Effect of Number and Location of Nipple Waterers and Cage Shape on the Performance of Caged Layers1

Effect of Number and Location of Nipple Waterers and Cage Shape on the Performance of Caged Layers A. G. GERNAT and A. W. ADAMS Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506-1600 (Received for publication December 18, 1989) ABSTRACT Two experiments were conducted to study the effects of number of nipple waterers (NW) per four-bird, deep cage (30.5 x 45.7 cm deep) or shallow cage of exact reverse dimensions and location of these waterers on productivity of commercial strain of White Leghorn layers reared in floor pens equipped with either dome or trigger cup waterers. The pullets were housed in laying cages at 18 wk of age. In both experiments, cage shape had no significant effects on the variables measured. Location of NW effects varied between experiments; hens in cages with NW located in the front of the cage had a significantly (P<05) lower rate of lay (1.7%) in Experiment 2 and less mortality (5.4%) in Experiment 1 than those in cages with NW located in the rear. Location of NW had a NS effect on water consumption in both experiments. Number of NW per cage significantly (P<05) affected water consumption in both experiments. Hens in cages with two NW consumed 32.5 and 36.7 mL/hen day more water in Experiment 1 and 2, respectively, than those in cages with one NW. (Key words: nipple waterers, cage shape, number of nipples, rate of lay, water consumption) 1990 Poultry Science 69:2086-2091 INTRODUCTION

Water plays a vital role in metabolism. Therefore, an adequate supply of water is necessary for optimum productivity and wellbeing of hens. The availability of water to the caged layer is controlled by the presence of water in a drinking device and the bird's ability to access the water. Selecting a watering system for hens can be difficult because of the number of different systems from which to choose, the lack of published research data on the performance of hens using the various systems, and the number of variables that can affect the effectiveness of a system. Dome, trigger and fount-cups, and nipple waterers (NW) are replacing trough waterers in new and remodeled poultry houses. The NW, which are gaining in popularity because they reduce water wastage and contamination, are considered an active system as NW require active participation of the bird for each drop of water consumed. Hostetler (1987) reported that performance of birds can be affected by the type of drinking

'Contribution Number 90-230-J from the Agricultural Experiment Station, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-1600.

devices, the watering regimens on which the hens were reared, and the different types of watering devices in the laying cage. Roush et al. (1984), Roush and Boggen (1987), and Ramos et al. (1990) compared the effects of different types of watering systems on growing pullets. Cunningham (1987) reported a transitory loss in egg production of pullets transferred from floor pens with cup waterers to cages with NW. Considerable variation exists among recommendations of cage manufacturers relative to the position of and number of NW per cage. The United Egg Producers (1982) recommended a minimum of 2.5 cm of water trough space per bird and a maximum of 20 birds per cup or nipple. Anonymous (1987) reported that the European Economic Community has recommended two NW or cups per cage or a continuous drinker. McMaster et al. (1971) observed that dayold chicks had no difficulty locating NW in floor pens and that NW needed to be at a height that the chicks could easily reach by an upward pecking motion. Using ratios of 15, 20, and 30 broilers per NW, Andrews and Harris (1971) found no significant difference in body weights among broilers grown on litter with NW at these ratios. The present experi-

2086

TYPE OF WATERERS ON PRODUCTrVTTY OF LAYERS

ments investigated the effects of cage shape, nipple placement within cages, and the number of NW per cage on performance of egg-type hens reared in floor pens. MATERIALS AND METHODS

Rearing Phase Day-old chicks of a commercial strain of White Leghorn2 were purchased on January 25, 1987 for Experiment 1 and January 27,1988 for Experiment 2. The chicks were wing-banded and randomly assigned to 16, 3.04 x 3.67-m pens in a curtain-sided, naturally ventilated, brooding-rearing house with no more than 120 chicks per pen. The rations fed and the vaccination and beak-trimming procedures used have been described by Anderson and Adams (1988). Each of eight pens was equipped with a plastic dome waterer, and each of the remaining eight pens was equipped with three startertrigger cups that required activation when the small amount of water in the cup was consumed. A 3.8-L plastic jug waterer was placed in each pen for the first 7 days. Water and feed were supplied for ad libitum intake. The pullets were exposed to photoperiods of 21 h in the 1st wk, which then decreased to 14 h (natural daylength) by 18 wk. Body weights were determined by weighing individually 25 birds per pen at 1 day of age and at 28-day intervals until they were housed in cages at 18 wk. Laying Phase An equal number of pullets reared on dome waterers or starter-trigger cups were housed four per cage in the top two rows of double-deck deep (D) cages (30.5-cm wide x 45.7-cm deep) or the top two rows of the exact reverse dimensions of double-deck shallow (S) cages in a curtainsided, naturally ventilated house. Floor area per bird was 348 cm2. Four treatments were assigned randomly to the cages: 1) one NW located 7.62 cm from the front and 15.25 cm from each side of the D cage and 7.62 cm from the front and 22.85 cm from each side of the S cage; 2) one NW located 7.62 cm from the rear

2 Babcock B300, Nelson's Hatcheiy, New York, NY 10001.

2087

and 15.25 cm from each side of the D cage and one located 7.62 cm from the rear and 22.85 cm from each side of the S cage; 3) two NW each located 7.62 cm from the front and 5.08 cm from the side of each D or S cage; and 4) two NW each located 7.62 cm from the back and 5.08 cm from die side of each D or S cage. The right and left NW positions in tfiose cages with two NW were determined when facing toward the rear of the cage. Each treatment was assigned randomly to a block of four contiguous cages. Two of the four cages contained pullets that were reared on dome waterers, and two contained pullets reared on starter trigger-cup waterers. There were 96 pullets in six blocks per treatment of four D cages ( 6 x 4 x 4 = 96) and 64 pullets in four blocks per treatment of four S cages ( 4 x 4 x 4 = 64). Data were collected on water consumption, feed consumption, egg weight, egg production, body weight gain, and mortality. Water consumption was measured daily for 12 consecutive weeks posthousing, then 1 wk per 28-day period until the end of the experiment at 70 wk of age in Experiment 1 and daily for the 1st wk, weekly for 8 consecutive weeks posthousing, then for 1 wk every 28 days until 62 wk of age in Experiment 2. Consumption was recorded by attaching a 5-L plasma bag to an individual NW in two randomly assigned cages per treatment. The difference between the amount of water added to each bag during the period less the amount remaining at the end of the period was considered as the water consumed by the birds through that NW. Feed consumption was measured in the same cages, in the same manner, and during the same time periods as water consumption. Daily high and low temperatures were recorded during the same times from a thermometer located midway between the rows of D and S cages. Egg production was measured by recording all eggs laid for 3 days/wk and converting values to percentages. All eggs collected on the last 3 days of each 28-day period were weighed on the day of lay. Mortality was recorded daily. Bird density was maintained by replacing mortalities with birds from cages in the bottom tiers that contained birds on the same rearing watering system. Body weight gain was measured by weighing all birds at the start and end of each experiment. The laying periods were 52 and 44 wk in Experiment 1 and 2, respectively.

2088

GERNAT AND ADAMS TABLE 1. Means (± SE) for water consumption during lay and egg production of hens reared in floor pens with either trigger cup or dome waterers, Experiment 1 and 2 Water consumption

Type of rearing waterer

Experiment 1

Experiment 2

Starter trigger-cup Dome waterers

(mL/hen-day) 2H.4 ± 3.20a 184.1 ± 6.47 177.5 ± 6.47 196.6 ± 3.20°

Hen-housed egg production Experiment 1

Experiment 2

(%) 72.2 ± 1.62 75.6 ± 1.62

68.7 ± 1.74 74.9 ± 1.74

a b

* Means (± SE) in a column with no common superscript differ (P<.05). hjxperiment 1, 18 to 70 wk of age; Experiment 2, 18 to 62 wk of age.

Statistical Analysis Cage shape, number of NW, and location of NW were the main effects in an ANOVA based on a factorial arrangement of treatments (Ott, 1984) for age at sexual maturity, egg production, mortality, feed consumption, feed conversion, average egg weight, and body weight gain. For water consumption data, cage shape, number of NW, location (front and back) of NW, type of rearing waterer, position (right and left) of NW, and period were main effects. Period was treated as a repeated measure and was analyzed as the subplot effect in a split-plot design. Linear contrasts were used to measure the effects of location and number of NW. The effect of cage shape on water consumption could not be statistically analyzed because of the lack of replications resulting from the location of the cages randomly selected for determination of consumption. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The data in Table 1 show that the type of rearing waterer had a NS effect on water consumption during the laying phase in Experiment 1. But in Experiment 2, hens raised on trigger-cup waterers consumed significantly (P<05) more water than those raised on dome waterers (211.4 versus 196.6 mL/hen-day). Type of rearing waterer had a NS effect on egg production in both experiments. Roush and Boggan (1987) reported similar results, suggesting that the birds in their study and in the present study did not have difficulty adjusting to a different type of waterer in the laying cages. Neither cage shape, nipple location, nor number of NW per cage had significant effects on sexual maturity in either experiment (Table 2). The lack of a significant cage shape effect

on egg production is inconsistent with previous reports from the facility (Ouart and Adams, 1982; Carey et al., 1986; Ramos et al., 1986). The NW location had a significant (P<05) effect on egg production in Experiment 2 (Table 2). Hens in cages with NW located at the back of the cage laid at a higher (P<.05) rate than those in cages with NW located at the front of the cage (79.9 versus 78.2%). The number of NW per cage had a NS effect on egg production in both experiments. These results do not support the European Economic Community's recommendation that a minimum of two NW per cage are needed to ensure favorable production and bird well-being (Anonymous, 1987). The lack of a cage-shape effect on mortality (Table 2) agrees with Cunningham and Ostrander (1981) but not with Baiao and Campos (1979) and Robinson (1979), who reported lower mortality of hens in S cages. In contrast, Hill and Hunt (1980) found that D-caged hens had significantly less mortality than S-caged hens. Location of NW had a significant (P<.05) effect on mortality in Experiment 1; hens in cages with NW at the front had 5.4% less mortality than those in cages with NW at the rear (Table 2). No explanation is known for the disparity of the results between Experiment 1 and 2. Cunningham (1987) reported that location of NW and trigger-cup waterers had NS effects on mortality of caged layers. Number of NW per cage had a NS effect on mortality in the present experiments. None of the variables tested significantly affected feed consumption and feed conversion (data not shown). Bell (1972) reported that cage shape had a NS effect on feed consumption, but Hill and Hunt (1980), Martin et al. (1980), Cunningham and Ostrander (1981), and Cunningham (1982a) reported that S-caged hens

2089

TYPE OF WATERERS ON PRODUCTIVITY OF LAYERS TABLE 2. Effect (x ± SE) of cage shape, location of nipple waterers (NW), and number of NW per cage on age at sexual maturity, egg production, and mortality, Experiment 1 and 2 Age at sexual maturity Experiment Experiment 1 2

Variable

Hen-housed egg production

Mortality

Experiment 1 Experiment 2

(Days) Cage shape Deep (30.5 x 45.7 cm) Shallow (45.7 x 30.5 cm) Location of NW Front Back Number of NW 1 2

Experiment 1 Experiment 2

('%\ ... 13.4 ± 2.05 14.0 ± 2.51

12.6 ± 2.92 10.1 ± 3.58

78.2 ± 79.9 ±

.54 b 11.0b ± 1.78 .54a 16.4a ± 1.78

11.9 ± 1.89 10.8 ± 1.89

78.9 ± 79.2 ±

.54 .54

11.7 ± 1.89 11.1 ± 1.89

154.3 ± .77 156.2 ± .30 154.4 ± .95 155.8 ± .36

72.6 ± .73 73.3 ± .90

78.0 ± .88 80.1 ± 1.08

154.2 ± .75 156.4 ± .67 154.2 ± .75 155.6 ± .67

73.0 ± .91 72.9 ± .91

154.1 ± .75 156.1 ± .67 154.6 ± .75 156.0 ± .67

73.5 ± .91 72.4 ± .91

15.0 ± 1.78 12.4 ± 1.78

a,b

Means (± SE) in a column for each variable with no common superscript differ (P<05). 'Experiment 1, 18 to 70 wk of age; Experiment 2, 18 to 62 wk of age.

Only number of NW per cage had an effect approaching significance (P<06) on egg weight, with hens in Experiment 1 in cages with one NW laying eggs .9 g heavier than those laid by hens in cages with two NW (Table 3). Swanson and Bell (1977) and Cunningham and Ostrander (1982) reported that cage shape had an effect on egg weight. But Cunningham (1982b) reported that Scaged hens had heavier eggs than D-caged hens. Neither cage shape, location of NW, nor number of NW per cage had a significant effect on weight gain. Hill and Hunt (1980)

consumed significantly more feed than Dcaged hens. Lack of a significant effect of cage shape on feed conversion agrees with Cunningham and Ostrander (1981), who reported no significant differences between D- and Scaged hens. But others (Martin et ah, 1980; Cunningham, 1982a; Carey et al., 1986; Ramos et al., 1986) observed that D-caged hens had better feed conversion than S-caged hens. More feeder space per hen in S cages may have resulted in overconsumption of feed. Bell (1972) reported that S-caged hens had better feed conversion than D-caged hens.

TABLE 3. Effect (x ± SE) of cage shape, location of nipple waterers (NW), and number of NW per cage on egg weight and body weight gain, Experiment J and 2 Average egg weight Variable

Experiment 1

Experiment 2

Body weight gain Experiment 2

Experiment 1

(trl

l"\

Cage shape Deep (30.5 x 45.7 cm) Shallow (45.7 x 30.5 cm) Location of NW Front Back

59.2 ± .15 57.7 ± .19

55.5 ± .18 56.2 ± .22

29.3 ± 1.08 26.2 ± 1.08

29.3 ± .58 26.2 ± .58

58.5 ± .32 58.5 ± .32

56.0 ± .24 55.8 ± .24

28.6 ± .95 26.7 ± .95

28.6 ± .72 26.7 ± .71

Number of NW 1 2

58.9 ± .32 58.0 ± .32t

55.8 ± .24 56.0 ± .24

26.6 ± .95 28.7 ± .95

26.6 ± .71 28.7 ± .72

'Experiment 1, 18 to 70 wk of age; Experiment 2, 18 to 62 wk of age. Body weight gain = (ending body weight - beginning body weight/beginning body weight) x 100.

tp-coe.

2090

GERNAT AND ADAMS 300

18 22 26 30 34 38 42 46 50 54 58 62 Age (wk)

18 22 26 30 34 38 42 46 50 54 58 62 66 70

Age (wk)

FIGURE 1. Effect of number of nipple waterers (NW) on water consumption, Experiment 1. hd = hen-day.

FIGURE 2. Effect of number of nipple waterers (NW) on water consumption, Experiment 2. hd = hen-day.

and Cunningham and Ostrander (1981) reported similar results. In both experiments, there was a linear increase in water consumption from housing to peak production (Figures 1 and 2). This increase can be attributed to average temperatures rising from the upper 20s C to the middle 30s C during July and August in Experiment 1 and lower to middle 30s C in Experiment 2 and greater demand for water resulting from increasing egg formation (Mongin and Sauveur, 1974). Position (right or left) of NW in two-waterer cages did not have a significant effect on water consumption during any of the observation periods (Table 4). A linear contrast analysis showed that regardless of the location

of the NW, the hens in cages with two NW consistently consumed significantly (P<.05) more water during all observation periods than those in cages with one NW: Experiment 1, 18 to 29 wk, 37.5 mL; 18 to 70 wk, 32.5 mL; and Experiment 2, 18 wk, 73.7 mL; 18 to 26 wk, 38.5 mL; 18 to 62 wk, 36.7 mL (Figures 1 and 2). Location of NW had a NS effect on water consumption in experiments (Table 4). The present data show that under the conditions of these experiments, hens in cages with two NW consistently consumed significantly more water than those in cages with one NW without a commensurate increase in egg production and egg weight. Too many watering devices increase costs and result in

TABLE 4. Effects (x ± SE) of location of nipple waterers (NW), number of NW per cage, and position of NW on water consumption of layers, Experiment 1 and 2 Experiment 2

Experiment 1 Variable

18 to 29 wk

18 to 70 wk

18 wk

18 to 26 wk

18 to 62 wk

183.0 ± 178.5 ±

6.4 6.4

136.3 ± 19.1 165.9 ± 19.1

196.2 ± 219.4 ±

2.8 2.8

199.7 ± 222.3 ±

164.5 ± 6.4b 197.0 ± 6.4"

92.2 ± 19.1b 165.9 ± 19.1a

180.9 ± 219.4 ±

2.8 b 2.8a

185.6 ± 3.2 b 222.3 ± 3.2"

101.5 ± 15.8 102.1 ± 15.8

100.2 ± 11.9 111.4 ± 11.9

Location of NW Front Back Number of NW 1 2

173.9 ± 166.4 ±

8.4 8.4

151.4 ± 188.9 ±

8.4b 6.4a

Position of NW1 Right Left

104.6 ± 13.1 83.6 ± 13.1

104.7 ± 13 92.4 ± 13

85.1 ± 33.1 80.8 ± 33.1

"••"Means (± SE) in a column for each variable with no common superscripts differ (P<.05). Cages containing two nipples - positions when facing front of cage.

3.2 3.2

TYPE OF WATERERS ON PRODUCTIVITY OF LAYERS

overconsumption of water and could result in a greater potential for fly and odor problems caused by a high fecal moisture content. REFERENCES Anderson, K. E. and A. W. Adams, 1988. Research note: Effects of feed trough partitions on productivity and behavior of layers. Poultry Sci. 67:1348-1351. Andrews, L. D., and G. C. Harris, Jr., 1971. Comparison of systems for watering broilers. Arkansas Farm Res. University of Arkansas Experiment Station, Fayetteville, AR 72701. 20:6-8. Anonymous, 1987. Welfare, quality and marketing spotlighted at the IEC's conference. Poult. Tribune 93 (3):28-33. Baiao, N. C , and E. J. Campos, 1979. Normal vs. reverse cages for layers: effects on bird's performance. Poultry Sci. 58:1033-1034. (Abstr.) Bell, D., 1972. Reverse cage demonstrates striking income advantage. Poult. Dig. 31:326-328. Carey, J. B., A. W. Adams, and J. V. Craig. 1986. The effect of cage design and feeding level on performance of commercial egg laying chickens. Poultry Sci. 65:845-848. Cunningham, D. L., 1982a. Layer performance in deep and shallow cages: the importance of feed intake differences. Poultry Sci. 61:1927-1929. Cunningham, D. L., 1982b. Cage type and density effects on performance and economic factors of caged hens. Poultry Sci. 61:1944-1949. Cunningham, D. L., 1987. Cup vs nipple waterers for layers. Cornell Poultry Pointers, June, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Cunningham, D. L., and C. E. Ostrander, 1981. Evaluation of layer performance in deep and shallow cages at different densities. Poultry Sci. 60:2010-2016. Cunningham, D. L., and C. E. Ostrander, 1982. Effects of strain, cage shape, and density on performance and fearfulness of White Leghorn layers. Poultry Sci. 61: 239-244. Hill, A. T., and J. R. Hunt, 1980. Cage orientation effects

2091

on layer performance. Poultry Sci. 59:1620. (Abstr.) Hostetler, E. 1987. Drinkers for laying hens. Poult. Tribune 93 (7):12-18. Martin, G. A., T. A. Carter, J. R. West, and J. B. Ward, 1980. Cage shape and space effects on layers in closed housing. Poultry Sci. 59:1567. (Abstr.) McMaster, J. D., Jr., G. C. Harris, Jr., and T. L. Goodwin, 1971. Effects of nipple and trough watering systems on broiler performance. Poultry Sci. 50:432-435. Mongin, P., and B. Sauveur, 1974. Hourly water consumption and egg formation in the domestic fowl. Br. Poult Sci. 15:361-368. Ott, L., 1984. An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis. 3rd ed. PWS-Kent Publishing Co., Boston, MA. Ouart, M. D., and A. W. Adams, 1982. Effects of cage design and bird density on layers. 1. Productivity, feathering, and nervousness. Poultry Sci. 61: 1606-1613. Ramos, N. C , K. E. Anderson, and A. W. Adams, 1986. Effects of type of cage partition, cage shape, and bird density on productivity and well-being of layers. Poultry Sci. 65:2023-2028. Ramos, N. C , A. G. Gernat, and A. W. Adams, 1990. Effects of cage shape, and types of rearing and layer waterers on productivity of layers. Poultry Sci. 69: 217-223. Robinson, D., 1979. Effect of cage shape, colony size, floor area and cannibalism preventatives on laying performance. Br. Poult Sci. 20:345-356. Roush, W. B., and G. D. Boggan, 1987. Effect of watering devices on performance during pullets-rearing and cage-laying phases of single comb white leghorn hens. Poultry Sci. 66:1431-1436. Roush, W. B., O. D. Keene, and H. L. Classen, 1984. Effect of watering systems for floor-reared pullets on subsequent caged laying hen performance. Poultry Sci. 63:2331-2334. Swanson, M. H., and D. D. Bell, 1977. Layer performance in reverse vs conventional cages. Poultry Sci. 56: 1760. (Abstr.) United Egg Producers, 1982. Recommended guidelines of husbandry practices for laying chickens. United Egg Producers, Washington, DC.