J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract 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 PubMed
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Li, Y. Z.
Right arrow Articles by Gonyou, H. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Li, Y. Z.
Right arrow Articles by Gonyou, H. W.
J. Anim. Sci. 2005. 83:1413-1422
© 2005 American Society of Animal Science

ANIMAL PRODUCTION

Water intake and wastage at nipple drinkers by growing-finishing pigs1

Y. Z. Li2, L. Chénard3, S. P. Lemay4 and H. W. Gonyou

Prairie Swine Centre, Saskatoon SK S7J 5N9, Canada


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Implications
 Literature Cited
 
Three experiments were conducted to assess water intake, water wastage, and a means to decrease water wastage by growing-finishing pigs from nipple drinkers. In Exp. 1, 48 pigs were studied during two periods (average BW = 53 and 72 kg for Period 1 and 2, respectively). Water disappearance and wastage were determined for 4 d, while nipple drinkers were set at 50 mm above the shoulder height of the smallest pig in the pen (recommended heights), with flow rates at 700 mL/min during Period 1, and 1,000 mL/min during Period 2. Water intake rate was assessed at two nipple flow rates, approximately 650 and 1,300 mL/min during the Period 1, and 1,000 and 2,000 mL/min during the Period 2. The average water intake was 4.01 and 5.38 ± 0.19 L·pig–1·d–1 during Periods 1 and 2, respectively (P < 0.01). Water wastage as a percentage of water disappearance was similar between the two periods (25.8 and 27.0 ± 1.9% for Periods 1 and 2, respectively). Water intake rate was 467 and 795 mL/min (±34.2; P < 0.01) during Period 1, and 722 and 1,422 mL/min (±80.0; P < 0.01) during Period 2, at the lower and higher flow rates, respectively. In Exp. 2, 32 pigs were used in a 2 x 2 factorial design to determine effects of nipple heights (recommended vs. unadjusted = 330 mm) and flow rates (500 vs. 1,000 mL/min) on water intake and wastage. Water wastage was increased (P < 0.01) on the unadjusted vs. recommended nipple height, and the higher flow rate also resulted in greater wastage (P = 0.03) compared with the lower rate. In Exp. 3, water disappearance and manure output in 16 pens of 18 pigs per pen were monitored for 12 wk (average initial BW = 32 kg) using four drinker treatments (bowl drinker, nipple drinker at recommended heights, an unadjusted nipple set at 480 mm, and high nipple drinker height of 730 mm with a step underneath). For pigs on the high nipple drinker, the average water disappearance and manure output did not differ from those of the pigs on the recommended nipple heights and bowl drinker, but these measurements were 15 and 12% lower, respectively, than for the pigs on the low nipple drinker. The results indicate that growing-finishing pigs can maintain adequate water intake from a variety of drinker types and management. Water wastage can be controlled through drinker management.

Key Words: Drinking Behavior • Nipple Drinkers • Pigs • Water Intake • Water Wastage


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Implications
 Literature Cited
 
The heavy use of water and large quantities of slurry produced on pig units are important components of the environmental and cost issues related to intensive pork production. Although it is necessary to provide adequate water for all pigs, minimizing the wastage of water from the delivery system would decrease both water use and slurry volume. To effectively manage water usage, it is necessary to consider the relationships among water disappearance, intake, and wastage using different drinkers and drinker management programs.

Water requirements for pigs are not as well understood as those for other nutrients (Brooks, 1994Go; Thacker, 2001Go). During the growing-finishing period, water intake ranges from 1.9 to 6.8 L/d within the thermoneutral zone (Brooks and Carpenter, 1989Go; Brumm et al., 2000Go). However, most water intakes reported in the literature are water disappearances, including water wasted during drinking as well as that actually consumed. Growing-finishing pigs may waste up to 60% of the water from a poorly managed nipple drinker (Brooks, 1994Go). It is known that low height and high flow rate of nipple drinkers increase water spillage (Phillips et al., 1990Go, 1995Go). To decrease water waste, Carr (1994)Go recommended that drinker height and flow rate be adjusted regularly; however, many producers find it impractical to change drinker heights and flow rates as their animals grow. It would be more desirable to manage wastage without adjustments to the drinkers. To accomplish this, we need a better understanding of pig drinking behavior, as well as how water is wasted from the drinker.

Three experiments were conducted to determine 1) water intake, wastage, and drinking behavior of pigs at the recommended nipple heights and flow rates (Exp. 1); 2) how nipple height and flow rate affect water intake and wastage (Exp. 2), and 3) the effectiveness of drinker management in decreasing water wastage under commercial conditions (Exp. 3).


   Materials and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
Results
 Discussion
 Implications
 Literature Cited
 
The University Committee on Animal Care and Supply of the University of Saskatchewan reviewed and approved the protocol for the study to ensure adherence to the Canadian Council of Animal Care (Olfert et al., 1993Go). All experiments were conducted under thermoneutral conditions (room temperature and relative humidity were recorded twice daily), with room lights on between 0700 and 1700. The rooms were mechanically ventilated. The animals (Pig Improvement Co. Canada, Airdrie, Alberta, Canada) used were healthy and evidenced no lameness at the start of the experiments. The pigs were provided ad libitum access to nutritionally balanced diets (wheat and soy meal) formulated to meet NRC (1998)Go recommendations. The nipple drinkers used (RCD nipple drinker, SMB Mfg., Inc., Wallenstein, Ontario, Canada) were play-guarded single nipples with the nipple pointing downward at 45°. Water pressure to the water lines was approximately 310 kPa.

Experiment 1
Six pens of eight female growing-finishing pigs were studied for two periods. During nontest periods, the pigs were housed in a partially slatted pen in a thermostatically controlled room. A nipple drinker was installed 53 cm above the slatted floor and set at a flow rate of approximately 1,000 mL/min. The animals were tested in three blocks, each consisting of two pens of eight pigs. Each block was on test for two 1-wk periods in two specially equipped pens. Each 4.8 x 2.4 m test pen had a plastic-coated expanded metal floor and was raised 60 cm above the room floor. The single water nipple was situated at the midpoint of one end wall, with a single-space (32-cm wide) dry feeder situated in an opposite corner. The pigs were provided ad libitum access to the pelleted diet and water. A water meter (model C700I, ABB Water Meters Inc., Ocala, FL) installed in the water line above the drinker was connected to a data logger (Datataker DT 100, Data Electronics Pty. Ltd., Regents Park, Australia) to record water disappearance. The water meters were calibrated to verify accuracy at the start and end of the experiment. A tray (60 cm x 60 cm) was mounted directly below the drinker under the pen floor and funneled wasted water to a 50-L collecting tank.

For each test period, pigs were individually weighed before being placed in the test pen. The average BW were 52.6 (±4.9 SD) and 71.9 (±5.5 SD) kg for Periods 1 and 2, respectively. Periods 1 and 2 were growing and finishing phases, respectively. The height of the bottom of the nipple drinker was adjusted to the recommended height. For this study, the recommended height of the bottom of the nipple drinker was set at 50 mm above the shoulder height of the smallest pig in the pen, according to Gill and Barber (1990)Go and Gonyou (1996)Go. Shoulder height in millimeters was calculated as 150 x BW, kg0.33 (Petherick, 1983Go). Flow rates were based on recommendations by Carr (1994)Go and were achieved by setting the drinker on Level 1 (approximately 700 mL/min) for Period 1, and on Level 2 (approximately 1,000 mL/min) for Period 2. Actual flow rates were measured in 1-min collections and adjusted to the desired rates every week. The pigs were allowed 3 d to adapt to the test pens before a 4-d period during which water disappearance, water wastage, and feed intake were measured. The data logger recorded the reading of the water meter at 5-min intervals, and these data were used to determine water disappearance. Water wastage was determined by weighing the water in the collecting tank daily at 0900. Feed intake was determined by weighing feed into the feeder and weighing remaining feed at the end of the period.

Behavior of the pigs at the drinker and associated water waste were recorded between 1000 and 1600 on the final day of the collection period. The pigs were videotaped from directly above the drinker with two cameras (Panasonic WV-BP 120, Osaka, Japan), a quad input device (Panasonic WJ-410), and time-lapse recorder (Panasonic AG-6730; recording 10 images/s). During this period, the collecting tank was replaced by a smaller container (10 L) placed on a scale (PE 24 Mettler, Columbus, OH), the digital readout of which was recorded via another camera and channel onto the videotape. Water disappearance from the drinker was recorded by the data logger at 10-s intervals at this time to determine water disappearance induced by each behavior.

The videotapes were viewed, with reference to the water disappearance records, to classify and measure behavior and associated water waste. Total time spent at the drinker (or total drinking time) of each pig was assessed by instantaneous sampling at 2-min intervals. A pig was considered to be drinking when it was touching the drinker with its nose or mouth. The mean drink duration was determined by continuously viewing the first eight drinking bouts in each hour (48 bouts total). Drinking frequency was calculated from the total drinking time divided by the mean drink duration. Drinking was considered to begin when a pig touched the drinker with its nose or mouth and concluded when it lost contact with the drinker. The entire 6-h period was viewed continuously to assess drinking associated wastage. All drinker contact bouts longer than 5 s, a period determined to achieve normal drinking (Turner et al., 1999Go), were classified as either 1) front drinking (nipple enters the front of the mouth); 2) side drinking (drinking from a side of the drinker); 3) aggression (two or more pigs competing for the drinker); or 4) accidental triggering (touching the drinker with parts of the body other than the nose and mouth). Each category of behavior was considered to be mutually exclusive. For each bout, water disappearance was determined from the data logger records, and water wastage was determined from the collection scale readout.

Following the 4-d water collection period, the water intake rate and wastage of the pigs were determined at two levels of drinker flow rates: 1) approximately 650 (lower) and 1,300 (higher) mL/min for Period 1; and 2) 1,000 (lower) and 2,000 (higher) mL/min for Period 2. Water was shut off in the pen to prevent pigs from accessing water for 4 h (0900 to 1300), after which pigs were given individual access to the drinker for approximately 20 s while the other pigs were confined at the opposite end of the pen. Four pigs were given access to each flow rate. Water disappearance and spillage were recorded for each pig, from which water intake was calculated. Water intake rate was determined from the water intake and the actual drinking time.

The data were analyzed using the GLM procedure of SAS (SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC) to compare differences between the two periods. For water intake, wastage, and behavior, the pen was the experimental unit. The model included block, period, and the interaction (error). For the effect of nipple flow rate on water intake rate and wastage, individual pig was the experimental unit, and the data were analyzed for the two periods separately. The model for each period included block, flow rate (lower vs. higher), and the interaction (error).

Experiment 2
Thirty-two female pigs were studied in two blocks, each consisting of two pens of eight animals. Throughout the 13-wk experimental period, they were housed in the raised pens as described in Exp. 1. The average BW of the pigs was 15.0 (±1.35 SD) kg upon entering the raised pens. There was 1 wk of adaptation, with nipples set at a height of 330 mm and flow rate of 1,000 mL/min, before the experiment started. Four treatment combinations (2 x 2 factorial arrangement) were applied to each pen over the next 4 wk, referred to as the grower period. The pens were then set to similar conditions (nipple height at 330 mm and flow rate at 1,000 mL/ min) for the next 4 wk, before the finisher tests, which consisted of the same four treatment combinations over a 4-wk period.

The four treatment combinations consisted of a 2 x 2 factorial of nipple height and flow rate. Nipple heights were either unadjusted (330 mm) or recommended (50 mm above the shoulder height of the smallest pig), which was adjusted every 2 wk. Flow rates were either 500 (lower) or 1,000 mL/min (higher). Flow rates of the nipple drinkers were checked and, when necessary, adjusted weekly to ensure that the desired flow rates were maintained. Each pen was exposed randomly to each treatment combination for 1 wk. Water disappearance, intake, waste, and feed intake were measured during the grower and finisher periods as in Exp. 1. Body weight was measured individually at the start of each 4-wk period and again 2 wk later to determine the recommended height of nipple drinkers.

The data were analyzed using the GLM procedure of SAS as a split-plot. The effects of block and pen within block were considered the main plot, with treatment combinations within pen in the subplot. The effects of drinker height, flow rate, and their interactions were tested. Separate ANOVA were conducted for the grower and finisher periods.

Experiment 3
The third experiment was conducted at the Prairie Swine Centre Elstow Research Farm. One grower-finisher room, which was equipped with 16 fully slatted floor pens, was used. The room was mechanically ventilated under negative pressure to maintain thermoneutral conditions. Each 5.75 m x 2.43 m pen had two individual manure pits, running the length of the pen, underneath. A two-space dry feeder was installed at the middle of the pen division, and a drinker was installed at the midpoint of the back wall in the dunging area. The spillage from the drinker went to both of the manure pits. Eighteen pigs, nine castrated males and nine females, were allocated randomly to each pen at an average BW of 31.8 (±4.5 SD) kg and remained there for 12 wk during the experiment. They were provided dry mash diets and water ad libitum.

Four drinker treatments were assigned randomly to four pens each. The first treatment was a nipple drinker that was adjusted to the recommended height (50 mm above the calculated shoulder height of the smallest pig in the pen) every 2 wk according to the BW of the pigs (Petherick, 1983Go). The second treatment (unadjusted) was a nipple drinker that was set at a height of 480 mm (recommended height for a 25-kg pig) throughout the entire 12-wk test period. The third treatment (stepped) consisted of a nipple drinker set at a height of 730 mm (recommended height for a 100-kg pig) throughout the experiment, mounted above a 36 x 36 cm concrete step. The step was 250 mm tall, so the distance between the bottom of the nipple drinker and the top of the step was 480 mm. The final drinker treatment was a bowl drinker (Drik-O-Mat 93.575, Egebjerg, Denmark), the nipple of which was mounted at a height of 480 mm. One water meter, as used in Exp. 1, was mounted above each drinker to monitor water disappearance for each pen. The flow rate of all drinkers was set at 1,053 (±42 SD) mL/min, and the variation in the mean flow rate during the experiment period was 7%. Water meters were calibrated and flow rates of the nipples were checked at the start and end of the experiment. Each manure pit was calibrated before the study by adding water in known increments and measuring changes in depth.

Pigs were weighed individually at the beginning and end of the experiment. During the experiment, pen weights were obtained every 2 wk. When individual BW were not available, the BW of the smallest pig in each pen, for purposes of determining shoulder height, was estimated as the average pen weight less 2.5 SD, assuming a CV of 12%, which has been observed in a previous study at this facility (Schmolke et al., 2003Go). The automatic feeding system used precluded the measurement of feed intake. Water meters were read twice weekly, from which water disappearance for each week was calculated. Manure volume in each pit was determined weekly by measuring manure depth. Behavior of the pigs in each pen at the drinker was videotaped for 24 h during wk 2, 6, and 10 of the experiment. The videotapes were analyzed by both continuous and instantaneous sampling as in Exp. 1 to determine total drinking time, drinking frequency, and mean duration of each drink.

Data were summarized for each 4-wk subperiod (i.e., wk 0 to 4, wk 4 to 8, wk 8 to 12, and wk 0 to 12). Effects of the treatments on water disappearance, manure volume, drinking behavior, and growth rate were tested using the GLM procedure of SAS, with pen as the experimental unit. The number of animals removed during the experiment was compared among the treatments by {chi}2 test.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
Discussion
 Implications
 Literature Cited
 
Experiment 1
The results of the 4-d intake and drinking behavior tests are presented in Table 1Go. The pigs were approximately 20 kg, or 35% heavier during Period 2 compared with the Period 1. The flow rate of the drinkers was increased from the first to the second period by approximately 55%. Water disappearance, water wastage, and both water and feed intake (expressed on a per-pig basis) also were greater during Period 2 (P < 0.01); however, water intake, expressed in terms of both feed intake and BW, was similar between the two periods. Water wastage, as a proportion of water disappearance, did not differ between the two test periods and was approximately 26% of water disappearance.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Water disappearance, intake, and wastage during 3 d of collection in growing (Period 1) and finishing (Period 2) pigs (Exp. 1)
 
Data for the 6-h observation period were lost for two pens as a result of mechanical failure of the recording system. During the 6-h observations, the pigs during the first period spent slightly more time at the drinkers than they did during the second period (P = 0.02; Table 1Go). There were no differences in frequency of drinks (approximately twice per hour) and the mean duration per drink (approximately 20 s) between the two periods.

The largest proportion of drinking (nipple activation) time was by a frontal approach for both periods, although during Period 1, the pigs drank proportionally more from the front (P = 0.04; Table 1Go) and less from the side (P = 0.02) of the drinker than they did during the second period. The proportion of nipple activation time involving aggression tended to be higher during Period 2, but it was not significantly different than Period 1 (P = 0.11). The proportion of water wastage recorded was between 20 and 30% for all behaviors, with the exception of accidental triggering. Wastage caused by accidental triggering was proportionally more in Period 2, but it was not significantly different than Period 1 because of high variation.

The results of the intake rate portion of the study confirm that water disappearance was greater from the higher flow rate nipples for both periods (P < 0.01; Table 2Go). The pigs were able to increase their intake rate on the higher flow nipples such that wastage as a proportion of disappearance was less than 25% under all conditions. However, the pigs on the lower flow rate (650 mL/min) during Period 1 were able to consume more than 90% of the water from the nipple, which decreased the proportion wasted to less than half that for all other conditions (P < 0.01).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Water intake rate and water usage of growing (Period 1) and finishing (Period 2) pigs at nipple drinkers set at different flow rates (Exp. 1)
 
Experiment 2
The effects of nipple height and flow rate on feed intake and water wastage by the grower and finisher pigs are presented in Table 3Go. In no case was there a significant interaction of nipple height and flow rate on the variables measured (P = 0.17 to 0.91). Neither nipple height nor flow rate affected average daily water intake or feed intake in either grower or finisher pigs. Drinker treatments affected water disappearance in both growing and finishing conditions, with the higher flow rate resulting in a 25% increase in water disappearance in the grower pigs (P = 0.03), and the unadjusted nipple height increasing disappearance by 40% in the finisher pigs (P < 0.01). Water wastage was decreased by setting the drinkers at the recommended height for both grower (P < 0.01) and finisher pigs (P < 0.01), and by decreasing flow rate in the grower pigs (P < 0.01). Wastage as a proportion of water disappearance was decreased by using the recommended nipple height and 500 mL/min flow rate in both grower (P < 0.01 for both) and finisher (P < 0.01 and P = 0.03, respectively) pigs. Either management practice decreased wastage as a percentage of disappearance by approximately 8% for the grower pigs, combining for a decrease of approximately 16% (from 38% for 1,000 mL/min flow rate at the unadjusted height to 22% for 500 mL/min flow rate at the recommended height) between the most and least wasteful combinations. In the finisher pigs, the decrease in waste as a percentage of disappearance was 5% for the lower flow rate and 21% for the recommended nipple height. Wastage as a proportion of disappearance in the finisher pigs varied from as low as 15.1% for the 500 mL/min flow rate at the recommended height, to 41.8% with a 1,000 mL/min flow rate at a height of 330 mm.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3. Effects of height and flow rate of nipple drinkers on water intake and wastage by growing and finishing pigs (Exp. 2)
 
Experiment 3
Pigs on the four drinker treatments performed similarly. Final BW (104 ± 2.0 kg, Table 4Go), within-pen variation in final BW (CV = 10.7 ± 1.2%), ADG (860 ± 20 g/d), and proportion of pigs removed from the experiment (4.8%) did not differ among treatments.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 4. Performance, water disappearance, manure output, and drinking behavior of growing-finishing pigs with different drinkers (Exp. 3)
 
Over the entire experiment, the stepped and bowl drinkers resulted in the least water disappearance and unadjusted drinkers the greatest, with recommended drinkers being intermediate (P = 0.08; Table 4Go). Using mean separation tests, stepped drinkers always had among the lowest disappearance rates in each of the 4-wk subperiods. Water disappearances from bowl drinkers were less during the first two periods, but among the highest during the final period with the largest pigs. The recommended nipple drinker was among the highest levels of disappearance during the first (smallest pigs), intermediate during the second, and among the lowest in the last (largest pigs) period. The unadjusted nipple drinker was among the highest disappearance levels for all subperiods. The highest disappearance rates were approximately 15 to 25% above the minimal rates during each of the three 4-wk periods. Differences in manure volume output were reflective of those in water disappearance, but were not statistically significant during any period or over the entire experiment.

Total drinking time over the entire experiment was greatest in the bowl treatment (P < 0.01, Table 4Go). The same was true during wk 6 and 10, but no difference was observed during wk 2. At no time were there differences among the various nipple drinker treatments for total drinking time. Drinking frequency was variable, with treatment averages ranging from 22 to 38 drinks per pig daily (Table 4Go). No significant differences were observed in drinking frequency among treatments during the overall experiment or within any of the observation weeks. Mean duration for each drink was greatest for the bowl drinkers and least for the recommended drinkers over the entire experiment (P < 0.01). Bowl drinkers resulted in longer drink durations (P < 0.05), but nipple drinker treatments did not differ within each observation week.


   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
Implications
 Literature Cited
 
Water Intake
The present study showed that although water disappearance varied depending on drinker type, drinker height, and flow rate, the actual water intake of growing-finishing pigs was very similar across conditions. In Exp. 1, pigs consumed approximately 80 mL/kg BW on a daily basis. This value is well within the range of 60 to 110 mL/kg of BW reported by Brooks (1994)Go. Harvey (1994)Go reported that daily water intake of growing-finishing pigs was 100 mL/kg of BW. With much greater differences in BW between growing and finishing pigs in Exp. 2, intake levels were still within this range. Water-to-feed intake ratios were in the range of 1.8 (Exp. 2) to 2.4 (Exp. 1), and these results are consistent with those of previous studies. Paschma (2002)Go reported that growing pigs had the best growth performance when provided with a wet feed in which water-to-feed ratio was 2.5. In an intensive study with male growing-finishing pigs in individual metabolism cages, Fremaut et al. (1991)Go showed that the daily water-to-feed ratio was 1.43, and was constant throughout the trial during which the BW of pigs changed from 20 to 70 kg. When water spillage is included, the water-to-feed ratio for growing-finishing pigs has been reported in the range of 2.2 to 4.2 (Brooks and Carpenter, 1990Go; Miyawaki et al., 1994Go; Turner et al., 1999Go; Ange et al., 2000Go) in thermoneutral environments. The NRC (1998)Go recommended a minimum water-to-feed ratio of 2.0 for pigs between 20 to 90 kg of BW.

Water Wastage and Drinking Behavior
When given ad libitum access to nipple drinkers, growing-finishing pigs spent on average 1.1 to 1.4% of their time drinking during the day (Exp. 1; Table 1Go) or 0.7% of their time over the entire 24-h period (Exp. 3; Table 4Go). This represents approximately 6 to 8 min during the 10-h day (light phase) and a total of 10 min over the 24-h period. Turner et al. (1999)Go reported that growing pigs spent 9.3 min drinking daily in a group of 20 pigs with one nipple drinker and a similar diurnal drinking pattern to ours. On average, the growing-finishing pigs drank twice per hour during the day (extrapolated to 18 to 22 drinks in 10 h) and a total of 26 to 33 times during the 24-h period (Exp. 3). The average duration of a drink was 18 to 24 s in both studies. The only differences observed in these drinking behaviors among nipple treatments was a decrease in the average duration of a drink when nipples were mounted at recommended heights rather than at a constant low level; however, drinking behavior from the bowl type drinker in Exp. 3 did not differ from that of nipple drinkers in two respects: the pigs spent approximately 50% more time drinking during the 24 h (15 vs. 10 min) and had longer drink durations (31 vs. 22 s). The frequency of drinking during the day did not differ between drinker types.

It has been suggested that water wastage from pigs at nipple drinkers is affected by drinking behavior, with wastage being higher when pigs drink from the side of the drinker rather than from front (Brooks, 1994Go). With pigs drinking from nipples set at the recommended height, our pigs used the front approach more, and the side approach less during Period 1 than they did during Period 2 of Exp. l. When using the side approach, the smaller pigs wasted a larger proportion of the water than when drinking from the front of the nipple. As front drinking and side drinking consisted of 80 to 90% of total drinker activation, water wastage associated with front and side drinking represents the largest source of water wastage and should be addressed. Activation of the drinker during aggression at the drinker or accidental triggering was less common, although the proportion of water wasted was higher. It should be noted that the proportion of water wasted during each behavior (Table 1Go) was less than the overall proportion wasted. This is because water wastage associated with a behavior was collected only during the period when the behavior was being performed. Water was not counted that might still be dripping into the collecting tray when the behavior ended; therefore, the proportion of water wasted during each behavior may be underestimated. It also should be noted that since there were only eight pigs per pen in the present study, the competition for the drinker may have been lower than on commercial farms, where more pigs share one nipple drinker (Turner et al., 1999Go).

Drinker management (i.e., both nipple height and flow rate) had a significant effect on water wastage. Flow rate of the nipple drinker has previously been reported to affect wastage by sows (Phillips et al., 1990Go, 1995Go). We initially assumed that flow rate would only be a major cause of wastage when it exceeded the pigs’ maximum rate of intake. We assessed intake rates during a single drinking bout (20 s) following a period of water withdrawal. We imposed these conditions to avoid the low intake rates that have been reported after pigs have had longer access to water (Phillips et al., 1995Go). During Periods 1 and 2 of Exp. 1, the pigs had maximal intake rates, established under the higher flow rate conditions, which exceeded the flow rate under the lower flow rate conditions. Nonetheless, wastage was evident in the lower flow rate conditions, indicating that wastage is not due solely to flow rate exceeding the pigs’ maximum intake rate. There was evidence that drinking from nipples is more efficient (i.e., less wasteful) if flow rate was considerably below the pigs’ maximum intake rate. With a flow rate of 650 mL/min, and pigs that were capable of drinking at least 795 mL/ min, wastage was less than 10% of disappearance. Very low flow rates, requiring pigs to increase their total drinking time, have been associated with decreased water intake and performance (Brooks et al., 1989Go; Brumm and NCR-89, 1992Go). Within a range of low flow rates, pigs increased water intake rate with increases in drinker flow rate (Brooks et al., 1989Go; Brooks and Carpenter, 1990Go); however, when drinker flow rate was higher than the recommended level, pigs did not increase actual water intake, but only water spillage (Phillips et al., 1995Go). In Exp. 2, in which we examined the effect of flow rate over several days, we determined that an increase in flow rate from 500 to 1,000 mL/min was associated with an increase in the proportion of water wasted for both grower and finisher pigs. The effect was slightly greater in the grower pigs (from 26.5 to 34.0%) than in finisher pigs (from 25.7 to 31.0%), which may be due to a higher maximal intake rate for larger pigs.

Brooks (1994)Go observed that pigs operate nipple drinkers more with their noses when the drinkers are set at a low height, and thereby waste more water. If producers do not adjust the height of nipple drinkers as pigs grow, we would expect to see greater quantities of water wastage during the finishing period. In Exp. 2, we observed that the proportion of water wasted was greater when nipple height was low and, in keeping with the prediction, the increase in wastage was greater during the finishing (from 17.7 to 39.1%) than the growing (from 25.9 to 34.6%) period. The effects of flow rate and nipple height were additive, such that the maximal difference we observed in proportion of water wasted (from 15.1 to 41.8% in the finisher pigs) could be attributed to a 5% increase due to increased flow rate and a 21% increase due to low drinker height.

Water Disappearance and Manure Outputs
Assuming that water intake of growing-finishing pigs under the same feeding and environmental conditions should be constant (Aarnink et al., 1992Go; Brooks, 1994Go; Smith et al., 2000Go), any inconsistency in water disappearance from the pigs would be the result of water wastage. Higher water disappearance, due to higher water wastage, would result in the output of larger amounts of manure. Our results from Exp. 3 indicated that the manure output, although failing to reach statistical significance, was proportional to water disappearance across all drinker treatments. It is likely that whenever water disappearance is high, the amount of manure output also is high.

When operated at the same flow rate, maintaining drinker height at recommended levels (50 mm above the shoulder height of the smallest pig in the pen) in Exp. 3 was intended to minimize water disappearance using the nipple drinker system. Compared with the unadjusted drinkers, we expected the difference in water disappearance to increase from period to period as the pigs grew. The difference increased from a nonsignificant decrease of 50 mL·pig–1·d–1 on the unadjusted drinkers in the first 4-wk period, to an increase of 670 mL·pig–1·d–1 in the middle period, and to 970 mL·pig–1·d–1 (P < 0.05) during the finishing phase. The stepped treatment was intended to provide the ease of management achieved by the unadjusted treatment (no height adjustments), yet achieve low levels of wastage by providing the drinker at the recommended height during the finishing period. The question was whether the smaller pigs could access the drinker sufficiently by using the steps provided when they would not otherwise be able to reach the nipple. As growth rate was maintained on the stepped treatment during the first 4-wk period, it is assumed that pigs were able to access sufficient water. The lack of any difference in BW variation, number of pigs removed from the study, and drinking behavior support the conclusion that pigs were able to access the stepped drinker adequately throughout the study. The higher nipple height also achieved the lower water disappearance rates expected during the final finishing phase. If fact, water disappearance tended to be lower in the stepped treatment than the recommended treatment throughout the study. It is possible that the elevated nipple and the step underneath decreased the incidence of accidental triggering of the drinker. The bowl drinker used in Exp. 3 was expected to result in minimal wastage (Plagge and Leuteren, 1989). Spillage from bowls should be less influenced by drinker height, as pigs of all sizes would drink from a similar level in a head down position. The bowl used in this study also protected the water activator from accidental triggering by protective sides. Somewhat surprisingly, the bowl treatment actually resulted in greater water disappearance than from the recommended and stepped nipple treatments during the finishing phase. This result indicated that well-designed and managed nipple drinkers may achieve levels of wastage as low as that from bowl drinkers. It should be noted that only one bowl height and size was used in this study, and that different combinations may have improved water usage. Water disappearance over the entire study differed by approximately 15% among the four drinker treatments. Although previous studies (Brumm et al., 2000Go) have indicated that such savings in water usage could be obtained using bowl drinkers, we obtained similar savings using well-managed nipple drinkers. Based on the results of Exp. 2, further decreases in water usage could have been obtained using a lower flow rate.


   Implications
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Implications
Literature Cited
 
Water waste from growing-finishing pigs at nipple drinkers was approximately 26% of the water disappearance, although this varied from 15 to 42%, depending on pig size, nipple height, and flow rate. Water wastage was decreased when nipple height was adjusted based on the size of the pig. Providing a step beneath a nipple drinker mounted at a height recommended for 100-kg pigs was an effective means of providing access to water for smaller animals, while achieving low level of wastage without adjusting nipple height. With good management, water usage from nipple drinkers can be decreased by 15% compared with unadjusted nipples, achieving levels obtained using a bowl drinker.


   Footnotes
 
1 This project was funded by Sask Pork, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and the Natural Sci. and Engineering Res. Council of Canada. Back

3 Current address: Inst. for Agric. Rural and Environ. Health, P.O. Box 120, 103 Hospital Dr., Saskatoon SK S7N 0W8, Canada. Back

4 Current address: Institut de Recherché et de Developpement en Agroenvironnement Inc. (IRDA) Centre de Recherché 120A, Chemin du Roy Deschambault (Quebec) G0A 1S0, Canada. Back

2 Correspondence: P.O. Box 21057, 2105 8th St. E. (phone: 306-667-7428; fax: 306-955-2510; e-mail: liy{at}sask.usask.ca).

Received for publication July 20, 2004. Accepted for publication March 11, 2005.


   Literature Cited
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Implications
 Literature Cited
 


Aarnink, A. J. A., E. N. J. van Ouwerkerk, and M. W. A. Verstegen. 1992. A mathematical model for estimating the amount and composition of slurry from fattening pigs. Livest. Prod. Sci. 31:133–147.

Ange, K. D., J. H. Eisemann, R. A. Argenzio, G. W. Almond, and A. T. Blikslager. 2000. Effects of feed physical form and buffering solutes on water disappearance and proximal stomach pH in swine. J. Anim. Sci. 78:2344–2352.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Brooks, P. H. 1994. Water—Forgotten nutrient and novel delivery system. Pages 211–234 in Biotechnology in the Feed Industry. Nottingham Press, Leicestershire, U.K.

Brooks, P. H., and J. L. Carpenter. 1989. Boost your liquid assets. Pig Farm. 37 (Suppl.):43–45.

Brooks, P. H., and J. L. Carpenter. 1990. The water requirement of growing-finishing pigs-theoretical and practical considerations. Pages 115–136 in Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition 1990. W. Haresign, and D. J. A. Cole, ed. Butterworths, London, U.K.

Brooks, P. H., J. L. Carpenter, J. Barber and B. P. Gill. 1989. Production and welfare problems relating to the supply of water to growing-finishing pigs. Pig Vet. J. 23:51–66.

Brumm, M. C., J. M. Dahlquist, and J. M. Heemstra. 2000. Impact of feeders and drinker devices on pig performance, water use, and manure volume. Swine Health Prod. 8:51–57.

Brumm, M. C., and NCR-89. 1992. Effects of drinker flow and pigs per drinker on finishing pig performance. J. Anim. Sci. 70(Suppl. 1):48. (Abstr.)

Carr, J. 1994. Water delivery systems on pig farms: Recommendations for their usage and problems encountered. Garth Veterinary Group, Driffield, U.K.

Fremaut, D., and R. de Schrijver. 1991. The effects of age and amount of dietary protein on DM and nitrogen contents of excreta of growing pigs. Rev. Agric. 44:963–971.

Gill, B. P., and J. Barber. 1990. Water delivery systems for growing pigs. Farm Build. Prog. 102:19–22.

Gonyou, H. W. 1996. Water use and drinker management. Pages 74–80 in Prairie Swine Centre 1996 Ann. Rep. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

Harvey, R. E. 1994. Water consumption. Pig J. 32:95–98.

Miyawaki, K., S. Itoh, and K. Hoshina. 1994. Water requirement and water-saving effect in finishing pigs fed with wet/dry feeders. Japan. J. Swine Sci. 31:35–42.

NRC. 1998. Nutrient Requirements of Swine. 9th ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC.

Olfert, E. D., B. M. Cross, and A. A. McWilliam. 1993. CCAC Guide to the Care and Use of Experimental Animals. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. Canada Council on Animal Care, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Paschma, J. 2002. Effect of environmental factors on water intake and fattening performance of growing pigs. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2(Suppl. 1):163–166.

Petherick, J. C. 1983. A note on allometric relations in Large White x Landrace pigs. Anim. Prod. 36:497–500.

Phillips, P. A., D. Fraser, and B. K. Thompson. 1990. The influence of water nipple flow rate and position, and room temperature on sow water intake and spillage. Appl. Eng. Agric. 6:75–78.

Phillips, P. A., D. Fraser, and B. K. Thompson. 1995. A method to evaluate appropriate nipple drinker flow rates for pigs. Appl. Eng. Agric. 11:578–590.

Plagge J. G., and J. van Leuteren. 1989. Water consumption of fattening pigs. Varkensproefbedrijf "Noeden Oost- Nederland" P 1.32. Raalte, The Netherlands.

Schmolke, S. A., Y. Z. Li, and H. W. Gonyou. 2003. Effect of group size on performance of growing-finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 81:874–878.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Smith, K. A., D. R. Charles, and D. Moorhouse. 2000. Nitrogen excretion by farm livestock with respect to land spreading requirements and controlling nitrogen losses to ground and surface waters. Part 2: Pigs and poultry. Biores. Technol. 71:183–194.

Thacker, P. A. 2001. Water in Swine Nutrition. Pages 381–398 in Swine Nutrition, A. J. Lewis, and L. L. Southern, ed. CRC Press, New York.

Turner, S. P., S. A. Edwards, and V. C. Bland. 1999. The influence of drinker allocation and group size on the drinking behaviour, welfare and production of growing pigs. Anim. Sci. 68:617–624.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
S. Torrey, E. L. M. Toth Tamminga, and T. M. Widowski
Effect of drinker type on water intake and waste in newly weaned piglets
J Anim Sci, June 1, 2008; 86(6): 1439 - 1445.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
M. I. Shaw, A. D. Beaulieu, and J. F. Patience
Effect of diet composition on water consumption in growing pigs
J Anim Sci, November 1, 2006; 84(11): 3123 - 3132.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract 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 PubMed
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Li, Y. Z.
Right arrow Articles by Gonyou, H. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Li, Y. Z.
Right arrow Articles by Gonyou, H. W.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS