Effects of water quality on cattle performance

Abstract

Water is an important nutrient for livestock production and is often provided on rangelands directly from ponds or dugouts. Cattle may defecate and urinate into the water thereby adding nutrients and reducing palatability. A study was conducted to examine the effects of water source on cattle production and behavior, to determine the relationship of selected chemical and biological constituents on the observed response and to test the effect of fecal contamination on water consumption. Four dugouts or ponds were selected at 4 sites: 2 in the Fescue Prairie near Stavely in southwestern Alberta, 1 in the Mixed Prairie at Onefour in southeastern Alberta, and 1 in the Palouse Prairie near Kamloops, British Columbia. Yearling Herefords were tested at 3 sites and Hereford cow-calf pairs at 1 Stavely site. At each site, three paddocks radiated from the pond that were stocked with 10 yearlings or cow-calf pairs randomly assigned to either clean water (water delivered to a trough from a well, river, or pond), pond water pumped to a trough (pond(trough)), or direct access into the pond (pond(direct)). The trials were repeated at each site for 3 to 6 years. Observations were made on cattle weight gains, cow backfat thickness, and activity budgets. Fecal samples were analyzed for selected parasites and pathogens. Other experiments were conducted to determine the effects of manure-contaminated water on feed and water consumption and water selection. Calves, with cows drinking clean water, gained 9% more (P < 0.10) weight than those with cows on pond(direct) but cow weight and backfat thickness were not affected. Yearling heifers having access to clean water gained 23% (P = 0.045) and 20% (P = 0.076) more weight than those on pond(direct) and pond(trough), respectively. Cattle avoided water that was contaminated with 0.005% fresh manure by weight when given a choice of clean water. Cattle that had access to clean water spent more time grazing and less time resting than those that were offered pond(trough) or pond(direct). Cattle management must consider water quality together with forage conditions in order to achieve optimal production from rangeland.

Agricultural Ponds Support Amphibian Populations

“…Willms et al (2002) found that yearling heifers and calves with cows drinking clean water gained more mass than those drinking pond water contaminated with manure. Willms et al (2002) found that yearling heifers and calves with cows drinking clean water gained more mass than those drinking pond water contaminated with manure.…”

Do Water Contamination Reports Influence Water Use Practices on Feedlot Farms and Rural Households in Southern Alberta?

“…When asked to share their water contamination and water use issues associated with feedlot operations, it was found, as in previous studies (Willms et al, 2002;Wing et al, 2002;Corkal et al, 2004;Miller et al, 2004), that animal welfare was at the top of the participants' water issue list (Table 5), followed by a healthy water 1. Make sure we are drinking "safe" and "healthy" water because "we need good food and good water for success."…”

“…Yet, most published research on water, agriculture and health in southern Alberta has focused predominately on agricultural water contamination issues, including identifying methods to improve water use efficiencies for crop agriculture (Alberta Irrigation Projects Association [AIPA], 2002), increased beef cattle production (AAFRD, 2001;Larney et al, 2001;Willms et al, 2002;Miller et al, 2004) and the strategies livestock farmers have adopted to protect the quality of their water. While animal health is critical for the economic prosperity of livestock farmers and their communities (Corkal et al, 2004), so are the health of the farmers and the quality of water sources to support sustainable development and the growth of the livestock industry.…”

Evaluating an Agricultural Extension Program Aimed at Improving Biodiversity in Alberta, Canada

“…In cases where producers had to weigh private costs against public and private benefits, future benefits could have been verified through social networks or the extension agent. Producers were willing to install remote watering systems to reduce livestock activity near water bodies at relatively high rates, which has proven private (Willms et al ) and environmental benefits (Sheffield et al ) within a growing season. Producers were also willing to leave buffer areas or install fences around water bodies the majority of the time these practices were recommended.…”