Water consumption and wastage of nursery pig with different drinkers at different water pressures in summer

Wang Meizhi, Yi Lu, Liu Jijun, Zhao Wanying, Wu Zhonghong



Water consumption and wastage of nursery pig with different drinkers at different water pressures in summer

Wang Meizhi1,2, Yi Lu1,2, Liu Jijun1,2, Zhao Wanying1,2, Wu Zhonghong1,2※

(1.100193,;2.100193)

An experiment was conducted to investigate the influence of different drinkers and water pressure on water consumption and wastage by nursery pigs in summer. In the experiment, water consumption and wastage were recorded in minute over 5 d. Period 1 compared water consumption and wastage between bowl and swing drinkers at water pressures of 0.10, 0.15 and 0.20 MPa with 10 pigs (body weight 6.1-20.1 kg) in each pen. Period 2 compared water consumption and wastage between swing drinkers with blades and standard swing drinkers at water pressure of 0.10 MPa with 5 pigs (body weight 17.5-24.6 kg) in each pen. Water consumption of each pig from the bowl drinker at water pressures of 0.1, 0.15 and 0.20 MPa was 16.2±3.0, 30.3±8.1 and 38.3± 4.8 L/d; and from the swing drinker was 5.7±1.0, 8.7±1.9 and 10.3± 0.4 L/d, respectively. Predicted wastage/consumption from the bowl drinker at water pressures of 0.1, 0.15 and 0.20 MPa was 83.3%, 85.1% and 85.4%, respectively. Wastage/consumption from the swing drinker at water pressures of 0.1, 0.15 and 0.20 MPa was 54.4%, 48.3% and 45.6%, respectively. Water consumption from swing drinker with blades was not significantly higher (11.3±1.7 L/d) than from standard swing drinker (9.4±1.0 L/d). Wastage/consumption from swing drinker with blades (60.2%) was higher than from standard swing drinker (46.8%). Therefore, to reduce water consumption and wastage, water flow rate should be regulated. In summer, the bowl drinker can lead to more water consumption and wastage than the swing drinker. Swing drinker with blades was not better than the standard swing drinker to reduce water wastage.

water conservation; leakage; wastewater; drinker; nursery pigs; water consumption; water pressure

0 Introduction

China currently has a serious water shortage[1]. The heavy use of water and large quantity of slurry produced on pig units are important components of the environmental and cost issues related to intensive pork production[2]. Concerns over water use by the livestock industry, combined with the rising cost of manure management, has increased interest in reducing water consumption by pigs without compromising animal well-being or growth performance[3].

Water has received less attention than any other nutrient[4-5]. During the growing-finishing period, water consumption ranges from 3.78 to 7.37 L/d for each pig in the thermoneutral zone[2-3,6-7]. For each nursery pig, water consumption from different drinkers ranges from 0.77 to 6.1 L/d in an environmentally-controlled room[2,8-11]. Growing- finishing pigs may waste up to 60% of water from a poorly-managed nipple drinker[12]. Various environmental and physiological factors[13-14]affect water consumption. Although most nursery pig rooms in northern China are heated in winter, few of them are cooled in summer. Water consumption of different drinkers by nursery pigs in northern China in winter had been studied[15].

This study therefore investigated water consumption and wastage from different drinkers in nursery pig rooms in non-environmentally-controlled houses in summer. The experiment was conducted to determine 1) water consumption and wastage from the bowl drinker and the swing drinker in summer at different water pressures; 2) water consumption and wastage from the swing drinker and swing drinker with blades in summer at water pressure of 0.1 MPa.

1 Materials and methods

Animal care procedures followed the Guide for the technical regulations for commercial pig production for intensive pig production[16]. The data were analyzed with Excel 2010 and SPSS 17.0. Figure 1 shows the 3 types of drinkers used in the experiment.

Fig.1 Three types of drinkers

The experiment was conducted under hot weather condition in a nursery pig room (42.0 m×9.3 m×2.9 m, L×W×H) in a pig farm in Shunyi District, Beijing, China. The experimental room was naturally ventilated and oriented west to east. There were 14 windows (1.5 m wide×2.0 m tall) in the south wall and 14 windows (0.8 m wide×1.0 m tall) in the north wall. All windows were made up of plastic and steel with a single glass pane. There was 1 door (0.9 m wide ×2.1 m tall) in the west wall of the house. The 4 walls of the room were made up of bricks 370 mm thick and plastic extruded board 90 mm thick. The pitched roof was made up of colored steel laminboard 100 mm thick and there was no ceiling. Two thirds of the floor was solid concrete and one third was fully slatted.

The animals were tested in 2 specially-equipped pens. Each 2.1 m×1.8 m test pen had a plastic-coated expanded metal net bed raised 0.40 m above the room floor. The swing drinker (Model: Nipple drinker for nursery pigs, Yinglian Mechanical equipment Co., Ltd., Zhengzhou, Henan Province, China) was made up of a flexible tube, a nipple drinker and a steel tube, steel chain was needed to strengthen the swing drinker system when it was used to finishing pigs (Fig.1a). The height of the swing drinker was 5 cm above the shoulder height of the smallest pig in the pen, according to recommendations by Brumm[17]andGonyou[18]. Shoulder height in mm was calculated as 150×body weight (BW)0.33[19]. Bowl drinker (Model: Bowl drinker for nursery pigs) (Fig.1b) was from Beijing Jingpeng Huanyu Animal Husbandry Science and Technology Co., Ltd, Beijing, China. This type of bowl drinker requires the pig to press its snout against the valve to release the water. Swing with blades drinker (Model: Swing with blades drinker for nursery pigs) (Fig.1c) was from Hanshu Commodity Inc., Qingdao, Shandong Province, China. The swing drinker with blades was positioned 5 cm above the shoulder height of the smallest pig in the pen. This type of drinker was like the construction of the swing drinker and it was made up of two nipple drinkers (one was blocked in this experiment), blades added to the two sides of the nipple drinker were designed to protect other pigs from side aggression.

A previous study suggested that the height of the lip of the bowl should be 40% of the height of the smallest pig[18]. Another study on weaning pigs positioned the bowls approximately 10 cm above the floor[20]; for growing- finishing pigs, bowls were placed 25 cm above the floor[21]. In this study, the bowl drinker was positioned 15 cm above the pen floor. Each pen contained a single water drinker and a single feeder providing 5 eating spaces for the pigs.

The animals used were healthy and showed no lameness at the start of the experiment. The pigs were givenaccess to nutritionally balanced dry diet which is composed of 60% corn and 40% concentrated feed. The composition of concentrated feed is as follows: crude protein 17.48%, ash 7.18%, crude fiber 4.16%, calcium 0.81%, total phosphorus 0.36%, NaCl 0.6%, lysine 1.26%, moisture content 13.8%, digestive energy 13.39 MJ/kg. Manure was generally removed at 08:00 and 17:00 every day.

Water pressure to the water lines was controlled by a water pressure control system made up of a booster pump, an inverter and a pressure gage. Two water meters (DMF-1-3-B, Beijing Sincerity Automatic Equipment Co. Ltd. Beijing, China) that could assess flow rates up to 8 000 mL/min were installed in the water lines above the 2 drinkers. The water meters were calibrated to verify accuracy at the start of the experiment by the instrument factory, and then were connected to a data logger (Model PLC S7-200, Siemens Electronics, Japan) to record water consumption. A tray (35 cm×45 cm×12 cm) was mounted directly below the west pen floor. Similarly, a further tray (60 cm×50 cm× 12 cm) was mounted directly below the east pen floor. Waste water from the 2 trays was funneled into 2 waste water measuring systems. This system (Model RN1, Shanghai Ruixin Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) was made up of an electronic pluviograph and a rain data logger. The rain gauge used the tipping bucket principle. Water wastage was measured and logged in 1-min collections. These data (in mm) were converted to mL according to the collecting area of the rain gauge. Actual flow rates were measured and logged as 1-min collections.

Feed intake was determined by comparing the weight of feed added to the feeder with the weight of feed remaining at the end of each period, and feed wastage below each pen was weighed at 08:00 and 17:00 every day.

The behavior of the pigs in the 2 test pens was recorded between 14:00 on August 2 and 18:00 on August 4; and between 18:00 on August 14 and 07:00 on August 17. The pigs were videotaped from directly above the pens using 2 cameras (Model SSC-CB565R, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Co., Ltd., Hangzhou, China) and a digital video recorder (Model DS-8104HF-ST, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Co.).

The temperature and relative humidity (RH) was measured by temperature and RH loggers (179A-TH, Apresys Precision Optical Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China). The temperature and RH of the interior of the pig room was taken as the mean of 2 loggers placed inside the room, and the exterior values taken as the mean of 2 loggers placed outside. The loggers were all placed 1.5 m above the room floor or ground, and all loggers were set to record data at half-hourly intervals.

1.1 Monitoring of water use (Period 1)

There were 10 pigs in each test pen. 20 pigs were allowed for 3 d to adapt to the test pens before the first period (The test pigs were transferred to the test pens on July 1, 2016). Period 1 was from July 4 to August 4, 2016. The ages of the pigs were recorded and the pigs in each pen were weighed at the start and end of Period 1. In this period the bowl drinker was situated in the west pen, the swing drinker was situated in the east pen and the experiment was conducted to compare water consumption and water wastage between bowl drinker and swing drinker at water pressures of 0.10, 0.15 and 0.20 MPa, respectively.

1.2 Monitoring of water use (Period 2)

The bowl drinker in the west pen was changed to a swing drinker with blades on August 4. The group of 20 pigs was reduced to 10 pigs (Because when the period 2 began the pigs had grown up and there was no room for 10 pigs to lie down in 1 pen), with 5 pigs using one swing drinker and 5 pigs using one swing drinker with blades. The age and weight of the pigs were recorded at the start and end of this period. Water consumption and wastage was measured from 08:00 on August 11 to 18:00 on August 16 at a water pressure of 0.10 MPa. In this period, the experiment compared water consumption and wastage between the swing drinker and the swing drinker with blades.

2 Results

2.1 Temperature and body weight

In the summer experiment, the highest indoor and outdoor temperatures were 33.3 and 39.6 ℃, respectively; the average indoor and outdoor temperature were 27.6±2.4 ℃ and 27.6±4.5 ℃, respectively; and the lowest temperaturewere 22.6 ℃ and 19.9 ℃, respectively (Fig.2). Details about the nursery pigs in this experiment were listed in Table 1.

Fig.2 Indoor and outdoor temperatures

Table 1 Performance of nursery pigs

Note: Same lowercase letters indicate no significant difference between treatments in the same period at 0.05 level; the initial body weight was weighed by 10 pigs in one pen while the final body weight was weighed one by one. Data shown as mean ± SD. The same below.

2.2 Daily water consumption and wastage

Water consumption rates of each pig from the bowl drinker at water pressures of 0.1, 0.15 and 0.20 MPa were 16.2±3.0, 30.3±8.1 and 38.3±4.8 L/d; water consumption rates from the swing drinker were 5.7±1.0, 8.7±1.9 and 10.3±0.4 L/d, respectively. Water consumption from the bowl drinker was significantly higher than from the swing drinker (<0.05). The higher the water pressure, the higher the water consumption from the bowl drinker significantly (<0.05). The higher the water pressure, the higher the water consumption from the swing drinker significantly at water pressure of 0.1 MPa compared with 0.15 MPa and 0.1 MPa compared with 0.2 MPa (<0.05). Although the water consumption from the swing drinker at water pressure of 0.2 MPa was higher than that under 0.15 MPa, the difference was not significant (>0.05) (Table 2).

Waste water was almost completely collected from the swing drinker, whereas waste water was only partly collected from the bowl drinker since the pigs played with the water and distributed it widely. Wastage rates from the swing drinker of each pig at water pressures of 0.1, 0.15 and 0.20 MPa were 3.1±0.8, 4.2±0.8 and 4.7±0.5 L/d, respectively. Wastage rates from the bowl drinker were significantly higher (<0.05): 6.9±1.4, 10.0±2.8 and 20.1±4.7 L/d, respectively. Assuming that intake from the bowl drinker was the same as from the swing drinker, predicted wastage from the bowl drinker was 13.5±3.3, 25.8±6.6 and 32.7±4.4 L/d at water pressures of 0.1, 0.15 and 0.20 MPa, respectively. Therefore, measured wastage/water consumption of the bowl drinker at water pressures of 0.1, 0.15 and 0.20 MPa was 42.6%, 33.0% and 52.5%, respectively; predicted wastage/water consumption was 83.3%, 85.1% and 85.4%, respectively. Wastage/water consumption from the swing drinker at water pressures of 0.1, 0.15 and 0.20 MPa was 54.4%, 48.3% and 45.6%, respectively (Table 2).

Table 2 Daily water consumption and wastage of each nursery pig from drinkers at different water pressures

Note: Different uppercase letters indicate a significant difference in the same row (<0.05); different lowercase letters indicate a significant difference in the same column (<0.05).

It can be seen from Table 3 that water consumption from a swing drinker with blades (11.3±1.7 L/d) was higher than from a swing drinker without blades (9.4±1.0 L/d), but this difference was not significant. Wastage from a swing drinker with blades (6.8±1.1 L/d) was significantly higher than from a standard swing drinker (4.4±1.5 L/d)(<0.05). There was no significant difference in terms of intake. Wastage/water consumption (60.2%) from a swing drinker with blades was higher than that from a standard swing drinker (46.8%).

Table 3 Daily water consumption and wastage of each nursery pig from swing drinker with blades and standard swing drinker at water pressure of 0.1 MPa

Note: Different uppercase letters indicate a significant difference between treatments (<0.05).

2.3 Water consumption and wastage per minute

In period 1, maximum water consumption in one minute from the bowl drinker at water pressures of 0.10, 0.15 and 0.2 MPa was 3 962, 5 018 and 5 425 mL/min, respectively (Table 4). Maximum water consumption in one minute from the swing drinker was 1 398, 1 757 and 2 174 mL/min, respectively. The higher the water pressure, the higher the maximum water consumption in one minute from both types of drinker. Maximum water consumption in one minute from the bowl drinker was higher than from the swing drinker at the same water pressure.

Table 4 Maximum water consumption and wastage flow rate in one minute

According to Li et al.[2], the mean duration per drink was approximately 20 s, there would be time interval between two times of drinking in one minute, so the real water flow rate from both bowl and swing drinkers in this paper was not less than the maximum water consumption in one minute measured in this study. The real flow rates of bowl and swing drinkers were measured manually to be 4 385 ± 159 and 5 042±98 mL/min, respectively, at water pressure of 0.1 MPa.

In the bowl drinker, a higher water pressure was associated with a higher maximum wastage flow rate measured in one minute; but this result was not observed in the swing drinker. Maximum water consumption flow rate from the swing drinker with blades was higher (1 530 mL/min) than from the swing drinker (1 361 mL/min) at water pressure of 0.1 MPa.

2.4 Drinking behavior with different drinkers

To assess the influence of drinker type on water consumption, one picture of drinking behavior was selected from the videotape (Fig.3). The picture showed that in the bowl drinker pen, a greater number of pigs gathered near the drinker than the pigs in the swing drinker pen.

Fig.3 Drinking behavior

Data numbers of water consumption flow rate in minute recorded and frequency of pigs touching the drinker were listed in Table 5. It can be seen that at water pressure of 0.1, 0.15 and 0.2 MPa the frequency of pigs touching the bowl drinker was greater (22.1%, 36.3% and 39.3%) than that of pigs touching the swing drinker (20.1%, 20.1% and 22.2%), respectively. The frequency of pigs touching the swing drinker with blades was greater (19.8%) than that of pigs touching the standard swing drinker (17.8%) at water pressure of 0.1MPa. similarly, water consumption from the swing drinker with blades was higher than that from the standard swing drinker.

Table 5 Percentage of water consumption in one minute in summer

3 Discussion

Various environmental[13]and physiological factors[14]affect water consumption. Under a water pressure of 0.1 MPa, water consumption of each pig from the bowl drinker in summer (16.2±3.0 L/d) was higher than in winter (7.5±0.5 L/d)[15]. Wastage/water consumption from both bowl (83.3%, predicted) and swing drinkers (54.4%) in summer were higher than in winter at a water pressure of 0.1 MPa (15.2% for bowl and 17.6% for swing drinkers)[15]. Compared with wastage/water consumption from the swing drinker in winter (17.6%)[15], the summer rate was higher (46.8%). Water consumption and wastage/water consumption in summer were greater than in previous studies that used environmentally-controlled pig rooms. Maybe it due to that the pigs in hot environment will need more water to alleviate heat stress. The present study found higher water consumption and wastage in the hot summer than in the cold winter, which is consistent with a previous study in Brazil where water consumption in the warm season was 14% higher than in winter[21].

Water intake data in this paper were compared with data from other reference to be sure of their reliability. Water requirement of nursery pig was 3.785 L/d[22]. For 11-25 kg pigs, feed was recommended by NRC2012[23]to be 0.953 kg/d. According to ratio of water to feed and the ratio of water to BW in summer environment reported by Brooks[4], the feed recommended by NRC2012[23]and the pig BW of 20.1 kg in the end of Period 1 and BW of 24.6 kg in the end of Period 2, it was calculated that water intake range was 1.525-4.765 L/d in summer environment. In this study, the water intake was 4.5±1.7 L/d at water pressure of 0.1 MPa in Period 1 and 4.5±1.0 L/d in Period 2, should be enough for pigs.

Water flow rate will influence performance of pigs and water consumption. For weaned pigs, daily gain with water flow rate being 1 100 mL/min was more than that with water flow rate of 600 mL/min when the ambient temperature was 35 ℃[4]. It was recommended that water flow rate should be 1 400 mL/min in summer and 1 000 mL/min in spring in finishing pig houses in Tianjin China, respectively[24]. Water flow rate was recommended to be 500-700 mL/min[25-27]for nursery pigs. In this paper, the water flow rate at 0.1, 0.15 and 0.2 MPa was higher than the data reported and recommended by the reference above, therefore, the water flow rates needed to be regulated.

Theoretically, for the same type of drinker, the higher the water pressure the higher the water flow rate from the drinker. But to the water consumption and water wastage, not the same result for different type of drinkers. In this paper, for the swing drinker, there was no significant difference between water consumption and wastage at water pressure of 0.15 MPa and those at water pressure of 0.2 MPa. High water flow rate with high water pressure will dash against the mouth of pigs and make the pigs uncomfortable[24], perhaps the flow rate from the swing drinker at water pressure of 0.2 MPa had made the pigs uncomfortable. But for the bowl drinker, even though the water flow rate was high, the flow rate will not dash against the mouth of pigs, the pigs drink water from the bowl of the drinker, so the higher the water pressure, the higher the water consumption from the bowl drinker (<0.05).

In a summer environment without cooling, the bowl drinker can lead to more water consumption and wastage than the swing drinker. This could be because the conformation of the bowl drinker allows the pigs to play with and waste the water more easily than the swing drinker. However, the swing drinker was not easy for the pigs to play with because there was a flexible tube in the system of swing drinker. Therefore, to save water in nursery pig production, the pig room environment should be controlled during hot season. If this is not possible, swing drinkers should be used in preference to bowl drinkers and swing drinker with blades was not better than swing drinker without blades to save water.

4 Conclusions

1) In summer, water consumption from the bowl drinker was higher than that from the swing drinker at the same water pressure.

2) The higher the water pressure, the higher the water consumption from both the bowl and swing drinkers.

3) Swing drinker with blades was not better than swing drinker without blades to save water.

4) To reduce water consumption and wastage, water flow rate should be regulated.

[1] Jiang S, Wang J, Zhao Y, et al. Sustainability of water resources for agriculture considering grain production, trade and consumption in China from 2004 to 2013[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017, 149: 1210－1218.

[2] Li Y Z, Chénard L, Lemay S P, et al. Water intake and wastage at nipple drinkers by growing-finishing pigs[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2005, 83(6): 1413.

[3] Shaw M I, Beaulieu A D, Patience J F. Effect of diet composition on water consumption in growing pigs[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2006, 84(11): 3123－3132.

[4] Brooks P H, Carpenter J L. The water requirement of growing-finishing pigs-theoretical and practical considerations[J]. Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition, 1990, 59(1): 115－136.

[5] Thacker P A. Water in swine nutrition[Z]. Pages 381－398 in Swine Nutrition, Lewis A J, and Southern L L, ed. CRC Press, New York, 2001.

[6] Brooks P H, Carpenter J L, Barber J, et al. Production and welfare problems relating to the supply of water to growing-finishing pigs[J]. Pig Vet J, 1989, 23: 51－66.

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

[8] Torrey S, Widowski T M. Effect of drinker type and sound stimuli on early-nursery pig performance and behavior[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2004, 82(7): 2105－2114.

[9] Torrey S, Toth Tamminga E L, Widowski T M. Effect of drinker type on water intake and waste in newly weaned piglets[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2008, 86(6): 1439－1445.

[10] Meiszberg A M, Johnson A K, Sadler L J, et al. Drinking behavior in nursery pigs: Determining the accuracy between an automatic water meter versus human observers[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2009, 87(12): 4173－4180.

[11] Russell P J, Geary T M, Brooks P H, et al. Performance, water use and effluent output of weaner pigs fed ad libitum with either dry pellets or liquid feed and the role of microbial activity in the liquid feed[J]. Journal of the Science of Food & Agriculture, 2015, 72(1): 8－16.

[12] Brooks P H. Water-Forgotten nutrient and novel delivery system[Z]. Pages 211－234 in Biotechnology in the Feed Industry. Nottingham Press, Leicestershire, U.K, 1994.

[13] Patience J F, Umboh J F, Chaplin R K, et al. Nutritional and physiological responses of growing pigs exposed to a diurnal pattern of heat stress[J]. Livestock Production Science, 2005, 96(2/3): 205－214.

[14] Mroz Z, Jongbloed A W, Lenis N P, et al. Water in pig nutrition: physiology, allowances and environmental implications[J]. Nutrition Research Reviews, 1995, 8(1): 137－164.

[15] Wang M, Zhao W, Wu Z, et al. Comparison experiment of total water consumption and water leakage of different types drinker for nursery pig[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering (Transactions of the CSAE), 2017, 33(4): 242－247.

[16] General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of P.R.C., Standardization Administration of the P.R.C. Technical regulations for commercial pig production for intensive pig production: GB/T17824.2-2008. [S]. Beijing: China Standard Press, 2008.

[17] Brumm M. Water systems for growing swine[EB/OL]. (2005-07)[2017-05]. https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/swine_ extension/swine_news/2005/sn_v2806%20(july).htm.

[18] Gonyou H W. Water use and drinker management: A review[J]. In Prairie Swine Centre Proceedings 1996 Ann. Rep. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, 1996: 74－80.

[19] Petherick J C. A note on allometric relations in Large White×Landrace pigs[J]. Animal Science, 1983, 36(3): 497－500.

[20] Torrey S, Widowski T M. A note on piglets’ preferences for drinker types at two weaning ages[J]. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 2006, 100(3/4): 333－341.

[21] Tavares J M R, Filho P B, Coldebella A, et al. The water consumption and manure production at commercial growing- finishing pig farms[J]. Livestock Science, 2014, 169: 146－154.

[22] Pederson J H, Bell G D, Riskowski G L, et al. Midwest Plan Service Structures and Environment Handbook[M]. Ames, Iowa: Iowa state university. Eleventh edition 1983, revised 1987. 510 swine, summary of design data.

[23] National Research Council. Nutrient requirements of swine [M]. Eleventh Revised Edition. Beijing: China science publishing & media Ltd., 2014: 232.

[24] Che W L. Effect of Drinking Water Velocity on Growth Performance of Growing–Finishing Pigs[D]. Beijing: China Agricultural University, 2016.

[25] Zhang J H, Zhang S C. Swing farm water management[J]. Swine production, 2009(5): 78－80. (in Chinese)

[26] Carr J. Garth pig stockmanship standards[Z]. 5M Enterprises.https://www.amazon.com/Garth-Stockmanship-Standards-John-Carr/dp/0953015092. 1998-05-01.

[27] Gonyou H W. Water Use and Drinker Management: A review[EB/OL](1996-01)[2017-05].http://www.prairieswine.com/pdf/1311.pdf.

夏季不同饮水器和水压对保育猪水利用情况的影响

王美芝1,2，易 路1,2，刘继军1,2，赵婉莹1,2，吴中红1,2※

（1.中国农业大学动物科技学院，北京 100193；2.动物营养学国家重点实验室，北京 100193）

养猪生产中猪饮水器用水中漏水将增加污水产生量，环境温度和供水水压及饮水器类型均会对饮水器总用水量产生重要影响。该文选择夏季不降温的保育猪舍，通过试验研究了不同饮水器和供水压力对保育猪用水量和浪费水量的影响。用水量和浪费水量每分记录1次。试验的第一个阶段，用10头/圈的保育猪比较了在水压为0.10，0.15和0.20 MPa时杯式饮水器和swing饮水器对用水量和浪费水量的影响；第二个阶段，用5头/圈的保育猪比较了在水压为0.10 MPa时带片swing饮水器和标准swing饮水器对用水量和浪费水量的影响。结果表明：在水压为0.1，0.15和0.20 MPa时，杯式饮水器每头猪的用水总量分别为16.2±3.0，30.3±8.1和38.3±4.8 L/d，swing饮水器的用水总量分别为5.7±1.0，8.7±1.9和10.3±0.4 L/d。在0.1，0.15和0.20 MPa下，杯式饮水器浪费水量/用水总量预测值分别为83.3%，85.1%和85.4%；swing饮水器浪费水量/用水总量分别为54.4%，48.3%和45.6%。带片swing饮水器每头猪用水总量（11.3±1.7 L/d）没有显著高于标准swing饮水器的用水量（9.4±1.0 L/d）（>0.05）。但是带片swing饮水器的浪费水量/用水量（60.2%）显著高于标准swing饮水器的浪费水量/用水量（46%）（<0.05）。因此，为了减少保育猪用水总量和浪费水量，应控制水压或者调节饮水器水流量至适宜值。在夏季不降温猪舍，与swing饮水器相比，杯式饮水器将增加用水总量和浪费水量。相对于标准swing饮水器，带片swing饮水器的使用没有减少水的浪费。

节水；渗漏；污水；饮水器；保育猪；用水量；水压

10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2017.17.021

S815.4

A

1002-6819(2017)-17-0161-06

2017-05-26

2017-08-10

The Beijing Innovation Consortium of Agriculture Research System (grant number BAIC02-2017).

Wang Meizhi, PhD, associate professor, mainly researching in animal husbandry engineering and environment. Email: meizhiwang@cau.edu.cn.

Wu Zhonghong, PhD, associate professor, mainly researching in environmental engineering of domestic animals and the influence of environment on livestock production. Email: wuzhh@cau.edu.cn.