The following Economics of Water Systems Calculator allows beef cattle producers to:
- compare the costs and benefits of installing three different watering systems on a cow-calf operation
- evaluate the costs and benefits of installing five different watering systems to use with yearling grassers
- determine how long it will take to pay off any of these livestock water systems on an individual operation
Fecal contamination of water from cattle with direct access reduces the palatability and consumption of the water. Access to clean pumped water can improve herd health, increase weight gain and increase backfat.
Cow-calf: Research by Lardner et al. (2005) reported that suckling calves whose dams drank from water troughs gained on average 0.09 lbs per day more than calves whose dams had direct access to the dugout. Calves with access to clean pumped water were on average 18 lbs heavier at weaning time. Water and forage intake are closely related so as cows drink more water, they spend more time eating and therefore produce more milk for their calves. *
Yearling Grassers: Lardner also found that yearling steers had 8-9% higher weight gain when they had access to water that had been coagulated or aerated before it was pumped compared to steers that only had direct access to dugout water. Steers with access to untreated pumped dugout water gained 3% more weight than steers with direct dugout access. Based on results of Lardner et al. (2005), the below water system calculator was developed to estimate the potential economic benefits and costs of alternative watering systems compared to direct access to dugout water.
More details, calculator assumptions, scenario examples and references are available in the Canfax Research Services fact sheet: Economics of Water Systems (March 2018)
Economics of Water Systems Calculator
More details, calculator assumptions, scenario examples and references are available in the Canfax Research Services fact sheet: Economics of Water Systems (March 2018)
- It is important to note that while a numerical difference was observed in this trial these results were not found to be significantly significant.