th

7 International Poultry Conference - Proceeding

==================================================================================================================================

EFFECT OF MAGNETICALLY TREATED WATER ON SOME

PRODUCTIVE AND REPRODUCTIVE PERFORMANCE IN
EGYPTIAN GEESE
A. M. El-Hanoun

Animal Production Research Institute, Agriculture Research Center. Ministry of Agriculture, Egypt.
alielhanoun@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT: The experiment was performed to study the influence of type water such as
tap water (TW) and well water (WW) and exposed to magnetic field (approximately 4000
gauss) on productive and reproductive performance of Egyptian geese. The experiment was
investigated in 2 × 2 factorial experimental design. A flock of 108 one year-old Egyptian
female geese were utilized in this investigation. Birds were randomly divided into four
equal groups, each made up of three replicates of 9 geese. The treatments included TW
supplemented without or with magnetic exposure (TW vs. MTW) for 1st and 2nd treatment
and also the same procedure was done for the well water (WW vs. MWW) for 3rd and 4th
treatment. During the experiment, laying birds of the all group was kept in intensive system
which confinement in a house and fed a commercial feed ad libitum. Natural mating was
practiced during the experimental period from November to the end of May. The mean
results showed that:
1-Magnetic treatment induced greater effect on WW than that on TW in terms of pH,
conductivity, salinity, calcium, magnesium, total hardness and dissolved oxygen.
2-The response criteria were productive and reproductive performance as egg number, egg
weight, egg mass, feed conversion ratio, fertility, hatchability, egg quality traits, blood
biochemical, hormone levels and growth of gosling up to 20 weeks of age.
3- Geese drank WW decreased (P≤0.05) function of the renal and liver, plasma estrogen
and progesterone and total antioxidant capacity, but increased thiobarbituric acid-relative
substances.
4- Geese drank water exposed to the magnetic field increased (P≤0.05) egg number, egg
weight, egg mass, water consumed, fertility, hatchability, number of gosling at day-old,
shell weight and thickness, yolk weight, body weight gain for gosling up to 20 weeks of
age and quantity of meat produced per geese per year compared to those of geese drank
un magnetized water.
5- Geese drank water exposed to the magnetic field improved (P≤0.05) renal function (urea
and creatinine), liver enzyme (AST and ALT) and reproductive hormones (estrogen and
progesterone) of geese compared to those drank unexposed water.
6- Gosling drank magnetic water during 4-20 weeks of age significantly (P≤0.05) increased
body weight gain, meat quantity produced per geese per year and water consumed but
mortality rate and feed intake decreased, and feed conversion ratio was significantly
improved.
In conclusion, exposing of water and practically well water to a magnetic field may offer a
solution to improve productive and reproductive performance and antioxidant status of
Egyptian geese and their offsprings. This treatment may be useful management practice
in the area where geese breeders depends on well water as a sole source of drinking
water.
Key words: Geese, magnetic water, productive and reproductive, hormone levels and
antioxidant enzymes.

========================================================================================
3 – 6 November 2014, Ain Sukhna, Red Sea – Egypt -(93)-
 th
7 International Poultry Conference - Proceeding
==================================================================================================================================

INTRODUCTION

New reclaimed desert areas depend on under groundwater for drinking of animals
reared in farms erected in these desert lands. Recent Egyptian Agriculture Policy has been
directed towards intensive land reclamation in the desert areas. Animals in these areas are
usually dependent on drinking well water with varying degrees of salinity. Water salinity is
the major factor determining the suitability of particular water source for poultry in Egypt
and one of the principal factors affecting water quality is the amount of total dissolved salts
(TDS) in the water (Morsy et al., 2012). The presence of high concentrations of some
inorganic ions such as Ca++, Mg++, Na+, Cl-, SO4--and HCO3- in animals drinking water
may cause harmful effects resulting in poor performance, illness or even death (Kellems
and Church, 2002). In nature, the earth’s magnetic field naturally charges water in lakes,
wells, and running streams. However, as water passes through treatment plants and is
transported through pipes to our home or work place, it loses its magnetic charge. Treating
water with magnetic fields simple restores the natural energy and balance that nature
intended (Ovchinnikova and Pollack, 2009).

In literature, the magnetic technology has been investigated in the agriculture with
major emphasis on plant fields, but little attention has been given to the animal and poultry
sector (Hozayn and Abdul Qados, 2010). Water is needed for every biological reaction and
for transportation of every compound, cellular integrity and body temperature regulation,
etc. Birds generally drink approximately twice as much water as the amount of feed
consumed on a weight basis and low quality water has been shown to influence animal
performance and to increase health threat (Marai et al., 2005).

Recent evidences indicated that magnetic treatment of water may offer a possible
solution to improve water quality (Verma, 2011). A magnetic treatment changes mineral
content of water, decreases lime deposition microbial load in the pipes and thus increases
their permeability through biological membranes (Lam, 2001). An enhancement in the
calves and sheep growth and a reduction in carcass fat in sheep were demonstrated due to
magnetizing of water (Bergsrud and Linn, 1990). In addition, Lin and Yotvat (1989) cited
that an increase in milk yield of dairy cattle consuming magnetic water. El-Hanoun et al.
(2013) found that doe rabbits drank tap or well water exposing to magnetic field improved
most productive and reproductive performance. Verma (2011) reported that magnetized
water stop the growth of bacteria and works as antibiotic, take care of pain, swelling and
weakness and enhances overall general health. On the other hand, a contradictory results
were reported by Sargolzehi et al. (2009) who showed that magnetic water did not
positively affect animal performance, carcass composition, blood glucose and urea and Na,
K, Mg and P in blood and nutrient profiles in milk such as protein, fat, lactose, non-fat solid
and total solid of lambs and goats. Thus, this study aims to evaluate the effects of magnetic
treatment of tap and well water on productive and reproductive performance of Egyptian
geese and growth of their offsprings up to 20 weeks of age.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Birds and Experimental Design:

This experiment was conducted at a private commercial farm in Borg El-Arab City,
Alexandria Governorate, Egypt which is a desert area from November 2012 until May 2013
and lasted for 28 weeks. A flock of 108 one year-old Egyptian female geese were used in
========================================================================================
3 – 6 November 2014, Ain Sukhna, Red Sea – Egypt -(94)-
 th
7 International Poultry Conference - Proceeding
==================================================================================================================================

this experiment. Birds were randomly divided into four treatment groups of 27 geese each,
in three replicates of 9 geese each. Birds were housed in windowless houses furnished with
wood shaving as a litter and contained twelve pens of 2x3 m2. Each pen was provided with
six nests. During the daytime, geese were exposed to natural light.
Natural mating was practiced during the breeding season. During the experiment,
laying birds of the all group was kept in intensive system which confinement in a house and
fed a commercial feed ad libitum containing 16% CP, 2750 kcal ME/kg, 3% Ca and 0.35%
non-phytate phosphorus, 0.60% total sulfur amino acids and 0.70% lysine (Association
Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC), 2007). At the beginning of the experiment, all birds
were vaccinated against avian influenza. Birds were submitted to the following treatments:
TW group, drinking tap water; WW group, drinking well water; MTW group, drinking tap
water exposed to the magnetic field of approximately 4000 gauss and MWW group,
drinking well water submitted to the same treatment of magnetized. Well water obtained
from a desert well at Borg El-Arab city with depth of 120 meter and TW obtained from the
same city.

Physical and Chemical Analysis of Water:

Physical and chemical analysis of water types were carried out to determine pH,
conductivity, salinity, dissolved oxygen, total hardness, sodium, potassium, calcium,
magnesium, chloride, carbonate and organic matter as shown in Table 1. Water was
exposed to magnetic field by a permanent magnet in a compact form using a unit called
Aqua Correct (Magnetic water softeners and Conditioners, Blue Goose Sales, 200 S Duane
Ct, Post Falls ID 83854, USA). This is coaxial permanent system equipment that produced
magnetic field strength as high as 4000 gauss. The function is pure magnetic physical, so
the crystal structure of lime scale will change and can easily be removed. The strength of
the magnet was measured by Teslameter (F.W.Bell/ Gauss, Model 5070, USA) at
Application Laboratory, City for Scientific Research and Biotechnology and Egypt- Japan
University of Science and Technology, Egypt.

Productive Performance:
Body weight, egg number laid (eggs/geese/year), individual egg weight (g) and egg
mass per year were recorded. Feed intake (g feed/geese/day), feed conversion ratio (g
feed/egg) and water consumed (cm3/geese/day) were recorded. Geese were allowed to
incubate and hatch their eggs, although part was collected and broken for egg quality
measurements and part was collected as they laid and incubated in a storage room for 7
days at 240C and 60% relative humidity. Fertility and hatchability were determined
naturally for each group geese within each experimental treatment 4 weeks after initiation
of the experiment. A total of 12 hatches per group were used. Fertilization of eggs was
defined macroscopically on the 7th day of incubation. Percentage hatchability of fertile
eggs was defined as the number of hatched goslings divided by the number of fertilized
eggs per goose x100. A total of 10 eggs per replicate (30 eggs per treatment) were collected
in each group during December, February and April to measure egg quality traits. Eggs
were weighed and broken open. Yolk, albumen and eggshell were separated and weighed
and expressed as a percentage of total egg weight. In addition, shell thickness (mm) and egg
shape index [(egg width/egg length) x100] were estimated.

Hormones and Biochemical Constituents:

Blood samples were collected from four randomly chosen females per replicate
(twelve per treatment). Blood samples of 6 ml were collected at 15 months of age in the
========================================================================================
3 – 6 November 2014, Ain Sukhna, Red Sea – Egypt -(95)-
 th
7 International Poultry Conference - Proceeding
==================================================================================================================================

morning before access to feed of hens that had a hard shell egg in the uterus. One aliquot of
blood from each bird was placed into a heparinized tube and the other into a non-
heparinized tube. Plasma and serum were obtained by centrifugation of samples at 1500 xg
for 20 min, and were stored at -200C until the analyses. Concentrations of plasma estradiol-
17 (E2) and progesterone (P4) were assayed by radioimmunoassay (RIA) using DSL Kits
DSL-4000, DSL-43100 and DSL-3900, respectively (Diagnostic systems Laboratories Inc,
TX, USA) according to Abraham (1977). All biochemical traits of blood serum such as
urea, creatinine, alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST)
were determined using commercial kits (Diamond Diagnostics, Egypt) as reported by Attia
et al. (2009).

Antioxidants Status:
Four blood samples per treatment per replicated as a total of 12 samples per
treatment for the whole experiment were randomly chosen of the above mentioned samples
for determination of the antioxidant status. Total antioxidant capacity (TAC) was according
to Koracevic et al. (2001). Blood plasma thiobarbituric acid-reactive substances (TBARS)
were according to Tappel and Zalkin (1959).

Growth and Carcass Quality of Gosling:

Goslings hatched from each treatment group were raised in the same system as the
parents until 20 weeks of age. The growth performance was recorded between 4 and 20
weeks of age. At 20 weeks of age, five goslings were randomly chosen from each treatment
and slaughtered for evaluation of carcass and organ traits. The weight of meat produced per
geese per year (kg) was calculated using the following equation: Meat produced per geese
per year (kg) = Number of goslings produced by geese per year x BW of goslings (kg) at 20
weeks of age:

Statistical Analysis:
All data were subjected to analysis of variance using factorial experimental design
(2 types of water × 2 magnetic treatments) of the general linear model procedure described
by SAS software program (SAS, 2004). The difference among means was determined using
Duncan’s new multiple range test (Duncan, 1955) at P <0.05.

RESULTS
Water Quality:
Table 1 indicated that TW had better quality than those for WW in salinity,
dissolved oxygen, hardness, Na, K, Ca, Mg, Cl. Most of these minerals were excreted in the
feces. Also, both water types were improved due to magnetic field exposure. The magnetic
exposure resulted was in less effect on TW than WW such as of pH (8.69 vs. 7.37 %),
conductivity (9.83 vs. 5.24 %), salinity (2.47 vs. 9.69 %), sodium (6.78 vs.15.78%),
calcium (15.02 vs. 20.58 %), magnesium (15.81 vs. 20.08%), chloride (27.05 vs. 18.60%)
and dissolved oxygen (44.09 vs. 37.07%).

Productive Performance:
Results for productive traits are presented in Table 2. Final body weight, egg
number, egg weight, egg mass, feed conversion ratio and water consumed were
significantly (P<0.05) affected by water type and magnetic treatment. Birds drank TW
recorded significantly (P<0.05) best values for all traits study compared drank WW except
feed intake which non significant effect. Also, geese drank water exposing to magnetic field
========================================================================================
3 – 6 November 2014, Ain Sukhna, Red Sea – Egypt -(96)-
 th
7 International Poultry Conference - Proceeding
==================================================================================================================================

significantly increase final body weight (6.04%), egg number (12.32%), egg weight
(2.55%), egg mass (15.24%), water consumed (20.9%) and improved feed conversion ratio
(-11.88%) compared to those consumed unmagnetized for both water types.

Reproductive Performance:
Results given in Table 2 showed the effect of type of water and magnetic water
exposure on fertility, hatchability of fertile eggs and number of day old gosling. There was
significant interaction between water type and magnetic treatment on all reproductive traits
study. Differences between TW and WW were significant effect. Birds drank magnetic
water were significantly (P<0.05) greater in fertility (5.86%), hatchability of fertile eggs
(6.96%) and number of day old gosling produced per geese (27.23%) than those for drank
non magnetic water.

Egg Quality Traits:

Table 2 displayed data, as affected by type of water and magnetic water exposure, for
egg quality traits. There was significant (P<0.05) interaction between water type and
magnetic treatment on shell weight, shell thickness, yolk and albumin weights. Birds drank
tap water recorded higher significant (P<0.05) mean for shell weight, shell thickness and
yolk weights compared with drank WW, while differences between TW and WW was no
significant for egg shape index. Geese drank magnetized water increased (P≤0.05) shell
weight (7.07%), shell thickness (5.66%) and yolk weight (3.75%) but decreased albumin
weight (-3.26%) compared to those for drank unmagnetized water.

Plasma Hormone:
Also, Table 2 showed the effect of type of water and magnetic water exposure on
plasma E2, and P4. There were significant interaction between water type and magnetic
treatment on the ovarian hormones (E2 and P4). Tap water and magnetic exposure had
higher (P≤0.05) plasma E2 and P4 than WW and non-treated water, respectively.

Serum Biochemical Constituents:

Results in Table 2 indicated that significant affects of type of water and magnetic
water exposure on renal, liver functions and antioxidant statues. There was a significant
interaction between water type and magnetic exposure on renal function (urea and
creatinine), liver enzyme (AST and ALT) and antioxidant statues (TAC and TBARS). Well
water increased (P≤0.05) each of urea, creatinine, AST, ALT and TBARS and decrease
TAC compared with those for TW. Geese drank magnetized water decreased (P≤0.05) urea
(-16.0%), creatinine (-15.4%), AST (-17.5%), ALT (-11.1%) and TBARS (-17.7%%) but
increased TAC (13.1%) compared to those for unexposed water.

Gosling Performance:
Table 3 showed the influence of different treatments on growth performance of
gosling during 4-20 weeks of age. There was a significant interaction between type of water
and magnetic exposure on body weight at 20 weeks of age, body weight gain, feed intake
and conversion, water consumed, meat produced per geese per year and mortality rate.
Also, gosling produced from geese drank water exposed to magnetic field recorded higher
(P≤0.05) body weight at 20 weeks of age, body weight gain, meat quantity produced per
geese per year, water consumed and improved feed conversion ratio, mortality rate
compared with gosling produced from geese drank unexposed water, but decreased feed
intake. Gosling produced from geese consumed TW had higher (P≤0.05) body weight at 20
========================================================================================
3 – 6 November 2014, Ain Sukhna, Red Sea – Egypt -(97)-
 th
7 International Poultry Conference - Proceeding
==================================================================================================================================

weeks of age, body weight gain, meat quantity produced per geese per year and water
consumed and better feed conversion and mortality rate during 4-20 weeks of age.

Carcass and Organs Criteria:

Data presented in Table 3 indicated that there was a significant interaction between
type of water and magnetic exposure on dressing percentage, total skin and abdominal fat
but organ (liver, heart and gizzard) non significant. Gosling produced from geese drank
water exposed to magnetic field recorded the higher dressing percentage and lower total
skin and abdominal fat.
DISCUSSION

The results of this study indicated that well water had lower quality than that of the
tap water and there was an improvement in water quality when exposed to the magnetic
field with considerable changes in the pH, conductivity, salinity, total hardness and
dissolved oxygen. Physically, exposure water to magnetic field changes water properties
which becomes more energized, active, soft and high pH toward slight alkaline and free of
germs which fulfill water quality for poultry requirements (Mg-Therapy, 2000).
Magnetized water causes the hydrogen-oxygen bond angle within the water molecule to be
reduced from 104 to 103 degrees. This in turn causes the water molecule to cluster together
in groups of 6-7 rather than 10-12. The smaller cluster leads to better absorption of water
across cell walls (Verma, 2011). Normal water has a pH level of about 7, whereas
magnetized water can reach pH of 7.8 while cancer cells do not survive well in an alkaline
environment (Lam, 2001). The increasing salinity in well water as shown in Table 1 may be
due to the increasing of soluble salts which associate with the conductivity. This could be
due to increasing organic matter from sewage or due to inorganic fertilizers such as
phosphates and nitrate which stimulating over growth of algae. It was reported that water
passed through the magnetic field acquires finer and more homogeneous structure
(Tkachenko and Semyonova, 1995). This increasing fluidity, dissolving capacity of various
constituents like minerals and vitamins (Kronenberg, 1985) and consequently improving
the biological activity of solutions positively affecting the performance of human being,
animal and plants (Al-Mufarrej et al., 2005). The results of the present study demonstrated
the negative impact of water quality as WW on productive performance, physiological
response, immune indices, antioxidant enzymes, and growth of gosling and had higher
TBARS than those on TW. The negative effect of meat produced per geese per year was
concurred with decreasing gosling number at day-old due to reducing fertility and
hatchability percentage. On the other hand, magnetic treatment improved productive
performance such as egg number, egg weight, egg mass and feed conversion ratio. The
improved gosling performance was concurred with increased body weight gain and
decrease mortality rate. The improved of reproductive traits of geese were concurred with
increasing health status of geese as indicated by increasing TAC and decreasing TBARS.
Similar effects were also shown in liver and renal functions and ovarian hormones. The
present results are in line with those reported by Attia et al. (2013). These effects could be
attributed to the impact of magnetic field and increasing activity of metabolic cycles
(El-Kholy et al., 2008). One could explain the enhanced biological performance, function
of liver, kidney, ovary and antioxidants enzymes based on the effect of magnetic treatments
to improving solubility of minerals of water, which facilities the transfer of the nutrients via
improving membrane permeability to animal cells, thus nutrients uptakes and utilization as
the water is the media for all biological and metabolic reactions. Furthermore, magnetic
treatment was found to improve water quality, reduce lime deposition in pipes and bacterial
========================================================================================
3 – 6 November 2014, Ain Sukhna, Red Sea – Egypt -(98)-
 th
7 International Poultry Conference - Proceeding
==================================================================================================================================

load (Sargolzehi et al., 2009). Bad water quality has been shown to affect animal
performance which leads to increase health problems (Wahaab and Badawy 2004; Attia et
al., 2013). Moreover, De Blas (2013) concluded that the alteration in the gut compositional
changes has been showed as a possible cause of gut disorder and retard growth and health
problem in rabbits. The improved performance for gosling during growth period coming
from geese consumed magnetic water, showing the carry over effect of water type and
magnetic treatments on their progeny performance. This could be explained by the
improvements in health and immunity of the geese as mentioned previously. Similar results
were reported by Attia et al. (2013). These improvements in progeny performance are in
general agreement with those reported by Lin (1995) who mentioned that MTW improved
the performance of farm animals (chickens, turkeys, pigs, cows, calves and sheep).
In conclusion, exposing of water and practically WW to a magnetic field may offer a
solution to improve reproductive performance, function of liver, renal and ovary and
antioxidant status of Egyptian geese and their offsprings. This treatment may be useful
management practice in the area where geese breeding depends on well water as a source of
drinking water.

Table 1. Chemical analysis of water types used in the experiment

Parameters Unit Tap water Well water
(-) (+) (-) (+)
pH - 6.64 7.13 7.02 7.63
Conductivity Ms/Cm 725 763 1068 1173
Salinity Mg/L 361 396 1011 1036
Dissolved Oxygen Mg/L 847 1161 796 1147
Hardness Mg/L 9.14 13.09 26.61 37.05
Sodium (Na+) Mg/L 3.04 3.52 11.64 12.43
+
Potassium (K ) Mg/L 0.38 0.26 0.85 0.51
Calcium (Ca2+) Mg/L 6.8 8.2 21.3 24.5
2+
Magnesium (Mg ) Mg/L 2.34 2.71 6.31 7.45
Chloride (Cl-) Mg/L 4.3 3.5 58.4 42.6
Carbonate (CO3-) Mg/L 0.11 0.14 0.23 0.28
-
Bicarbonate (HCO3 ) Mg/L 2.15 2.53 8.63 9.12
(-) without magnetic exposure; (+) with magnetic exposure.

REFERENCES
Abraham, G.E., 1977. Handbook of Radioimmunoassay. Vol. 5 ed. Marcel Dekker.
NY, USA.
Al-Mufarrej, S.; Al-Batshan, H.A.; Shalaby, M.I. and Shafey, T.M., 2005. The
effects of magnetically treated water on the performance and immune system of
broiler chickens. International Journal of Poultry Science, 4:96-102.
Association of official analytical chemists (AOAC) 2007. Official methods of
analysis (18th Ed) Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Attia, Y.A.; Abd El-Hamid, A.E.; Bovera, F. and El-Sayed, M.I., 2009.
Reproductive and reproductive performance of rabbit does submitted to an oral
glucose supplementation. Animal, 3:1401-1407.
Attia, Y.A.; Abd El Hamid, E.A.; Ismaiel, A.M. and Asmaa. S. El Nagar, 2013. The
detoxication of nitrate by two antioxidants or a probiotic and the effects on
blood and seminal plasma profiles and reproductive function of NZW rabbit
bucks. Animal 7:591-601.
========================================================================================
3 – 6 November 2014, Ain Sukhna, Red Sea – Egypt -(99)-
 th
7 International Poultry Conference - Proceeding
==================================================================================================================================

Bergsrud, F. and Linn J., 1990. Water quality for livestock and poultry. Minnesota
Extension Service Publication AG-FO-1864-D
De Blas, J. C., 2013. Nutritional impact on health and performance in intensively
reared rabbits. Animal 7 s1: 102-111.
Duncan, D.B., 1955. Multiple range and multiple F test. Biometrics 11, 1–24.
El-Hanoun, A. M.; Attia, Y. A.; Abd El-Hamid, A. E.; Gad, H. A. and Abdella, M.
M.,2013. Response of rabbit does to water type and magnetic treatments. 4th
Scientific Conference of Animal Production Research Institute (APRI), 12-13
November, 370-383.
El-Kholy, K.H.; Sleem, T.S.T.; El-Aassar, T.A. and Hanaa Abdelharith, 2008.
Effect of dietary addition of Arak (Salvadora persica) on growth and
reproductive performance in Black Baladi rabbit males. World Rabbit Science,
16 (1): 21-27.
Hozayn, M. and Abdul Qados, A.M.S., 2010. Magnetic water application for
improving wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) crop production. Agric. Biol. J. N. Am.,
1(4): 677-682.
Kellems, R.O. and Church, D.C., 2002. Livestock Feeds and Feeding. 5th edition.
Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersy.
Koracevic, D.; Koracevic, G.; Djordjevic, V.; Andrejevic, S. and Cosic, V., 2001.
Method for the measurement of antioxidant activity in human fluids. J. Clin.
Pathol., 54: 356-361.
Kronenberg, K.J., 1985. Experimental evidence for effects of magnetic fields on
moving water. IEEE Transaction on Magnetics, 21:2059-2061.
Lam, M., 2001. Magnetized water. (www.DrLam.com)
Lin, I. and Yotvat, J., 1989. Exposure of irrigation water to magnetic field with
controlled power and direction: effects on grapefruit. Alon Hanotea, 43: 669-
674.
Lin, I.J., 1995. Magnetised water is no mystery. Alive, 148:12-14.
Marai, I. F. M.; Habeeb, A. A .and Gad, A. E., 2005. Tolerance of imported rabbits
grown as meat animals to hot climate and saline drinking water in the
subtropical environment of Egypt. Animal Science 81: 115–123.
Mg-Therapy, 2000. Magnetic water. http://www. Thepainrelivers. Com.au/about-
magnetic-therapy-pain-relife.php.
Morsey, A.S.; Mona, M.Hassan and Amal M.Hassan, 2012. Effect of natural saline
drinking water on productive and physiological performance of laying hens
under heat stress conditions. Egypt. Poult. Sci., Vol. 32(III):561-578.
Ovchinnikova, K. and Pollack, G.H., 2009. Can water store charge? Langmuir, 25:
542-547.
Sargolzehi, M. M.; Rezaee Rokn-Abadi M. and Naserian A. A., 2009. The effects of
magnetic water on milk and blood components of lactating Saanen goats.
International Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism 1: 20-24.
SAS, 2004. SAS/STAT User's guide statistics. SAS institute INC., Cary. NC, USA.
Tappel, A.L. and Zalkin H., 1959. Inhibition of lipid peroxidation in mitochondria by
vitamin E. Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 80, 333-336.
Tkachenko, Y. and Semyonova, N., 1995. Your way to health: Magnetic water plus
separate nutrition” In:Mysteries of Magnetic Energies A Collection of
Scientific Works on the Usage of Magnetic Energies in Medical Practice. Yuri
P.Tkachenko (ed),Printing Emirates, Printing & Publishing-Sharjah, UAE.
1995. Part 6, pp:225-244.
========================================================================================
3 – 6 November 2014, Ain Sukhna, Red Sea – Egypt -(100)-
 ‫‪th‬‬
‫‪7 International Poultry Conference - Proceeding‬‬
‫==================================================================================================================================‬

‫‪Verma, S.S., 2011.Magnetic water treatment. Chemical Business Jurnal, January,13-‬‬

‫‪16.‬‬
‫‪Wahaab, R.A. and Badawy M.I., 2004. Water quality assessment of the river Nile‬‬
‫‪system: an overview. Biomed Environmental Science 17: 87–100.‬‬

‫الولخص العربي‬

‫تأثير استخدام الواء الوعالج هغناطيسيا على بعض الصفات االنتاجيه والتناسليه فى األوز‬
‫على دمحم الحنوى‬
‫ِؼ‪ٙ‬ذ بح‪ٛ‬د االٔخاس اٌح‪ٛ١‬أ‪ِ ,ٝ‬زوش اٌبح‪ٛ‬د اٌشراػ‪ ،ٗ١‬اٌذل‪ ,ٝ‬ص‪١‬شٖ‪ِ ،‬صز‬

‫أصز‪٠‬ج اٌخضزبت ب‪ٙ‬ذف دراطت حأر‪١‬ز ٔ‪ٛ‬ػ‪ ٗ١‬اٌّ‪١‬اٖ ِزً ِ‪١‬اٖ اٌصٕب‪ٛ‬ر ( ‪١ِٚ )TW‬اٖ ا‪٢‬بار ( ‪ٚ )WW‬حؼزض‬
‫٘ذٖ اٌّ‪١‬اٖ ٌّضاي ِغٕاغ‪١‬ظ‪٠ ٟ‬مارب ‪ 4000‬صا‪ٚ‬ص ػٍ‪ ٝ‬بؼط اٌصفاث اإلٔخاص‪١‬ت ‪ٚ‬اٌخٕاطٍ‪١‬ت ٌأل‪ٚ‬س اٌّصز‪ .ٜ‬حُ حصّ‪ُ١‬‬
‫اٌخضزبٗ ف‪ٔ ٝ‬ظاَ ػاٍِ‪ )2 x 2 ( ٝ‬ػٍ‪ ٝ‬لط‪١‬غ ِٓ األ‪ٚ‬س اٌّصز‪٠ ٜ‬بٍغ ػذدٖ ‪ 108‬ػّز طٕٗ ‪ٚ‬احذٖ ‪ .‬حُ حمظ‪ ُ١‬اٌط‪ٛ١‬ر‬
‫‪ 9‬أاد ٌىً ِٕ‪ٙ‬ا‪ .‬اٌّؼاِالث‬ ‫ػش‪ٛ‬ائ‪١‬ا اٌ‪ ٝ‬أربؼٗ ِضاِ‪١‬غ ِخظا‪ٚ ٗ٠ٚ‬وً ِضّ‪ٛ‬ػٗ حخى‪ ِٓ ْٛ‬رالد ِىزراث حشًّ‬
‫اشخٍّج ػٍ‪ ٝ‬حمذ‪ِ ُ٠‬اء صٕب‪ٛ‬ر ِؼزض ‪ٚ‬غ‪١‬ز ِؼزض ٌّضاي ِغٕاغ‪١‬ظ‪ٌٍّ (TW vs. MTW) ٟ‬ؼاٍِت األ‪ٚ ٌٝٚ‬اٌزأ‪١‬ت‬
‫‪ٚ‬وذٌه ٔفض اٌش ْ‪ ٝ‬بإٌظبت ٌّ‪١‬اٖ ا‪٢‬بار )‪ٌٍّ (WW vs. MWW‬ؼاٍِت اٌزاٌزت ‪ٚ‬اٌزابؼت‪ .‬حُ حزب‪ ٗ١‬اٌط‪ٛ١‬ر ف‪ ٝ‬وً اٌّضاِ‪١‬غ‬
‫ححج إٌظاَ اٌّىزف خالي فخزٖ اٌخضزبٗ ح‪١‬ذ حُ ‪ٚ‬ظؼ‪ٙ‬ا ف‪ِ ٝ‬ظاوٓ ِغ حغذ‪٠‬خ‪ٙ‬ا ػٍ‪ ٝ‬ػٍ‪١‬مٗ حضار‪ ٗ٠‬بص‪ٛ‬رٖ حزٖ‪ .‬واْ ‪٠‬خُ‬
‫اٌخشا‪ٚ‬س غب‪١‬ؼ‪١‬ا خالي فخزٖ اٌخضزبٗ ِٓ ش‪ٙ‬ز ٔ‪ٛ‬فّبز ‪ٚ‬حخ‪ٙٔ ٝ‬ا‪ِ ٗ٠‬ا‪ .ٛ٠‬وكانت أهن النتائج هايلى‪:‬‬
‫‪ -1‬أظ‪ٙ‬زث إٌخائش أْ اٌّؼاٍِت اٌّؼٕاغ‪١‬ظ‪ ٗ١‬أحذرج حأر‪١‬زا ‪ٚ‬اظحا ػٍ‪١ِ ٝ‬اٖ ا‪٢‬بار باٌّمارٔت بّ‪١‬اٖ اٌصٕب‪ٛ‬ر ِٓ ح‪١‬ذ‬
‫درصٗ اٌحّ‪ٛ‬ظت ‪ ،‬اٌمذرة ػٍ‪ ٝ‬اٌخ‪ٛ‬ص‪ ،ً١‬اٌٍّ‪ٛ‬حت‪ ،‬اٌىاٌظ‪ ،َٛ١‬اٌّاغٕظ‪ ،َٛ١‬اٌؼظز اٌىٍ‪ٚ ٝ‬األوظض‪ ٓ١‬اٌّذاب‪.‬‬
‫‪ -2‬واْ ٕ٘ان اطخضابت ٌّؼا‪١٠‬ز األداء اإلٔخاص‪ٚ ٟ‬اٌخٕاطٍ‪ِ ٟ‬زً ػذد اٌب‪١‬ط‪ٚ ،‬سْ اٌب‪١‬ط‪ ،‬وخٍٗ اٌب‪١‬ط‪ ،‬اٌىفاءٖ اٌخح‪ٗ١ٍ٠ٛ‬‬
‫ٌٍغذاء‪ ،‬اٌخص‪ٛ‬بٗ‪ ،‬اٌفمض‪ ،‬صفاث ص‪ٛ‬دٖ اٌب‪١‬ط‪ ،‬اٌصفاث اٌب‪ٛ١‬و‪١ّ١‬ائ‪ٌٍ ٗ١‬ذَ‪ِ ،‬ظخ‪ ٜٛ‬اٌ‪ٙ‬زِ‪ٔٛ‬اث‪ ّٛٔٚ ،‬صغار اال‪ٚ‬س‬
‫حخ‪ ٝ‬ػّز ‪ 20‬أطب‪ٛ‬ع‪.‬‬
‫‪ -3‬اال‪ٚ‬س اٌذ‪ ٜ‬شزب ِ‪١‬اٖ ا‪٢‬بار حذد ٌٗ أخفاض ِؼٕ‪٠ٛ‬ا )‪ٌ (P≤0.05‬ىً ِٓ ‪ٚ‬ظائف اٌىٍ‪ٚ ٝ‬اٌىبذ‪٘ ،‬زِ‪ٔٛ‬اث‬
‫األطخز‪ٚ‬ص‪ٚ ٓ١‬اٌبز‪ٚ‬صظخ‪١‬ز‪ِٚ ،ْٚ‬ضّ‪ٛ‬ع اٌمذرة اٌّعادة ٌألوظذة‪ ،‬ب‪ّٕ١‬ا سادث اٌّ‪ٛ‬اد اٌحّع‪١‬ت إٌظب‪١‬ت ‪. TBARS‬‬
‫ِؼٕ‪ٌ (P≤0.05) ٞٛ‬ىً ِٓ ػذد اٌب‪١‬ط‪ٚ ،‬سْ‬ ‫ٖ‬ ‫‪ -4‬اال‪ٚ‬س اٌذ‪ ٜ‬شزب ِ‪١‬اٖ ِؼزظٗ ٌّضاي ِغٕاغ‪١‬ظ‪ ٟ‬حذد ٌٗ س‪٠‬ادٖ‬
‫اٌب‪١‬ط‪ ،‬وخٍٗ اٌب‪١‬ط‪ ،‬وّ‪ ٗ١‬اٌّاء اٌّظخ‪ٍٙ‬ه‪ٔ ،‬ظبخ‪ ٝ‬اٌخص‪ٛ‬بٗ ‪ٚ‬اٌخفز‪٠‬خ‪ ،‬ػذد صغار اال‪ٚ‬س إٌاحضٗ ػّز ‪ٚ ،َٛ٠‬سْ‬
‫‪ٚ‬طّه لشزٖ اٌب‪١‬عٗ‪ٚ ،‬سْ اٌصفار‪ِ ،‬ؼذي اٌش‪٠‬ادٖ ف‪ٚ ٝ‬سْ اٌضظُ حخ‪ 20 ٝ‬أطب‪ٛ‬ع ِٓ اٌؼّز‪ٚ ،‬وّ‪ ٗ١‬اٌٍحُ إٌاحضٗ ِٓ‬
‫وً أ‪ٚ‬سٖ خالي اٌؼاَ باٌّمارٔت باال‪ٚ‬س اٌذ‪ ٜ‬شزب ِاء غ‪١‬ز ِؼزض ٌّضاي ِغٕاغ‪١‬ظ‪.ٟ‬‬
‫‪ -5‬اال‪ٚ‬س اٌذ‪ ٜ‬شزب ِ‪١‬اٖ ِؼزظٗ ٌّضاي ِغٕاغ‪١‬ظ‪ ٟ‬حذد ٌٗ ححضْ ِؼٕ‪ ٜٛ‬يوال ِٓ ‪ٚ‬ظائف اٌىٍ‪ٚ ٝ‬اٌىبذ ‪ٚ‬اٌ‪ٙ‬زِ‪ٔٛ‬اث‬
‫اٌخٕاطٍ‪١‬ت باٌّمارٔت باألِ‪ٙ‬اث اٌخ‪ ٟ‬شزبج ِاء غ‪١‬ز ِؼزض ٌّضاي ِغٕاغ‪١‬ظ‪.ٟ‬‬
‫ِؼٕ‪ٌ ٞٛ‬ىً ِٓ ِؼذي اٌش‪٠‬ادة ف‪ٚ ٟ‬سْ‬ ‫ٖ‬ ‫‪ -6‬صغار األ‪ٚ‬س إٌاحضٗ ِٓ أِ‪ٙ‬اث شزبج ِاء ِؼاٌش ِغٕاغ‪١‬ظ‪١‬ا حّ‪١‬شث ب س‪٠‬ادٖ‬
‫اٌضظُ خالي اٌفخزٖ ِٓ ‪ 20-4‬أطب‪ٛ‬ع ِٓ اٌؼّز ‪ٚ‬وّ‪ ٗ١‬اٌٍحُ إٌاحضٗ ِٓ وً أَ خالي اٌؼاَ ‪ٚ‬أ‪٠‬عا وّ‪ ٗ١‬اٌّاء اٌّظخ‪ٍٙ‬ه‬
‫ب‪ّٕ١‬ا حذد أخفاض يوً ِٓ ٔظبٗ إٌف‪ٛ‬ق ‪ٚ‬وّ‪ ٗ١‬اٌغذاء اٌّأو‪ٛ‬ي ِّا أد‪ ٜ‬اٌ‪ ٝ‬ححظ‪ ٓ١‬اٌىفاءٖ اٌخح‪ٌٍ ٗ١ٍ٠ٛ‬غذاء‪.‬‬
‫ِٓ إٌخائش اٌّخحصً ػٍ‪ٙ١‬ا ف‪٘ ٟ‬ذٖ اٌذراطت ‪ّ٠‬ىٓ اٌخ‪ٛ‬ص‪١‬ت بأْ حؼز‪٠‬ط اٌّ‪١‬اٖ ‪ٚ‬خص‪ٛ‬صا ِ‪١‬اٖ ا‪٢‬بار ٌّضاي‬
‫ِغٕاغ‪١‬ظ‪ ٟ‬لذ حى‪ ْٛ‬حال ٌخحظ‪ ٓ١‬األداء االٔخاص‪ٚ ٝ‬اٌخٕاطٍ‪ٚ ٟ‬حاٌٗ ِعاداث األوظذة ف‪ ٟ‬اال‪ٚ‬س اٌّصز‪ٚ ٜ‬خٍفخٗ‪ .‬حٍه‬
‫اٌّؼاٍِت لذ حى‪ِ ْٛ‬ف‪١‬ذة ٌّزب‪ ٝ‬اال‪ٚ‬س ف‪ ٟ‬إٌّاغك اٌخ‪ ٟ‬حؼخّذ ػٍ‪١ِ ٝ‬اٖ ا‪٢‬بار وّصذر ِ‪١‬اٖ ٌٍشزب‪.‬‬

‫========================================================================================‬
‫‪3 – 6 November 2014, Ain Sukhna, Red Sea – Egypt‬‬ ‫‪-(101)-‬‬
 th
7 International Poultry Conference - Proceeding
==================================================================================================================================

Table (2): Effect of water type and magnetic treatment on productive and reproductive performance, egg quality traits, plasma
hormone and serum biochemical constituents of the Egyptian geese (Mean ± SE)
Trait Interaction effect Main effect of water type Main effect of magnetic
TW WW treatment
(-) (+) (-) (+) TW WW (-) (+)
Productive performance
Initial body weight (g) 3505.2±38.1 3515.1±42.1 3527.4±36.5 3539.6±47.1 3510.2±37.1 3533.5±33.2 3516.3±40.8 3527.4±39.1
Final body weight (g) 4126.2b±46.3 4375.1a±35.3 3658.4d±40.1 3879.6c±51.1 4250.7a±33.4 3769.0b±39.7 3892.3b±51.6 4127.4a±44.4
Egg number (eggs/geese/year) 49.9c±4.6 56.8a±3.7 47.5d±4.4 52.6b±3.1 53.4a±4.1 50.1b±3.9 48.7b±4.1 54.7a±3.6
Egg weight (g) 149.8c±1.4 153.8a±1.7 147.5d±1.2 151.2b±1.9 151.8a±1.5 149.4b±1.1 148.7b±1.6 152.5a±1.4
Egg mass (g) 7475.0c±14.7 8735.8a±.12.5 7006.3d±16.1 7953.1b±13.5 8105.4a±15.7 7479.7b±17.1 7240.7b±14.4 8344.5a±16.1
Feed intake (g feed/geese/day) 321.4±12.7 326.2±10.9 319.7±13.1 324.1±11.5 323.8±14.1 321.9±12.9 320.6±13.7 325.2±10.8
FCR (g feed/g egg) 842.7b±51.3 731.9d±39.5 894.4a±43.8 798.7c±59.7 787.3±62.7 846.5±55.1 868.5a±43.6 765.3b±35.5
Water consumed (cm3/geese/day) 313.5c±16.2 376.2a±15.7 282.7d±14.9 344.6b±17.2 344.8a±16.6 313.6b±14.8 298.1b±13.7 360.4a±15.3
Reproductive traits
Fertility (%) 81.5c±2.9 85.7a±3.1 78.6d±2.7 83.9b±3.0 83.6a±2.5 81.3b±2.8 80.1b±3.6 84.8a±2.8
Hatchability of fertile eggs (%) 83.7c±3.4 89.5a±2.5 80.2d±3.9 85.7b±2.6 86.6a±3.1 82.9b±3.5 81.9b±2.4 87.6a±3.3
Number of day-old goslings/layer 34.03c±0.5 43.56a±0.3 29.94d±0.4 37.82b±0.3 38.79a±0.6 33.88b±0.4 31.98b±0.3 40.69a±0.5
Egg quality traits
Shell weight (%) 10.23b±0.15 10.89±a0.11 9.57c±0.13 10.31b±0.14 10.56a±0.13 9.94b±0.15 9.90b±0.11 10.60a±0.14
Shell thickness (mm) 0.431b±0.011 0.461a±0.009 0.417c±0.013 0.435b±0.012 0.446a±0.013 0.426b±0.011 0.424b±0.012 0.448a±0.014
Egg shape index 65.8±0.23 66.3±0.19 65.7±0.27 66.1±0.22 66.1±0.26 65.9±0.20 65.8±0.24 66.2±0.21
Yolk weight (%) 32.7b±0.13 33.8a±0.15 31.2c±0.17 32.5b±0.14 33.25a±0.13 31.85b±0.15 31.95b±0.12 33.15a±0.14
Albumen weight (%) 57.07b±0.42 55.31c±0.38 59.23a±0.44 57.15b±0.61 56.19b±0.49 58.21a±0.51 58.15a±0.46 56.25b±0.53
Plasma hormone
Estradiol-17 (E2; pg/ml) 371b±12.7 394a±10.9 338c±13.5 365b±14.2 382a±13.1 352b±11.9 355b±12.7 380a±13.3
Progesterone (P4; ng/ml) 0.428b±0.10 0.457a±0.13 0.413c±0.11 0.434b±0.12 0.442a±0.14 0.424b±0.12 0.420b±0.13 0.445a±0.15
Serum biochemical constituents
Urea (mg/dl) 20.1b±2.67 18.2c±2.53 24.8a±3.11 19.7b±2.52 19.2b±2.71 22.3a±2.69 22.5a±2.35 18.9b±2.79
b c a b b a a
Creatinine (mg/dl) 1.34 ±0.11 1.18 ±0.08 1.64 ±0.12 1.33 ±0.10 1.26 ±0.13 1.49 ±0.09 1.49 ±0.10 1.26b±0.8
b c a b b a a
AST (IU) 27.1 ±0.85 22.1 ±0.99 32.3 ±0.86 26.9 ±0.74 24.6 ±0.90 29.6 ±0.83 29.7 ±0.75 24.5b±0.67
b c a b b a a
ALT (IU) 56.2 ±1.13 50.6 ±1.08 63.1 ±1.24 55.4 ±1.16 53.4 ±1.22 59.3 ±1.18 59.6 ±1.25 53.0b±1.21
b a c b a b b
TAC (mm/l) 159.5 ±2.63 177.8 ±2.15 141.4 ±2.43 162.3 ±2.28 168.6 ±2.69 151.8 ±2.55 150.4 ±2.71 170.1a±2.38
b d a c b a a
TBARS (nmol/ml) 0.985 ±0.006 0.856 ±0.005 1.188 ±0.007 0.933 ±0.005 0.920 ±0.003 1.061 ±0.008 1.086 ±0.006 0.894b±0.005
a,b,c,d
Means within a row having different superscripts are significantly different (P≤0.05), TW= Tap water, WW=Well water, (-) = without magnetized treatment, (±) = magnetized water.

========================================================================================
3 – 6 November 2014, Ain Sukhna, Red Sea – Egypt -(102)-
 th
7 International Poultry Conference - Proceeding
==================================================================================================================================

Table (3): Growth performance, carcass and organs criteria of the gosling affected by water type and magnetic treatment (Mean ±
SE)
Trait Interaction effect Main effect of water type Main effect of magnetic
TW WW treatment
(-) (+) (-) (+) TW WW (-) (+)
Growth performance
Body weight at 4 weeks of age (g) 1367.5±29.8 1386.1±36.3 1348.7±23.1 1359.6±31.6 1376.8±33.6 1354.2±25.5 1358.1±31.2 1372.9±27.6
Body weight at 20 weeks of age (g) 3741.2b±46.8 3861.2a±58.1 3554.4c±49.3 3718.9b±61.1 3801.2a±55.1 3636.7b±62.4 3647.8b±49.7 3790.1a±51.7
Body weight gain during 4-20 weeks (g) 2373.7b±43.7 2475.1a±41.9 2205.7c±48.6 2359.3b±44.2 2424.4a±51.3 2282.5b±46.9 2289.7b±43.5 2417.2a±53.6
Feed intake during 4 - 20 weeks( g/day) 137.2b±3.5 126.2d±2.9 145.3a±3.5 131.5c±3.1 131.7b±3.6 138.4a±2.8 141.3a±3.3 128.8b±2.7
Feed conversion during 4 - 20 weeks 6.47b±0.55 5.71c±0.63 7.37a±0.49 6.24b±0.57 6.09b±0.51 6.81a±0.44 6.92a±0.60 5.98b±0.54
Meat produced per goose /year (kg) 115.5c±7.1 154.4a±6.4 94.3d±5.7 127.9b±6.8 134.9a±6.6 111.1b±5.7 104.9b±7.1 141.1a±6.2
Water consumed (cm3/gosling/day) 172.3b±9.2 196.2a±8.7 151.7c±10.4 177.5b±9.8 184.3a±10.3 164.6b±9.4 162.0b±8.2 186.8a±10.6
Mortality rate (4 - 20 weeks) 9.3b±0.66 8.2c±0.52 11.4a±0.64 9.1b±0.71 8.75b±0.53 10.25a±0.64 10.35a±0.55 8.65b±0.49
Carcass and organs criteria (%)
Dressing percentage (%) 64.7b±0.63 67.9a±0.75 62.1c±0.58 66.8a±0.56 66.3a±0.60 64.5b±0.71 63.4b±0.57 67.4a±0.63
b d a c b a a
Total skin (with fat) % 17.6 ±0.55 15.6 ±0.41 19.2 ±0.61 16.4 ±0.52 16.6 ±0.48 17.8 ±0.56 18.4 ±0.44 16.0b±0.53
b c a b b a a
Abdominal fat (%) 3.62 ±0.17 3.10 ±0.19 3.86 ±0.13 3.58 ±0.15 3.36 ±0.14 3.72 ±0.17 3.74 ±0.13 3.34b±0.12
Liver (%) 1.89±0.12 1.78±0.10 1.91±0.13 1.85±0.11 1.84±0.11 1.88±0.09 1.90±0.12 1.81±0.14
Heart (%) 0.64±0.03 0.62±0.01 0.63±0.04 0.61±0.02 0.63±0.02 0.62±0.01 0.63±0.03 0.62±0.02
Gizzard (%) 3.56±0.13 3.68±0.11 3.44±0.16 3.59±0.14 3.62±0.12 3.52±0.14 3.50±0.11 3.63±0.13
a,b,c,d
Means within a row having different superscripts are significantly different (P≤0.05), TW= Tap water, WW=Well water, (-) = without magnetized treatment, (±) = magnetized water.
Meat produced/year per goose (kg) = number of live goslings at 20 weeks of age x body weight of goslings (kg) at 20 weeks of age.

========================================================================================
3 – 6 November 2014, Ain Sukhna, Red Sea – Egypt -(103)-