Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T21:44:59.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Welfare implications of nipple drinkers for broiler chickens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

E Houldcroft ,
C Smith ,
R Mrowicki ,
L Headland ,
S Grieveson ,
TA Jones  and
MS Dawkins
E Houldcroft
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK
C Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK
R Mrowicki
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK
L Headland
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK
S Grieveson
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK
TA Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK
MS Dawkins*
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: marian.dawkins@zoo.ox.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Commercially reared broiler chickens are commonly supplied with drinking water through lines of nipple drinkers that are positioned above the birds' heads to avoid water leaking and spoiling the litter underfoot. This means that the birds have to peck upwards to obtain water, an action that is very different from the ‘scoop’ action of natural drinking seen when birds drink from troughs or puddles. In this study we investigate the welfare implications of this unnatural drinking behaviour imposed by nipple drinkers. We show 1) that chickens have no apparent aversion to the taste of tap water, 2) that they prefer bell drinkers and troughs over nipple drinkers, 3) that the stereotyped ‘scoop’ action is seen even when birds are drinking from bowls of different heights, 4) that chickens have a strong preference for drinking from nipples that are lower rather than higher and, 5) that when offered a choice between bowls and nipples of the same height, the chickens are indifferent to the method of water presentation. We conclude that the height at which water is presented to chickens is more important to them than whether they can drink with the natural ‘scoop’ action. While this might suggest that chicken welfare could be improved by lowering the drinker lines, wet litter causes welfare issues of its own through its effect on hock burn and pododermatitis. We suggest that drinker systems should be designed so that both aspects of welfare (birds able to drink in their preferred way and clean litter) are possible.

Keywords

animal welfarebroiler chickensdrinking behaviourlitter qualitynipple drinkerspreference
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 1 - 10
Copyright
© 2008 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Appleby, MC, Hughes, BO and Elson, AH 1992 Poultry Production Systems: Behaviour, Management and Welfare. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Appleby, MC, Mench, JA and Hughes, BO 2004 Poultry, Behaviour and Welfare. CAB International: Wallingford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, DM and Reefman, N 2005 Chicken welfare as indicated by lesions on carcasses in supermarkets British Poultry Science 46: 407–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bull, SA, Allen, VM, Domingue, G, Jorgensen, F, Frost, JA, Ure, R, Whyte, R, Tinker, D, Corry, JEL, Gillard-King, J and Humphrey, TJ 2006 Sources of Campylobacter species colonizing housed broiler flocks during rearing. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 72: 645–652CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carpenter, GH, Peterson, RA, Jones, WT, Daly, KR and Hypes, WA 1992 The effect of two nipple drinkers with different flow rates on the productive performance of broiler-chickens during summer-like growing conditions. Poultry Science 71: 1450–1456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cools, I, Uttendaele, M, Caro, C, D'Haese, E, Nelis, HJ and Debevere, J 2003 Survival of Campylobacter jejuni strains of different origins in drinking water. Journal of Applied Microbiology 94: 886–892CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawkins, R and Dawkins, M 1973 Decisions and the uncertainty of behaviour. Behaviour 45: 83–105Google Scholar
Jones, TA, Donnelly, CA and Dawkins, MS 2005 Environmental and management factors affecting the welfare of chickens on commercial farms at five densities. Poultry Science 84: 1155–1165CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kijlstra, A and Eijk, IAJM 2006 Animal health in organic livestock production systems: a review. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 54: 77–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lecelerc, H, Schwartzbrod, L and Dei-Cas, E 2002 Microbial agents associated with waterborne diseases. Critical Reviews in Microbiology 28: 371–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lott, BD, May, JD, Simmons, JD and Branton, SL 2001 The effect of nipple height on broiler performance. Poultry Science 80: 408–410CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martrenchar, A, Boilletot, E, Huionnic, D and Pol, F 2002 Risk factors for foot-pad dermatitis in chickens and turkey broilers in France. Preventative Veterinary Medicine 52: 213–226CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
May, JD, Lott, BD and Simmons, JD 1997 Water consumption by broilers in high cyclic temperatures: bell versus nipple waterers. Poultry Science 76: 944–947CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michel, K, Gempesaw, C, Pesek, J, Bacon, J and Tilman, H 1998 Drinker technology as an example of improving production efficiency Journal of Applied Poultry Research 7: 144–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLelland, J 1979 The Digestive System. In: King, AS and McLelland, J (eds) Form and Function in Birds, volume 1 pp 69–181. Academic Press: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Pearson, AD, Greenwood, M, Healing, TD, Rollins, D, Shahamat, M, Donaldson, J and Colwell, RR 1993 Colonization of broiler chickens by waterborne Campylobacter jejuni. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 59: 978–96CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ross, PA and Hurnik, JF 1983 Drinking behaviour of broiler chicks. Applied Animal Ethology 11: 25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross 2002 Broiler Management Manual. Aviagen Ltd: Newbridge, Scotland, UK. www.aviagen.com/broilermanual/broiler.annual.htmGoogle Scholar
Siegel, S and Castellan, NJ Jr 1988 Non-parametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences, second edition. McGraw Hill: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Van der Leeuw, AH, Bout, RG and Zweers, GA 2001 Control of Cranio-Cervical System during feeding in birds. American Zoologist 41: 1352–1363Google Scholar