Water nipples or water bowls for weaned piglets: Effect on water intake, performance, and plasma osmolality

Bøe, Knut Egil; Kjelvik, Oddbjørn

doi:10.1080/09064702.2011.599859

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As predicted, the water quality from the water bowls was clearly inferior to water nipples, which is in accordance with previous findings in pigs [ 10 , 11 ]. Turbidity was higher in the water bowls than what is accepted in human drinking water (< 4 FNU) and also heterotrophy germs at 22°C was higher in the water bowls than recommended (< 100 CFU/ml).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…However, both in pigs [ 7 , 8 ] and in sheep [ 9 ] the water intake was higher from nipple drinkers than from water bowls. The water quality seems to be important for the lower intake from water bowls, and both Bøe (1984) and Bøe and Kjelvik (2011) reported a clear reduction in water quality in water bowls [ 9 , 10 ]. Brooks and Carpenter (1989) found that in weaned piglets, the water intake from bowls declined when the water became fouled with feed or feces [ 11 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The preference for water nipples vs. water bowls in dairy goats

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPrevious studies have reported that the design of the water dispensers can influence the water intake in farm animals. Horses and dairy cows seem to prefer to drink from an open surface whereas sheep and pigs apparently prefer water nipples, probably because of the worse water quality in water bowls. The aim of the present study was to examine the preference of dairy goats for water nipples or water bowls.MethodsIn each of the two experiments (exp. 1, dry goats, exp. 2 lactating goats), 42 dairy goats were allotted into 6 groups of 7 goats. In period 1, the goats had access to a water nipple. In period 2, they had access to a water bowl and in period 3 (preference test) they had access to both a water nipple and a water bowl. Water usage and wastage was recorded and water intake (water usage - water wastage) was calculated for each group for the two last days of each period. In experiment 2, water samples from each dispenser were analyzed for heterotrophy germs at 22°C, Escherichia coli and turbidity.ResultsWater usage was higher from water nipples than from water bowls both in experiment 1 (dry goats) and experiment 2 (lactating goats). There was however, no difference in water intake from water nipples and water bowls. In the preference test (period 3), the water intake tended to be higher from the water nipple than from the water bowl both for the dry goats (exp. 1) and lactating goats (exp. 2). Especially for the dry goats, the differences between groups were large. Turbidity and heterotrophy germs were much higher in the samples from the water bowls than from the water nipples.Water wastage from the water bowls was negligible compared to the water nipples. From the water nipples the water wastage was 30% and 23% of water usage for the dry and lactating goats respectively.ConclusionsWe conclude that type of water dispenser (nipple or bowl) was probably of minor importance for water intake in goats, but water bowls had a lower water quality.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The preference for water nipples vs. water bowls in dairy goats

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The accumulated average water intake in pre-starter phases I and II, as well as in the total period of nursery, did not differ due to the type of drinker. This suggests that animals had no loss in their development due to lack of water, as this could restrict feed intake (Bøe & Kjelvik, 2011). The results of the present study agree with the values recommended by others (Li et al, 2005;Guerini et al, 2015).…”

Section: Effect Of Drinker Type On Water Intakesupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Although several studies have been conducted to investigate different models of drinkers, water intake (Torrey et al, 2008;Bøe & Kjelvik, 2011) and the behaviour of piglets with different types of environmental enrichment (Van de Weerd, Docking, Day, Breuer, & Edwards, 2006;Maia et al, 2013), there is limited information on water intake with different types of drinkers, as well as on what type of toy improves behavioural activities of piglets.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of the drinker type on water intake and toy type on behaviour of nursery piglets

Stumpf

Azevedo

Rupolo

et al. 2022

Semina: Ciênc. Agrár.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was conducted to assess the effect of two types of drinkers on water intake (WI) and two types of toys on behavioural observations of piglets in the nursery phase. A total of 72 crossbred entire male piglets (Landrace × Large White, Agroceres♂ and DanBred♀), weaned at 21 days of age, with an average initial body weight (AIBW) of 6.75 ± 0.19 kg were used. Two statistical models were fitted for WI. In model I, animals were distributed in a completely randomized design (CRD) with a split-plot in time, composed of six treatments (2 types of drinkers × 3 experimental phases), eight replications (days of sampling), and 36 animals/experimental unit (EU), without using AIBW as a covariate. In model II, animals were distributed in a CRD with two treatments (fixed or pendular nipple drinkers), eight replications (days of sampling) and 36 animals/EU, with use of AIBW as a covariate. For assessment of behavioural observations, the model was adjusted in a randomized block design, consisting of four treatments [two types of toys (metal chain and plastic bottle) × two daytime periods (morning and afternoon)], nine replications and three blocks constituted in time (days), totalling four pigs/EU. The results indicated an effect on animal daily WI in the starter phase in model I (p < 0.000) and II (p = 0.006). There was an effect (p ≤ 0.05) of toy type for behavioural observations, in which pigs showed a greater proportion of fighting and belly nosing when they had the bottle toy. However, animals spent more time (p ≤ 0.05) eating, drinking water, overlapping, and playing with the toy when they had access to the chain toy. There was an increase (p ≤ 0.05) in sleeping behaviour in the morning period, as well as greater (p ≤ 0.05) behavioural activity in the afternoon period. In conclusion, WI of nursery piglets was positively influenced by growth phase, and the fixed drinker stimulated greater WI in piglets in the starter phase. In addition, the metal chain, as an environmental enrichment, promoted improvements in feeding behaviour and WI, reducing fighting events, and the afternoon period had increased behavioural observations overall.

show abstract

“…Previous studies reported that the water intake of pigs using a nipple drinker is comparatively higher than water bowls. Since the water fouled with the feed or faeces, the water intake from the bowl declined when compared to nipple drinkers [10]. Though the water wastage is higher on nipple drinkers than in water bowls, it concluded that pigs prefer to drink from nipple drinkers rather than bowls or troughs [11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts of nipple drinker position on water intake, water wastage and drinkingduration of pigs

Arulmozhi¹,

Basak²,

Park³

et al. 2020

Turk J Vet Anim Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Water determines the life quality of pigs, however, adequate measures need to be taken in order to reduce wastage while the animals are drinking. The current study hypothesized and examined a suitable position at which to fix the nipple drinker to provide sufficient drinking water to pigs while also limiting water wastage. Additionally, this study describes both the drinking pattern and drinking duration of pigs. The height to place the drinker was calculated based on the neck movement of the pigs (neck movement angle, NMA). According to the NMA, 3 independent treatments were investigated with angles placed at clockwise 30°, 0°, and counter clockwise 30°. These positions will be correspondingly referred to as T1, T2, and T3, respectively. To understand the diurnal drinking pattern and drinking duration, along with each pig's drinking cycle, the number of visits to the drinker was recorded with a camera. The outcome shows that T3 had less water wastage and a higher average daily gain compared to T1 and T2. Further, the number of visits to the drinker and drinking duration were affected by the treatments. The research affirmed that the nipple drinker with a counter clockwise 30° angle at a proper height is the best at reducing water wastage for finishing pigs. Correspondingly, the T3 treatment might create opportunities to drink more water in group housed pigs.

show abstract

Water nipples or water bowls for weaned piglets: Effect on water intake, performance, and plasma osmolality

Cited by 10 publications

References 18 publications

The preference for water nipples vs. water bowls in dairy goats

The preference for water nipples vs. water bowls in dairy goats

Assessment of the drinker type on water intake and toy type on behaviour of nursery piglets

Impacts of nipple drinker position on water intake, water wastage and drinkingduration of pigs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About