Keep An Eye On Your Livestock’s Water Quality

Friday, February 21, 2025

‘Lower quality often causes hidden production losses.’

By Emily Mckinlay

When assessing livestock management, nutrition and health protocols are often the first considerations that come to mind. Water quality is an often forgotten but critical component of raising livestock efficiently.

While it’s necessary to have sufficient quantities of water, quality also plays a role in the ability to meet production goals.

Producers should have knowledge of the source of water and its typical composition to identify potential reductions in quality and to prevent production inefficiencies.

What is water quality?

The water consumed by humans and livestock typically contains much more than the hydrogen and oxygen which make up pure water.

Dwayne Summach, livestock and feed extension specialist for the Government of Saskatchewan, says that water quality is relative.

“The amount of pure water available naturally is very small,” explains Summach.

“Water is a great solvent, which means other things dissolve into it. It carries a lot of other things. Understanding what else is in the water helps understand how that interacts with animal nutrient requirements and absorption.”

Summach says that water often contains other constituents and dissolved minerals such as sodium, calcium, magnesium, and potassium. These will change the way that the water behaves. Minerals can alter the pH and electrical conductivity of the water. This is one way water quality can be measured.

“In pure water, electricity doesn’t move far at all,” says Summach, who explains that electrical conductivity can then be converted into a measurement of total dissolved solids.

“It doesn’t tell us exactly what’s in there. It just tells us if there’s a little or a lot of something in the water.”

Kevin McKague, water quality engineer with OMAFA here in Ontario, says that water source can determine the makeup of the water.

“The water’s source – groundwater, surface water, rainwater, or municipal water – is a key factor,” says McKague. This could also vary geographically.

“In most cases, unless livestock are on pasture, the source in rural Ontario will be private well water. Ontario groundwater, in general, is good quality. There may be a few instances where the natural earth formations from where the water originates can affect water quality – like high sulphur, salt or radon levels – but in many cases, it is human activity that can be the larger factor influencing water quality.”

McKague categorizes water contamination into three groups.

“Microbiological, and chemical or physical contamination, would be the main two categories. Radiological would be a third contaminant,” he says.

“The microbiological category includes pathogens like E. coli and other disease organisms. The chemical and physical category includes nutrients like nitrate, salts, pesticides and hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons originate from fuels or oil products.”

In Ontario, McKague states that the risk of contamination of wells used for livestock watering is closely linked to the integrity of the wellheads and their proximity to potential contaminant sources.

In the Prairies, Summach says that sulphate contamination is a bigger concern for farmers who water their livestock at dugouts and ponds.

“Some deep wells have sulphur problems,” says Summach.

“In dugouts and ponds, the rainwater comes across the soil and picks up salts as it’s coming to the holding area. This often includes sulphates, such as calcium or magnesium sulphate.”

Why does it matter if livestock are consuming water containing significant levels of these contaminants?

Why is it important?

Water with high levels of contaminants can disrupt nutrition and health in livestock, and some species are more susceptible than others.

McKague explains that an early indicator of poor water quality is reduced water intake.

“Reduced water intake also results in reduced feed intake,” says McKague.

“This can have negative effects on animal health, and potentially overall health in the long-term.”

Reduced water intake can also disrupt milk yields and calf performance.

While it is easy to recognize the health implications associated with microbiological or toxic compounds, it may be more difficult to recognize the small losses associated with minerals in the water.

As Summach mentioned previously, the constituents of water can alter its behaviour. Compounds like sulphates, a concern for Western Canadian farmers, can affect the nutritional status of the animal by influencing the metabolism of other minerals.

“Sulphur interacts with trace minerals, the main one being copper,” explains Summach.

“It combines with copper and causes it to not be absorbed by the animal. It just goes out the back end. This induces a secondary copper deficiency, which often results in lower immune system function and lower reproductive efficiency. It’s not that they tip over dead, but rather they just have lower productivity and lower reproductive success.”

He notes that the effects of these nutrient imbalances can cause economic losses for producers, but it may also be harder to pinpoint the cause.

“On good water you could expect 93 to 95 per cent reproductive efficiency in cattle, but if they are drinking high-sulphur water you may only see 88 to 90 per cent efficiency,” continues Summach.

“It shows up but it’s hard to pinpoint what it is. Lower water quality often lowers overall productivity and causes hidden production losses. It’s hard to identify without doing the assessment of ‘This group of animals were on this water, and this other group of animals were provided pure water.’”

As mentioned by Summach, producers might not identify the losses caused by poor water quality without assessing the water.

Measuring and managing quality

It is easier to manage factors that are measured. If a producer is noticing reduced production efficiency, it may be worth assessing water quality.

McKague says that labs that provide soil sample analysis will often also perform water testing.

“Besides monitoring the health of your animals, you can periodically water-sample,” says McKague.

“In Ontario, analysing water for E. coli and coliforms can be accessed through the local county or regional health unit. For chemical, physical, and radiological concentrations, you would need to send water samples collected to a local lab.

“Labs where soil samples are sent generally also have various water analysis packages you can choose from, depending on the type of contamination you might suspect to be the concern. You can then share the water testing results with your animal nutritionist to allow for proper ration formulation and perhaps identify if there are any areas of concern.”

Summach recommends requesting a general chemistry panel for a broad overview of what the water contains. This would include measurements of total dissolved solids, electrical conductivity, and pH to generally quantify the amount of solute in the water. It would also include individual measurements of solutes such as calcium, magnesium, manganese, iron, chloride, potassium, sodium, sulphates, bicarbonates, and other minerals.

Producers should know what their water typically contains to ensure they can identify changes that could indicate contamination.

“Farmers should probably monitor quality on an annual basis, once you know what you have,” says Summach.

“If we are monitoring wells, and if it is the first time, we suggest producers check their water quality a couple times a year to begin with. We recommend doing a sample at the beginning of the spring and in the middle to the end of the fall. These times would have the biggest differences in quality because of how water recharges aquifers.”

If water quality is known to vary greatly, producers should test their water on a monthly basis. If the water quality is consistent, an annual basis may be sufficient.

If producers have been monitoring their water quality and notice changes or suspect contamination, a solution should be found to avoid production losses. It may not be a viable option to find an entirely new source of water.

McKague explains that the first step is to identify if there is an avoidable source of the problem.

“Identify the type and source of contamination. What is the cause? Is it something that can be rectified and rehabilitated – for example, poor wellhead management, or setbacks from contaminant sources? Or is it just a natural characteristic of the water supply or aquifer, like high sulphur?” asks McKague.

“If it is natural or a plume of contamination that has reached the well over years it can be difficult to resolve, short of abandoning the contaminated source and identifying a new water source.

“For some natural chemical parameters, like sulphur, there may be filters that can be installed or chemical treatments applied.”

He recommends that Ontario producers can complete ‘Worksheet 2’ of their Environmental Farm Plan to help assess and pinpoint any water supply challenges that may arise.

Summach says that in the Prairies, producers should focus on site selection for their ponds and dugouts to avoid contamination. He also suggests that dilution with a secondary water source may help manage a contaminated primary water source.

With management and observation, livestock producers can avoid the production inefficiencies associated with water contamination and mineral imbalances.

If they have concerns about water quality and production efficiency, they should also consult with their nutritionist and veterinarian. BF