Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Livestock Science

Livestock Science 169 (2014) 146–154

http://d1871-14

n CorrUniversTel.: þ5

E-mpaulo.ar

1 CuFlorianó

2 Cu

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/livsci

The water disappearance and manure productionat commercial growing-finishing pig farms

J.M.R. Tavares a,n,1, P. Belli Filho a,1, A. Coldebella b,2, P.A.V. Oliveira b,2

a Department of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazilb Embrapa, Swine and Poultry, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 9 April 2014Received in revised form4 September 2014Accepted 7 September 2014

Keywords:PigsGrowing-finishingWater disappearanceDrinkersManure productionGompertz nonlinear function

x.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2014.09.00613/& 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

esponding author. Current address: Deparitário, Departamento de Engenharia Sanitári5 48 3721 7743.ail addresses: jorge.tavares@posgrad.ufsc.br (mando@embrapa.br (P.A.V. Oliveira).rrent address: Campus Universitário, Depapolis, SC, Brazil.rrent address: Caixa Postal 21, CEP 89700-0

a b s t r a c t

Nowadays, livestock production, and literature regarding same, is confronted with aserious lack of information and tools to estimate and compare the real water disappear-ance (animal intake plus wastage) and manure production at commercial pig farms. Anexperiment was conducted over 13 months at 15 commercial growing-finishing pig farms,aiming the determination of water disappearance and manure production, using 3different types of drinkers [bite-ball nipple (BB), nipple (NI), and bowl (BO)]. Two seasons,with 6928 and 6348 pigs (both: 9 weeks old and 24.5 kg average body weight) werestudied considering 2 housing periods (10 and 15 weeks). A total of 55 water meters [onewater meter on each water line that supplies the housing building (pigs intake, coolingsystem and cleaning facilities)] and 15 fiberglass tanks (each 5 m3) were installed at farmsto determine the water disappearance and manure production. The BO drinkers werefixed permanently at 0.25 m above the floor while the others were set at 0.05 m above theshoulder height of the smallest pig in the pen. All data were recorded on a daily basis. TheGompertz nonlinear function was applied to the average weekly data to obtain mathe-matical equations that predict the water disappearance and manure production atgrowing-finishing farms. Independently of the drinker type, the water disappearanceand manure production for the whole experiment (15 weeks) were 8.8371.37 and4.4670.82 L �pig/d, respectively. The water disappearance of the 2 seasons differed withthe average value for the warm being 14% higher (Po0.005). Manure production resultswere similar: 4.5770.17 for cold season and 4.3570.17 L �pig/d for the warm season(P¼0.365). The NI drinker presented the lowest average water disappearance for theentire experiment (7.2370.31 L �pig/d; 15 weeks) and differed significantly (Po0.001)from the BB (�19%) and BO (�16%). The farms with the NI drinker also presented thelowest average manure volumes for the experiment (3.9870.21 L �pig/d), differingstatistically from the BB farms (5.0970.19 L �pig/d; Po0.002). The mathematical equa-tions obtained by the Gompertz nonlinear function presented R2 values of 0.996 and 0.997for the water disappearance and manure production, respectively. The results obtained atthe commercial growing-finishing farms show that in uncontrolled conditions (e.g., levelof water flow and differing water qualities), the water disappearance and manureproduction are significantly influenced by the drinker type. The mathematical equations

tment of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Campusa e Ambiental, Bairro Trindade, Caixa Postal 476, CEP 88040-970, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil.

J.M.R. Tavares), paulo.belli@ufsc.br (P.B. Filho), arlei.coldebella@embrapa.br (A. Coldebella),

rtamento de Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental, Bairro Trindade, Caixa Postal 476, CEP 88040-970,

00, Concórdia, SC, Brazil.

J.M.R. Tavares et al. / Livestock Science 169 (2014) 146–154 147

and other results obtained provide very good explanations for water disappearance andmanure production profiles.

& 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Since 1970 pig production models in Brazil have chan-ged considerably. Traditional subsistence systems havebeen replaced by confined animal production systems inwhich scientific, technical, and technological develop-ments are continually implemented. Currently, pig produc-tion in Brazil has a herd of 38.3 million heads, beingconsidered the fourth largest producer (3.3 million ton/year) and fourth largest exporter (661 thousand ton/year)in the world (USDA, 2013).

Water is an essential part of the nutrition, thermoregu-lation, urinary tract health, and welfare requirements ofpigs (Gonyou, 1996; Vermeer et al., 2009), and is used inlivestock farms for animal consumption, cooling systems,and cleaning activities. A pig's water intake is dependentupon animal age and health, body weight (BW), stage ofproduction, climatic conditions, feed intake, and drinkerdevices (Brumm, 2006; Brumm et al., 2000; Li et al., 2005;Mroz et al., 1995; Patience et al., 2005). Understanding theconcept of water disappearance (animal intake pluswastage) associated with different drinkers and their man-agement (location, mounting angle, height, number ofdrinkers, and flow rates) is essential to successful waterusage at livestock farms (Babot et al., 2011; Barber et al.,1989; Brumm et al., 2000; Li et al., 2005; Nienaber andHahn, 1984). Excessive water use has a clear influence onmanure production and its quality (Babot et al., 2011;Brumm et al., 2000; Li et al., 2005). Thus reducing theamount of wastage from drinkers lowers water and manurecosts (Gonyou, 1996). Nowadays, the literature presentsseveral experiments relating the drinker type used at pigfarms with type of feeder, ambiance, and animal behaviorand performance. The majority of the results available fromthese studies were obtained in experimental rooms and/orfarms, where the main factors of variation, including thedrinker devices, are controlled (Brooks, 1994; Brooks et al.,1989; Brumm, 2006; Brumm et al., 2000; Gill and Barber,1990; Gonyou, 1996; Li et al., 2005; Miyawaki et al., 1994;Patience et al., 2005; Plagge and van Leuteren, 1989).However, at commercial farms this scenario is totallydifferent since producers do not consider those factors tobe fundamental and disregard technical recommendationsfrom agroindustry to control them. After four decades ofongoing development in pig production, Brazilian livestockproduction and literature is confronted with a serious lackof information and tools to estimate the real water disap-pearance and manure production for the different physio-logical phases. The present experiment aimed to determinethe water disappearance (animal intake plus waste) andmanure production at commercial growing-finishing pigfarms using 3 different types of drinkers [bite-ball nipple(BB), nipple (NI), and bowl (BO)] for 2 different housingperiods (10 and 15 weeks). The Gompertz nonlinear function

was applied to the average weekly data to obtain mathema-tical equations to predict, and obtain results regarding, thewater disappearance and manure production at commercialgrowing-finishing pig farms.

2. Materials and methods

The study was conducted from April 2011 to May 2012at 15 growing-finishing commercial pig farms located in thewest of Santa Catarina state in southern Brazil. The 15 farmschosen were identified and selected based on the followingassumptions to systematize and reduce possible causes ofvariation during the production cycles: (1) productionsystem in the same geographic region; (2) producers fromthe same agroindustry, receiving pigs from a specificproduction flow; (3) farms representative of the samephysiological phase (growing-finishing) of pig productionchain; (4) feasibility conditions at housing buildings toimplement the research equipment with minimal interven-tion; and (5) one of the three types of drinkers installed inhousing building, resulting in a total of 5 farms with eachtype [bite-ball nipple (BB), GSI, Marau, RS, Brazil; nipple(NI), 12.115 GSI, Marau, RS, Brazil, and bowl (BO), Perozin,Perozin Indústria Metalúrgica, Ltda, Concórdia, SC, Brazil].Fig. 1 shows the three types of drinker devices used. The15 producers had two days of formation, before the experi-ment period, to prepare all field tasks which were con-ducted during the normal operation of the pig farms.

2.1. Animals

Two groups of pigs, numbering 6928 and 6348 werehoused at the 15 farms chosen during the 2 differentseasons of the year, cold and warm, respectively. Allanimals had a Large White� Landrace mother and a LargeWhite�Pietrain boar father. At the end of the post-weaning phase, barrows and gilts (both groups of pigs:9 weeks old and 24.5 kg average BW) were removed andtransported to the commercial growing-finishing farmsand remained separately in groups of 10 animals in eachpen, until the end of each production cycle [(cold season:25 weeks old and 119 kg average BW); (warm season:26 weeks old and 127 kg average BW)].

2.2. Housing

According to the agroindustry production system, foreach season the 15 commercial growing-finishing farmswere monitored and evaluated considering 2 differenthousing periods (10 and 15 weeks). It is important tohighlight that the number of production cycles evaluatedin both seasons differed (cold: n¼17 cycles; warm: n¼16cycles). Some farms during the experiment only performedproduction cycles of 10 weeks in which more than one

Fig. 1. Three types of drinker devices used: (A) bite-ball nipple (BB). This drinker requires the pigs to press the ball over the structure and then water flowsdirectly into the pig's mouth; (B) nipple drinker (NI). This other bite-style drinker is activated when the pig depresses the valve with its mouth or snout,causing the water to then flow directly into the pig's mouth; and (C) bowl (BO). This drinker requires the pig to press its snout against the valve to releasethe water.

J.M.R. Tavares et al. / Livestock Science 169 (2014) 146–154148

cycle could be assessed. The animals were distributedrandomly by sex in both sides of the housing buildings,each with pens for 10 pigs (number of pens variedaccording to the housing farm capacity). Every growing-finishing pen measured 3.5�3.5 m, had a fully concretefloor and contained a single water drinker (BB, NI or BO)situated at the midpoint of the end wall. One single feedermeasuring 0.2�3.5 m was located at the front of the penproviding at least 10 eating spaces for the pigs at the endof production cycle. With the exception of the BO drinkers(fixed always at 0.25 m above floor), the height of theother drinkers was adjusted as recommended (one timeevery 1–2 weeks): approximately 0.05 m above the back or20% higher than the shoulder height of the smallest animalin the pen (Gonyou, 1996). The manure produced by thepigs was cleaned manually, at least one time per day, bythe producers (dry cleaning) and was conducted from eachpen to a pit ditch located outside the building farmthrough a manure output (corner hole) measuring0.2�0.08 m. Fig. 2 shows the layout of 2 adjacent pens,indicating the location of the drinker, feeder and manureoutput. The farms were naturally ventilated through asystem of double-sided curtain (cold season: primarilyclosed at night and open during the day; warm season:open 24 h, except on days with high temperature range).

2.3. Data collection

2.3.1. Water and manure measuring systemWater use was measured by a total of 55 water meters

(Unimag Cyble PN 10, ITRÓN Inc., Liberty Lake, Washington)installed in all water delivery lines at farms chosen, whichsupplied each housing building [at least one water meterfor water disappearance (intake plus wastage), one forcooling system – if necessary – and at least one for thecleaning facilities]. The large number of animals, pens, andcommercial farms monitored and evaluated prevented theseparation of water intake and wastage. The water meterswere calibrated to verify accuracy at the start and end of theexperiment, were monitored, and their levels wererecorded on a daily basis at 9:00 am by pig producer. Waterflows were not adjusted at the farms despite their influence

on water disappearance (Barber et al., 1989; Brumm et al.,2000; Li et al., 2005; Nienaber and Hahn, 1984).

Total manure production was measured in round fiber-glass tanks (designed for use as cisterns) with 5 m3 volume[Fibratec PRFV 819 (minor diameter: 1.70 m; major dia-meter: 2.13 m; height: 1.76 m) and Fortlev (minor dia-meter: 1.86 m; major diameter: 2.21 m; height: 1.64 m),Araquari, SC, Brazil], installed between the housing build-ings and the storage system in each farm. The manureproduced and stored in the pits ditches outside thehousing buildings was transferred every day to the fiber-glass tanks by gravity for its retention. Every day at10:00 am the pig producer measured and recorded themanure depth inside the tanks.

Water use and manure production data were trans-ferred weekly to a specific worksheet and through specificequations the daily volumes of manure produced andweekly averages were determined for each farm. The dailywater disappearance and weekly average, as calculated,did not include the water used in each farm at the coolingsystem and cleaning facilities. The first and last days ofanimal housing were excluded during the 10 and 15 weekperiods considered in the analysis. All data problemsdetected in relation to the pipes and drinkers (leaks),and to the pits ditches and fiberglass tanks, were analyzed,corrected and some excluded (less than 1%) from thecalculation of the total daily consumption and manureproduction of the farm.

2.3.2. Feed intake, growth rates, and mortalityAll feeders used in the farms were located along the

front of the pen, on the opposite side to the drinker. Theanimals were fed manually with restricted daily feedintake by the producers (3 times per day: 8:00 am,12:00 pm, and 6:00 pm). During each production cycle,the pigs had access to 9 different nutritionally balanceddiets (corn and soybean; crude protein content rangingbetween 21% and 14%) produced by the agroindustrycompany and formulated according to National ResearchCouncil (NRC, 1998) and Brazilian tables for poultry andpigs (Rostagno et al., 2011). Feed intake was determineddaily based on data supplied by the producers and feedmanufacturer (considering the daily mortality). The BW of

Drinker

Manure Output

Gangway

3.5 m

3.5

m

Pit Ditch

Feeder

Fig. 2. Layout of two adjacent pens indicating the location of the drinker, feeder and manure output.

J.M.R. Tavares et al. / Livestock Science 169 (2014) 146–154 149

the gilts and barrows were measured 4 times during thegrowing-finishing cycle: on housing and slaughter days, allpigs were weighed by the agroindustry and the meanvalue given. Over the course of the production cycle(40–45 and 80–85 days after the beginning), the pigs wereweighed by the research team's field inside the housingbuilding. In all units, between 15 and 20% of pigs housed(depending on the total number of pigs on the farm) wereweighed. The pens to be weighed were chosen randomly.Average daily gain for each farm was determined from theBW data. Table 1 shows the performance of the pigs perfarm in each season. Mortality was recorded by theproducer throughout the production cycle during theresearch. The number of pigs in a pen was not adjustedin the event of pig death.

2.3.3. Temperature and relative humidity of airData-loggers (Testo 174H, Testo AG, Lenzkirch, Ger-

many) were installed between 1.5 and 2.0 m above thefloor in the center of each housing building to measure thetemperature and relative humidity of the air. The data,recorded every hour were stored in a data-logger memorydevice and downloaded weekly to a specific worksheet.Average data were determined per housing week and thenper farm. When the animals were housed at differenthours of the days, the temperature and relative humiditydata for those housing days were not considered.

2.4. Gompertz nonlinear function

The Gompertz nonlinear function is one of the mostpopular nonlinear functions for modeling animal growthprocesses and is commonly used to describe animal devel-opment through the tissues growth and other prod-uctivity data expressed according to the age of the animal(Whittemore et al., 1988). The nonlinear function's para-meters have biological significance and their interpretationenables information to be obtained on the BW increase andother associated factors, e.g., the water disappearance and,consequently, the manure produced. In this scenario, the

average value for the water disappearance or manureproduction (y) for the pigs measured at t weeks of housingwas evaluated based on the Gompertz nonlinear function(NLIN procedure of SAS), (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC):

E½y� ¼ a exp �exp �b t–cð Þ� �� �:

The Gompertz function has 3 different parameters tointerpret: a, b, and c. In this study a represents theasymptotic value for the water disappearance (L) or manureproduction (L); b represents the inflection point (L �pig/week); and c represents the decay parameter (week) (i.e., atthe inflection point of the curve). The function was adjustedfor the water disappearance and manure production (aver-age weekly data) for all production cycles monitored andevaluated in both seasons (n¼33).

2.5. Statistical analysis

The experimental unit considered for this study was thefarm. During the experiment, 2 seasons were monitored(cold: 17 production cycles and 6928 pigs; warm: 16production cycles and 6348 pigs). The seasons weredesigned with 3 treatments (BB, NI and BO). Each treatmenthad a group of 5 production farms fitted with one of thethree types of drinker devices. Weekly averages for waterdisappearance and manure production data were deter-mined and analyzed using the SAS Mixed procedures (SASInst. Inc., Cary, NC, USA) for repeated measures consideringthe effect of the drinker device, the season, the housingperiod (as a repeated measure), the interaction of thesefactors and 16 types of matrices (variance and covariancestructures) (Xavier, 2000). The structures of the matricesused in the analysis were chosen based on the lowest valueof the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). The estimationmethod used was the restricted maximum likelihoodmethod. Unfolding analysis was carried out applying thet-test when the F-test was significant at the 5% level(Pr0.05). The analysis was performed for two total housingperiods (10 and 15 weeks). A statistical descriptive analysiswas also performed for all experiment data.

Table 1Performance of the pigs per cycle/farm in each season monitored and evaluated.

Item Cold seasona

BB NI BO

1 2b 2c,b 3b 3c,b 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2b 3 4 5

No. pigsd 296 330 330 597 594 455 330 340 308 330 482 608 508 300 430 358 332Initiale

Age, days 65 62 66 64 66 66 59 65 65 73 61 65 61 63 62 66 51BW, kg 27.4 21.3 26.2 23.9 28.7 20.9 24.7 23.1 27.4 24.5 25.2 21.6 25.7 24.3 22.5 26.4 21.8

Finalf

Age, days 196 132 138 133 141 192 190 198 196 201 198 198 198 135 191 201 166BW, kg 143.2 75.4 93.6 78.8 89.4 132.0 137.3 137.4 143.2 130.1 131.4 130.3 131.4 85.5 126.7 141.2 114.5

ADG, kg/d 0.88 0.76 0.93 0.77 0.78 0.86 0.85 0.86 0.88 0.82 0.78 0.81 0.78 0.84 0.79 0.84 0.80FC 2.67 2.17 2.21 2.10 2.74 2.55 2.73 2.74 2.67 2.74 2.65 2.59 2.65 2.14 2.60 2.64 2.42Mortality (%) 1.49 4.55 2.12 6.87 7.07 11.79 2.42 1.63 1.49 5.15 3.33 1.48 3.33 2.00 7.67 4.43 4.04

Item Warm seasong

BB NI BO

1 2 3 4 5 5c 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

No. pigsd 299 330 598 442 330 330 336 321 328 480 610 506 300 450 358 330Initiale

Age, days 60 62 65 66 63 63 67 60 63 65 65 65 67 61 67 70BW, kg 21.9 24.3 21.3 28.3 25.2 25.7 26.5 21.9 23.0 26.7 23.4 26.7 23.0 22.5 24.0 28.1

Finalf

Age, days 189 165 173 174 176 176 199 189 173 171 199 171 173 173 177 186BW, kg 142.5 120.7 122.7 124.6 123.0 123.0 143.7 142.5 118.6 113.4 143.3 113.4 113.1 123.3 119.7 136.7

ADG, kg/d 0.93 0.93 0.90 0.88 0.86 0.89 0.88 0.93 0.87 0.81 0.89 0.81 0.84 0.89 0.86 0.93FC 2.58 2.37 2.38 2.57 2.45 2.43 2.71 2.58 2.44 2.45 2.70 2.45 2.36 2.29 2.37 2.45Mortality (%) 1.61 0.61 1.84 4.57 2.73 1.82 1.73 1.61 1.52 4.06 3.44 4.06 1.75 3.33 2.00 1.30

a April 2011 to December 2011.b 10-Weeks cycle.c Second production cycle monitored for same farm in the season.d Ten pigs per pen.e Before their transfer to the farms.f At the slaughterhouse.g October 2011 to May 2012.

J.M.R. Tavares et al. / Livestock Science 169 (2014) 146–154150

3. Results

3.1. Water disappearance

Water disappearance for the housing periods moni-tored in the entire experiment, cold and warm seasons arepresented in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. The difference inthe mean temperature values between the two seasonswas only several degrees (whole experiment: 21.370.1 1C;cold period: 19.070.2 1C; warm period: 23.970.1 1C) andnot over the critical thermoregulation's temperaturezones. However, high thermal amplitude was observedbetween night and day during the warm season (typical ofregion). The water disappearance for the 2 seasons eval-uated at the growing-finishing farms differed [10 and 15weeks (Po0.005)]. The greatest averages were observedduring the warm season for both housing periods, withvalues being 14% higher than during the cold season.

No differences in the season�drinker interaction weredetected [10 weeks (P¼0.763) and 15 weeks (P¼0.725)].According to the type of drinker devices installed and thehousing time considered, the water disappearance for theentire experiment and for the 2 seasons evaluated are

presented in Table 4. A difference among the drinkerdevices for the whole experiment (type of drinker) wasobserved in terms of the water disappearance for bothhousing periods [10 weeks (P¼0.006) and 15 weeks(P¼0.001)].

On analysis of the interaction between the drinkersused and the 2 seasons evaluated, with the exception ofthe period with t¼10 weeks at cold season (P¼0.123) theperiods showed differences for water disappearancebetween the BB and BO drinker devices and the NI-typedrinkers (Po0.05). The lowest averages were observed atthe NI farms, except for the first 2 weeks, and the greatestat the BB farms, with approximately 17% (Fig. 3). None-theless, no difference was observed between the averagesfor the BO and BB drinkers across the experiment.

The feed intake for the 2 seasons evaluated at thegrowing-finishing farms differed [10 and 15 weeks(Po0.05)] The greatest averages were observed duringthe warm season for both housing periods, with values being5% higher than during the cold season (0.1 kg �pig�1/d). Nodifferences in the feed intake�drinker interaction weredetected, being the lowest averages observed in both phasesat BO farms. The NI farms evaluated presented the lowest

Table 2Water disappearance, manure production and feed intake during theentire experiment monitored.

Trait nb Whole experimenta

Meanc Max. Min.

Water disappearance, L pig/d10 Weeks 32 7.7271.32 10.36 5.7415 Weeks 28 8.3371.37 10.56 5.94

Manure production, L pig/d10 Weeks 33 4.1570.78 5.90 2.6315 Weeks 28 4.4670.82 6.24 2.93

Feed intake, kg pig/d10 Weeks 33 1.8070.13 2.06 1.5415 Weeks 28 2.0670.12 2.25 1.79

a April 2011 to May 2012.b Production cycles monitored and evaluated.c Mean7SD.

Table 3Water disappearance, manure production and feed intake during the coldand warm seasons.

Trait Colda Warmb P-valueMeanc Meanc

Water disappearance, L pig/d10 Weeks 7.0970.26 8.2570.26 0.00515 Weeks 7.7470.25 8.8170.25 0.005

Manure production, L pig/d10 Weeks 4.1270.17 4.0670.17 0.80015 Weeks 4.5770.17 4.3570.17 0.365

Feed intake, kg pig/d10 Weeks 1.7570.03 1.8470.03 0.01515 Weeks 2.0070.03 2.1070.03 0.014

a n¼17 Production cycles (April 2011 to December 2011).b n¼16 Production cycles (October 2011 to May 2012).c Mean7SE.

Table 4Water disappearance, manure production and feed intake during theentire experiment and during the 2 seasons monitored and evaluated,according to the drinker device installed at the farms.

Trait Drinker type† P-value

BB NI BO

Water disappearance, L �pig/d‡Whole experiment

10 Weeks 8.3970.30a 6.8170.33b 7.8170.33a 0.00615 Weeks 8.9670.29a 7.2370.31b 8.6570.31a 0.001

Cold season10 Weeks 7.7170.43 6.4370.47 7.1470.47 0.13015 Weeks 8.2470.41a 6.8470.44b 8.1670.44a 0.037

Warm season10 Weeks 9.0770.43a 7.1970.47b 8.4870.47ab 0.01215 Weeks 9.6870.40a 7.6270.44b 9.1570.44a 0.002

Manure production, L �pig/d‡

Whole experiment10 Weeks 4.7070.19a 3.7470.22b 3.8370.22b 0.00415 Weeks 5.0970.19a 3.9870.21b 4.3070.21b 0.002

Cold season10 Weeks 4.8070.26a 3.8870.31b 3.6870.31b 0.01015 Weeks 5.3370.26a 4.1570.30b 4.2270.30b 0.003

Warm season10 Weeks 4.5970.28 3.6170.31 3.9870.31 0.05615 Weeks 4.8570.27a 3.8270.30b 4.3870.30ab 0.040

Feed intake, kg �pig/d‡

Whole experiment10 Weeks 1.8470.03 1.8070.03 1.7570.03 0.11315 Weeks 2.1070.03 2.0670.03 2.0070.03 0.098

Cold Season10 Weeks 1.8170.04 1.7470.05 1.7070.05 0.20015 Weeks 2.0670.04 2.0070.05 1.9570.05 0.215

Warm season10 Weeks 1.8870.04 1.8670.05 1.7970.05 0.37115 Weeks 2.1370.04 2.1370.05 2.0470.05 0.300

Within a row, means without a common superscript letter differ(Po0.05).

† BB – bite-ball nipple, NI – nipple, and BO – bowl.‡ Mean7SE.

J.M.R. Tavares et al. / Livestock Science 169 (2014) 146–154 151

water-to-feed ratio, lying with the remaining results above3.75:1.

3.2. Manure production

The manure production during the cold and warmseasons is presented in Table 3 for the housing periodsmonitored during the entire experiment (Table 2). Betweenthe 2 seasons evaluated, no difference in manure volumewas detected during the growing-finishing cycles (10 and 15weeks) (P40.05), although the cold season presented thegreatest averages for both periods (3–4%). The volumes ofmanure produced by the pigs were determined excludingthe water consumed in the cleaning facilities.

No differences in the season�drinker interaction weredetected for 10 weeks (P¼0.598) or 15 weeks (P¼0.521).The values obtained for the manure produced for the wholeexperiment and the 2 seasons are presented in Table 4according to the type of drinker devices installed and thehousing periods considered. A difference between treat-ments (type of drinker) for the entire experiment wasobserved for both housing periods (Po0.005). Pigs at thefarms installed with BO and NI drinkers (both 10 and 15

weeks) produced less manure (16–18% and 20–22%, respec-tively) than those pigs with access to BB drinkers (Table 4).

Upon analysis of the interaction between the drinkersused and the 2 seasons evaluated, with the exception ofthe 10-week housing period during the warm season(P¼0.056), the periods showed differences between thefarms installed with NI and BB drinking devices (Po0.05)in terms of manure production. The BO and NI drinkerdevices presented lower production than the BB (19–22%and 21–23%, respectively). The greatest averages for man-ure production per pig were observed at the farms with BBand the lowest were the farms with BO, followed by thefarms with NI after the fifth week of housing (Fig. 3).However, no difference between NI and BO was observedin terms of average manure production per pig for thewhole experiment.

3.3. Gompertz nonlinear functionThe correlation coefficients (R2) obtained for the fit-

ted mathematical equation after the application of thenonlinear Gompertz function to the average weekly dataduring the housing period for water disappearance and

Fig. 3. Water disappearance and manure production during the entire experiment.

J.M.R. Tavares et al. / Livestock Science 169 (2014) 146–154152

manure production were 0.996 and 0.997, respectively(Fig. 4). These results indicate that the Gompertz functionprovides very good explanations with a high degree ofconfidence for the profiles of these two parameters con-sidering the 33 production cycles evaluated. It is importantto note that no other similar experiments demonstratingthe possibility of applying Gompertz nonlinear function towater disappearance and manure production data havebeen reported in the literature.

4. Discussion

4.1. Animal water disappearance

Although the water disappearance is dependent on theseason of the year and drinker type, the consumptionprofile for the different housing periods monitoredshowed an increase with feed intake and BW, as reportedby Gonyou (1996). The difference observed between the2 seasons evaluated (Po0.005) shows that producers didnot provided cooling for the animals during the warmperiod (high internal temperatures) as noted by Brummet al. (2000). In fact, the producers have received recom-mendations from agroindustry to provide water from thecooling system only to reduce the dust concentrationinside the housing building and for animal disease treat-ment. Independently of the drinker types installed at thefarms, the average water disappearance determined forthe whole experiment (7.7271.32 and 8.3371.37 L �pig/dfor 10 and 15 weeks, respectively) was considerably higherwhen compared with other results reported in the litera-ture (Brumm, 2006; Brumm et al., 2000; Froese, 2003;Li et al., 2005). However, some results considering researchwith liquid-fed pigs presented similar (Vermeer et al.,2009) or slightly increased values for water disappearancein heavy pigs (Nannoni et al., 2013). The differencesobserved between the 2 seasons (Table 3) can be explainedin this case by the internal temperature associated withthe type of drinker. Housing temperatures outside therange of 18–21 1C, such as those observed during thewarmer period (average temperature: 23.970.1 1C andhigh daily thermal amplitude), generally influence thewater disappearance and the performance of growing-

finishing pigs (Huynh et al., 2005b). Aarnink et al. (1992)and Brooks (1994) postulated that, for similar environ-mental and feeding conditions, water intake by the ani-mals should be constant and that any inconsistency wouldbe the result of water wastage at the drinker devices.Li et al. (2005) indicate that although no significantdifferences could be observed in the results for waterdisappearance, high flow rates above the intake capacityof the animals may result in higher average consumptionresulting essentially from drinker waste.

However, in this experiment, although the season�drinker interaction did not show a correlation with thewater disappearance, a significant influence from thedrinker type and all factors associated with it wasobserved for both seasons at the growing-finishing farms(Table 4), as also reported by other authors (Babot et al.,2011; Brumm et al., 2000). The results obtained in thisexperiment show a lower level of water disappearance forthe NI drinkers when compared with BO, which is incontrast with data presented in the literature (Babot et al.,2011; Brooks, 1994; Brumm et al., 2000; Gill and Barber,1990; Li et al., 2005; Pedersen, 1994; Plagge and vanLeuteren, 1989). Nonetheless, the results observed for theBO drinkers can be explained by the position and theheight of the lip of the equipment (fixed at 0.25 m abovethe floor in a horizontal position). Thus, these should belocated at 40% of the height of the smallest pig in the pento avoid being affected by fouling (by excreta and/or feed)(Pedersen, 1994). It is well known that pigs prefer cleanwater from bowls to that from nipples, but reverse thepreference if the bowls are fouled with feed (Brooks, 1994).Higher values of water disappearance for the BB drinkerswere also observed by Babot et al. (2011).

The feed intake by pigs throughout the study and at eachphase considered (cold and warm) presented lower (Brummet al., 2000) and similar values to recent studies (Li et al.,2005; Vermeer et al., 2009). The different values obtained forfeed intake between the phases evaluated can be explained bythe measured time considered for each production cycle andthe strategy followed by the agroindustry to get similar feedintake in both phases, maintaining the zootechnical rates ofthe animals. Thus, it was added oil in the pig diets of the coldphase to reduce the total feed intake as explained by some

-ey = 9.8548 e2R = 0.996

-ey = 5.3267 e2R = 0.997

-0.2392 (t-(-0.9941)) -0.2800 (t-(-0.0709)).

Fig. 4. Water disappearance and manure production according to the housing time adjusted to the Gompertz nonlinear function, for the entire experiment.

J.M.R. Tavares et al. / Livestock Science 169 (2014) 146–154 153

authors (Miyada, 1999). The water-to-feed ratio obtained atexperiment, with the exception of NI farms, were similar tothe highest value of the range reported in the literaturefor thermoneutral conditions �2.2–4.4 L kg�1 (Mount et al.,1971; Crumby, 1986; Brooks and Carpenter, 1989; Miyawakiet al., 1994; Turner et al., 1999; Ange et al., 2000). The NRC(1998) recommended a minimum water-to-feed ratio of 2.0for pigs between 20 and 90 kg of BW.

4.2. Manure production

For all types of drinkers installed, the average volumes ofmanure produced over the whole experiment (4.1570.78and 4.4670.82 L �pig/d for 10 and 15 weeks, respectively)were consistent with results cited in the literature (Brummet al., 2000; Froese, 2003; Li et al., 2005). However, inrelation to values cited for pig farms in Brazil, the resultsobtained were lower. A value of 7.0 L �pig/d (Oliveira, 1993),for instance, is used as a reference for the growing-finishingphase by the Environmental Foundation of the state ofSanta Catarina, Brazil. Although no differences between the2 seasons evaluated were detected in relation to manureproduction, it is important to emphasize that the averageresults were lower during the warmer period, despite thehigher water disappearance (approximately 14% lower dur-ing warm vs. cold season). The results determined can beexplained by the different temperatures observed betweenthe seasons (with higher average temperatures during thewarmer period) which influence the degree of evaporationinside the housing buildings (fully concrete floor and animalbodies). Furthermore, under hot conditions, pigs tend tofoul the solid area in an attempt to create a wallow to coolthem by evaporation (Guingand, 2003; Huynh et al., 2005a;Aarnink et al., 2006). The evaporation phenomena datafrom Santa Catarina Agriculture Research Firm (EPAGRI), forthe last 32 years in the West of the state, showed valuesranging between 2–4 mm (winter) and 4–6 mm (summer).These values help to explain the lower volume of manureobserved during the warm season.

Although a relation between the season�drinker interac-tion and the volume of the manure was not detected duringthe experiment, variations in drinker type did demonstrate asignificant influence on water disappearance for the growing-

finishing seasons (Table 4), as also observed by other authors(Babot et al., 2011; Brumm et al., 2000). At the end of theexperiment the farms outfitted with BB drinkers presentedthe greatest values for manure production, amongst alldrinker devices evaluated, which verifies that thewater deviceexerted an important effect on the daily manure yield [aspreviously reported by Babot et al. (2011) and Brumm et al.(2000)]. Although the BB and BO farms did not presentsignificant differences in terms of average water disappear-ance, they did differ in relation to the average manureproduction (5.0970.19 and 4.3070.21 L �pig/d for 15 weeks).The results determined showed the lowest average manureproduced for the NI farms with significant differences, com-pared with the BB farms for the entire experiment, cold andwarm seasons (Po0.05, Table 4). In contrast to the resultsobtained in this experiment, the majority of studies reportedin the literature revealed that, in general, the use of BOdrinkers leads to lower volumes of manure being produced(Babot et al., 2011; Brumm et al., 2000). The evaporationphenomena associated with the type of BO drinkers (waterremains inside bowl for longer periods and evaporates due tothe internal housing temperatures) promoted a reduction inmanure production.

5. Conclusions

Independent of the drinker type, the water disappear-ance and manure production at commercial growing-finishing pig farms for 15 weeks housing were 8.8371.37and 4.4670.82 L �pig/d, respectively. The NI drinker pre-sented the lowest average for water disappearance andmanure production and, in regards to, water disappearance,differed significantly (Po0.001) from the BB and BOdrinkers used in the experiment. No differences weredetected in manure production, although the volume pro-duced was dependent on the type of drinker installed. Theevaporation phenomena plays an important role in the finalvolume of manure produced in warmer season. Consideringthe housing period, the mathematical equations developedfrom the nonlinear Gompertz function can be used toaccurately estimate the water disappearance and manureproduction at commercial growing-finishing farms.

J.M.R. Tavares et al. / Livestock Science 169 (2014) 146–154154

Conflict of interest statement

None.

Acknowledgment

This project was funded by the Meat & Derivate IndustryAssociation of Santa Catarina (AINCADESC/SINDICARNE-SC)with support from the Brazilian Agricultural Research Cor-poration, Swine and Poultry Center (Embrapa Brasil Foods(BRF), the Coordination of Improvement of Higher EducationPersonnel of Brazil (CAPES), and the Environmental Engineer-ing Postgraduate of Federal University of Santa Catarina(PPGEA-UFSC).

References

Aarnink, A.J.A., Schrama, J.W., Heetkamp, M.J.W., Stefanowska, J.,Huynh, T.T.T., 2006. Temperature and body weight affect fouling ofpig pens. J. Anim. Sci. 83, 2224–2231.

Aarnink, A.J.A., van Ouwerkerk, E.N.J., Verstegen, M.W.A., 1992. A math-ematical model for estimating the amount and composition of slurryfrom fattening pigs. Livest. Prod. Sci. 31, 133–147.

Ange, K.D., Eisemann, J.H., Argenzio, R.A., Almond, G.W., Blikslager, A.T.,2000. Effects of feed physical form and buffering solutes on waterdisappearance and proximal stomach pH in swine. J. Anim. Sci. 78,2344–2352.

Babot, D.B., Hermida, B., Balcells, J., Calvet, S., Álvarez-Rodriguez, J., 2011.Farm technological innovations on swine manure in Southern Eur-ope. R. Bras. Zootec. 40 (Suppl. especial), S334–S343.

Barber, J., Brooks, P.H., Carpenter, J.L., 1989. The effects of water deliveryrate on the voluntary food intake, water use and performance ofearly-weaned pigs from 3 to 6 weeks of age, In: Forbes, J.M., Varley,M.A., Lawrence, T.L.J. (Eds.), The Voluntary Food Intake of Pigs. Br. Soc.Anim. Prod., Edinburgh, UK, pp. 103–104.

Brooks, P.H., 1994. Water: forgotten nutrient and novel delivery system.Biotechnology in the feed industry. In: Lyons, P., Jacques, K.A. (Eds.),Proceedings of the Alltech's Tenth Annual Symposium, NottinghamPress, Loughborough, UK, pp. 211–234.

Brooks, P.H., Carpenter, J.L., 1989. Boost your liquid assets. Pig Farming 37(Suppl.), S43–S45.

Brooks, P.H., Carpenter, J.L., Barber, J., Gill, B.P., 1989. Production andwelfare problems relating to the supply of water to growing-finishingpigs. Pig Vet. J. 23, 51–66.

Brumm, M.C., Dahlquist, J.M., Heemstra, J.M., 2000. Impact of feeders anddrinker devices on pig performance, water use, and manure volume.Swine Health Prod. 8, 51–57.

Brumm, M.C., 2006. Patterns of drinking water use in pork productionfacilities, In: Proceedings of the 2006 Nebraska Swine Report, Uni-versity of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA, pp. 10–13.

Crumby, T.R., 1986. Design requirements of liquid feeding systems forpigs: a review. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 34, 153–172.

Froese, C., 2003. Water usage and manure production rates in today's pigindustry. Adv. Pork Prod. 14, 215–223.

Gill, B.P., Barber, J., 1990. Water delivery systems for growing pigs. FarmBuild. Prog. 102, 19–22.

Gonyou, H.W., 1996. Water use and drinker management: a review, In:Proceedings of the Annual Research Report, Prairie Swine Centre,Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, pp. 74–80.

Guingand, N., 2003. Air quality and reduction of slatted floor in growing-finishing pig units. In: CIGR (Ed.), Proceedings of the International

Symposium on Gaseous and Odour Emissions from Animal Produc-tion Facilities, Danish Institute for Agricultural Sciences, Horsens,Denmark, pp. 80–87.

Huynh, T.T.T., Aarnink, A.A., Gerrits, W.J.J., Heetkamp, M.J.H., Canh, T.T.,Spoolder, H.A.M., Kemp, B., Verstegen, M.W.A., 2005a. Thermalbehaviour of growing pigs in response to high temperature andhumidity. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 91, 1–16.

Huynh, T.T.T., Aarnink, A.J.A., Verstegen, M.W.A., Gerrits, W.J.J.,Heetkamp, M.J.W., Kemp, B., Canh, T.T., 2005b. Effects of increasingtemperatures on physiological changes in pigs at different relativehumidities. J. Anim. Sci. 83, 1385–1396.

Li, Y.Z., Chénard, L., Lemay, S.P., Gonyou, H.W., 2005. Water intake andwastage at nipple drinkers by growing-finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 83,1413–1422.

Miyada, V.S., 1999. Novas tendências para a nutrição de suínos em climaquente. In: Silva, I.J.O. (Ed.), , Ambiência e qualidade na produçãoindustrial de suínos, Piracicaba, Brasil, pp. 34–60.

Miyawaki, K., Itoh, S., Hoshina, K., 1994. Water requirement and water-saving effect in finishing pigs fed with wet/dry feeders. Jpn. J. SwineSci. 31, 35–42.

Mount, L.E., Holmes, C.W., Close, W.H., Morrison, S.R., Start, I.B., 1971. Anote on the consumption of water by the growing pig at severalenvironmental temperatures and levels of feeding. Anim. Prod. 13,561–563.

Mroz, Z., Jongbloed, A.W., Lenis, N.P., Vreman, K., 1995. Water in pignutrition: physiology, allowances and environmental implications.Nutr. Res. Rev. 8, 137–164.

Nannoni, E., Martelli, G., Cecchini, M., Vignola, G., Giammarco, M., Zaghini, G.,Sardi, L., 2013. Water requirements of liquid-fed heavy pigs: effect ofwater restriction on growth traits, animal welfare and meat and hamquality. Livest. Prod. Sci. 151, 21–28.

Nienaber, J.A., Hahn, G.L., 1984. Effects of water flow restriction andenvironmental factors on performance of nursery-age pigs. J. Anim.Sci. 59, 1423–1429.

NRC (National Research Council), 1998. Nutrient Requirements of Swine,10th ed. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

Oliveira, P.A.V., 1993. Manual de manejo e utilização dos dejetos desuínos. Doc. no. 27. EMBRAPA Suínos e Aves, Concórdia, Brazil.

Patience, J.F., Umboh, J.F., Chaplin, R.K., Nyachoti, C.M., 2005. Nutritionaland physiological responses of growing pigs exposed to a diurnalpattern of heat stress. Livest. Prod. Sci. 96, 205–214.

Pedersen, B.K. 1994. Water intake and pig performance. In: Proceedings ofthe Teagasc Pig Conference, pp. 50–54.

Plagge, J.C., van Leuteren, J., 1989. Water consumption of fattening pigs.Varkensproefbedrijf “Noed- en Oost-Nederland”, 1.32.

Rostagno, H.S., Albino, L.F.T., Donzele, J.L., Gomes, P.C., Oliveira, R.F., Lopes, D.C.,Ferreira, A.S., Barreto, S.L.T., Euclides, R.F., 2011. Tabelas brasileiras paraaves e suínos: composição de alimentos e exigências nutricionais, 3rd ed.Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Departamento de Zootecnia, Viçosa,Brasil.

Turner, S., Edwards, S., Bland, V.C., 1999. The influence of drinkerallocation and group size on the drinking behavior, welfare andproduction of growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 68, 617–624.

USDA, 2013. Farmed States Department of Agriculture. Livestock andpoultry: World Markets and Trade. ⟨http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/livestock-poultry-ma/livestock-poultry-ma-11-08-2013.pdf⟩ (accessed April 2001).

Vermeer, H.M., Kuijken, N., Spoolder, H.A.M., 2009. Motivation for addi-tional water use of growing-finishing pigs. Livest. Sci. 124, 112–118.

Whittemore, C.T., Tullis, J.B., Emmans, G.C., 1988. Protein growth in pigs.Anim. Prod. 46, 437–445.

Xavier, L.H., 2000. Modelos univariado e multivariado para análise demedidas repetidas e verificação da acurácia do modelo univariadopor meio de simulação (Ph.D. thesis). Escola Superior de Agricultura“Luiz de Queiroz”, Universidade São Paulo, Piracicaba, Brasil.