ArticleVeterinary medicine and science2025
Effects of Drinking Water Quality Parameters on Egyptian Cattle Farm Performance Indicators.
Article in Veterinary medicine and science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In both beef and dairy farming, the water quality (WQ) is of utmost importance, as it can significantly influence various cattle performance indicators (PIs). This study, conducted in Egyptian cattle farms experiencing emerging epidemics, aimed to scrutinize the impact of WQ on PIs. A comprehensive survey, involving 132 farms, was carried out using a questionnaire to identify hygiene-related risk factors (HRFs) that affect PIs. In parallel, 132 water samples were meticulously collected, subjected to analysis, and statistically evaluated to establish correlations between WQ parameters and PIs. Depending on the studied parameter (pH, total dissolved solids [TDS], hardness, chloride, nitrate, sulphate, total colony count [TCC] and total coliform count [TCFC]), the permissible limits were exceeded in a notable percentage of the water samples (from 13% to 86.3%). These parameters showed a significant correlation (ρ = 0.30-0.64) with feed conversion ratio (FCR) in the case of beef farming, the lowest being for pH (ρ = 0.23). Similarly, significant correlations (ρ = 0.34-0.69) were found with dairy-fed efficiency, apart from pH, which showed no correlation (ρ = 0). Furthermore, specific WQ parameters statistically emerged as predictors for different PIs. High nitrate was the most influential predictor across all beef and dairy PIs, followed by TDS, hardness, sulphate and microbial count. HRFs such as housing system, bedding type, water source, water tank and pipe type, drinker lining, herd size and cattle breed, demonstrated weak to moderate significant correlation with PIs. To conclude, WQ exerts a considerable impact on cattle PIs with the potential influence of on-farm HRFs. As a result, it is imperative to consider WQ when formulating rations, implementing alternative hygienic practices, and selecting appropriate water treatment methods for cattle farming.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.