- Email: [email protected]
Nipple Waterers for Chick Batteries: Design, Efficiency, and Cost Analysis1
Nipple Waterers for Chick Batteries: Design, Efficiency, and Cost Analysis1 T. M. BROWN,2 M. M. BECK,3-4 D. D. SCHULTE,2 D. D. JONES, 2 J. H. DOUGLAS, 5 and S. E. SCHEIDELER3 University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska 68583-0908
1995 Poultry Science 74:457-462
INTRODUCTION Chick brooder batteries, often used in research, are typically equipped with trough waterers that have several important disadvantages. First, they are stationary and thus do not remain at ideal backlevel height throughout the brooding period. In addition, the covering screens are of limited adjustment range and do not accommodate chick growth. Because the troughs are open to the chick areas,
Received for publication July 26, 1994. Accepted for publication November 17, 1994. Published as Paper 10808, Journal Series, Nebraska Agricultural Research Division, Lincoln, NE 68583-0704. department of Biological Systems Engineering, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583-0726. department of Animal Science, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583-0908. 4 To whom correspondence should be addressed. 5 Current address: Hybrid Turkeys, 9 Centennial Dr., Kitchener, ON, Canada, N2B 3E0.
contamination with feed and feces necessitates frequent, often daily, disinfection. For this reason they are labor-intensive and, because they must be removed for cleaning, they are also inconvenient. In addition, troughs are large enough that small chicks can climb into them and drown. Finally, reliable administration of water-soluble treatments is difficult with troughs, and water consumption cannot be monitored accurately. Of the very few studies found in which nipple waterers were compared with troughs, results are somewhat conflicting. McMasters et al. (1971) reported that body weights of 8-wk-old broiler chicks reared with nipple waterers were lower (P < .05) than those of chicks reared with troughs, perhaps because of an insufficient number of available nipples. No differences were noted in mortality or feed conversion. In another study with floor-reared broilers, body weights were lower with nipples than with troughs (Andrews and Harris, 1975). Anecdotal evidence cited by Vest
457
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Northern Arizona University on May 25, 2015
ABSTRACT Although no mechanical maintenance and little cost are associated with the trough waterers on chick brooder units, they have many disadvantages. A pressure-regulated nipple unit was designed to replace the trough system on a chick starting battery, and construction and operating costs (maintenance time) of the nipple system were compared with the original trough system. Assessments of water quality and chick performance were also made. A modification of the nipple system was designed to allow water line manipulation and water consumption data collection, although these were not tested. Advantages of the system include reduced labor for cleaning and maintenance, no self-contamination, and easy modification of the lines for water treatments and water consumption data collection. The only disadvantage is cost of the pressure regulators; however, this would be offset within four to seven 3-wk chick trials. For the 3-wk trial conducted in this study with the pressure-regulated nipple-equipped unit and a conventional unit, there were no differences in weight gain, mortality, or feed conversion. (Key words: chick, water systems, battery design, nipple waterers, trough waterers)
458
BROWN ET AL. TABLE 1. Construction cost analysis foi nipple watering system
Item
Units
Total cost
($)
(n) 24 12 18 12 3 3 72 1 1 1 6 24 6 6 12 6
($)
1.00 2.20 .09 5.00 .59 .35 .32 4.00 5.00 3.50 .75 .05 .50 38.00 2.00 3.00
24.00 26.40 1.62 60.00 1.77 1.05 3.04 4.00 5.00 3.50 4.50 1.20 3.00 228.00 24.00 18.00 429.08
iZiggity Co., Middlebury, IL 46540.
(1986) from broiler producers indicates with conventional stainless steel troughs below. The improved feed conversion, lower contami- or the nipple system described nation, and similar body weights of chicks basic nipple units (Ziggity7 1025 nipples) were installed at the outer end of each raised with nipples vs troughs. Dodgen and Harris (1971) determined level, one nipple per pen, on an adjustable the optimum number of floor-reared mount to allow for growth of chicks over 4-wk-old broiler chicks per nipple to be 20. the 3-wk brooding period, with a maxi1). A Carpenter et al. (1992) found that male mum height of -25 cm (10 in) (Figure 7 broiler chicks had higher body weights pressure regulator (Ziggity LP100 ) was and lower mortality when nipple flow rate installed in parallel at each level to ensure was 2.3 vs .4 mL/s. No studies comparing uniform flow rate to all pens; each nipple design and construction cost or efficiencies was tested in triplicate at three pressures prior to the study. An alternate system of operation were found. The objectives of this project were 1) to using graduated plastic bottles was design an add-on nipple unit with two designed to provide uniform water flow variations to replace the trough system; through gravity, while permitting easy and 2) to determine feasibility of convert- access to water lines for treatments or ing a conventional battery from troughs to consumption data (Figure 2). W ater line nipples. In order to obtain operation data manipulation (e.g., treatment administraand to make an initial assessment of water tion) and water consumption were not quality and chick performance, a 3-wk tested explicitly but were assessed subjecbroiler chick trial was conducted follow- tively. ing completion of construction. Supports for the regulators were constructed from 17.8 cm (7 in) long, 1.59 cm (.625 in) threaded rod with 1.27 cm (.5 in) MATERIALS AND METHODS conduit brackets at the end to connect the Two Petersime6 2SD-24 batteries were 1.37 cm (.5 in) polyvinylchloride water used, with each level divided to give 4 pipe. Supports for the 1,000-mL bottles pens; 24 pens per battery were equipped used in the alternate system consisted of 1.27 cm (.5 in) angle iron brackets anchored to the battery by two 1.27 x 3.81 cm (.5 in x 1.5 in) bolts. 6 The nipples were mounted in a startPetersime Co., Gettysburg, OH 45328. 7 grow unit, which was held in place by an Ziggiry Co., Middlebury, IL 46540.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Northern Arizona University on May 25, 2015
Ziggity 1 1025 nipples Start-grow units Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe Aluminum brackets PVC T-connectors PVC 90° elbow Rubber tubing 2-m Garden hose PVC cement Pin valve .79-cm Threaded rod .79-cm Nuts 1.27-cm Conduit brackets Ziggity 1 LP100 1,000-mL Roller bottle Support bracket Total cost
Cost
459
NIPPLE WATERERS FOR CHICKS Pressure indicator
Water line
Support
Door
1.000 ml roller b o t t l e
Support
FIGURE 2. Petersime battery equipped with gravimetrically regulated nipples; 1,000-mL graduated roller bottles are mounted two per level, 12 in above their respective pens, each supplying one or two nipples, a) Side view from back of battery; b) End view.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Northern Arizona University on May 25, 2015
FIGURE 1. Petersime battery equipped with pressure regulators to deliver uniform flow rates through four nipples per level, a) Side view from the back of battery; b) end view.
460
BROWN ET AL.
trial, water samples were collected from both systems into autoclaved test tubes. Nipples were depressed by a stainless steel spatula sterilized by an alcohol flame. Water from the troughs was collected 24 h after last disinfection directly into the autoclaved tubes. Three samples from three different pens were collected, pooled together, and plated on blood agar to compare bacterial levels as an initial assessment of contamination. Performance data were analyzed by ANOVA (using the SAS® program, 1985) and nipple flow rate data were analyzed by PROC REG.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The construction cost of the nipple system per battery was calculated to be ~$430 (Table 1), approximately twice that of the original troughs. Cleaning time per battery for the 3-wk experiment was found to be -490 min (troughs) vs 85 min (nipples), a saving of 6.75 h per battery per trial (Table 2). The time required to train chicks to use the nipples was substantially less than the time required to maintain trough waterers. Thus, based on an average labor cost of ~$8.00/h, savings in labor would offset the initial cost of replacing troughs with nipples within seven 3-wk trials. If the nipple system
Support construction detail
ta.
n n
LJ S t a r t - g r o w unit s u p p o r t milled
FIGURE 3. a) Modified divider screen between two pens in Petersime battery to allow installation of nipple start-grow unit, b) Details of modification for support piece on screen.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Northern Arizona University on May 25, 2015
altered divider screen between two pens. The divider screen was shortened by 7.62 cm (3 in), and the stainless steel divider was shortened by 6.35 cm (2.5 in) so that the support unit could be riveted to it. In addition, a bracket was added 2.54 cm (1 in) from the bottom (Figures 3 and 4). The pressure regulators, which reduced water line pressure from 410 kPa (60 psi) to 1.7 to 3.4 kPa (.25 to .5 psi), were connected to the nipples by .79 cm (.312 in) food grade-polyvinyl rubber tubing. Clips made of aluminum wire supported the tubing along the edge of the pen. A chick performance trial was conducted to test experimental accuracy with the pressure-regulated nipple system (Figures 1 and 5) and to monitor time spent maintaining the system. Eighty-four day-old Vantress x Arbor Acres chicks were randomly assigned to pens in batteries equipped with nipples or troughs. Each battery contained seven replicate pens with six birds per pen. Both groups were fed a corn-soybean diet (22.6% CP, 3,041 kcal ME/kg) and were exposed to a 24-h photoperiod. Weight gain and feed conversion were monitored weekly and mortality was recorded daily for 3 wk; water intake was not measured because it cannot be obtained reliably with either of these two systems. During Week 3 of the
461
NIPPLE WATERERS FOR CHICKS
were purchased outright with the battery, the savings offset would be realized within four 3-wk trials. Nipple flow rates are shown in Figure 6. From the regression analysis, the variability among nipples is consistent between measures. This, in addition to the r 2 value (.84), indicates that the variation is associated with nipple construction and with slight differences in water pressure rather than with inherent problems in the regulators. This slight variability in pressure did
FIGURE 5. Battery equipped with regulated nipple system.
pressure-
not affect the variation in chick performance. There were no differences in weight gain, feed conversion, or mortality; however, feed conversion differed between the two types of batteries on a weekly basis
25
TABLE 2. Operating time comparison
Item
Trough system
Disinfecting watering units Filling waterers Scraping manure trays Acclimating birds Total
300 150 40 ... 490
Nipple system (min) . . . . . . 40 45 85
1.5
2
25
3
Pressure (kPa)
FIGURE 6. Flow rates of 12 nipples installed, with pressure regulators, on a Petersime battery; each data point represent triplicate measurements.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Northern Arizona University on May 25, 2015
FIGURE 4. Placement of nipples in two adjacent pens of Petersime battery.
462
BROWN ET AL. TABLE 3. Performance of broiler chicks through 3 wk of age, raised in batteries with nipple or trough watering systems Weight gain
Week
Nipple system
Feed:gain ratio
Trough system
Nipple system
60.41 ± 10.77 186.21 ± 17.1 261.79 ± 49.5 508.41 ± 65.4
1.70 ± .23* 1.45 ± .08b 1.41 ± .24b
1.51 ± .11* 1.29 ± .03b 1.63 ± .32*
1.52 ± .12
1.48 ± .10
(g) 1 2 3 Total gain Overall feed:gain
54.26 ± 13.51 190.01 ± 36.5 249.88 ± 16.66 494.15 ± 43.09
Trough system (g:g)
ab
(Table 3). During Week 1, the chicks in the battery equipped with trough waterers had better feed conversion than did those in the nipple-equipped battery (1.51 vs 1.70; P = .09), perhaps because the troughs were somewhat more readily accessible. By Week 3, the reverse was true, with chicks using nipples having the better feed conversion (1.40 vs 1.63; P = .05). The feed conversion of chicks using nipples improved throughout the 3-wk trial, whereas those using troughs showed a significant reversal between Week 2 and 3 (P = .003). Although waterer effects cannot be separated unequivocally from battery effects, these preliminary data may indicate interesting responses at various ages. Because cumulative feed conversion (averaged over 3 wk) was not different between batteries, the conclusion is drawn that chicks using nipple drinkers did as well as those using the conventional watering system. Although troughs were cleaned daily, the plate inoculated with water from troughs had bacterial growth with colonies too numerous to count; in contrast, the plate inoculated with water from nipples had 12 cfu. Although not analyzed statistically, on visual appraisal it appeared that trough water may have been more contaminated. Although the second design alternative, with individual 1,000-mL water reservoirs for each pen, was not tested in an actual chick trial, a prototype was tested for ease of installation and function. The reservoirs allow considerable flexibility with regard to manipulation for experimental treatments or determining water consumption
accurately. In addition, the use of two nipples per pen instead of one would allow taste preference, discrimination, or other behavioral tests, with different conditions set up for each nipple. The nipple system thus appears to be a viable and attractive alternative to troughs on chick starting batteries. It appears to provide cleaner (less bacterial contamination) and continual fresh water to the birds. Reduced costs of labor (based on the time spent cleaning) and disinfectants (not reported here, but a factor in large experiments) offset the extra initial cost of construction and installation. Because the lines can be easily modified by addition of calibrated bottles for water consumption data collection and water treatments, this system is excellent for research purposes.
REFERENCES Andrews, L. D., and G. C. Harris, 1975. Broiler performance and type of watering equipment. Poultry Sci. 54:1727.(Abstr.) Carpenter, G. H., R. A. Peterson, W. T. Jones, K. R. Daly, and W. A. Hypes, 1992. Effects of two nipple drinker types with different flow rates on the productive performance of broiler chickens during summerlike growing conditions. Poultry Sci. 71:1450-1456. Dodgen, W. H., and G. C. Harris, Jr., 1971. Effects of number of birds per nipple waterer on broiler performance. Poultry Sci. 50:1571.(Abstr.) McMasters, Jr., J. D., G. C. Harris, Jr., and T. L. Goodwin, 1971. Effects of nipple and trough watering systems on broiler performance. Poultry Sci. 50:432-435. SAS Institute, 1985. SAS® User's Guide. Version 5 Edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC. Vest, L. R., 1986. Management of closed water systems for poultry. Poultry Sci. 65(Suppl. 1): 139.(Abstr.)
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Northern Arizona University on May 25, 2015
' Means within rows and columns with no common superscript differ significantly (P < .05). iMean ± SEM.
1995 Poultry Science 74:457-462
INTRODUCTION Chick brooder batteries, often used in research, are typically equipped with trough waterers that have several important disadvantages. First, they are stationary and thus do not remain at ideal backlevel height throughout the brooding period. In addition, the covering screens are of limited adjustment range and do not accommodate chick growth. Because the troughs are open to the chick areas,
Received for publication July 26, 1994. Accepted for publication November 17, 1994. Published as Paper 10808, Journal Series, Nebraska Agricultural Research Division, Lincoln, NE 68583-0704. department of Biological Systems Engineering, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583-0726. department of Animal Science, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583-0908. 4 To whom correspondence should be addressed. 5 Current address: Hybrid Turkeys, 9 Centennial Dr., Kitchener, ON, Canada, N2B 3E0.
contamination with feed and feces necessitates frequent, often daily, disinfection. For this reason they are labor-intensive and, because they must be removed for cleaning, they are also inconvenient. In addition, troughs are large enough that small chicks can climb into them and drown. Finally, reliable administration of water-soluble treatments is difficult with troughs, and water consumption cannot be monitored accurately. Of the very few studies found in which nipple waterers were compared with troughs, results are somewhat conflicting. McMasters et al. (1971) reported that body weights of 8-wk-old broiler chicks reared with nipple waterers were lower (P < .05) than those of chicks reared with troughs, perhaps because of an insufficient number of available nipples. No differences were noted in mortality or feed conversion. In another study with floor-reared broilers, body weights were lower with nipples than with troughs (Andrews and Harris, 1975). Anecdotal evidence cited by Vest
457
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Northern Arizona University on May 25, 2015
ABSTRACT Although no mechanical maintenance and little cost are associated with the trough waterers on chick brooder units, they have many disadvantages. A pressure-regulated nipple unit was designed to replace the trough system on a chick starting battery, and construction and operating costs (maintenance time) of the nipple system were compared with the original trough system. Assessments of water quality and chick performance were also made. A modification of the nipple system was designed to allow water line manipulation and water consumption data collection, although these were not tested. Advantages of the system include reduced labor for cleaning and maintenance, no self-contamination, and easy modification of the lines for water treatments and water consumption data collection. The only disadvantage is cost of the pressure regulators; however, this would be offset within four to seven 3-wk chick trials. For the 3-wk trial conducted in this study with the pressure-regulated nipple-equipped unit and a conventional unit, there were no differences in weight gain, mortality, or feed conversion. (Key words: chick, water systems, battery design, nipple waterers, trough waterers)
458
BROWN ET AL. TABLE 1. Construction cost analysis foi nipple watering system
Item
Units
Total cost
($)
(n) 24 12 18 12 3 3 72 1 1 1 6 24 6 6 12 6
($)
1.00 2.20 .09 5.00 .59 .35 .32 4.00 5.00 3.50 .75 .05 .50 38.00 2.00 3.00
24.00 26.40 1.62 60.00 1.77 1.05 3.04 4.00 5.00 3.50 4.50 1.20 3.00 228.00 24.00 18.00 429.08
iZiggity Co., Middlebury, IL 46540.
(1986) from broiler producers indicates with conventional stainless steel troughs below. The improved feed conversion, lower contami- or the nipple system described nation, and similar body weights of chicks basic nipple units (Ziggity7 1025 nipples) were installed at the outer end of each raised with nipples vs troughs. Dodgen and Harris (1971) determined level, one nipple per pen, on an adjustable the optimum number of floor-reared mount to allow for growth of chicks over 4-wk-old broiler chicks per nipple to be 20. the 3-wk brooding period, with a maxi1). A Carpenter et al. (1992) found that male mum height of -25 cm (10 in) (Figure 7 broiler chicks had higher body weights pressure regulator (Ziggity LP100 ) was and lower mortality when nipple flow rate installed in parallel at each level to ensure was 2.3 vs .4 mL/s. No studies comparing uniform flow rate to all pens; each nipple design and construction cost or efficiencies was tested in triplicate at three pressures prior to the study. An alternate system of operation were found. The objectives of this project were 1) to using graduated plastic bottles was design an add-on nipple unit with two designed to provide uniform water flow variations to replace the trough system; through gravity, while permitting easy and 2) to determine feasibility of convert- access to water lines for treatments or ing a conventional battery from troughs to consumption data (Figure 2). W ater line nipples. In order to obtain operation data manipulation (e.g., treatment administraand to make an initial assessment of water tion) and water consumption were not quality and chick performance, a 3-wk tested explicitly but were assessed subjecbroiler chick trial was conducted follow- tively. ing completion of construction. Supports for the regulators were constructed from 17.8 cm (7 in) long, 1.59 cm (.625 in) threaded rod with 1.27 cm (.5 in) MATERIALS AND METHODS conduit brackets at the end to connect the Two Petersime6 2SD-24 batteries were 1.37 cm (.5 in) polyvinylchloride water used, with each level divided to give 4 pipe. Supports for the 1,000-mL bottles pens; 24 pens per battery were equipped used in the alternate system consisted of 1.27 cm (.5 in) angle iron brackets anchored to the battery by two 1.27 x 3.81 cm (.5 in x 1.5 in) bolts. 6 The nipples were mounted in a startPetersime Co., Gettysburg, OH 45328. 7 grow unit, which was held in place by an Ziggiry Co., Middlebury, IL 46540.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Northern Arizona University on May 25, 2015
Ziggity 1 1025 nipples Start-grow units Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe Aluminum brackets PVC T-connectors PVC 90° elbow Rubber tubing 2-m Garden hose PVC cement Pin valve .79-cm Threaded rod .79-cm Nuts 1.27-cm Conduit brackets Ziggity 1 LP100 1,000-mL Roller bottle Support bracket Total cost
Cost
459
NIPPLE WATERERS FOR CHICKS Pressure indicator
Water line
Support
Door
1.000 ml roller b o t t l e
Support
FIGURE 2. Petersime battery equipped with gravimetrically regulated nipples; 1,000-mL graduated roller bottles are mounted two per level, 12 in above their respective pens, each supplying one or two nipples, a) Side view from back of battery; b) End view.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Northern Arizona University on May 25, 2015
FIGURE 1. Petersime battery equipped with pressure regulators to deliver uniform flow rates through four nipples per level, a) Side view from the back of battery; b) end view.
460
BROWN ET AL.
trial, water samples were collected from both systems into autoclaved test tubes. Nipples were depressed by a stainless steel spatula sterilized by an alcohol flame. Water from the troughs was collected 24 h after last disinfection directly into the autoclaved tubes. Three samples from three different pens were collected, pooled together, and plated on blood agar to compare bacterial levels as an initial assessment of contamination. Performance data were analyzed by ANOVA (using the SAS® program, 1985) and nipple flow rate data were analyzed by PROC REG.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The construction cost of the nipple system per battery was calculated to be ~$430 (Table 1), approximately twice that of the original troughs. Cleaning time per battery for the 3-wk experiment was found to be -490 min (troughs) vs 85 min (nipples), a saving of 6.75 h per battery per trial (Table 2). The time required to train chicks to use the nipples was substantially less than the time required to maintain trough waterers. Thus, based on an average labor cost of ~$8.00/h, savings in labor would offset the initial cost of replacing troughs with nipples within seven 3-wk trials. If the nipple system
Support construction detail
ta.
n n
LJ S t a r t - g r o w unit s u p p o r t milled
FIGURE 3. a) Modified divider screen between two pens in Petersime battery to allow installation of nipple start-grow unit, b) Details of modification for support piece on screen.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Northern Arizona University on May 25, 2015
altered divider screen between two pens. The divider screen was shortened by 7.62 cm (3 in), and the stainless steel divider was shortened by 6.35 cm (2.5 in) so that the support unit could be riveted to it. In addition, a bracket was added 2.54 cm (1 in) from the bottom (Figures 3 and 4). The pressure regulators, which reduced water line pressure from 410 kPa (60 psi) to 1.7 to 3.4 kPa (.25 to .5 psi), were connected to the nipples by .79 cm (.312 in) food grade-polyvinyl rubber tubing. Clips made of aluminum wire supported the tubing along the edge of the pen. A chick performance trial was conducted to test experimental accuracy with the pressure-regulated nipple system (Figures 1 and 5) and to monitor time spent maintaining the system. Eighty-four day-old Vantress x Arbor Acres chicks were randomly assigned to pens in batteries equipped with nipples or troughs. Each battery contained seven replicate pens with six birds per pen. Both groups were fed a corn-soybean diet (22.6% CP, 3,041 kcal ME/kg) and were exposed to a 24-h photoperiod. Weight gain and feed conversion were monitored weekly and mortality was recorded daily for 3 wk; water intake was not measured because it cannot be obtained reliably with either of these two systems. During Week 3 of the
461
NIPPLE WATERERS FOR CHICKS
were purchased outright with the battery, the savings offset would be realized within four 3-wk trials. Nipple flow rates are shown in Figure 6. From the regression analysis, the variability among nipples is consistent between measures. This, in addition to the r 2 value (.84), indicates that the variation is associated with nipple construction and with slight differences in water pressure rather than with inherent problems in the regulators. This slight variability in pressure did
FIGURE 5. Battery equipped with regulated nipple system.
pressure-
not affect the variation in chick performance. There were no differences in weight gain, feed conversion, or mortality; however, feed conversion differed between the two types of batteries on a weekly basis
25
TABLE 2. Operating time comparison
Item
Trough system
Disinfecting watering units Filling waterers Scraping manure trays Acclimating birds Total
300 150 40 ... 490
Nipple system (min) . . . . . . 40 45 85
1.5
2
25
3
Pressure (kPa)
FIGURE 6. Flow rates of 12 nipples installed, with pressure regulators, on a Petersime battery; each data point represent triplicate measurements.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Northern Arizona University on May 25, 2015
FIGURE 4. Placement of nipples in two adjacent pens of Petersime battery.
462
BROWN ET AL. TABLE 3. Performance of broiler chicks through 3 wk of age, raised in batteries with nipple or trough watering systems Weight gain
Week
Nipple system
Feed:gain ratio
Trough system
Nipple system
60.41 ± 10.77 186.21 ± 17.1 261.79 ± 49.5 508.41 ± 65.4
1.70 ± .23* 1.45 ± .08b 1.41 ± .24b
1.51 ± .11* 1.29 ± .03b 1.63 ± .32*
1.52 ± .12
1.48 ± .10
(g) 1 2 3 Total gain Overall feed:gain
54.26 ± 13.51 190.01 ± 36.5 249.88 ± 16.66 494.15 ± 43.09
Trough system (g:g)
ab
(Table 3). During Week 1, the chicks in the battery equipped with trough waterers had better feed conversion than did those in the nipple-equipped battery (1.51 vs 1.70; P = .09), perhaps because the troughs were somewhat more readily accessible. By Week 3, the reverse was true, with chicks using nipples having the better feed conversion (1.40 vs 1.63; P = .05). The feed conversion of chicks using nipples improved throughout the 3-wk trial, whereas those using troughs showed a significant reversal between Week 2 and 3 (P = .003). Although waterer effects cannot be separated unequivocally from battery effects, these preliminary data may indicate interesting responses at various ages. Because cumulative feed conversion (averaged over 3 wk) was not different between batteries, the conclusion is drawn that chicks using nipple drinkers did as well as those using the conventional watering system. Although troughs were cleaned daily, the plate inoculated with water from troughs had bacterial growth with colonies too numerous to count; in contrast, the plate inoculated with water from nipples had 12 cfu. Although not analyzed statistically, on visual appraisal it appeared that trough water may have been more contaminated. Although the second design alternative, with individual 1,000-mL water reservoirs for each pen, was not tested in an actual chick trial, a prototype was tested for ease of installation and function. The reservoirs allow considerable flexibility with regard to manipulation for experimental treatments or determining water consumption
accurately. In addition, the use of two nipples per pen instead of one would allow taste preference, discrimination, or other behavioral tests, with different conditions set up for each nipple. The nipple system thus appears to be a viable and attractive alternative to troughs on chick starting batteries. It appears to provide cleaner (less bacterial contamination) and continual fresh water to the birds. Reduced costs of labor (based on the time spent cleaning) and disinfectants (not reported here, but a factor in large experiments) offset the extra initial cost of construction and installation. Because the lines can be easily modified by addition of calibrated bottles for water consumption data collection and water treatments, this system is excellent for research purposes.
REFERENCES Andrews, L. D., and G. C. Harris, 1975. Broiler performance and type of watering equipment. Poultry Sci. 54:1727.(Abstr.) Carpenter, G. H., R. A. Peterson, W. T. Jones, K. R. Daly, and W. A. Hypes, 1992. Effects of two nipple drinker types with different flow rates on the productive performance of broiler chickens during summerlike growing conditions. Poultry Sci. 71:1450-1456. Dodgen, W. H., and G. C. Harris, Jr., 1971. Effects of number of birds per nipple waterer on broiler performance. Poultry Sci. 50:1571.(Abstr.) McMasters, Jr., J. D., G. C. Harris, Jr., and T. L. Goodwin, 1971. Effects of nipple and trough watering systems on broiler performance. Poultry Sci. 50:432-435. SAS Institute, 1985. SAS® User's Guide. Version 5 Edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC. Vest, L. R., 1986. Management of closed water systems for poultry. Poultry Sci. 65(Suppl. 1): 139.(Abstr.)
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Northern Arizona University on May 25, 2015
' Means within rows and columns with no common superscript differ significantly (P < .05). iMean ± SEM.