trey patterson, ph.d. extension beef specialist south dakota state university

Trey Patterson, Ph.D.Trey Patterson, Ph.D.Extension Beef SpecialistExtension Beef Specialist

South Dakota State UniversitySouth Dakota State University

Effects on Animal Performance Effects on Animal Performance and Healthand Health

Water QualityWater Quality

Trey Patterson, Ph.D.Trey Patterson, Ph.D.Beef SpecialistBeef Specialist

South Dakota State UniversitySouth Dakota State University

Effects on AnimalEffects on Animal Performance and HealthPerformance and Health

Water Quality

• Critical Issue in South Dakota and Region– Quantity– Quality

• Samples from 498 operations (23 states)– 6% > 1000 ppm sulfate– 50% of those in SD, ND, NE, KS

Gould et al., 2002

Total Dissolved Solids

• Indicator of total salt level

• Sodium, chloride, calcium, magnesium, sulfur, iron, and others

Nevada Research

• Na2SO4 water to heifers reduced:

– water consumption (35%)

– feed consumption (30%)

– increased weight loss

• NaCl did not affect performance(Weeth and Hunter, 1971)(Weeth and Hunter, 1971)

Sulfates

• Field Observations in western SD have shown sodium sulfate major salt in water– sulfates about 64% of TDS

• Recent work has shown sulfur intake (from water and feed) is at potentially toxic levels in many South Dakota Ranches

Gould et al., 2002

Water Sulfur

• Sulfur Requirement: 0.15%

• Maximum Tolerable Level: 0.40%

NRC, 1996

Effect of Salts in Drinking Water

1) Reduced water/feed consumption– Reduced performance

2) Ingestion of toxic sulfur levels– Disease and reduced performance

3) Induced Copper deficiency– Reduced performance and health

Water Intake

• Size*• Physiological State*• Temperature*• Salt intake (and salts in water)*• Dry Matter Intake*• Activity• Water intake from feed• Rate of Gain

Water Intake 800 lb Heifer

NRC, 1996NRC, 1996

Finishing Steer Performance

Quadratic, P = 0.02Quadratic, P = 0.02

Sulfur from water sulfatesSulfur from water sulfates

Loneragan et al., 2001Loneragan et al., 2001

Finishing Steer Performance

Linear, P < 0.10Linear, P < 0.10

Sulfur from water sulfatesSulfur from water sulfates

Loneragan et al., 2001Loneragan et al., 2001

Sulfur Toxicity

• Sulfur can be antagonistic to thiamin (Brent and Bartely, 1984)

• Thiamin deficiency has been associated with Polioencephalomalacia (PEM)(McDowell, 1989)

Sulfur Toxicity

• PEM associated with hydrogen sulfide production, not blood thiamin (McAllister et al., 1997)

• Hydrogen sulfide can be inhaled following eructation (Kandylis, 1984)

• Hydrogen sulfide disrupts energy metabolism in brain cells– Necrotic lesions---PEM

Previous Research

Dietary sulfur levels of 0.9% have been associated with PEM

Loneragan et al., 1998Loneragan et al., 1998

Finishing Steer Performance

Quadratic, P < 0.10Quadratic, P < 0.10

Sulfur in diet from ammonium sulfateSulfur in diet from ammonium sulfate

Zinn et al., 1997Zinn et al., 1997

Copper and Sulfur

SO22- S2- MoS2-

sulfatesulfate sulfidesulfide thiomolybdatethiomolybdate

•CuCu- - MoS2- is not available

•Sulfates > 300 ppm

Water Intake: 2001

aa

bb bb

(P = .07)(P = .07)

Dry Matter Intake: 2001

aabb bb

(P = .08)(P = .08)

Average Daily Gain: 2001

aa

bb bb

(P < .05)(P < .05)

Health: 2001Morbidity: P = .02Morbidity: P = .02Mortality: P = .40Mortality: P = .40Polio: P = .08Polio: P = .08

Sulfur Intake: 2001

400 3100 3900

% DM 0.27 0.74 0.93

grams/d 22 56 71

Target Sulfates, ppm

Water Intake: 2002

(Linear, P < 0.01)(Linear, P < 0.01)

Dry Matter Intake: 2002

(Quadratic, P < 0.05)(Quadratic, P < 0.05)

Average Daily Gain: 2002

(quadratic: P < .05)(quadratic: P < .05)

Health: 2002Morbidity: P < .01Morbidity: P < .01Mortality: P < .01Mortality: P < .01Polio: P < .01Polio: P < .01

Dietary Sulfur: 2002

400 1700 2900 4600

% DM 0.26 0.48 0.68 1.1

g/d 24 45 58 66

Target Sulfates, ppm

DMI vs. Water Intake

Average Daily Gain on Pasture Average Daily Gain on Pasture 20012001

Average Daily Gain on Pasture Average Daily Gain on Pasture 20012001

(P < 0.10)(P < 0.10)

Pasture Average Daily Gain: 2002

(P < .01)(P < .01)

• 96 cows

• 3 pastures received rural water– Sulfates: 389 ppm

• 3 pastures received water with sodium sulfate added:

• Sulfates: 2600 ppm (1900-3000)

Weight Change: 2003

Weight Change: P = 0.09Weight Change: P = 0.09

+ 10 lb+ 10 lb -36 lb-36 lb

Body Condition Score: 2003

BCS Change: P = 0.22BCS Change: P = 0.22

-.30-.30 -.48-.48

Calf Average Daily Gain: 2003

(P > .50)(P > .50)

SulfatesSulfates, ppm Comments< 500Safe500-1500 Safe, may have laxative

effect1500-3000 Marginal, reduce

performance and health

3000-4000 Poor, likely to reduce performance and may cause polio

>4000 Dangerous

Poor Water?

• Use earlier in summer

• Use when temperatures not elevated

• Reduce heat stress on cattle

• Mix with better water

• Water development

Poor Water?

• Use on dry cows or low producing livestock

• Wean calves

• Pay attention to sulfur in other feeds, especially alternative feeds

Thiamin Trial: Average Daily Gainaa

bb

cc

(P < 0.06)(P < 0.06)

Water Management

• Know your water quality and develop a plan to best manage water

• If you are forced to use poor water:– Be aware of potential impacts on

performance– Have a PEM treatment plan– Have a strong mineral program

Copper Supplementation

• May be necessary year around if high sulfates, iron or molybdenum are present (10 to 40 ppm Cu from supplement)– Organic Cu Sources– Sulfates or Chlorides

• Check forage and water: adequate mineral intake important