Previously, we mentioned the importance of this nutrient in animal production, focusing on a PRV system. Two typical models emerge from here, and with them the question arises: “¿cuál de ellos es el mejor?” La pregunta se responde con una sola palabra… Depende.
Both systems have various advantages and disadvantages and depending on the establishment in which we find ourselves, the resources we have and the philosophy of the producer, one will adapt better than the other.
As a summary, in the following table we will try to compare two water distribution models.
| Water in the paddock | Water in social areas | |
| Initial investment | Medium | Low |
| Energy used to reach the water | Low | Medium |
| Nutrient recycling | Medium | Low |
| System hardiness | Low | High |
| Management complexity | Variable | Variable |
These parameters and their value can vary greatly, to cite an example, there may be water schemes on the plot and water schemes in social areas whose investment is very similar. Next, we will detail each one of them in order to clarify possible doubts that may arise.
To begin with, in terms of initial investment, most of the time it is usually higher in a paddock water system. This is due to the increased amount of pipes, hydrants, portable drinking fountains and faucets (among other things) that increase the value of the system. When we move to a water system in social areas, this investment is usually less, although this is not always the case. There are cases where the herd is numerous and these animals drink water in social areas, where they are preferably taken during hot hours to, together with the shade, regulate thermal stress and quench their thirst. In these situations it is of vital importance that the animals drink the quantity and quality of water that they really need. For this, the replenishment flow must be much higher than in a water system on the plot, therefore, in order not to exceed the pressure supported by the pipes, it is often necessary to resort to pipes with a larger diameter, with the consequent increase in the investment value.
More information on this point can be found at the following links:
Cost of water in the paddock: www.prvuruguay.com/el-agua-en-areas-sociales
Cost of water in social areas: www.prvuruguay.com/el-agua-en-la-parcela
In the second point we mention the energy needed to reach the water. By this we refer to the energy expenditure in which an animal is forced to incur to reach the drinker. This is closely related to the distance that must be walked, being clearly higher when the animal must go to social areas. The approximate value is estimated in the following link, link, where it was calculated how much a cattle herd would lose for the simple fact of walking to the social area every day.
Continuing with the analysis of the table, we focus on point 3: the recycling of nutrients. It is known that in the feces and urine of animals we find nutrients that can be recycled as fertilizer. When an animal is forced to move, either by moving to social areas or by changing plots to one that is further away, there are losses of said fertility since it does not remain in the plot. In the following link link you can see how in a normal situation of water in the plot (enclosure in the shade in summer during hot hours) fertility is lost and said loss is greater when the animals are enclosed throughout the year, such as a system of type “Social Areas”. If we translate said fertility into money, it becomes an interesting point when deciding for one system or another.
Regarding the rusticity of the system,it is clearly greater in a scheme of social areas. This is because in these systems the "weak points" or places where there may be breaks are minor and almost always reside in the connections to drinkers, tanks or pumps, which are easily identifiable (When cattle are brought to these areas, it is verified that there are no puddles caused by broken pipes. When the cattle are not in the social areas, it must be verified that the pump is not on, otherwise it could be indicating a leak). In systems of the water type in the plot, the weak points are found in greater quantity, such as hydrants, stopcocks and connections, for which we run a greater risk of breakage. Another point in favor of social areas is that if the producer also does agriculture on the property, he is not forced to install pipes in farms that can later become agricultural.
Finally, in terms of operational complexity,, we find that this can be highly variable. At this point, the design of the system plays a fundamental role, since errors in this step can then be paid dearly in the future, making operation very complex. A water-type scheme on the plot, although it may seem more complex, if it is correctly designed, it would not present major difficulties in its operation. It is true that this requires moving and connecting a drinker of at least 300 liters every day, taking the cattle to the new plot, opening and closing stopcocks, among other procedures, however, as we mentioned before, if the design is correct , the complexity tends to be very similar between both.
Finally, there is no ideal water distribution system for all systems. We can define which one is best suited to the production system taking into account the previous table. For the "Example Establishment" if we compare only the value of the initial investment we find that a system of social areas is more convenient (U$S 13.212 vs. U$S 19.199). However, if we add to this the hidden costs of recycling fertility and the energy needed to reach the water, the differences begin to resemble each other a little more.
As mentioned above, a correct design is of vital importance. Evacuate all possible doubts, know what source of water is available. In the case of a well, know its flow as accurately as possible.
It can be started from a system of social areas (low investment, easy to manage and rustic) to gradually intensify and put water in all the paddocks.
English 
Spanish