THE LAND — JUNE 26/JULY 3, 2020
www.thelandonline.com — “Where Farm and Family Meet”
PAGE 11
U of M researchers study water quality effects on nursery pigs
SWINE &U
Feed, water and air are the three To isolate the effects of water qualimost essential components required ty from other performance-influencing to achieve optimal pig performance factors typical of commercial farms, and health. Of these three compothe three waters were transported via UniversityofMinnesota nents, water has received the least a milk tanker to the West Central EXTENSION amount of research attention throughResearch and Outreach Center in out the years. Water has often been Morris, Minn. A new pressurized This report was compiled by Brigit Lozinski, Milena Saqui-Salces, Gerald Shurson and water system was installed in the called the “forgotten nutrient” Pedro Urriola, University of Minnesota Department of Animal Science; Brent because of its relatively low cost, WCROC nursery barn to simultaneFrederick, Christensen Family Farms; Melissa Wilson, University of Minnesota widespread availability and ample ously deliver any of three separate Department of Soil, Water and Climate; and Yuzhi Li and Lee Johnston, University of supply in most locations. waters to pigs. Three 2,500-gallon Minnesota Department of Animal Science and West Central Research and Outreach potable water bladders were installed Some pork producers recently have on a platform underneath a observed suboptimal performance of However, in a shade cloth outside of the nursery pigs which they suspected subsequent study, nursery and were connected might be caused by poor water qualthe same researchWe surveyed pork producers online to three new waterlines. ity. Signs of poor performance ers observed to learn the range of water qualiinclude increased incidence of fallreduced daily The water delivery system ties being fed to nursery pigs in 48 back pigs, a high prevalence of weight gain and was connected to manifolds barns across a wide range of geoscours, and pigs which are “hard to poorer feed efficienin the barn that could deliver graphic regions in Minnesota. From start” in the nursery. cy of nursery pigs any of the three waters to these farms, we selected 15 barns with increasing every set of two pens. The These observations led to the to collect water samples for analyBrigit Lozinski total dissolved solwater bladders collapsed as research question: Does water qualsis. Water samples were collected they were emptied so there ity have an impact on nursery pig performance and ids concentration of at or as close to the well head as water (McLeese et was no air in the bladder health? possible to understand the true al., 1992). Other above the water to influence Water quality characteristics which support optiquality of water entering the barn studies have water quality during the mal pig performance and health vary in scientific reported increased experiment. before being affected by the existliterature and many of these studies conducted to sulfate concentraing distribution system. Weanling pigs were sourced evaluate them are more than 30 years old. There is tion of water from a single commercial sow limited scientific literature reporting controlled increases incidence of scours in nursery pigs with farm. The farm was porcine reproductive and respistudies of pig responses to water of varying quality. no effects on growth performance. Anecdotal reports ratory syndrome and Mycoplasma negative for a One group of researchers fed nursery pigs water from industry experts suggest many different char- 40-day experiment. One hundred and fifty pigs with which ranged from 217 to 4,390 parts per million acteristics of water influence pig performance and an average initial weight of 13.76 pounds were total dissolved solids and reported no effects on health. Numerous characteristics of water such as allotted randomly to each of three treatments (15 daily weight gain, daily feed intake or feed efficien- total dissolved solids, pH, hardness, suspended solpens per treatment, 10 pigs per pen). Pigs had concy. ids, sulfates, nitrates, heavy metals, total coliforms, tinuous access to feed and water throughout the bacteria, viruses, parasites and some others experiment. Individual growth rate and feed intake have been measured to determine water qual- on a pen basis were measured weekly. Any instancTable 1: Selected characteristics ity for livestock. es of mortality and morbidity were recorded. of three waters evaluated Initially, we surveyed pork producers online Over the 40-day experiment, there were no differ Waters evaluated Livestock to learn the range of water qualities being fed ences in average daily gain or average daily feed Analyte A B C Standards to nursery pigs in 48 barns across a wide intake among pigs assigned to the three waters Hardness, mg Eq CaCO3/liter 1,410 909 235 — range of geographic regions in Minnesota. (Figure 1). This result is noteworthy because waters Iron (parts per million) 5.43 5.22 1.33 — From these farms, we selected 15 barns to col- A and B were selected to represent “poor” quality, lect water samples for analysis. Water samManganese (ppm) 0.048 0.117 0.045 — and water C to represent “good” quality. We theoples were collected at or as close to the well rized that waters A and/or B would depress pig Magnesium (ppm) 171 90.9 21.4 — head as possible to understand the true qualiSee SWINE & U, pg. 13 ty of water entering the barn before being Sodium (ppm) 64.0 37.4 29.4 — affected by the existing distribution system. Conductivity 2.31 1.62 0.536 — Samples were sent to a commercial lab and Fecal Coliforms (number per liter) <2 <2 <2 11 were analyzed for 29 different components. Nitrate + nitrates (ppm) n.d.4 n.d. n.d. 1002 Concentrations of water components were compared to published standards of acceptCalcium (ppm) 284 214 58.7 1,0003 able water quality for livestock (Table 1). 3 Sulfates (ppm) 1,120 617 2 1,000 Three different waters were selected as treatTotal Disolved Solids5 (ppm) 1,500 1,050 348 3,0002 ments for a nursery growth performance 1 study. Two waters were selected to represent CCME, 2005 2 NRC, 1974 “bad” water (A and B) and one water was con3 CCME, 1987 sidered “good” water (C). The research team 4 Not detected considered waters A and B to be the two worst 5 Total dissolved solubles, sum of all inorganic and organic soluble matter quality waters of the 15 waters sampled.
