John smith broiler placement

John A. Smith DVM, MS, MAM

BROILER PLACEMENT DENSITY: IMPACTS ON PERFORMANCE, HEALTH

DENSITY AND ABF PRODUCTION Ò It

has been suggested that looser density aids or is necessary for ABF production to reduce NE Ò I do not know and if I did, I could not tell you!! Ò Looser density does improve performance, but at the expense of profit per unit area Ò This talk will review controlled studies in pen trials, and discuss a real-life example in commercial ABF birds

LITTLE INFORMATION ON DENSITY AND NE Ò There

is only one paper in the literature directly addressing effect of density on NE: É Tsiouris,

V et. al. High stocking density as a predisposing factor for necrotic enteritis in broiler chicks. Avian Pathol. 44:59-66, 2015.

Ò 4

pens of 60 each, straight run Cobb 500. 2 pens at 15 birds/m2 (low), 2 at 30/birds m2 (high) Ò One low and one high pen challenged with a standard cocci-Cl. perfringens challenge @ 17-20 days of age, other two pens unchallenged controls

DENSITY AND NE Ò The

challenge caused no mortality but did impair weight gain and FCR in both the low and high density groups Ò Density did NOT impair weight gain or FCR in either the control or challenged groups, and in fact weight gain and FCR were numerically BETTER in the high density pens in both the control and challenged groups! Ò Stopped at 21 days; effects may occur later

DENSITY AND NE Ò High

density did statistically increase NE lesion scores in the challenged groups, demonstrating a significant interaction between density and challenge Ò There were also higher levels of Cl. perfringens in ceca of the birds in the higher density pens Ò So, density may have an adverse effect, but did not cause economic impacts in this study

DENSITY, WELFARE, AND ECONOMICS Ò Various

customers, welfare certifying agencies, and audit instruments specify differing densities due to welfare concerns Ò Scientific data to validate the varying recommendations are scarce Ò We as an industry have two reasons to desire sound guidelines: economic and ethical Ò This talk will focus on the economics

2007 DENSITY RANGES (ESTEVEZ) Ò FMI-NCCR

6 lb/ft2 Ò RSPCA 6.14 lb/ft2 Ò Switzerland, Sweden 6.13-7.35 lb/ft2 Ò EU 6.76-8.6 lb/ft2 Ò NCC 6.5-9.0 lb/ft2 Ò UK 8.17 lb/ft2 Ò Denmark/Netherlands 9.2-11.6 lb/ft2 Ò “Health and welfare compromised if space <6.95-7.77 lb/ft2” Ò

Estevez, I. Density allowances for broilers: Where to set the limits? Poult Sci 86:1265-1272. 2007

PROS FOR HIGH DENSITY: FOLLOW THE $$ É Reduced

fuel cost for brooding É Reduced labor cost (grower pay per pound) É Reduced capital costs for housing and equipment per head or pound—if you own the housing É Generally speaking, profit per unit area is highest at the highest densities—to a limit É Most researchers agree that environmental quality has more impact than raw density; however, in the real world, density does impact environment

CONS FOR HIGH DENSITY: Ò Decreased

performance:

É Daily

gain É Final weight for age É Feed conversion Ò Litter

quality, foot pad issues Ò Scratches, carcass quality Ò Air quality, disease pressure, livability, condemnation

WHERE IS THE ECONOMIC TIPPING POINT?? Ò Ethical

issues aside: Ò Could we improve the bottom line (cost per pound of meat through evisceration) by cutting density and increasing grower pay per pound to keep the grower solvent? Ò If so, where is the tipping point??? Ò Is it the same in ABF and conventional production?

PEN TRIALS VARY TREMENDOUSLY IN TERMS OF MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ò Pen

sizes, total birds per pen—does not replicate the situation in a 50’ X 500’ house!! Ò Feed space per bird—some control, many don’t, and speculate feeder space is part of the effect Ò How to separate general density effect from feeder space effect; could you increase density if you increased feeder space? Ò Nipples per bird—same issues; most claim the water space is NOT an issue

PEN TRIALS VARY TREMENDOUSLY IN TERMS OF MATERIALS AND METHODS CONTINUED: Ò Ventilation

in pen trials is usually carefully controlled (IACUC); in real world, increased density may impact air quality, temperature Ò Some pen trials keep the density the same by adjusting pen size for mortality, some don’t Ò Almost none do the equivalent of partial brooding then turn out, although some assess density effects at different ages during a trial

PEN TRIALS VARY TREMENDOUSLY IN TERMS OF MATERIALS AND METHODS CONTINUED: Ò Pen

trials vary tremendously in:

É Final

age, final weight; these have changed É Sexed or straight run; sex effects do vary Ò Many

examine effects at different age points in the same trial, and effects often vary with age, sex, and weight at the point of examination Ò Many trials exist from the 1980’s to now; the bird has changed tremendously; how far back can we go and still be germane for today?

FIVE TRIALS Year

Breed

Sex

Pen Size , Ft2

Final Age, Days

1992

Hubbard x Hubbard

SR

24

49

2002

Ross x Ross

F

151

38, 42

2005

Ross x Cobb 500

M

45

49

2006

Ross x Ross 708

M

60

35

2006

Ross x Cobb

M

45

49

1. Cravener TL, Roush WB, Mashaly MM. Broiler production under varying population densities. Poult Sci, 1992, 71:427-33 2. Feddes JJ, Emmanuel EJ, Zuidhoft MJ. Broiler performance, body weight variance, feed and water intake, and carcass quality at different stocking densities. Poult Sci 2002, 81:774-9 3. Dozier WA, Thaxton JP, Branton SL, et al. Stocking density effects on growth performance and processing yields of heavy broilers. Poult Sci 2005, 84:1332-8 4. Dozier WA, Thaxton JP, Purswell JL, et al. Stocking density effects on male broilers grown to 1.8 Kg body weight. Poult Sci 2006, 85:344-51 5. Thaxton JP, Dozier WA, Branton SL, et al. Stocking density and physiological adaptive responses of broilers. Poult Sci 2006, 85:819-24

FIVE TRIALS Year

Feeder Space

Drinker Space

Density Adjusted?

Lights

1992

Adjusted 2.7”/bird

Fixed, 1 Plasson

No

24 hours

2002

Fixed, 177 “/pen

5, 10, 15, 20

Yes

23 hours

2005

Fixed, 1 pan/pen

Fixed, 9 nipples

No

Increasing, Max 5 D

2006

Fixed, 2 tube feeders

Fixed, 15 nipples No

Increasing, Max 5 D

2006

Fixed, 1 pan/pen

Fixed, 9 nipples

Increasing, Max 5 D

No

Only Feddes 2002 specified coccidiosis and NE control; Bacitracin Zinc Others do not mention coccidiosis control

CURRENT NCC GUIDELINES Ò Bird

Weight Range and Maximum Stocking Density: É Below 4.5 lbs live weight = 6.5 pounds per ft2 É 4.6 to 5.5 lbs live weight = 7.5 pounds per ft2 É 5.6 to 7.5 lbs live weight = 8.5 pounds per ft2 É More than 7.5 lbs live weight = 9.0 pounds per ft2 Ò EU: 6.76-8.6 lb/ft2

TRIAL 1, 1992, 49 DAYS, SR, CRAVENER Ft2/bird

Lb/Ft2

Weight

Birds/pen

0.54

7.76

4.17B

42

0.75

5.85

4.40A

30

0.97

4.70

4.54A

24

1.18

3.83

4.52A

20

NCC: 6.5 for <4.5lb Ft2/bird

FCR

% Mortality

% Blisters/burns

0.54

2.25

1.9B

30.4A

0.75

2.20

5.2A

2.5B

0.97

2.22

0B

0.63B

1.18

2.33

2.5AB

0B

TRIAL 1, 1992, 49 DAYS, SR Ò BW:

trend with density, statistically the three looser densities better than the densest Ò FCR: Was better at higher density at 5 weeks, but NS at 6 or 7 weeks Ò Mortality: no clear pattern or trend Ò Blisters and burns: trend with density, but statistically, the three looser densities better than the densest

TRIAL 1, 1992, 49 DAYS, SR Heterophil to Lymphocyte ratio is an indicator of stress; high is bad, low is good Ò Could not document stress from crowding; many other studies find similar results Ò Profit potential was highest at 0.54 Ft2/bird Ò

Ft2/bird

H:L Ratio

0.54

.282B

0.75

.297B

0.97

.424A

1.18

.445A

“Main behavioral categories remained mostly unchanged even at high densities under experimental and commercial conditions.” (Estevez)

TRIAL 2, 2002, 38-42 DAYS, â&#x2122;&#x20AC;, FEDDES Ft2/bird

Lb/Ft2

Weight

BW CV %

Birds/pen

0.45

9.605a

4.18b

13.0b

260

0.60

7.086b

4.25b

13.6b

195

0.75

5.857c

4.39a

13.4b

156

0.90

5.714d

4.21a

15.3a

130

NCC 6.5 <4.5 lb Ft2/bird

Feed Consumed

FCR

Water Consumed

Water/feed

0.45

6.61b

1.72

5,546a

1.85a

0.60

6.75b

1.72

5,420a

1.75b

0.75

7.00a

1.73

5.399a

1.70c

0.90

6.58b

1.70

5,093b

1.70c

TRIAL 2, 2002, 38-42 DAYS, ♀ Ò BW

again increased with decreasing density, but peaked at the next-to-lowest density; CV actually increased at the lowest density Ò FCR again was not significantly impacted Ò Water consumption appears to increase with density; nipple numbers in this trial did not significantly impact water consumption Ò Mortality again was not impacted by density Ò Density did not impact breast yield

TRIAL 2, 2002, 38-42 DAYS, â&#x2122;&#x20AC; Ft2/bird

% Condemnation

% Scratches

0.45

2.3

31

0.60

1.3

31

0.75

0.7

26

0.90

1.3

30

TRIAL 3, 2005, 49 DAYS, â&#x2122;&#x201A;, DOZIER Ft2/bird

Lb/Ft2

Weight

Feed Consumed

FCR

Birds/pen

0.79

9.22

6.53

11.86

1.847

56

0.89

8.19

6.70

12.21

1.826

50

1.01

7.17

6.81

12.24

1.825

43

1.18

6.14

6.96

12.41

1.814

37

p

NCC 8.5

0.011

0.029

0.093

Ft2/bird

% Mortality

% Moisture

Pad Score

% Scratches

% Tears

0.79

7.5

46.6

1.0

53.5

14.5

0.89

7.3

43.7

0.9

58.7

13.3

1.01

7.8

39.3

0.6

51.4

15.5

1.18

3.6

38.8

0.5

41.9

13.5

p

0.188

0.025

0.001

0.021

0.965

TRIAL 3, 2005, 49 DAYS, â&#x2122;&#x201A; Ft2/bird

Birds/Nipple

Feed Inch/bird

Fillet %

Tender %

0.79

6.2

0.77

16.3

3.61

0.89

5.6

0.86

16.5

3.56

1.01

4.8

1.00

16.6

3.55

1.18

4.1

1.16

16.4

3.55

0.720

0.129

p

TRIAL 3, 2005, 49 DAYS, ♂ Ò Growth

rate and FCR were better as density increased at 17 days (more warmth for brooding), but this effect was lost with age Ò Rate of growth was more adversely affected as the birds progressed in BW, and for 1-49 days the effect was significant on BW and feed consumption, and approached significance for FCR (p=0.093).

TRIAL 3, 2005, 49 DAYS, ♂ Ò Some

of the growth suppression may be due to restricted feeder space Ò Litter moisture, pad lesions, and scratches increased significantly with density, but lameness did not Ò Breast yield % was not significantly affected, but the decrease in BW means less meat

TRIAL 4, 2006, 35 DAYS, â&#x2122;&#x201A;, DOZIER Ft2/bird

Lb/Ft2

Weight

Feed Consumed

FCR

Birds/pen

0.50

7.78

3.95

6.09

1.580

120

0.57

6.76

3.95

6.06

1.571

105

0.67

6.14

4.12

6.28

1.558

90

0.80

5.12

4.19

6.30

1.535

75

p

NCC 6.5

0.0001

0.0001

0.0001

Ft2/bird

% Mortality

% Moisture

Pad Score

% Scratches

% Tears

0.50

1.9

43.3

1.238

45.8

15.6

0.57

1.5

36.4

0.963

57.9

12.9

0.67

1.9

36.0

0.750

58.3

11.5

0.80

2.2

29.6

0.375

50.0

8.3

p

0.545

0.0001

0.0001

0.594

0.146

TRIAL 4, 2006, 35 DAYS, â&#x2122;&#x201A; Ft2/bird

Birds/Nipple

Feed In/bird

Fillet %

Tender %

0.50

8

0.75

15.6

3.60

0.57

7

0.87

15.8

3.64

0.67

6

1.02

15.9

3.52

0.80

5

1.22

16.1

3.56

0.006

0.196

p Ft2/bird

Hetero:Lymph

Corticosteroids

Glucose

Cholesterol

0.50

0.90

897

264

132

0.57

1.03

963

250

136

0.67

0.94

911

248

135

0.80

0.92

912

242

131

p

0.95

0.96

0.11

0.77

TRIAL 4, 2006, 35 DAYS, ♂ Ò Similar

results with bigger birds Ò BW gain better with higher density early, but lost by 35 days Ò Increasing density negatively impacts BW, feed consumption, and FCR Ò Total mortality not affected

TRIAL 4, 2006, 35 DAYS, ♂ Ò Density

did not influence physiological indicators of stress Ò As in previous trial, litter moisture and foot pad lesions were impacted Ò Contrary to Trial 3, scratches were not affected, and fillet yield was affected Ò “A universal stocking density is not appropriate for broilers of various body weights”

TRIAL5, 2006, 49 DAYS, ♂, THAXTON Ò This

trial was similar to the last two, but looked mainly at the physiological measures of stress Ò In two trials, density varied from 4.10 to 11.26 lb/ft2 Ò Density did NOT cause changes in corticosterone, glucose, cholesterol, total nitrites, or the heterophil:lymphocyte ratio indicative of stress

SUMMARY: IMPACT OF INCREASING DENSITY Study

Age

Weight

FCR

Mortality

Foot Pads Stress

Cravener

49

Sig

No pattern, Not Sig

NP, NS

Sig

Feddes

38-42

Sig

No pattern, Not Sig

Dozier

49

Sig

P=0.093

NP, NS

Sig

Dozier

35

Sig

P=0.0001

NP, NS

Sig

Thaxton

49

NP = No Pattern NS = Not Significant

Sig

NP, NS NS

REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE IN ABF BIRDS Ò We

began supplying a customer who desired HFAC Certification Ò Among other requirements (such as “environmental enrichment”), they require 1 ft2/bird on our 6.4 lb bird (6.4 lb/ft2) (NCC 8.5) Ò We assigned a small group of growers with 2house farms to comply with this program; average growers Ò Only 1 flock/week, so numbers are small

REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE Generally older farms (2 houses) Ò An average farm would have a deviation from prime cost of 0.00¢ Ò Average deviation for the HFAC farms prior to starting the HFAC program: Ò

1-year deviation from prime cost: +0.031¢ É 2-year deviation from prime cost: +0.006¢ É

1-year deviation company range: -0.64¢ to +0.72¢ (removing two outliers with major wrecks) Ò 2-year deviation company range: -0.49¢ to +0.53¢ (again removing two outliers with major wrecks) Ò

REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò

HFAC was ABF 6.4 lb contract, Hubbard M-99 x Cobb 500 Started 6/13/13, about 1 flock/week for 8 months Downloaded all settlements for the ABF 6.4 contract Sorted by density Compared flocks with 0.8 to 0.85 ft2/bird placement density (average 0.843) to the HFAC flocks at 1.0 density Same feeds, feeding schedule, breeds, etc, scattered evenly across the 8 months First 2 months: Deccox/Amprol; 3 months vaccine-Amprol; 3 months Nicarb-Coyden (no ionophores, no antibiotics) Minimal NE in the entire operation during this time

REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE: PERFORMANCE Density

Flocks

Age

BW

GPD

FCR

0.80-0.85

903

48.2

6.42

0.133

1.890

1.00

37

46.7

6.45

0.138

1.838

1.43

0.03

0.005

0.052

Difference Density

Adj. FCR

Livability

Condemn

Prime Cost

7-day Mort

0.80-0.85

1.856

96.40

1.031

16.608

1.12

1.00

1.803

97.22

0.952

16.189

0.92

Difference

0.053

0.824

0.079

-0.416

0.20

REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE: GROWER PAY Ò 50’

x 500’ = 25,000 ft2

É @0.85

= 29,412 head x 96.5% live = 28,383; @ 6.4 lb and $0.059 / lb = $10,717.41 per flock É @1.00 = 25,000 head x 97% live = 24,250; @ 6.4 lb and $0.069 / lb = $10,708.80 É 1¢ per pound more É For the US broiler industry, that is a LOT of money!

REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE: ECONOMICS Ò 1

M head; fixed chick, feed, overhead, vaccine, catch and haul, and processing costs that approximate current costs Ò Conventional: used 1.85 FCR, 96.5% livability, and 6.4 lb BW to figure tons of feed used; used $0.059/lb grower pay and 1.00% condemn Ò HFAC: used 1.80 FCR, 97% livability, and 6.4 lb BW to figure tons of feed used; used $0.069/lb grower pay and 0.95% condemn Ò Figured total live cost and total cost through evisceration

REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE: CONCLUSIONS Ò Total

live cost: HFAC 0.008¢/live pound better ($0.00008) Ò Cost through evisceration: HFAC 0.01¢/good pound better ($0.0001); $640.00 per week on 1 M 6.4 lb birds; About break even Ò Over time, would it be better, not as good???

Effect on best, worst growers? Ò Same metrics for conventional (not ABF)??; Vaccine only?? Ò Need 18% more square feet!!—Logistical efficiency

DENSITY AND NE Ò Vaccine

purveyors recommend brooding density long enough to achieve early cycling Ò Early performance is often better at higher density Ò Adverse effects of density tend to occur later in the grow-out Ò NE generally occurs +16 days of age Ò Will loose density help NE???