DSHW-2003-003177 - 0901a0688013b62c

ATK
ALUANT TECHSYSTEMS
Thiol(ol Propulsion Corp.
P.O. Box 707
Brigham City, UT 84302-0707
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
21 July 2003
8200-CY04:ST025
Mr. Dennis R. Downs, Executive Secretary
State of Utah
Department of Environmental Quality
Division ofSolid and Hazardous Waste
288 N. 1460 W.
P.O. Box 144880
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4880
Dear Mr. Downs
ATTENTION: JeffVandel
DECEIVED
M 2 3 2003
Ohj3iMysoii?ft'Kal.^JwMti
Subject: Responses to DSHW Comments on ATK Thiokol Propulsion's April 25, 2003
Report on the Uptake of Perchlorate by Plants Adjacent to Contaminated Springs
at the Promontory Facility - EPA ID #UTD009081357
RE: Utah DSHW Letter May 28, 2003, in Response to ATK Thiokol Propulsion's April 25,
2003 Report on the Uptake of Perchlorate by Plants Adjacent to Contaminated Springs at
the Promontory Facility - EPA ID #UTD009081357
The Division ofSolid and Hazardous Waste (the Division) reviewed the ATK Thiokol
Propulsion (Thiokol) report on the potential risk to human health from the ingestion of beef from
cattle that have consumed vegetation and water contaminated with perchlorate and provided
comments. Thiokol appreciates these comments and included with this letter a response to
them. Also included is a revised report, which incorporates changes, suggested by the Divisions
comments.
Ifyou have any questions regarding this report, please direct them to myself at [phone].
Sincerely
U(^J'-
Paul V. Hancock, Manager
Thiokol Responses to Utah DSHW Comments
Utah DEQ letter May 29,2003
Thiokol responses in italicized print
RE: ATK Thiokol Propulsion's April 25,2003 Report on the Uptake of Perchlorate by
Plants Adjacent to Contaminated Springs at the Promontor} Facility' - EPA ID
#UTD009081357
Dear Mr. Hancock:
The Division ofSolid and Hazardous Waste (the Division) has reviewed the ATK Thiokol
Propulsion (Thiokol) report on the potential risk to human health from the ingestion of beef from
cattle that have consumed vegetation and water contaminated with perchlorate.
Based on the information provided by Thiokol, potentiai exposure to humans via beef
contaminated with perchlorate is likely below both the USEPA's interim and proposed
perchlorate reference doses (0.0005 and 0.00003 mg/kg-day). However, there are some points,
described in the following comments, that need to be addressed in order to make the information
provided by Thiokol complete. The Division requests that Thiokol address these comments and
resubmit the document.
In addition, due to the high degree of uncertainty in this analysis, the investigation and
conclusions should be reevaluated as new information becomes available.
1. The conclusion that a cattle to human exposure route is a very low probability of concem
is dependent on an extremely limited dataset for perchlorate concentrations in plants.
The sample results provided by the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service may not adequately
define the extent of perchlorate in vegetation. Future characterization efforts at Thiokol
should include additional samples of vegetation.
Thiokol will look at future characterization ofthe vegetation around these water areas. It is
expected that an EPA method for perchlorate analysis in plants will be established to a.ssure the
accuracy and precision ofthe values for this type of testing.
2. The vegetation and water samples were not collected or analyzed by the State of Utah as
indicated by the text. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided the results. Please correct the text.
This correction was made
3. Attachment 3. Beef Ingestion Rate. A beef ingestion rate of 0.813 g/kg-day fresh-weight
(FW) was derived from data forthe U.S. population and may underestimate beef consumption for
local ranchers. A more appropriate data set is likely the beef ingestion rate for home produced
beef presented in Table 13-36 ofthe USEPA (1997) Exposure Factors Handbook. The 90*
percentile consumption rate for homegrown beef is 2.54 g/kg-day FW and the mean is 1.07 g/kg-
day FW based on weighted averages for ages 6 through 69 and adjusted for cooking and
preparation losses. Please reevaluate the beef ingestion rate to ensure that the values used are
conservative.
Thiokol agrees that these homegrown beef values are a more accurate conservative assumption.
These values have been incorporated in the ingestion portion ofthe calculations.
4. Attachment 3. Cattle Water Consumption. The proposed water ingestion rate for cattle is 15
gallons/day and may underestimate water consumption for the summer months. The Virginia
Cooperative Extension (http://ww^.ext.vi.edu/news/periodicaIs/1 ivestock,'aps-99_09/aps-
01 lO.html) estimates water consumption for an 1100 Ib. cow at 90 F to be 17.6 gallons and a rule
of thumb for water consumption is 1.5 gallons for every 100 lbs. The Michigan State University
Extension Service estimates two gallons for every 100 Ibs
(http://www.msue.msu.edu/msue/imp/modaa/23310001 .html) for hot weather resulting in a daily
consumption rate of 24 gallons for a 1200 lb. cow. A lactating cow may require nearly twice as
much water as a non-lactating cow. The Utah State Extension Service notes that water intake
increases with increasing TDS (http://extension.usu.edu/publica/aapubs/ah/beef28.pdf^. Please
reevaluate the water consumption rate for cattle.
Cattle are not on this range that includes the springs during the summer months. Due to the lack
of feed in the summer, they are there only in the spring and fall when temperatures are much
cooler and rain has caused new green growth suitable for grazing. From discussions with and
information from Dr. Clell Bagley. USU Extension Veterinarian, we conclude thai the 15
gallons/day is conservative for the spring and fall months. The other factor that is important
along with the temperature is the moisture content of the feed. Most water consumption testing in
cattle was done assuming dry forage, but with grazing cattle(green forage) their water
consumption is less. Thiokol believes thai the 15 gallons/day is conservative for this
circumstance. The reference provided by Dr. Bagley is attached: this is an article by CF.
Winchester and M.J. Morris, Joumal of Animal Science. August, 1956.
5. Attachment 3. Cattle Grass Consumption. The proposed grass consumption rate of 13.6
kg/day is equal to about 30 Ibs, not 19.4 lbs as listed (calculations are correct because they are
based on 13.6 kg).
This was corrected
6. Attachment 3. Please remove the "confidential" footnotes.
This was removed
7. Attachment 3, p. 2. Total perchlorate intake for the cow is calculated by adding the intake
from water and feed, not multiplying (results are correct; equation is incorrect).
This was corrected
8. Attachment 3, p. 2. Please document how the perchlorate steady-state plasma concentration
was calculated.
Intertox used values calculated and sited in the reference, Goodman, G. 1998. Dose-
equivalence tables for perchlorate: Estimation of oral dose levels equivalent to in
vitro inhibitory concentrations and prediction of maximum plasma perchlorate
concentrations in humans and experimental animals under various exposure
conditions, based on a simplified model of elimination kinetics. Prepared by
Intertox for American Pacific Corporation. September 1.
772/5 reference is now included in attachment 3 found in the report.
9. Attachment 4. Please document how the perchlorate concentration in the muscle was
calculated.
This attachment now includes a sample calculation that documents the steps used in the
calculations.
10. What are local ranching practices for beef raised for personal consumption? Do local
ranchers slaughter cattle without supplementing their feed with grain?
Ranchers know the importance of grain fed cattle and the difference it makes in the quality ofthe
beef For personal consumption, prior to slaughter the practice for local ranchers is to take
cattle off the range and feed them grain for 90 days prior to slaughter. They take pride in being
able to eat the best quality of beef they can produce. The text ofthe report has been updated to
include this information.
ns/IS/03 WKn 10:35 FAX 4_35797395i. USUVETSCI (SOOS
111
li
••a%
•r{:f:.
w -•' '-Q M ••:'.;-; Lo
m l"' 51
ill'^
ffi^^'^ 1 ^-'^^
'^ ^'•'' V
l^si 1. ^
B:}-,^
^ ^^- • ^
'•'•^ •!!'••• ^
m |;,j<:
ig"i
PPi"^ H^ t ^& •'0'^ "i
Wl^
^^ r®fe MH^"^.' ^11 -
^^m
WMw'ii
pi
WATKR l.\T.\KE R.ATKS OF CWTTLE
C F. WlN'CKKSTER ^ ANO M. J. MoKRIS-• ^
U. S. Dipartment oj Agriciilture.
TN areas of limited water supply, quantitative information on water
-•• intake rates of farm animals is comparable in importaoce to in-
fonnation on the animals" other nutrient requirements. Published data
on water intake rates of various species of farm animals have been
reviewed by various workers but apparently tables of water intake of
cattle under a variety of conditions of ambient temperature, body SIM,
and level of feed intake have not been compiled. The prediction of the
water intake of a single animal or of a few head of cattle is not possible
due to the wide difference that exist between the intake levels of indi-
viduals, or even between the levels ingested by a given animal on
consecutive days, under ajjparently like conditions. On the other hand,
the probable intake of a large number of animals under a given set of
conditions can be estimated with a fair degree of confidence. We began
this study in response to requests by livestockmen, engineers and others
for information for practical use on water consumption of herds of cattle.
Because of the urgency of the need for information and the fact thai
many persons have asked us to make available without delay any facts
pertinent to the water requirements of catde, our estimates have been
based upon such data as are presently available rather than upon exten-
sive original data compiled over a period of years. Some terms describing
the amounts of water ingested that must be defined before a discussion
of the water needs of farm animals can be undertaken are the following:
1. "Water consumption" represents the "free water" drank by an animal.
2.''Total water intake" includes both the water drank and that contained
by the feed. 3. "Water requirement" is the equivalent of the water from
all sources, including that of metabolism, necessary to maintain the water
balance.
Sources of Infonnation
Ritzman and Benedict (1924) observed that rate of water intake
is a function of dry matter consumption and on the basis of this observa-
' Aniivial mid foultiy Htotuindry Ki'sciirch Branch, A.R.S., bellsvillc, Md.
« Itlom«r!fal Strviccs, A.K.S , Hi-llsvillc, Mii.
" Crutehil Ju'knowledKPmoiit. n\ numfraiu he1ptu\ ^uKKuLinits maile during tbe preparatiDD <A
thk p»pfr. i.» due Jaseph K. Sykti. 1>!ilr>- Hiidundry Rcsearcti Branch, A.K.S., U.S.D.A.,
Bcltsvlllr, Mil.
722
lion I.(
Howe:-
inUkc
>«p:er-it;.'
Viirteiy
had no
theii: v
Thmnt;.
sidenit
to sek'i
pre\'ail
amoun
rea-son;
"Most
of a £.'1
many
wluch
of tho
cow in
ser\'ati
associa
or the
servati
Ala
that a!
Lcitch
beconii
who h-.
tion th
the sul
of the
here.
Inc
appeui
given .
tura 111
and !<;
report:
chamb
of Cai
P 1
Ml
TLE
-.iS-
<'rniation on water
importance to in-
'Its. Published data
fmimals have been
nf water intake of
J'erature, body size,
he prediction of the
rattle is not possible
"take levels of indj.
a given animal on
On the other hand,
under a given set of
onfidence. We began
«igineers and others
ion of herds of cattle
on and tbe fact that
fh„«t delay any facts
- fStimates have been
ther than upon exten-
•^ome terms describi„j,
«J before a discussion
fit-a are the following-
r-drankbyananimaj'
"nk and that contained V
dent of the water from ''^
y to maintain the wateriffl
I. rate of water intafc^
Jie basis of Uiis observ^^
•)i.1<l« during Uie nr,ru,r.«
USU VET SCI
^7f--re.,:tv-- -<',7eiT---r..r/\^^^ 't
'^-'"b;ect either ^J'J.' ^^t''«at/o„ oT?'/''"•'^^•^ «f iS^^"-^"^^
^" contrast ^yitu,. . ^^''''take v,lu ^^^''> ^^^^ bulk
^m^re, W/UJ:'^, ^^;«^or.,atio„ ,,,. ^, "" "''^ ^^ rev^
WED 10:39^A^357973959
m 724 WINCH KST I. li .\NO MoKiiis
Indian cattle (Bus tndicus). The.se data plus a small amt>uiit of hitlierl*
unpublished informatit)n on feed and water consumption of sume catlli'
used in nutrition .studies nt Keltsvilk-. Maryland, comprise the basic daW
u.sed in making our estimate.';. The last mentioned ^nMip <tf an!iiwl>
consisted of «5 pairs of monozygotic twins including one pair each <''
steer and heifer Milking .Shoithorns .ind a pair of Hereford X Oucrn»fJ'
heifers.
Analytical Methods and Results
To determine whether or not the ambient temperature-dry matter
consumption-water intake relationship caii be used to estimate watw
intake of cattle, the ratios of water intake per unit of dry matter in-
gested at various ambient temperatures were calculated on the basis o»
the data we have described. These calculations made apparent tht'
existence of 2 distinct curves repre.'^enting water intake rates respectively
of European and Indian cattle.
Estimatio-1% oj Water Intake Rates
The rate of water intake per unit of dr>' matter ingested remaiib
relatively consUint fnjm around, 10" to 40° F. and then incteases wiUi
ambient temperature at an accelating rate. In figure 1 are given mean
values of total water intake in gallons per pound of dry matter ingested
at 40° to 100" F. together with the standard deviations of the means as
indices of the distribution of the datum points in relation to the mean
values. With a single exception, the data used in the calculations coD-
sisted of mean intake rates of indivitliials over a period roughly of one
or two weeks. The exception was the information on beef cattle at 90" f-
which was recorded originally as group data. In every case means were
weighted regarding the numbers of individuals involved, but in calculat-
ing the standard error at 90° il was necessary to treat each of tlw ••
numbers representing seasonal means of groups of 4 to 10 beef aninmw
as though they represented merely the intake of individuals. Perhaps
the standard error would have been somewhat larger than that given for
90° in figure 1 if information on individuals instead of groups had been
used.
In addition to any other value tJiey may Imve, the standard devia-
tions serve as a basis of judgment as to whether or not the dala consti-
tute two distinct curves or one.
The curves shown in figure i were obtained by fitting orthogon»i v
[xilynomials (Fisher and Yates, 1948). This method is based on ibe
06/18/03 WED 10:42 FAX [phone] UStJ VET SCI
f hitherto
me cattle
liisjc data
animals
• each of
?,uernsey
,- matter
t« water
atter in-
basis of
rent the
leirtively
WATER INTAKK oi^ CATTLK 725
assumption that the values of the dejwndent variable, V, are of equal
weight, i.e., that the number of animals on which calculations are based
is the same at each temperature. This was not true of the data used in
calculating the polynomial equation for European cattle; these data were
vemaue -W
>i&fwiih ^ ^
'Ji tnean^':^M
ingestetj:;:^^
ie»xs& »s|M|
'e meanj^^^M
•ni^ <:6ia:v|^H
ot oi^^^H
• '^^'' ^-^^A «s^we!«|'^|
aicuUrt-^:H^|
iiiiinals''-7i^
'^==*apa;:'S|
"ven for.^.:^i^B
•••^'^^tt^ffl
d^^^l
''''^**^3H Iri^^HH
^'g.^>w^^H
'-'U'iwmH
KV; '
|fev'^
Hgp. \
^P: •:
^^^^'-''
^^^^'i'^' -'
^tev-
^^HE^^' ^Rl^' ^p^fe-. W^^'--K-.-B^:'.:-
^Kms'i'*--'-
WM:l
|K'
Bpi? ^H|^ir.^^;
^^^^^n-^^'-^
GALLONS*"
ZOO
t,60
».oo
0J5O
European cottle (80s tourus)
Indian cattia (Bos indicua)
_L I
40 50 60 70 80 90
AMBIENT TEMPERATUHE ff)
*!'»» «*>** OF our mtmit musng
100
;iil|t}f« 1. Water int«k« expr«ss«d as a function of dry matter consumption
and ambient temperature.
-i7."^-
-.,.••.': Ss-lS-
•V.-.-. •HC'lt'.
:li^9H
A^^^^WMBI^^H
^msBI^^ ^^•KS^.I'.
'&<.-i
06 /is/na WED 1ft-45 FAX 4357_9J:395i. TTSn VET SCI 121012
726 WlNCHKSTKH .\NO ifORRIS
m?-:
of unequal weight. Data recorded at 65, 75, 8S, and 95" F. are shown
in figtire 1 but were not used in calculating the equations because ihtf
inclusion would have meant that vahie.'i of the dependent variable wonw
not have been given for equal intervals oi the independent variable
That this does not detract greatly front the accuracy of the cur^-e?»
evident from the fact that at 65° and 75° data on relatively only a small
number of animals were recorded, while at 85° and 95° with the exce|>-
tion of data on Indian cattle at the latter temjierature the mean poml*
fall exactly on the curves.
In addition to the water excreted in urine and feces and Ic-^t throupn
evaporation, the water output of lactating cows includes, of course, the
water of the milk, and, if the relationships concerned in the water intake
of such cows are to be established, some method must be used to com-
pensate for the water contained in the milk. Because the water requir™
for production of milk must be ingested in addition to water for the other
physiological needs, an amount of water equal to this added rcquiremcn'
must be subtracted from the total water intake of lactating cows if the
intake of such animals is to be compared wilh that of nonlactating cattle.
Leitch and Thompson (1944) estimated 87% of the milk, by weight, to
be water. Following this precedent, we have subtracted 87'/< oi tw
weight of the milk, produced, from the water ingested by lactating cow."::
the remainder is assumed to represent water intake for puiposes other
than its inclusion in milk.
Estimated total water intake rates of cattle of various classes and
sizes are given in table I. While these estimates expressed as "total
water intake" include the water contained by the feed, for practical
purposes they also represent the water that animals drink when fed such
"dry" rations as hay and grain. On such rations the difference between
total water intake and the free water drank does not exceed 0.3 gallon
a day unless the amount of feed consumed is as large as that consumed
by a cow at a high level of lactation, and even when the feed intake «
high the difference seldom exceeds half of a gallon. The estimated intake
rates given in table 1 were obtained by multiplying tlie estimated daily
dry matter intake by the calculated water intake rates per unit of dry
matter shown in figure 1. Dry matter intake rates of cattle in all cate-
gories given in table 1 e.xcept the first section of part 2 are those given
by the National Research Council Committee on Nutritional Requite-
jMH^^ttum* of Fariv
'•MJ^^Pi^fJ^ matter int
j^l^^p'^the table, i
:^B|L
«^^-Tempera
VSH^^H^;;: . . CallDU of wal,-i
-i^|-
^^»-^i
;B|;if: "••
pi
.. JB^i-.. 'r
Sl
•• JF I
••'•J^3'-'-
••••a^fe'^'
.••••^P|;t.-^
iwSF
^M? 1
E.\p
daiU
SiiUiTI
br«ds
lb.
1.0
t.4
1.2
O.S
1.1
1.4
Kfprr,
2,0
Sa«U: in
06/18/03 WED 10:47 FAI 4357973959 USU VET SCI
M
'*j
i
e
I-
d
•T
it
ll'
e.
:fj
le
1<1, •
sAt-";-
djF-
en
on. •
Pd.":-;:
i<t^;.-'
ke-;:::
ily.:>^
tfs;:;:
ro-?'J
WATER INTAKE OF CATTLE 727
ments of Farm Animals (Loosli et al., 1950 and Guilbert et al., 1950).
Dry matter intake rates of animals in the first section of the second part
of the table, namely "cattle on maintenajice rations," liave been esti-
TABLE l.'T0T,\L DAILY WATER INTAKE"
(Part I—r)ait>- CaUle)
Temperature (Fahrcnholl) •IO" 70* 80"
GaUoQS of witer per pound nl dry mjittcr
Body
weight
£xpecte<l
daily gaiu
Small Large
breeds breeds
Dry
injUtcr diiily
Ib. Kal. Kill. pal. ifni.
Heifers
100
200
400
600
AOO
lODO
120D
400
800
noo 1«X»
?000
1400
bOO
IOOO
KOO
1400
1600
1.0
1.+
l.J
0.8
1.1
1.4
1,9
Basic
O.S
1.6
I.S
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.2
2.0
2.2
inUli
1.8
5.4
0.9
13.i
U.I
19.ft
21.6
11.4
20.8
16.2
19.8
24.3
27.9
12.6
14.4
16.2
18.9
20.7
Bulls
Reprcductloo (add to basic intake durinu VMI 2 lo 3 mniilhs nf prrnnanry)
J.O 2.0 7.2 2.7 2.M 3.3 3.9 4.S
Basic IfiUke of laclalintr cows (not Including {illnwanrr fnr i>r(rflurir(Mi of ]nilk>
At 70'
and
bclotv
At
80'
At
90°
WD
IOOO
1200
1400
12.6
14.4
16.2
18.9
20.7
ll.S
13.1
14.7
17.2
Ift.a
7.2
8.2
9.2
10.8
U.S
4.7
5.3
6.0
7.0
7.7
S.O
S.S
h.i
7.6
8.3
5.8
6.6
7.3
8.7
9.S
6.8
7.8
8.7
10.2
11.2
I^ctBtion (add to bmlc IntRVe lot each puund of tnllli)
3% (at
4% tat
i'/c fal
6% fal
0.23
0.2S
0.27
0.30
0.24
0.26
0.29
0.31
0.26
0.29
0.32
0.34
0.29
0.32
0,3S
0.38
7.1
8.1
9.1
10.7
11.7
0.32
0.3S
0.39
0.43
90°
0.49 0.46 0.S4 0.62 0.88
;r!il. Wll
0.7
2.0
3.7
J.O
6.3
7.3
R.O
4.2
7.7
6.0
7.3
9.0
0.3
includ
4.7
S.3
6.0
7.0
7.7
0.7
2.2
4.0
5.4
6.8
7.9
S.6
4.0
8.3
6.5
7.9
9.7
11.2
ng alli
S.O
5.8
6.5
7.0
8.3
0.8
2.5
4.6
6.2
7.9
9.1
5.9
S.2
9.6
I.S
9.1
11.2
12.8
wailrf ft
5.3
6.6
7.5
8.7
9,S
1.0
2.9
S.3
7.3
9.2
10.7
11.7
6.2
11.2
8.7
10.7
13.1
15.1
r ielas.)
6.8
7.8
8.7
10.2
11.2
1.1
3..1
6.1
8.4
10.6
12.3
13.4
7.1
12,9
10.0
12.3
15.1
17.3
7.8
IJ.9
10.0
II.7
12,8
1.6
4.8
8.7
11.9
15.0
17.4
19.0
10,0
18.3
14.3
17.4
21.4
24.6
H.I
12.7
14.3
16.6
18.2
6.3
7.2
8.1
9.5
10.4
0.41
0.46
O.SI
0.56
•Y;.^
Igl013
nfi/18/03 WED. in-an FAI 43.^7973959 IlSCt VET SQL
728 \ViNCiii:srv;R AND MOURIS
li'nllr
ll<«ly
wrinht
III.
200
400
600
800
1(100
1200
1400
1600
ISOO
2000
400
500
600
600
700
sao 900
700
800
900
1000
BOO
900
JOOO
1100
1200
400
600
800
1000
600
800
IOOO
1200
1400
1600
18C0
T.^BLE 1. TOT.Al.
(Part
Tcmiuraluie (Kllinpiihiit)
HI.-; llf WILUT iK*r iwiuiid of (Irv miilu'i
Ksptcli'il
daily iJiiifn
Ib.
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
t.O
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
o.s
(WeiiihlK fiH
1.5
1.3
0.8
0.5
Dry
nuiltfr diiily
lb.
Calile «n
3.3
S.4
7.2
8.8
10.4
118
13.2
H.i
15.8
17.0
DAILY WATKR
i-Rccf Cattli?)
W~
0.i7
Ml.
50-
0.4U
>.-jl.
inflinteivancf mlion> ''
1.2 1.3
2.D
2.7
3.3
.1.8
4.4
4.9
5.4
5.8
6.3
Winlerlne wcaulinK csl
9.9
11.7
1.5.5
.3.7
4.3
s.o
2.2
2.9
3.5
4.2
4.7
S.3
5.8
6.3
6.8
\-n
4.0
4.7
5.4
WInit'rini! .vwirlinK cnlrlo
14.4
15.3
16.2
16.2
s.3 5.7
6.0
6.0
5.8
b.l
6.5
fi.5
WiiiliTiiiK iirr^iiunt helfiTs
btninnlnx wl
18.0
18.0
16.2
16.2
WluKTlnx
(Wriitllts fnr bi'gimiliyr wl
1.5
1.0
0.4
0.2
0.0
1.6
1.4
1.2
10
2.3
1.7
1 6
1.4
1 .0
0.0
0.0
19.8
IS.O
16.2
16.2
16.2
Hu.
10.8
14.4
17, I
18.9
14.4
13.3
18.0
19.8
21.«
23.4
23.4
INT.VKE'
60°
0.46
Kill,
1.5
2.5
3.3
4.0
4.8
5,4
D.l
6.7
7.3
7.8
4.5
5.4
6.2
(1.6
7,0
7.4
7.4
70''
0.54
S.1I,
1.8
J.9
3.9
4,8
5,6
6.4
7.1
7.8
8.5
9.2
5..^
n.3
7.3
r.,s 8.3
8,7
8.7
inliT (vrlod; {Kiin^ a%'er»Ke fnr pcritid.l
6.7
6.7
6.0
6.0
nutturi.' pregnaiii
7.2
7.2
6.S
6.5
c cowa
8.3
.1.3
7.4
7.4
9.7
1.1
8.7
8.7
riter period: aninn awraaie for period)
^..^ 6.7
6.0
6.0
6 0
ifcr,>i and stters
4.0
5.3
6.3
7.0
nulln
5.3
5,7
6.7
7.3
8.0
8.7
8.7
•
7.9
7.2
6.3
6.5
6.5
4.3
5.8
6.8
7.6
5.8
6.1
7.2
7.9
8.6
9.4
9.4
9.1
S.J
7.4
7.4
7.4
5.0
6.6
7.9
8.7
6.6
7.0
8.J
9.1
9.9
10.8
10.8
10.7
9.7
8.7
8.7
8.7
5.8
7.S
9.2
10.2
7.S
8.3-
9.7
10,7
11.7
12.6
12.6
60-
0.62
Kill.
2.0
3.3
4.5
S.S
6.4
7.3
8.!
9.0
9.8
10.5
6.7
8.9
10.6
11.7
8.9
9.5
11.2
12.3
13.4
14.5
14.S
-y
"7**
"f^
J.J -
J.I «,:
10 «
II >
15.0
9.5
lJ-7
150
16.6
12.7
13.5
1S.8
17.4
1*0
20 6
20.i
i'^S^HUi
Jm
Jg •:^B|
rylJIB
-'^'^•S^Hu
9
'^^^^^B ' i-'-^HB '':,i^^H
" ''^•n '' ^^Hl .~'i^^^H
'-t^^B .'^^^H '^'^^1 "S •A
• • .• •'^••
r'iij
-\:^. >,-' , -'si
'i-^
• -^
''M
-•'v,
'5
;'. ••gi
' '/)h
•:^l
•• • -^^t
•. . • '*!•
••^=••^1
v'^l ii
•->'i • y%^
m
•:l^^
:iW
i
K;;', Calloiu ivt T.-;ll
pr" ftody K«n
P^; •»tl«bt lii.il:
W' *' w^
p.i
Br''' ^'^ B^f;l 800 ^^^••; QQQ
B|'^; ' •
^Wi?/
Rfcif--' E^;-; WX)
j^g'^ 700 p.|
j^^'" •• B|s$'."
m^-- ^ B;-- IMO
H^',^:;.'. ll(X>
M^.;.. ijoo
9ii^'''''' ^^:V'
Hp?. j^^;;
IHfeiiC-.
H^i «»-U0O
KKL * ToLa) Minr-i
R^l^ ^AnlmaU I'D
^^< K^-jr
^ml mated on 1
jfej gsuns (Wil
^^/' cattle itt (
|8^' 19SI), fi.«r
^P^' matter int
1^^^ matter int:
HUPff iihown in f
Bp- 90° F. A i
j^p.^- matter wh
H|^ figure.
[K^ Water i
HB^., nancy ma
HJKf
m^'-
wms ' ^'
nR/18/03 WED 10:52 FAI 4357973959 USU VET SCI iiois
s.i
12.7
IS.O
16.6
12.7
13.S
ts.n
17.4
19 0
20.1,
2rM>
..(••:;i!
••;.!^ -?!H
•''3^
•r?
:^'.S
Jl*;:
V.S
t.-
•.V.
WATKK INTAKE OF CATTLK
TABLli 1. (Cunlinueil}
729
Tpn>rcraiiir»- (Kubrcnhcitl 50"
90-
0.88
nal.
2.9
•V.(i
B.3
1 7
9.1
1Q.4
11.6
12.8
13. V
IS.O
....
''"
....
'19
''^
-•^
•'•^
' '^a
*I3M \'*^S
• •'^^m
"'•^^^^^M
-.-.-''T-'^sBSm
' : ..V-'.Ci5^w|
•..',-.^>aiB
-•^
."t'-^.i*ffii
m
W'
r I-: fe>-'
»•'• ' R-, • • •
wer:i -
K.'„'
Wv
^^' KI''" Be:-': Htt.i^'-'
^K<!.'';
Ki;^.
IR^^' ^Bs^^r'ii'. w B^'^'ii'
^BQh'-^
HnP'-.'! ^PV I
Gallorrsot waller jwr pound of dry mail i'r U.37 O.'O 0.46 11.54 (1 f,2 0.8.S
Ikidy Eipei-if!
iriuhl daily iraii-
riry
nuKer daily
lb. Ih. nil. KnI. KUI. !inl. Kill. XHI.
Falteniuc calves finl'^hnl a.? short yr»rling!i
400
SOO
600
JOO
BOO
100
600
IOO
SOO
$00
WOO
1100
(00
900
1000
IIUD
IKO
2.0
2,0
2.0
2.0
J.O
2.0
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.4
2.4
2-4
2.4
2.4
10.8
12.6
14.4
16.2
IS.O
I.S. 9
ratu-nin
16.2
18.9
19.8
21.6
23.4
24.3
Fattening
21.«
23.4
24.3
26.1
2fi.l -
Cuivs nuning calves, fira
70-
and
below 80* 90'
4.0 4.3
4.7 S.O
S.3 5.8
6.0 6.5
'i.7 7.2
7.11 7.(J
ioK (-null-
6,0 6.5
7.0 7.6
7.J 7.9
6.0 8.6
S.7 9.4
9.0 9.7
THild cattle
8.0 '8.6
8.7 9.4
9.0 9.7
9.7 10.4
9.7 10.4
SO
5.8
6.6
7.4
8.3
S.7
7,4
8. 7
'1.1
9.9
10.8
11.2
9,9
10.8
11.2
12.0
12.0
3..S
6.8
7 8
R."
9.7
in 2
8.7
10.2
10.7
11.7
12,6
13.1
11.7
12.6
13.1
14.1
M.l
6.7
7.ft
8.9
10.Q
11 2
11 7
10,U
11.7
12.3
13.4
14.5
15.1
13.4
14.5
15.1
16.2
16.2
9.S
11.1
12.7
14.3
IS.8
16.6
14.3
16.6
17.4
19.0
20.6
21.4
19.0
20.6
21.4
23.0
23.0
0.0 25.0 22.8 16.8 U.'I 12.6 U.S 17.9 16.2 gOtl'llOO
: fTalal water Intake Includes both tbe ^'alet drank and clmt mntaincd by tlir feed.
• »A«lauib that are neilhor ipiiniDg nor losing weight.
mated on the basis of the feed intake of young cattle making no weight
riafas (Winchester and Hendricks, 19S3). Dry matter intake rates of
1' <atUe ia constant temperature chambers (Ragsdale et al., 1950 and
P 1951) figure 2, have been used to estiinate probable decline in dry
^•fiiatter intake with rising ambient temperature. It is assumed that dry
liillterintake of nonlactating cattle like that of the Brown Swiss heifers
i'^jwn in iigure 2 does not decline until the ambient temperature exceeds
W F. A. further assumption is that the feed used was exactly 90% dry
^ aflttcr whereas dry matter levels of such feeds only approximate this
Water intake during lactation and the last 2 or 3 months of preg-
«nc)' way he thought of as consisting of 2 components,, namely one
.ir.sSj
• of]
lai m m
•ill
• m w
'irV.-'
nfi/18/03 WFn to:55 FAI 435I973959. USU VET SCI aoie
^ Iti
:ii'
1 m
s^' -^•'
730 U'INCUKSTICR AND MORRIS
corresponding to the ba.sic requirement of the animal and another rep-
resenting an added requirement due to the dfmaiids either of pregnancy
or of lactation. The water intake rates given by table 1, part 1, ate
POUNDS*
LEGEND
Indian coKle (Sot Intficut)
a o haifirt, 4ry ISoniiwilil
A « cwm, d'y ts anlmoltl
• + coiM, laeiolinjIZflnimolj)
EarttDtan eotrw (Sn tawi)
• • haifan, *r^ (5 oniiioltl
proiifmolt unlets « . «v,s,(.ciaf(n9<^„,„„.,„
[indicat*!
0 0
ea H»f»torii*
• So
dual ptir^oia
Joodereiawd i.5,„.„„
]t»»i X dsii^ »i»c«
Htrelcra cc^ 129 ontitiaW
3 Brown Swiss halfert
40
(6co*«)
50 eo 70 eo 90 joo
AMBIENT TEWPEBMURE TFV
«ftr«- wr.-rt causoMiii cuir rr* i,poo POUMSS »aer niftrr
tto
Figure 2. Dry matter consumption as a function of ambient temperktute. Dry matter intake was assumed to vary with the 0.7 power of body weigfct.
(See Winchester and Hendricks, 19S3).
based partly upon dry matter (90';{; ol total ieed) given by LoosU ei al.
(1950) table 1, the haiic water intake levels both of nonlactating and
lactating cows given in our table being based partly on the dry matter
content of the feed allowance for "maintenance of mature cows". Our
basic allowances for pregnant cows differ from those ior: lactating ani-
mals due to the differences between these 2 classes of animals in levels
WED 10^58 FAI 4357973959
USU VET SCI
WATKR INTAKE OF CATTLE 731
of feed intake a.'^ environmental teinperature rises, as shown by figure
2. The decline in feed intake of nonlactating cattle appears to begin only
after the temperalure reaches 90° while intake of lactating cows begins
10 deirline at about 70° V. Our added allowance for the last 2 to 3
months of pregnancy corresponds to the increase in level of feed intake
at that time. Similarly, our allowance for milk priwluction in addition to
the b;i."^ic ration corresponds to Loosh's added feed allowances for milk,
phis 0.87 lb. of water for each pound of milk. Water allowances for
j.n)vviiig heifers are greater than tbe basic allowances for cows because
thev lire based on the higher levels of feed allowed the growing animals
as conH)ared with the basic allowances of Loosli el al. for mature cows,
To obtain an indication as to how closely table 1 may predict water
intake levels, estimated levels of intake were comjjared with actual
intake levels of the animals used in this study. These estimated and
actual water intake levels are given in table 2. As the table shows, the
intake levels of any one of tbe small groups of animals concerned are
seldom predicted exactly by table 1, but the estimated intake levels are
(iiiite similar to actual intake except for some of those of the three Brown
*;wss heifers. This difference is to be expected in view of the fact that
these heifers consumed more water per pound of dry matter at 50° F.
and above than did any other animals used in our study. Similarly.
because the beef type animals on which information is available at 40°
10 60° F. consumed less water per pound of dry matter than tlie other
tttimals studied, tbe levels estimated on the basis of the average of the
Pi< iijiabe data we have used are greater than actual intake of these cattle.
Bit is obvious that even though esiimates could be based on the intake
^g|p,(j of an extremely large number of animals, the actual intake of
W^ividuals or small groups would necessarily be quite different in many
P?ls^**5es ftom the estunates based on average levels,
M. Dry matter intake rates of beef heifers used in feeding trials in
" tlifomia give some indication of the level of such intake at 90° (Kelly
4/ 19SS), The heifers weighed around 800 or 900 lb. at tbe beginning
iitithe trials and gauied 0,75 to I.S lb. a day for 71 to 84 days. The
Si^ of 20 Ib. of dry matter per 1,000 lb. bodyweight per day ingested
these heifers is about what they could be expected to consume under
bie temperature conditions (Guilbert et al., 19S0), therefore, the
Utt that they consumed this amount at 90° can be construed to be an
cation that dry matter intake at this temperature was not very
1 from intake at lower temperatures.
r;»'
m
w:
06/18mWED13^0lFA^3^9739|9
USUVETSCI
-^}< ^'li-
732 •\ViNcin.;sTi;R AND MOHRIS
J-M ^"r
i
m u
H
8.-
S?
'.J - o .^ y .5 -;
c = 1 -r
S3
B • • -
. WJ c . -fi
e
III
.1:1 ^5
S S2S
•32:
•^5
ft
<e
•r in »o (rt Q \o
' t's •« <"k "-•
f* o «*• »^ •- •
— 4- IV. 0> — ^ O g^ ^ » M IS, <^k •-^
^ ••'J r^ r.» ^ »-*.
— * JS *- I*: •«•
*" O »^ *^ «1 f". *-•
?^ses§
The
of liifn,
coniair
pccteci
I as fo)
Wh.e
are ab'
galtoft
small,
and }rt
rales n
amtiuni
with r?
be uset'
part 2,
intake
may w
Free •*•
06/18/03,^WED 11:03 FAI 4357973959 USU VET SCI
:.f
WATEK INTAKE OF CATTLE 733
The information presented ia figure i and table 1 is given in terms
of totai water intake which includes t)oth the water drank and the water
contained in tbe feed. The amount of Jree water that cattle can be ex-
pected to drink can bc calculated from the information given in table
1 as follows:
Free uater conswrnptioo (eal.):;^total walcr (gal.)—
tiji,;
Wk.
J water iu Ivvtl .-Xd'iily dry mvilivr inl.ikc in ]itmii;ls ';-; dry inatliT ia f«xl
writrht of wfttiT in pviumi-i i)cr lutV.nti
When the ration consists of hay, grain and similar 'dry' feeds that
are about lO'/r. moislurej cattle ordinarily obtain only a third of a
gallon or less of water a day from the rations. Because this amount is
small, in practical situations tbe difference between total waier intake
tai free water consumpiion often can be ignored and the water intake
tttes given by table 1 used to represent free water consumption. The
sfflount of water a 1,000 lb, animal may be expected to drink compared
trtth estimated total water intake at 70° when growth "is normal may
be used as an example. Under the section: "Heifers and steers", table 1,
part 2, dry matter intake is estimated to be 18.9 lb, and total water
intake IQ.2 gallons per day. Assuming that the feed is 10% water, we
may estimate water consumption (free water drank) as follows:
Free water consumption=10.2—^---^^—^— or 10 gallons per day,
0.345
In contrast with the small amount of water ingested in hay and grain,
the water included in the feed when cattle are on pasture or consuming
silage or other succulent feeds may amount to a large part of the ani-
mals' water requirement. In order to estimate the animals' need for
drififcii'g water while on succulent feeds, the moisture in the feed must
be subtracted from the estimated total water intake. An example that
aiustrates this point is the following: How much water will be drunkr^j;^
iherd of 100 dairy type heifers of 600 lb. mean body weight allowed '
hClOO Ib. of alfalfa plus 1,500 lb. of corn silage daily during a month
when the mean temperature is 70" F.? If the hay is 10% and tlie silage
73^ moisture (Guilbert el <il., 19S0), the water in the feed amounts
'JO X 195 ^h. or 143 gallons. The difference between 730 gallons, the
I-etinwted intake level given by table 1, and the 143 gallons of water
%^ hy the feed is 587 gallons, the amount that the herd can be
fspected to drink daily under the conditions de.scribed.
:p^y
Si
::':'^r
fiS'i
n«/iK/na WED ll:06-FAX_i357973959, HSU VET SCI
734 WiNCItlCSTKR AND MoHRIS
\w
•1
mv lr
Water Intake During Caloric Maintenance Feeding
To obtain an indication as to whether or not the ratio of water to
dry matter intake is the .same at maintenance as at liberal levels <if f«d
intake, we made use of data reported by Leitch and Thompson (1W4)
that includes information on 12 steers on submaintenance, 15 on main-_
tenance and 23 on Hberal rations. By the method of analysis of variance
we found no significant difference between the means of water intake
per unit of dry matter ingested at the 3 different nutritional levels; dus
finding confirms an earlier report of Ritzman and Benedict (1924)-
The means with their standard errors are 0.38±.G.03 on submaintenance.
0.35±0.02 tm maintenance, and 0.34±0.0l gallon ot water per pounfl
of dry matter on Uberal rations.
In view of the fact tliat the relationship between dry matter and
water intake levels, at least for practical purposes, appears to be inde-
pendent of the level of feed consumption we have based our estimates
of water intake of cattle on maintenance rations on the calculate
water intake per pound of dry matter and probable dry matter intake
of cattle on range forage consumed at a level corresponding to main-
tenance. Information recorded recently by Bond (19SS) makes possible
a compari-son of estimaied water intake of cattle on maintenance rations
. with the recorded intake of 6 steers fed rations near the level of main-
tenance in metabolism stalls. The records were obtained during 3
different ten day periotls when mean ambient temperature was near
40° F. Mean total water intake of the steers was 0.29 ±0.02 gallons
per pound of dry matter. While this is 22% less than the estimated
amount shown by table 1, this much difference is not unexpected ui
view of the wide differences that exist between intake levels of in-
dividuals.
The fact that water requirements can be reduced by a reduction >n
feed allowances can be put to practical use during brief periods of water
shortage. For example, if the regular water supply for cattle in a dry
lot were interrupted for several days so that it became necessary to
carry the water to them, the amount of water to be transported could
be reduced by limitation of feed intake.
Effects uf Type of Ration on Water Intake
Protein supplements heavily salted to limit the amounts of the supple-
ment consumed increase water intake from 22% or less (Riggs ct at-,
1953) to 100% (Mcllvain, 1953). Salt added to the ration in an attempt
to double the water intake (Kelly et al., 1955) resulted in increases of
W^' '
^-'.'
W'-.-
% •• • ^i^-
!.'/••"
i^?t • ••-
w ^ - •-• EJ'f' •
Wti.'.
M^'-J'-'i ,•••• • Kro?'*"^-'
^^^!;-' •
W0 j^^^V. .
H^i'";.
H^^i"' •• •
!re''~'•"•'• • K(j^'.::'
P?V'-
^jl',;-'
pi-
Hfifl* ••••.•
aK/iiiJf •
^|/;;^.''
M&?;i\'
IK^!>.. •
K^''-''' ffiP''-
IK^ "••••• ^^V'V'
H^'' H^V"'' Mp--'
K; n^f:.' B»V'-"--Mffij?'-'--- •'
H^'-''!; • • ^SNf'''-''
^1' HH^!.'
BS^E^''
•^^ '
H^''--'
^^^z- •
1*; N
o t '
s i; H 1!
< ,-tn :';
Q ; « .1
O i u< , • W ll
« !• U ; a ! ^ i o 1 td \\ i^ ; < V t « 1
h-I 1
t6
^ 1 < *^ ^\ \ > P tA 1
n o y.
< a:
u H
< !
^ « 1 « i
"-> 1 ca < f-
06/18/03 ,JJED 11:09 FAI 4357973959 USU VET SCI
VVATEH INTAKE OF CATTLE 735
m\
5|
i I
lil
.2 >• 3^
f± -^ T f^
©OOOOOOOOOOOO
m
ll
SJ-iS If
pi
Ill
£•
i^; s
(A,
'«3-O'*OV3«^0v0*H»W)OO
(SCNTTloO'+'-IDOOOt-lfDloO
;2 i-*060Tv!oc?*coiflLoo>ooj^j^
,s .s .s. i2 a j2
>, >. >. >, fr. &. 2 2
c a a
ll .?^'e-e'^-2-^-='-a-e § i S ^ 3S
>i>»?^x>*Fji>v^>^li»^>.»? ^S] ^^s n t€ ti
B3 WK tStS «• a «' rt' «• ' 3 fifi
"«t•'HtpO^^^O^»t-l^
eol^t^eooo^CCoO
00<Nf'N'^i*>«^^ v. in VI »o >*i >o Vl *o ^ ^ 5 c e
-^ ri ra nJ Bi I 1 ^, ;t, :S ON,
^OsOtO*0\0^0*O^CT»cccfi ^ ;^tr* fi?
m4.
m
^_^
nR/Mi/a^ WED 11:11 FAX [phone] USU VET SCI
'•••vf^-
• -siW '-fl -•"'•'•
736 WrNCHKSTER AND MoRRIS
il •;:^;
:;:^'r:V ^•:"
40 to 60% in waler consumption (table 3). This table also brings oul
the interesting fact that while water intake by California Hcrefords
]«r unit of dry matter was greater when the water was uncixiled than
when it was cooled .>o long xs ordinary rations were used, when highly
salted rations were fed no more water was consumed in reliction to dr>'
matter when the water was uncooled than when it was cooled.
Water intalie and urine excretion rates are functions of protein intake.
Steers on high protein allowances consumed 26% more water than did
similar animals on low protein rations (Ritzman and Benedict, 1924).
The fact that water intake is related to the protein level of the feed
should be kept in mind when protein is supplied in liberal amounts.
Whether or not the ratio of water intake to dry matter ingested varies
with the ratio between energy and dry matter in a ration apparently
is not known. The quality of the rations fed the animals on which our
study is based did not influence water intake so far as we can determine.
Therefore, even though differences of considerable magnitude existed
l>etween rations consumed by the different groups of animals u[K)n which
this study is based, in the absence of any reason for not doing so we
have "pooled" the data.
The effect of relative humidity on feed and water consumption of
cattle was studied by Ragsdale et al. 11955). At temperatures below
75° F. the effect of humidity was found to be negligible. The frequency
of drinking was greater above than below 75° and at temperatures
above 75^ water consumption was somewhat less at high than at low
levels of relative humidity. This apix-ars to have Iieen a reflection, in
part, of lower intake of feed and, in part, of decreased moisture vaporiza-
tion at high levels of humidity. Some individuals wasted considerable
amounts of water at high ambient temperatures when the level of
humidity was also high.
Wind up to 9 miles per hour did not influence water intake of dairy
animals (Brody et al., 1954). Unfortunately, no information on the
effects of wind at velocities above 9 milts per hour on water intake of
cattle have come to light.
Waier Consiitnpt'ton I'ltttcriis
Until the ambient temperature exceeds 80° F., cattle tend to do most
of their drinking in the forenoon and late aftemoon and evening while
very little wuter is consumed during the night or in the early mominK
and early afternoon hours. At 90" F., the jieriods during which no water
is consumed tend to be shortened and it appears that the animals then
06/18/03 WED 11:14 FAI 4357973959
USU VET SCI
21023
WATER INTAKE or CATTLE 737
briigs out
Hcrefords
ooled than
^en highly
ion to dry
I
t'm intake.
• than did
ct, 1924).
• the feed
amounts.
ted varies
pparently
vviiich our
leter nolne.
le existed.
JOB which
ing so we'
nptjon of
res betow ;:M
freqiiencyv,;.,.^.^
iperaturcs,:]!
aa at low :,i
ection, in.^-^^*^
vaiporiza-i^
iisidiirabtet:^
level of':ii
: al dawy :ij«
>n on theljl
bitake of uJ
•>dt>mo«|^^
ling while;
• moraing^^j^
tio water
n-ials then
tend to drink every 2 hours or oftener (Ragsdale ct al., 1950,1951). This
behavior suggests that systems that are designed to supply enough
water to meet bot weather demands on a continuous flow basis will
be ample to meet the peak daily demand at 80° F. and below.
Information on Water Consumption of Range Cattle
Compared with the amount of d;<la available on water intake of
cattle undt'r laboratijry condilions, information on water ctmsumption
of range cattle is extremely .scanty. Table 3 gives dry matter and water
TABLE 4. WATKR CONSUMKIJ BY DRY RANGE COWS "
Temperature,
mean, Preinpitation
formorth roontii
M^:
m
42
44
44
45
4S
,«
'.48
•SS
',59
6S
te.
O.S
l.A
1.6
0.4
o.z
1.2
0.9
0.1
0.3
0.2
VIonth
Jan.
Dec.
Feb.
Jan.
Feb.
Mw,
teb.
M»r.
Apr,
May
No,
of cows
80
80
80
71
79
80
71
71
71
71
Body
weight
mean
lb.
821
ass 647
6iS
807
714
597
581
662
70S
Water
consumption,
daily
i:al.
3.4
3.1
3.6
3.4
3.4
3.2
3.0
4.0
S.9
7.6
:iC. B. .Stanley (1938) and unpublished data.
iiM^iake rates of beef cows at a mean ambient temperature of 90° F.
S^ito hay alone, hay atid grain, and highly salted rations were fed.
IPj-Wstcr consumptida of a herd of 70 to 80 Hereford cows in Arizona
;|?§--iias recorded by Stanl^r (1938) during a period of over 3 years. A
pljr tOfljority of the cows were nursing calves part of the time, but fortu-
fe-iistdy some data were recorded when the cows were dry; * these are
K!^ :lriv?ii in table 4. No information on feed consumption of these animals
piivis available and therefore a direct comparison with table 1 is impossible.
pVitVater consumption frwn Decemtier to March, inclusive, was between
I5 and 4 gallons a day, about the amount animals weighing around
^SiibO lb. may be expected to drink on a forage ration but little above
P'^JiilB level of maintenance. Table 4 is of possible importance because it
^?^Jiii(jffS the quantities of water beef cattle actually drank under a given
Wsk of conditions on the range.
• Ciattlnl ackntnrledgement is Diado of oriKinal dala on water cDas(/nip(ioi1 ol range cattle,
P (a ptaia detail th.in poblisbed Inlorhiatloa. received from E. B. Stanley.
m
mf
m
*'V 1 m
if
m
••••li;
••ill
m'ir.
n..,«/n.. WF.D ll:17LFAI_4357973959, USUVETSCI
738 WlNC-lIKSTICR ANII MoRRIS
::* •
m
m ^••
DisctnsioTi
We have used the relationship between water intake and dry mattw
consumption observed by Ritzman and Benedict (1924), as the basis
of our estimates of water intake of beef cattle. The possibility "i
making such estimates in this way was investigated earlier by Leitch
and Thompson (1944) who concluded that such estimates could not
be made satisfactorily. To determine how well the data employed by ^
leitch and Thompson agree with those employed by us, we have cal-
culated the mean and standard error of suiA of their data as pertain
to cattle watered at 8 hour intervals or oftener and presumably IJCP*
at temperatures below 70" F. Mean total water intake of 136 indi-
viduals per pound of dry matter ingested was found to be 0.45±0-0'
gallon; about the same as that of European cattle sho^vn fay figure 1
at a temperature roughly midway between 50° and 70° F., the prob-
able range of temperature within which the obsei-vations cited by Leitch
and Thompson were made. Information on water intake of 4 individuals
at 2 different ambient temperatures are included in the data reported by
these workers. At 45° intake was 0.49d:0.0S and at 77° F. 0.66±0.03
gallon per pound of dry malter; these levels are somewhat higher than
those of figure 1 but are in both cases about equally distant from the
curve of mean intake of European cattle. With only these limited dala
at their command, it appears obvious that Leitcli and Thompson could
not do otherwise than conclude that estimates of water intake could
not be based upon dry matter intake of cattle.
The majority of the data on which our estimates are based were
recorded when cattle were in chambers maintained at nearly constant
temperatures while a minority were obtained under out-of-door tem-
perature conditions. Information recoided under these two very different
sets of conditions appear to be in good enough agreement, we believe,
to justify the "pooling" of the data as we have done. Herefords at a
temperature that fluctuated from 58° to 122°, with a mean of 90°,
drank about the same amount of water per unit of dry matter ingested
as did cows at a nearly constant temperature of 90°.
The high level of water intake observed at 100° raises a question ai
to whether or not this apparent intake approximates the water actually
drank by the animals or the water ingested plus a large amount of
wastage. The report of Ragsdale ct al. (1951) that at an ambient tem-
perature of around 100° F. and a relative humidity of about 60% the
water recovered from the manger.'J was less than a gallon per day sug-
gests that only a small fraction is wasted, even at high ambient tera-
1 1
m w& p R--
ps": fel>-: i-^
W'-' i-
piV,
m p-1 ft; 1 i
Kv
lieratii
90^= i,s
mean
here (1
j:::;w;it
:Simbic;
digested
i^Jibciss;
: :and 4(
: 100°,
indiiH
W.iter
convei
of drj
lempc
salt or
is inft
levels
the at
actual
rang«»
; duced
mattrr
•1
Bend,
V- . .••:P^
V^.Brodv.
Wl
: Ftebcv,
illi
Cuitbe
al)
. 1.1!
; ^i^ttBCr,
•-.. at
1.
• •••••• H
• KclTv.
06/18/03 WED 11:20 FAI 4357973959 USU VET SCI
WATER INTAKE OF CATTLE 739
dry matter
.s the basis
ssihility of
- by Leitch
i could not
nployed by
c have cal-
'. as pertain
mably kept
f 136 indi-
0,45±0.01
by figure 1
., the prob-
•d by Leitch
V individuals
reported by
0.66±Q.03
higher than
mt from the
limited data
mpson could
intake could
based were
.rly constant
5f-door tem-
•cry different
, we believe,
^refords at a
icHn of 90",
liter ingested
1 question as
ater actually
;«': amount of
ambient tem-
out 60% the
per day sug-
iiinWent tem-
• -.Of-efe
'm
-••;*1
. •.f^i,
.-•SI
::.':M
S:^
:1
Si
•m
peratures. On a long term basis, waler intake at temperatures above
90° is mainly of academic interest in the U. S. A. for the reason that
mean monthly temperatures as high as 100° do not ordinarily occui
here (U.S.D.A. Yearbook of Agriculture. 1941).
Summary
Water intake of cattle is a function of dry matter consumption and
ambient temperature. When water intake per unit of dry matter in-
gested was plotted' as tlie ordinate with ambient temperature as the
abcissa. curves were formed that remained horizontal between about 10°
and 40° F". then rose with rising temperature at an accelerating rate to
100°. Data on European cattle (Bos taunts) and Indian cattle (Bos
itidicus) formed separate curves, of which the former is used to estimate
water intake of cattle of the familiar breeds. A formula is used to
convert water intake of lactating cows to levels comparable to those
of dry animals under like condilions of body size, nutrition and air
teinperature. Positive relationships that have been reported between
salt or protein contents of rations are cited to indicate how water intake
is influenced by these nutrients. Tables are given showing estimated
levels of waler intake of cattle, the estimaied levels compared with
the actual water intake levels used as the basis of this study, and
actual intake of a limited number of beef animals under feed-lot and
range conditions. Water requirements of cattle in feed lots can be re-
duced during brief periods of water shortage by a reduction in dry
malter intake.
Literature Cited
Bonti, James. 19SS, Studies on the utilization of liigh-prolcin corn by bcc£ cattle.
PhD. Thesis, Univ. of 111., Urbana, III.
/'Brody, Samuel, A. C. Ragsdale, H, J. Thompson and D. M. Worstell. 1954. Tlie
,,• effect of wind on milk pioductian, feed and water consumption and body
n-eigbt in dairy cattle. Mo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Rcs. BuL S4S.
fisher, R- A. nnd F. Yates. 1948. Statistical tables for biological, afc'ricultural ahd
medical research, 3rU ed. Oliver and Boyd, London.
Cuilbert, H. R., Paul Gerlaugh and L. L. Madsen. 19."iO, Recommended nutrient
gllowances for beef cattle. National Research Council recommended nutrient
allowances for domestlcc animals. No. IV.
A/lltnet, N. R., C. F. Kelly and H. R. Guilbert. 1951. Water consumption of Hereford
and Brahman cattle and the effect of cooled drinking water in a hot climate.
J. Animal Sci. 10:742,
Ittner, N. R., T. E. Bond and C. F, Kelly. 1934. Increasing summer gains of live-
stock. J. Animal Sci. 13:867.
Kellv, C. F., T. E. Bond and N. R. Ittiier. i95S. Wafer cooling for livestock in
• / hot climates. Agr, Eng. 35:173.
!• ';•
i: •;( ]
iV