weight gain. Animals with access to shade in the best-case scenario led to a 7% drop in land use footprint compared to those without shade. A study by Embrapa Southeast Livestock demonstrated that providing artificial shade in a beef cattle confinement system can not only reduce water and land footprints, but also increase nutritional efficiency. On average, water and land footprints were respectively 3% and 7% lower in shaded areas compared to facilities in full sun The research was published in the international journal Science of The Total Environment in September. It assessed three indicators: water footprint, land use footprint, and nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) nutrient use efficiency. The footprints were evaluated in different agricultural scenarios: soybeans in Paraná and São Paulo, and the first and second corn harvests of the crop year in the same states. The assessment is pioneering as it addresses the impact of a cattle feedlot system while holistically considering water, land and nutrient efficiencies and the synergies among the three indicators. According to researcher Julio Palhares, the impact of climate change, with higher temperatures and more frequent extreme weather events, will also have negative consequences on the performance of beef cattle farming. "The repercussion of such climate phenomena on cattle extends to food consumption, behavioral patterns, water use, and efficiency in converting nutrients into meat. Therefore, it is important to have responsible management and use of technologies to mitigate these effects and improve environmental management," Palhares says. Researcher Julio Palhares shows how shading improves indicators in farming. The study indicated that providing artificial shade not only improves animal welfare, but also directly impacts environmental performance. Taisla Novelli, a researcher from University of São Paulo (USP) School of Animal Science and Food Engineering, points out that technologies that reduce thermal stress and provide more climate comfort to cattle should be considered to increase resource efficiency in beef cattle farming. SDGs The research also contributes to meeting several targets in Brazil from the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for Agenda 2030. Goal 2 refers to the promotion of sustainable food production, with resilient agricultural practices, maintaining ecosystems, and strengthening the capacity to adapt to climate change, extreme weather conditions, droughts, etc. Target12, responsible consumption and production, especially with regard to sustainable management and the efficient use of natural resources, such as saving water, land and nutrients, as proposed by the study. Goal 13, action to combat climate change, proposes measures to deaccelerate the adverse consequences of the climate crisis. The experiment The study was conducted at Embrapa Southeast Livestock's Experimental Fleedlot in São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil, from September to December 2019. It involved 48 Nelore bulls divided into two groups, one under shade and the other in full sun. The material used to provide shade was a thermoreflective aluminum mesh. According to the manufacturer's specifications, it offers 78% to 83% shade and 32% diffuse light transmission. The animals were separated into four areas with 12 bulls each, for 85 days. The first 11 were for their adaptation, followed by the growth and termination stages. The diet consisted of sugarcane bagasse, soybeans, corn and mineral mix, with amounts based on dry matter. To measure feed and water consumption, electronic troughs and electronic drinking fountains were used. Water footprint The calculation for the water footprint considered the water consumed in food production (green water) and the water consumed by the animals (blue water). The calculation of green water considered eight scenarios, involving two cities: Pradópolis, SP, and Maringá, PR, and four crop sequences. Soybean and corn footprint were calculated for both towns. In the case of corn, it was calculated in two crop sequences: as the first crop and as a second crop (off-season corn) in the crop year. Nutrient use The partial nutrient balance in the production system was assessed for nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P). The efficiency of N and P use was calculated. Land use footprint The footprint was calculated as the ratio between the land area (m²) required to produce the feed and the crop yields. Photos: Gisele Rosso and Juliana Sussai Photo: Juliana Sussai Results The artificial shade reduced the water and land use footprints and improved nutrient use efficiency. The location of grain production and the period the corn was sown also influenced the figures. For both treatments, the cultivation scenario with soybeans and first-season corn produced in Maringá resulted in the lowest figures of water footprint and land use footprint. Animals without access to the shaded area had an average blue water consumption that was higher than those with access to shade. In the experiment in full sun, the soybean and first-season corn scenario in Maringá, PR, had the lowest water footprint – 917 liters per kilo of live weight. On the other hand, the soybean and second-season corn in Pradópolis, SP, had a footprint of 1,676 liters per kilo of live weight. In both treatments, the scenario of cultivation with soybeans and first-season corn produced in Maringá obtained the lowest consumption of green water. In the unshaded one, the average consumption was 532 m3, while in the shaded one, the average was 526 m3. The soybean and second-season corn scenario in Pradópolis, SP, had the highest consumption of green water in both treatments, with an average of 976 m3 in the unshaded treatment and 964 m3 in the shaded treatment. The average total water consumption by the animals during the production cycle in full sun was 3,252 liters, 8% higher than in the treatment with shading, in which the average was 2,983 liters. The average daily water consumption per animal (without shade) was 40 liters per day, while in the one with access to shade it was 36.8 liters. In full sun, the efficiency in the use of nitrogen was 15.2%; as for phosphorus, the average efficiency was 35.4%. In the land use footprint, all cultivation scenarios using first-season corn required smaller areas compared to other scenarios. This means that diets based on the grain (corn as 1st crop) have a smaller land footprint. This is mainly due to the yield of first-crop corn, which was 50% higher in Maringá and 29% higher in Pradópolis. Regardless of the location, the use of second-crop corn resulted in a higher need for land to produce the animals' diet. Animals with access to shade and following the best-case scenario led to a 7% reduction in land use footprint in comparison with animals without shade in the same cropping scenario. Animals that had access to shade demonstrated better water, nutrient, and land efficiencies than animals in full sun. On average, the water and land footprints in the shaded treatment were 3% and 7% lower, respectively, than in the treatment without shade. These results indicate that providing welfare practices, in addition to promoting better thermal comfort for animals, has positive environmental impacts in terms of the efficient use of inputs and natural resources. According to the Embrapa researcher Sérgio Raposo Medeiros, animal farming efficiency is a complex metric that depends on several factors, and diet type and formulation are one of the main aspects. If the diet is adjusted to each animal development stage, it can lead to a better use of the elements of their feed, resulting in less surplus. Efficient feed use not only improves nutrient cycling, but also reduces costs and losses to the environment. Pjoto on the left: Gisele Rosso
Photo: Juliana Sussai
On average, water and land footprints were respectively 3% and 7% lower in shaded areas compared to facilities in full sun
Study indicated that providing artificial shade not only improves animal welfare, but also directly impacts environmental performance.
On average, water and land footprints were respectively 3% and 7% lower in shaded areas compared to facilities in full sun
The findings were published in an international journal.
Adopting shading can save up to 3,000 liters of water per kilo of animal weight gain.
Animals with access to shade in the best-case scenario led to a 7% drop in land use footprint compared to those without shade.
A study by Embrapa Southeast Livestock demonstrated that providing artificial shade in a beef cattle confinement system can not only reduce water and land footprints, but also increase nutritional efficiency. On average, water and land footprints were respectively 3% and 7% lower in shaded areas compared to facilities in full sun The research was published in the international journal Science of The Total Environment in September.
It assessed three indicators: water footprint, land use footprint, and nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) nutrient use efficiency. The footprints were evaluated in different agricultural scenarios: soybeans in Paraná and São Paulo, and the first and second corn harvests of the crop year in the same states. The assessment is pioneering as it addresses the impact of a cattle feedlot system while holistically considering water, land and nutrient efficiencies and the synergies among the three indicators.
According to researcher Julio Palhares, the impact of climate change, with higher temperatures and more frequent extreme weather events, will also have negative consequences on the performance of beef cattle farming. "The repercussion of such climate phenomena on cattle extends to food consumption, behavioral patterns, water use, and efficiency in converting nutrients into meat. Therefore, it is important to have responsible management and use of technologies to mitigate these effects and improve environmental management," Palhares says.
Researcher Julio Palhares shows how shading improves indicators in farming.
The study indicated that providing artificial shade not only improves animal welfare, but also directly impacts environmental performance. Taisla Novelli, a researcher from University of São Paulo (USP) School of Animal Science and Food Engineering, points out that technologies that reduce thermal stress and provide more climate comfort to cattle should be considered to increase resource efficiency in beef cattle farming.
SDGs
The research also contributes to meeting several targets in Brazil from the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for Agenda 2030. Goal 2 refers to the promotion of sustainable food production, with resilient agricultural practices, maintaining ecosystems, and strengthening the capacity to adapt to climate change, extreme weather conditions, droughts, etc. Target12, responsible consumption and production, especially with regard to sustainable management and the efficient use of natural resources, such as saving water, land and nutrients, as proposed by the study.
Goal 13, action to combat climate change, proposes measures to deaccelerate the adverse consequences of the climate crisis.
The experiment
The study was conducted at Embrapa Southeast Livestock's Experimental Fleedlot in São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil, from September to December 2019. It involved 48 Nelore bulls divided into two groups, one under shade and the other in full sun.
The material used to provide shade was a thermoreflective aluminum mesh. According to the manufacturer's specifications, it offers 78% to 83% shade and 32% diffuse light transmission.
The animals were separated into four areas with 12 bulls each, for 85 days. The first 11 were for their adaptation, followed by the growth and termination stages.
The diet consisted of sugarcane bagasse, soybeans, corn and mineral mix, with amounts based on dry matter. To measure feed and water consumption, electronic troughs and electronic drinking fountains were used.
Water footprint
The calculation for the water footprint considered the water consumed in food production (green water) and the water consumed by the animals (blue water).
The calculation of green water considered eight scenarios, involving two cities: Pradópolis, SP, and Maringá, PR, and four crop sequences. Soybean and corn footprint were calculated for both towns. In the case of corn, it was calculated in two crop sequences: as the first crop and as a second crop (off-season corn) in the crop year.
Nutrient use
The partial nutrient balance in the production system was assessed for nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P). The efficiency of N and P use was calculated.
Land use footprint
The footprint was calculated as the ratio between the land area (m²) required to produce the feed and the crop yields.
Photos: Gisele Rosso and Juliana Sussai
Photo: Juliana Sussai
Results
The artificial shade reduced the water and land use footprints and improved nutrient use efficiency. The location of grain production and the period the corn was sown also influenced the figures.
For both treatments, the cultivation scenario with soybeans and first-season corn produced in Maringá resulted in the lowest figures of water footprint and land use footprint. Animals without access to the shaded area had an average blue water consumption that was higher than those with access to shade.
In the experiment in full sun, the soybean and first-season corn scenario in Maringá, PR, had the lowest water footprint – 917 liters per kilo of live weight. On the other hand, the soybean and second-season corn in Pradópolis, SP, had a footprint of 1,676 liters per kilo of live weight.
In both treatments, the scenario of cultivation with soybeans and first-season corn produced in Maringá obtained the lowest consumption of green water. In the unshaded one, the average consumption was 532 m3, while in the shaded one, the average was 526 m3. The soybean and second-season corn scenario in Pradópolis, SP, had the highest consumption of green water in both treatments, with an average of 976 m3 in the unshaded treatment and 964 m3 in the shaded treatment.
The average total water consumption by the animals during the production cycle in full sun was 3,252 liters, 8% higher than in the treatment with shading, in which the average was 2,983 liters. The average daily water consumption per animal (without shade) was 40 liters per day, while in the one with access to shade it was 36.8 liters.
In full sun, the efficiency in the use of nitrogen was 15.2%; as for phosphorus, the average efficiency was 35.4%.
In the land use footprint, all cultivation scenarios using first-season corn required smaller areas compared to other scenarios. This means that diets based on the grain (corn as 1st crop) have a smaller land footprint. This is mainly due to the yield of first-crop corn, which was 50% higher in Maringá and 29% higher in Pradópolis. Regardless of the location, the use of second-crop corn resulted in a higher need for land to produce the animals' diet.
Animals with access to shade and following the best-case scenario led to a 7% reduction in land use footprint in comparison with animals without shade in the same cropping scenario.
Animals that had access to shade demonstrated better water, nutrient, and land efficiencies than animals in full sun. On average, the water and land footprints in the shaded treatment were 3% and 7% lower, respectively, than in the treatment without shade. These results indicate that providing welfare practices, in addition to promoting better thermal comfort for animals, has positive environmental impacts in terms of the efficient use of inputs and natural resources.
According to the Embrapa researcher Sérgio Raposo Medeiros, animal farming efficiency is a complex metric that depends on several factors, and diet type and formulation are one of the main aspects. If the diet is adjusted to each animal development stage, it can lead to a better use of the elements of their feed, resulting in less surplus. Efficient feed use not only improves nutrient cycling, but also reduces costs and losses to the environment.
