Is clear, odorless and tasteless water necessarily good-quality water? Not always. On farms, the water used for livestock drinking can contain substances invisible to the naked eye that may affect installations or call for health vigilance.
PFAS, TFA, pesticide residues, bacteria, iron or manganese: there are many contaminants to monitor in a borehole, a well or a drinking water network. Some are well known to farmers, while others, such as TFA, are attracting growing scientific attention.
For farmers, the question is a practical one: how can you know the quality of the water supplied to your animals? Which parameters should be analyzed? And how do you choose a treatment that truly suits your farm?
At FLX Water, we believe agricultural water quality must be considered as a whole, from the origin of the resource to the drinkers. Here are the main contaminants to know about and good practices for securing your livestock's water supply.
Why does agricultural water quality deserve special monitoring?
In livestock farming, water is an essential resource. It plays a role in hydration, digestion, thermoregulation and many of the animals' physiological functions.
But not all farms have the same resource. Some are supplied by the public network, while others use a private borehole, well or spring.
These resources have different characteristics and may be exposed to contamination of natural, agricultural or industrial origin.
Groundwater can, for example, contain iron or manganese at concentrations that promote fouling of installations. A poorly protected borehole can be exposed to microbiological contamination. Some resources may also contain pesticide residues or persistent substances such as PFAS.
Water quality therefore cannot be assessed by appearance alone.
An appropriate analysis identifies the parameters actually present and any actions that need to be taken.
PFAS in agricultural water: why should you pay attention?
PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a vast family of fluorinated chemical compounds used in various industrial and commercial applications.
Some of these compounds are particularly persistent in the environment. They can end up in soils, surface water and groundwater.
Their presence in an agricultural water resource depends on many factors: past or current activities nearby, geological characteristics, water circulation and possible sources of pollution.
Contamination therefore does not automatically mean that it comes from the practices of the farm concerned.
How can PFAS reach a borehole?
Groundwater is replenished by the infiltration of rainfall and by exchanges with other bodies of water.
When persistent substances are present in the environment, some can be transported to aquifers, depending on their mobility and local conditions.
An agricultural borehole can thus be affected by pollution originating some distance from the abstraction point.
The risk depends heavily on the molecules present: not all PFAS have the same properties, the same mobility or the same behavior in treatment systems.
What are the risks for livestock?
PFAS are the subject of extensive research into their effects on human health, ecosystems and animals.
Some can accumulate in organisms, but this capacity varies considerably between substances and species.
For livestock farming, several questions may arise: repeated exposure through drinking water, the possible contribution of feed, possible transfer to certain animal products, and health consequences depending on exposure levels.
However, generalizations must be avoided. The presence of PFAS in water does not, on its own, allow any conclusion to be drawn about an effect on a herd's growth, reproduction or milk production.
A serious assessment requires knowing which molecules are present, their concentrations, the animals' actual exposure and the available scientific references.
TFA: an emerging contaminant under close scrutiny in 2026
Among the substances attracting growing attention is TFA, or trifluoroacetic acid.
This ultra-short-chain fluorinated compound can result in particular from the breakdown of certain substances used in plant protection products, fluorinated gases or various industrial applications.
TFA has two important characteristics: it is highly persistent in the environment and particularly mobile in water.
It can therefore be found in rainwater, surface water and groundwater.
Why is TFA hard to control?
Unlike some contaminants that bind relatively easily to filter materials, TFA is a very small dissolved molecule.
Its high mobility makes it difficult to remove with conventional treatments.
Standard mechanical filtration processes are not designed to retain such a small dissolved molecule. Nor can conventional activated carbon be assumed to be effective against TFA.
Advanced processes, including certain reverse osmosis configurations, can reduce its concentration, but they require a specific technical study and generate concentrated reject streams that must be managed.
Why is TFA making so many headlines in 2026?
In July 2026, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reassessed the available toxicological data on TFA.
It lowered its acceptable daily intake for dietary exposure to 0.014 mg per kilogram of body weight per day, compared with a previous value of 0.05 mg/kg/day.
This reassessment is based in particular on the results of toxicological studies in animals and on the uncertainties that remain about the effects of prolonged exposure.
On October 6, 2026, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) also announced that its Committee for Risk Assessment recommended classifying TFA and some of its salts as substances toxic to reproduction, persistent and mobile.
This is a scientific recommendation within the European classification process, not the announcement of a new general limit immediately applicable to all livestock drinking water.
These developments nevertheless reinforce the value of better documenting the presence of TFA in water resources.
Should TFA be tested for in every agricultural borehole?
Not necessarily as a matter of routine.
Specific testing may be relevant when a resource has a known contamination context, when local environmental data report its presence, or when an in-depth diagnosis is needed.
TFA is not always included in standard agricultural water analyses. You should therefore check with the laboratory whether this parameter can be tested and with what limit of quantification.
For farmers, it is important to remember that toxicological values established for human consumption are not automatically health thresholds applicable to all animal species.
Pesticides and metabolites: sometimes invisible contamination
Pesticides can also contribute to the contamination of certain water resources.
After use, active substances can be broken down by various physical, chemical or biological processes.
This transformation sometimes produces metabolites, i.e. compounds resulting from the breakdown of the original molecule.
Some can persist in the environment or migrate to groundwater.
It is therefore possible to find in a borehole residues of molecules that are no longer used locally, or breakdown products that were not tested for in previous checks.
Monitoring must be adapted to the local context: crops grown, history of use, soil type and available information on groundwater quality.
A general analysis does not necessarily test for all existing pesticides.
When a particular risk is identified, it may be useful to request a targeted panel of substances and metabolites.
Iron, manganese and mineralization: practical problems for installations
Emerging contaminants attract attention, but more conventional parameters remain essential for the day-to-day running of a farm.
Iron and manganese, for example, can occur naturally in groundwater.
At certain concentrations, they promote deposits in pipes, tanks and drinkers.
These deposits can complicate the maintenance of installations, promote fouling of some equipment and disrupt the operation of distribution or dosing devices.
In pig farming, IFIP (the French pork industry institute) proposes indicative technical values below 200 µg/L for iron and 50 µg/L for manganese.
These benchmarks are used to assess water quality and the operation of installations in the context studied. They should not be confused with universal regulatory toxicity thresholds for all species.
pH and hardness matter too
pH influences certain chemical reactions and can alter the effectiveness of disinfection treatments.
Hardness, mainly linked to calcium and magnesium, can promote scaling of equipment when conditions are right.
Highly mineralized water may also have particular taste characteristics and require an assessment of its suitability for livestock drinking.
The right goal is not to remove all minerals, but to have water whose composition suits the animals and the installations.
Microbiological contamination: a major risk for livestock drinking water
Borehole water can also present microbiological risks, particularly when the water source is poorly protected or when runoff enters the installation.
Contamination can come from various sources: effluents, wild animals, surface water or leaks.
The farm's internal network also plays an important role.
Water correctly drawn at the borehole outlet can deteriorate in quality during storage or distribution.
Poorly maintained tanks, rarely used pipes and fouled drinkers can promote the formation of biofilms.
These communities of micro-organisms adhering to surfaces can make cleaning and disinfection more difficult.
Commonly tested indicators include Escherichia coli, coliforms and enterococci.
For pig farming, IFIP recommends in particular a bacteriological analysis at least once a year, at a point representative of the water the animals actually drink.
This approach highlights an essential principle: it is not enough to analyze water at the farm inlet if the problem lies further along the network.
What impacts can poor-quality water have on livestock?
Water is involved in many physiological functions: hydration, digestion, thermoregulation, metabolism and, in dairy females, milk production.
Unsuitable water quality can affect how much the animals drink or contribute to health problems, depending on the contaminants present.
However, the consequences vary greatly depending on the species, age, physiological stage and level of exposure.
In cattle
Water requirements can rise considerably with temperature and milk production.
Insufficient availability, difficult access or degraded water quality can contribute to lower water intake and, indirectly, disrupt feeding or performance.
In pigs
The microbiological quality of the water, the flow rate of the drinkers and the condition of the pipes are particularly important.
Iron or manganese deposits can also complicate the maintenance of water lines and the operation of some dosing systems.
In poultry
Water is essential for feeding and thermoregulation. The cleanliness of drinking lines, microbiological quality and the proper functioning of nipple drinkers require particular attention.
In goats and sheep
Water quality, availability at drinking points and equipment maintenance contribute to animal comfort and the smooth running of the farm.
In all cases, it would be excessive to automatically attribute a drop in performance to the presence of a contaminant without examining other factors: feed, temperature, herd management, health status and housing conditions.
Borehole, well or mains water: which contaminants should be analyzed?
The choice of analyses depends mainly on the origin of the water, the characteristics of the farm and the risks identified locally.
Here are the main parameters to consider.
| Parameter | Why monitor it? | Situations concerned |
|---|---|---|
| Indicator bacteria | Detect microbiological or faecal contamination | Boreholes, wells, storage, internal networks |
| Iron and manganese | Identify the risk of deposits and fouling | Groundwater, fouled equipment |
| pH, conductivity and hardness | Characterize the water and its interactions with installations | All water origins |
| Pesticides and metabolites | Look for residues linked to local uses and history | Farming areas or water sources with an identified risk |
| PFAS | Assess contamination by certain persistent fluorinated compounds | At-risk areas or documented environmental context |
| TFA | Look for a highly mobile and persistent fluorinated compound | Targeted diagnosis depending on the local context |
This table is an aid to reflection, not a list of mandatory analyses for all farms.
A laboratory specializing in livestock drinking water can help select the relevant parameters and interpret the results according to the animals concerned.
How can you carry out a reliable analysis of your agricultural water?
An analysis is only useful if the sample taken correctly represents the water you want to assess.
It is therefore important to define the purpose of the check precisely.
Do you want to know the quality of the resource at the borehole outlet? Check the condition of the storage? Or analyze the water actually supplied to the animals?
These three samples can give different results.
1. Identify the origin of the water
The diagnosis starts with a description of the resource: borehole, well, public network, spring or other supply.
The depth of the water source, its protection, nearby activities and any previous incidents should also be taken into account.
2. Examine the distribution circuit
Storage, pumps, pipes and drinkers must be considered as a complete chain.
Poor maintenance or a contaminated tank can degrade water quality after abstraction.
3. Choose the appropriate analyses
Microbiological and physico-chemical analyses are often a first basis.
PFAS, TFA and certain pesticides generally require targeted analytical methods. They must therefore be explicitly requested when testing for them is justified.
4. Follow sampling requirements
Bottles, storage conditions and delivery times vary depending on the parameters.
Microbiological sampling in particular must follow the laboratory's instructions to avoid contaminating the sample or altering the result.
5. Interpret the results according to use
A concentration must be compared with a reference relevant to the animal species, the health context and the intended use.
Thresholds applicable to water intended for human consumption should not automatically be transposed to livestock drinking water.
If a result is concerning, interpretation may require the opinion of a veterinarian, a specialized laboratory or a technical adviser.
How can contaminated agricultural water be treated?
There is no filtration system that can automatically address every water quality issue.
The choice of treatment depends on the nature of the contaminants, their concentration, the flow rate needed and the characteristics of the resource.
Pre-filtration
Mechanical filters retain particles according to their size: sand, sediment or suspended solids.
They can protect downstream equipment and limit some fouling phenomena.
Activated carbon
Activated carbon is used to adsorb certain organic compounds and improve some organoleptic characteristics of water.
It can also be effective against some PFAS, depending on the molecules concerned, the treatment configuration and operating conditions.
Its effectiveness is variable, however, particularly for short-chain fluorinated compounds.
It should therefore not be assumed that an activated carbon filter systematically removes all PFAS or TFA.
Membrane filtration
Membrane technologies cover several very different processes.
Microfiltration membranes and some ultrafiltration membranes retain particles and micro-organisms according to their characteristics.
Nanofiltration and reverse osmosis can act on certain dissolved substances, but their performance depends on the type of membrane and the molecules targeted.
A 0.1 µm membrane, for example, should not be confused with a reverse osmosis membrane.
Specific treatments
Depending on the analysis results, other processes may be needed: oxidation and filtration of iron or manganese, microbiological disinfection, ion exchange or membrane treatments suited to dissolved substances.
Some equipment can be combined to address several problems.
The right treatment is one whose effectiveness is suited to the contaminants actually present and verified under the farm's operating conditions.
FLX Water: a filtration solution designed for farms
At FLX Water, we help farmers identify their water quality issues and choose a solution suited to their needs.
The FLX Water Agricultural Solution is designed to treat high flow rates, with a nominal capacity of up to 5,000 liters per hour, or 5 m³/h.
It combines several treatment stages, including:
- Mechanical pre-filtration with stainless steel filters of different finenesses.
- An activated carbon stage.
- A final filtration cartridge based on the technology developed by FLX Water.
The filtration system works without its own power supply and without added chemicals in its process. However, the farm's water supply, including any borehole pump, may require electricity.
The aim is to provide centralized filtration suited to the volumes of water used in livestock farming, after a feasibility study.
A practical example: reducing iron on a goat farm
On a goat farm in the Deux-Sèvres department supplied by a borehole, FLX Water observed an 87% reduction in iron concentration during a check carried out on one installation.
This result shows the value of studying the composition of the water and verifying the performance achieved after treatment.
However, it is a specific case and does not guarantee an identical reduction for every resource.
Likewise, the performance of an FLX Water solution against PFAS, TFA or other dissolved contaminants should not be assumed without test data suited to the substances concerned.
Why start with a feasibility study?
Every farm has different characteristics: water origin, resource quality, volume consumed, peak flow, number of animals and installation layout.
Before making any recommendation, FLX Water therefore favors an approach that includes identifying needs, reviewing available analyses and assessing equipment compatibility.
This approach avoids choosing equipment solely on the basis of its flow rate or its advertised filtration fineness.
To find out more, discover our water filtration solution for farms.
Agricultural water quality: know your resource better to protect your livestock better
Agricultural water quality is not limited to a few conventional parameters. PFAS, TFA, pesticide residues, bacteria, iron and manganese illustrate the range of issues that can affect a farm.
For farmers, the priority is not to systematically test for every existing substance, but to build monitoring consistent with the origin of the water, local risks and the animals' needs.
Appropriate analysis, a well-maintained network and correctly sized treatment are the foundations of sustainable management of livestock drinking water.
At FLX Water, our approach is based on one principle: understand water quality before choosing how to treat it.
Because quality water cannot be judged by its clarity or taste alone.
Frequently asked questions
Which contaminants can be found in agricultural borehole water?
Depending on the resource and its surroundings, a borehole may contain iron, manganese, micro-organisms, pesticide residues or certain persistent compounds such as PFAS and TFA. Their presence and concentration must be determined by analysis.
Is TFA a PFAS?
TFA is generally considered an ultra-short-chain fluorinated compound and may be included in some broad definitions of PFAS. Its classification depends on the scientific or regulatory framework used. It is notably distinguished by its very high mobility in water.
Can PFAS in water affect animals?
Some PFAS can contribute to animals' exposure, but the effects depend on the molecules, concentrations, exposure times and species. Detecting a PFAS is not enough to demonstrate a specific health or zootechnical consequence.
Does a standard borehole analysis test for TFA?
Not necessarily. TFA requires specific testing that is not systematically included in routine microbiological and physico-chemical analyses.
How often should livestock drinking water be analyzed?
The frequency depends on the type of livestock, the origin of the water and the risks identified. In pig farming, IFIP recommends in particular an annual bacteriological analysis at a point representative of the water consumed by the animals. Additional checks may be useful after an incident or a change to the installation.
Does activated carbon remove TFA?
Its effectiveness against TFA should not be assumed. This highly mobile molecule is difficult to retain with conventional treatments. Possible solutions require a technical assessment and appropriate testing.
Can borehole water be filtered for livestock drinking?
Yes, when a suitable treatment has been identified. The choice depends on the contaminants present, the flow rate needed and the characteristics of the resource. A prior analysis determines the relevant treatment stages.
Sources
- EFSA – EFSA lowers safe level for exposure to TFA, July 2026: reassessment of the acceptable daily intake for TFA.
- ECHA – ECHA recommends TFA's classification as a reprotoxic substance, October 2026: opinion of the Committee for Risk Assessment on TFA and its salts.
- European Parliament – Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, 2026: overview of the environmental and regulatory issues related to PFAS, including TFA.
- European Environment Agency – Treatment of drinking water to remove PFAS: treatment technologies, performance and limitations.
- EurEau – Position paper on TFA, March 2025: technical and environmental difficulties of removing TFA from water.
- IFIP – Drinking water quality in pig farming: monitoring parameters, borehole protection and analysis recommendations.
- Labocéa – Analysis of livestock drinking water: microbiological and physico-chemical parameters, sampling and water testing.
Solution recommandée
FiltraLife Agricultural Solution
Filtration de l'eau sans électricité ni produits chimiques. Réduit les impuretés, les goûts et les odeurs.
