SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Issue: 1

Suitability of Drinking Water for Ruminants in The Provinces of Van and Bitlis: A Comparison Based on DSI Analysis Reports

Cemal Budağ(YÜZÜNCÜ YIL ÜNİVERSİTESİ ZİRAAT FAKÜLTESİ ZOOTEKNİ BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0003-3532-7727
Sedat Ertoğrul(Van YYU Faculty of Agriculture)0009-0009-1282-3290
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-02-19
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Nevertheless, the overall assessment suggests that the water sources in Van and Bitlis are largely consistent with ruminant drinking-water criteria.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The relative neglect of water quality in livestock production can lead to productivity losses and health problems in ruminants.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study covers a total of 25 sampling points, including 24 streams used as animal drinking-water sources and 1 human drinking-water source.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Nevertheless, the overall assessment suggests that the water sources in Van and Bitlis are largely consistent with ruminant drinking-water criteria.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Van · Bitlis · ruminant

Abstract

The relative neglect of water quality in livestock production can lead to productivity losses and health problems in ruminants. This study aims to evaluate the suitability of certain water sources in the provinces of Van and Bitlis in terms of ruminant drinking-water quality and to identify potentially risky water sources. Water analysis reports obtained within the routine monitoring program conducted by the State Hydraulic Works (DSI) were used. The study covers a total of 25 sampling points, including 24 streams used as animal drinking-water sources and 1 human drinking-water source. The physicochemical and heavy metal parameters in the reports were evaluated separately; taking into account critical thresholds affecting ruminant drinking-water quality, the similarities, differences, and potability status of the water sources were comparatively analyzed. Site-specific risks were identified for Fe (>300 µg L-1) and total hardness (≥300 mg L-1 as CaCO₃), while EC, TDS, SO₄²⁻, and NO₃⁻ remained within practical ruminant drinking-water benchmarks; post-rainfall increases in turbidity (>5 NTU) and occasional NO₂⁻ elevations warrant targeted filtration and microbiological surveillance. The parameters examined indicated that use as drinking water for ruminants may be risky at some points. Nevertheless, the overall assessment suggests that the water sources in Van and Bitlis are largely consistent with ruminant drinking-water criteria. Some water sources in the region pose potential risks for productivity loss and health problems in ruminants. Therefore, regular monitoring and the planning of targeted improvement/treatment practices for risky points are recommended. This study contributes to the literature by combining traditional physicochemical assessment of drinking water for ruminants with taste and infrastructure-related risk markers (Fe, Mn, hardness) and converting guideline-based ranges into practical, site-specific threshold values applicable to field conditions.

🔖

Cite This Article

Budağ, C., Ertoğrul, S. (2026). Suitability of Drinking Water for Ruminants in The Provinces of Van and Bitlis: A Comparison Based on DSI Analysis Reports. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.29133/yyutbd.1818421

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (24)

  1. APHA, AWWA, & WEF. (2023). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater (24. bs.). American Public Health Association.
  2. Budak, M., Günal, H., Sırrı, M., & Acir, N. (2023). Yüksekova Havzasında yüzey ve yüzeyaltı su kaynaklarının karakterizasyonu. ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 7(4), 784-797.
  3. Burkhardt, F. K., Hayer, J. J., Heinemann, C., & Steinhoff-Wagner, J. (2024). Effect of climatic condition, type of trough and water cleanliness on drinking behavior in dairy cows. Animals, 14(2), 257. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14020257
  4. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2011). Guidance on drinking water hygiene practices for animals.
  5. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2018). Water quality for livestock and poultry production (FAO Animal Production and Health Statement No. 184).
  6. Kamal, M. A., Khalf, M. A., Ahmed, Z. A., Eljakee, J. A., Alhotan, R. A., Al-Badwi, M. A.,. & Saleh, A. A. (2024). Effect of water quality on causes of calf mortality in cattle-farm-associated epidemics. Archives Animal Breeding, 67(1), 25–35.
  7. Lardner, H. A., Kirychuk, B. D., Braul, L., Willms, W. D., & Yarotski, J. (2005). The effect of water quality on cattle performance on pasture. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 56(1), 97–104.
  8. Linn, J. (2006). Impact of minerals in water on dairy cows. University of Minnesota. https://wcds.ualberta.ca/wcds/wp-content/uploads/sites/57/wcds_archive/Archive/2006/Manuscripts/Linn2.pdf
  9. Mann, G. R., Duncan, S. E., Knowlton, K. F., Dietrich, A. D., & O’Keefe, S. F. (2013). Effects of mineral content of bovine drinking water: Does iron content affect milk quality? Journal of Dairy Science, 96(12), 7478–7489.
  10. Murtagh, F., & Legendre, P. (2014). Ward’s hierarchical agglomerative clustering method: Which algorithms implement Ward’s criterion? Journal of Classification, 31(3), 274–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00357-014-9161-z
  11. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2021). Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle (8. bs.). The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25806
  12. National Research Council. (2005). Mineral tolerance of animals (2. bs.). The National Academies Press.
  13. Özge, U. (2019). Nohut yetiştiriciliğinde organik madde içeren gübrelerin önemi. ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 3(1), 116-127.
  14. R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/
  15. Rahimi, A., Gitari, H., Lyons, G., Heydarzadeh, S., Tunçtürk, M., & Tunçtürk, R. (2023). Effects of vermicompost, compost and animal manure on vegetative growth, physiological and antioxidant activity characteristics of Thymus vulgaris L. under water stress. Yuzuncu Yıl University Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 33(1), 40-53.
  16. Schütz, K. (2012). Effects of providing clean water on the health and productivity of cattle (Report for NRC).
  17. Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3-4), 591–611.
  18. Student. (1908). The probable error of a mean. Biometrika, 6(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/6.1.1
  19. Tulu, D., Hundessa, F., Gadissa, S., & Temesgen, T. (2024). Review on the influence of water quality on livestock production in the era of climate change: Perspectives from dryland regions. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 10(1), 2306726.
  20. Turkish Statistical Institute. (2023). Animal production statistics, 2023. https://data.tuik.gov.tr
  21. World Health Organization. (2011). Guidelines for drinking-water quality (4. bs.).
  22. World Health Organization. (2022). Guidelines for drinking-water quality: Fourth edition incorporating the first and second addenda.
  23. World Health Organization. (2023). Safety and quality of water use and reuse in the production and processing of dairy products: Meeting report.
  24. Kamal, M. A., Khalf, M. A., Ahmed, Z. A., Eljakee, J. A., Alhotan, R. A., Al-Badwi, M. A.,. & Saleh, A. A. (2024). Effect of water quality on causes of calf mortality in cattle-farm-associated epidemics. Archives Animal Breeding, 67(1), 25–35.