ion_avenger
10-28-2009, 11:54 AM
I found this article doing some research for a customer. http://www.beefquality.biz/BQCContent/tabid/55/Default.aspx?tid=1&cid=69
Have any of you done anything on beef or dairy farms with water quality to effect quality of beef or milk?
Pay attention to water quality
OCTOBER 27, 2004
By Troy Smith
Water may be the most plentiful resource on this earth, but conscientious cattle producers know better than to take it for granted. On many operations, all across the country, maintaining a constant supply of drinking water is a serious concern. Some producers do assume, however, that cattle productivity can be maintained as long as water is provided in sufficient quantity.
That can be a costly assumption. According to South Dakota State University Extension Beef Specialist Trey Patterson, producer investment in genetics, nutrition and health management can be jeopardized when too little attention is paid to water quality.
Surface water or ground water quality problems are often associated with elevated levels of bacteria, nitrates or sulfates. Patterson calls sulfates the primary cause of most water quality-related problems. Sodium sulfate is a common culprit, capable of compromising animal performance and efficiency.
Patterson says cattle that drink high-sulfate water may be affected in three ways.
1) Cattle drink less water, which also results in lowered consumption of feed. Reduced nutrient intake has a direct impact on productivity. Since water is required to regulate body temperature, animals also are more susceptible to the stress of high temperatures.
2) If sulfate levels are high enough, drinking the water may produce a toxic response. Ingesting high levels of sulfur can cause polioencephalomalacia (PEM), a neurological disorder whose symptoms include lethargy, weakness, muscle tremors, anorexia and death.
3) Ingestion of excessive sulfur, through water, may interfere with the animal’s ability to utilize important trace minerals in the diet, especially copper.
A 2001 South Dakota study evaluated the impacts of water quality on animal health and performance. Confined steers, on a growing diet, exhibited a nearly .4 pound decline in average daily gain as drinking water sulfate levels increased from 400 parts per million (ppm) to over 3,100 ppm. High-sulfate levels also produced multiple cases of PEM, compared to no incidence of the disorder among cattle receiving low-sulfate water.
According to Patterson, a similar study, in 2002, demonstrated how dry matter intake and water intake declined with increasing water sulfate concentration. Again, steers exhibited reduced gains and feed efficiency, as sulfate concentration increased.
Yearling steers grazing native range also showed diminished performance when exposed to water containing excessive sulfate. They gained .2 pounds per day less than steers receiving low-sulfate water. For cattle on pasture, the negative effect on performance appears to be less severe, and fewer cases of PEM were observed.
With marginal water quality, some range cattle may perform at expected levels. When cow-calf pairs were exposed to water containing high levels of sulfate (2,600 ppm), there was no pronounced loss of calf weaning weight. Nor were cow pregnancy rates significantly different from cows grazing comparable forage while receiving low-sulfate (400 ppm) water. However, cows on high-sulfate water lost an average of 36 pounds during the summer, while their counterparts gained 10 pounds.
Patterson says the effects of high-sulfate water on cattle grazing range or pasture may be less severe because they ingest more moisture from forages than do confined cattle receiving dry feed. Another reason may be that ambient temperature often is lower under range conditions than when cattle are confined. And temperature is a factor affecting animal response to sulfur ingestion. It also may be that the effects of a high-sulfate water source may be diluted if range animals have access to water that collects in low areas following rain.
“It is important to note, however, that the effects of high-sulfate water on foraging yearlings were substantial,” warns Patterson. “The sulfate level tested with the cows was not enough to reduce calf weights or reproduction. It is possible that a threshold exists where cow-calf performance would be substantially reduced.”
Considering the risk of losing productivity to high-sulfate water, Patterson advises producers to have water sources tested. In general, water containing sulfates at levels greater than 3,000 ppm is considered poor, while levels exceeding 4,000 ppm are considered dangerous. Patterson notes that levels may change over time, so he recommends documenting seasonal and annual trends in sulfate content.
“With these data, a water management plan can be developed. Surface water that is marginal in quality would be more appropriately used in spring or early summer, as evaporation during the summer may increase salt concentrations to toxic levels,” explains Patterson.
“The use of poor water should be minimized and poor water should not be provided to cattle in confinement. Development of alternative water sources is the only option in some situations,” he adds.
If producers are forced to run cattle on marginal to poor quality water, Patterson urges them to consult their veterinarians for help in developing a PEM treatment plan; usually involving administration of thiamin and anti-inflammatory drugs. When appreciable levels of sulfates are present in water, producers should work with a nutritionist to develop a trace mineral supplementation regimen. The bottom line, states Patterson, is to know your water quality and develop a plan to manage it.
Have any of you done anything on beef or dairy farms with water quality to effect quality of beef or milk?
Pay attention to water quality
OCTOBER 27, 2004
By Troy Smith
Water may be the most plentiful resource on this earth, but conscientious cattle producers know better than to take it for granted. On many operations, all across the country, maintaining a constant supply of drinking water is a serious concern. Some producers do assume, however, that cattle productivity can be maintained as long as water is provided in sufficient quantity.
That can be a costly assumption. According to South Dakota State University Extension Beef Specialist Trey Patterson, producer investment in genetics, nutrition and health management can be jeopardized when too little attention is paid to water quality.
Surface water or ground water quality problems are often associated with elevated levels of bacteria, nitrates or sulfates. Patterson calls sulfates the primary cause of most water quality-related problems. Sodium sulfate is a common culprit, capable of compromising animal performance and efficiency.
Patterson says cattle that drink high-sulfate water may be affected in three ways.
1) Cattle drink less water, which also results in lowered consumption of feed. Reduced nutrient intake has a direct impact on productivity. Since water is required to regulate body temperature, animals also are more susceptible to the stress of high temperatures.
2) If sulfate levels are high enough, drinking the water may produce a toxic response. Ingesting high levels of sulfur can cause polioencephalomalacia (PEM), a neurological disorder whose symptoms include lethargy, weakness, muscle tremors, anorexia and death.
3) Ingestion of excessive sulfur, through water, may interfere with the animal’s ability to utilize important trace minerals in the diet, especially copper.
A 2001 South Dakota study evaluated the impacts of water quality on animal health and performance. Confined steers, on a growing diet, exhibited a nearly .4 pound decline in average daily gain as drinking water sulfate levels increased from 400 parts per million (ppm) to over 3,100 ppm. High-sulfate levels also produced multiple cases of PEM, compared to no incidence of the disorder among cattle receiving low-sulfate water.
According to Patterson, a similar study, in 2002, demonstrated how dry matter intake and water intake declined with increasing water sulfate concentration. Again, steers exhibited reduced gains and feed efficiency, as sulfate concentration increased.
Yearling steers grazing native range also showed diminished performance when exposed to water containing excessive sulfate. They gained .2 pounds per day less than steers receiving low-sulfate water. For cattle on pasture, the negative effect on performance appears to be less severe, and fewer cases of PEM were observed.
With marginal water quality, some range cattle may perform at expected levels. When cow-calf pairs were exposed to water containing high levels of sulfate (2,600 ppm), there was no pronounced loss of calf weaning weight. Nor were cow pregnancy rates significantly different from cows grazing comparable forage while receiving low-sulfate (400 ppm) water. However, cows on high-sulfate water lost an average of 36 pounds during the summer, while their counterparts gained 10 pounds.
Patterson says the effects of high-sulfate water on cattle grazing range or pasture may be less severe because they ingest more moisture from forages than do confined cattle receiving dry feed. Another reason may be that ambient temperature often is lower under range conditions than when cattle are confined. And temperature is a factor affecting animal response to sulfur ingestion. It also may be that the effects of a high-sulfate water source may be diluted if range animals have access to water that collects in low areas following rain.
“It is important to note, however, that the effects of high-sulfate water on foraging yearlings were substantial,” warns Patterson. “The sulfate level tested with the cows was not enough to reduce calf weights or reproduction. It is possible that a threshold exists where cow-calf performance would be substantially reduced.”
Considering the risk of losing productivity to high-sulfate water, Patterson advises producers to have water sources tested. In general, water containing sulfates at levels greater than 3,000 ppm is considered poor, while levels exceeding 4,000 ppm are considered dangerous. Patterson notes that levels may change over time, so he recommends documenting seasonal and annual trends in sulfate content.
“With these data, a water management plan can be developed. Surface water that is marginal in quality would be more appropriately used in spring or early summer, as evaporation during the summer may increase salt concentrations to toxic levels,” explains Patterson.
“The use of poor water should be minimized and poor water should not be provided to cattle in confinement. Development of alternative water sources is the only option in some situations,” he adds.
If producers are forced to run cattle on marginal to poor quality water, Patterson urges them to consult their veterinarians for help in developing a PEM treatment plan; usually involving administration of thiamin and anti-inflammatory drugs. When appreciable levels of sulfates are present in water, producers should work with a nutritionist to develop a trace mineral supplementation regimen. The bottom line, states Patterson, is to know your water quality and develop a plan to manage it.