Vet Clin Food Anim 23 (2007) 91–103

Management of Water Quality

for Beef Cattle
Cody L. Wright, PhD, PAS
Department of Animal and Range Sciences, South Dakota State University,
Box 2170, Brookings, SD 57007, USA

Water is an essential nutrient for humans and livestock. Drinking water is

the primary source of water for most cattle. Unfortunately, water is an ex-
cellent solvent and frequently contains various solutes and suspended partic-
ulate matter, which can influence its appearance, odor, taste, physical
properties, and chemical properties. Some solutes and suspended particulate
matter (eg, microbial pathogens, nitrates, and sulfates) can have a negative
impact on animal health and performance. Animals often react to such wa-
ter impurities by decreasing water intake, which, in itself, is not immediately
problematic; however, water intake is related closely to feed intake [1], and
as water intake decreases, so does feed intake and animal performance.
This article discusses some of the most common factors that impact water
quality for beef cattle and the methods of monitoring water quality, and
proposes management solutions to address water quality concerns.

Common water quality issues

Fecal contamination
Cattle are sensitive to the taste and odor of water [2]. Accumulation of
fecal material can reduce the palatability of water to the extent that water
intake by cattle is depressed. Because water and forage intake are closely re-
lated [1], depressed water intake can lead to a reduction in forage intake,
and a subsequent reduction in animal performance. Willms and coworkers
[3] reported that yearling heifers that had access to clean water pumped from
a well, spring, or river gained 23% more weight than heifers with access to
impounded surface water (ie, pond water). Furthermore, treating pond wa-
ter by aeration or coagulation increased average daily gain (ADG) by steers

E-mail address: cody.wright@sdstate.edu

0749-0720/07/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cvfa.2006.12.002 vetfood.theclinics.com
92 WRIGHT

by 8.2% and 9.3%, respectively, compared with steers provided with pond
water [4].
In contrast, the performance of stocker steers and cow–calf pairs pro-
vided with well water did not differ from that of cattle provided with
pond water [5,6]. In these studies, the cattle were not permitted to stand
or loiter in ponds. Rather, pond water was pumped into tanks where water
intake could be measured accurately. Because the cattle were not stirring up
sediment in the water or defecating directly into the pond, it was possible
that the water quality was not as poor as was assumed. The investigators
reported that, with the exception of fecal coliform, all measures of water
quality were within safe limits for livestock [5,6].

Blue-green algae
Fecal contamination of surface water increases its nutrient content. This
phenomenon, known as nutrient loading or eutrophication, stimulates the
growth of algae. Excessive algae growth depletes the dissolved oxygen con-
tent of water and, when blue-green algae are present, can introduce toxins
into the water. Blue-green algae, or cyanobacteria, include the genera Ana-
baena, Aphanizomenon, Microcystis, Nodularia, and Oscillatoria [7]. Algae
blooms are found commonly in nutrient-rich, stagnant water during periods
of sunny weather that result in water temperatures of between 15 and 30 C
[8]. A water pH level greater than or equal to six is also conducive to algae
blooms [8].
When algal cells die, gas produced inside the cells causes them to float to
the water’s surface. Surface winds concentrate the dead algae into the lee-
ward areas of ponds, lakes, and streams to form a scum on, or just below,
the water’s surface. If cattle drink in or near this scum, they can be exposed
to neurotoxins and hepatotoxins released by the bacteria.

Other microorganisms
In addition to blue-green algae, other water-borne microorganisms can
also present significant health risks for cattle. The Leptospira family and Fu-
sobacterium necrophorum often use water and mud as a means of transfer
from one animal to another. A Leptospira infection (ie, leptospirosis) can
lead to reproductive problems in cattle. The organism is spread by way of
urine; therefore, cattle should not be forced to drink water that may be con-
taminated heavily with urine. Preventing cattle from standing or loitering in
water may help prevent transmission of leptospirosis.
Fusobacterium necrophorum is the organism most often responsible for the
condition commonly known as footrot. This soil-borne bacterium is found
throughout the United States, and can be carried on the feet of animals.
Any water source that comes into contact with the feet of cattle may become
contaminated. A footrot infection usually results in swelling in the interdigi-
tal space and just above the coronary band, and results in chronic lameness.
 MANAGEMENT OF WATER QUALITY FOR BEEF CATTLE 93

As with other water-borne pathogens, preventing cattle from wading or loi-

tering in ponds, lakes, and streams may help prevent footrot infections.

Nitrate
Nitrate poisoning of cattle is associated most often with drought-stressed
corn, cereal grains, and cultivated C-4 forages; however, drinking water is
also implicated occasionally [9,10]. Dangerous nitrate concentrations in
drinking water are often a result of runoff from heavily fertilized fields
(ie, chemical fertilizers or manure) or from poorly cased, shallow wells.
The National Research Council recommends a maximum safe concentration
of 100 mg nitrate nitrogen per liter of water for livestock [11].
Nitrate nitrogen itself is only marginally toxic to animals; usually, how-
ever, a large percentage of ingested nitrate is converted to nitrite in the ru-
men, and this is highly toxic to cattle. Under normal circumstances, nitrite
nitrogen is converted slowly to ammonia nitrogen by ruminal microbes.
When this conversion process becomes overwhelmed by an excess of in-
gested nitrate nitrogen, nitrite poisoning results. Nitrite is absorbed into
the bloodstream, and subsequently reacts with hemoglobin to form methe-
moglobin. This reaction dramatically reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity
of the blood, and causes methemoglobinemia. Signs of methemoglobinemia
include weakness, ataxia, trembling, hypersensitivity, gasping for breath,
and rapid pulse rate [12]. In many cases, abortion and death result.
Treatment for nitrate poisoning should include an intravenous adminis-
tration of a 4% aqueous solution of methylene blue at a rate of 2 mg per
lb of body weight, to reverse the hemoglobin-to-methemoglobin reaction.
Mineral oil should also be provided by way of a stomach tube, to increase
elimination of nitrates from the digestive tract.

Hardness
Hardness is primarily an indication of the amount of calcium and mag-
nesium dissolved in water. Water hardness does not have a dramatic impact
on the health or performance of beef cattle. Although hard water has been
implicated previously as a cause of urinary calculi, recent literature dis-
credits this idea [11]. Treating hard water through ionic exchange of sodium
for calcium and magnesium may be problematic if the water is already
highly saline [13].

Salinity
Salinity, also referred to as total dissolved solids (TDS), is a measure of
the amount of salt dissolved in water. The ions found most commonly in
highly saline waters are calcium, magnesium, sodium, bicarbonate, chloride,
and sulfate [11]. Under certain circumstances, other ions (eg, nitrate) may
also be present in significant concentrations.
94 WRIGHT

Often, water salinity is confused with water hardness. Hardness refers

primarily to the calcium and magnesium contents of water, whereas salinity
refers to the total concentration of dissolved salts. This distinction is func-
tional; salinity and hardness are not correlated necessarily [11]. It is possible
for highly saline water to contain low concentrations of calcium and
magnesium.
In one study, heifers provided with water containing 10,000 mg added so-
dium sulfate per liter experienced a severe reduction in water intake, severe
diarrhea, and weight loss, compared with heifers provided with control wa-
ter (baseline salinity or sulfate concentrations were not reported) or control
water containing 4000 or 7000 mg added sodium sulfate per liter [14]. In
contrast, water containing 4000 or 7000 mg added sodium sulfate per liter
resulted in greater water intake, reduced free-choice mineral intake, and
no change in animal performance, compared with animals receiving control
water.
To determine whether these effects were due to salinity or sulfate content,
researchers conducted a second experiment to compare the effects of adding
7000 or 10,000 mg per liter of either a mixture of salts (ie, sodium chloride,
magnesium sulfate, and sodium sulfate) or sodium chloride only, to control
water [14]. Intake of water containing the mixture of salts at 7000 or 10,000 mg
per liter was similar to that of control water. Conversely, intake of water
containing sodium chloride only (ie, 7000 or 10,000 mg/L) was greater than
that of control water. At 10,000 mg per liter, the mixture of salts and sodium
chloride only reduced animal weight gain; however, neither treatment pro-
duced the severe reduction in water intake and diarrhea observed when so-
dium sulfate was added to drinking water at 10,000 mg per liter.
Heifers that were offered tap water (ie, 100 mg TDS/L) drank less and
had greater blood urea nitrogen than heifers that were offered tap water
plus 10,000 mg per liter additional sodium chloride; however, growth per-
formance was similar. When 20,000 mg sodium chloride was added per liter
of tap water, heifers experienced severe anorexia, weight loss, lethargy, an-
hydremia, and collapse. The National Research Council developed a series
of recommendations in response to these data for the consumption of saline
water by beef cattle (Table 1) [11].
Rapid changes from low- to high-saline water may also present a problem
for cattle. Weeth and coworkers [15] reported that, following water depriva-
tion, heifers offered water containing 5000 or 6500 mg sodium chloride per
liter experienced reduced water consumption, relative to heifers that re-
ceived tap water (ie, !245 mg TDS/L). Cattle that have been changed
from low- to high-salinity water sources are likely to refuse to drink for sev-
eral days, after which they consume large amounts in a short period of time.
In this scenario, cattle can become sick or die.
Highly saline water itself is not likely to be problematic for beef cattle;
however, certain ions in saline water can be extremely detrimental to animal
performance and can, in some cases, be fatal.
 MANAGEMENT OF WATER QUALITY FOR BEEF CATTLE 95

Table 1
A guide to the use of saline waters for beef cattle
Total soluble salts content
of waters (mg/L) Comment
!1000 Should present no serious burden to any class of beef cattle
1000–2999 Should be satisfactory for all classes of beef cattle
May cause temporary and mild diarrhea, but should not affect
health or performance
3000–4999 Should be satisfactory for all classes of beef cattle
May cause temporary and mild diarrhea, but should not affect
health or performance
5000–6999 Can be used with reasonable safety for beef cattle
Should be avoided for pregnant or lactating animals
7000–10,000 Is a considerable risk when used for pregnant or lactating cows,
young calves, or cattle subjected to heat stress
Should be avoided except with older cattle in a low-stress
environment
O10,000 Should be avoided under any conditions
Adapted from National Research Council. Nutrients and toxic substances in water for live-
stock and poultry. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1974.

Sulfate
The most common and well-researched component of salinity is the sul-
fate ion. High-sulfate water is found throughout the United States, but ap-
pears to be particularly problematic in the western and Great Plains regions.
Gould and coworkers [16] analyzed subsurface water samples from 498 ag-
ricultural operations in 23 states. They indicated that water sulfate concen-
trations in the north-central, south-central, and western regions of the
country reached as high as 7600, 3800, and 2500 mg sulfate per liter, respec-
tively. If water sulfate concentrations were combined with the sulfur concen-
trations of local forages to estimate total sulfur intake by cattle, 27 of 454
(6%) paired samples (ie, water þ forage) would have resulted in greater
than 0.5% total dietary sulfur, the maximum tolerable concentration for
cattle consuming a forage-based diet [16,17].
Numerous researchers have documented the impact of high-sulfate water
on the health and performance of cattle; moreover, several excellent reviews
have been published on this topic [17–20]. High-sulfate water can be detri-
mental to animal health and performance by way of two distinct mecha-
nisms. First, water-borne sulfur can be used as a substrate for hydrogen
sulfide production [18–20]. Second, water-borne sulfur can act as a dietary
antagonist to copper [21–23].
Hydrogen sulfide is a neurotoxic compound that can be fatal to cattle. It
is a normal product of ruminal microbial activity; however, it can quickly
intoxicate or kill cattle when produced in amounts too great for normal
routes of metabolic disposal [20]. Consequently, estimation of total sulfur
96 WRIGHT

intake through feed, water, and the environment is necessary for effective as-
sessment of animal risk for sulfur intoxication.
Sulfur can enter the rumen in several forms: sulfur-containing amino
acids, sulfate forms of supplemental minerals, water, and feed. Sulfur that
enters the rumen is reduced to sulfide, chiefly by sulfate-reducing bacteria.
As sulfate intake increases, the capacity of ruminal bacteria to produce hy-
drogen sulfide increases, which may occur with or without an increase in the
number of sulfate-reducing bacteria [24]. Accumulation of hydrogen sulfide
in the head space of in vitro cultures of sulfate-reducing bacteria is associ-
ated with reduced hydrogen sulfide production [25]. Conversely, periodic re-
moval of hydrogen sulfide from the head space, as would be expected
through eructation from a normally functioning rumen, enhances hydrogen
sulfide production in vitro [25].
Sulfide produced in the rumen is either absorbed by the animal or used by
ruminal microbes to produce sulfur-containing amino acids [20]. Sulfide ab-
sorbed from the gut is oxidized and detoxified by oxyhemoglobin in the
blood and by the sulfide oxidase system in the liver [18]. The lungs are an
alternative site of sulfide absorption. Cattle reinspire roughly 70% of eruc-
tated ruminal gases. Inhaled hydrogen sulfide is absorbed readily through
the lungs [26]. Because of the shorter and more direct route from the lungs
to the heart and brain, the detoxification processes of the liver are effectively
bypassed, and hydrogen sulfide can exert toxic effects on the respiratory, cir-
culatory, and nervous systems [26].
Previously, the neurotoxic effects associated with high-sulfate water were
thought to manifest as polioencephalomalacia (PEM), a condition tradition-
ally associated with thiamine deficiency. Elevated dietary sulfur intakes have
been associated with reduced blood thiamine concentrations; moreover, sul-
fite, an intermediate in the reduction of sulfate to sulfide, cleaves thiamin
[20–27]. Despite these facts, researchers have had difficulty directly connect-
ing PEM to a thiamine deficiency. Gould [20] suggested that a distinct epi-
demiologic form of PEM exists that may have a pathology similar to
traditional PEM, but without an altered thiamine status. This condition
was termed sulfur-associated PEM and may not respond to supplemental
thiamine or thiamine therapy [20].
Although sulfate was not implicated specifically at the time, the negative
effects of high-sulfate water on animal health and performance were likely
first described by Larsen and Bailey [28]. Subsequent research confirmed
the effect of high-sulfate water on cattle health and performance
[14,29,30]. Digesti and Weeth [31] later suggested that water sulfate concen-
tration should be limited to 2500 mg sulfate per liter for beef cattle. Patter-
son and coworkers [32,33] reported substantial reductions in feed and water
intake and average daily gain as the sulfate content of water increased.
These investigators also reported an increased incidence of sulfur-associated
PEM in cattle that consumed water containing more than 3000 mg sulfate
 MANAGEMENT OF WATER QUALITY FOR BEEF CATTLE 97

per liter [32,33]. Reduced performance by feedlot cattle consuming water

containing as little as 583 mg sulfate per liter has also been reported [34].
A wide range of water sulfate concentrations have been associated with
reduced performance and health problems of cattle, which raises the
question of how diet characteristics influence sulfide toxicity. Readily fer-
mentable carbohydrate in the diet appears to increase the activity of sul-
fate-reducing bacteria, causing more hydrogen sulfide to be produced [17].
Spears and Lloyd [35] reported that 0.46% sulfur was well-tolerated in si-
lage-based diets, but in high-concentrate diets, 0.46% sulfur reduced feed in-
take and average daily gain. Consequently, the National Research Council
has developed two maximum tolerable concentrations for total dietary sul-
fur [17]. The maximum tolerable sulfur concentration for cattle consuming
a forage-based diet (ie, R40% forage) is 0.5% of diet dry matter. For cattle
on high-concentrate diets (ie, O85% concentrate), the maximum tolerable
concentration of sulfur is 0.3% of diet dry matter.
High-sulfate water can also have a profound impact on copper status in
beef cattle. Sulfide produced by ruminal bacteria can antagonize copper ab-
sorption, either alone or by combining with molybdenum to form thiomo-
lybdates [36–38]. Water containing as little as 1500 mg sulfate per liter has
been shown to reduce copper status in beef cattle [22,23]. When Canadian
researchers reduced, by way of reverse osmosis, the sulfate concentration
in drinking water from 500 to 42 mg sulfur, the copper status of cows fed
a diet containing 10 mg copper per kg dry matter was improved [21].

Other minerals
Frequently, iron and manganese are found in water in substantial con-
centrations; however, they are rarely present in concentrations considered
toxic to beef cattle. The maximum tolerable concentrations of iron and man-
ganese for beef cattle have been set at 500 and 1000 mg per kg diet dry mat-
ter, respectively [17,39]. Elevated dietary iron has been shown to reduce
copper absorption from the lumen of the gut, but only at concentrations
far above what could be contributed ordinarily from drinking water [40,41].

Measuring and monitoring water quality

The first step in the process of addressing water quality concerns is to
measure the concentrations of organic and mineral contaminants present.
Samples should be obtained from each water source on at least an annual
basis. These samples can be tested quickly for TDS, with a simple, hand-
held electroconductivity meter. These meters are available commercially at
reasonable prices. Some states have equipped their county extension offices
with electroconductivity meters that can test samples for little or no cost.
The reading on the meter can be converted easily to TDS. If the reading
98 WRIGHT

from the electroconductivity meter is greater than 2000, the sample should
be submitted to a water quality laboratory for further analysis.
Samples submitted to such a laboratory will be tested for some or all of
the following characteristics: total coliform bacteria, pH, TDS, hardness, sa-
linity, nitrate, sulfate, and, potentially, other toxic compounds. Each labo-
ratory generally provides a listing of maximum tolerable concentrations,
to aid with interpretation. In addition, the National Research Council devel-
oped a table of maximum recommended concentrations of potentially toxic
elements and ions in water (Table 2) [11]. Some uncertainty may exist as to
the maximum levels of sulfate that cattle can tolerate in water. Table 3 pro-
vides water sulfate guidelines for cattle consuming forage-based diets. As de-
scribed previously, cattle consuming high-concentrate diets are substantially
more susceptible to sulfate toxicity.
Because of precipitation, runoff, and evaporation, it is likely that the
quality of surface and subsurface water will change over time. As such, it
is critical for beef producers in high-risk situations to monitor water quality
closely, especially during the summer months when water intake will be
greatest.

Management alternatives for poor-quality water

Fecal contamination
Reducing fecal contamination of the water supply for cattle may have
a direct impact on performance, and may also help reduce the nutrient

Table 2
Recommended concentration limits of some potentially toxic substances in drinking water for
livestock and poultry
Substance Safe upper limit of concentration (mg/L)
Arsenic 0.20
Cadmium 0.05
Chromium 1.00
Cobalt 1.00
Copper 0.50
Fluorine 2.00
Lead 0.10
Mercury 0.01
Nickel 1.00
Nitrate-N 100.00
Nitrite-N 10.00
Vanadium 0.10
Zinc 25.00
Concentration values are generally far below the median lethal dose intakes of the various
elements.
Adapted from National Research Council. Nutrients and toxic substances in water for live-
stock and poultry. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1974.
 MANAGEMENT OF WATER QUALITY FOR BEEF CATTLE 99

Table 3
Maximum recommended water sulfate concentrations for cattle consuming forage-based diets
Water sulfate
concentration (mg/L) Comment
!1000 Generally safe
1000–2000 May result in diarrhea
Performance may be reduced, particularly in confined cattle on dry
feed
Grazing cattle not likely to be affected
May cause slight reduction in copper availability
2000–3000 Likely to result in diarrhea
Performance will likely be reduced, particularly in confined cattle
on dry feed
Sporadic cases of sulfur-associated PEM are possible
Grazing cattle may be affected
May cause substantial reduction in copper availability
3000–4000 Likely to result in diarrhea
Performance will likely be reduced in all classes of cattle
Sporadic cases of sulfur-associated PEM are likely
May cause substantial reduction in copper availability
O4000 Potentially toxic
Should be avoided
Forage-based diet ¼ 40% forage or greater.

loading that contributes to algal blooms [3,4]. Reducing or eliminating fecal

contamination can be accomplished by preventing fecal material from enter-
ing a water body as runoff or from direct deposition. Maintenance of ripar-
ian zones and stream banks can be an effective means of reducing the
potential for contamination from runoff [42]. Cattle can be prevented
from defecating directly in a body of water by simply fencing them outside
its boundries. Water can then be pumped to a remote location, or provided
from a different source. It may also be possible to reduce the amount of time
cattle loiter in a body of water by providing high-quality water or supple-
ments at locations removed from surface water.

Blue-green algae
Coping with an algae bloom is fairly simple. Initially, cattle will migrate
to another location to avoid drinking near an algae bloom; however, cattle
may have few options if the bloom is widespread. A simple rain storm or
other disturbance of the water surface may suffice to break up the scum
and reduce the potential for toxicosis. Depending on the depth of the water
body and the availability of the proper equipment, it may be possible to
fence off the affected water body, and pump water from several feet (ie, 3
or more) below the surface to a nearby tank. If human intervention becomes
necessary, the water body can be treated with copper sulfate at a rate of 2.7 lb
per acre-foot or 8 lb per million gallons. A treated water source should not
100 WRIGHT

be used for at least 5 days, to allow for dissipation of the toxins. Usually,
one treatment will be sufficient for a period of 2 to 3 weeks.

Nitrate
Prevention is the best means of dealing with nitrates in water. Best man-
agement practices should be implemented to reduce manure and fertilizer
runoff. Shallow wells should also be sampled regularly and analyzed for ni-
trate concentration.

Mineral content (hardness, salinity, sulfate, and other minerals)

Under most circumstances, sulfate is the most problematic of the ions to
manage. The alternatives for addressing this problem can vary dramatically
in cost.
The most effective means of purifying water for livestock is by reverse os-
mosis. In this process, a saline solution is placed on one side of a membrane,
and pressure is applied to stop, and eventually reverse, the osmotic process,
thereby reducing the salt concentration of the water. Reverse-osmosis sys-
tems can be expensive; however, in situations where highly saline or high-
sulfate water has had a substantial financial impact, a reverse-osmosis
system may be warranted.
The second means of dealing with high-sulfate water is simply to develop
alternative, low-sulfur water sources. Rural water systems usually provide
a reliable supply of high-quality water for livestock. Costs involved in estab-
lishing rural water sources include trenching and materials costs; moreover,
there are usually repeating monthly costs based on the volume of water
consumed.
It may also be possible to develop a new well; however, caution should be
exercised before spending substantial capital on such a task. The water qual-
ity of potential aquifers should be investigated to avoid drilling a well that
does not provide higher quality water than that already available.
In addition to the connection fee for a rural water system or the cost of
drilling a well, the cost of developing a new water supply is influenced by the
amount and type of piping used to transport water. Different types of piping
might include permanent underground pipe, or special, ultra-violet-pro-
tected, above-ground piping that can be moved as needed. The most appro-
priate type of piping depends on the specific requirements of each scenario.
The least expensive option to cope with highly saline or high-sulfate wa-
ter is to limit animal exposure through grazing management. In some situ-
ations, it may be possible to graze cattle in pastures with poor-quality water
early in the grazing season, when temperatures are cooler and the concentra-
tion of the contaminants is likely to be the lowest of the year. As ambient
temperatures and water intake begin to increase, cattle can be moved to pas-
tures with better-quality water. Additionally, grazing animals with low rel-
ative nutrient requirements (ie, mature or nonlactating cattle) in pastures
 MANAGEMENT OF WATER QUALITY FOR BEEF CATTLE 101

where water quality is poor, and those with high relative nutrient require-
ments (ie, growing or lactating cattle) where water quality is acceptable,
may also help avoid production problems. The success of these strategies de-
pends heavily on routine testing of quality at all water sources used by a par-
ticular cattle operation.
Efforts to alleviate problems associated with high-sulfate water have pro-
duced mixed results. Supplemental thiamine (ie, 125 mg to 1 g/animal/day)
may be beneficial in coping with high-sulfate water, but little research has
examined this as an option. Adding molybdenum to cattle diets has been
used to prevent sulfate problems; however, this strategy simply creates an-
other problem by antagonizing copper absorption. Independent of water
management interventions, it is important to become familiar with the signs
of sulfur-associated PEM and to develop an appropriate treatment plan.

Summary
Water quality can have a profound impact on animal health and perfor-
mance. Routine monitoring of water sources and appropriate intervention
can provide beef producers with a desirable return on investment. However,
careful thought should be incorporated into any capital improvements re-
lated to water quality.

References
[1] Hyder DN, Bement RE, Norris JJ. Sampling requirements of the water-intake method of es-
timating forage intake by grazing cattle. Journal of Range Management 1968;21:392–7.
[2] Willms WD, Kenzie O, Quinton D, et al. The water source as a factor affecting livestock pro-
duction. In: Rode LM, editor. Animal science research and development: meeting future
challenges. Proceedings, Canadian Society of Animal Science. Ottawa (Canada): Minister
of Supply Services, Canada; 1996. p. 41–6.
[3] Willms WD, Kenzie OR, McAllister TA, et al. Effects of water quality on cattle performance.
Journal of Range Management 2002;55:452–60.
[4] Lardner HA, Kirychuk BD, Braul L, et al. The effect of water quality on cattle performance
on pasture. Aust J Agric Res 2005;56:97–104.
[5] Crawford RJ, Cole E, Carpenter J. Effect of water source and quality on water intake and
performance of steers grazing tall fescue. Southwest Missouri Agricultural Experiment Sta-
tion Research Report; 1997. p. 2–7.
[6] Crawford RJ, Cole E. Effect of water source and quality on water intake and performance of
cows and calves grazing tall fescue. Southwest Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Re-
search Report; 1999. p. 2–8.
[7] Short SB, Edwards WC. Blue-green algae toxicosis in Oklahoma. Vet Hum Toxicol 1990;32:
558–60.
[8] Zin LL, Edwards WC. Toxicity of blue-green algae in livestock. Bovine Practitioner 1979;14:
151–3.
[9] Yeruham I, Shlosberg A, Hanji V, et al. Nitrate toxicosis in beef and dairy cattle herds due to
contamination of drinking water and whey. Vet Hum Toxicol 1997;39:296–8.
[10] Villar D, Schwartz KJ, Carson TL, et al. Acute poisoning of cattle by fertilizer-contaminated
water. Vet Hum Toxicol 2003;45:88–90.
102 WRIGHT

[11] National Research Council. Nutrients and toxic substances in water for livestock and poul-
try. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1974.
[12] Bruning-Fann CS, Kaneene JB. The effects of nitrate, nitrite, and N-nitroso compounds on
animal health. Vet Hum Toxicol 1993;35:237–53.
[13] Bagley CV, Kotuby-Amacher J, Farrell-Poe K. Analysis of water quality for livestock. Utah
State University Extension Animal Health Fact Sheet - AH/Beef/28; 1997.
[14] Embry LB, Hoelscher MA, Wahlstrom RC, et al. Salinity and livestock water quality. South
Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 481; 1959.
[15] Weeth HJ, Lesperance AL, Bohman VR. Intermittent saline watering of growing beef
heifers. J Anim Sci 1968;27:739–44.
[16] Gould DH, Dargatz DA, Garry FB, et al. Potentially hazardous sulfur conditions on beef
cattle ranches in the United States. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2002;221:673–7.
[17] National Research Council. Mineral tolerance of animals. 2nd edition. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press; 2005.
[18] Kandylis K. Toxicology of sulfur in ruminants: review. J Dairy Sci 1984;67:2179–87.
[19] Veenhuizen MF, Shurson GC. Effects of sulfate in drinking water for livestock. J Am Vet
Med Assoc 1992;201:487–92.
[20] Gould DH. Polioencephalomalacia. J Anim Sci 1998;76:309–14.
[21] Smart ME, Cohen R, Christensen DA. The effects of sulphate removal from the drinking wa-
ter on the plasma and liver copper and zinc concentrations of beef cows and their calves. Ca-
nadian Journal of Animal Science 1986;66:669–80.
[22] Wright CL, Spears JW, Engle TE, et al. Effect of dietary copper level and high sulfate water
on copper metabolism and growth in cattle. In: Roussel AM, Anderson RA, Favier AE,
editors. Trace elements in man and animals 10. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers; 2000. p. 759–62.
[23] Wright CL, Patterson HH. Effect of high-sulfate water on trace mineral status of beef steers
[abstract T213]. J Anim Sci 2006;84(Suppl 1):228.
[24] Cummings BA, Gould DA, Caldwell DR, et al. Rumen microbial alterations associated with
sulfide generation in steers with dietary sulfate-induced polioencephalomalacia. Am J Vet
Res 1995;56:1390–995.
[25] Cummings BA, Gould DA, Caldwell DR, et al. Identity of and interactions of rumen mi-
crobes associated with dietary sulfate-induced polioencephalomalacia in cattle. Am J Vet
Res 1995;56:1384–9.
[26] Bird PR. Sulphur metabolism and excretion studies in ruminants. X. Sulphide toxicity in
sheep. Aust J Biol Sci 1972;25:1087–98.
[27] Gooneratne SR, Olkowski AA, Klemmer RG, et al. High sulfur related thiamine deficiency
in cattle: a field study. Can Vet J 1989;30:139–46.
[28] Larsen C, Bailey DE. Effect of alkali water on dairy cows. South Dakota Agricultural Exper-
iment Station Bulletin 147; 1913. p. 300–25.
[29] Weeth HJ, Hunter JE. Drinking of sulfate-water by cattle. J Anim Sci 1971;32:277–81.
[30] Weeth HJ, Capps DL. Tolerance of growing cattle for sulfate-water. J Anim Sci 1972;34:
256–60.
[31] Digesti RD, Weeth HJ. A defensible maximum for inorganic sulfate in drinking water of cat-
tle. J Anim Sci 1976;42:1498–502.
[32] Patterson HH, Johnson PS, Patterson TR, et al. Effects of water quality on animal health and
performance. Proceedings, Western Section, American Society of Animal Science 2002;53:
217–20.
[33] Patterson HH, Johnson PS, Epperson WB. Effect of total dissolved solids and sulfates in
drinking water for growing steers. Proceedings, Western Section, American Society of Ani-
mal Science 2003;54:378–80.
[34] Loneragan GH, Wagner JJ, Gould DH, et al. Effects of water sulfate concentration on per-
formance, water intake, and carcass characteristics of feedlot steers. J Anim Sci 2001;79:
2941–8.
 MANAGEMENT OF WATER QUALITY FOR BEEF CATTLE 103

[35] Spears JW, Lloyd KE. Effect of dietary sulfur and sodium bicarbonate on performance of
growing and finishing steers [abstract]. J Anim Sci 2005;83(Suppl 1):224.
[36] Suttle NF. Effects of organic and inorganic sulfur on the availability of dietary copper to
sheep. Br J Nutr 1974;32:559–68.
[37] Suttle NF. The interactions between copper, molybdenum, and sulphur in ruminant nutri-
tion. Annu Rev Nutr 1991;11:121–40.
[38] Gooneratne SR, Buckley WT, Christensen DR. Review of copper deficiency and metabolism
in ruminants. Proceedings, Western Section, American Society of Animal Science 1989;69:
819–45.
[39] National Research Council. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. 7th edition. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press; 2000.
[40] Bremner I, Humphries WR, Phllippo M, et al. Iron-induced copper deficiency in calves:
dose-response relationships and interactions with molybdenum and sulfur. Anim Prod
1987;45:403–14.
[41] Phillippo M, Humphries WR, Garthwaite PH. The effect of dietary molybdenum and iron
on copper status and growth in cattle. J Agric Sci 1987;109:315–20.
[42] Hubbard RK, Newton GL, Hill GM. Water quality and the grazing animal. J Anim Sci 2004;
82(E Suppl):E255–63.