|
>
Department >
Home >
Natural Resources
Natural Resources Extension Program
Can I Make My Cows More Efficient Through Modified
Water Sources?
By Gene Surber, Natural Resources
Specialist, MSU Extension Service
"Preliminary
findings indicate cattle do prefer tanks to muddy
banks." |
One of the main goals of most ranchers is to maximize
the return of their livestock enterprise while sustaining
the resources their livestock enterprise uses. Maximizing
the return of an enterprise without regard for the sustainability
of the resources will result in eventual economic and
environmental disaster. One can assume that ranchers
who have been economically sustainable over generations
must have learned how to work with the environment rather
than against it. I certainly feel that assumption is
true. In general the forage resources used on livestock
operations today are in better environmentally sound
condition than anytime this century. What about the
available sources or quality of the water supplied to
livestock?
WATER DISTRIBUTION
Water distribution is better than at anytime this century.
Ranchers continue to improve the distribution of water
through providing additional water sources where it
has not been available before. Reservoirs, dugouts,
and pipelines have all increased in numbers over the
last half century thereby improving the distribution
of livestock and wildlife.
This has allowed ranchers to utilize forage resources
that were unused in the past because of their distance
from water. Many ranges in Montana can still benefit
from more livestock drinking water sources. Programs
are available through USDA and even private wildlife
organizations to assist ranchers with water distribution.
WATER QUALITY
What about drinking water quality for livestock? Drinking
water quality parameters have not been documented like
those for human consumption and most Montana water sources
have not been quantified as to quality (Surber, G.).
In my opinion there is certainly no need to do a costly
water quality test on private reservoirs unless there
is a suspected problem. Cattle behavior and performance
is a simpler way of telling if something is wrong with
the water or forage quality.
In order for livestock to perform up to their genetic
potential they must have adequate feed and water. Quality
of the feed and water play an important role in how
well the livestock perform. Livestock will select the
best quality of feed and water when given a choice.
This is why ranchers take extra effort to put up high
quality forages. It makes just as much sense to make
the highest or best quality of water also available.
Ideal drinking water temperature for livestock is between
40 and 65 degrees F. Steers having access to cool drinking
water gained .3 to .4 pounds more per day than those
drinking warm water (Boyles, S. & et al).
The dairy farmer makes free access to water a high
priority, because cows which can drink all the water
they want will produce more milk and more butterfat
than cows only allowed to drink twice a day. Dry cows
require about 8 to 10 gallons of water daily. Daily
water consumption by cows in their last 3 months of
pregnancy may rise to 15 gallons. Those in milk need
about five times as much water as the volume of milk
they produce. Calves start drinking water at an early
age and their performance can be highly dependent on
the availability of water and consumption is dependent
on access and quality of the water.
CAN WATER SOURCE AFFECT QUALITY?
A large number of cattle in Montana depend on earthen
water basins, such as, reservoirs, ponds or dugouts
for their drinking water. Cattle depending on the one
of these sources of drinking water may have an affect
on the quality of that water simply by the type of access
they have to it. Cows that drink out of reservoirs or
dugouts churn up the sediments as they move into the
water to get a drink. Many times the second cow to drink
will travel farther out, if possible, to get a cleaner
drink of water. The majority of sediment bound fecal
organisms remain on the bottom of the reservoir until
disturbed. A typical disturbance would be livestock
or wildlife walking in the reservoir. However when drinking
from a tank the sediments are not resuspended each time
a cow comes to drink. Cattle drinking from a tank rarely
deposit urine and manure in the tank compared to those
drinking in the reservoir, which will usually make a
deposit before leaving the water source.
The real question is will cattle drink out of a tank
if other water sources are available? Research in Oregon
(Miner, J.R, & et al) demonstrated, under winter
feeding conditions, cattle preferred to drink out of
a tank rather than a stream. During this study cattle
were monitored as to how much time they spent in and
around the stream. Cattle had full access to the stream
in both pastures, only one also included a water source
out of a tank. No fencing off access to the stream was
done. Time in the stream was reduced by 90 percent over
cattle that only had the stream as a water source.
To me this says cattle, when given a choice, prefer
not to wade in the mud or risk slipping on ice to get
a drink of water. Does this have any application to
summer grazing? I believe so.
Personal observations on several demonstration projects
indicate cattle will preferentially drink out of a tank
and spend less time at the reservoir when given a chance.
The water source of these demonstration projects is
from an unfenced nearby reservoir. It is the same water
only gravity flowed or pumped from the near by reservoir
to the tank. The cattle have a choice of wading into
the reservoir or drinking out of a tank. Cattle drinking
out of the tank do not have to consume as high a level
of Total Suspended Solids (TSS). This in part maybe
the reason the cattle appear to prefer the tank over
the reservoir.
Supplying water to cattle by adding a tank and some
pipe and maybe even a pump (solar, wind or other power
source) just because the cows like it is not enough
when cattle prices are having trouble keeping up with
operational expenses. Is there an economic benefit in
order to pursue this additional expense?
The jury is still out, but there is some evidence that
cattle performance maybe enhanced by providing a higher
quality of drinking water. Research in Alberta (Willms,
W. D., & et al) showed a 23% increase in weight
gains over a 71 day period for yearling steers who’s
drinking water source was from well water versus those
who’s source was from a dugout. Studies in 1993,
showed a 20% difference in animal weights, when exposed
to different water sources for a 30 day period. Some
of the sources of water were pumped out of dugouts to
tanks compared to cattle drinking directly out of a
dugout. A 1994 study confirmed the impact on cows, with
a lesser impact on calves (Kenzie, O.).
If, in fact, a significant weight gain or cow/calf
efficiency can be improved then it would be worth dollars
to producers to put in tanks for an out of reservoir
drinking water source. For example if one could realize
a 5% increase in calf weights, 100 calves would pay
for one gravity system, approximately $13-1400.00, in
one year even at $0.60 calf prices.
500 lb calf * .05 = 25 lbs.
25 lbs * $0.60/lb = $15.00
$15.00 * 100 calves = $1500.00
Herd health may also be benefited by providing access
to water other than in the reservoir by minimizing disease
transmission. Putting a dollar value to this is more
difficult, but in fact maybe part of the increase in
cow performance.
DEMONTRATION PROJECT
To demonstrate this idea a project was set up to observe
several aspects of a water source away from a reservoir.
The objectives: (1) To determine if cattle show a preference
for tank water versus direct drinking from dam/pit/reservoir.
(2) To determine if availability of a tank would have
any affect on shoreline vegetation versus a dam/pit/reservoir
without at tank. (3) To determine if there are water
quality differences between tank, the dam/pit/reservoir
the tank is filled out of or a dam/pit/reservoir with
no tank. The project also had several secondary objectives:
(1) To make observations of gross performance of livestock.
(2) To make observations using tanks as a distribution
management tool. (3) To make observations on behavior
of cattle in relation to learning what and where the
tank is.
Preliminary findings indicate (1) Cattle do prefer
tanks to muddy banks. 75 – 80% of the livestock,
which approached the watering source with a tank available,
watered at the tank. Cattle did exhibit a learning curve
as the cattle in the last of the grazing season looked
for the tank as a source of water. Calves demonstrated
the most interest in the tank and were the most consistent
users of the tank water. (2) More residue was left on
the shorelines of the dam/pit/reservoir with the tank
located close by. (3) Definite water quality differences
did exist. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) were much lower
(2mg/L) in the tank as compared to the dam/pit/reservoir
(50mg/L) sources. Other water quality parameters had
very little difference noted.
CONCLUSION
There is a need to collect more information on performance
of the cattle and calves to determine the economic benefit.
The benefits of the increased plant residue around the
dam/pit/reservoirs would indicate a better filtering
system of the runoff water that enters the dam/pit/reservoirs
in addition to those aquatic plants using more of the
nutrients in the water helping to improve the drinking
water quality.
A rancher who is planning on reconstructing dams or
building new water sources, may want to consider putting
in a siphon tube to a tank away from the edge of the
reservoir.
REFERENCES
Boyles, S., K. Wohlgemuth, G. Fisher, D Lundstrom,
and L. Johnson, 1988. Livestock and Water, AS-954. Noth
Dakota State University, Fargo, ND.
Kenzie, O, 1995. Alberta=s Stockman=s Range Management
course, Maycroft, AB, Canada.
Surber, G., 1997, Livestock Water Quality, GLCI Demonstration
Tour.
Willms,W.D., O. Kenzie, Z. Mir, and D. Quinton, 1995.
Effects of water supplied from old dugouts on the performance
of cattle. Fifth International Rangeland Congress, Salt
Lake City, Utah, July 1995.
Miner, J.R., J.C. Buckhouse, and J.A. Moore, 1992.
Evaluation of Off-Stream Water Source to Reduce Impact
of Winter Fed Range Cattle on Stream Water Quality.
Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
|
