Presentation on theme: "Mark Petersen, Jen Muscha & Travis Mulliniks USDA-ARS Fort Keogh Livestock & Range Research Laboratory."— Presentation transcript:
Mark Petersen, Jen Muscha & Travis Mulliniks USDA-ARS Fort Keogh Livestock & Range Research Laboratory
OUTLINE Background Water quality questions Fort Keogh Customer Focus Group inquired about: Variability in water quality? Predictability of changes ? How much does water quality change? Objective: To determine the effect of year, location, season and source on nitrate concentration and other water quality characteristics.
55,000+ acre near Miles City, MT, 96 % of the land has been maintained as native range 2,000 acres cultivated corn silage, barley grain & hay 2 feedlot s with 999 head capacity
Samples were collected from 4 sources: Springs reservoirs ground water flowing surface water Sites classified into 3 geographical locations: north (N), southeast (SE) and southwest (SW).
WATER QUALITY RESEARCH– Ft Keogh LARRL 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013
Other variables accounted for : Season Wetter – May Drier – September Year - 5 2009 to 2013
OUTLINE Yearly Variability August 16, 2012 – Lower Coal Pasture August 18, 2011 – Lower Coal Pasture
45 sample site 450 possible samples could be collected Only 393 were collected All May samples were collected with exception of 1 In September, 56 samples could not be collected (25% of sites dried up)
CURRENT WATER QUALITY RESEARCH–Ft Keogh LARRL CURRENT WATER QUALITY RESEARCH–Ft Keogh LARRL Analysis included; Analysis included; Nitrates, sulfates Sodium, chloride, calcium, magnesium Manganese, iron, fluoride pH/ alkalinity Conductivity, total dissolved solids Temperature Midwest laboratories, Omaha
Location, source, year, sampling date, and their interactions were analyzed : As 3 × 4 x 5 x 2 factorial arrangement of treatments. Sampling date was not a significant (P>0.05) factor influencing nitrate concentrations.
Average nitrate concentration for all samples collected; 0.3+ 0.27 ppm Range N.D. to 26.7 ppm
May vs September, non significant P = 0.56 September mean = 0.2+ 0.2 Range =nd - 6.4 May mean = 0.4+ 0.2 Range =nd – 26.7
Results – Effect of sample year 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 & 2013 - non significant P = 0.49 Item20092010201120122013 Mean0.21 0.54 Range0 – 6.40 – 5.90 – 26.7
A location by source interaction (P<0.05) was found for nitrates. The highest concentration of nitrates was found in spring water in the north (1.38 ± 0.27 ppm) and flowing water in the southwest (0.93 ± 0.26 ppm).
Item Number of samples Analyzed Average Concentration ppm Range of Concentration % of Samples Exceeding Max Upper Level for Livestock Maxiumum upper limit Calcium39347.50.51-9122.5200 ppm, Chloride39314.90-2550300 Fluoride3931.10-818*2 Iron39315.90-119266*0.4 Magnesium39325.50.14-5293*100 Manganese3930.30-19.811*0.5 Nitrate3930.290-26.70*100 pH3938.36.95-10.636*8.5 Sodium3932815.72-375742*300 Sulfate3933660-959137*300 TDS39393983-94901.5*3000 Temperature 39360° F42-81° F Summary Results for all Minerals 2009 to 2013
PREDICTING MINERAL INTAKE FROM WATER PREDICTING MINERAL INTAKE FROM WATER ItemWater analysisAmt supplied in water Calcium1.04 ppm0.045 g/d Chloride14 ppm0.604 g/d Fluoride3.3 ppm142.4 mg/d Iron0.04 ppm1.726 mg/d Magnesium0.29 ppm0.013 g/d Sodium365.0 ppm15.75 g/d Sulfur45.29 ppm1.95 g/d 28 g = 1 oz
Need to know water quality Multiple water sites pasture During drought forced to drink poorer water At Ft Keogh use North in summer drought At Ft Keogh use North in summer drought Use known poor water pasture in winter Use southeast in winter Use southeast in winter Early spring may dilute poor water
May result in reduced mineral intake Water quality is highly variable Source Source Location Location Season Season Year Year Especially in a dry year check TDS before cattle are moved to a fresh pasture.
Factors influencing voluntary loose mineral consumption – speculated season of the year season of the year water salinity water salinity daily temperature daily temperature salt bush frequency salt bush frequency forage maturity forage maturity vegetation dry matter content vegetation dry matter content
To evaluate variation in herd mineral intake, individual cow mineral tub use due season and daily high temperature 80 mixed-age native English cross-bred cows, access to open range mineral tub (containing 34% salt, 57% minerals and 9% distillers grain) Cows rotationally grazed native range. Data not collected in Feb & Mar. Bushnell Trophy Cam XLT motion activated trail cameras recorded daily appearance.
Magnitude of variability in mineral consumption Productivity influences due to mineral consumption
Percent of cows at mineral tub daily throughout study from August 2010-June 2011
Percent of cows at mineral tub Average mineral daily consumption daily by growing season (P<0.01). by growing season (P<0.01). % of cows at mineral tub grams consumed head/day
Supply mineral to “fix” known deficiencies Intake is not predictable Our next step add titanium
Why titanium? Not in environment Marker for intake Collected 1,400 fecal samples
Rank cows by Ti concentration Assumption ; Higher Ti consume more Evaluate Ti on calving interval in days Weaning weight Cow wt change weaning to weaning
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.