Iron in the water
madEG
high Iron content. They seem to have such a problem that they dump
the buckets twice a day to change the water and keep it fresh. They
also do not let the water sit over night. SO the horses are with out
water for the night. I m not too worried about the overnight stuff
(although it doesnt make me happy) but I am more worried about what
high iron will do to the diet balance of my horse. He is a 6yr TB
gelding. This barn contains some world class riders with thier horses
but that doesnt mean they are doing the right thing. Is there a
something I can put in his bucket to allow for him to have water
overnight and balance the iron? Help!
heather.
EPONASAPPR
>From: ma...@madFUNK.com (madEG)
>Date: 10/30/98 10:46 PM EST
>Message-id: <363a86e7...@news.earthlink.net>
I used to have the same problem here.
I didnt have a problem with it.
It seems after you fill the
water tub it gets mirky then by the next day
has settled out. Just clean the tubs out
between fills.
There are water filters that will remove/
reduce the iron problem.
I since have gone to a big water tank as
there are 3 houses on a very low volume well.
The big 1200 gal tank settles out the iron
and the water isnt all that bad. Its gravity feed.
You COULD do something like that too.
Place one of these plactic tanks above the
faucets in the barn and use a animal
water tank valve to keep it filled. It will
be HEAVY 8#/gal so strong support rqd.
Then have a low pressure water sys for
barn water. It will be a little slower but
...... all that is necessary for a approved
community well is more than 20 lb. you
get 1 lb of pressure for every 2 ft the
TOP of the water in the tank is above
the end of your water bucket/hose/
5# wouldnt be bad if you had to by
using 3/4 in or 1 in line and those
non restrictive valves (cant think of name)
Jane H. Kilberg
>I am looking into moving to a place where the water is said to have
>high Iron content. They seem to have such a problem that they dump
>the buckets twice a day to change the water and keep it fresh. They
>also do not let the water sit over night. SO the horses are with out
>water for the night. I m not too worried about the overnight stuff
>(although it doesnt make me happy) but I am more worried about what
>high iron will do to the diet balance of my horse. He is a 6yr TB
>gelding. This barn contains some world class riders with thier horses
>but that doesnt mean they are doing the right thing. Is there a
>something I can put in his bucket to allow for him to have water
>overnight and balance the iron? Help!
You probably have a well heavy in iron ore. Best to get a water test and
find out whether or not the water is safe for consumption by humans and by
animals. If it is safe and the iron ore is just a bother, you can add in
filters or dig a new well deeper beyond the iron ore layer into the sand
which is nature's natural filter system.
Using water heavy in iron ore will create problems, so make sure all pipes
are large enough PVC pipes so the small particles don't clog up the system
or rust out plumbing fixtures as well as metal tanks, etc.
down the spotted trails. . .
jane h. kilberg and her gang of spots (GOS)
member: ApHC, Montgomery County Adult Horse Committee
editor/publisher: Appaloosa Network
WVK13
>also do not let the water sit over night. SO the horses are with out
>water for the night.
This would concern me more than the iron content. We have very high iron in our
water, no problems for the horses, but no water for the night is something I
would worry about. Horses should have clean water availble 24hrs. a day. What
is the reason for not refilling the water for the night?
Just curious,
Vk
madEG
I am not sure why they do that. They mentioned that it stinks and its
corrosive. They have plastic buckets so I dont know how it could be
corrosive to plastic, but, thats what they said. They have been there
for 7 years and the farm property has been there for over 20. I guess
they have found a reason and decided this is the way it will be. I
agree that the horses should have 24 hr. access to water, but one
boarder is not going to change anything.
Heather.
Jennifer Hazen
> They mentioned that it stinks and its corrosive. They have plastic buckets so I
> dont know how it could be corrosive to plastic, but, thats what they said.
Water that is high in iron will not have odors - water that is impacted by
contaminants that contain iron could have odors. The same goes for being corrosive
(FYI: a measure of pH). Do you live in an area that has had some type of mining
activity take place (surface or underground)? I'd suggest doing a bit of research
yourself such as taking a sample of the water to an analytical laboratory for some
analysis - pH and total iron. The lab will give you a bottle that has a chemical
preservative in it for the iron sample and an empty one for the pH. You should be
able to get both analyses for under $40.
Water for human consumption (secondary drinking water standards) the pH must be
between 6.5 and 8.5 and the maximum total iron level is 0.3 mg/l (or ppm).
> They have been there for 7 years and the farm property has been there for over
> 20. I guess they have found a reason and decided this is the way it will be. I
> agree that the horses should have 24 hr. access to water, but one boarder is not
> going to change anything
Unless it is your horse who colics from lack of water.
(p&m)
Jennifer & Mulligatawny
spencer
>madEG wrote:
>
>> They mentioned that it stinks and its corrosive. They have plastic buckets so I
>> dont know how it could be corrosive to plastic, but, thats what they said.
>
>Water that is high in iron will not have odors - water that is impacted by
>contaminants that contain iron could have odors. The same goes for being corrosive
>(FYI: a measure of pH). Do you live in an area that has had some type of mining
>activity take place (surface or underground)? I'd suggest doing a bit of research
>yourself such as taking a sample of the water to an analytical laboratory for some
>analysis - pH and total iron. The lab will give you a bottle that has a chemical
>preservative in it for the iron sample and an empty one for the pH. You should be
>able to get both analyses for under $40.
'Stink' seems indicative of some other problem.
Check with Sears. They were doing a rudimentary water quality test for
free. They test pH, hardness and, IIRC, they also test for iron. No bacterial
counts or chemical pollutants, tho.
Jennifer Hazen
spencer wrote:
> 'Stink' seems indicative of some other problem.
>
Yes - most likely to be caused by some type of sulfur (sulfide/sulfate) compound which
was why I questioned if there were mining activities. Here in western PA there has been
extensive coal mining and many water sources are influenced by AMD (acid mine drainage)
which contains dissolved iron as well as sulfate - not healty for human or equine
consumption.
> Check with Sears. They were doing a rudimentary water quality test for
> free. They test pH, hardness and, IIRC, they also test for iron. No bacterial
> counts or chemical pollutants, tho.
What in the world is IIRC? In order to test for iron the sample will need to be
digested and analyzed in some type of mass spectrometer/gas chromatrograph/graphite
furnace (many others) apparatus. I have a hard time believing that Sears could produce
an accurate result - maybe give an approximate pH or hardness (which can be done with
chemically treated paper strips - not accurate at all!).
Jennifer & Mulligatawny
Mary J. McHugh
Jennifer Hazen wrote:
> spencer wrote:
>
> > Check with Sears. They were doing a rudimentary water quality test for
> > free. They test pH, hardness and, IIRC, they also test for iron. No bacterial
> > counts or chemical pollutants, tho.
>
> What in the world is IIRC? In order to test for iron the sample will need to be
> digested and analyzed in some type of mass spectrometer/gas chromatrograph/graphite
> furnace (many others) apparatus. I have a hard time believing that Sears could produce
> an accurate result - maybe give an approximate pH or hardness (which can be done with
> chemically treated paper strips - not accurate at all!).
>
> Jennifer & Mulligatawny
IIRC = If I Recall Correctly
OOoooo, I used to write software for gas chromatography equipment when I worked for
Perkin-Elmer.
Mary "or as a friend once asked: Who's porkin Elmer?" McHugh
Jennifer Hazen
> Jennifer Hazen wrote:
> > What in the world is IIRC?
Mary wrote:
> IIRC = If I Recall Correctly
>
Duh, Jenn. And I was thinking he was referencing some analyte...
Jennifer & Mulligatawny
jo...@dhh.gt.org
> Yes - most likely to be caused by some type of sulfur (sulfide/sulfate)
> compound which was why I questioned if there were mining activities.
Iron sulfides in water are common in areas with no mining at all.
> In order to test for iron the sample will need to be digested and
> analyzed in some type of mass spectrometer/gas chromatrograph/graphite
> furnace (many others) apparatus.
Nonsense. Ordinary quantitative analysis is quite sufficient.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Jennifer Hazen
jo...@dhh.gt.org wrote:
> > In order to test for iron the sample will need to be digested and
> > analyzed in some type of mass spectrometer/gas chromatrograph/graphite
> > furnace (many others) apparatus.
>
> Nonsense. Ordinary quantitative analysis is quite sufficient.
> --
Just how often do you send water samples out for analysis for iron or any
other constituent for that matter? Whatever ordinary quantitiative analysis
you are referring to is not sufficient to determine the concentrations of
constituents present in either water or other matrix. The company that I
work for would love to hear how it could save millions of dollars (yes, I
said millions) in analytical costs for the this type of monitoring that is
performed at thousands of locations all over the country.
Please let the original poster know an easier and more cost effective way to
determine the concentration of iron in the water that her horse is drinking.
The result must be accurate enough to compare to the Secondary Drinking Water
Standards.
Jennifer & Mulligatawny
Kristen Schulz
Also, I forgot to mention-- Iron in the water, such as the title of this
thread, is different from iron sulfides. We don't have the usual orangey
tinge, sink staining, etc., metallic taste, as is present when there is
*iron*, but with iron sulfides, bleach (such as in the washing machine), can
react with the sulfides and tinge things slightly. After we treated our
well, our whites were coming out with orangey streaks. But when I add bleach
to the wash water in the normal fashion, it is fine, I guess because it is
not coming in direct contact with the sulfurous rock. My guess. Anyway, the
title here is a little misleading if we are talking about sulfites. So I
took the liberty to modify, hope no one minds.
--
Kristen Schulz
Gaitway Farm
Princeton, MA
http://www.geocities.com/heartland/flats/6440
Remove the "spamspameggsandspam." to reply
Kristen Schulz
Jennifer Hazen wrote:
> jo...@dhh.gt.org wrote:
>
> > Iron sulfides in water are common in areas with no mining at all.
>
>
> Just how often do you send water samples out for analysis for iron or any
> other constituent for that matter? Whatever ordinary quantitiative analysis
> you are referring to is not sufficient to determine the concentrations of
> constituents present in either water or other matrix. The company that I
> work for would love to hear how it could save millions of dollars (yes, I
> said millions) in analytical costs for the this type of monitoring that is
> performed at thousands of locations all over the country.
>
> Please let the original poster know an easier and more cost effective way to
> determine the concentration of iron in the water that her horse is drinking.
> The result must be accurate enough to compare to the Secondary Drinking Water
> Standards.
Just a note on the subject. I am an expert on "stinky" water due to iron
sulfides. When we bought our new property, we noticed an odor to the water and
assumed the well would need to be treated for a coloform bacteria problem, which
also causes a sulfurous odor (dead coloform bacteria have this odor). We had the
water tested and sure enough there was a mild coloform problem. We treated the
well (with bleach) meticulously, and a follow-up water test ensured that no
coloform bacteria were present. Over the next few months, however, we noticed
the odor coming back. Come to find out, the bacteria are gone but the odor can
also be caused if the well is drilled through rock with sulfides. Apparently,
bleach neutralizes the odor which was why it initially went away, but over the
following 2 or 3 months, as all minute traces of the bleach left the water, the
odor returned, sans bacteria. So we had two problems in the beginning, now only
one, which is not a problem at all. Our water tested safe for drinking as the
sulfides are not strong. We only notice the odor after running the water for a
long period of time, such as after doing laundry, and showers, or running the
dishwasher, etc.
It is also safe for the horses. So, I'm not sure if your stinky water is due to
the same problem as we have, but you may want to get a water sample tested at
your nearest lab (ours was in a mall and they do water testing for the entire
area, for home inspections, etc., a reputable place). You can have them test
solely for sulfates but in your situation, I'd spend the money and have it run
thru the whole gamut. It will pay to know just what the problem is, if they
can't seem to explain it to you precisely at the stable.
Jennifer Hazen
Kristen Schulz wrote:
> Just a note on the subject. I am an expert on "stinky" water due to iron
> sulfides. When we bought our new property, we noticed an odor to the water and
> assumed the well would need to be treated for a coloform bacteria problem, which
> also causes a sulfurous odor (dead coloform bacteria have this odor). We had the
> water tested and sure enough there was a mild coloform problem. We treated the
> well (with bleach) meticulously, and a follow-up water test ensured that no
> coloform bacteria were present.
I did a bit of digging on iron bacteria and other microorganisims which seem to
thrive in waters containing trace quantities of iron (or manganese). Apparenetly
these precipitate iron oxide in their cell structures. What is recommended is that
the water be treated with chlorine (or ozone or copper sulfate) which is exactly what
you did with the bleach. Treatment with chlorine is also recommended for removing
dissolved iron salts.
Jennifer (digging her PE license out and dusting it off) & Mulligatawny (just rolling
in the mud)
Joel B Levin
Jennifer Hazen <jah...@sgi.net> wrote:
:I did a bit of digging on iron bacteria and other microorganisims which seem to
:thrive in waters containing trace quantities of iron (or manganese). Apparenetly
:these precipitate iron oxide in their cell structures. What is recommended is that
:the water be treated with chlorine (or ozone or copper sulfate) which is exactly what
:you did with the bleach. Treatment with chlorine is also recommended for removing
:dissolved iron salts.
The water testing people sent a brochure which said that sulfurous odors were
caused by anaerobic bacteria, probably those that you describe; not
apparently harmful. A little flush with bleach (in the quantity recommended)
fixed the problem for at least two years.
/JBL
--
Nets: levin/at/bbn.com | I wanna buy a ranch. With horsies.
or jbl/at/levin.mv.com| -- Sprint PCS commercial
or levinjb/at/gte.net |
ARS: KD1ON | http://home1.gte.net/levinjb/
spencer
>spencer wrote:
>> Check with Sears. They were doing a rudimentary water quality test for
>> free. They test pH, hardness and, IIRC, they also test for iron. No bacterial
>> counts or chemical pollutants, tho.
>
> What in the world is IIRC? In order to test for iron the sample will need to be
>digested and analyzed in some type of mass spectrometer/gas chromatrograph/graphite
>furnace (many others) apparatus. I have a hard time believing that Sears could produce
>an accurate result - maybe give an approximate pH or hardness (which can be done with
>chemically treated paper strips - not accurate at all!).
IIRC = If I Recall Correctly.
Spectrometers and chromatographs are fun toys, but in order to test for
the presence of iron, the sample need NOT be digested. Perhaps you ought to
call Sears. :)
As for pH and hardness, perhaps a visit to an aquarium shop (aka a
tropical fish store) might help???
If one really wants to pay, there are water testing
labs throughout the country; Star, Waterworks, Suburban come to mind.
Jennifer Hazen
> Spectrometers and chromatographs are fun toys, but in order to test for
> the presence of iron, the sample need NOT be digested. Perhaps you ought to
> call Sears. :)
>
Is Sears going to yeild a result that will be compliant with Secondary Drinking Water
Standards? I ask again - how often do you send water samples out for analysis?
Jennifer & Mulligatawny
spencer
>
attribution restored --
spencer wrote:
You asked John Hasler -- not me. But I'll tell you anyway. I don't
often send samples out for analysis. I had my well water tested once about a
year ago. It was clean. Neutral pH (which I already knew), not hard, no iron,
no smells.... I do suspect that Sears uses whatever "Drinking Water
Standards" are applicable as they do the testing in order to determine whether
and what type of water filtration system they can sell you.
Tell you what tho. Since you don't seem to have initiative enough to
pick up the phone and ask, I will.
Will advise.
spencer
11/16/98 Addendum: Sears advises they test pH, hardness and for iron.
Whatever the "standards" was not clear to the person I spoke with...perhaps
touching base with a <<real>> Sears store might help. I did get curious about
your reference to "...Secondary Drinking Water Standards...". These are mere
guidelines at the federal level. (Individual states, of course, are free to
adopt whatever suits...) From the EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water:
URL: http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/wot/appa.html
<quote>
National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (NSDWRs or secondary
standards) are non-enforceable guidelines regulating contaminants that
may cause cosmetic effects (such as skin or tooth discoloration) or
aesthetic effects (such as taste, odor, or color) in drinking water. EPA
recommends secondary standards to water systems but does not require
systems to comply. However, states may choose to adopt them as
enforceable standards. See Table 2.
Contaminant Secondary Standard
<snipped out other contaminants>
Iron 0.3 mg/L
<snip>
</quote>
That figure sort of 'rang the bell'. By my recollection, when I had the
well water tested, the guy put water from my sample into a tube, added some
stuff (I suppose you'd call those reagents...<g...) and we waited a bit. The
resulting water color, by a comparative to a chart said I did or did not have a
problem with iron. In my case, the well, while not iron free, showed less than
the 'brightline' content for attempting to sell me a filtration system.
HTH
Jennifer Hazen
spencer wrote:
> You asked John Hasler -- not me.
Sorry about that - brain cramp.
> But I'll tell you anyway. I don't
> often send samples out for analysis.
The reason I asked is because I send out anywhere from 30-40 samples four times a year for
a variety of consituents of which Total Iron is included - and have managed such
programs in the past for up to 175 locations monitored quarterly (I do have a tad bit of
experience here....)
> I had my well water tested once about a
> year ago.
Very good idea.
> It was clean. Neutral pH (which I already knew), not hard, no iron,
> no smells....
What exactly is your definition of neutral? Did they provide you with a result
significant at least to one decimal place?
> I do suspect that Sears uses whatever "Drinking Water
> Standards" are applicable as they do the testing in order to determine whether
> and what type of water filtration system they can sell you.
> Tell you what tho. Since you don't seem to have initiative enough to
> pick up the phone and ask, I will.
I have no desire to call Sears however I can and have called the lab I currently use who
is drinking water certified.
Boy, you sure did your homework :-)
However, if they provided you with a "color" result this would be some type of
colorametric analysis - a company called HACH makes all kinds of kits whereby a measured
sample of the waste/water has some type of reagent added to it, wait a while then compare
the color with a color chart. I would agree that this could provide a fairly accurate
range, but, this type of test is not sufficient when providing data a regulatory agancy
(to be compliant with the SDWS) which is the entire point I have been trying to make.
Jennifer & Mulligatawny
spencer
> [ . . . ] (I do have a tad bit of
>experience here....)
Don't recall questioning your 'expertise'. Just didn't see it as
complicated as you did.
>> I had my well water tested once about a
>> year ago.
>
>Very good idea.
>
>> It was clean. Neutral pH (which I already knew), not hard, no iron,
>> no smells....
>
>What exactly is your definition of neutral? Did they provide you with a result
>significant at least to one decimal place?
7.0 - neither acidic nor alkali
> Boy, you sure did your homework :-)
Always useful to refresh recollection. ;)
>However, if they provided you with a "color" result this would be some type of
>colorametric analysis - a company called HACH makes all kinds of kits whereby a measured
>sample of the waste/water has some type of reagent added to it, wait a while then compare
>the color with a color chart. I would agree that this could provide a fairly accurate
As I said, tropical fish stores sell many such water test kits. They
are quite useful and accurate enough to allow one to maintain some fairly
sensitive fish.
>range, but, this type of test is not sufficient when providing data a regulatory agancy
>(to be compliant with the SDWS) which is the entire point I have been trying to make.
Maybe so. OTOH, the original poster had concerns about water from a
source not under her control. I did not sense that she was looking to satisfy
some regulatory agency or looking to spend a fistful of dollars, rather just had
some concerns about the water quality. IOW, was it harmful to her horse? IME,
a simpler testing procedure, if used, has greater value than a more
sophisticated testing procedure that is only discussed in the abstract.
As always, YMMV