Farm biosecurity has traditionally focused on the movement of animals, vehicles, people, and feed, as well as controlling access to farms. While these measures are essential, the microbiological quality of drinking water—and its potential role in disease transmission—deserves far greater attention.
International research, including work by the Pirbright Institute and the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), highlights the importance of understanding how pathogens survive and spread through water and the farm environment. In South Africa, where animal diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) remain a serious concern, water hygiene should form part of a comprehensive proactive biosecurity programme.
A key question arises when considering newer-generation water-sanitation actives: can drinking water be sanitised to support biosecurity without adversely affecting rumen function, feed intake, or animal performance?
This concern prompted a practical clinical field assessment overseen by Dr David Midgley, a veterinary consultant specialising in rumen health, at Mockford Feedlot in Gauteng.
Although Peroxsil (Dioxidane) had previously undergone testing at Agricultural Research Council (ARC) for FMD mitigation at 50 parts per million (ppm) in water, farmers, veterinarians, and feedlot operators continued to raise questions about its possible effects on rumen health.
The assessment
The assessment involved 95 cattle: 35 receiving Peroxsil-treated drinking water and 60 receiving chlorinated water as the control. The treated group received Peroxsil water from 9 February until the end of the first week of July 2026, with both groups inspected daily.
Initial water sampling recorded an E. coli plate count in excess of 10,000 in the chlorinated water, compared with a count of zero following Peroxsil treatment.
Clinical observations revealed no recorded differences between the groups in dung consistency, rumination, or clinical illness. Water intake in the treated group was 5.7% higher than in the control group, indicating that intake was not suppressed. Both groups grew within the feedlot’s target growth band of approximately 0.4–0.5% of live weight.
Average feed intake was recorded at 16.77 kg per head per day in the treated group, compared with 21.05 kg in the control group—a difference of approximately 20.3%. This finding warrants further investigation and must be interpreted in the context of differences between pens, including breed, live weight, and feeding conditions. It cannot be attributed to the water treatment alone on the available evidence.
What does this mean for farmers and veterinarians?
According to Dr Midgley’s assessment, no clinical evidence of adverse rumen function was identified in the cattle observed. Dung consistency, rumination, and recorded illness did not differ from the control group, while water intake was maintained and growth remained within the feedlot’s target band.
Importantly, this was a clinical field assessment under commercial conditions, not a controlled study of the rumen microbiome. It does not establish the absence of all possible biological effects or replace the need for further controlled research.
The broader message
“On the observations that were made, Peroxsil®-treated drinking water was clinically safe for rumen function in these cattle.” Dr Dave Midgley
The Mockford field assessment provides a valuable practical South African example of how drinking-water management can be evaluated under commercial livestock production conditions. Importantly, the assessment found no apparent adverse clinical effects on rumen function in cattle receiving Peroxsil-treated drinking water. While larger, controlled studies incorporating direct assessment of rumen microbial populations would help strengthen the evidence, these field observations provide a useful basis for further investigation and informed discussion.
The message is clear: water hygiene deserves greater recognition, more focused research and a more prominent place in livestock biosecurity planning. The industry should not overlook the opportunity to improve drinking-water management while continuing to evaluate its safety and benefits through sound scientific evidence.
