Comparison of floored and cage housed broiler breeder farms for energy and economic efficiency in Pakistan: A case study of broiler breeder's farm in district Punjab

Authors: KHAN, ISHTIAQ, AHMAD - Agricultural University Peshawar; KHAN, SARZAMIN - Agricultural University Peshawar; SHUAIB, MUHAMMAD - Central Arid Zone Research Institute; HASSAN, UL, SOHAIB - Agricultural University Peshawar; ALQHTANI, ABDULMOHSEN - King Saud University; Pokoo-Aikins, Anthony; QURESHI, ASRAF, ALI - Roomi Poultry Limited; ALI, MAJID - Central Arid Zone Research Institute; ALAM, WAQAS - Agricultural University Peshawar

Submitted to: Pakistan Journal of Zoology
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: 10/18/2023
Publication Date: 5/1/2024
Citation: Khan, I., Khan, S., Shuaib, M., Hassan, U., Alqhtani, A.H., Pokoo-Aikins, A., Qureshi, A., Ali, M., Alam, W. 2024. Comparison of floored and cage housed broiler breeder farms for energy and economic efficiency in Pakistan: A case study of broiler breeder's farm in district Punjab. Pakistan Journal of Zoology. 1-11, 2024. https://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjz/20230810114347.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjz/20230810114347

Interpretive Summary: Research trials were completed to study the differences in cost and energy of raising breeder chickens either raised in cages (CH) or on the floor (FH). 60,000 chickens were studied to compare each type of housing. Egg prices were based on market rates at the time of the study. The cost for good eggs was found to be 12% higher in FH chickens compared to CH chickens. Costs of labor, energy, and supplies were totaled for each housing type. FH chickens were found to cost 29% more to produce than CH chickens. Incomes were measured for day-old chicks, chickens at the end of their egg-laying lives, and manure. CH chickens were found to make 2.3 times more income than FH chickens. The energy put into the raising of FH chickens was 16% higher than that of CH chickens, but the energy coming out of FH chicken raising was 9% less than CH chicken raising. The biggest sources of energy output were eggs followed by manure then meat. While both types of housing showed economical use of energy, there was only a 0.05 MJ kg-1 between the two. The cost per chick is the deciding factor for choosing the type of housing, considering addition to the environmental safety and bird’s welfare.

Technical Abstract: Research trials were conducted at commercial broiler breeder farms (n=60,000) to compare the economic and energy efficiency of floored and caged housing systems. Efficiency was evaluated by the inputs and outputs used. The egg prices were as per market rates at the time of this study. The cost for good settable eggs was 12% higher in floor-house (24.8) compared to enriched cages (22.1). The settable egg cost and the input costs during the entire egg production cycle for the floor and caged houses were human resource (labor) 3.03, 12.2% and 2.49, 11.3%; energy 0.5, 2.02% and 0.49, 2.26%; inputs purchased 11.4, 46.1% and 9.36, 42.3% and growing, rental and depreciation 9.81, 39.6% and 9.77, 44.2%, respectively. The floored flocks exhibited higher revenues when compared to caged broilers and had a total revenue of day-old chicks; 65.3, 92.6% and 53.4, 94.1%; spent birds 2.98, 4.22% and 3.12, 5.42% and manure; 2.26 and 3.2% and 0.22, 0.39% respectively. Except for spent birds, all output variables contributed more to the total higher sales revenue generated by caged flocks. Production costs per hen (4,456) and per hatched chick (33.4) at the floor houses were higher by 5.6 and 29% than the flocks housed in the enriched houses (4,219 and 25.8). Net income generated was 2.3 times higher in the enriched cages and they generated 1.67 more than floored flocks (1.27). The energy input and output values of the floored houses were 16% higher and 9% less than cage houses, respectively. Eggs were the highest energy output contributors followed by manure and meat. Energy efficiency for both types of housing were economical however, the energy used at the enriched cage housing was more efficient than in the floor pens. Specific energy use was 0.25 MJ kg-1 for the floor houses and 0.2 MJ kg-1 for the enriched cage houses, indicating judicious energy use in the current trials. The cost per chick is the determining factor for choosing the type of housing, considering addition to the environmental safety and bird’s welfare.