Weaver Allison D, Bielke Lisa R, Malheiros Ramon D, Orlowski Sara K, Pullin Allison N
Prestage Department of Poultry Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, United States.
Department of Poultry Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States.
Front Vet Sci. 2025 Aug 8;12:1611967. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2025.1611967. eCollection 2025.
Feed restriction is common in the broiler breeder industry to optimize health and reproduction. However, this practice has been associated with increased drinking behavior, leading to water spillage, higher litter moisture, and footpad lesions. Consequently, parts of the industry have adopted water restriction protocols. This study aimed to evaluate how different combinations of feed and water restriction affected drinking behavior, welfare, and performance indicators in broiler breeder pullets. At 1 day of age, 960 Cobb 500 FF pullets () were randomly allocated to one of four treatments: skip-a-day feeding with water (SAD + ADLIB), every-day feeding with water (ED + ADLIB), skip-a-day feeding with 3 h daily water restriction (SAD + WR), and every-day feeding with 3 h daily water restriction (ED + WR). All data were analyzed with generalized linear or linear mixed effects models in R Studio. Drinking behavior was observed at 16 and 22 weeks at an hour after feeding (HAF), when water was turned off for SAD + WR and ED + WR (12:00), and when water access resumed for SAD + WR and ED + WR (14:30). The ED pullets displayed more drinker use at HAF at both ages ( = 0.014), while SAD treatments performed more drinker use at 12:00 ( < 0.0001) and 14:30 ( = 0.0028) at 22 weeks. The WR pullets displayed more drinker use than ADLIB pullets at HAF and 14:30 ( < 0.0001), while ADLIB pullets performed more drinker use at 12:00 ( = 0.008). Water use (g/bird) was higher in ED + ADLIB pullets at 16 and 22 weeks compared to SAD+ADLIB pullets ( = 0.042), but WR groups did not differ ( > 0.05). Litter moisture under drinker lines reflected water use patterns, with ED pens wetter at 16 weeks ( = 0.0011), but SAD pens unexpectedly had higher moisture at 22 weeks ( = 0.011). General pen area litter was wetter in SAD and ADLIB groups ( = 0.0036). Footpad scores did not differ among treatments ( > 0.05). Body weight and uniformity did not drive water use. Overall, feeding program significantly influenced water use and behavior. Compensatory drinking in WR birds may indicate a welfare concern. Future research should explore measures of satiety and hydration to better understand the behavioral and physiological impacts of water restriction.
在肉种鸡行业,限饲是一种常见做法,目的是优化鸡的健康状况和繁殖性能。然而,这种做法与饮水行为增加有关,导致水的溢出、垫料湿度升高以及脚垫损伤。因此,该行业的部分企业采用了限水方案。本研究旨在评估不同的限饲和限水组合对肉种鸡育成母鸡的饮水行为、福利和生产性能指标的影响。在1日龄时,将960只科宝500 FF育成母鸡随机分配到四种处理方式中的一种:隔日饲喂并自由饮水(SAD + ADLIB)、每日饲喂并自由饮水(ED + ADLIB)、隔日饲喂并每日限水3小时(SAD + WR)、每日饲喂并每日限水3小时(ED + WR)。所有数据均在R Studio中使用广义线性或线性混合效应模型进行分析。在16周和22周时,于喂食后1小时(HAF)观察饮水行为,此时SAD + WR和ED + WR组的水被关闭(12:00),以及SAD + WR和ED + WR组恢复供水时(14:30)。在两个年龄阶段的HAF时,ED组母鸡使用饮水器的频率更高(P = 0.014),而在22周龄时,SAD处理组在12:00(P < 0.0001)和14:30(P = 0.0028)时使用饮水器的频率更高。在HAF和14:30时,WR组母鸡使用饮水器的频率高于自由饮水组(P < 0.0001),而自由饮水组母鸡在12:00时使用饮水器的频率更高(P = 0.008)。与SAD + ADLIB组相比,ED + ADLIB组母鸡在16周和22周时的用水量(克/只)更高(P = 0.