Ernie and Verna Hilderman had no proof that a water chlorination system was better for their cattle when they installed it in their cattle barn and corral waterers three years ago.
They still don’t, but the Camrose couple know they like the water that comes out of the taps in the barn better than the smelly, black dugout water they had before.
“It was the smell and color of it that bugged Ernie so bad,” Verna said.
Ernie and Verna are veterinarians and he is also a medical doctor.
Read Also
Going beyond “Resistant” on crop seed labels
Variety resistance is getting more specific on crop disease pathogens, but that information must be conveyed in a way that actually helps producers make rotation decisions.
The chlorinator cost $1,265 in 1998 and chlorine costs about $190 a year.
Verna said the water in the watering troughs is so clear you can see the rust on the bottom of the metal bowls.
The couple has little trouble with scours or sickness in their 40-cow herd, but Verna doesn’t know if that can be attributed to management or the chlorinated water.
A recent Alberta study anticipated that adding chlorine to feedlot waterers would reduce E. coli 0157:H7, a pathogen found in cattle that can be fatal to humans.
Janice Berg, lead researcher on the study and a veterinarian at Lakeside Farm Industries in Brooks, Alta., said previous smaller studies “looked positive” that chlorine would reduce E. coli.
After the first year of study at Lakeside, Berg said the chlorine helped keep cattle waterers clean and reduced E. coli levels in the water. However, there was no proof it reduced E. coli infection in feedlot cattle.
The potentially harmful E. coli strain was not found in fecal samples from cattle drinking either the treated or untreated water.
E. coli 0157:H7 is one of many E. coli species that are normally present in the intestinal tracts of beef cattle.
By adding chlorine to cattle’s drinking water, researchers hoped to reduce the pathogen before it entered the food chain.
In the first year of the study in 1999, 10 pens of 500 head each were given chlorinated water and another 10 pens were given untreated water.
Water troughs were cleaned twice a week and every two weeks in some pens to see if regular water trough cleaning would be as effective in reducing E. coli contamination.
Frequent cleaning reduced E. coli levels, but not to the same extent as chlorination, Berg said.
The water troughs with chlorinated water “do tend to stay cleaner and are easier to keep clean.”
Regular water trough cleaning is not practical in large feedlots, she added.
Preliminary results of the second year of study in 2000 showed similar results with no clear reduction in E. coli infection in cattle.
Berg said the study shows chlorine has some value in reducing E. coli in water, but the results are not conclusive enough for the feedlot to change its watering system.
“We’re not going to chlorine the entire feedlot based on this study,” she said.
