universiti putra malaysia the effect of water restriction on

UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA

THE EFFECT OF WATER RESTRICTION ON PERFORMANCE AND BEHAVIOUR OF BROILER BREEDERS

MUSTAFA FADIL MOHAMMED

FPV 1998 2


By


Thesis Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science

Universiti Putra Malaysia May 1998

Dedicated to

My late father

My beloved mother, mother in law, father in law, lovely wife

and my brothers

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to extend his deepest appreciation and gratitude to

the following persons who have help to make this thesis possible:

Associate Prof. Puan Ramlah A. Hamid, chairman of my supervisory

committee who has constantly offered her guidance, advice, patience and

understanding during the course of this project.

Members of my supervisory committee Dr. Zulkifli Idrus and Dr.

Mohammad Hair Bejo for their invaluable suggestions, guidance and

constructive comments towards the preparation of this thesis.

Encik Mazlan Hamzah and Encik M. Ponnusamy for their technical

help throughout the project.

My appreciation extend to Mr. Izzeldin Babiker Ismail for his advice

and support throughout the study. I would also like to thank Iman Rahayu

Hidayati for her cooperation with the statistical analysis.

My sincere gratitude is also extended to the MTCP programme for

financial support and IRP A programme funded for the research.

My great mother Mrs. Madeeha Ali and my beloved wife Norazanah

Bajuri, for their encouragement and moral support are beyond words.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page i\<:J\J'lO�LEJ)(;E�ENTS . . ... . . . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii LIST OF TABLES . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . vi LIST OF FI(;URES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .. . . . .. Vlll

LIST OF PLi\TES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ix LIST OF i\BBREVIi\TIONS . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. x ABSTRA<:T .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. .. Xl

i\BSTRAK ............................................................ . . . Xlll

<:HMTER

I INTROJ)UCTION ............................................... 1

II LITEM TURE REVIE'V Broiler Breeders . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 4 Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Water Intake . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . ... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . 5 Water Restriction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Effect of Water Restriction on Body Weight . . . . . .. . .. 7 Effect of Water Restriction on Feed Intake. . . . .. . . ... 8 Effect of Water Restriction on Egg Production . . . . . . . 8 Effect of Water Restriction on Egg Weight........ ... 9 Effect of Water Restriction on Health . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . , 9

Flock Uniformity . .. .. . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. .. . .......... . .. 9 Behaviour and Welfare .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Spot Pecking . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. . . . 11 Scratching and Pecking . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 11 Preening . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Resting . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................................. 12

III MATERIJ\LS J\NJ) �ETHOJ)S Experimental Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Housing . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . 14 Photoperiod. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 15 Water Intake and Management. . . . . . .... . . .. .. . . . .. .. . . . .. 15 Feeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 15

Climate . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . ... . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . 16 Vaccination . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . 16 Traits Studied . . . . . . . . .. . ... . . ... . .. . .. . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . . . .. . . . ... .. . 16

Body Weight .. .. . .. . . . . . . . ... . ... .. . . ... . . .. . . . . . .. .. .. . . . .. . .. 18 Feed Intake . .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. 18

iv

Flock Uniformity . ... ... . . ... .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. ... .. . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 8 Water Intake . . ..... ... .. .. . ... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . 1 8 Behaviour . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. .. .. . . . . .... 20 Egg Production........... ..... ...... .... . . ....... ......... ... 20 Egg Weight . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. . . 2 1 Fertility and Hatchability . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 Mortality . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 2 1

Statistical Analysis . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 22

IV RESULTS Body Weight (Female) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 Body Weight (Male) . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 2 3 Flock Uniformity for Female and Male . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 3 Water Intake .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8

On Feed Day . . .. ... .. . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . ... . . . . .... . . . . .. . 2 8 Off Feed Day . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. 2 8

Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 30 Egg Production.. . .. . .. . . . ... . . . . . . .. ... . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .... . . ... 33 Egg Weight . . . . . .... .. .. . . . ... .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 33 Fertile Egg ... . ... . .. .. . ....... .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . 35 Egg Hatchability. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . ... .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . ... . . .. . . ... 35 Mortality .... . . . . . . . .... ....... . .... .. . .. . .. .... . . . . .. .... . . . ..... 35

V DISCUSSION Body Weight . . . ... .. . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. ... . . . . . .. . . . . 39 Flock Uniformity. . . . . . . ... . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 40 Water Intake . ...... . . . . . . .... . . .. .. ... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 40 Behaviour . . . . ... . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . . ... . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . Egg Production . . . ... . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . Egg Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . Egg Fertility .... ........ ..... . . .. .. . .. . .. ..... . .. .... . . . ..... . . Egg Hatchability . ... .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

42 43 44 45 45

VI SUMMARy...... . . . ... . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .... . .. . . . . 47

BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................... 49

APPENDIX A (ADDITIONAL TABLES) . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

APPENDIX B (ADDITIONAL FIGURES) . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH........................................ 7 8

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table

l. Water Consumption Chart Per 100 BirdslDay at 21°C ..... .. .

2 . Water Restriction Plan o f Experimental Stock ... . . ..............

3. Traits Studied and Time of Recording .... ................ .. ..... .

4. Restricted Feeding Schedule for Broiler Breeder Males and Females, 1 to 29 Weeks of Age ..... . .. ..... . ..... ........ ..

5. Effect of Water Restriction on Body Weight (g) of Female Chickens at Various Ages (Mean ± SEM) ..... . . ......

6. Effect of Water Restriction on Body Weight (g) of Male Chickens at Various Ages (Mean ± SEM) . . . ....... . . . .. .

7. Effect of Water Restriction on Water Intake (ml) on Feed Day at Various Ages (Mean ± SEM) .... ........ . ..........

8. Effect of Water Restriction on Water Intake (ml) on off Feed Day at Various Ages (Mean ± SEM) ......... .. .......

9 . Effect of Water Restriction on Percentage of Chickens Standing and Walking (SfW), Preening, Resting and Spot Pecking at Week 5 (Mean ± SEM) .......... .. ....... . . .....

10. Effect of Water Restriction on Percentage of Chickens Standing and Walking (SfW), Preening, Resting and Spot Pecking at Week 8 (Mean ± SEM) ... ..... . .. ... . . ...... ....

11. Effect of Water Restriction on Percentage of Chickens Standing and Walking (SfW), Preening, Resting and Spot Pecking at Week 12 (Mean ± SEM) ... ....... ...... .. .......

12 . Effect of Water Restriction on Percentage of Chickens Standing and Walking (SfW), Preening, Resting and

Page

7

14

17

19

24

25

29

29

30

31

31

Spot Pecking at Week 16 (Mean± SEM) .. . . ..... . . . . .... . ........ 32

13. Effect of Water Restriction on Percentage of Chickens Scratching and Pecking Litter Where Treatment by Age Interactions were Significant (Mean ± SEM) ... ...... . . ......... .. 32

14. Effect of Water Restriction on Egg Production (%) at Various Ages (Mean ± SEM) . . . .. ... . . . . . . . . . ... ..... . ..... . . . . .. . . .. 34

vi

15. Effect of Water Restriction on Abnormal Eggs (%) at

Various Ages (Mean ± SEM) . . . . .. ..................... ... ... ...... 34

16. Effect of Water Restriction on Egg Weight (g) at Various Ages (Mean ± SEM) . . . .. . ................................. 35

17. Effect of Water Restriction on Fertile Eggs (%) at Various Ages (Mean± SEM) . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .... 36

18. Effect of Water Restriction on Egg Hatchability (%) at Various Ages (Mean ± SEM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 37

19. Effect of Water Restriction on Mortality Rates (%) at Various Ages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7

20. Feed Composition of Poultry Starter .. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .... .... 58

21. Feed Composition of Poultry Grower ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 58

22. Feed Composition of Poultry Breeders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 58

23. Data on Water Intake on Feed Day (ml) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 59

24. Data on Water Intake on off Feed Day (ml) . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ... . 59

25. Data on Hen Day Egg Production (%) .......................... 60

26. Data on Egg Weight (g) ............................................ 60

27. Data on Egg Fertility (%) .. . ............ ....................... .... 61

28. Data on Egg Hatchability (%) ... ...... ....................... ..... 61

29. Data on Flock Uniformity for Female (%) .................. '" 62

30. Data on Flock Uniformity for Male (%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

1. Effect of Water Restriction on Flock Uniformity

Page

(F emale) ................................................................. 26

2. Effect of Water Restriction on Flock Uniformity (Male) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3. Effect of Water Restriction on Mean Body Weight (F emale) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

4. Effect of Water Restriction on Mean Body Weight (Male) . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

5. Effect of Water Restriction on Mean Water Intake on Feed Day (ml/b) . . . . . . .. .................. .... ............... ... 66

6. Effect of Water Restriction on Mean Water Intake on off Feed Day (ml/b) . . . .... ..... ............ ................... 67

7. Effect of Water Restriction on Mean Percentage of Chickens Behaviour at Week 5 .................................. 68




1 1 . Effect of Water Restriction on Mean Percentage of Chickens Scratching and Peckinh Litter Behaviour . . . . . . . . . .. 72

12. Effect of Water Restriction on Mean Hen Day Egg Production (%) . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 73

13. Effect of Water Restriction on Mean Egg Weight (g) ..... . 74

14. Effect of Water Restriction on Mean Fertile Eggs (%) . .. . . 75

15. Effect of Water Restriction on Mean Egg Hatchability (%) .. 76

16. Effect of Water Restriction on Mean Mortality Rate (%) . . . .. 77

viii

Plate

1.

2.

LIST OF PLATES

Lesions of Foot Necrosis in the Male Birds Associated With the Presence of Wet Litter in Broiler Breeders (a), When Compared to the Normal Foot (b) ... ... .... ... . .

Lesions of Foot Necrosis in the Female Birds Associated With the Presence of Wet Litter in Broiler Breeders (a), When Compared to The Normal Foot (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix

Page

38

38

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ANOVA Analysis of Variance

D Dark

GLM General Linear Models

Hr. Hour

Hid Hour Per Day

g Gram

L Light

Mllb Milliliter Per Bird

SIP Spot Pecking

S/W Standing and Walking

x

Abstract of thesis presented to the Senate of Universiti Putra Malaysia in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science.


By


May 1998

Chairman : Associate Professor Ramlah A. Hamid

Faculty : Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science

A study was carried out to investigate the effect of water restriction on

various traits of broiler breeders under tropical conditions. The experimental

treatment comprised of water available 24hJd and restricted to 8hJd and 6hJd.

Body weight for male and female birds were not affected by water

restriction during the growing period. Body weight was reduced significantly

during the production period for 6h1d compared with 24h1d but showed no

difference with 8hJd. Flock uniformity was similar for all groups at week 21.

Water intake was significantly higher in water available ad libitum either on

or off feed day compared with restricted groups. Water intake of 8hfd was

significantly higher than those on 6h1d on feed day, while there was no

significant effect on off feed day.

xi

There was no effect of water restriction on the percentage of birds

spent standing and walking, resting, preening and spot pecking for all

treatments, with the exception of scratching and pecking litter in which the

water restricted treatments recorded higher proportion in this activity.

Egg production, egg weight and hatchability were reduced significantly

by water restriction. Fertility and several defects of egg were not affected by

water restriction.

Mortality was not affected during rearing, while in production periods

mortality was significantly higher in the water restriction treatments.

The results of this study showed that water restriction could be used

during the growing period, but not during the production periods, since water

restriction had a detrimental effect on egg production and mortality.

xii

Abstrak tesis yang dikemukakan kepada Senat Universiti Putra Malaysia sebagai memenuhi keperluan untuk ijazah Master Sains.

KESAN SEKATAN AIR KEATAS PRESTASI DAN KELAKUAN AYAM PEMBIAK PEDAGING

Oleh


May 1998

Pengerusi: Profesor Madya Ramlah A. Hamid

Fakulti: Kedoktoran Veterinar dan Sains Petemakan

Satu kajian telah dijalankan untuk mengkaji kesan sekatan air keatas

beberapa sifat ayam pembiak pedaging dibawah keadaan tropika. Perlakuan-

perlakuan kajian ialah air tersedia ada, 24 jamlhari, dan sekatan selama 8 jamlhari

dan 6 j amlhari.

Sekatan air tiada memberi kesan kepada berat badan ayam jantan dan betina

diperingkat pembesaran. Berat badan berkurangan secara bererti semasa peringkat

pengeluran untuk 6 jamJhari berbanding 24 jamlhari tetapi tiada perbezaan dengan 8

jam/hari. Keseragaman kelompok adalah sama untuk semua kumpulan pada minggu

ke 21. Pengambilan air adalah tinggi secara bererti dengan kesediaan air secara

bebas samaada pada hari diberi atau tiada diberi makanan berbaning kumpulan

dihadkan pengambilan air.

xiii

Pengambilan air adalah tinggi secara bererti dengan 8 jam/hari daripada 6

jamlhari pada hari diberi makanan, sementara tiada kesan bererti pada hari tiada

diberi makanan.

Sekatan air tiada memberi kesan keatas bahagian masa yang digunakan untuk

berdiri dan berjaIan, berihat, membersih bulu dan pematukan bagi semua perlakuan,

melainkan mencakar dan mematuk bahan sarap dimana perlakuan sekatan air

mencatitkak bahagian tinggi untuk aktiviti ini.

Pengeluaran telur, berat telur dan penetasan adalah berkurangan oleh sekatan

air. Sekatan air tiada memberi kesan keatas kebemasan telur dan beberapa kecacatan

telur.

Perlakuan sekatan air tiada memberi kesan keatas kematian semasa peringkat

pembesaran, tetapi kematian adalah tinggi secara bererti semasa peringkat

pengeluaran.

Keputusan kajian ini menunjukkan sekatan air boleh diamalkan semasa

peringkat pembesaran tetapi tidak boleh diamalkan semasa peringkat pengeluaran,

karena sekatan air memberi kesan yang buruk keatas pengeluaran telur dan kematian.

xiv

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Poultry is one of the world's major and fastest growing sources of meat,

representing over 22% of all meat production in 1989 (Stenholm and

Waggoner, 1991). Poultry farming constitutes a major livestock activity III

Peninsular Malaysia. The poultry industry in this country had been able to

transform itself from subsistence farming to a highly modem and efficient

production system within a relatively short period of less than 30 years.

Malaysia now produced more broiler and eggs than it can consume and the

surplus are exported to Singapore (Ramlah, 1993).

The poultry industry passed through a period of steady expansion in the

sixties and seventies and accelerated expansion in the eighties. Poultry meat

production increased from 21,300 tonnes in 1960 to 314,000 tonnes III 1990.

Egg production showed similar growth pattern from 208 million to 4700

million in 1990 (Jalaludin, 1993).

2

The structure of the poultry industry consists of breeding farms and

hatcheries, commercial broiler and layer farms. The other supportive segments

of this industry are the feedmills and feed ingredients suppliers, the

pharmaceutical and equipment firms (Ramlah, 1993).

The management of broiler breeders is one of the demanding

undertakings for the poultryman. A good feeding routine, excellent management

of the litter and fine control of the environment are necessary to achieve

satisfactory results. Good management can give up to 140 fertile eggs per

bird but under poorer control the number may be barely 100 (Sainsbury,

1992).

In any litter-based system, birds defecate on the litter and the

consequences of this are important. Thus the usual reaction of birds to loose

litter is to peck and scratch in it. As a result, faeces do not simply

accumulate but are dispersed. So litter management is very important in the

management of broiler breeders (Sainsbury, 1992).

Broiler breeder hens have to be kept on a restricted feeding to control

the growth rate of the pullets and thus achieve the target body weights at 1 8

to 20 weeks of age, and in general 6 to 1 0% below the expected weights of

birds on full fed diets (Karunajeewa, 1 987). When birds are given

food ad libitum they overeat, become obese and showed reduced fertility.

Birds which are food deprived may show an increased drinking

behaviour (Savory et aI., 1992). The small amounts of excess water consumed

could change the droppings from dry to wet (Maxwell and Lyle, 1 957). This

3

results in wet droppings, wet litter, high concentrations of ammonia, and

inhibits pecking and scratching and caused unpleasant conditions for birds and

increased incidence of foot, hock and breast lesions (Appleby et aI., 1992).

To avoid these consequences, the breeders' recommendations often

suggest that water supply should be limited to only a few hours a day to

prevent overdrinking and to reduce the opportunities for spillage.

Birds under high ambient temperature drink three times as much water

as at normal ambient temperature (North, 1978; Leeson, 1986). Water play an

important role in regulation of body temperature and increased survival times

for birds (Fox, 1951).

For these reasons water is available ad libitum under tropical conditions

and the practice of water restriction for broiler breeders in hot climate has

not been investigated.

Thus, the objectives of the present study include :

1. To study the effect of water restriction on the performance of broiler

breeders.

2. To study the welfare of broiler breeders by using a range of behavioural

indices.

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Broiler Breeders

Broiler breeder birds are fast growers and have the capacity to consume

large amount of feed. If allowed to feed ad libitum, broiler breeders would

weigh at 8 - 9 weeks almost what is required of them at 20 weeks of age

(Costa, 1981). Lower body weight with restricted feeding will increase fertility

(Bushong, 1980) and reduced mortality (Katanbaf et aI., 1989) compared with

ad libitum feeding. Therefore, energy intake of broiler breeders must be

controlled at an earlier age by either quantitative or qualitative feed restriction

(Karunajeewa, 1987). The practice of feed restriction will increase water

consumption. The recommendation is to limit the water supply to only a few

hours a day to prevent overdrinking and to reduce spillage (Appleby et aI.,

1992).

4

5

Water

Water is essential for life, and should be regarded as a major factor in

poultry rearing and management. Water makes up from 55 to 75% of the

body of chicken, and about 65% in eggs (Nesheim et aI ., 1979). Water

enables poultry to carry on normal body functions. It softened the feed for

digestion, helped to eliminate waste products, aid in controlling body temperature

and served as a lubricant for joints, muscles, and body tissues (Schaible,

1 970).

Water Intake

Many factors are known to influence the water intake of chicken.

Differences in breeds and strains, growth rates, sex, feed and temperature

could account for some discrepancies in water intake (Gardiner and Hunt,

1984).

Marks and Pesti (1 984), Wheeler and James (1 950), and Glista and

Scott (1949) reported that the amount of water consumed as well as the

amount of droppings produced varied almost directly with the percent of

protein in the diet. High level of dietary salt may also increase water intake

(Darden and Marks, 1 985; Ogunji et aI., 1983 and Damron and Kelly, 1 987).

Differences in water intake due to sex has been reported by Marks (1986), in

which male broiler chickens drank more than the females. Savory ( 1 986)

reported that water intake was higher during high temperature (32°C) than at

moderate temperature (20°C). At high cyclic temperatures water consumption

increased at each age (May and Lott, 1992). Drinking systems also showed

6

differences in water intake. Lee et aI., (1989) reported that daily water intake

and moisture content of excreta were higher for trough than nipple drinkers.

The effect of feed restriction on water intake has been investigated.

Bennett and Leeson (1989), showed that skip a day fed birds tend to drink

more water on feed days than on off feed days. An approximate water

consumption figures for broiler breeders throughout the growing period is

depicted in Table 1. (Management guide of Arbor Acre broiler breeders).

Water Restriction

Several workers investigated the effect of water restriction on body

weight, feed intake, feed conversion, and mortality in broiler chickens

(Kellerup et aI., 1965; Kese and Awuah 1982 and Gerry, 1980). Water

restriction is commonly practiced in laying hens as a method for force molt

(Said and Sullivan, 1984; Christmas and Harms, 1983). In broiler breeders,

water restriction is practiced to control litter moisture ( Savory et aI., 1992)

and to control growth rate in breeders (Leeson et aI., 1988; Ross et aI.,

1981 ).

7

Table 1

Water Consumption Chart Per 100 BirdslDay at 21°C

Age Age

(weeks) Liters (weeks) Liters

1 1.9 11 17.8

2 3.8 12 18.5

3 5.7 13 20.1

4 8.3 14 21.2

5 11.4 15 22.3

6 12.1 16 23.1

7 13.2 17 24.2

8 15.1 18 25.0

9 15.9 19 25.7

10 17.0 20 26.5

21 27.2

Management guide of Arbor Acre broiler breeders

Effect of Water Restriction on Body Weight

A number of workers studied the effect of water restriction on the body

weight for broiler chicken, laying hens and broiler breeders. Abdelsamie and

Yadiwilo (1981) and Marks (1980) observed that water restriction caused a

significant depression in body weight gain in broilers. On the other hand,

Gerry (1980) and Samoilova and Erasova (1995) noted that there was no

significant effect on body weight gain. There conflicting results were also

observed in broiler breeders. Hocking (1993) reported that body weight was

8

not significantly higher when the intake of water was limited than when it

was freely available. However, Degen et .aL (1992) reported that there was

no significant difference in body weight for birds provided either restricted or

ad libitum drinking water.

Effect of Water Restriction on Feed Intake

The effect of water restriction on feed intake in broilers has been

substantially studied (Kese and Awuah, 1979; Abdelsamie and Yadiwilo, 198 1 ;

Kese and Awuah, 1 982; and Ramlah and Azhariyah, 1994). The authors

reported that feed intake was reduced with decrement of water intake

compared with water available ad libitum. In laying hens, Savory ( 1978)

found a positive correlation between food and water intake on a daily basis

and that restriction of water to 90% of its ad libitum intake caused a

reduction in feed intake. Since, broiler parent stocks are subjected to a

programme of restricted feeding which is designed to control body weight

gain during rearing, water restriction could be used without affecting feed

consumption (Hocking, 1993; Bennett and Leeson, 1 989). Feed intake was

reduced in turkey breeders when water was restricted to 1 h per day compared

with water available ad libitum during production period (Leeson � aI., 1988).

Effect of Water Restriction on Egg Production

Findings on the effect of water restriction on egg production in laying

hens are conflicting. Egg production was reduced when water was deprived

for 24 hour (Adams, 1973; Summers and Leeson, 1976), while Others (Muir

and Gerry, 1 976; Hill and Richards, 1 975; Maxwell and Lyle, 1 957) reported

9

no significant effect of limited water on egg production. Abdul Aziz (1997)

reported that insufficient water consumption either by inadequate water space

or problems in water system resulted drop in egg production in chickens and

turkeys.

Effect of Water Restriction on Egg Weight

Egg size IS one of the factors influencing the purchase and

consumption by consumers (Africa and Pautz, 1968). Factors affecting egg

weight include age, genetics, nutrition and environment (French and Tullett,

1991). According to Bell (1980), egg weight was decreased by approximately

9% when water was not available.

Effect of Water Restriction on Health

The practice of water restriction in adult hens developed symptoms of

blue comb disease after 2 - 3 days (Fisher et aI., 1961; Bierer et aI., 1965).

On the other hand, birds showed a signs of hyperthennia when preventing

from drinking water during heat stress (Fox, 1951). Meanwhile, litter moisture

content was significantly related to the prevalence of coccidiosis by providing

a good sporulation oocysts (Jordan, 1990; Perez et aI., 1987).

Flock Uniformity

Flock uniformity is defined as the number of birds weighing within a

range of plus or minus 10% of the flock average (Cunningham, 1980). The

more uniform the flock, the earlier the flock peaks in egg production and

flocks with poor flock uniformity do not peak as high as those with good

10

uniformity (North, 1980). Petitte et al. (1981) reported that flock uniformity

can be controlled through segregation of breeder pullets according to body

size. Feed quality, temperature, beak trimming, vaccination and handling are

factors which may affect body uniformity (Bell, 1995).

Behaviour and Welfare

Animal welfare has been defined as being a state of complete mental

and physical health in which the animal is in harmony with its environment

(Hughes as cited by Wood Gush, 1983). Swarbrick (1 995) defined welfare as

the external environment around the animals, many aspects of which can be

objectively and easily assessed and measured. In terms of welfare, all systems

offer potential advantages and disadvantages. The UK's Farm Animal Welfare

Council had proposed that a husbandry system should provide animals with:

freedom from hunger and thirst; freedom from thermal and physical

discomfort; freedom from pain, injury and disease; freedom from fear and

distress; and freedom to exercise most normal patterns of behaviour (Appleby

et aI., 1 992).

One possible methods of using behaviour as an indicator of welfare is

to look for abnormal behaviour (Duncan and Dawkins, 1983). Abnormal

behaviour is defined as a persistent, undesirable action, shown by a minority

of the population which is not due to any obvious neurological lesion and it

is not confined to the situation that originally elicited it (Fox, 1 968). Under

abnormal behaviour there is a category of behaviour called stereotypies

(Duncan and Dawkins, 1983). Stereotypies are known as repetitive actions that

are fixed in form and orientation and serve no obvious purpose (Dantzer,

universiti putra malaysia the effect of water restriction on

Documents