BROILER PRODUCTION

SCHOOL BASED ASSESSMENT

CANDIDATE NAME: Anonymous

1
I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my
Teacher who gave me the golden opportunity to do this
wonderful project on the topic Broiler Production, which also
helped me in doing a lot of research and I came to know about
so many new things I am really thankful to them.

2
 Contents
ACKNOWLEDMENT
……………………………………………………………………………………..2

INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................4
LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................................................................5
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM................................................................................................................8
AIMS OF INVESTIGATION.................................................................................................................9
METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................................................10
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN.................................................................................................................11
LIST OF MATERIALS, TOOLS AND EQUIPTMENT USED...........................................................12
ACTIVITIES.........................................................................................................................................13
DATA COLLECTION..........................................................................................................................16
RESULTS.................................................................................................................................................17
TECHNICAL RESULTS......................................................................................................................18
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS.......................................................................21
FINDINGS............................................................................................................................................23
DISCUSSION...........................................................................................................................................24
CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................................................26
LIMITATIONS.........................................................................................................................................27
RECCOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................................28
COST ANALYSIS....................................................................................................................................29
PROJECTED INCOME........................................................................................................................30
PROJECTED EXPENDITURE.............................................................................................................30
PROJECTED SURPLUS.......................................................................................................................30
ACTUAL INCOME..............................................................................................................................31
ACTUAL EXPENDITURE...................................................................................................................31
TOTAL SURPLUS................................................................................................................................31
PARAMETER COMPARISON............................................................................................................32
REFERENCE............................................................................................................................................33

3
APPENDIX...............................................................................................................................................34

INTRODUCTION

4
 LITERATURE REVIEW
A broiler (Gallus gallus domesticus) is any chicken that is bred and raised

specifically for meat production. Most commercial broilers reach slaughter weight

between four and seven weeks of age, although slower growing breeds reach

slaughter weight at approximately 14 weeks of age. Typical broilers have white

feathers and yellowish skin. Broiler behaviour is modified by the environment, and

alters as the broilers’ age and bodyweight rapidly increase. For example, the

activity of broilers reared outdoors is initially greater than broilers reared indoors.

Once the broilers have reached the target live-weight, they are caught, usually by

hand, and packed live into crates for transport to the slaughterhouse.

Poultry litter or broiler litter is a mixture of poultry excreta, spilled feed, feathers,

and material used as bedding in poultry operations. This term is also used to refer

to unused bedding materials. Poultry litter is used in confinement buildings used

for raising broilers.

Wood shavings reduce smell as it reduces the ammonia in the air that comes out of

the poultry droppings. [World Export Company Limited, 2019]

5
Sand has been found to keep poultry houses cooler [ee Grimes et al., 2002].

Because sand is such a clean litter, the broiler industry can actually use it for a

longer time than other bedding materials before cleaning out the poultry house

(Grimes et al., 2002). Many factory farms only remove their organic litter (like

wood shavings) every 1 or 2 years, but they can leave sand in for 5 years

Because wood shavings are organic and decompose when chicken waste is added,

they become breeding grounds for flies. Sand, being inorganic, doesn’t have this

problem.

Studies have been carried out comparing flocks raised on sand and flocks raised on

wood shavings. One study showed that that males kept on sand were 30-40 punts

heavier with no difference noted among females. There was no difference between

the sand raised and shavings raised flocks in terms of feed conversion or mortality

and, while initially, the moisture content of the sand litter was higher, as time

passed this difference disappeared. Additionally, there was no difference in

ammonia levels. [by Abel Gernat on October 9, 2009]

6
Bilgili et al. (2009) also noted that litter caking in Wood shavings was very high

compared to sand.

7
 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The researcher wants to determine the most appropriate floor space for broiler

birds’ production. The researcher designs an experiment to investigate the

response of broiler birds to different floor spaces. The use of sand and the use of

wood shaving were used to aid the experiment as the litter for the broilers

8
 AIMS OF INVESTIGATION

 To investigate the effects of stocking density on broiler birds’ weight, feed

conservation ratio (FCR), profitability and performance.

 To investigate the effect of litter quality on the growth of broilers

 To determine whether the sand or the wood shaving would produce better

quality broiler

 To determine which method would gain more profit.

 To observe the difference in the growth of the broilers using sand and wood

shaving as litter.

9
METHODOLOG

10
 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

A brooder was prepared that kept the chicks. Two separate pens were prepared,

one containing sand and the other containing wood shaving as the litter. After two

weeks, the chicks were separated into their respected pens. Some of the chicks

were transferred to the pen with the sand, while the remaining were transferred to

the pen with the wood shaving

11
 LIST OF MATERIALS, TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT USED
TABLE SHOWING THE LIST OF MATERIALS USED TO CARRY OUT THE
EXPERIMENT.
MATERIALS,TOOLS USES
SAND Used as Litter to keep chickens/broilers
off of cold ground
WOOD SHAVING Used as Litter to keep chickens/broilers
off of cold ground
FEED Used as food for chickens/broilers
WATER Given to rehydrate the birds and aid in
growth and development.
WATERERS Used to supply the chickens with water

FEEDERS Used to supply the chickens/broilers

with feed
Hay fork Used to turn the litter to prevent it from
caking
BROOM Used to keep surrounding clean
BULBS Used to keep chickens warm during
brooding and lighting in the nights to
facilitate feeding
WHEEL BARROW Used to carry saw dust or any other

material from broilerhouse to other

location
THERMOMETER Used to ensure the broiler house is at
an optimum temperature during and
after brooding
SCALE Used to weigh the chicken

12
 ACTIVITIES
TABLE SHOWING THE ACTIVITIES THAT WERE EXECUTED DURING
THIS EXPERIMENT
Pen Preparation All unwanted and waste materials were

cleared out from the pen with the use

of brooms, spades and a bucket. The

pen was then washed and disinfected to

accommodate the arrival of the chicks.

CONSTRUCTING OF BROODING Hammer and nails for used for

AREA
constructing the pens. Tarpaulin and

feeder bags were used to secure the pen

for preventing intruders. The litter was

spread at height 6-10cm high and bulbs

were installed for the maintenance of

temperature 36-38 degrees Celsius.

Arrival of day-old Chicks All they chicks arrived vaccinated and

were placed directly in their respected

pens.

13
FEEDING OF BIRDS The chickens were given starter feed

for 3 weeks which after they were

given grower feed from 3-7 weeks.

WATERING OF BIRDS The birds were given water with the

use of the watering can when

necessary.

Weighing of birds Each week, ten random birds were

selected for weighing in aid of

gathering an average weight.

TURNING OF LITTER The later was turned with the hay fork

to prevent caking.

EXTENSION OF BROODING AREA After 3 weeks, the pens were extended.

SLAUGHTERING OF BIRDS At 7 weeks old the broilers were

slaughtered using slaughtering cones

and knives.

DRESSING OF CARCASS The carcass was washed, some were

chopped and separated the parts such as
liver, gizzard and feed and some were left
whole. They were then portioned and
placed into plastic bags and then stored in
a refrigerator.
MARKETING The produce was priced and then it was

14
available for customers to purchase.

15
 DATA COLLECTION

COMPARISON OF THE WEIGHT IN POUNDS (lb) OF THE BIRDS OVER THE SEVEN
WEEK PERIOD.
WEEK # WOOD SHAVING SAND

1 0.5 0.5

2 0.9 0.9

3 1.3 1.3

4 2.1 2.1

5 3.5 3

6 4.8 4.1

7 7.1 6.6

TABLE SHOWING CARCUS WEIGHT OF THE BIRDS IN (lb) WOOD SHAVING AND
SANT AT WEEK 7 BEFORE SLAUGHTERING

Wood shaving Sand

9 6.8

10 5.8

10 6.4

9 7.5

10 6.5

Total: 48 33

16
RESULTS

17
 TECHNICAL RESULTS

GRAPH SHOWING THE COMPARISON IN THE

AVERAGE WEIGHT (lb) OF THE BIRDS
20.5

20

19.5

19
20.2

18.5

18 18.5

17.5
WOOD SHAVING SAND

WOOD SHAVING SAND

18
CHART SHOWING THE COMPARISON OF THE
AVERAGE CARCUS WEIGHT OF THE BIRDS

WOOD SHAVING
41% SAND

59%

19
 GRAPH SHOWING THE AVERAGE DRESSING
WEIGHT OF 10 RANDOMLY CHOSEN BIRDS FROM
BOTH PENS
8

7.5 7.5
7
7 7 6.9 7
6.5 6.5 6.6
6
6
5.5
5 5.2 5.1 5.1
5 5 4.9
4.5
4 4.2 4.2

3
A
2
N
1 A
L
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Y
Wood Shaving Sand S
IS AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

FIGURE 1

Figure 1 is a bar graph showing the comparison of the average weights of the two

sets of birds, experiment 1 (wood shaving) and experiment 2 (sand). From the

results displayed by the graph, it can be seen that the birds from experiment 1

(wood shaving) weighed more than the birds in experiment 2 (sand). The

difference of the average weight of the birds is 1.7lbs.

20
FIGURE 2

Figure 2 is a pie chart depicting the difference in carcass weight of the two sets of

birds. From studying the pie chart, it was gathered that the birds from experiment 1

(wood shaving) had a higher carcass weight than that of the birds from experiment

2 (sand). The birds from experiment 1, had and average carcass weight of 48lbs

altogether while the birds in experiment had an average carcass weight of 33lbs

altogether. The difference in carcass weight was calculated as 15lbs.

21
FIGURE 3

Figure 3 is a bar graph displaying the difference in dressing weight of the two sets

of birds. The weight was taken by selecting ten random birds from both sections

and weighing them to derive at an average. From looking at the graph, it can be

seen that the birds in the wood shaving had a higher dressing weight than that of

the birds in experiment 2 (sand).

22
 FINDINGS

 The broilers from experiment 1 (wood shaving) weighed more than those in

experiment 2 (sand).

 The birds from experiment 1 (wood shaving) had a higher carcass weight

than those from experiment 2 (sand)

23
DISCUSSION

24
The mortality rate of the birds was somewhat high due to that of the mongoose

invading the pens and consuming some of the birds. This resulted in loss of a

number of birds. The pens were secured multiple times due to that. It was observed

that the last two weeks before slaughtering, the mongoose did not get to any more

of the chickens.

Abel Gernat in October of 2009 carried out an experiment similar to that of the

researcher and observed that the weights of the males that were kept on the sand

were heavier than those kept on shaving but the weight of the females were the

same. As compared to the researcher’s experiment, the birds in the wood shaving

were heavier than those in the sand. This consisted of both males and females

The carcass weight of the birds was different and it is known that the birds from

experiment 1 (wood shaving) had a higher carcass weight than the birds in

experiment 2 (sand). From observations, the birds in experiment were not given

the suitable amount of water and hence they appeared dehydrated most of the

times. This is one of the factors that affected the weight of the birds, hence, the

birds in the experiment 1 having more weight than those in experiment 2.

25
 CONCLUSION

It can be concluded that the birds that were kept in the wood shaving gained more

profit due to the fact that they had more weight and were better quality production

than those that were kept in the sand.1

26
 LIMITATIONS

 The researchers were only able to visit the farm once every week

 The birds that were kept in the pen with the sand, were not given sufficient

water and it was out of the control of the researcher since they were only

able to visit the farm once a week

 Due to the fact that the farm was only visited once every week, the pens

were not cleaned as regular as it was supposed to.

27
 RECCOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that:

 The waterers and the pens cleaned more often to promote the production

other chickens.

 Litter should be kept dry and aerated to prevent bacteria from affecting the

birds.

 Facilities need to be reinforced to prevent the chickens from being preyed

on

 Litter should be kept enclosed and away from the rain.

28
COST ANALYSIS

29
 PROJECTED INCOME

Income Weight Unit cost Total

Sale of meat 950lbs $300 $285,000
Edible parts
 Chicken 15lbs $240 $3,600
feet 18lbs $260 $4,680
 Liver 16lbs $240 $3,840
 Gizzard
Total Projected - - $297,120
Income

PROJECTED EXPENDITURE

Expenditure Quantity Unit Cost Total

Chicks 200 $200 $40,000
Feed
 Starter 6 bags $5,000 $30,000
 Grower 20 bags $4,900 $98,000
Litter
 Wood shaving 10 bags $500 $500
 Sand 2 loads $8,000 $8000
Bulbs 4 $120 $480
Transportation - $3000 $3000
Plastic bags 2 $300 $600
Miscellaneous - $5,000 $5000
Total Projected $190,080
Expenditure

=PROJECTED SURPLUS

= Total Projected Income – Total Projected Expenditure

= $297, 120 – $190.080
= $107, 040

30
ACTUAL INCOME

Income Weights (lbs.) Unit Cost ($) Total ($)

Sale of meat 640 $360 $230,400

Edible Parts:
 Chicken 12 $250 $3000
feet 9 $250 $2,250
 Gizzard 13 $250 $3,250
 Liver

Total Actual $238,900

Income

ACTUAL EXPENDITURE

Expenditure Quantity Unit Cost Total

Chicks 200 $160 $32,000

Feed
 Starter 6 $5300 $31,800
 Grower 15 $5200 $78,000
Litter 5 200 $1,000

Plastic bags 2 360 $720

Total Actual $143,520

Expenditure

TOTAL SURPLUS

TAI – TAE
= $230,900 - $143,520
= $95,380

31
 PARAMETER COMPARISON

PROJECTED AND ACTUAL PROFIT

The total projected income summed up to $297,120 whereas the actual income

summed up to $238,900. The projected income is higher due to the fact that it was

projected to sell 950lbs at $300 per lb, however in the actual income, a total of

640lbs were sold at $360 per lb. with these figures, there was a projected profit and

there was also an actual profit. Less meat was sold because there were incident of

intruders consuming the broilers resulting in a deduction in meat.

PROJECTED EXPENDITURE AND ACTUAL EXPENDITURE

The expenditure was projected to be $190,080 while the actual expenditure is

$143,520. The projected expenditure is higher since it was assumed that the cost of

the litter would be a lot more than it actually is resulting in the actual expenditure

being less. Both figures when compared to the income would’ve gained a profit.

PROJECTED SURPLUS AND ACTUAL SURPLUS

The projected surplus totaled up to $107, 040 whereas the actual surplus totaled up

to $95,380. Although the actual surplus is less than the projected surplus, there

was still a profit gained. This was so since both the projected income and

expenditure were more than the actual income and actual expenditure.

32
 REFERENCE

Bilgili et al. “Grimes et al, Sand vs. shavings” thefeatherbrain.com, 2009

https://www.thefeatherbrain.com/blog/best-chicken-coop-bedding

S J Shields. “Effect of sand and wood-shavings bedding on the behavior of broiler

chickens” pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go, NLM. Dec, 2005,
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16479936/

Abel Gernat, “Use of sand as litter for broilers” Wattpoultry, wattagnet.com,

October 9th ,2009 https://www.wattagnet.com/articles/3911-use-of-sand-as-litter-
for-broilers

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032579119447391

https://www.coursehero.com/file/39199137/Coleens-Brolier-SBAdocx/

33
34