Broiler performance at different stocking density

Abstract

Stocking density has critical implications for the broiler industry because higher returns can be obtained as the number of birds per unit space increases, but economic profit may come at the cost of reduced bird performance, health, and welfare if densities are excessive. Present study aimed at determining the optimum spacing density for Cobb-100 broilers in hot, humid area of West Bengal. Average body weight, mortality per cent, Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR), Production index, Profitability index, Total revenue and Net Profit per unit area of floor space were analyzed in broilers corresponding to four spacing density-T1(0.8 sq.ft per bird), T2 (1.0 sq. ft per bird), T3 (1.5 sq. ft per bird) and C (1.2 sq. ft per bird). Average body weight of T3 group was found to be highly significant (p<0.01) compared to other groups in the age of both 4th and 6th week. No significant difference was found in mortality percentage. Broiler welfare in terms of mortality percentage is little compromised in high stocking density. However, FCR, Production index, Profitability index and total revenue were found to be significantly (p<0.01) lower in T1 group (0.8 sq.ft per bird) in comparison to T2, T3 and Control. Interestingly, net profit per unit area of floor space was found to be non significant among all the groups. It was concluded that farmers with limitations of space should go for high stocking density with proper ventilation with no significant financial loss.

Full text

AGRICULAGRICUL
AGRICULAGRICUL
AGRICUL
TURAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATURAL RESEARCH COMMUNICA
TURAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATURAL RESEARCH COMMUNICA
TURAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION CENTRETION CENTRE
TION CENTRETION CENTRE
TION CENTRE
wwwwww
wwwwww
www.ar.ar
.ar.ar
.arccjourccjour
ccjourccjour
ccjournals.com / indianjournals.com / indianjour
nals.com / indianjournals.com / indianjour
nals.com / indianjournals.comnals.com
nals.comnals.com
nals.com
Indian J. Anim. Res.,
4646
4646
46 (4) : 381 - 384, 2012
BROILER PERFORMANCE ABROILER PERFORMANCE A
BROILER PERFORMANCE ABROILER PERFORMANCE A
BROILER PERFORMANCE AT DIFFERENT STOCKING DENSITYT DIFFERENT STOCKING DENSITY
T DIFFERENT STOCKING DENSITYT DIFFERENT STOCKING DENSITY
T DIFFERENT STOCKING DENSITY
Sarbaswarup Ghosh*, Debasis MajumderSarbaswarup Ghosh*, Debasis Majumder
Sarbaswarup Ghosh*, Debasis MajumderSarbaswarup Ghosh*, Debasis Majumder
Sarbaswarup Ghosh*, Debasis Majumder11
11
1 and Rupak Goswami and Rupak Goswami
and Rupak Goswami and Rupak Goswami
and Rupak Goswami22
22
2
Agricultural Training Center, Ramakrishna Mission Ashrama,
Narendrapur - 700 103, India
Received: 30-04-2011 Accepted: 27-03-2012
ABSTRACTABSTRACT
ABSTRACTABSTRACT
ABSTRACT
Stocking density has critical implications for the broiler industry because higher returns can beStocking density has critical implications for the broiler industry because higher returns can be
Stocking density has critical implications for the broiler industry because higher returns can beStocking density has critical implications for the broiler industry because higher returns can be
Stocking density has critical implications for the broiler industry because higher returns can be
obtained as the number of birds per unit space increases, but economic profit may come at the costobtained as the number of birds per unit space increases, but economic profit may come at the cost
obtained as the number of birds per unit space increases, but economic profit may come at the costobtained as the number of birds per unit space increases, but economic profit may come at the cost
obtained as the number of birds per unit space increases, but economic profit may come at the cost
of reduced bird performance, health, and welfare if densities are excessive. Present study aimed atof reduced bird performance, health, and welfare if densities are excessive. Present study aimed at
of reduced bird performance, health, and welfare if densities are excessive. Present study aimed atof reduced bird performance, health, and welfare if densities are excessive. Present study aimed at
of reduced bird performance, health, and welfare if densities are excessive. Present study aimed at
deterdeter
deterdeter
determining the optimum spacing density for Cobb-100 broilers in hot, humid armining the optimum spacing density for Cobb-100 broilers in hot, humid ar
mining the optimum spacing density for Cobb-100 broilers in hot, humid armining the optimum spacing density for Cobb-100 broilers in hot, humid ar
mining the optimum spacing density for Cobb-100 broilers in hot, humid area of Wea of W
ea of Wea of W
ea of West Bengal.est Bengal.
est Bengal.est Bengal.
est Bengal.
AA
AA
Average body weight, morverage body weight, mor
verage body weight, morverage body weight, mor
verage body weight, mortality per cent, Ftality per cent, F
tality per cent, Ftality per cent, F
tality per cent, Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR), Peed Conversion Ratio (FCR), P
eed Conversion Ratio (FCR), Peed Conversion Ratio (FCR), P
eed Conversion Ratio (FCR), Production inderoduction inde
roduction inderoduction inde
roduction index, Px, P
x, Px, P
x, Profitabilityrofitability
rofitabilityrofitability
rofitability
indeinde
indeinde
index, Tx, T
x, Tx, T
x, T
otal rotal r
otal rotal r
otal revenue and Net Pevenue and Net P
evenue and Net Pevenue and Net P
evenue and Net Profit per unit arrofit per unit ar
rofit per unit arrofit per unit ar
rofit per unit area of floor space werea of floor space wer
ea of floor space werea of floor space wer
ea of floor space were analyzed in broilers core analyzed in broilers cor
e analyzed in broilers core analyzed in broilers cor
e analyzed in broilers corrr
rr
respondingesponding
espondingesponding
esponding
to four spacing densityto four spacing density
to four spacing densityto four spacing density
to four spacing density--
--
-TT
TT
T11
11
1(0.8 sq.ft per bird), T(0.8 sq.ft per bird), T
(0.8 sq.ft per bird), T(0.8 sq.ft per bird), T
(0.8 sq.ft per bird), T22
22
2 (1.0 sq. ft per bird), T (1.0 sq. ft per bird), T
(1.0 sq. ft per bird), T (1.0 sq. ft per bird), T
(1.0 sq. ft per bird), T33
33
3 (1.5 sq. ft per bird) and C (1.2 (1.5 sq. ft per bird) and C (1.2
(1.5 sq. ft per bird) and C (1.2 (1.5 sq. ft per bird) and C (1.2
(1.5 sq. ft per bird) and C (1.2
sq. ft per bird). Average body weight of T3 group was found to be highly significant (p<0.01)sq. ft per bird). Average body weight of T3 group was found to be highly significant (p<0.01)
sq. ft per bird). Average body weight of T3 group was found to be highly significant (p<0.01)sq. ft per bird). Average body weight of T3 group was found to be highly significant (p<0.01)
sq. ft per bird). Average body weight of T3 group was found to be highly significant (p<0.01)
compared to other groups in the age of both 4compared to other groups in the age of both 4
compared to other groups in the age of both 4compared to other groups in the age of both 4
compared to other groups in the age of both 4thth
thth
th and 6 and 6
and 6 and 6
and 6thth
thth
th week. No significant difference was found in week. No significant difference was found in
week. No significant difference was found in week. No significant difference was found in
week. No significant difference was found in
mortality percentage. Broiler welfare in terms of mortality percentage is little compromised in highmortality percentage. Broiler welfare in terms of mortality percentage is little compromised in high
mortality percentage. Broiler welfare in terms of mortality percentage is little compromised in highmortality percentage. Broiler welfare in terms of mortality percentage is little compromised in high
mortality percentage. Broiler welfare in terms of mortality percentage is little compromised in high
stocking densitystocking density
stocking densitystocking density
stocking density. However. However
. However. However
. However, FCR, P, FCR, P
, FCR, P, FCR, P
, FCR, Production inderoduction inde
roduction inderoduction inde
roduction index, Px, P
x, Px, P
x, Profitability inderofitability inde
rofitability inderofitability inde
rofitability index and total rx and total r
x and total rx and total r
x and total revenue werevenue wer
evenue werevenue wer
evenue were founde found
e founde found
e found
to be significantly (p<0.01) lower in Tto be significantly (p<0.01) lower in T
to be significantly (p<0.01) lower in Tto be significantly (p<0.01) lower in T
to be significantly (p<0.01) lower in T11
11
1 group (0.8 sq.ft per bird) in comparison to T group (0.8 sq.ft per bird) in comparison to T
group (0.8 sq.ft per bird) in comparison to T group (0.8 sq.ft per bird) in comparison to T
group (0.8 sq.ft per bird) in comparison to T22
22
2, T, T
, T, T
, T33
33
3 and Control. and Control.
and Control. and Control.
and Control.
InterInter
InterInter
Interestinglyestingly
estinglyestingly
estingly, net profit per unit ar, net profit per unit ar
, net profit per unit ar, net profit per unit ar
, net profit per unit area of floor space was found to be non significant among all theea of floor space was found to be non significant among all the
ea of floor space was found to be non significant among all theea of floor space was found to be non significant among all the
ea of floor space was found to be non significant among all the
groups. It was concluded that farmers with limitations of space should go for high stocking densitygroups. It was concluded that farmers with limitations of space should go for high stocking density
groups. It was concluded that farmers with limitations of space should go for high stocking densitygroups. It was concluded that farmers with limitations of space should go for high stocking density
groups. It was concluded that farmers with limitations of space should go for high stocking density
with proper ventilation with no significant financial loss.with proper ventilation with no significant financial loss.
with proper ventilation with no significant financial loss.with proper ventilation with no significant financial loss.
with proper ventilation with no significant financial loss.
Key wordsKey words
Key wordsKey words
Key words: Body weight, Broiler, Economic parameters, Space requirement.
INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
Poultry industry in India is often referred to
as ‘
Sun Rising Industry’
among all agro-based
industry. India has emerged as the 4th and 5th largest
producers of eggs and poultry meat respectively in
the world (FAO, 2008).
Commercial broiler producers often rear
broilers in high stocking density situation to achieve
higher profits. However, this practice may lead to
reverse effect than anticipated by them, resulting in
higher mortality and lower body growth (Estevez
2007; Mtileni
et al
2007; Hall 2001). This effect is
due to lower air flow and consequently higher heat
accumulation at birds’ micro climate level (Feddes
et al
2002). This effect might be more pronounced
and severe in hot-humid tropical climate. Therefore,
a standard guideline was needed for the farmers and
broiler integrators of the hot and humid Southern
Bengal. The objective of the present study was to
evaluate the effect of stocking density on body
weight gain, feed conversion ratio (FCR),
mortality and some economic indexes of broilers
in this region.
MAMA
MAMA
MATERIALS AND METHODSTERIALS AND METHODS
TERIALS AND METHODSTERIALS AND METHODS
TERIALS AND METHODS
This study was conducted in the broiler farm
at Ramakrishna Mission Ashram at Narendrapur
(22º22N and 88º25 E) in West Bengal during
November -December’ 2010. The house was a
conventional open sided house with natural
ventilation and deep litter system. A total of 360
day-old chicks (VenCobb-100) were weighed, wing-
banded and randomly placed at 12 pens, so that
each pen contains 30 chicks. Initially all the birds
were placed in 0.3 ft2 and 0.5 ft2 per bird floor place
for first and second week respectively. This was done
to acclimatize chicks of all the groups to the farm
*Corresponding author e-mail : drsarba@rediffmail.com
1Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Mohanpur, Nadia-741 252, West Bengal, India.
2IRDM Faculty Center, RKMVU, Narendrapur, West Bengal-700 103, India.

382 INDIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL RESEARCH
environment more uniformly. From third week
onwards the birds were kept in four stocking
densities – 0.8 ft2 per bird (T1), 1.0 ft2 per bird (T2),
1.5 ft2 per bird (T3) and 1.2 ft2 per bird (C) upto the
age of 6th week. First three groups (T1, T2, and T3)
were kept as treatment groups and the last group
(C) as control group. Stocking density of the control
group was obtained from Cobb-100 broiler manual
(http://www.venkys.com/archive/vencobb/
vencobbManagementGuides.html). Each density
was replicated thrice. Standard management
practices including vaccinations and medications
were deployed through out the entire trial period.
Environmental temperature and humidity was
recorded outside the farm house and documented
daily during trial period. Body weight of each bird
was recorded at weekly interval by electronic
weighing balance with an accuracy of ±1.00 gm.
Mortality percentage was also recorded at weekly
interval. Final body weight, weekly mortality, feed
conversion ratio, production index and net profit per
unit area was calculated at the end of the trial.
The total cost includedThe total cost included
The total cost includedThe total cost included
The total cost included: Costs for the purchase of
day-old chicks, pellet feed, saw dust as litter, the
energy costs, other material costs (drugs, vaccines
and disinfectants) and labor costs. The cost of starter
feed and finisher feed was respectively at the rate of
Rs. 21.00 and Rs. 21.50 per kg respectively. The
main financial income is achieved by selling of final
product, that is, the fattened broiler chickens. Price
of day-old chicks in trial period was Rs. 28/- per
piece and the matured birds were sold at Rs. 70 per
kg live weight.
Net Profit is calculated as = (Income from selling
birds – Total cost of production)
Profitability index = (Net Profit/Total Revenue)
(Total revenue means total income from selling birds
@ Rs. 70/- per kg live weight ).
Production index was calculated by the following
formula-
PI = [body weight in kg x (100 - % mortality) /
Duration of fattening in days x feed conversion ratio]
x 100.
Statistical MethodStatistical Method
Statistical MethodStatistical Method
Statistical Method
All the data obtained was analyzed in SPSS
(version 10.0) computer program by one-way
ANOVA for more than 2 groups of observations.
Multiple comparisons were made by Duncan’s
multiple range tests (Duncan 1955). Square root
transformation has been applied over raw data of
mortality frequency; hence only mean values are
given but no standard error given. Probability of p
< 0.05 and p < 0.01 was described as significant
and highly significant respectively.
RESULRESUL
RESULRESUL
RESUL
TS AND DISCUSSIONTS AND DISCUSSION
TS AND DISCUSSIONTS AND DISCUSSION
TS AND DISCUSSION
Body WBody W
Body WBody W
Body Weighteight
eighteight
eight
Mean ± SE of 2nd, 4th and 6th week average
body weight of broiler pens as influenced by stocking
densities and their analysis of variance are presented
in Table 1.
Highly significant (p<0.01) body weight
gain was observed in T3 group (1.5 sq. ft/bird density)
in both 4th and 6th week. Birds of T3 group gave
highest body weight in 4th and 6th week. No
significant difference of body weight was observed
between T2 and control group at the age of 6th week.
No significant difference of body weight was
observed among treatment and control groups in 2nd
week. The body weight gain of T1 group (0.8 sq. ft
per bird) is least in 4th and 6th week. This could be
due to the effect of stress, induced by high bird
density. More bird density leads to more litter
moisture, air ammonia and microbial counts in the
house (Jayalakshmi
et al
2009) and consequently
body weight gain could be restricted. This result is
consistent with the findings of Proudfoot
et al
1979;
TABLE 1: Mean ± SE of 2nd , 4th and 6th week average body weight (gm).
2nd wk 4th wk 6th wk
T1352.330a±1.450 1118.000c±3.060 1879.000c±7.370
T2351.330a±1.760 1120.000c±1.150 1958.670b±4.330
T3352.670a±0.670 1262.000a±2.000 2007.000a±8.660
C 350.670a±0.670 1217.330b±3.710 1971.670b±2.030
‘F’ Value 0.55NS 729.38** 76.80**
Means bearing at least one common superscript in each column do not differ significantlyNS Non Significant (p>0.05), *
Significant (p<0.05), ** Highly significant (p<0.01).

383Vol. 46, No. 4, 2012
TABLE 2: Mean ± SE of 4th , 6th week and total mortality.
(Square root transformed values from raw mortality percentage data)
4th wk 6th wk Total Mortality
T10.179 0.222 0.201
T20.180 0.113 0.147
T30.198 0.112 0.155
C 0.198 0.155 0.176
‘F’ Value 0.064NS 1.787NS 1.108NS
NS Non Significant (p>0.05), * Significant (p<0.05), ** Highly significant (p<0.01).
TABLE 3: Mean ± S.E of FCR, production index, profitability index, total revenue, Net profit per unit area of floor and
coefficient of economic efficiency.
FCR Production Index Profitability Index Total Revenue(Rs.) Net Profit per Unit
area of floor space(Rs.)
T11.883a±0.033 214.025b±7.667 0.217b±0.016 3550.913b±67.281 18.390ab±2.626
T21.763b±0.030 244.120a±6.725 0.267a±0.008 3793.183a±42.203 22.763a±1.775
T31.767b±0.020 252.534a±3.660 0.293a±0.003 3933.720a±16.974 16.547a±0.652
C 1.787b±0.017 242.408a±5.119 0.271a±0.009 3818.453a±45.858 18.547ab±1.115
‘F’ Value 4.83* 7.82** 10.17** 11.90** 2.36 NS
Means bearing at least one common superscript in each column do not differ significantlyNS Non Significant (p>0.05), *
Significant (p<0.05), ** Highly significant (p<0.01).
Puron
et al
1995; Feddes
et al
2002; Keeling
et al.
2003; Dozier
et al
2005 and Mitrovic
et al
2010.
MortalityMortality
MortalityMortality
Mortality
Mean ± SE of 4th, 6th week and overall
mortality of broiler pens as influenced by stocking
densities and their analysis of variance are presented
in Table 2.
No significant difference in mortality was
observed during 4th, 6th and overall mortality
calculation. Similar result was found by Feddes
et al
2002. However, highest overall mortality was seen
in T1 group (0.8 sq.ft/bird) and maximum part of
the mortality was seen in the 6th week of the same
group. Sixth week mortality of T1 group could also
be attributed to stress and increased microbial load
in the litter. Overall mortality is lowest in T2 group
(1.0 sq.ft/bird), but considerably higher in control
(1.2 sq.ft/bird) group.
Economic parametersEconomic parameters
Economic parametersEconomic parameters
Economic parameters
Mean ± S.E of various economic parameters
as influenced by stocking densities and its analysis
of variance are presented in Table 3.
FCR of T1 group (0.8 sq. ft per bird) was
found to be significantly higher (p<0.05) among
other treatment and control groups. However Puron
et al
(1995), did not observe any significant
difference of FCR with varying bird density. In the
present study, high FCR of T1 group may be due to
overall lower body weight gain. Production index,
profitability index and total revenue were found to
be significantly (p<0.01) lower in T1 group (0.8 sq.ft
per bird) in comparison to T2, T3 and Control. This
clearly indicates high bird density has significant
impact on economic parameters. Similar findings
on production index were observed by Mitrovic
et al
(2010). Most interestingly, no significant (p>0.05)
differences were found among all the treatment and
control groups when analysis done on net profit per
unit area of floor.
CONCLCONCL
CONCLCONCL
CONCLUSIONUSION
USIONUSION
USION
Based on the above findings of the present
study, it could be concluded that increasing bird
density significantly affect bird’s performance in the
term of body weight gain. Overcrowding may trigger
release of stress hormones that could in turn reduce
body weight and maximize FCR. But bird density
seems not to have any correlation with net profit per
unit area of floor space. So, there are ways in either
direction. A farmer with limitations of space for
broiler farming should go for high density (0.8 sq. ft
per bird) farming with precise system for ventilation
that could effectively used for soothing birds’
microclimate. Again when a farmer’s focus is on
bird’s size and body weight rather than number, he
should opt for low bird density (1.5 sq. ft per bird).

384 INDIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL RESEARCH
Varying bird density showed little impact on broiler
welfare in terms of mortality percentages. This is also
in harmony with the findings of Dwakins
et al
2004.
In hot and humid climate like Southern Bengal,
conventional spacing density, as per Cobb-100
manual, stands well for optimum performance.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to thank Dr. Manas Ghosh,
Principal and Dr. Satinath Das, Senior Lecturer of
Agricultural Training Center, Narendrapur for
providing necessary facilities and continuous
support.
REFERENCESREFERENCES
REFERENCESREFERENCES
REFERENCES
Cobb broiler manual—Retrieved from. http://www.venkys.com/archive/vencobb vencobbManagementGuides.html
Dawkins, M.S., Donnelly, C.A., Jones, T.A.. (2004). Chicken welfare is influenced more by housing conditions than
by stocking density.
Nature
Jan 22; 427427
427427
427(6972):342-4
Dozier, W.A., Thaxton,J.P., Branton, S.L., Morgan, G.W., Miles, D.M., Rush, W.B., Lott B.D. and Vizzer Thaxton Y.
(2005) Stocking density effects on growth performance and processing yields of heavy broilers.
Poult.
Sci.
84: 84:
84: 84:
84: 1332-1338.
Duncan, D.B., (1955). Multiple range and multiple F- tests.
Biometrics
1111
1111
11: 1–42.
Estevez, I. (2007). Density allowances for broilers: where to set the limits.
Poult. Sci
. 8686
8686
86: 1265-1272.
FAO, Rome (2008) Poultry Sector Country review. Retrieved from (ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/ak069e
ak069e00.pdf).
Feddes, J.J.R., Emmanuel, E.J. and Zuidhof. M.J. (2002). Broiler performance, bodyweight variance, feed and water
intake, and carcass quality at different stocking densities.
Poult. Sci.
8181
8181
81:774–779.
Hall, A. L. (2001). The effect of stocking density on the welfare and behavior of broiler chickens reared commercially.
Anim. Welf
. 1010
1010
10:23–40.
Jayalakshmi, T., Kumararaj R., Sivakumar, T., Thanga Thamil Vanan
and Thiagarajan, D., (2009). Influence of
stocking densities on litter moisture, microbial load, air ammonia concentration and broiler performance.
Tamilnadu J. Vety. & Ani. Sci.
5 5
5 5
5 (3): 80-86.
Keeling, L. J., Estevez, I., Newberry R.C., and Correia, M.G., (2003). Production-related traits of layers in different
sized flock: The concept of problematic intermediate group sizes 1.
Poult. Sci.
8282
8282
82:1393–1396.
Mitrovic, Sreten., Vladan Dermanovic, Mihailo Radivojevic, Zoran Rajic, Dragic •ivkovic, Dorde Ostojic and Nikola
Filipovic. (2010).
Afr. J Biotechnol
. 99
99
9: 4486-4490.
Mtileni B. J., Nephawe, K.A., Nesamvuni, A.E. and Benyi, K., (2007). The influence of stocking density on body
weight, egg weight, and feed intake of adult broiler breeder hens.
Poult. Sci.
8686
8686
86:1615–1619.
Proudfoot, F. G., Hulan, H.W., and Ramey D.R., (1979). The effect of four stocking densities on broiler carcass
grade, the incidence of breast blisters, and other performance traits.
Poult.Sci
. 5858
5858
58:791–793.
Puron, D., Santamaria R., Segaura, J.C., and Alamilla, J.L., (1995). Broiler performance at different stocking
densities.
J. Appl. Poult. Res
. 44
44
4:55–60.