J. Appl. Poult. Res.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J APPL POULT RES 2006. 15:511-517
© 2006 Poultry Science Association
This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fairchild, B. D.
Right arrow Articles by Vendrell, P. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Fairchild, B. D.
Right arrow Articles by Vendrell, P. F.

Research Reports

Effect of Drinking Water Iron Concentration on Broiler Performance

B. D. Fairchild*,1, A. B. Batal*, C. W. Ritz* and P. F. Vendrell{dagger}

* Department of Poultry Science and {dagger} Agricultural and Environmental Services Laboratories, University of Georgia, Athens 30602

Correspondence: 1 Corresponding author: brianf{at}uga.edu


   SUMMARY
TOP
 SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
Many parts of the nation have elevated Fe concentrations in drinking water, and poultry producers are uncertain of the effect this will have on broiler performance. Three trials were conducted to evaluate the effects of Fe concentration on broiler performance. At hatch, Cobb 500 male broiler chicks were placed in Petersime batteries equipped with a nipple watering system. Chicks were weighed and randomly allotted to pens such that each pen had a similar weight distribution. Chicks were fed a standard corn-soybean meal diet to meet or exceed NRC recommendations. Chicks were allowed ad libitum access to feed and water. Weekly chick weight, feed intake, and water consumption were recorded throughout the 35-d trials. Soluble P in the manure was analyzed in Experiments 1 and 2. In Experiments 1 and 2, 4 water treatments consisted of 0, 2, 20, and 200 ppm supplemental Fe (FeSO4·7H2O). In Experiment 3, the treatments were 0, 200, 400, and 600 ppm supplemental Fe. Water treatments were mixed on a weekly basis.

No differences were noted in BW, feed consumption, water consumption, mortality, or manure-soluble P in any of the trials. None of the birds in the treatments exhibited any signs of flushing or any other intestinal problems. These results indicate that Fe concentrations in water do not affect performance or soluble P in broilers. Broiler performance was not affected by elevated SO4 levels or reduced water pH. Although Fe may not have a direct affect on broiler performance, this study did not take into account the effect that high levels of Fe or its oxidized byproducts may have on equipment function.

Key Words: iron • drinking water • broiler • water quality


   DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
Most poultry operations make sure that an ample supply of drinking water is available to meet the birds’ needs by establishing minimum water flow rates from wells, but few companies actually recommend water-quality standards. This may be due to limited research and variable data on poultry drinking water-quality standards. The drinking water quality is important; however, it is a nutrient that receives little attention. Producers understand that good water quality will lead to better bird performance and less equipment problems. The question is, can the investment be returned in bird performance for purchasing, installing, and operating treatment equipment used to correct poor water quality? Wells supply most drinking water used in poultry operations. The groundwater in Georgia varies tremendously across regions (Table 1Go). In a review of over 27,000 water-quality tests conducted from 1993 to 2004 in Georgia on both agriculture and residential sites submitted to the University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service, the most common problems based on the US Environmental Protection Agency national drinking water regulations were low pH and high levels of Mn and Fe [1]. The overall average concentrations of Fe, sulfate SO4, and pH do not appear to indicate problems; however, the maximum levels detected in some wells indicate that there are several instances in which values can be extremely high when compared with average levels.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Georgia well-water Fe, SO4, and pH concentrations obtained from tests throughout Georgia over the last 10 yr1
 
The drinking water standards used most widely for poultry are very similar to the primary and secondary water standards for public water systems, which were developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency [2]. Although it would be desirable for all poultry farms to meet these standards, water treatment would be needed in many cases, and production efficiency may not increase sufficiently to compensate for the treatment expense. Iron, SO4, and pH concentrations for poultry drinking water have been recommended at 0.3, 250, and 6.5 to 8.5 ppm, respectively [3]. High levels of Fe in drinking water have not been reported to have any direct health concerns for poultry [4], but systems with high Fe may exhibit increased microbial-film formation in water lines [5]. High SO4 levels have been observed to have a negative effect on bird performance at concentrations of 50 ppm or greater, in combination with high levels of Mg and chloride [6]. Many times, the levels for these minerals exceed the recommendations, but water treatment systems may not improve performance.

Commonly, Fe is blamed for much of the water-quality problems inside the poultry house. This may be due to the color and turbidity changes that occur in the water as Fe2O3 is formed, making the water’s aesthetic appearance undesirable. It is generally accepted that a reactive relationship exists between Fe and P. Previous broiler litter sampling has indicated that high levels of Fe may increase water-soluble P in the litter [7]. Higher levels of soil-soluble P can result in increased incidence of surface water eutrification from elevated levels of aquatic P. From a nutrient management standpoint, elevated soluble P levels in soils may indicate the need for P-based nutrient management planning, which would reduce the potential to land-apply poultry litter. Determining the effect of Fe on P solubility will help to better understand poultry litter usage as a fertilizer and soil amendment and its effect on soil dynamics.

The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the effect that elevated Fe and SO4 concentrations would have on broiler performance. Another aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of high drinking water Fe concentrations on manure-soluble P.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
The University of Georgia Committee on Laboratory Animal Care approved all procedures. A series of 3 experiments were conducted using Cobb 500 [8] byproduct male chicks that were obtained from a local hatchery. Chicks were weighed and randomly allocated into 1 of 18 battery pens. Ten chicks were placed in each pen. Each pen was equipped with 2 trough feeders, a nipple drinker line (6 nipples per pen), and a 20-L carboy. Before each trial, a vented 600-gal tank was filled with water from the Athens municipal water system, and held in a dark, temperature-controlled room at approximately 20°C (See Table 2Go for water analysis). The water was collected 2 d before the experiments, allowing Cl to dissipate. The 4 drinking water treatments in Experiments 1 and 2 consisted of a control with the ambient concentration of the municipal water, plus 3 augmented treatments at 2, 20, and 200 ppm Fe. The water treatments in Experiment 3 consisted of a control with the ambient concentration of the municipal water, plus 3 augmented treatments at 200, 400, and 600 ppm Fe. The treatments were freshly mixed each week by dissolving FeSO4·7H2O in the dechlorinated municipal water. Water and FeSO4·7H2O solutions for each treatment were mixed in a 70-L container and then dispersed into 20-L carboys from which the drinking water treatments were gravity-fed into the nipple water line of each battery pen.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2. Water analysis of samples taken from tanks on the day the water was collected for the study
 
Chicks were fed a standard corn-soybean diet (Table 3Go). Feed and water were provided ad libitum. Feed consumption, pen weights, and water consumption were measured weekly. Water analyses for Fe, SO4, and pH were conducted on the freshly mixed water treatments and again 7 d later. At the end of Experiment 2, excreta were collected and analyzed for moisture, N, P, and Fe content. At the end of Experiment 3, the left tibia was collected from 6 chicks per pen, following euthanization with CO2 gas. The muscle and tissue were removed from the tibia, only leaving the cartilage cap and bone. The bones then underwent fat extraction, as described by the Association of Official Analytical Chemists [9], and were ashed at 600°C in a muffle furnace for 24 h to allow for the determination of tibia bone ash content.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3. Composition (as-fed basis) of the diets, Experiments 1, 2, and 3
 
Water Analysis
Dissolved Fe was determined by direct aspiration into an inductively coupled plasma emission spectrophotometer [10]. Total recoverable Fe was determined by first digesting the water using HNO3 in a pressure vessel heated with a microwave oven before aspiration into an inductively coupled plasma emission spectrophotometer [11]. Sulfate was determined using direct injection into an ion chromatograph equipped with a chemical background suppressor and conductivity detector [12]. Water pH was measured using a combination glass electrode and Accumet pH meter [13, 14].

Excreta Analysis
Poultry manure samples collected on d 35 were prepared for nutrient analysis by drying at 60°C overnight, grinding in a stainless steel blade grinder until caking was observed, and dry ashing 1 g of manure at 550°C for 4 h [15]. Ash was dissolved by adding 10 mL of 3 M hydrochloric acid, covering with a watch glass, boiling gently for 10 min, cooling, and diluting to 100 mL. Mineral concentrations were determined on the dissolved ashes using an inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrophotometer [10]. The percentage of N was determined on 0.2 g of manure using a Rapid N Nitrogen/Protein Analyzer [16, 27]. Excreta moisture was determined by drying 2 g of manure at 135°C for 2 h and then weighing it [17]. The soluble P analysis was conducted by obtaining water extracts after shaking 1:200 manure to deionized water ratio suspensions for 4 h, followed by centrifuging and filtering through 0.45-µm filters. Total dissolved P and molybdate reactive P concentrations were determined by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrophotometer and colorimetry [18], respectively.

Statistical Analysis
The results of the experiments were analyzed using the 1-way ANOVA test using the GLM procedure of SAS [19]. Pen served as the experimental unit. In Experiments 1 and 2, treatments 0 and 200 had 4 replicate pens, whereas treatments 2 and 20 had 5 replicate pens per treatment. In Experiment 3, treatments 0 and 600 had 4 replicate pens, whereas treatments 200 and 400 had 5 replicate pens per treatment. Significant differences among treatments were determined by the Duncan’s multiple range test [20]. Differences were considered significant at P ≤0.05.


   RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
Analysis of the drinking water during the studies indicated no significant changes in Fe, SO4, or pH during the 7-d intervals. Actual Fe concentrations were close to the desired values (Table 4Go). Water pH decreased as Fe and SO4 concentration increased.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 4. Water analysis summary from 0 and 7 d for each week in Experiments 1, 2, and 31
 
Broiler growth rate, feed conversion, and water consumption were not affected by any of the drinking water Fe treatments, up to a concentration of 600 ppm (Tables 5Go, 6Go, 7Go). Bird livability was not affected by treatment. Tibia bone ash was not affected by the addition of Fe and SO4 to the drinking water of broiler chickens (0 = 34.40%; 2 = 32.30%; 20 = 32.44%; 200 = 30.14%). The general concept among many broiler producers is that if Fe levels get too high, then birds will not consume as much water. This concern relates to the association between feed consumption and water consumption. On a weight basis, birds will consume approximately 1.8 g of water for every gram consumed [21]. Recent data collected from commercial broiler houses agree with this relationship [22]. If water consumption is reduced, then feed consumption will likely be reduced, and losses in weight gain and feed conversion may be experienced. In the diet, Fe concentrations of 4,500 ppm have been reported to be toxic [23]. The absence of any performance effects due to increased concentrations of Fe, SO4, or low pH suggests that the concentrations typically found in poultry drinking water, as determined by the well tests conducted in Georgia (Table 1Go), should not have a negative effect on broiler health and performance, as maximum naturally occurring levels measured did not approach those used in the current study. However, there may be areas in the United States that do have levels as high or greater than those used in the current study; therefore, growers should conduct water tests to know what the pH, Fe, and SO4 concentrations are on their farm. This observation is similar to results that indicated White Leghorn hens have a tolerance for Fe concentrations higher than 0.3 ppm and did not have differences in performance up to levels of 100 ppm [24].


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 5. The effect of high levels of Fe in the drinking water on broiler performance at 35 d of age, Experiment 11
 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 6. The effect of high levels of Fe in the drinking water on broiler performance at 35 d of age, Experiment 21
 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 7. The effect of high levels of Fe in the drinking water on broiler performance at 35 d of age, Experiment 31
 
When the excreta were analyzed, no significant differences between water-soluble Fe concentrations and total dissolved P or molybdate reactive P were observed (Table 8Go). Excreta Fe concentrations of broilers increased slightly with increased drinking water concentration up to 200 ppm but were not significantly different. Iron concentrations in broiler drinking water up to 200 ppm do not appear to significantly influence the ratio of soluble P in excreted manure. Elevated Fe concentration in the drinking water did not appear to affect P solubility within manure and will not likely increase the soluble P levels in the soil or increase potential for P runoff to surface waters when it is applied as a fertilizer or soil amendment.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 8. Effect of drinking water Fe concentration on water-soluble P [Total dissolved P (TDP)], molybdate reactive P (MRP), and water-soluble Fe concentrations in broiler manure, Experiment 21
 
Broiler performance was not affected at levels up to 600 ppm Fe, 855 ppm SO4, or pH as low as 3.4. Although bird performance was not affected directly in the current study, producers should pay close attention to water quality. Iron concentrations above 0.3 ppm may increase microbial film buildup and FeO precipitant formation. Microbial films and FeO precipitant formation will have negative effects on water-line function. Microbial films can obstruct openings, preventing the birds from getting water. Iron oxide precipitant can get into the nipple drinker mechanism and result in leaky nipples. This will result in poor litter conditions that will increase NH3 generation and negatively affect broiler performance [25, 26]. Water filters, water lines, fogging nozzles, and evaporative cooling systems should be monitored for any signs that might suggest a problem. If water is causing equipment problems, growers may expect a return on investment if a water treatment system is purchased by ensuring that the drinking and cooling systems run efficiently and by not having to use their labor to clean water lines that have been affected by poor water quality.

The results of the current study suggest that issues due to high Fe, SO4, or low pH will probably affect equipment before an effect on the bird itself. Water quality is important, and every producer should conduct water tests annually, especially during conditions that might affect water levels within the well (i.e., heavy rainfall or drought).


   CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
REFERENCES AND NOTES
 

  1. The current study suggests that broiler tolerance for Fe in drinking water was up to 600 ppm.
  2. Sulfate concentrations as high as 855 ppm did not have an adverse effect on broiler performance.
  3. Drinking water pH as low as 3.4 did not have negative effects on broiler performance.
  4. High Fe (600 ppm), in combination with low pH (3.4) or high SO4 levels (855 ppm), did not adversely affect broiler performance.
  5. Although not determined in this study, high Fe concentrations may have a negative effect on water line, drinking system, and evaporative cooling system operation, which in turn will reduce broiler performance.


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
This study was supported by a grant from the US Poultry and Egg Association (Tucker, GA). We are grateful for the assistance provided by B. S. Lumpkins, L.N. Collins, A. R. Garcia, S. M. Bartell, and P. D. Sedlacek for sample and data collection.


   REFERENCES AND NOTES
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 

  1. Sonon, L., P. Vendrell, and R. Hitchcock. 2005. Pages 713–716 in Water quality in Georgia’s private drinking water wells: Summary of the Cooperative Extension’s chemical and bacterial test results. Proc. 2005 Ga. Water Resources Conf., Athens. K. J. Hatcher, ed. Univ. Georgia, Athens.
  2. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. List of drinking water contaminants & MCLs. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.html Accessed Sept. 2006.
  3. Bell, D. D. 2002. Consumption and quality of water. Pages 411–432 in Commercial Chicken Meat and Egg Production. 5th ed. D. D. Bell and W. D. Weaver, ed. Kluwer Acad. Publ., Norwell, MA.
  4. Hairston, J. E. 1995. Drinking Water for Livestock and Poultry. Alabama Coop. Ext. Sys., Auburn Univ., AL.
  5. Prakash, B., B. M. Veeregowda, and G. Krishnappa. 2003. Biofilms: A survival strategy of bacteria. Curr. Sci. 85:1299–1307.
  6. Carter, T. A., and R. E. Sneed. 1987. Drinking Water Quality for Poultry. North Carolina Coop. Ext. Service, Chapel Hill.
  7. C. W Ritz, University of Georgia, Calhoun, GA, personal communication.
  8. Cobb-Vantress Inc., Siloam Springs, AR.
  9. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1984. Official Methods of Analysis. 14th ed. AOAC Int., Washington, DC.
  10. US Environmental Protection Agency. Method 200.7. Metals and trace elements by ICP/atomic emission spectrometry. Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples Supplement 1 (EPA/600/R-94/111). Natl. Tech. Inf. Service, Springfield, VA.
  11. US Environmental Protection Agency. Method 3015. Microwave assisted acid digestion of aqueous samples and extracts. SW846 Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste Chemical/Physical Methods. Natl. Tech. Inf. Service, Springfield, VA.
  12. US Environmental Protection Agency. Method 300.0. Inorganic anions in water by ion chromatography. Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in Environmental Samples (EPA/600/R-93/100). Natl. Tech. Inf. Service, Springfield, VA.
  13. Fisher Scientific, Suwanee, GA.
  14. US Environmental Protection Agency. Method 150.1. pH (Electrometric). Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in Environmental Samples (EPA/600/R-93/100). Natl. Tech. Inf. Service, Springfield, VA.
  15. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1996. Official Method 968.08Da. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International. 16th ed. AOAC Int., Gaithersburg, MD.
  16. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1996. Method 990.03. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International. 16th ed. AOAC Int., Gaithersburg, MD.
  17. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1996. Method 930.15. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International. 16th ed. AOAC Int., Gaithersburg, MD.
  18. American Public Health Association. 1999. Method 4500-P E. Phosphorus, ascorbic acid method. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 20th ed. Am. Water Works Assoc., Denver, CO.
  19. SAS Institute. 1999. SAS OnlineDoc. Version 8. http://v8doc.sas.com/sashtml
  20. Steele, R. G. D., J. H. Torrie, and D. A. Dickey. 1997. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. 3rd ed. The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc., New York.
  21. Pesti, G. M., S. V. Armato, and L. R. Minear. 1985. Water consumption of broiler chickens under commercial conditions. Poult. Sci. 64:803–808.[ISI][Medline]
  22. Czarick, M., M. P. Lacy, and W. A. Dozier. 2001. Water usage and broiler performance. Poultry Housing Tips 13(5). Coop. Ext. Serv., Coll. Agric. Environ. Sci., Univ. Georgia, Athens.
  23. Deobald, H. J., and C. A. Elvehjem. 1935. The effect of feeding high amounts of soluble Fe and aluminum salts. Am. J. Physiol. 111:118–123.[Free Full Text]
  24. Damron, B. L., and A. R. Eldred. 2002. Tolerance of White Leghorn hens to Fe drinking water. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 11:406–409.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Miles, D. M., S. L. Branton, and B. D. Lott. 2004. Atmospheric ammonia is detrimental to the performance of modern commercial broilers. Poult. Sci. 83:1650–1654.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Carlile, F. S. 1984. Ammonia in poultry houses: A literature review. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 40:99–113.
  27. Elementar Ind. Inc., Laurel, NJ.




This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fairchild, B. D.
Right arrow Articles by Vendrell, P. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Fairchild, B. D.
Right arrow Articles by Vendrell, P. F.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS