不同饮水器保育猪用水总量及浪费水量对比试验

为寻求猪饮水时浪费水量少的节水饮水器或饮水方式,在舍内温度为20~25℃的条件下,选择60头体质量为20 kg的保育猪进行鸭嘴式饮水器、杯式饮水器和Swing饮水器的用水总量和浪费水量的比较研究。试验结果表明,3种饮水器的用水总量无显著性差异(P0.05)。每头猪浪费水量由小到大依次为:杯式饮水器(1.13 L/d)Swing饮水器(1.42L/d)鸭嘴式饮水器(1.93 L/d),其中,鸭嘴式饮水器浪费水量极显著高于Swing饮水器(P0.01),极显著高于杯式饮水器(P0.01),杯式饮水器和Swing饮水器浪费水量无显著差异(P0.05)。杯式饮水器浪费水量占用水总量百分比(15.17%)Swing饮水器(17.58%)鸭嘴式饮水器(25.10%),杯式饮水器和Swing饮水器浪费水量占用水总量百分比极显著低于鸭嘴式饮水器(P0.01),杯式饮水器和Swing饮水器浪费水量占用水总量百分比无显著差异(P0.05)。与鸭嘴式饮水器对比,杯式饮水器和Swing饮水器起到一定的节水作用。

Comparison experiment of total water consumption and water leakage of different types of drinker for nursery pig

China is a country with the insufficiency of water resources, where agriculture is segregated from animal husbandry. Waste water that is produced from animal production is difficult to be used in planting production. So it is important to save water in animal husbandry and reduce waste water produced by animal production. In pig production, when the pigs drink water from some types of drinkers, it is obvious that some water that is sprayed from the drinkers will quickly fall into both the ground and the mouth of the pigs, and then the water falling into the ground will be mixed with waste and increase the volume of waste water. The aim of this study was to find water saving type of drinkers or water saving ways of drinking for pig production, thereby declining the water pollution in the field of animal husbandry. Sixty female nursery pigs were studied in 2 blocks, and each block had 3 pens and each pen had 10 animals. The single water drinker was situated at the midpoint of one end side, with a single-space dry feeder situated in an opposite corner. A water meter was installed in the water line to record total water consumption, and totally 6 water meters. Total water consumption data were recorded on a daily basis while water leakage data were recorded on an hourly basis. A tray (30 cm × 45 cm) was mounted directly below the drinker under the pen mash bed and funneled waste water to a water meter for water leakage, totally 6 trays. The data were recorded on a minutely basis. The bite drinkers were fixed permanently at 0.28 m above the mash bed, and the bowl drinkers were set at 0.20 m above the mash bed. Swing drinkers were set at 0.05 m above shoulder height of the smallest pig in the pen. In pre experiment (from January 3rd to January 23rd 2016), bite drinkers and swing drinkers were studied. On January 23rd 2016, the bite drinkers were replaced by bowl drinkers. In the later stage of experiment (from January 23rd to January 31st 2016), the swing drinkers and bowl drinkers were studied. The result showed that during the whole experiment, the temperature of the house was 20-25℃, the humidity was 80%-100%, and the concentrations of ammonia and carbon dioxide were 10.54-23.72 mg/m3 and 2036.36-2800 mg/m3, respectively. Each pig's total water consumption of bowl drinkers, bite drinkers and swing drinkers was 7.46, 7.73 and 8.07 L/d (P>0.05), respectively. The highest figure of each pig's water intake was swing drinkers, representing 6.64 L/d, followed by 6.32 L/d of bowl drinkers and 5.79 L/d of bite drinkers (P<0.05). The bite drinkers presented the highest average water waste for each pig during the entire experiment (1.93 L/d) and differed remarkably (P<0.01) from swing drinkers (1.42 L/d) and bowl drinkers (1.13 L/d). And then, the bite drinkers presented the highest ratio of average water waste to total water consumption (25.10%) and differed remarkably (P<0.01) from swing drinkers (17.58%) and bowl drinkers (15.17%), and there was no significant difference between bowl drinkers and swing drinkers. Therefore, the bowl drinkers and swing drinkers can have the effect of water saving compared to the bite drinkers.