<%BANNER%>

Effects of Dietary Aluminum Source and Concentration on Mineral Status of Feeder Lambs

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022184/00001

Material Information

Title: Effects of Dietary Aluminum Source and Concentration on Mineral Status of Feeder Lambs
Physical Description: 1 online resource (57 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: aluminum, lambs, phosphorus, residuals, treatment, water, wtr
Animal Sciences -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Animal Sciences thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: A 100 d experiment was conducted to determine the effects of aluminum (Al) source and concentration on mineral status, emphasizing phosphorus (P), of 50 feeder lambs. Six treatments of a corn, cottonseed hulls, and corn starch based diet were formulated using two sources of Al, AlCl3 and an Al-based water treatment residual (WTR, 11.1% Al). Ten percent of each diet contained varying levels of Al and two diets contained added P as follows: 1) control (10% sand, T1), 2) low WTR (2.5% WTR and 7.5% sand, T2), 3) AlCl3 with added P (1% AlCl3, 9 % sand, and 0.4% P, T3), 4) high WTR (10% WTR, T4), 5) AlCl3 (1% AlCl3 and 9 % sand, T5), and 6) high WTR with added P (10% WTR and 0.4% P, T6). The total Al varied from 0.04 to 1.2 % among diets. Only lambs fed the high WTR diet without P supplementation (T4) had decreased feed intakes. These lambs consumed about half as much feed as lambs on all the other treatments, and had lower (P < 0.05) BW from d 84 on. Lambs receiving the highest level of dietary WTR (T4) had the lowest bone Ca, P and Mg concentrations (fresh basis, mg/cm3) and lowest bone mineral content (BMC) as determined by radiographs (mm of Al). Bone mineral results for the high WTR treatment (T4) were confounded by the reduced feed intake of lambs on this treatment. Plasma P decreased in all lambs consuming Al, regardless of Al source, but the decrease was less in lambs provided additional P supplementation (T3 and T6). Apparent absorption of P was affected by Al in two metabolism trials (n = 42) beginning on d 34 and d 70, respectively. In the first trial, d 34, lambs receiving AlCl3 without added P (T5) had reduced apparent P absorption (-17.7 %). In the d 70 trial, lambs receiving both AlCl3 (T5) and high WTR (T4) treatments without additional P were negatively impacted (-20.9 % and -2.5 % apparent P absorption, respectively). Diets containing 1.2% Al as WTR without P supplementation (T4) depressed feed intakes, weight gains, plasma P concentrations (P < 0.05), and BMC of lambs. However, given adequate P supplementation, even lambs consuming this amount of Al did not suffer detrimental effects.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: McDowell, Lee R.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-05-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022184:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022184/00001

Material Information

Title: Effects of Dietary Aluminum Source and Concentration on Mineral Status of Feeder Lambs
Physical Description: 1 online resource (57 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: aluminum, lambs, phosphorus, residuals, treatment, water, wtr
Animal Sciences -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Animal Sciences thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: A 100 d experiment was conducted to determine the effects of aluminum (Al) source and concentration on mineral status, emphasizing phosphorus (P), of 50 feeder lambs. Six treatments of a corn, cottonseed hulls, and corn starch based diet were formulated using two sources of Al, AlCl3 and an Al-based water treatment residual (WTR, 11.1% Al). Ten percent of each diet contained varying levels of Al and two diets contained added P as follows: 1) control (10% sand, T1), 2) low WTR (2.5% WTR and 7.5% sand, T2), 3) AlCl3 with added P (1% AlCl3, 9 % sand, and 0.4% P, T3), 4) high WTR (10% WTR, T4), 5) AlCl3 (1% AlCl3 and 9 % sand, T5), and 6) high WTR with added P (10% WTR and 0.4% P, T6). The total Al varied from 0.04 to 1.2 % among diets. Only lambs fed the high WTR diet without P supplementation (T4) had decreased feed intakes. These lambs consumed about half as much feed as lambs on all the other treatments, and had lower (P < 0.05) BW from d 84 on. Lambs receiving the highest level of dietary WTR (T4) had the lowest bone Ca, P and Mg concentrations (fresh basis, mg/cm3) and lowest bone mineral content (BMC) as determined by radiographs (mm of Al). Bone mineral results for the high WTR treatment (T4) were confounded by the reduced feed intake of lambs on this treatment. Plasma P decreased in all lambs consuming Al, regardless of Al source, but the decrease was less in lambs provided additional P supplementation (T3 and T6). Apparent absorption of P was affected by Al in two metabolism trials (n = 42) beginning on d 34 and d 70, respectively. In the first trial, d 34, lambs receiving AlCl3 without added P (T5) had reduced apparent P absorption (-17.7 %). In the d 70 trial, lambs receiving both AlCl3 (T5) and high WTR (T4) treatments without additional P were negatively impacted (-20.9 % and -2.5 % apparent P absorption, respectively). Diets containing 1.2% Al as WTR without P supplementation (T4) depressed feed intakes, weight gains, plasma P concentrations (P < 0.05), and BMC of lambs. However, given adequate P supplementation, even lambs consuming this amount of Al did not suffer detrimental effects.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: McDowell, Lee R.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-05-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022184:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

EFFECTS OF DIETARY ALUMINUM SOU RCE AND CONCENTRATION ON MINERAL STATUS OF FEEDER LAMBS By TARA L. FELIX A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008 1

PAGE 2

2008 Tara L. Felix 2

PAGE 3

To my loving husband, Jon Thank you for all your support 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Lee McDowell for allowing me the opportunity to pursue my masters degree in animal nutriti on, his guidance has been superior I would also like to thank Nancy Wilkinson for all of her expert help and teaching in the lab, I coul d not have done this without her. These two have been my greates t support at UF and are much more appreciated then words here can express. I would also like to thank Dr. George O Connor for his ever insightful comments and sharing his wisdom on the soils side of things. I would understand far less if it were not for him. I would like to also thank Dr. Joel Brendmuhl fo r serving as the third member of my committee and for assisting me while I formulated my diets. Several people deserve thanks for their assist ance during my researc h. Jan Kivipelto gave her expert advice and a helping hand for all of th e radiographs taken and their interpretation. Dr. Lori Warren deserves recognition for her assist ance on interpreting my bone data as well. Sampson Agyin-Birikorang was th e expert when it came to the ICP analysis for my blood and bone samples. Tom Crawford and Ken Clyatt we re both extremely involve d in mixing my diets and helping manage the sheep on this trial. I would also like to thank Byron Davis for his assistance in hauling and sample collections at slaughter. Meghan Bre nnan should be recognized as well for her patience and assistance during the stat istical analysis of my results. Finally, much appreciation is due to Ruth West for her assistan ce at every collection, even on her weekends off. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........6 LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................7 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................................................... 8 ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .11 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE.................................................................................................13 Phosphorus Contamination in the Environment.....................................................................13 Possibilities of Alum inum...................................................................................................... 17 Aluminum Based Water Treatment Residuals.......................................................................19 3 EFFECTS OF DIETARY ALUMINUM SOURCE AND CONCENTRATION ON MINERAL STATUS OF FEEDER LAMBS.........................................................................22 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........22 Materials and Methods...........................................................................................................23 Animals and Management...............................................................................................23 Sample Collection and Analysis......................................................................................24 Statistical Analysis..........................................................................................................2 6 Results and Discussion......................................................................................................... ..27 Conclusions.............................................................................................................................31 4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.....................................................................................32 APPENDIX....................................................................................................................................47 LITERATURE CITED..................................................................................................................50 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................55 5

PAGE 6

LIST OF TABLES Table page 1. Diet composition (as-fed) and mi neral analyses of treatments..................................................37 2. Effects of dietary Al and P on body weight of feeder lambs.....................................................38 3. Effect of dietary Al and P on daily feed intake..........................................................................39 4. Effects of dietary Al and P on plasma P concentration.............................................................40 5. Effects of dietary Al and P on soft tissue P concentration.........................................................41 6. Effects of dietary Al and P on soft tissue microelement concentration.....................................42 7. Effects of dietary Al and P on bone mineral concentration.......................................................43 8. Effects of dietary Al and P on radiograph BMC over time.......................................................44 9. Manatee County Al-WTR Analysis...........................................................................................47 10. Mineral composition of sand................................................................................................ ...48 11. Diet DM, OM and IVOMD analysis.......................................................................................49 6

PAGE 7

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1. Effects of dietary Al and P on apparent P absorption, d 34......................................................45 2. Effects of dietary Al and P on apparent P absorption, d 70......................................................46 7

PAGE 8

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Al Aluminum AlCl3 Aluminum chloride BMC Bone mineral content BMPs Best management practices; methods that have proven to be the most effective, practical means of preventing or reducing pollution P Phosphorus WTR Water treatment residuals; byproduct s of the water purification processes 8

PAGE 9

Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science EFFECTS OF DIETARY ALUMINUM SOU RCE AND CONCENTRATION ON MINERAL STATUS OF FEEDER LAMBS By Tara L. Felix May 2008 Chair: Lee R. McDowell Major: Animal Sciences A 100 d experiment was conducted to determine the effects of aluminum ( Al ) source and concentration on mineral stat us, emphasizing phosphorus ( P ), of 50 feeder lambs. Six treatments of a corn, cottonseed hulls, and co rn starch based diet were form ulated using two sources of Al, AlCl3 and an Al-based wate r treatment residual ( WTR 11.1% Al). Ten percent of each diet contained varying levels of Al and two diets contained added P as follows: 1) control (10% sand, T1 ), 2) low WTR (2.5% WTR and 7.5% sand, T2 ), 3) AlCl3 with added P (1% AlCl3, 9 % sand, and 0.4% P, T3 ), 4) high WTR (10% WTR, T4 ), 5) AlCl3 (1% AlCl3 and 9 % sand, T5 ), and 6) high WTR with added P (10% WTR and 0.4% P, T6 ). The total Al varied from 0.04 to 1.2 % among diets. Only lambs fed the high WTR diet without P supplementati on (T4) had decreased feed intakes. These lambs consumed about half as much feed as lambs on all the other treatments, and had lower (P<0.05) BW from d 84 on. Lambs receiving the highest level of dietary WTR (T4) had the lowest bone Ca, P and Mg concentrations (fresh basis, mg/cm3) and lowest bone mineral content ( BMC ) as determined by radiographs (mm of Al). Bone mineral results for the high WTR treatment (T4) were co nfounded by the reduced feed intake of lambs on this treatment. Plasma P decreased in all lamb s consuming Al, regardless of Al source, but the decrease was less in lambs provided additiona l P supplementation (T3 and T6). Apparent 9

PAGE 10

absorption of P was affected by Al in two meta bolism trials (n = 42) beginning on d 34 and d 70, respectively. In the first trial, d 34, lambs receiving AlCl3 without added P (T5) had reduced apparent P absorption (-17.7 %). In th e d 70 trial, lambs receiving both AlCl3 (T5) and high WTR (T4) treatments without additional P were negatively impacted (-20.9 % and -2.5 % apparent P absorption, respectively). Di ets containing 1.2% Al as WTR without P supplementation (T4) depressed feed intakes, we ight gains, plasma P concentrations (P<0.05), and BMC of lambs. However, given adequate P supplementation, even lambs consuming this amount of Al did not suffer detrimental effects. 10

PAGE 11

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In an attempt to preserve the majesty of th is earth, a global concer n for pollution and waste management has arisen. Landfills are frowned upon by many organizations and there is constant media attention on rising fuel prices and the need for alternative fuels or transportation methods to preserve our natural resources. Living on the blue planet means that there is an inherent responsibility to protect our most abundant natural resource, wate r (Fredericks, 1995). One of the issues facing environmentalists worldwide is water pollution. Agriculture is the leading source of water pollution affecting 60% of polluted river miles and 50% of polluted lake acres. Nutrient runoff from cropland, large, concentrat ed animal operations, and pasture contribute to the continuing pollution of our waterways. Of the nutrients affecting water quality, nitrogen ( N ) and phosphorus ( P ) are at the forefront (Parry, 1998). Phosphorus is generally the main problem in our freshwater (Parry, 1998), and hence the focus of much research. Agricult ural drainage, as its referred to, is the nutrient waste from runoff and leaching (Sims et al., 1998). Many tec hniques have been developed over the years to combat P contamination in the environment. One of the most common practices is amending the soil to decrease P leaching. The increased sorp tion of P when zeolite, red mud, and bentonite were added to the soil was the focus of one st udy (Phillips, 1998). Several studies have shown that aluminum ( Al ) and sometimes iron (Fe ) additions to the soil in a variety of chemical states decrease P leaching by increasing soils capacity to hold P (Elliott et al., 2002, Dayton et al., 2003). Another common technique to decrease P runoff is to amend the manure itself, not just the soil on which it is spread. Amending poultry litter with alum decreased the P runoff by 75% after 3 years (Moore et al., 1999). Aluminum wate r treatment residuals (WTR) have also proven an effective amendment to d ecrease P release from poultry manure (Makris et al., 2005a). 11

PAGE 12

Of course there is always opposition when attempting to change a practice or introduce something new, and the agricultural community has had a few concerns regarding amendment use. Cost, being ever at the forefront, can be checked if a soil or manure amendment is the operations strategy by choosing WTR as the residua ls require only trans portation costs (Makris et al., 2005). Another con cern with residuals is the possibility of Al toxicity to grazing animals on Al amended pasture. However, it has been shown that WTR when consumed by a ruminant animal at levels up to 8000 ppm Al were not detrimental to lambs receiving 0.25% dietary P (Van Alstyne et al., 2007). However it is accomplished, reducing P has become a component of efforts to decrease water pollution and improve water quality. Alth ough agriculture is a cont ributor to P pollution, it can also prove a venerable adversary if pr oducers are willing to adopt best management practices. 12

PAGE 13

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Phosphorus Contamination in the Environment Phosphorus ( P ) can enter the environment in a number of ways. There are two broad categories that characterize P pollu tion: point source and non-point s ource. Point source refers to the type of P pollution that can be traced to it s origin. Non-point source is a wide-ranging term and encompasses all P pollution that can not be tr aced to the original source, it also accounts for the majority of environmental P po llution (Carpenter et al., 1998). Point source P pollution can come from a number of places. Leaders in this category include but are not limited to: concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), urban developments, mine/oil sites, and large construc tion sites. The CAFOs are generally the most recognized subgroup in this category. They incl ude large livestock operations such as swine, dairy or poultry operations in which the anim al waste produced typically exceeds that which would be necessary to ferti lize the surrounding land through manure applications. Typically these operations are out of sight, presumably to alleviate human health concerns, pollution knows no boundaries traveling waterways and deteriorating drinking and recreational water (Lutz, 1998). While CAFOs get most of the blam e for water contamination from point sources, the truth is that a great deal comes from humans themselves. Much of urban activity will be discussed as non-point source pollu tion, but large (>2 ha) construc tion sites and waste disposal account for the majority of envir onmental P pollution from point sour ces (Carpenter et al., 1998). Typically, point source pollution can be monitore d and controlled at its origin and, in recent years, has been reduced in several areas. Non-point source pollution is a different story a ltogether. There are a host of activities that contribute to non-point source pol lution, including but not limited to: urban runoff, agricultural 13

PAGE 14

runoff, abandoned mines, and development that leads to erosion. In this case urban runoff can be a number of things, as with point source pol lution, including runoff from unsewered areas or sewered areas of populations less than 100,000, lawn fertilizers, and numerous smaller (<2 ha) construction sites (Carpenter et al., 1998). Agricultural r unoff as non-point source pollution arises from high fertilization rates, runoff from irrigated cr opland, and leaking manure storage tanks/lagoons (Sharpley et al., 2000 ). Abandoned mines generally contribute erosion pollution through moving mass quantities of sedimentation to new areas. This sediment along with that carried from logging sites, areas with large amounts of cropland, and types of development that lead to erosion, contributes to the siltation of lakes around the globe (Kobori and Glantz, 1998). Non-point source pollution from urban runoff is act ually the third most si gnificant cause of lake deterioration in the United St ates (Carpenter et al., 1998). Regardless of the source, P makes its way to our lakes, rivers and oceans. For many years, and still at times today, P contamination was co nsidered a serious problem only in areas where large amounts of surface runoff were a probl em. Many research studies then focused wholeheartedly on stopping the P at the stream banks (Moore and Miller, 1994; Moore et al, 1999, 2000; Penn and Bryant, 2006). However, furthe r research suggests that more attention needs to be paid to the P not only from surface runoff but also that which may be leaching into the ground water (Sims et al., 1998). These subsur face losses, particularly those overlooked from agricultural drainage, can consti tute a significant supply of non-point source pollution. The crisis arises then when this P contamination is not curtailed. Extreme excesses of P eventually lead to th e eutrophication of wate r. Eutrophication is the enrichment of waters from plant nutrients, according to one author, and is a major problem throughout the world (Harper, 1992). Another de finition may simply be the overenrichment of 14

PAGE 15

waters with mineral nutrients. Either way, there is no disagreement that P is the leading cause of eutrophication in fresh water (Car penter et al., 1998; Co rrell, 1998; Sharpley et al., 2000). In one study conducted on 86 lakes, 90% of the polluti on in the lakes arose from non-point source, suggesting that non-point source pollution is the number one pollutant of U.S. waterways (Carpenter et al., 1998). Furthermore, approximately 75% of eutrophic lakes are estimated to require more then just point source control of P inputs to meet water quality standards (Carpenter et al., 1998). Eutrophication has serious effects on wildlif e and habitat, as well as normal human activities. High concentrations of P cause algal blooms in the water. These algae decrease the dissolved oxygen available to other species causi ng massive plant and aquatic animal deaths. The chain of events continues by affecting hum an populations through decreased fishing, toxins in swimming holes and so on (Correll, 1998). D ead zone is the name commonly given to such areas because life can not survive in them. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (2003) reports that during the summer months as much as 40 percent of the bay water can be classified as a dead zone. The large scale ramifications of P pollution can also be seen at the continental shelf near the outflow of the Mississippi rive r. As the largest river in North America, the Mississippi contains water and runoff from 40 percent of the United States surface, creating hypoxic conditions in the coastal waters where it empties and greatly affecting marine food webs (Turner and Rabalais, 1994). Thus, the ramifications of a little runoff problem could be deadly even thousands of miles away. Many things may be done to curtail our abuse/ overuse of P. There are P regulations in place to restrict pollution, the only downfall is that these can usually only be applied to point source pollution (Carpenter et al., 1998). Th e U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) is 15

PAGE 16

an organization specifically designated to m onitor and enforce laws governing environmental issues (Mann and Roberts, 2000). In 1972, Congress recognized the threat to future generations and amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act ( FWPCA) with the Clean Water Act ( CWA ), recently updated in 2002 (Powers, 2003). The CWA ensures the water is clean for the safety of wildlife, drinking water, and human recreational use. As was mentioned earlier, much of the non-poi nt source pollution is thought to come from agriculture and is difficult to regulate. However, livestock producers can also fight environmental P pollution in several ways. A lternative feeding strate gies have proven an effective first step. Cerosaletti et al. (2004) found that by simply reducing P in the diet so that animals requirements were being met, but not overfed, decreased fecal c oncentrations of P in dairy herds in New York by 33%, without affecting health or milk production. Research has also shown that phytases fed as dietary supplements decrease the amount of P necessary by making phytin bound P in corn or soybean based diet s usable for monogastrics and increasing P absorption by up to 45% (McDowell, 2003). Anothe r team of researchers found that there is a gene (the PSP/APPA transgene) responsible for pr oducing salivary phytase. Piglets bred to have the transgene excreted up to 75% less P (Golovan et al., 2001). Environmental contaminants by P can also be controlled by land treatments. Traditionally, studies have exalted the use of best management practices ( BMPs ) to control environmental P pollution (Sharpley et al., 2000; Walker, 2000). The BMPs include planting vegetative buffer strips along waterways, controlling soil erosi on, manipulating animal diets, applying manure only in sufficient quantities to meet crop needs, and physical or chemi cal manure treatment to change the chemistry of the manure (Walker, 2000). Some of the options were discussed earlier, but one requires further focus in this report: phys ically or chemically altering the chemistry of 16

PAGE 17

the manure. By adding compounds such as alum ( Al2(SO4)3) and aluminum chloride (AlCl3) to manure, the soluble P applied to land can be decreased by up to 90 percent (Walker, 2000). Actually, that concept can even be expa nded upon by applying the aforementioned compounds simply to areas of high animal traffic or those areas prone to high amounts of runoff like paddocks or along stream edges where animals congregate to drink. Several studies have reported the effectiven ess of aluminum ( Al ) land applications at re ducing the amount of P in runoff (Smith et al., 2001; OConnor et al., 2002; Makris et al., 2005a ; Penn and Bryant, 2006). Possibilities of Aluminum Aluminum-based amendments are central to some of the BMPs us ed to decrease the amount of soluble P that reaches waterways. Befo re this is explored further, a brief background on Al and its affects on other minerals, the e nvironment, and animal welfare is necessary. Aluminum is one of the minerals frequently cl assified as toxic to an imals, even though Al is poorly absorbed and readily excreted in th e feces (Valdalvia et al., 1978, 1982; McDowell, 2003). The NRC (1985) states that the maximum tolerable level for a ruminant animal is 1,000 ppm before signs of toxicosis begi n, and even less for monogastric animals. Even so, Al is the third most abundant element in the earths crust (OConnor et al., 2002). It is a highly reactive element and rarely exists in its metallic state; rather it readily combines with other elements and compounds (McDowell, 2003). Aluminum is found in its larg est quantities in the environm ent where there are acid soil conditions, namely tropical areas. Soil Al can contribute to a num ber of detrimental environmental effects including, but not limited to root growth inhibition and the creation of dead lakes. Root growth may be inhibited in acid forest conditions when calcium ( Ca ) is leached and Al is mobilized, thereby inhibiting the tr ees ability to take up Ca. Dead lakes are so 17

PAGE 18

nicknamed because Al has the potential to decrease the pH of the water at high levels leading to damages in fish gill tissue and the death of virtua lly all fish life at pH 5 (Brady and Weil, 2002). On the agricultural side of animal welfare, Al creates a number of concerns as well. Ruminants in particular have the potential to ingest large quantities of Al when grazed on tropical soils. Not only do animal s have the potential to consume 10 to 15 percent of their dry matter ( DM ) intake as soil, but there are also plants which may be classified as Al accumulators as well (Healy, 1968; Jansen et al., 2002). In live stock, Al toxicosis is mo st commonly exhibited as a secondary P deficiency. Consumption of thes e Al contaminated plants and soils may lead to extremely large intakes of Al which will result in the P deficiency signs: rickets, anorexia, decreased fertility in females, etc. (Rosa et al ., 1982; McDowell, 2003). In monogastric animals, these toxicities are thought to occur at much lower Al intakes (200 ppm vs. 1,000 ppm) because of the lack of a rumen in these animals where Al may complex with ot her ions, therefore it combines solely with P (Valdivia et al., 1982). Aluminum has the capability to exhibit such e ffects on P primarily through its ability to act as a strong chelating agent (Brady and Weil, 2002). For this reason, much work has been done looking at the ability of Al to reduce P pollution, despite the potential for Al toxicity (Moore et al., 1994, 1999, 2000; Smith et al., 2001; OConnor et al., 2002; Novak and Watts, 2005; Makris et al., 2005b; Penn and Bryant, 2006). The wo rk done by Moore and collaborators (1994, 1999, and 2000) concentrated on the eff ectiveness of alum combined w ith poultry litter to counteract excess soluble P. Moore et al. (1999) reported that P concentrations in small watersheds can be decreased by as much as 75 percent by using alum -poultry treated litter as opposed to application of untreated poultry litter. Smith et al. (2001) looked at the ability of AlCl3 and alum to reduce the soluble reactive P ( SRP ) in runoff from swine manure and found that both decreased SRP by 18

PAGE 19

84 percent. At Penn State University, alum, gypsum, Al-based water treatment residuals, and fly-ash were applied to cattle loafing areas along stream banks w ith no vegetative buffers where high P pollution was threatening. Alum was the most effective s ource to decrease P pollution in the stream water (Penn and Bryant, 2006). The point being that, despite some of its negativ e effects, Al is one of the best choices to decrease P pollution in the environment, but how? As mentioned before Al is a highly reactive metal (McDowell, 2003). Its poten tial to react with P, and othe r compounds, is what makes it such a powerful chelating agent a nd one of the best tools in the battle against P pollution. Its bioavailability, however, is what concerns most animal scientists and has them looking for alternatives, as it has the capabi lity of being significantly hazardous to animal health (Van Alstyne et al., 2006, 2007). The search may be over. Aluminum Based Water Treatment Residuals Water treatment residuals can be defined as the byproducts produced from purification, via flocculation/sedimentation processes, of ra w ground and surface water sources in municipal treatment plants (Novak et al., 2006, 2007). These products are cons idered waste and therefore disposed of as such by either landfilling, dumping in sewers or incinerating to name a few (Tech Brief, 1998). This non-hazardous materi al can often be obtained free of charge (Makris et al., 2005b). Recently, the primary interest in these byproducts of the water purification process has been on recycling them via land application to control P movement in the environment (Elliott et al., 2002; Dayton et al ., 2003; Dayton and Basta, 2005a; Novak et al., 2006, 2007). However since each treatment facility us es different sources of water and different chemicals/treatment processes, the composition of the residuals may vary widely (Dayton and Basta, 2005a). 19

PAGE 20

There are three primary materials used to treat water: aluminum sulfate (or alum), ferric sulfate, and lime (Ca(OH)2). Several studies have shown that the alum based WTR has the highest P-sorption capacity (Ellio tt et al., 2002; OConnor et al., 2002; Novak and Watts, 2005). The study by Elliott et al. (2002) showed that the alum based residuals were nearly three times better at reducing the amount of applied P lost through leaching over four months. To simplify the discussion, the following paper focuses on the residuals obtained via alum coagulation and will term these Al based water treatment residuals simply as WTR The use of WTR to prevent excess environm ental pollution with P has been widely researched (Elliott et al., 2002; OConnor et al ., 2002; Dayton et al., 2003; Dayton and Basta, 2005a; Novak et al., 2006; Penn and Bryant, 2006; N ovak et al., 2007). In fact, WTR application has been shown to be such an effective tool in reducing P runoff that it has been suggested for use in BMPs (Dayton and Basta, 2005b). There are typically two ways to use WTR to reduce nonpoint source pollution of P. The first method is to apply WTR to the surface of the land to remove dissolved P from runoff waters, and the second is to incorporate WTR into the soil to reduce P solubility and leaching (D ayton and Basta, 2005a). Therefor e, there is great interest in applying WTR to sandy soils and areas along stream s where runoff may be potentially elevated. Once again though, the question of Al toxicity aris es. Acid soils, those that have a pH less then seven, are common in the eastern United Stat es (Stevens et al., 2001). In these acid soils, concentrations of Al may be elevated and have the potential to lead to aquatic wildlife losses (Brady and Weil, 2002). Acid soils and Al toxicity also causes a problem for grazing ruminants under tropical conditions where Al intakes are suspected to be extremely high (McDowell, 2003). So is the problem being exacerba ted by the addition of Al-based WTR? 20

PAGE 21

Agyin-Birikorang et al. (2007) s howed that WTR amendments to soils with a pH range of four to seven reduced the water soluble P concentration by more th en 75% compared to soils that had not been ammended. So this should mean WTR are effective for use on the acid soils, but what about potential harm to gr azing animals. One sheep study has shown the effects of WTR to be negligible (Van Alstyne et al., 2007). Th is study looked at the effects of Al on sheep performance as AlCl3 and Al-based WTR to evaluate the bioavalibility of WTR. Aluminum chloride is known to be a highly bioavailable source of Al and it can greatly affect animals (Valdivia et al., 1982; Allen, 1984; Van Alstyne et al., 2006, 2007) When WTR was compared to AlCl3 in the Van Alstyne et al. st udy (2007), it did not depress fe ed intake nor did it affect animal performance as AlCl3 did. Perhaps WTR is the answer to an overwhelming environmental issue: P pollution. The potential of one substance, gene rally considered waste, to help solve one of the most pressing concerns of our time is phenomenal. The real ity of the subject, however, warrants further investigation from a biological standpoint. Only research and time will tell this tale. 21

PAGE 22

CHAPTER 3 EFFECTS OF DIETARY ALUMINUM SOU RCE AND CONCENTRATION ON MINERAL STATUS OF FEEDER LAMBS Introduction Of the issues facing environmentalists worldw ide, water pollution is at the forefront. Phosphorus ( P ) is one of the leading nutrients in cont aminated water ways and is generally the main freshwater problem (Parry, 1998). Much P pollution stems from agri cultural drainage and from the runoff and leaching of various wastes (Sims et al., 1998). Soil amendments, like aluminum ( Al ), decrease P leaching by increasing a soils capacity to retain P (Elliott et al., 2002; Dayton et al., 2003). Aluminum chloride ( AlCl3) is one such amendment; however, it is a highly bioavailable form of Al that may result in toxicity, observe d as P deficiency, if ingested by livestock (Valdivia, 1977). Dietary Al can suppress sheep voluntary feed intake, feed efficiency, plasma P, and weight gain (Rosa et al., 1982). Additional dietary P decreases, but does not eliminate, the negative effects of Al. Water treatment residuals, by-products from some drinking water treatment processes, can be another soil amendment choice. While Ca, Fe or Al can be used as the primary mineral to remove impurities from the drinking water, this study used an Al-based water treatment residual ( WTR ), previously shown to immobilize P (Mak ris et al., 2005b). Grazing animals may consume as much as 10-15% of their dry matter intake ( DM ) as soil, depending on soil and pasture conditions (Field and Purv es, 1964; Healy, 1968). The questi on arises then as to whether animals could consume sufficient quantities of WTR to be detrimental. Unlike AlCl3, the bioavailability of Al in WTR is expected to be low (OConnor et al., 2002). Previous studies have shown that WTR was not detrimental to animals when P levels are above adequate requirements (Madison et al., 2007; Van Alstyne et al., 2007). Van Alstyne et al. (2007) showed 22

PAGE 23

that WTR when consumed as 10% of DM inta ke (0.80 % Al, 0.25 % P) was not detrimental to sheep. The following experiment was carried out to evaluate a WTR with a higher Al concentration and a diet with a lower level of P, comparable to many pastures low in P, which did not exceed sheep requirements. The purpose of this study was to determine if the effects of Al as WTR would be less detrimental to animal growth, feed intake, plasma P concentration, bone mineral content ( BMC ), and apparent P absorption then Al as AlCl3. Materials and Methods Animals and Management Fifty 5 to 8 mo old Dorper x Katahdin lambs (41 rams and 9 wethers) were used in a 100 d trial at the University of Florida Sheep Unit located in Gainesville, Florida. The lambs weighed 13.2 to 41.8 kg on d 0. The trial ran from October 24, 2006 to February 1, 2007. Prior to the start of the experiment all lambs were given clostridium vaccination, tetanus toxoid and ivermectin (Ivomec; Merial Ltd., Iselin, NJ). Animals also received Dectomax (Pfizer Animal Health, Exton, PA) and Corid (Corid 9.6%; Merial, Duluth, GA) on October 4, 2006 to treat hemonchus contortus worms and coccidi osis, respectively. Twel ve sheep were also treated for mild infections w ith oxytetracycline (Liquamycin LA-200; Pfizer Animal Health, Exton, PA) with consecutive tr eatments on October 8 and 11. Animal 141 received a blood transfusion on October 10, 2006. Two treatments of Cydectin (Fort Dodge Animal Health, Overland, KS) were given on October 18 and November 5 for maintenance parasite control to all lambs. A corn based basal diet was formulated to meet NRC (1985) requirements for CP, TDN, vitamins and minerals for growing lambs. The basal diet was formulated to contain 0.17 % P on 23

PAGE 24

a DM basis. This borderline to low P concentra tion was used to better elucidate the effect of dietary Al on P. Lambs were randomly assigned to 1 of 6 dietar y treatments and were housed with either 4 or 5 animals per pen in covered pens (24 m2) with earthen floors. Prior to the start of the experiment, all animals were fed the control di et containing 10% sand at 0.45 kg per animal per d. After wk 1 feed was increased to 1.1 kg per anim al per d to optimize growth. During the trial, lambs were fed once daily 1.1 kg per anim al per d and were given access to ad libitum water. The dietary treatments of Al (Table 1) were a dded at 10% of the total diet fed and two diets contained supplemental P, as follows: 1) control (10% sand, T1 ), 2) low WTR (2.5% WTR and 7.5% sand, T2 ), 3) AlCl3 with added P (1% AlCl3, 9 % sand, and 0.4% P, T3 ), 4) high WTR (10% WTR, T4 ), 5) AlCl3 (1% AlCl3 and 9 % sand, T5 ), and 6) high WTR with added P (10% WTR and 0.4% P, T6 ). The WTR contained 11.1 % Al, 0.38 % Fe, and 0.28 % P on a dry basis. The sand contained 0.1 % Al, 0.026 % Fe, and 0.002 % P on a dry basis. Thus, the total Al concentrations of the diets were 0.037(T1), 0.30(T2), 0.31(T3), 1.2(T4), 0.31(T5), and 1.2 % (T6) on a DM basis. The protocol for this study was approved by the University of Florida Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (E690). Sample Collection and Analysis Weights and blood samples were obtained from each animal on d 0, 28, 56, 84, and 98. Blood samples were collected using a vacuta iner system (Vacutainer; Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lake, NJ) into tubes containing sodium heparin as an anticoagulant. Samples were centrifuged at 2147 x g for 30 min. The collected plas ma was frozen at 0 C until later analysis. One mL of thawed plasma was de proteinated with 10% trichloroa cetic acid and then analyzed for Al, Ca, Cu, Fe, Mg, P, and Zn (Miles et al., 2001). 24

PAGE 25

Dorsospalmar radiographs of the left third metacarpal were obtained on d 0, 48, and 98 via a portable x-ray machine (Easymatic Super 325; Universal X-Ray Products, Chicago, IL) at a focal length of 91.5 cm and an exposure of 97 kVp (30mA for 0.067s). An 11-step wedge was taped to the radiograph cassette next to the leg and simultane ously exposed as a reference standard for the radiograph. The films were exposed with an auto-radiograph processing machine using Kodak products and development procedures (Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, NY). Optical density was assessed with an imaging densitometer and softwa re that translated the digital image to numeric values by scanning medial to lateral 1 cm below the nutrient foramen (Image-Pro Plus, Media Cybernetics, Inc., Silv er Springs, MD). A linear regression of the optical density of the bone (expressed in mm of Al) was plotted using th e known thickness of the steps on the Al step wedge (Van Alstyne et al., 2006). Apparent P and Al absorptions were determined on 42 lambs fitted with cloth fecal collection harnesses and placed in metabolism crates (1.4 m2) for two collection periods starting on d 34 and d 70, respectively. Water was offered ad libitum and lambs were fed 1.1 kg/d and orts were collected daily. Lambs were gi ven a 3 d adaptation period followed by 7 d of collection. Ten percent of each collection was saved and composited for DM, P and Al analysis (Miles et al., 2001). Animals were slaughtered on d 100 at a USDA-in spected facility. Tissues (liver, kidney, heart, and muscle) were collected for analysis of Al, Cu, Fe, Mn, P, and Zn. Brain was also collected and analyzed for Al. Tthe left metacar pal was collected for bone analysis of Al, Ca, Mg, and P (Miles et al., 2001). Bones were skin ned and wrapped in ch eesecloth (preciously soaked in 0.9 % saline solution) and frozen at 0C until analysis. After thawing, a 2 cm section of bone was cut to include the section of s canned bone 1 cm below the nutrient foramen. 25

PAGE 26

Marrow was removed and bones were rinsed in sa line solution and placed on clean cheesecloth. Density was determined and expressed as g/cm3, fresh basis (Kit ME-40290, Mettler Instruments Corp., Hightstown, NJ) (Van Alstyne et al., 2006). For all samples, P was analyzed via the colo rimetric procedure (Harris and Popat, 1954) on a microplate reader (KC junior software; BioTek Instruments Inc., Winooski, VT). In all samples except the plasma and bone, Al concentrations were analyzed via atomic absorption spectrophotometry using nitrous oxide-acetylene flame (Perkin-Elmer Model Analyst 800, Perkin-Elmer Corp., Norwalk, CT). Blood and bone Al concentrations were analyzed by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emissions Spectroscopy, a more sensitive analysis (ICPAES) (Perkin-Elmer Plasma 3200, Perkin-Elmer, We llesley, MA). All ot her minerals in all tissues, feces, and feed were analyzed via fl ame atomic absorption spectrometry (Perkin-Elmer Model Analyst 800, Perkin-Elmer Corp., Norwalk, CT). To ensure quality of data and analytical methods, standards were prepared simultaneously with certified National Bureau of Standards (NBS) materials (citrus l eaves SRM-1572; Bovine liver SRM-1577a; bone ash SRM-1400), acquired from the National Instit ute of Standards and Technology (NIST; Gaithersburg, MD). For a given sample run, if the NBS standards re sulted in values outside the acceptable range for that reference material, data for that element was not accepted; the instrument was recalibrated and the analysis run again. Calibration standard curves were recalibrate d every 25 samples with QC checks. Spiked recoveries were within 10 percent. Statistical Analysis The experiment was a completely randomi zed design. Plasma, BW, and radiograph data were analyzed as a factorial with repeated measures over time and a variance component with respect to time using PROC MIXED in SAS (SAS for Windows v8.1; SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC). 26

PAGE 27

Post hoc testing was done. The alpha level us ed was 0.05 with Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons when necessary. Results and Discussion Lambs receiving the highest level of WTR (T4) had lower (P<0.05) feed intakes beginning on wk 6. This is likely due, in part, to the fact that lambs were fed individually for the first time when placed in metabolism crates from wk 4 to wk 6. Animals may have suffered separation anxiety as an average decrease in feed intake occu rred with all lambs, not just those receiving Al. Likewise, during the second time sheep were placed in metabolism crates (wk 10 to wk 12), feed intake decreased, although not as much as the first time. Body weights increased in all treatments from d 0 to 98 (Table 2). Lambs receiving the high WTR diet (T4) had lower body weights (P<0.05) then lambs on T1, T3, and T5 on d 84 and lower body weights than those on all treatments excep t the low WTR (T2) on d 96 (P<0.05). The results are likely due to the fact that an imals in the high WTR tr eatment (T4) consumed consistently less feed then othe r groups from week 6 through th e end of the trial (Table 3). Apparent absorption of Al vari ed from -21.7 to 8.6 in the first metabolism trial and -14.3 to 3.4 in the second trial (data not shown), suggesting that animals have a low ability to absorb Al. There were no treatment differences (P >0.05) in apparent absorption of Al. There were treatment differences (P<0.05) in ap parent absorption of P (Figures 1 and 2). The first collection period began on d 34 (Fig. 1) All lambs receiving Al in their diet had decreased P absorption compared to control animals, lambs fed AlCl3 without added P supplementation had the lowest (P<0.05) appare nt P absorption, -17.7 %. Although there were no statistical differences (P>0.05) with time, lambs without added P had numerically lower apparent P absorption for the second collecti on. The second collection period began on d 70 (Fig. 2). Lambs receiving AlCl3 (T5) and those receiving 1.2 % Al as WTR without added P 27

PAGE 28

(T4) had negative P absorption, 20.9 % and -2.5 % respectively, and were not different (P>0.05) from one another. Van Alstyne et al. (2007) f ound that a similar Al-based WTR did not decrease P absorption at 0.80 % dietary Al when P was supp lied at 0.25 %, but apparent P absorption was -12.9 % when Al was supplied as AlCl3. The present data suggest th at dietary Al concentrations greater than or equal to 0.3 %, regardless of source, greatly reduce the ability of lambs to absorb P when P is limited. Others have reported the detrimental effects of Al as AlCl3 on P absorption even when P is not limited in the diet (V aldivia et al., 1982; Van Alstyne et al., 2007). Plasma concentrations of Al, Ca, Cu, Fe, Mg or Zn were not different (P>0.05) at any collection date (data not shown). However, pl asma P concentration wa s affected by treatment (Table 4). There were no differences in the d 0 samples, but at d 28 plasma P concentrations were lower (P<0.05) for the highest WTR treatment (T4) than for the control and added P diets (T1, T3, and T6). Also, plasma concentrations for both the high and low WTR treatments (T2 and T4) were below the critical level for plasma P, 45 g/mL, by d 28 (McDowell and Arthington, 2005). By d 56, the only diet that was not different (P>0.05) from T1 (the control) was T3 (AlCl3 + P). All other treatments resulted in a decline in plasma P concentrations with T2 and T4 being the lowest (the WTR treatment s with out added P); the same treatments also resulted in the lowest plasma P concentration on d 84. Animals in the control treatment (T1) had higher (P<0.05) plasma P concentrations then al l other animals on d 98. Plasma P concentrations in the AlCl3 with added P treatment (T3) were not different (P>0.05) from T5 and T6, which were not different from T2. The high WTR treatment (T4) again resulted in the lowest plasma P concentration. Aluminum appear ed to affect the limited P in the diet, reducing P absorption. Animals on T4 also consumed only half of the daily feed provided which would affect total P intake. The two treatments with the highest WT R levels (T6 and T4) contained the same dietary 28

PAGE 29

concentration of Al, but T6 had added P in the fo rm of dicalcium phosphate (Table 1). While the added P decreases the effects of the WTR on plas ma P concentration, it does not completely alleviate the decrease, which can be seen when co mpared to the plasma P concentration of lambs fed no added Al (T1). While plasma P concentrations were affected by concentrations of dietary Al and P, the tissue P concentrations were not. There were no differences (P>0.05) in P concentrations in the heart, kidney, liver, or muscle (Tab le 5), and tissue P concentrations were relatively close to the normal ranges (Miles et al., 2001). The tissue microelements concentrations exhibi ted few treatment differences (Table 6). The liver Cu concentrations were higher (P<0.05) in T3 then in T1 and T6 animals, but not different (P>0.05) from T2, T4, or T5 animals. The concentration of Al does not seem to be a factor in these Cu differences, as liver Cu concentrations in cont rol (T1) and treatments with the highest concentration of Al (T4 and T6) were not different (P> 0.05). Likewise, source of Al does not seem to be a factor as WTR (T2) and AlCl3 (T5) with the same Al concentrations had similar liver Cu concentrations (P>0.05). The cause for variati on in liver Cu concentration in this study is unknown. Liver Fe concentrations we re higher (P<0.05) in the high WTR treatment (T4) then in all other treatments. This is likely due to the high concentration of Fe in the WTR (Table 1). Liver Mn varied widely, with T3 re sulting in concentrations lower (P<0.05) than in T2, T5, and T6. Aluminum as AlCl3, in combination with a low P diet, affects the concentration of Mn in the liver (Neathery et al., 1990). Bone samples were collected at slaughter to determine the effect of dietary P and Al on bone minerals on a both a fresh and an ash basis. On a per unit volume basis (mg/cm3, fresh basis), all mineral concentrati ons, except Al, were affected by treatment (Table 7). Sheep 29

PAGE 30

receiving the high WTR without added P (T4) had lower (P<0.05) bone Ca, P, and Mg concentrations than sheep from all other treat ments, except for those receiving the lower WTR treatment (T2). Lambs on T2 (low WTR) di d not have different (P>0.05) Ca, P, or Mg concentrations than the control or AlCl3 lambs. Additional P suppl ementation appeared to counteract BMC loss caused by the high levels of Al supplied as WTR, as T6 had higher (P<0.05) BMC then T4. On an ash basis, only bone Ca concentration was affected by treatment. Sheep receiving high dietary WTR (T4) had the highest level of Ca. Magnesium, Al and P concentrations (ash basis) were not affected by treatment (P>0.05) and were within the normal range (Miles et al., 2001; McDo well and Arthington, 2005). Lite rature suggests that bone mineral status of ruminants is more sensitiv e when expressed on a fresh basis (Little, 1972; Williams et al., 1990). In agreement, the present experiment showed differences in Ca, P, and Mg when measured on a fresh basis (mg/cm3) but only for Ca when measured on an ash basis. Although not significant (P> 0.05) bone density (g/cm3) and ash (%) were lowest for lambs receiving the highest level of WTR without added P (T4). Radiographs taken on d 98 were compared to specific gravity (fresh basis) to determine if radiograph BMC (mm Al) could be correlated to the per unit volume (g/cm3, fresh basis) and a significant (P<0.05), but weak, correlation was f ound (r = 0.59). There were also treatment differences (P<0.05) in BMC (mm Al basis) but only for d 98 (Table 8). The control diet (T1) was the least affected and was different (P<0.05) from the highest level of WTR only. Over time, the only animals that did not increase (P>0 .05) BMC from d 0 to 98 were the animals on the highest treatment of WTR (T4). While the hi gh concentration of dietary Al likely caused the lower BMC, this is confounded by the fact that these animals were consuming just over half as much P as those on the other 5 treatments. 30

PAGE 31

Conclusions Animals receiving inadequate P can be detrimentally impacted by increased dietary Al concentrations, but P supplementation can counter act the negative Al effects. Lambs consuming 10% of their DM intake as WTR (total Al=1.2%) and no supplemental P had lower performance and a decreased apparent P absorption. However, this level of dietary Al as WTR is greater than that which would be expected to occur when WT R is applied to land to decrease P runoff. A 2.5% by weight application of WTR approximates 25% surface coverage of a ha, and is sufficient to control P losses to the environment (OConnor et al., 2002; Van Alstyne et al., 2007). Animals consuming 10% of their diets as soil amended with 25% WTR coverage per ha as their grazing diet would have a WTR intake of about 2.5%. This approximates consumption per lamb of 0.31% Al as WTR if the WTR contains ~11.1% Al. In this study, lambs consuming the low WTR diet (0.30% Al) exhibited no detrim ental effects from the Al, even though lambs received little P (0.18%). Negative apparent P absorption was seen in lambs consuming the same concentration of Al as AlCl3, which confirms the greater bioavailability of Al from soluble sources (e.g. AlCl3) than from poorly soluble sources li ke WTR (Van Alstyne et al., 2007). Two experiments by Madison et al. (2007) applied the same WTR used in this experiment on pasture for grazing cattle. Over the course of 2 yr, 75.8 metric tonnes/ ha WTR was applied to the pastures with no effects on ca ttle performance. Results of the cattle experiments, and the present sheep experiment, demonstrate that WTR can be applied to pastures of grazing ruminants in sufficient quantities to decr ease P runoff, with no detrimental effects to the animal. 31

PAGE 32

CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Planet Earth has a staggering 72% of its su rface covered by water. All life on earth literally exists because of the abundance of wa ter. However, water pollution is one of the leading environmental concerns in the world. While, point source pollution can be closely monitored and regulated, much more pollution is contributed to the environment through nonpoint sources. Non-point source pollution knows no definite beginni ngs and therefore is difficult, if not nearly impossible, to regulate. As a developed countr y, the United States has arranged organizations and policie s to curtail pollution in our waterways, for example, the clean water act or CWA. These polic ies help, but in no way eliminate our water pollution problems. Of primary concern, for obvious reasons, are the fresh water supplies. The leading nutrient causing the fresh water pollution crisis is phosphoru s (P). Phosphorus is readily applied to the land via fertilizers on lawns, golf courses and crop s at an exorbitant rate and many times above what is necessary for optimal growth. Much of this P ends up suppl ying the non-point source pollution that finds its way to lakes, streams, a nd rivers. The problem with this P abundance is that it can cause eutrophication of the water. When this occurs massive algal blooms deprive aquatic wildlife of oxygen and de secrate the beauty and availa bility of our fresh waters. To begin addressing this issue of water pollution, best manage ment practices (BMPs) have been established. These are guidelines that al low land managers to ev aluate their use of fertilizers and establish a plan to better contro l nutrient inputs. One of the BMPs that is suggested is a chemical applicati on to the land to tie up P. For ex ample, aluminum (Al) has been an excellent binding agent to decrease P runo ff and P concentrations in waterways. Aluminum chloride (AlCl3) is one form of the mineral that has been used in the past, but has undergone some scrutiny. Criticism comes for AlCl3 because it is a highly bioavailable 32

PAGE 33

source of Al and as such may be toxic to animal populations. Generally, Al toxicity is observed as a P deficiency and animals go off feed and therefore decrease their gains. For this reason, an alternative to AlCl3 land applications was sought. A product known as Al-based water treatment residuals (WTR) has al so been shown to decrease environmental P pollution to our waterways by binding read ily with P in the soil, much like AlCl3. However, unlike AlCl3, WTR Al is thought to be less bioavailable. A study was conducted as part of an ongoing hypot hesis at the University of Florida to evaluate a different source of WTR than one used in a previous experiment and to have a diet with a lower level of P, comparable to ma ny pastures low in P, and not exceeding sheep requirements. A 100 d trial with 50 sheep was conducted to dete rmine if the effects of Al as WTR would be less detrimental to animal growth, feed in take, plasma P levels, bone mineral content ( BMC ), and apparent P absorpti on then Al as AlCl3. Lambs were randomly assigned to one of six dietary treatments: 1) control (10% sand, T1 ), 2) low WTR (2.5% WTR and 7.5% sand, T2 ), 3) AlCl3 with added P (1% AlCl3, 9 % sand, and 0.4% P, T3 ), 4) high WTR (10% WTR, T4 ), 5) AlCl3 (1% AlCl3 and 9 % sand, T5 ), and 6) high WTR with added P (10% WTR and 0.4% P, T6 ). The WTR contained 11.1 % Al, on a dry basis. Thus, the total Al con centrations of the diets were 0.037(T1), 0.30(T2), 0.31(T3), 1.2(T4), 0.31(T5), and 1.2 % (T6) on a DM basis. Body weights, intakes, and gains were compared among the tr eatments. Plasma samples and weights were collected every 28 d. Fecal colle ction to determine P apparent absorption occurred between d 34 and 41 and again between d 70 and 77, with each collection preceded by a 3 d adjustment period in metabolism crates. Samples of brain, liver, ki dney, heart, and bone were collected for mineral analyses at the conclusion of the experiment. 33

PAGE 34

Body weights increased in all treatments from d 0 to d 98 (Table 2). Lambs receiving high WTR diet (T4), however, had lower body weights (P<0.05) then lambs on T1, T3, and T5 on d 84 and lower body weights than those on all tr eatments except the low WTR (T2) on d 96 (P<0.05). Plasma P concentrations were affected by trea tment. There were no differences in the d 0 samples, but at d 28 plasma P concentrations were lower (P<0.05) for the highest WTR treatment without added P (T4) than for th e control and added P diets (T1, T3, and T6). By d 56, the only diet that was not differe nt (P>0.05) from T1 (the control) was T3 (AlCl3 + P). All other treatments resulted in a decline in plasma P conc entrations with T2 and T4 being the lowest (the WTR treatments with out added P); the treatments also resulted in the lowest plasma P concentration on d 84. Animals in the control treatment (T1) had higher (P<0.05) plasma P concentrations then all other animals on d 98. The high WTR treatment (T 4) again resulted in the lowest plasma P concentration. There were no differences (P>0.05) in P concen trations in the hear t, kidney, liver, or muscle and the P concentrations were relativ ely close to the normal ranges. The tissue microelements concentrations exhi bited few treatment differences. The liver Cu concentrations were higher (P<0.05) in T3 then in T1 and T6 an imals, but not different (P>0.05) from T2, T4, or T5 animals. Liver Fe concentrations were hi gher (P<0.05) in the high WTR treatment (T4) then in all other treatments. This is likely due to th e high concentration of Fe in the WTR. Liver Mn varied widely, with T3 resulting in concentratio ns lower (P<0.05) than in T2, T5, and T6. This study did not find that Al significantly accumulated in the brain. There were treatment differences (P<0.05) in ap parent absorption of P. The first collection period began on d 34 (Fig. 1). All lambs receiving Al in their diet had decreased P absorption 34

PAGE 35

compared to control animals, lambs fed AlCl3 without added P supplementation had the highest negative (P<0.05) apparent P absorption, -17.7 %. The second collection period began on d 70 (Fig. 2). Lambs receiving AlCl3 (T5) and those receiving 1.2 % Al as WTR without added P (T4) had negative P absorption, 20.9 % and -2.5 % respectively, and were not different (P>0.05) from one another. The negative apparent P absorption, seen in lambs consuming the same concentration of Al as AlCl3, confirms the greater bioavailability of Al from soluble sources (e.g. AlCl3) than from poorly soluble sources like WTR. On a per unit volume basis (mg/cm3, fresh basis), all bone mine ral concentrations, except Al, were affected by treatment. Sheep receiv ing the high WTR without added P (T4) had lower (P<0.05) bone Ca, P, and Mg concentrations th an sheep from all other treatments, except for those receiving the lower WTR treatment (T2). La mbs on T2 (low WTR) did not have different (P>0.05) Ca, P, or Mg concentrations than the control or AlCl3 lambs. Additional P supplementation appeared to counteract BMC loss caused by the high levels of Al supplied as WTR, as T6 had higher (P<0.05) BMC then T4. On an ash basis, only bone Ca concentration was affected by treatment. Sheep receiving high dietary WTR (T4) had the highest level of bone Ca. Magnesium, Al and P concentr ations (ash basis) were not affected by treatment (P>0.05). This research agrees with literat ure that suggests that bone minera l status of ruminants is more sensitive when expressed on a fresh basis. While lambs on the high WTR with no additional P (T4) were most affected by treatment (lower gains, decreased intake, lower BMC etc. ), the treatment represented a WTR rate well above that which would be necessary to control P pollution to the environment. Lambs receiving the lower level of WTR were really a better representation of what grazing ruminants would consume in WTR if it were applied to the land to reduce P runoff. These lambs exhibited no 35

PAGE 36

detrimental effects from the Al as WTR (0.30% Al), even though they re ceived little P (0.18%). Therefore, based on the data collected this rese arch demonstrates that WTR can be applied to pastures of grazing ruminants in sufficient quantities to decrease P runoff, with no detrimental effects to the animal. 36

PAGE 37

Table 1.1 Diet composition (as-fed) and mineral analyses of treatments Treatments6 Ingredient (%, as fed) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ground corn 27.9 27.9 27.5 27.9 27.9 27.5 Cottonseed hulls 18.9 18.9 18.6 18.9 18.9 18.6 Corn starch 25.1 25.1 24.8 25.1 25.1 24.8 Molasses1 3.6 3.6 3.55 3.6 3.6 3.55 Soybean meal 2.7 2.7 2.66 2.7 2.7 2.66 Corn oil 3.6 3.6 3.55 3.6 3.6 3.55 Alfalfa meal 2.7 2.7 2.66 2.7 2.7 2.66 Sand2 10 7.5 9 9 Water treatment residual3 2.5 10 10 Aluminum chloride 1 1 Dicalcium phosphate 1.3 1.3 Blood meal 1.8 1.8 1.77 1.8 1.8 1.77 Urea 1.35 1.35 1.33 1.35 1.35 1.33 Mineral-Vitamin Premix4 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.94 Limestone 0.9 0.9 0.89 0.9 0.9 0.89 Ammonium Chloride 0.45 0.45 0.44 0.45 0.45 0.44 Chloratetracycline 0.045 0.045 0.044 0.045 0.045 0.044 Analyses5 Ca (%) 0.62 0.63 0.9 0.71 0.59 1 K (%) 0.5 0.54 0.49 0.58 0.52 0.55 Mg (%) 0.092 0.096 0.098 0.1 0.092 0.1 Na (%) 0.42 0.39 0.38 0.41 0.37 0.39 P (%) 0.18 0.18 0.34 0.19 0.14 0.34 Al (%) 0.037 0.3 0.31 1.2 0.31 1.2 Cu (mg/kg) 7.2 14.3 17.4 27.2 11.2 28.5 Fe (mg/kg) 535 356 349 528 217 579 Mn (mg/kg) 41.3 39.1 35.1 35.3 34.2 34.9 Zn (mg/kg) 73.9 83.8 87.1 98.5 82.4 94.1 1 Suga-Lik 16% Slurry with 5% Catfish oil: 74% DM, 16% CP, 5% CF, and 35% total sugar. 2 Sand contained 0.1% Al, 0.026% Fe, and 0.002% P on a dry basis. 3 Water treatment residual contained 11.2% Al, 0.38% Fe, and 0.28% P on a dry basis. 4 Contained 1 ppm Co (as carbonate ), 5 ppm Cu (as oxide), 0.7ppm I (as iodate), 35 ppm Fe (as carbonate and oxide), 25 ppm Mn (as oxide), 0.2 ppm Se (as sodium selenite), 0.2 ppm S (as flowers of sulfur), 75 ppm Zn (as oxide), Vitamin A at 5000 IU/kg, Vitamin D at 500 IU/kg, and Vitamin E at 15 IU/kg. 5 Dry matter basis: as % of the di et or mg of element/kg of diet. 6 Treatments are as follows: 1) contro l (n=9), 2) low WTR (n=8), 3) AlCl3+P (n=7), 4) high WTR (n=9), 5) AlCl3 (n=9), and 6) high WTR+P (n=8). 37

PAGE 38

Table 2. Effects of dietary Al and P on body weight of feeder lambs (kg)1 Treatment2 1 2 3 4 5 6 Day 0 28.8 25.8 28.9 27.0 28.6 27.0 28 32.2 29.5 33.7 27.3 31.5 31.3 56 36.1 31.8 36.2 28.4 34.7 33.9 84 39.9a 35.0ab 40.2a 28.6b 38.8a 36.8ab 98 42.2a 36.7ab 41.1a 29.2b 40.4a 37.8a 1 Means within rows lacking common superscript differ (P<0.05); adjusted for multiple comparisons. 2 Treatments are as follows: 1) contro l (n=9), 2) low WTR (n=8), 3) AlCl3+P (n=7), 4) high WTR (n=9), 5) AlCl3 (n=9), and 6) high WTR+P (n=8). 38

PAGE 39

Table 3. Effect of dietary Al and P on daily feed intake (g/lamb) 1,2,3 Treatment4 Week 1 2 3 45 5 6 4 1130 1130 1120 1070 1120 1090 6 1090 1110 1100 626 1090 1060 8 1130 1120 1110 885 1120 1130 10 1130 1130 1100 736 1130 1130 12 1130 1120 1070 682 1120 1120 14 1130 1130 1130 625 1130 1130 1 Feed was increased after 1 week on trial to allow for optimum growth. 2 Al daily intakes (g/l amb): T1=0.41, T2=3.4, T3=3.4, T4=9.2, T5=3.3, and T6=13.3. 3 P daily intakes (g/lamb): T1=2.0, T2=2.0, T3=3.8, T4=1.5, T5=1.5, and T6=3.8. 4 Treatments are as follows: 1) contro l (n=9), 2) low WTR (n=8), 3) AlCl3+P (n=7), 4) high WTR (n=9), 5) AlCl3 (n=9), and 6) high WTR+P (n=8). 5 After wk 4, lambs on T4 had lower (P<0.05) intakes. 39

PAGE 40

Table 4. Effects of dietary Al a nd P on plasma P concentration ( g/mL) 1 Treatment2 1 2 3 4 5 6 Day 0 52.4 49.8 54.6 51.2 56.1 56.2 28 65.4a 33.8bc 70.8a 20.4c 33.8bc 43.0b 56 72.2a 39.3bc 76.4a 21.6c 50.8b 44.5b 84 86.1a 30.9c 81.5a 17.7c 58.3b 78.4ab 98 87.8a 39.4c 67.9ab 17.9d 58.4bc 53.8bc 1 Means within rows lacking common superscript differ (P<0.05); adjusted for multiple comparisons. 2 Treatments are as follows: 1) contro l (n=9), 2) low WTR (n=8), 3) AlCl3+P (n=7), 4) high WTR (n=9), 5) AlCl3 (n=9), and 6) high WTR+P (n=8). 40

PAGE 41

Table 5. Effects of dietary Al and P on soft tissue P concentration (% DM basis) 1 Treatment2 1 2 3 4 5 6 S.E. Heart 0.99 0.78 0.80 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.04 Kidney 0.95 0.90 0.89 0.82 0.98 0.83 0.03 Liver 0.74 0.90 0.92 0.78 0.86 0.81 0.02 Muscle 0.66 0.55 0.64 0.61 0.64 0.63 0.01 1 No differences (P>0.05) among treatments. 2 Treatments are as follows: 1) contro l (n=9), 2) low WTR (n=8), 3) AlCl3+P (n=7), 4) high WTR (n=9), 5) AlCl3 (n=9), and 6) high WTR+P (n=8). 41

PAGE 42

Table 6. Effects of dietary Al and P on soft tissue mi croelement concentra tion (mg/kg, DM basis) 1 Treatment2 1 2 3 4 5 6 S.E. Al Brain 700 805 613 664 795 828 25.2 Heart 217 171 173 154 181 224 9.8 Kidney 130 106 92 141 121 114 5.5 Liver 543 608 535 596 686 662 17.6 Muscle 120 86 95 105 141 111 6.9 Cu Heart 21 19 19 18 21 20 0.68 Kidney 33 39 33 39 43 34 1.4 Liver 361bc 436abc 558a 454abc 514ab 336c 19.2 Muscle 10 10 12 11 10 12 0.03 Fe Heart 185 165 179 183 171 167 7.7 Kidney 153 183 385 257 200 171 33.7 Liver 165b 173b 164b 357a 164b 172b 11.5 Muscle 96 86 103 109 126 96 5.3 Mn Liver 10bc 11ab 8c 10abc 16ab 12a 0.3 1 Means within rows lacking common superscript differ (P<0.05); adjusted for multiple comparisons. 2 Treatments are as follows: 1) contro l (n=9), 2) low WTR (n=8), 3) AlCl3+P (n=7), 4) high WTR (n=9), 5) AlCl3 (n=9), and 6) high WTR+P (n=8). 42

PAGE 43

Table 7. Effects of dietary Al and P on bone mineral concentration1 Treatment2 1 2 3 4 5 6 S.E. Density (g/cm3) 1.87 1.85 1.88 1.81 1.88 1.85 0.01 Ca (mg/cm3) 468a 392ab 463a 316b 429a 446a 12.1 P (mg/cm3) 235a 196abc 228ab 158c 208ab 209ab 6.1 Mg (mg/cm3) 7.6a 6.1ab 7.3a 5.0b 6.5a 6.7a 0.18 Al ( g/cm3) 1.63 2.53 2.17 1.49 1.6 1.88 0.13 Ash (%) 69.1ab 68.3ab 69.4a 68.0b 69.3ab 69.0ab 0.14 Ca (%) 32.1b 31.8b 30.8b 34.1a 31.9b 32.5ab 0.23 P (%) 16.6 14.4 16.3 16.1 15.6 16.7 0.31 Mg (%) 0.53 0.49 0.48 0.53 0.48 0.49 0.01 Al (mg/kg) 1.2 2.1 1.4 1.6 1.2 1.5 0.11 1 Means within rows lacking common superscript differ (P<0.05); adjusted for multiple comparisons. 2 Treatments are as follows: 1) contro l (n=9), 2) low WTR (n=8), 3) AlCl3+P (n=7), 4) high WTR (n=8), 5) AlCl3 (n=9), and 6) high WTR+P (n=8). 43

PAGE 44

Table 8. Effects of dietary Al and P on radiograph BMC over time (mm Al) 1 Treatment2 1 2 3 4 5 6 d 0 2.77 3.04 3.24 2.99 2.80 2.88 d 48 4.00 3.25 4.28 3.14 3.72 3.79 d 98 6.04a 4.78ab 5.52a 3.79b 5.21ab 5.11ab 1 Means within rows lacking common superscript differ (P<0.05); adjusted for multiple comparisons. 2 Treatments are as follows: 1) control (n=9), 2) low WTR (n=8), 3) AlCl3+P (n=7), 4) high WTR (n=8), 5) AlCl3 (n=9), and 6) high WTR+P (n=8). 44

PAGE 45

55.8a 30.3b 13.8b 8.2b -17.7c 11.9b -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60% apparent P absorption T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 Fig. 1. Effects of dietary Al and P on apparent P absorption, starte d on d 34 with a 7 d collection. Dietary treatments were as follows: 1) c ontrol (n=7), 2) low WTR (n=7), 3) AlCl3+P (n=7), 4) high WTR (n=7), 5) AlCl3 (n=7), and 6) high WTR +P (n=7). T2, T3, and T5 were formulated to contain 0.30 % Al, T4 and T6 contained 1.2 % Al. The SE for treatments is 8.72. a,b,cMeans lacking a common superscr ipt differ (P<0.05); adjusted for multiple comparison. 45

PAGE 46

49.6a 34.7ab 16.8bc -2.5cd -20.9d 7.9c -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60% apparent P absorption T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 Fig. 2. Effects of dietary Al and P on apparent P absorption, starte d on d 70 with a 7 d collection. Dietary treatments were as follows: 1) c ontrol (n=7), 2) low WTR (n=7), 3) AlCl3+P (n=7), 4) high WTR (n=7), 5) AlCl3 (n=7), and 6) high WTR +P (n=7). T2, T3, and T5 were formulated to contain 0.30 % Al, T4 and T6 contained 1.2 % Al. The SE for treatments is 8.72. a,b,c,dMeans lacking a common superscript differ (P<0.05); adjusted for multiple comparison. 46

PAGE 47

APPENDIX Table 9. Manatee County Al-WTR Analysis collected Sept. 2006 Oxalate extractable P Fe Al mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg 2922 3963 111761 2972 4046 119451 2591 3522 105005 average 2828 3844 112072 SE 119 163 4173 Total P Fe Al mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg 2967 4096 133178 3021 4328 131503 3398 4881 142135 average 3129 4435 135605 SE 135 233 3300 47

PAGE 48

Table 10. Mineral composition of sand Element Average SE mg/kg P 18.53 0.76 Al 1000.36 33.53 Fe 260.01 5.94 Ca 125.05 28.04 Mg 55.27 5.13 Cu 1.23 0.06 Na 44.37 0.55 Mn 1.88 0.13 Co 1.28 0.17 Mo 0.60 0.13 48

PAGE 49

Table 11. Diet DM, OM and IVOMD analysis Sample1 %DM %OM(DM) %IVOMD Basal 88.0 95.1 76.4 1 84.2 83.3 78.7 2 87.2 84.4 80.1 3 86.6 83.6 78.5 4 85.4 88.7 80 5 86.2 85.8 76.5 6 85.5 88.2 72.7 1 Basal diet has no additives, samples as follows: Treatments are as follows: 1) control (n=9), 2) low WTR (n=8), 3) AlCl3+P (n=7), 4) high WTR (n=8), 5) AlCl3 (n=9), and 6) high WTR+P (n=8) 49

PAGE 50

LITERATURE CITED Agyin-Birikorang, S., OConnor, G.A., 2007. Labili ty of drinking water treatment residuals immobilized phosphorus: Aging and pH e ffects. J. Environ. Qual. 36, 1076-1085. Allen, V.G., 1984. Influence of dietary aluminum on nutrient utilization in ruminants. J. Anim. Sci. 59, 836-844. Brady, N.C., Weil, R.R., 2002. The Nature and Properties of Soil, 13th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Carpenter, S.R., Caraco, N.F., Correll, D.L., Howarth, R.W., Sharpley, A.N., Smith, V.H., 1998. Nonpoint source pollution of surface waters w ith P and N. Ecological Applications 8, 559. Cerosaletti, P.E., Fox, D.G., Chase, L.E., 2004. Phosphorus reduction th rough precision feeding of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 87, 2314-2323. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 2003. The Chesapeake Bays Dead Zone. Online: < http://www.cbf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resources_facts_deadzon e> (Accessed: 13 February, 2008) Correl, D.L., 1998. The role of P in the eutrophic ation of receiving waters: A review. J. Environ. Qual. 27, 261-266. Dayton, E.A., Basta, N.T., 2005a. A method for determining the phospho rus sorption capacity and amporphous aluminum of aluminum-based water treatment residuals. J. Environ. Qual. 34, 1112-1118. Dayton, E.A., Basta, N.T., 2005b. Use of water treatment residuals as a potential best management practice to reduce phosphorus index scores. J. Environ. Qual. 34, 21122117. Dayton, E.A., Basta, N.T., Jakober, C.A., Hattey, J.A., 2003. Using treatment residuals to reduce phosphorus in agricultural runoff. Am Water Works Assoc. J. 95, 151-159. Elliott, H.A., OConnor, G.A., Lu, P., Briton, S., 2002. Influence of water treatment residuals on phosphorus solubility and leachi ng. J. Environ. Qual. 31, 1362-1369. Field, A.C., Purves, D., 1964. The intake of soil by grazing sheep. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 23, 24-25. Fredericks, K.D, 1995. Americas Water Supply: Status and Prospects for the Future. Consequences 1(1). < http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUE NCES/spring95/Water.html > (Accessed: 20 November, 2007) Golovan, S.P., Meidinger, R.G., Ajakaiye, A., Cottrill, M., Wiederkehr, M.Z., Barney, D.J., Plante, C., Pollard, J.W., Fan, M.Z., Hayes, M. A., Laursen, J., Hjorth, J.P., Hacker, R.R., 50

PAGE 51

Phillips, J.P., Forsberg, C.W., 2001. Pigs expressing phytase produce low-phosphorus manure. Nature Biotechnol. 19, 741-745. Harper, D., 1992. Eutrophication of Freshwater. Principles, Probl ems, and Restoration. Chapman and Hall, New York, NY. Harris, W.D., Popat, P., 1954. Determination of phosphorus content of lipids. Amer. Oil Chem. Soc. J. 31, 124-126. Healy, W.B., 1968. Ingestion of soil by dairy cows. New Zeal and J. Agric. Res. 11, 487-490. Jansen, S., Broadley, M.R., Robbrecht, E., Sm ets, E., 2002. Aluminum hyperaccumulation in angiosperms: A review of its phyloge netic significance. Bot. Rev. 68, 235-269. Kobori, I., Glantz, M.H., 1998. Central Eurasian Wa ter Crisis. United Nations University Press, New York, NY. Little, D.A ., 1972. Bone biopsy in cattle and sheep for studies of phosphorus status Aust. Vet. J. 48, 668-670. Lutz, E. (ed.), 1998. Agriculture and the Envi ronment: Perspectives on Sustainable Rural Development. World Bank Pub lications, Washington D.C. Madison, R.K., McDowell, L.R., OConnor, G.A., Wilkinson, N.S., Davis, P.A., Adesogan, A., Felix, T.L., Brennan, M., 2007. Effects of al uminum from water treatment residual applications to pastures on mineral status of grazing cattle and mine ral concentrations of forages. Comm. in Soil Sci. and Plant Anal. (submitted) Makris, K.C., OConnor, G.A., Harris, W.G., Obreza, T.A., 2005. Relative efficacy of a drinking-water treatment resi dual and alum in reducing phosphorus release from poultry litter. Comm. in Soil Sci. and Plant Anal. 36, 2657-2675. Makris, K.C., Harris, W.G., OConnor, G.A., Ob reza, T.A., Elliott, H.A, 2005. Physiochemical properties related to long-term phosphorus retention by drinking-water treatment residuals. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39, 4280-4289. Mann R.A., Roberts, R.S., 2000. Smiths and Roberts Business Law. 11th Ed. West Legal Studies in Business. Thompson Learning, Cincinnati,OH. McDowell, L.R., 2003. Minerals in Animal a nd Human Nutrition, Second Edition, Elsevier, Amsterdam. McDowell, L.R., Arthington, John D., 2005. Mine rals for Grazing Ruminants in Tropical Regions, Fourth Edition Bull. Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 51

PAGE 52

Miles, P.H., Wilkinson, N.S., McDowell, L.R., 2001. Analysis of Minerals for Animal Nutrition Research, Third Edition, Department of An imal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Moore, P.A., Jr., Daniels, T.C., Edward s, D.R., 1999. Reducing phosphorus runoff and improving poultry production with alum. Poultry Sci. 78, 692-698. Moore, P.A., Jr., Daniels, T.C., Edwards, D.R., 2000. Reducing phosphorus runoff and inhibiting ammonia loss from poultry manure with aluminum sulfate. J. Environ. Qual. 29, 37-49. Moore, P.A., Jr., Miller, D.M., 1994. Decreasi ng phosphorus solubility in poultry litter with aluminum, calcium, and iron amendments. J. Environ. Qual. 23, 325-330. Neathery, M.W., Crowe, N.A., Miller, W.J., Crowe, C.T., Varnadoe, J.L., Blackmon, D.M., 1990. Influence of dietary aluminum and phosphor us on zinc metabolism in dairy calves. J. Anim. Sci. 68, 4326-4333. NRC (National Research Council), 1985. Nutrient Requirements of Sheep. Sixth Rev. Edition, Natl. Acad. Sci., Washington, DC. Novak, J., Szogi, A., Watts, D., Basta, N., Dayton, E., Caesar, T., 2006. Use of water treatment residuals as a best management practice to bind P in upland and wetland ecosystems. In: Proceedings of the World C ongress of Soil Science, July 9-15, Philadelphia, PA. p. 528. Novak, J., Szogi, A., Watts, D., Busscher, W., 2007. Water treatment residuals amended soils release Mn, Na, S and C. Soil Sci. 172, 992-1000. Novak, J.M., Watts, D.W., 2005. An alum-based wa ter treatment residual can reduce extractable phosphorus concentration in three phosphorus-enr iched coastal plains soils. J. Environ. Qual. 34, 1820-1827. OConnor, G.A., Elliott, H.A., Lu, P., 2002. Character izing water treatment residuals P retention. Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Florida Proc. 61, 67-73. Parry, R., 1998. Agricultural phosphorus and wate r quality: A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency perspective. J. Environ. Qual. 27, 258-261. Penn, C.J., Bryant, R.B., 2006. Application of P so rbing materials to streamside cattle loafing areas. J. of Soil and Water Cons. 61, 303-311. Phillips, I.R., 1998. Use of soil amendments to reduce nitrogen, phosphor us and heavy metal availability. Soil and Sedi ment Contamination. 7, 191-212. Powers, W.J., 2003. Keeping science in environmental regulations: The role of the animal scientist. J. Dairy Sci. 86, 1045-1051. 52

PAGE 53

Rosa, V., Henry, P.R., Ammerman, C.B., 1982. Interrelationship of dietary phosphorus, aluminum and iron on performance and tissue mineral composition in lambs. J. Anim. Sci. 55, 1231-1240. Sharpley, A., Foy, B., Withers, P., 2000. Practical and innovative measures for the control of agricultural P losses to water: An overview. J. Environ. Qual. 29, 1-9. Sims, J.T., Simard, R.R., Joern, B.C., 1998. P hosphorus Loss in Agriculture: Historical Perspective and Current Resear ch. J. Environ. Qual. 27, 277-293. Smith, D.R., Moore, P.A., Griffis, C.L., Dani els, T.C., Edwards, D.R., Boothe, D.L., 2001. Effects of alum and aluminum chloride on phosphorus runoff from swine manure. J. Environ. Qual. 30, 992-998. Stevens, G., Dunn, D., Phipps, B., 2001. How to diagnose soil acidity and alkalinity problems in crops: A comparison of soil pH test kits. J. Exten. vol. 39. < http://www.joe.org/joe/2001august/tt3.html > (Accessed:17 January, 2008) Tech Brief, 1998. Water treatment plant resi duals management. National Drinking Water Clearinghouse p. 1-4. < http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/ndwc/ndwc_tb_available.htm > (Accessed: 20 January 2008) Turner, E.R., Rabalais, N.N., 1994. Coastal eutrophication near the Miss issippi river delta. Nature 388, 619-621. Valdivia, R., 1977. Effect of dietary aluminum on phosphorus by ruminants. PhD dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Valdivia, R., Ammerman, C.B., Henry, P.R., Feas ter, J.P., Wilcox, C.J., 1982. Effect of dietary aluminum and phosphorus on performance, phosphorus utilization and tissue mineral composition in sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 55, 402-410. Valdivia, R., Ammerman, C.B., Wilcox, C.J., He nry, P.R., 1978. Effect of dietary aluminum on animal performance and tissue mineral levels in growing steers. J. Anim. Sci. 47, 13511360. Van Alstyne, R., McDowell, L.R., Davis, P.A ., Wilkinson, N.S., OConnor, G.A., 2007. Effects of an aluminum-water treatment residual on performance and mineral status of feeder lambs. Small Ruminant Research 73, 77-86. Van Alstyne, R., McDowell, L.R., Davis, P.A ., Wilkinson, N.S., Warren, L.K., OConnor, G.A., 2006. Effects of dietary aluminum from an aluminum water treatment residual on bone density and bone mineral content of feeder lambs. The Professional Anim. Sci. 22, 153157. Walker, F., 2000. Best management practices fo r phosphorus in the environment. Publication No. 1645. Agricultural Extension Service. Th e University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. 53

PAGE 54

Williams, S.N., Lawrence, L.A., McDowell, L.R., Warnick, A.C., Wilkinson, N.S., 1990. Dietary phosphorus concentrations related to breaking load and chemical bone properties in heifers. J. Dairy Sci. 73, 1100-1106. 54

PAGE 55

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Tara Felix was born in Franklin, PA, on August 14, 1984, to Kenton and Paula Cornmesser. She was raised there her whole lif e with her two brothers and two sisters on her familys small farm. Growing up, Tara got he r greatest enjoyment from helping with the familys dairy goats, chickens, rabbits, and whatever else inhabited the farm that particular year. Tara was home schooled as a young child bu t had no trouble enteri ng the public school system in the eighth grade, other then the fact that she had to leave the farm everyday. She was actively involved in a variety of school activ ities including sports, drama, band and national honor society. She enjoyed high school and decide d to continue her education at Penn State University. At Penn State, Tara pursued a degree in anim al bioscience. She enjoyed working in an animal nutrition lab during her four years there and attending numer ous football games. She was also involved with their PreVet Club, Bl ock and Bridle Club, and Earth House. While at Penn State she met her loving husba nd, Jonathan Felix. The two were married after graduation. Now they enjoy numerous outdoor adventures as well as spending time with their friends and families. Falling in love with the academic setting duri ng her undergraduate days, Tara decided to pursue her masters at UF. She was assisted by her many wonderful professors at Penn State and accepted for the fall of 2006. All of the activities and organizations Tara pa rticipated in at Penn State led her to one conclusi onshe would definitely pursue a career where she could be actively involved in animal management and studying a way to help producers protect their natural resources. Dr. Lee McDowell offered Tara a masters degree at UF and she leapt at the chance to get out of the freezing cold state of Pennsylvania. Tara began her expe riment immediately upon 55

PAGE 56

arrival to Florida and was able to successfully see it to comple tion. After many grueling hours in the lab and several computer headaches she is happy to be graduating May of 2008. 56

PAGE 57

EFFECTS OF DIETARY ALUMINUM SOU RCE AND CONCENTRATION ON MINERAL STATUS OF FEEDER LAMBS Tara L. Felix 814-657-2594 Animal Sciences Dr. Lee R. McDowell Master of Science May 2008 Florida livestock producers are under increasing pressure to decrease the environmental impact of their herds. One of the ways to do that is by implementing strategies to decrease pollution via runoff and leaching. This research and the literature cite d within this thesis demonstrates that aluminum based water trea tment residuals (WTR) w ill decrease phosphorus pollution, of great concern in S outh Florida, when applied at a 2.5% by weight application of WTR which approximates 25% surface coverage of a hectare. If an animal consumes 10% of their grazing diet as soil amended with WTR tr eatment, they would have a WTR intake of 2.5%. This approximates consumption per lamb of 0.31 % Al as WTR if the WTR contains ~11.1% Al, which was found to not harm animals. The use of WTR appears to be a safer, yet just as effective, alternative to land applicat ion like alum and aluminum chloride.