4.7 Article

Broiler performance, body weight variance, feed and water intake, and carcass quality at different stocking densities

Journal

POULTRY SCIENCE
Volume 81, Issue 6, Pages 774-779

Publisher

POULTRY SCIENCE ASSOC INC
DOI: 10.1093/ps/81.6.774

Keywords

broiler management; stocking density; body weight; water; feed consumption

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The effects of four stocking and water nipple densities on broiler performance and carcass traits were measured in two trials. The stocking densities of 23.8, 17.9, 14.3, and 11.9 birds/m(2) corresponded to 260, 195, 156, and 130 birds per pen, respectively. The water nipple densities were 5, 10, 15, and 20 birds per water nipple. Birds in Trial 1 were processed at Day 39 and those in Trial 2 were processed at Day 42. Water and feed were provided ad libitum and light was provided 23 h/d. Water nipple density had no effect on broiler performance or carcass quality. Birds grown at 23.8 birds/m(2) had lower BW (1,898 g) and carcass weights (1,334 g), whereas birds grown at 14.3 birds/m(2) had the highest BW (1,985 g) and carcass weights (1,432 g). Although the treatment with 23.8 birds/m(2) gave the lowest BW, the yield of broilers per unit of floor space was highest (46.0 kg/m(2)). The coefficient of variation for BW was higher in the treatment with 11.9 birds/m(2) (15.3%) than in the other treatments (13.0%). The birds in the treatment with 11.9 birds/m2 consumed the least feed (2,993 g/bird) and those in the 14.3 birds/m(2) treatment consumed the most feed (3,183 g/bird). The amount of water consumed and the water to feed ratio was highest in the 23.8 birds/m(2) treatment (5,546 mL/bird and 1.85 mL/g, respectively). Stocking density had no effect on mortality, breast yield, carcass grading, incidence of scratches, or carcass quality. It was concluded high yield per unit area with good carcass quality could be achieved when ventilation rate and air circulation were adequate.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available