Water consumption pattern of laying hens under hot humid conditions

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Water consumption pattern of laying hens under hot humid conditions"

Jessie Horn
6 years ago
Views:

Water cnsumptin pattern f laying hens under ht humid cnditins N S B M Atapattu and V L G Gamage Department f Animal Science, Faculty f Agriculture, University f Ruhuna, Mapalana, Kamburupitiya

1 Water cnsumptin pattern f laying hens under ht humid cnditins N S B M Atapattu and V L G Gamage Department f Animal Science, Faculty f Agriculture, University f Ruhuna, Mapalana, Kamburupitiya Abstract Objective f the present study was t understand the water cnsumptin pattern f laying hens under ht-humid cnditins. Seventeen-week ld layer pullets (n=25) were randmly allcated t 5 cages. Each cage had a feeder and a drinker. Daily feed and water intake and, the egg prductin were recrded frm 18 th t 26 th week. The laying cycle cmmenced when birds were 19 weeks ld. The mean bdy weight f the birds at the cmmencement f the laying cycle was 1235 g. Laying hens cnsumed mre water during day time than night time. The day time water intake dubledfrm 72 ml t 145 ml/day/bird frm ts" week t 26 th week. The night time water intake increased slwly frm 72 ml at 18 h week t 89 ml at zc" week. The ttal water intake f nn-laying pullets significantly increased (p<.1) frm 147 ml/bird/day t 176 ml/bird/day during the first week f laying cycle. The intake f water gradually increased up t 234 ml/day when birds were 26 weesk ld. The intake f water increased nn-significantly frm week Water: feed rati f the pullets was 1.4 and increased nn significantly t 1.5 during the first week f the laying cycle. Then the water: feed rati increased gradually up t zs" week (2.) and then declined t 1.2 at rs" week. Nn laying pullets drank 12.6 ml f water/i g f bdy weight. Water cnsumptin per unit bdy weight increased as laying cycle prgressed and reached a maximum (16.7ml/IOO g bdy weight) at 26 th week. During the first week f laying cycle (19 1h week), birds drank 4.4 ml/g f egg prduced. The cnsumptin f water per unit f egg increased significantly during the secnd week f the cycle (4.9 ml/g f egg) and then declined t maintain at a cnstant level arund 4.4 ml during the rest f the study perid. The daily water requirement (ml/day/bird) f a laying hen culd be expressed as X (R 2 =.59) where x is the sum f live weight and egg weight. Key wrds: pullets, layers, water intake, water: feed rati Intrductin Even thugh specific requirements have nt been set, water can reasnably be regarded as an essential nutrient fr all classes f livestck. Dcumented water intake data fr laying hens are limited (NRC, 1994). The amunt f water depend n envirnmental and dietary factrs, rate f prductin and efficiency f kidney water resrptin in individual birds (NRC 1994), physilgical stage (Leesn and Summers, 1987), the type f the drinker (Dunn and Emmans, 1971 as cited by NRC, 1994) and the number f birds per drinker (Gamet and Adams, 1992). Cnsequently, except n a few ccasins, birds are given water ad libitum. Water is primarily required fr bdily maintenance activities and then fr prductin. An average egg cntains 66.7 % water (McDnald et al. 1995) and thus apprximately 39 ml f water is exprted with each egg prduced. Therefre the transitin frm nn-laying pullets t laying stage is assciated with increased metablic activities and water demand. We were unable t find any literature pertaining t the water cnsumptin pattern f pullets and laying hens in the early stages f the laying cycle, under ht-humid cnditins. The present experiment was cnducted t study hw the water cnsumptin pattern changes as pullets enter int laying cycle and, during the early stages f the laying cycle, under ht-humid cnditins. 214

2 Materials and methds Seventeen-week ld layer pullets (n=25) were allcated t five deep litter cages s that between cage weight variatin is minimum. Paddy husk was used as the litter material. Each pullet was given 3 ft2 f flr space. Each cage had a feeder and a bell-shaped drinker. Birds were acclimatized t the pens fr ne week befre the cmmencement f data cllectin. Birds were fed with n-farm prepared mash diets (Table 1). Table 1. Cmpsitin f the grwer and layer diets and the calculated nutrient cmpsitin Ingredient (%) Yellw maize meal Rice plish Brken rice Ccnut il meal Sybean il meal Gingelly il meal Fish (lcal) Meat and bne meal Salt Shell grit Shell pwder Fur F twin pack Dical P4 Antixident DL Methinine L Lysine Premix (.2) Enerrnax (.1) Aflatxin Binder (.5) Nutrient Cmpsitin (Calculated) CP% CF% Energy kcallkg Ca Nn phytate phsphrus Lysine Met+Cys Grwer Ratin Finisher Ratin The cage-wise daily feed and water intake and egg prductin were recrded frm week 18 t 26. Shell grit was intrduced at week and birds were given ad libitum access t water, feed and shell grit. Natural phtshedule was maintained. Data were analyzed using GLM prcedure f the SAS (1989). Results and discussin Cmmencement f the laying cycle The laying cycle cmmenced when birds were 19 weeks ld and at mean live weight f 1235±51g. 19 week ld birds at the first week f the laying cycle were significantly heavier than the 18-weeks ld pullets. Birds f the riginal flck frm which the experimental subjects were selected als cmmenced the laying cycle at the 19 th week. 215

Water intake r water disappearance? In this experiment, water intake was measured as the difference between the water ffered (given in bell-shaped drinker) and water left ver.

3 Water intake r water disappearance? In this experiment, water intake was measured as the difference between the water ffered (given in bell-shaped drinker) and water left ver. Thugh utmst care was taken t minimize the water spillage, ccasinally we fund that birds had spilled water and, n such ccasins, the intake f water f that drinker was mitted frm the calculatins. Since we did nt measure the evapratin lsses frm the drinkers, the intake values might have been ver estimated due t evapratin lsses. Water intake measurements cnducted with nipple drinkers were reprted t be lwer than the intake values taken with pen devices such as bell-drinkers and trughs. Fr example, Dun and Emmans (1971) as cited by NRC (1994) cmpared the water intake f hens n trugh and nipple watering system and fund that birds "cnsumed" 166 ml and 254 ml per day in nipple and trugh system, respectively. Since we did nt measure the water spillage and evapratin lsses, the intake values we reprt herein may best be interpreted as the "water disappearance". Hwever, since spillage f water frm the cmmnly used bell-shaped drinkers and evapratin is inevitable under nrmal farming cnditins, the fllwing discussin uses the term water intake instead f the technically mre crrect water disappearance. Water intake measurements The pattern f water and feed intake f pullets at 18 th week and layers up t 26 th week are shwn in Table 2. Eighteen weeks ld pullets drank similar amunt f water during day time and night time. Hwever, layers at the first week f the laying cycle drank significantly mre water during day time than during night time. Interestingly, the day time water intake f nn laying pullets increased significantly (p<o.ooi) frm 73 ml t 15 ml with the cmmencement f the laying cycle. The day time water intake dubled frm 72 ml t 145 mllday/bird frm 18 th week t 26 th week, whereas the night time water intake increased quite slwly frm 74 at 18 th week t 89 ml at 26 th week. Mngin and Sauveur (1974) fund that water cnsumptin peaked just after the vipisitin and during the albumin depsitin. Hence, high water demand during day time can best be related t the egg frmatin physilgy. The finding that there was n significant difference between the day time and night time water intake in pullets at 18 th week further supprts the abve hypthesis. Hwever it must be nted that we measured the feed and water intake at 83 and 163hrs f the day and did nt prvide lights during night. The ttal water intake f pullets significantly increased (p<o.ooi) frm 147 mllbirds/day t 176 mllbird/day when they were at the first week f the laying cycle. Andersn and Hill (1967) als fund a significant increase in water intake with the nset f the laying cycle. Lumijarva and Hill, 1968; as cited by Leesn and Summers (1987) cncluded that increased water intake with sexual maturity was related t hrmnal balance. Intake f water gradually increased up t 234 ml/day when birds were 26 week ld. The intake f water increased, thugh nt significant as laying cycle prgressed thrugh week 2 t 25. Bth the daytime and night time feed intake changed slightly as birds prceeded thrugh the laying cycle. Cmpared t water intake, the day time feed intake f the nn laying pullets did nt increase significantly with the cmmencement f the laying cycle. During the first six weeks f the cycle, the day time feed intake increased gradually, but nt significantly. But by the seventh week f the laying cycle, the intake dubled and the intake during the seventh and eighth weeks were significantly higher than earlier weeks. Similar t night time water intake, the night time feed intake als changed slightly. The ttal daily feed intake f nn laying pullets did nt increase significantly with the cmmencement f the laying cycle. The ttal feed intakes during seventh and eighth weeks f the cycle were significantly higher (p<o.ooi) than in the pullets and layers up t sixth week f the cycle. Pattern f the water and feed intake suggests that with the cmmencement f the laying cycle, the intake f water increases sharply but the intake f 216

4 feed increases smthly as the laying cycle prceeds. Hwever, bth the intake f water and feed increased by abut 6% when layers are 26 week ld (at the seventh week f the laying cycle), cmpared t nn laying pullets. Cmpared t water and feed intake values, the water: feed rati did nt shw a clear pattern. The water: feed rati ranged frm 1.1 t 2 (mean 1.5). Water: feed rati f the pullets; 1.4 and increased nn significantly t 1.5 during the first week f the laying cycle. Then the water: feed rati increased gradually up t 23 rd week (2.) and then declined t 1.2 at 26 th week. Gernat and Adams (1992) reprted a water: feed rati f 1.7 fr layers n nipple drinkers. Pullets drank 12.6 ml f water per 1 g f bdy weight. Water cnsumptin per unit bdy weight increased as the laying cycle prgressed and reached a maximum f 16.7mlll g bdy weight at 26 th week. Our findings, in general are in agreement with the findings f Medway and Kare (1959; as cited by Leesn and Summesr, 1987). They fund that the water intake per 1 g f bdy weight decreases frm 45 ml at 7 days t 13 ml at 16 th week, subsequently increasing t 24 ml at full maturity. The water cnsumptin flayers per unit bdy weight was lw cmpared t that f briler chickens kept at the same envirnmental cnditins. Fr example, Lal and Atapatu, (26) and Atapattu and Gamage (26) have reprted that briler chicks arund 16 g drink arund 35-4 ml f water per 1 g f bdy weight. Higher metablic rate and feed intake f the brilers, cmpared t layers may prbably be the reasn fr that difference. During the first week f the laying cycle (19 th week) birds drank 4.4 mllg f egg prduced. The cnsumptin f water per unit f egg increased significantly during the secnd week f the cycle (4.9 mllg f egg) and then declined t maintain at a cnstant level arund 4.4 during the rest f the study perid. The percentage f water exprted with egg was calculated (Table 3) and, fund that it varied within a narrw range frm 12% t 15% f the ttal intake. Hwever, a smewhat lwer cntributin (1%) has been reprted by Tylr (1958). Cmputatin f the data shwed that the actual metablic water requirement fr egg frmatin exceeds the amunt f water exprted with egg (Table 3). The metablic water requirement fr egg frmatin is defined as the difference between the ttal water requirement and the water exprted as egg. Except in the first week f the laying cycle, the metablic water requirements fr egg frmatin are higher than the water exprted with egg in respective weeks. Chapman and Mihai (1972) as cited by Leesn and Summers (1987) als fund that water intake f laying vs nn laying birds was much higher than that can be accunted fr by egg frmatin alne. Hill et al (1979) fund that drinking f water by pultry was fllwed by meals. Therefre the additinal amunt f water requirement may be related t the increased feed intake. 1. Bdy weight * 12, Tl requirement - maintenance requirement * 1 3. Intake fr egg prductin ttal intake * 1 4. Assuming water % f egg is 66.7% (McDnald et al 1995) 5. Water exprted with egg/ttal water intake * 1 6. Water exprted with egg /water intake fr egg prductin *1 The daily water requirement (ml/day/bird) f a laying hen culd be expressed as X; (R 2 =.59) where x is the sum f live weight and egg weight. It was cncluded that water intake f pullets increased significantly with the cmmencement f the laying cycle and 1-15 % f the ttal water cnsumed is exprted with eggs. Furthermre, it was cncluded that the actual metablic water requirement fr egg prductin is higher than the water exprted with eggs. 217

5 feed increases smthly as the laying cycle prceeds. Hwever, bth the intake f water and feed increased by abut 6% when layers are 26 week ld (at the seventh week f the laying cycle), cmpared t nn laying pullets. Cmpared t water and feed intake values, the water: feed rati did nt shw a clear pattern. The water: feed rati ranged frm 1.1 t 2 (mean 1.5). Water: feed rati f the pullets; 1.4 and increased nn significantly t 1.5 during the first week f the laying cycle. Then the water: feed rati increased gradually up t 23 rd week (2.) and then declined t 1.2 at 26 th week. Gemat and Adams (1992) reprted a water: feed rati f 1.7 fr layers n nipple drinkers. Pullets drank 12.6 ml f water per 1 g f bdy weight. Water cnsumptin per unit bdy weight increased as the laying cycle prgressed and reached a maximum f 16.7mUI g bdy weight at 26 th week. Our findings, in general are in agreement with the findings f Medway and Kare (1959; as cited by Leesn and Summesr, 1987). They fund that the water intake per 1 g f bdy weight decreases frm 45 ml at 7 days t 13 ml at 16 th week, subsequently increasing t 24 ml at full maturity. The water cnsumptin f layers per unit bdy weight was lw cmpared t that f briler chickens kept at the same envirnmental cnditins. Fr example, Lal and Atapatu, (26) and Atapattu and Gamage (26) have reprted that briler chicks arund 16 g drink arund 35-4 ml f water per 1 g f bdy weight. Higher metablic rate and feed intake f the brilers, cmpared t layers may prbably be the reasn fr that difference. During the first week f the laying cycle (19 th week) birds drank 4.4 ml/g f egg prduced. The cnsumptin f water per unit f egg increased significantly during the secnd week f the cycle (4.9 ml/g f egg) and then declined t maintain at a cnstant level arund 4.4 during the rest f the study perid. The percentage f water exprted with egg was calculated (Table 3) and, fund that it varied within a narrw range frm 12% t 15% f the ttal intake. Hwever, a smewhat lwer cntributin (1%) has been reprted by Tylr (1958). Cmputatin f the data shwed that the actual metablic water requirement fr egg frmatin exceeds the amunt f water exprted with egg (Table 3). The metablic water requirement fr egg frmatin is defined as the difference between the ttal water requirement and the water exprted as egg. Except in the first week f the laying cycle, the metablic water requirements fr egg frmatin are higher than the water exprted with egg in respective weeks. Chapman and Mihai (1972) as cited by Leesn and Summers (1987) als fund that water intake f laying vs nn laying birds was much higher than that can be accunted fr by egg frmatin alne. Hill et al (1979) fund that drinking f water by pultry was fllwed by meals. Therefre the additinal amunt f water requirement may be related t the increased feed intake. 1. Bdy weight * 12, Tl requirement - maintenance requirement * 1 3. Intake fr egg prductin ttal intake * 1 4. Assuming water % f egg is 66.7% (McDnald et al 1995) 5. Water exprted with egg/ttal water intake *1 6. Water exprted with egg /water intake fr egg prductin *1 The daily water requirement (ml/day/bird) f a laying hen culd be expressed as X; (R 2 =.59) where x is the sum f live weight and egg weight. It was cncluded that water intake f pullets increased significantly with the cmmencement f the laying cycle and 1-15 % f the ttal water cnsumed is exprted with eggs. Furthermre, it was cncluded that the actual metablic water requirement fr egg prductin is higher than the water exprted with eggs. 217

6 References Andersn, R S and Hill, K J. (1967). The interrelatinship between fd and water intake and egg laying in light hybrid hens. Prceedings f the Nutritinal Sciety. 3A-4A. Atapattu, N S B M and Gamage, V L G. (26) Water intake f briler chicken as affected by dietary micrbial phytase Accepted t be presented at the 62 nd Annual Sessins f the Sri Lanka Assciatin fr the Advancement f Science. Gernat, A G and Adams, A W. (1992). Effects f number f hens per nipple waterer n the perfrmance f several strains flayers in cages. Pultry Science. 71: Hill, J A, Pwel, A J and Charles, D R. (1979) Water intake. In: Brman, K N and Freeman, B M (eds) Fd Intake Regulatin in Pultry. Lngman, Edinburgh, pp Effects f dietary calcium levels near the time f sexual maturity n water intake and excreta misture cntent. Pultry Science. 66: McDnald, PM., Edwards, R A, Greenhalgh, J F D and Mrgan, C A. (1995) Animal Nutritin. Addisn-Wesley. Harlw. Medway, Wand Kare, M R. (1959). Water metablism f the grwing dmestic fwl with special reference t water balance. Pultry Science. 38: Mngin, P and Sauveur, B. (1974). Hurly water cnsumptin and egg frmatin in the dmestic fwl. British Pultry Science. 15: NRC (1994). Nutrient Requirements f Pultry. Natinal Research Cuncil. Natinal Academy Press. Washingtn, D.C. SAS (1989). Statistical Analysis System. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC. Tylr, C. (1958). Sme water and dry matter relatinship in the fd and drppings f laying hens. Jurnal f Agricultural Science. 51 :

7 ~ = ~-:-:-:: ',..," PROCEEDINGS OF THE FOURTH ACADEMIC SESSIONS 27 Table 2. Water and Feed intake pattern f pullets and layers at the early stages f the laying cycle. Feature Week 18 Week 19 Week 2 Week 22 Week 23 Week 24 Week 25 Week 26 Level f Significance Bdy Weight 117± 13.i ± 51A e ± 48.6 d 136A± 5.8 cd 132± 46.9 bed ± be1359.6±12.9' 142.8± 55.9'.1 Feed Intake \l DayTime 72.8±34.26 b 68A± 17.4 b 72A± 7.3 b 72.6± ±17.78 b 86.51± 1.l3 b 131.2±37.3' 128.9± 43.3'.1 ;u 52.2 ±28.7 bac 52.8± 2.2 b c 48.± 8.1 be NightTime 42.2± 6.9 c 46.6± 9.6 be 46A± 11.7 be 67.3± 17.8 b ±17.6'.576 m Z Ttal 125.1± 6.7 b 121.2± 34.9 b 12.5 ±14 b 114.8± 37.9 b 119.1±24 b 132.9± 21 b 198.5± 52.6 a 2 1.2±52. 7 a.1 G) -n -i Water Intake :::c DayTime 73.2 ±5.8 d 15.7 ±11.2 be 126A ±5.1 be 124A ±15.6 dc 113.7± 12.8 be 125.6± 16.3 ab ±14.1 a 145± m - -n N Night Time 74.3±14.2 be 7.5± 6.3 c 74.8± 11.2 be 93 ±n7 ab C 96.6± 14.3 a 8.5± 21.7 abe 84.8± 14.2 abe 89A± 6.6 abe.21 ~ \ :::c Ttal 147.6± 14.2 d 176.2± 12.6 c 21.3 ±14A b 217A± 22.5 ba 21.3 ±23.9 ba 26.l3± b219.7± 7.1 ba 234.5± 6.8 a.1 ~ m Water: Feed 3: Rati 1.4±.7 be 1.5±.3 bac 1.69 ±.28 hac 2.±.5 a 1.8 ±.6 ba 1.5±.3 bac 1.18 ±.34 c 1.2±.3".39 m Ttal Water Intake/1 Bdy l2.6± 1.2" 14.3± 1.5 be 15.7± 1.3 ba 16.6± 1.7" 15.9± 1.9 ba 15A± 2.5 ba 16.l±.6 ba 16.7±.5 a.23 Weight Egg Weight 39.5± 2.1 d 4.6± 2.2 d 46.5± 1.9" 48.2± 1.6 bac 47.6± 1. be 5.l± 14" 49.3± 1.6 ba.1 Ttal Water 4A7± 4ba 4.9± 4" 4.7±.6 be 4.3± 4b 4.3±.7 b 4.3±.1 ba 4.7±.2 ba.518 Intake/Egg Weight 5 z N 8 -..j

8 Table 3. Cnversin efficiency if water cnsumed int egg water Week S 26 Ttal Water 147.6± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±6.89 Intake (ml) Bdy Weight (g) ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ; Intake fr Maintenance I m Z (j) Intake fr egg Prductin'.,.. -f :J: Cntributin fr egg m.,.. Prductin' % N C N ; -f Egg Weight 39.56± ± ± ± ± ± ±1.67 :J:»» m s:: %Egg exprted Water in egg" with EggS Cnversin efficiency (%) metablic water fr egg prductin n t egg" m 5 z I\) -..j

The Effect of Various Types of Brooding on Growth and Feed Consumption of Chickens During the First 18 Days After Hatch

The Effect of Various Types of Brooding on Growth and Feed Consumption of Chickens During the First 18 Days After Hatch The Effect f Varius Types f Brding n Grwth and Feed Cnsumptin f Chickens During the First 18 Days After Hatch H. G. BAEOTT AND EMMA M. PRINGLE Animal Husbandry Divisin, Bureau f Animal Industry, Agricultural