PSX-30 Drinking preferences of natural sources of brackish groundwater by yearling goats and sheep

Abstract The nature and amounts of total dissolved solids (TDS) in brackish groundwater (BGW) sources vary widely, which may have influence on drinking preferences in small ruminants. A study was conducted to evaluate the water intake preferences of different brackish groundwater (BGW) sources in yearling Alpine [initial body weight (BW) = 36.0 ± 4.92 kg] and Spanish (22.0 ± 1.62 kg initial BW) goats and Katahdin (48.7 ± 1.42 kg initial BW) sheep. After a control phase offering tap water only for 7 d, a pairwise preference test was performed by providing one bucket with fresh tap water (FRW) and another with BGW for 3 d followed by 1 d of FRW only for each BGW testing. Thereafter, a free-choice preference test was conducted for 21 d during which five buckets were simultaneously offered with one FRW and four BGW sources. Four brackish water sources from Oklahoma, were United States Geological Survey (USGS) group 2 (GR-2; calcium sulfate dominant), 3 (GR-3; sodium chloride dominant), and two unclassified groups with sodium chloride and sulfate dominant (GR-U1) and sodium sulfate (GR-U2). The concentration of total dissolved solids in these water types were 494, 7,455, 3,048, 5,459, and 2,650 mg/kg for FRW, GR-2, GR-3, GR-U1, and GR-U2, respectively. In the pairwise test, Alpine and Spanish goats consumed (P < 0.05) GR-U1 lesser amounts (water intake of 23.9 versus 44.6 for Alpine, 43.4 versus 32.5 for Katahdin, and 13.5 versus 44.3 g/kg BW for Spanish; SE = 8.00); whereas Katahdin sheep consumed (P < 0.05) GR-2 lesser amounts than FRW (24.0 versus 28.1 for Alpine, 6.27 versus 50.4 for Katahdin, and 15.4 versus 32.1 g/kg BW for Spanish; SE = 7.21). There were no significant differences (P >0.05) among the animals for GR-3 and GR-U2 preferences compared with FRW. In the free-choice test, there was a significant (P = 0.001) interaction effect between water source and animal type. Alpine goats preferred GR-3 more (P < 0.05) than FRW, GR-U1, and GR-U2 (9.41, 10.4, 14.4, 24.3, and 6.92 g/kg BW), Katahdin consumed GR-U1 most (P < 0.05) followed by GR-3 than other sources (5.95, 36.0, 1.01, 15.8, and 6.53 g/kg BW), and Spanish consumed GR-U1 more (P < 0.05) than GR-2 (10.0, 20.3, 3.66, 12.7, and 3.91 g/kg BW for FRW, BRL, GR-2, GR-3, and GR-U, respectively; SE = 3.83). This study suggests that drinking water preferences vary among different USGS groups of BGW and small ruminant breeds, indicating taste differences of these BGW sources among the breeds.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Animal Science
Published
2024-09-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skae234.909
Primary Topic
Integrated Water Resources Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

PSX-30 Drinking preferences of natural sources of brackish groundwater by yearling goats and sheep

A.L. Goetsch, Amlan Kumar Patra, R. Puchała, Yirga Y Hirut et al.
Journal of Animal Science
Integrated Water Resources Management
article

PSX-30 Drinking preferences of natural sources of brackish groundwater by yearling goats and sheep

A.L. Goetsch, Amlan Kumar Patra, R. Puchała, Yirga Y Hirut, Lionel James Dawson, Dereje T Tadesse
article en

Abstract

Abstract The nature and amounts of total dissolved solids (TDS) in brackish groundwater (BGW) sources vary widely, which may have influence on drinking preferences in small ruminants. A study was conducted to evaluate the water intake preferences of different brackish groundwater (BGW) sources in yearling Alpine [initial body weight (BW) = 36.0 ± 4.92 kg] and Spanish (22.0 ± 1.62 kg initial BW) goats and Katahdin (48.7 ± 1.42 kg initial BW) sheep. After a control phase offering tap water only for 7 d, a pairwise preference test was performed by providing one bucket with fresh tap water (FRW) and another with BGW for 3 d followed by 1 d of FRW only for each BGW testing. Thereafter, a free-choice preference test was conducted for 21 d during which five buckets were simultaneously offered with one FRW and four BGW sources. Four brackish water sources from Oklahoma, were United States Geological Survey (USGS) group 2 (GR-2; calcium sulfate dominant), 3 (GR-3; sodium chloride dominant), and two unclassified groups with sodium chloride and sulfate dominant (GR-U1) and sodium sulfate (GR-U2). The concentration of total dissolved solids in these water types were 494, 7,455, 3,048, 5,459, and 2,650 mg/kg for FRW, GR-2, GR-3, GR-U1, and GR-U2, respectively. In the pairwise test, Alpine and Spanish goats consumed (P < 0.05) GR-U1 lesser amounts (water intake of 23.9 versus 44.6 for Alpine, 43.4 versus 32.5 for Katahdin, and 13.5 versus 44.3 g/kg BW for Spanish; SE = 8.00); whereas Katahdin sheep consumed (P < 0.05) GR-2 lesser amounts than FRW (24.0 versus 28.1 for Alpine, 6.27 versus 50.4 for Katahdin, and 15.4 versus 32.1 g/kg BW for Spanish; SE = 7.21). There were no significant differences (P >0.05) among the animals for GR-3 and GR-U2 preferences compared with FRW. In the free-choice test, there was a significant (P = 0.001) interaction effect between water source and animal type. Alpine goats preferred GR-3 more (P < 0.05) than FRW, GR-U1, and GR-U2 (9.41, 10.4, 14.4, 24.3, and 6.92 g/kg BW), Katahdin consumed GR-U1 most (P < 0.05) followed by GR-3 than other sources (5.95, 36.0, 1.01, 15.8, and 6.53 g/kg BW), and Spanish consumed GR-U1 more (P < 0.05) than GR-2 (10.0, 20.3, 3.66, 12.7, and 3.91 g/kg BW for FRW, BRL, GR-2, GR-3, and GR-U, respectively; SE = 3.83). This study suggests that drinking water preferences vary among different USGS groups of BGW and small ruminant breeds, indicating taste differences of these BGW sources among the breeds.

Journal of Animal ScienceVol. 102(Supplement_3)
Oklahoma State University (US), American Institute for Economic Research (US), Langston University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 85%
Integrated Water Resources Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.