Richard Turner MA VetMB MRCVS
Since I started working as a poultry vet, the market of water sanitation products has become saturated with solutions. Yet, we still see farms with poor water quality which has a subsequent impact on the bottom line. The poultry sector, due to the challenges of higher stocking density and indoor controlled environments, has had to work hard to maintain clean potable water and even the ruminant sector is now seeing that water can affect calf health and mastitis levels in a herd.
We all recognise that water with high bacterial loads will often lead to infections in our birds, especially in the first week or so of life. Viral and protozoal infections via water lines are less well recognised, although the development of a heavy biofilm in a water line will hold a range of organisms. High mineral levels will have a range of effects including chronic damage to villi and gut lining cells to feeding some bacteria and helping their proliferation.
Why are we still seeing a problem? This photo was recently taken using a line endoscope by one of our vets and shows that whilst a water treatment system is in place on this site, the battle is far from won.
Achieving clean water at the end of the drinker line is not difficult, but does require attention to detail and it is important that product choices are determined by the outcome and not by price.
In a world where we must look at the cost of every input to our poultry farms, we must make sure the focus is on the best option for the farm type and infrastructure. This might cost a little more at a bird level, but this extra cost might only be 0.002p/bird. We all recognise the impact that disease can have on the bottom line. For example, if there is lameness in a flock with 6% mortality, the return per sq. meter per week can drop to the extent that a 200,000 broiler farm loses over £25,000 in net profit, with a cost of 12.5p/bird. Of course dirty water alone is not the single cause of financial loss, however it does play a significant contributing factor in the overall health and performance of a flock and should not be ignored. My plea to the industry is to use what is best. The cost of bad water is too great to risk and the savings too small to consider in reality.
What are the options? Water sanitising has to be focused on the type of water supply, infrastructure, automation levels and most importantly, the technical knowledge available on farm.
The main options for treatment are well known and, in my view, the best in no particular order are: Silver added hydrogen peroxide, Chlorine dioxide and Acidified chlorine.
There are other options on the market, some of which don’t disclose all their ingredients or are mixtures of the above, and it is worth remembering that many products are manufactured by the same company and rebranded. All claim to be superior, and for the farmer and often the vet, there is a great difficulty in getting to the bottom of what is the best option.
Hydrogen Peroxide Silver Products
Silver activated hydrogen peroxide has two main modes of action. The bubbling effect of the product mechanically breaks up the biofilm and then has a bactericidal affect, and the silver component with its molecular makeup and exposure to the H2O2 will determine its catalytic activity. As a practice we have carried out trials on many products and in general the most important factor with silver added hydrogen peroxide is to ensure that the pumping systems on the farm match the product. Some products only require 1% usage at turnaround, whilst others are only effective at 3-4%. If the dosing system on your farm cannot add this level, then the options are reduced. Lines that are heavily contaminated with biofilm will take more than one dose of product and will require close monitoring. The equipment required on farm is not expensive but needs more management inputs, so whilst the set-up costs are not high, the management of addition needs careful attention.
Chlorine Dioxide Systems
There is no doubt that chlorine dioxide works, otherwise its use in commercial swimming pools, hospitals and factories would not occur. Chlorine dioxide is a strong oxidising biocide with very good anti-viral and anti-bacterial properties, as well as being able to effectively remove biofilm. For an excellent article on the differences between chlorine and chlorine dioxide go the www.farmwater.co.uk where it’s all very well explained. What it really needs however, is good quality automated equipment which adds a capital cost greater than hydrogen peroxide. There are systems on farms which rely on the farmer mixing the components, and it is the manual intervention that I believe can be a problem area. The best systems are fully automated with sealed chemicals and these tend to cost a lot less to run as the chemicals themselves are not as expensive. When handled incorrectly these products can be dangerous and so an automated system greatly reduces this risk.
Chlorine is a good and inexpensive sanitiser, however its effect on biofilm is less dramatic than chlorine dioxide or hydrogen peroxide. It needs to be in acidic water to be effective and some of the simple “chlorine tablets” sold are not very effective due to their variable effect on water pH. For it to work well you need to use systems which add both acid and a hypochlorite source to the lines. When using the right acid, with the correct pH at the end of the line and closely monitoring the system, you should achieve both clean water and better gut health with this treatment. As a general comment though, chlorine is removed by organic material quite quickly so its true sanitising effect needs close management and attention to biofilm removal, and the use of hydrogen peroxide silver at turnaround is essential.
We have focused a lot of our attention on this type of system as on many broiler farms, gut health is a main performance hurdle, so a water sanitiser system that can help gut health is a bonus. The system needs good quality equipment and a good standard of management. In layers, the use of the correct acids will not only give clean water but will promote good villi length and health leading to better egg quality.
Each farm will have different systems and there is no one solution to fit all. As vets, we routinely endoscope drinker lines when investigating a disease or performance issue and sadly, even after using various products, problems still occur. As best practice every farm should check water lines by endoscope every 6 months to review the effectivity of cleaning products and protocols.
Ultimately, we will see an increase of customer and retailer interest in everything that goes into an animal’s mouth, and hence into the mouth of the consumer. It is therefore likely that automated systems, which provide a consistent and accurate application of products will be more widely adopted and accepted within the industry.
We now have a good range of options to achieve clean water, though the battle is not over yet. Cost is not everything in this market, and more often than not it is farms which have been tempted by cheaper offerings and claims to ease of use that struggle with long term issues.
As originally written for NFU Poultry Magazine.