Cultural energy analysis on broilers reared in different capacity poultry houses

Abstract

Data obtained from 4 different capacity houses were evaluated to analyse the cultural energy and perfor- mance of broilers. Capacities of housings were 20,000, 25,000, 30,000 and 60,000 birds per production peri- od and they were assigned as HI, HII, HIII and HIV, respectively. The study was conducted in 2005 in which there were 6 production periods of 45 days. Data collected for each period were: date of starting and finish- ing; number of chicks entered and broilers sold; live weight at slaughter; carcass weight; feed consumption for starting, growing and finishing phase; labour; medication, vaccination and disinfectant; electricity con- sumption; heating and cooling methods and amount spent; distance for transportation of feed, chicks, broil- ers, wood shaving, limestone; and other miscellaneous expenditures. Ross 308 chickens in all houses received the same commercial feed and water ad libitum. Chicks were reared under a conventional temper- ature regimen. Chicks were fed starter, grower and finisher diets according to their ages. Even though capac- ities for houses were different their stocking densities were 16.36, 16.00, 16.38 and 16.54 birds/m2 for HI, HII, HIII and HIV, respectively. For cultural energy analysis, feed, transportation, labour, machinery, electric- ity, brooding, and other inputs were calculated and corresponding energy values for each input were obtained from literature. For the analysis it was assumed that carcasses would have 18.2% protein and 15.2% fat. Total cultural energy invested in broilers in HIII was lower than that of broilers in HI (P< 0.05). Energy input per kg live weight gain and per kg carcass of HIII were lower than that of HI (P< 0.05, P< 0.01, respective- ly). The HIII had lower cultural energy ratio for protein energy output than HI (0.01). Energy efficiency (kcal input/kcal output) of HIII was better than that of HI (P< 0.01). Results of the study showed that increasing capacity of housings decreases cultural energy input up to certain capacity and indicated that increasing housing capacity without interfering with performance could be a means for energy conservation in sustain- able agriculture

Investigation of poultry housing capacity on energy efficiency of broiler chickens production in tropical areas

“…This reduction in feed consumption as in poultry house size increased may relate on high conversion efficiency. These results are in agreement with Atilgan and Hayati (2006), who showed that housing capacity increases CE expended per kg of weight gain, and per Mcal of protein energy output decreases in 30,000 birds but increased in 60,000 birds. CE expended on electricity increased as housing capacity increased.…”

Analysis of the energy efficiency of poultry houses in the Bursa region of Turkey

“…Moreover, many researchers worldwide have studied EUE in the poultry production sector, including broiler (Sibbald 1982;Andrews & Zimmermann 1990;Grobas et al 1999;Atilgan & Koknaroglu 2006;Jekayinfa 2007;Heidari et al 2011a) and laying hens (Ojo 2003;Yusuf & Malomo 2007;Ashagidigbi et al 2011, Sefeedpari et al 2012. However, there have been no studies related to the EUE of egg production and comparison of energy uses in laying hens and broiler production farms in Turkey.…”

“…These factors have encouraged an increase in energy inputs to maximize growth, feed efficiency and profitability, to minimize labour-intensive practices, or both (Atilgan & Koknaroglu 2006;Esengun et al 2007). Efficient energy use in the poultry production is as significant as in agricultural production due to its potential to provide financial savings, preserve fossil fuel resources and reduce air pollution (Uzal 2012).…”

Effect of Feed Restriction on Broiler Chicks Prior to Slaughter

“…Feeding accounts about 70% of the cost of production, which can sometimes rise up to 80% [3] [4] and this high cost created the need to improve the efficiency of feed utilization. This experiment was designed to implement feed restriction programs in order to control the increase of carcass weight to be within the preferable market weight (1100 -1200 g/bird) and to determine the economic impact of these programs.…”