UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A study of management practices on broiler farms in British Columbia Vanderstoep, John 1968

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1968_A4 V35.pdf [ 8.01MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0104191.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0104191-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0104191-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0104191-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0104191-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0104191-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0104191-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0104191-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0104191.ris

Full Text

A STUDY OF. MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ON BROILER FARMS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA  by JOHN VANDERSTOEP B.S.A., U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1966  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE i n the Department of Poultry Science V/e accept t h i s thesis as conforming  to the  required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA JULY, 1968  In p r e s e n t i n g  for  this  thesis  an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e  that  the  Study.  thesis  Library shall  I further  for  agree  at  in p a r t i a l  the U n i v e r s i t y of  make i t  that  permission  of  my w r i t t e n  Department o f  this  thesis  for  permission.  P o u l t r y Science  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h V a n c o u v e r 8, Canada Date  for  J u l y 25,  Columbia  1968  It  is  financial  the  requirements  Columbia,  I agree  reference  and  e x t e n s i v e copying of  s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e  publication  without  for  of  British  free1y avai1ab1e  D e p a r t m e n t o r b y h.ils r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .  or  fulfilment  Head o f my  understood  gain  this  shall  that  not  be  copying  allowed  ABSTRACT The o p e r a t o r s  of  a s a m p l e o f 104 B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a  farms were q u e s t i o n e d to  obtain information  aspects  rearing operation.  tained  of  their  broiler  information  watering,  on a l l  aspects of  concerning  brooding,  o b t a i n e d were c o m p i l e d and t h e  all  The r e s u l t s feeding  v a c c i n a t i o n and m e d i c a t i o n and s a n i t a t i o n  The d a t a t h u s  broiler  con-  and  practices.  sample c h a r a c -  terized.  The d a t a w e r e a n a l y s e d t o  determine  relationship  t h e number o f  broilers  evaluation of  c e r t a i n management p r a c t i c e s was a l s o  out.  r e a r e d to  the  management p r a c t i c e s .  of  An  carried  iii Table of. Contents Page Abstract  i i  l i s t of Tables Acknowledgements  v ix  CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION  1  I I . METHODOLOGY  6  The Sample  6  Survey Schedule  7  Procedure  8  Analysis of Data  9  Plan of Study  9  I I I . SAMPLE. CHARACTERISTICS  10  l o c a t i o n , Size and P h y s i c a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  10  Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  12  Operational C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  15  IV. MANAGEMENT PRACTICES  20  Introduction  20  Brooding  24  Watering  40  Feeding  49  Feeding Programmes  61  Vaccination and Medication  64  Unit Operations  75  iv CHAPTER  Page 75  Sanitation  85  V. DISCUSSION VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS  89  •  Brooding  89  Watering  90  Feeding  91  Feeding Programmes  -  92  Vaccination and Medication  92  Unit Operations  93  Sanitation  94  BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX A APPENDIX B  96  V  LIST OF TABLES Table  Page I II  III IY V VI  Number of Units i n Relation to Quota Size  21  Productive Floor Area Per Unit i n Relation . to Quota Size  22  Brooding Room Condition i n Relation to Quota Size  24  Types of Brooder Hovers i n Relation to Quota Size  25  Types of Brooding Systems i n Relation to Quota Size  26  Types of Brooders i n R e l a t i o n to Productive Floor Area  VII VIII IX X  Type of Brooder Fuel i n Relation to Quota Size  28  Brooder Capacity i n Relation to Quota Size  28  Percentage of Brooder Capacity used (Summer) i n Relation to Quota Size Percentage of Brooder Capacity used (Winter)  30  i n Relation to Quota Size XI  Location of Brooders i n Relation to Quota Size  XII  Location of Brooders i n Relation to Productive Floor Area Brooding Area per Chick i n R e l a t i o n to Quota Size Brooding Floor Area i n Relation to Productive  XIII XIV  Floor Area XV XVI XVII  26  Types of Chick Guards i n Relation to Quota Size Types of Chick Guards i n Relation to Brooding Room Condition Use of Chick-Attraction Lights i n Relation to Quota Size  30 31 32 33 33 34 35 36  vi Table  Page  XVIII  Brooder Temperature ( F i r s t Week) i n Relation to Quota Size  3 7  Brooding Room Condition i n Relation to Brooder Temperature  3 7  XX  length of Summer Brooding Period i n Relation to Quota Size  3 8  XXI  Length of Winter Brooding Period i n Relation to Quota Size  3 9  XIX  XXII  Types of Waterers (During F i r s t Week of Brooding) i n Relation to Quota Size 4 0  XXIII  Types of Waterers (During F i r s t Week of Brooding) i n Relation to Type of Brooding 4 1  XXIV XXV XXVI  A v a i l a b l e Watering Space (During F i r s t Week of Brooding) i n Relation to Quota Size  4 3  Discontinuation of Manual Watering i n Relation to Quota Size  4 5  Amount of Watering Space (During the Growing Period) i n Relation to Quota Size -  4 6  XXVII  A d j u s t a b i l i t y f o r Height of Waterers i n Relation to Quota Size 4 7  XXVIII  Maximum Distance to Waterers (During the Growing Period) i n R e l a t i o n to Quota Size 4 7  XXIX  Type of Feeders (During I n i t i a l Brooding Period) i n Relation to Quota Size 4 9  XXX  Number of Feeders (During I n i t i a l Brooding Period) i n Relation to Quota Size  5 0  Types of Feeders (During Growing Period) i n Relation to Quota Size  5 1  Pressence of Mechanical Feeding System (During Growing Period) i n Relation to Quota Size  5 2  XXXIII  Type of Automatic Feeding System i n Relation to Quota Size  5 3  XXXIV  Type of Manual Feeding System i n Relation to Quota Size  5 3  XXXI XXXII  vii  Table  Page  XXXV XXXVI XXXVII XXXVIII XXXIX XL  A d j u s t a b i l i t y f o r Height of Feeders i n Relation to Quota Size  54  Age When on Secondary Feeders i n Relation to Quota Size  55  Feeding Space per 1 0 0 0 Birds (During Period) i n Relation to Quota Size  56  Growing  Amount of Feeding Space per 1 0 0 0 Birds i n R e l a t i o n to Type of Feeders  58  Maximum Distance to Feeders (During the Growing Period) i n R e l a t i o n to Quota Size  59  Feeding Programmes used i n Relation to Quota 61  Size Form of Feed i n Relation to Quota Size  62  Use of Feeding G r i t i n R e l a t i o n to Quota Size  63  Type of Vaccine Used i n R e l a t i o n to Quota Size  65  XLIV  Time of Vaccination i n Relation to Quota Size  66  XLV  Means of Vaccine Administration i n Relation to Quota Size Types of Medication (During the F i r s t Week of Brooding) i n Relation to Quota Size  XLI XLII XLIII  XLVI XLVII  XLVIII XLIX L LI LII  66 68  Means of Administering Medication (During F i r s t Week of Brooding) i n Relation to Quota Size  69  Types of Medication (After the F i r s t Week) i n Relation to Quota Size  70  Means of Administering Medication (After the F i r s t Week) i n Relation to Quota Size  72  Use of and Type of Pen Dividers i n Relation to Quota Size  73  Number of Birds per Pen i n the Divided i n Relation to Quota Size  74  Units  Type of L i t t e r i n Relation to Quota Size  75  V l l l  Table  Page  LI 11  Amount of L i t t e r i n R s l a t i o n to Quota Size  76  Frequency of Complete Oleanout of L i t t e r i n Relation to Quota Sizo  77  LV  Means of Dust Removal i n Relation to Quota Size  78  LVI  Employment of Washing or Steam Cleaning i n Relation to Quota Size  79  Means of S a n i t i z i n g Units i n Relation to Quota Size  80  R e s t r i c t i o n of Entry to V i s i t o r s i n Relation to Quota Size  82  Cleaning and D i s i n f e c t i o n of Equipment i n R e l a t i o n to Quota Size  83  Disposal of Dead Birds i n Relation to Quota Size  84  LIV  LVII LVIII LIX IX  ix  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The w r i t e r wishes to express sincere appreciation to h i s advisor, Dr. J.E. Richards, f o r h i s suggestions, help and encouragement throughout the course of t h i s study.  He i s also  indebted to the members of h i s committee who c r i t i c a l l y read his manuscript. The author i s g r a t e f u l to Mr. W.H. Pope, Poultry Commissioner and Mr. H. Gasperdone, Poultry S p e c i a l i s t , B r i t i s h  Columbia  Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , under whose d i r e c t i o n the survey, from which data f o r t h i s study were taken, was c a r r i e d out. Appreciation i s also expressed to those people who offered suggestions during the preparation of the survey form. The b r o i l e r growers, who took part i n the study, deserve s p e c i a l thanks f o r providing the data f o r t h i s study.  1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION B r o i l e r growing, which had i t s modest beginning about 10 or 15 years ago, today i s a s u b s t a n t i a l industry, accounting f o r a considerable portion of the annual poultry farm income of B r i t i s h Columbia.  Poultry products accounted f o r 19$ of  B r i t i s h Columbia's farm cash income i n 1965, second only to d a i r y i n g with 30$ and ahead of beef with 13$ and tree f r u i t s with 11$"^.  Although no value could be found f o r b r o i l e r s  alone, p o u l t r y and eggs accounted f o r over 26 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s or 19$ of the t o t a l value of a g r i c u l a t u r a l products sold from B r i t i s h Columbia census  farms i n 1966 and approximately 20$ "5  4  '  of the t o t a l value of products sold from commercial-'farms . The b r o i l e r industry i n B r i t i s h Columbia i n 1966 cons i s t e d of approximately 170 growers producing about 12,225,000 b r o i l e r s per year .  B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , Farm Economics D i v i s i o n , The Business of Farming and Ranching, V i c t o r i a , 1966, p. 21. 2 Canada, Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s d e f i n i t i o n of "census-farm" was as a holding of one acre or more i n s i z e , with sales of a g r i c u l t u r a l products, during the 12 months p r i o r to June 1, 1966, valued at $50 or more. 3 ^Canada, Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s d e f i n i t i o n of "commercial-farm" was as "census-farm" with sales of $2500 or more. ^Canada, Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Census of Canada1966- Agriculture - Data f o r Census - Farms and Commercial Farms, 1967 (Catalogue No. 96-626).  2  Using the 1965 Canadian n a t i o n a l average per c a p i t a consumpt i o n o f 26 pounds o f e v i s c e r a t e d f o w l and chickens  , about  48,715,000 pounds of f o w l and chicken was consumed by the 1966  7  B r i t i s h Columbia p o p u l a t i o n o f 1,873,674 persons'. Of the t o t a l number o f commercial p o u l t r y farm operations i n B r i t i s h Columbia, 569 or 71$ were i n the F r a s e r V a l l e y and 115 or 14$ were on Vancouver I s l a n d ^ .  Without d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n  f o r meat or egg p r o d u c t i o n , j u s t under 90$ o f the under-two month-old c h i c k s i n 1966 were on census "*"°farms i n the Praser V a l l e y and about 6$ on Vancouver I s l a n d . A marine c l i m a t e c h a r a c t e r i z e s the Praser V a l l e y , w i t h v a r i a t i o n o c c u r i n g due t o e l e v a t i o n and d i s t a n c e from the S t r a i t o f Georgia. approximately  The mean annual range o f temperature i s  27° P, the mean J u l y and August temperature being 1 ?  about 63° P, and that of January and February 37° P.  The  f r o s t - f r e e p e r i o d ranges from 175 t o 230 days i n d i f f e r e n t p a r t s of the V a l l e y and the mean annual p r e c i p i t a t i o n ranges from 37 t o about 80 i n c h e s . ^ B r i t i s h Columbia B r o i l e r Marketing Board l i s t o f R e g i s t e r e d Growers, 1966. ^Canada, Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Canada Yearbook D i v i s i o n , Canada Yearbook - 1967, Ottawa, 1967, p. 483. 7  Canada, Dominion Bureau o f S t a t i s t i c s , Census o f Canada 1966 - A g r i c u l t u r e - P o p u l a t i o n of Census - Farms; Tenure, Age and Residence of Operators, Part-Time Operators, 1967, (Catalogue No. 96-625). 8  C f . ante P. 1.  3  Because of t h i s r e l a t i v e l y favourable climate  f o r the  growing of "broilers, the B r i t i s h Columbia b r o i l e r industry has a comparative advantage over s i m i l a r i n d u s t r i e s i n other regions.  This comparative advantage of climate i s o f f s e t ,  however, by production costs, which seem to be higher p a r t i c u l a r l y feed p r i c e s , than i n areas such as the Canadian 13 Prairies.  The  Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s  , i n reporting  average r e t a i l feed p r i c e s state that on January 1, 1966 s t a r t e r (18-20$) sold f o r $4.89 per cwt. f o r $5.06 per cwt. it- sold f o r $5.13 $3.40 and  $5.31  respectively.  $3.60 per ton on January 1, 1966  B r o i l e r s t a r t e r (20-23$) sold f o r $5.13 1966  and  on the P r a i r i e s and  i n B r i t i s h Columbia and and  $5.32 and  cases v/ere $7.00 and respectively.  and  $5.87 at January 1, 1967  and i n B r i t i s h Columbia r e s p e c t i v e l y .  chicken  The  on January 1,  1967  This difference and  1967  was  respectively.  $5.48 at January 1, on the P r a i r i e s difference i n these  $11.00 per ton on January 1, 1966.and  S i m i l a r differences were reported  1967  f o r growing  mash. Therefore the industry competes on a r e g i o n a l basis to a much greater  extent than i t does i n t e r n a l l y .  Columbia industry thus competes against  The  British  regions which can  and  do produce b r o i l e r s at a lower cost.  Canada, Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Census of Canada 1966 - A g r i c u l t u r e - Census - Farms by Economic Class; Commercial Farms by Product Type, 1967. (Catalogue No. 96-624) p. 15 - 16~]  4  To r e m a i n c o m p e t i t i v e  on t h i s b a s i s , the B r i t i s h  Columbia  i n d u s t r y as a whole must r e l y on s u p e r i o r management p r a c t i c e s and  the  c o n t i n u e d advancement o f  Superior v a n c e s and  technology.  management, a d o p t i o n o f new  m a r k e t i n g c o n t r o l can a l l a i d the  t i o n o f the i n d u s t r y , but  a l l three  such i n f o r m a t i o n  phase.  Up  to  i n supplying  the  demand f o r b r o i l e r s i n the f u t u r e , g r o w t h o f p h y s i c a l  in  informathe basis.  growing facil-  s u c h t h a t t h e y can p r o d u c e the a d d i t i o n a l p r o d u c t  the most e f f i c i e n t , but y e t the  c h e a p e s t p o s s i b l e manner.  In order f o r such growth to take p l a c e , t h e p r e s e n t f a c i l i t i e s must be The  posi-  e x i s t s on an i n d i v i d u a l - f a r m  In order to remain competitive  i t i e s must be  ad-  competitive  a p p r o a c h e s r e l y on  t i o n about a l l a s p e c t s o f the p r o d u c t i o n p r e s e n t no  technological  basic information  about  available.  s i z e o f the b r o i l e r i n d u s t r y i n terms o f the number  o f f a r m s , the p h y s i c a l f a c i l i t i e s  on farms and  b r o i l e r s p r o d u c e d i s f i x e d i n the  short-run,  the number o f  and  i s i n large  p a r t d e t e r m i n e d by the m a r k e t i n g c o n t r o l s a d m i n i s t e r e d  by  the  B r i t i s h Columbia B r o i l e r M a r k e t i n g Board.  C f . a n t e p. 1966 1967,  1.  "^Canada, Dominion B u r e a u o f S t a t i s t i c s , Census o f Canada- A g r i c u l t u r e - L i v e s t o c k and P o u l t r y on Census-Farms, ( C a t a l o g u e No. 9 1 ^ 3 3 7 7 "  5  Ix has been the p o l i c y of the B.C.  B r o i l e r Marketing  Board  to s t a b i l i z e and reduce the average rate of increase i n farm production.  It i s conceivable therefore that had no  Marketing  Board been established, there would have been fewer but l a r g e r farms.  The p r o t e c t i o n offered the smaller operations by the  Board's existence, enabled t h e i r s u r v i v a l .  Without t h i s pro-  t e c t i o n many smaller operations would probably have  disappeared  f o r s o l e l y economic reasons. Although growth has been s t a b i l i z e d over the past years, differences i n the s i z e of farms s t i l l e x i s t .  Whether there  are d i f f e r e n c e s i n the management p r a c t i c e s as r e l a t e d to farm s i z e , i s not known. The purpose of t h i s study then, was  to obtain basic i n -  formation about a l l aspects of the b r o i l e r growing phase; the farm i n general, the b u i l d i n g construction, b u i l d i n g operation and management p r a c t i c e s , and i n p a r t i c u l a r to analyse management p r a c t i c e s on the basis of farm size and to determine i f p r a c t i c e s are r e l a t e d to s i z e .  B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of Lands and Forests, The Lower Coast B u l l e t i n - B u l l e t i n Area No. 3» Queens P r i n t e r , V i c t o r i a , 1959, .p. 43. 13 Canada, Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , P r i c e s D i v i s i o n , Prices and Price Indexes - January 1967, A p r i l , 1967, (Catalogue No. 62-002) p. 35.  6  CHAPTER I I METHODOLOGY  A sample o f b r o i l e r growers i n B r i t i s h Columbia was drawn. The i n t e r v i e w i n g s c h e d u l e (Appendix A) o r s u r v e y form was constructed all  t o o b t a i n as much i n f o r m a t i o n as p o s s i b l e  aspects of b r o i l e r r e a r i n g i n the i n d u s t r y .  concerning  The growers  making up t h e sample o f r e s p o n d e n t s , were i n t e r v i e w e d and t h e data a n a l y s ed.  I.  SAMPLE  A sample o f 129 b r o i l e r growers v/as s e l e c t e d to per  arbitrarily  i n c l u d e a l l those growers w i t h a quota"'" o f o v e r 8,000 b i r d s b a t c h as s e t out by the B r i t i s h Columbia B r o i l e r M a r k e t i n g  Board.  The v a l i d i t y  o f the sample was checked a g a i n s t the  B r i t i s h Columbia B r o i l e r M a r k e t i n g Board l i s t  of registered  growers, t o determine whether a l l  growers f e l l  limit  A l l growers i n t h i s  in  o f a quota o f 8,000 b i r d s .  w i t h i n the s e t  B r i t i s h Columbia, w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f a v e r y  small  number o u t s i d e t h e P r a s e r V a l l e y and Vancouver I s l a n d were i n c l u d e d i n t h i s proposed sample.  category  areas,  S e v e r a l growers  within  t h i s sample d i d not p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e s t u d y , and as such a final  sample o f 104- d i f f e r e n t  farms were s u r v e y e d .  Quota s i z e r e f e r s t o the b a s i c number o f b i r d s which a producer i s p e r m i t t e d t o market every twelve weeks.. The a c t u a l number o f b r o i l e r s marketed may f l u c t u a t e around t h i s base f i g u r e as the M a r k e t i n g Board attempts t o meet c u r r e n t demand by a d j u s t i n g the amount o f p r o d u c t marketed.  7  I I . SURVEY SCHEDULE I n d e c i d i n g t h e k i n d o f i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h was t o be obtained, suggestions producing, and  were s o l i c i t e d f r o m r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f t h e  h a t c h i n g and p r o c e s s i n g phases o f t h e b r o i l e r i n d u s t r y  f r o m t h e B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e , P o u l t r y  and A g r i c u l t u r a l E n g i n e e r i n g B r a n c h e s and t h e Departments o f P o u l t r y S c i e n c e and A g r i c u l t u r a l E n g i n e e r i n g at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia. of the i n f o r m a t i o n obtained  and M e c h a n i c s  A brief description  i n the d i f f e r e n t sections of the  survey f o l l o w s . General  Farm  Information  I n t h i s s e c t i o n q u e s t i o n s were asked t o d e t e r m i n e t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e f a r m g e o g r a p h i c a l l y , t o p o g r a p h i c a l l y and i n r e l a t i o n t o other farms; l a y o u t o f the farm i n r e l a t i o n t o t o p o g r a p h i c a l f e a t u r e s ; s u p p l y o f w a t e r ; type o f o w n e r s h i p ; f i n a n c i a l v a l u e o f t h e o p e r a t i o n ; t h e farm income; age and experience  o f t h e f a r m o p e r a t o r ; number o f b r o i l e r s r a i s e d and  marketed and t h e l a b o u r r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e o p e r a t i o n . Building  Information  I n f o r m a t i o n v/as o b t a i n e d  on t h e age o f t h e b u i l d i n g ; c o n -  s t r u c t i o n o f t h e b u i l d i n g and t h e c o s t o f e r e c t i o n ; s t a t e o f s t r u c t u r e w i t h r e g a r d t o r e p a i r and r e m o d e l l i n g ; d i m e n s i o n s o f t h e b u i l d i n g ; l o c a t i o n o f t h e f e e d b i n s and u s e o f t h e b u i l d i n g .  8 Building  Operation  O b s e r v a t i o n s were made and q u e s t i o n s asked t o determine the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f f l o o r s , r o o f s and c e i l i n g s ; c o n t r o l and type o f v e n t i l a t i o n and amount o f l i g h t i n g ;  openings  location,  size,  and equipment; type  types and dimensions  o f s e r v i c e en-  trances. Management P r a c t i c e s I n f o r m a t i o n was o b t a i n e d on the type o f b r o o d i n g ; types o f f e e d e r s and w a t e r e r s and amount o f f e e d i n g and w a t e r i n g  space;  the f e e d i n g programs; use o f and type o f m e d i c a t i o n and v a c c i n a t i o n ; use and type o f s a n i t a t i o n measures; type and amount o f l i t t e r used and the f r e q u e n c y o f l i t t e r  III.  cleanout.  PROCEDURE  P r i o r t o i n t e r v i e w i n g the growers p e r s o n a l l y , an attempt was  made t o e n l i s t  the c o - o p e r a t i o n o f the growers.  done by informing- them o f the study and i t s purpose, meetings,  T h i s v/as a t growers'  i n growers' b u l l e t i n s and i n a form l e t t e r t o each  grower from the P o u l t r y Commissioner's o f f i c e .  Following t h i s ,  a p e r s o n a l c a l l v/as made t o a r r a n g e a s u i t a b l e time t o complete the survey form.  At the time the survey v/as taken,  were made t o c o l l e c t  attempts  the i n f o r m a t i o n as e f f i c i e n t l y as p o s s i b l e  w i t h minimum d i s t u r b a n c e o f the working  r o u t i n e o f the grower.  S a n i t a r y p r e c a u t i o n s were employed v/hen i t was n e c e s s a r y t o e n t e r any p a r t o f the growers' e s t a b l i s h m e n t s . was  conducted  The survey f i e l d  from June 1 t o September 16, 1966.  work  9  .During the i n i t i a l interviews, improvements i n the survey form were noted and changes i n the format were made i n order to f a c i l i t a t e more accurate recording of the information. Although considerable persuasion v/as necessary to e n l i s t the co-operation of some of the growers, a l l hut a few agreed to he interviewed.  As a r e s u l t the t o t a l number of farms f o r  which information v/as obtained i s one hundred and four.  IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA The information was transcribed to computer cards and analysed.  The a n a l y s i s consisted of frequency tabulations of  the responses to each question asked and b i v a r i a t e frequency tabulations f o r various combinations  of responses.  The r e s u l t s of the survey i n frequency tabulation form have been published separately.  (Vanderstoep)  V. PLAN OP STUDY The remaining chapters of t h i s study, are an analysis of the management p r a c t i c e s on the b r o i l e r farms surveyed, s p e c i f i c a l l y with respect to the brooding, feeding, watering, medicat i o n , vaccination, general r e a r i n g conditions and b u i l d i n g and equipment s a n i t a t i o n and to determine the r e l a t i o n s h i p of these p r a c t i c e s to farm s i z e .  Vanderstoep J . , H. Gasperdone, W.H. Pope and J.P. Richards, A Study of B r i t i s h Columbia's B r o i l e r Industry, Part I, I I , III and IV, B r i t i s h Columbia Department of A g r i c u l t u r e and the Department of Poultry Science, The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1967; 1968 (a, b and c ) .  10  CHAPTER I I I SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS General information about the l o c a t i o n , size and p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the farms, the investment i n the growing f a c i l i t i e s , product output, labour requirements and the age and experience of the operators, was obtained f o r each farm i n the sample.  The data as reported here has been published by  Vanderstoep et_ a l . ^ I. LOCATION, SIZE AND  PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS  The majority of farms surveyed were located i n one of three areas; namely, Matsqui-Sumas with 39.4$, Langley with 31.7$ or Surrey-White Rock with 18.3$ farms.  of the sample of b r o i l e r  The remainder of the farms surveyed were i n other areas  of the Praser V a l l e y and on Vancouver Island.  (Appendix B  Table I ) Although there were fewer farms surveyed i n the Langley than i n the Matsqui-Sumas area the t o t a l quota held by langley area farms was 735,300 compared to 697,800 f o r Matsqui-Sumas area farms.  (Appendix B, Table I)  In general the size of farms i n terms of quota varied considerably; 18.3$  of the farms had a quota size of l e s s than  10,000, 39.4$ with 10,000 to 19,000, 25-0$ with 20,000 to  Vanderstoep e_t a l . , l o c . c i t .  11  29,000, 13.5$ with 30,000 to 39,000 and 3-7$ with over 40,000 birds. The acreage of the farms varied from l e s s than 10 up to 80 acres.  The majority of the farms were established on 10  acres or l e s s (51$) and almost one-third (29.8$) on 10 to 19 acres.  In most cases only a small proportion of the t o t a l farm  was used f o r the b r o i l e r e n t e r p r i s e . Expansion of the p h y s i c a l f a c i l i t i e s was possible f o r 86.5$ of the operations, but f o r 6.7$ expansion was impossible due to r e s t r i c t i o n s i n zoning r e g u l a t i o n s . The buildings were located on l e v e l ground on approximately tv/o-thirds of the farms and on sloping ground on approximately one-quarter of the farms. Almost a l l the farms were located such that a i r movement and water drainage around the buildings v/as adequate  f o r proper  v e n t i l a t i o n of the buildings and prevention of surface water build-up. Only 16.3$ of the farms had municipal water and the r e mainder u t i l i z e d natural sources, p r i m a r i l y wells and a r t e s i a n springs. Only 17-3$ of the farms were over one mile from neighbouring poultry establishments, 55.8$ were l e s s than one-quarter of a mile and the remainder were between one-half and one mile from another poultry establishment.  12  B r o i l e r s were reported as the main enterprise on a l l farms with no other enterprise on 61.6$ of the farms, one other enterp r i s e on 31.7$ of the farms and two other enterprises on 6.7$ of the farms.  Of the f o r t y farms which had enterprises other  than b r o i l e r s , beef, small f r u i t and other poultry i n that order were the enterprises most commonly reported.  I I . ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS Ownership Approximately 83$ of the farms were p r i v a t e l y owned unincorporated enterprises and the remaining  17$ were corporate  farms. Seventy-five per cent of the farm owners were employed only on the farm, 12.5$ were employed on the farm and had a d d i t i o n a l employment elsewhere and 12.5$ were employed only i n off-farm  occupations.  Almost a l l the farm owners resided on the farm and about 10$ of the farms had resident managers. In studying the adoption and r e j e c t i o n of innovations by p  dairymen i n the Eraser V a l l e y , Gubbels  found that only 68$ of  the respondents owned t h e i r farms, 10$ owned part and rented the Peter M. Gubbels, "The Adoption and Rejection Of Innovations by Dairymen i n the Lower Fraser V a l l e y " (unpublished Master's Thesis, The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1966) p. 32-46.  13  remainder, and only one respondent was a h i r e d manager.  He  also reported that 78$ of the respondents d i d not have any o f f farm employment and only 5$ were employed three-fourth to almost f u l l time o f f t h e i r farms. Investment T o t a l investment i n the b r o i l e r enterprise on each farm ranged from l e s s than $10,000 to over $80,000.  Investment of  $10,000 to $30,000 was most common, accounting f o r almost oneh a l f of the farms.  This investment i n the b r o i l e r enterprise  was e s s e n t i a l l y the t o t a l farm investment farms.  f o r 26.9$ of the  For 26$ of the farms the investment i n the b r o i l e r enter-  p r i s e accounted f o r l e s s than one-half of the t o t a l farm i n vestment.  For the other 43.3$ of the farms the b r o i l e r enter-  p r i s e investment accounted 51$ to 90$ of the t o t a l farm i n v e s t ment. The differences i n the proportion of the t o t a l farm investment accounted f o r by the investment i n the b r o i l e r enterprise i s due to the l a r g e r acreages and secondary and/or t e r t i a r y enterprises on some farms. The average amount of $10,000 to $30,000 invested i n the b r o i l e r enterprise alone, was lower than the median value of $50,000 to $80,000 reported f o r dairy farms.  4  T o t a l farm investment includes land, buildings and other non-residence f a c i l i t i e s which are not associated with the broiler enterprise. 4  Gubbels, l o c . c i t .  14  L"he per b i r d investment, on the basis of quota s i z e , ranged from less than $1.00  to over $2.50.  Forty-five  per cent of the  farms reported a per b i r d investment of $1.00 to $1.49 18.3$ of $1.50 to $1.99.  and  The o v e r a l l average investment v/as  $1.45 per b i r d . Income From the information obtained on the contribution of the various enterprises to t o t a l farm income i t v/as found that on 69.2$ of the farms, a l l farm income was from b r o i l e r s and that on 10.6$, 80 to 90$ of the farm income was from b r o i l e r s . Of those farms whose farm income from b r o i l e r s was  100$,  about 85$ had no other enterprises and the remaining 15$ had one other enterprise v/hich provided no income.  Of these farms with  100$ of the income from b r o i l e r s , 67$ of the owners had no o f f farm employment and about 33$ of the owners had off-farm employment.  Of those farms which provided 80 to 90$ of the farm i n -  come from b r o i l e r s , a l l had one a d d i t i o n a l enterprise and a l l but  one of the farm owners were employed  only on the farm.  Of the 83 farms providing at l e a s t 80$ of the farm income from b r o i l e r s , about 70$ of the owners had no off-farm employment, suggesting that f o r the majority of the farms surveyed, b r o i l e r s provided the t o t a l or almost the t o t a l income of the owners.  15  In comparison, Gubbels  reported that about 18$ of the  sample of dairy farm respondents, received income from farm enterprises other than d a i r y i n g , 68$ did not receive any nonfarm income and 8$ had a non-fa.rm income equal to, or greater than, t h e i r farm income. I l l OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Operators  1  Age and Experience  The ages of the operators  ranged from 20 to over 65 years.  More than one-half of the operators were over 50 years of age and about one-quarter were under 36 years of age. Only 30$ of the dairy operators, on the other hand, were t.  more than 50 years old while only 14$ were under 35, with a 7 median age of 45 to 54 years. o About 36$ of a l l 1966 B r i t i s h Columbia census-farms ators v/ere over 55 years of age, 12$ were under 34 and 28$ q p r i s e d the l a r g e s t single category of 45 to 54 years.  opercom-  Gubbels, l o c . c i t . The operator i s the main decision maker on each farm, e i t h e r the owner or the manager. 7 8 'Gubbels, l o c . c i t . Cf. ante p. 1. 9 Canada, Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Census of Canada 1966 - A g r i c u l t u r e - Population on Census-Farms; Tenure, Age and Residence' oT~^erator*s,[ Part-Time Operators", 1967, (Cata1 ogue~ToT~9o^"62577  16  Almost 50$ of the operators had been employed i n b r o i l e r growing f o r 6 to 10 years, over 25$ f o r l e s s than 6 years and more than 25$ f o r over 11 years.  This d i s t r i b u t i o n of engage-  ment, i n b r o i l e r growing i n d i c a t e s that there has been a considerable turnover of b r o i l e r farm operators i n the industry. The survey reveals that about 75$ of the operators had 10 or l e s s years a s s o c i a t i o n with b r o i l e r growing.  This points  out that b r o i l e r growing i s a r e l a t i v e l y new industry with s p e c i f i c experience l a c k i n g i n general. General a g r i c u l t u r a l experience whether with b r o i l e r s , other poultry or other forms of a g r i c u l t u r e , was quite high:  68.5$  of the operators had over 11 years of a g r i c u l t u r a l experience. The majority of dairy farm operators had a considerable amount of farming and d a i r y i n g experience:  75$ had been farm-  ing 20 years or more and 54$ had been d a i r y i n g 20 years or more. ' 1  Labour Approximately  e i g h t y - s i x per cent of the farms were.oper-  ated with labour supplied e i t h e r by the owner alone or the owner and family and/or h i r e d help.  Only 13.5$ of the farms  were operated with labour supplied by h i r e d help alone.  This  i s not s u r p r i s i n g i n view of the f a c t that 82.7$ of the farms were unincorporated e n t e r p r i s e s , the greatest proportion of which were family e n t e r p r i s e s .  Gubbels,  loc. c i t .  17  Although 6 9 . 2 $ of the farms generated a l l farm income from b r o i l e r s alone and 75$  of the farm owners were employed on the  farm without a d d i t i o n a l off-farm employment, only 24$ farms were operated by owner-labour alone.  of the  Sixty-three  per  cent of the farms required labour supplied by the owner's family and/or h i r e d help. l e a s t 80$  Of the 83 farms which generated at  of the farm income from b r o i l e r s , about 23$ were oper-  ated with owner-labour alone, about 63$ required a d d i t i o n a l labour supplied by the owner's family and/or h i r e d help and about 14$ were operated by labour supplied by h i r e d help  alone.  Thus only a r e l a t i v e l y small proportion of the farms, regardless of the percentage of the t o t a l farm income derived from b r o i l e r s , were operated by one man.  Furthermore, based on  the number of hours of labour required as estimated by the operator and the s p e c i f i e d d e f i n i t i o n of one man , about 11  75$  of the t o t a l number of farms required an average l e s s than men  and 8 6 . 4 $ required less than two men  enterprise.  The  to operate the b r o i l e r  f a c t that such a large percentage of the farms  required l e s s than 1.5  men,  i n d i c a t e s that although a large  proportion of the farms required labour i n a d d i t i o n to that supplied by the owner, the requirement was  1 man  1.5  = 2000 hours/year/man.  not l a r g e .  18  The l a b o u r s i t u a t i o n on E r a s e r V a l l e y d a i r y farms,  indi-  c a t e s t h a t 40$ o f the o p e r a t o r s d i d not h i r e any l a b o u r f o r t h e i r d a i r y e n t e r p r i s e , 15$ employed  one or more men f u l l  the e q u i v a l e n t , and the remainder  time, or  (45$) engaged s e a s o n a l workers  12 only.  Compared t o the l a r g e m a j o r i t y o f the b r o i l e r  farms  which were f a m i l y e n t e r p r i s e s , 70$ o f the d a i r y farms used unpaid  ( f a m i l y ) l a b o u r , and 33$ used more than the e q u i v a l e n t  of o n e - h a l f y e a r o f u n p a i d l a b o u r . The 104 farms s u r v e y e d r e q u i r e d a t o t a l o f 262,204 hours p e r y e a r or 131.1 men t o operate a l l farms, and an o v e r a l l b r o i l e r e n t e r p r i s e investment o f $22,147.22 p e r man or $11.07 per hour o f l a b o u r r e q u i r e d i n the i n d u s t r y et  al.  5  Vanderstoep  1 3  The average Canadian f i g u r e f o r c a p i t a l i n use p e r farm worker  i s $30,000, w h i l e the average p e r f a c t o r y worker  $15,000.  i s about  14  Production The a n n u a l p e r farm p r o d u c t i o n o f b r o i l e r s i n t h i s s u r v e y ranged from a p p r o x i m a t e l y 35,000 t o 500,000 b i r d s .  These p r o -  12 Gubbels, l o c . c i t . 13 Vanderstoep e t a l . l o c .  cit.  B e n t l e y , C P . , "Pood Por A l l - Can A g r i c u l t u r e P r o v i d e ? C e n t e n n i a l l e c t u r e " , A g r i c u l t u r a l I n s t i t u t e o f Canada, Macdonald C o l l e g e , P . Q . June 26, 1967. 1 4  19  d u c t i o n f i g u r e s were f o r a f u l l y e a r p r i o r t o the s u r v e y and i n 15 some cases i n c l u d e d over-quota• ^ b i r d s .  The l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n  (69.2$) o f farms had an a n n u a l p r o d u c t i o n of l e s s than 100,000 b i r d s and the r e m a i n i n g farms had an annual p r o d u c t i o n o f over 100,000 b i r d s .  T h e s e . f i g u r e s a r e r o u g h l y i n p r o p o r t i o n t o the  quota s i z e f o r each farm, the a n n u a l p r o d u c t i o n b e i n g about e q u a l t o 4.3 times the a l l o t t e d  quota.  C a l c u l a t i o n o f the a n n u a l farm p r o d u c t i o n o f b r o i l e r s p e r man-year, showed t h a t 26$ o f the farms had a p e r man-year p r o d u c t i o n o f l e s s than 50,000 b i r d s , 46.8$ o f 50,000 t o 99,000 b i r d s and 24$ o f 100,000 t o 149,000 b i r d s .  These v a l u e s  indi-  c a t e , t h a t on the b a s i s o f l a b o u r i n p u t , the l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n (46.2$) o f farms produced time.  between 11,000 and 23,000 b i r d s a t one  T h i s was done w i t h one man s p e n d i n g an average  38 hours p e r week.  o f about  I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t these 38 hours were  not n e c e s s a r i l y l i m i t e d t o o n l y f i v e days o f the week. A l t h o u g h the above v a l u e s were o b t a i n e d from the farm o p e r a t o r s as t h e i r a c t u a l performance,  72$ o f them e s t i m a t e d  t h a t they c o u l d manage between 20,000 and 40,000 b i r d s p e r b a t c h without a d d i t i o n a l labour. realistic  on the b a s i s o f a 2000 hour y e a r , because  made without t h i s  Cf.  These e s t i m a t e s a r e p r o b a b l y un-  consideration.  ante p. 6  they were  20 CHAPTER IV MANAGEMENT PRACTICES I. INTRODUCTION Information  was  obtained  on many aspects  of brooding,  ing and feeding equipment, feeding, vaccination and  water-  medication  programs, general r e a r i n g conditions and the measures of sani t a t i o n that were employed on the farms.  These p r a c t i c e s were  analysed i n order to obtain some measure or i n s i g h t i n t o t h e i r use and adequacy, and to determine i f they varied with ences i n the size of the b r o i l e r growing e n t e r p r i s e . purposes s i z e was  differEor these  measured by the quota held by each farm.  Measurement In c h a r a c t e r i z i n g the sample (Chapter III) the basis of comparison was  the t o t a l farm.  In analysing the management  p r a c t i c e s , however, a l l information was of i n d i v i d u a l units within each farm.  obtained A unit was  on the basis arbitrarily  defined as any complete f l o o r within a b r o i l e r house. change i n base was  This  necessitated by the d i f f e r e n c e s which occured  i n the construction, and  operation s p e c i f i c a t i o n s as well as  management p r a c t i c e s from storey to storey within a b u i l d i n g . As such a three storey b u i l d i n g would be designated three separate u n i t s .  as being  21  Characterization P r i o r to determining whether farm quota s i z e a f f e c t e d the management p r a c t i c e s v/ithin the units of each s i z e of farm, an i n d i c a t i o n of the number of u n i t s associated with each farm size was  obtained.  Farm s i z e was defined as small i f the quota was  l e s s than 13,000 but greater than 8,000 b i r d s , medium i f 13,000 - 23,000 b i r d s and large i f over 23,000 b i r d s . TABLE I NUMBER OP UNITS IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Number of Units (per farm)  small Obs. Exp. a  18 12 1  1 -3 4 -6 7 and over  ( 9)  2  29-91  b  18) ( 5)  31  Ex -  Quota Size medium Obs.  Exp.  Obs.  8 29 4  (11)  2 18 10  41 C  large  (24)  ( 6)  Exp. ( 8) (17) ( 4)  30  28 59 15 102  d  s i g n i f i c a n t (PfEO.005)  The observed frequency of a response as obtained by the survey. The expected frequency (rounded to the nearest whole number) as c a l c u l a t e d by d i v i d i n g the product of the marginal frequencies by the t o t a l number of observations. b  Chi-square i s a measure of the difference between the observed and expected d i s t r i b u t i o n s with degrees of freedom of (r-1) (c-1) where r i s the number of rows and c i s the number of columns. c  Of the 104 farms surveyed, b u i l d i n g and management i n f o r mation could be obtained on only 102 of the farms.  22  Of the 102 farms f o r which information was obtained, 31 had a quota of l e s s than 13,000, 41 of 13,000 - 23,000 and 30 of more than 23,000.  The data i n d i c a t e d that as quota size increased,  the number of units per farm also increased.  A Chi-square de-  termination i n d i c a t e d that the d i s t r i b u t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the expected (Table I ) . Determination  of the productive f l o o r area"** of the units  within farms of varying quota s i z e , i n d i c a t e d that as quota s i z e increased, the productive f l o o r area of the units within that farm a l s o tended to increase.  A Chi-square  determination  i n d i c a t e d that the d i s t r i b u t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the expected (Table I I ) . TABLE I I PRODUCTIVE ELOOR AREA PER UNIT IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Productive- Eloor Area (sq. f t . ) small  Quota Size medium large  Less than 2,900 3,000 - 4,900 5,000 - 7,900 8,000 and over  57 65 60 17  49 30 22 4 105 39.85  (31) (31) (29) (13)  (59) (59) (56) (26)  46 62 56 61 62 (59) 45 (27)  199  209  significant  (P^0.005)  152 151 144 66 513  Productive f l o o r area i s the t o t a l f l o o r area of a u n i t minus that area used f o r services and on which no birds are raised.  23 Thus as the quota size increased, farm also increased  the number of units per  and unit size became l a r g e r .  In subsequent  determinations then, a p a r t i c u l a r management p r a c t i c e may be r e l a t e d to quota s i z e , but inherent  i n t h i s r e l a t i o n would be  the a s s o c i a t i o n to the number of units and the s i z e of those units. Because the number of units per farm increased  with farm  s i z e , the use of units as a basis of analysis weights the r e s u l t s approximately by the number of birds a f f e c t e d by a p a r t i c u l a r management p r a c t i c e .  I t i s recognized that units sizes varied  both among and within farms and hence the weighting i s not comp l e t e l y accurate.  24  I I . BROODING  p  Warm room brooding  was used i n about 56$ of the u n i t s , •z  whereas cool room brooding  was used i n about 43$ of the u n i t s .  By f a r the majority (86$) of brooders were of the i n d i v i d u a l hover or canopy type.  A smaller proportion of the cool room  than the warm room u n i t s , had brooders without canopies (Appendix B, Table I I ) . TABLE I I I BROODING ROOM CONDITION IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Room Condition Warm Cool  small 53 (46) 51 (58) 104 = 3.25  Quota Size medium  large  77 ( 86) 121 (111)  94 ( 91) 115 (118)  223 287  197  209  510  non-significant  (P>0.10)  Of the 513 units f o r which information was obtained, one small-farm unit and two medium-farm u n i t s d i d not have any brood ing, but brooded the chicks i n other u n i t s .  Therefore any  a n a l y s i s of management p r a c t i c e s concerned with brooding d i d not include these three u n i t s .  V/arm room brooding i s that In which the temperature of the whole unit or brooding area i s maintained, at or above about 70 °E. 3  Cool room brooding i s that i n which no attempt i s made to maintain the temperature of the brooding room.  25  As i n d i c a t e d i n Table I I I quota size had very l i t t l e i f any r e l a t i o n s h i p to the brooding room temperature.  In a l l three  farm sizes cool room brooding was s l i g h t l y predominant over warm room brooding, accounting f o r about 5 0 $ of the units i n a l l three. TABLE IV TYPES OE BROODER HOVERS IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Type of Hover  small  None Individual Continuous  E X  Quota Size medium  1 ( 8) 103 (91) - ( 5)  17 ( 16) 167 (170) 13 ( 10)  23 ( 17) 173 (182) 13 ( 10)  41 443 26  104  197  209  510  = 18.40  A g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n (about i n d i v i d u a l hovers  large  significant  (P:20.005)  99$) o f s m a l l farm u n i t s had  than d i d medium and l a r g e farm  units.  Brooders with continuous hovers accounted f o r greater proportions of the medium and large-farm u n i t s . r e l a t e d to the greater percentage of hot-water  This finding'was brooding systems  i n the larger-farm units (Table V) and to the f a c t that there was a higher proportion of large-farm units with hover-less brooders than of the small or medium-farm units..  The hot-water  brooding systems are often without hovers (Table IV).  26  The data i n Appendix B, Table I I I i n d i c a t e d that only about 11$ of the t o t a l number of u n i t s had hot-water brooding and about 86$ open-flame brooders, the majority of which were gas and o i l fired. TABLE V TYPES OP BROODING SYSTEMS IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Brooding System  Quota Size medium  small  Hot Water Open Flame Radiant Heat  -  (12)  104  26 ( 2211 166 (171 1 5 ( 4J1  31 ( 23) 178 (182) ( 4)  57 443 10  197  209  510  significant  24.84  large  (P<0.005)  There were no small-farm units with hot water brooding, whereas over 10$ of the medium-farm units and almost 15$ of the large-farm units had hot water brooding.  A greater pro-  portion of the large-farm units had hot water brooding and a smaller proportion than expected had radiant heat brooders (Table V). TABLE VI TYPES OF BROODERS IN RELATION TO PRODUCTIVE FLOOR AREA Brooding System 2900  Hot Water Radiant Heat 4 Open Flame 147  Productive Floor Area (sq. f t . ) 3000-4900  ( 17) 11 ( 17) ( 3 ) 4 ( 3 ) (131) 135 (131)  151  £ X < ? = 71.29  150  5000-7900  8000  25  21 ( 1 6 ) 2 ( 3) 120 (124)  41  143  66  significant  ( 7) 1) (57)  (P< 0.005)  57 10 443 510  27  Relating types of brooders to productive f l o o r area indicated increased use of hot water brooding systems as productive f l o o r area increased; i . e . no hot water brooding units with productive f l o o r areas of l e s s than 2900 sq. f t . as opposed to about 38$ of the units with productive f l o o r areas of over 8000 sq. f t . (Table V I ) .  This confirms the e a r l i e r f i n d i n g (Table V) that  hot water brooding i s associated with l a r g e r u n i t s and suggests that the high i n i t i a l cost of i n s t a l l i n g t h i s system  4  i s con-  sidered to be j u s t i f i e d only by operators of large b r o i l e r growing e n t e r p r i s e s . Brooding Fuel Propane gas was most f r e q u e n t l y used as brooding f u e l (80$ of the u n i t s ) and n a t u r a l gas was used i n about 10$ of the u n i t s .  Kerosene, furnace o i l and e l e c t r i c i t y were the other  types of f u e l used (Appendix B, Table IV). A smaller proportion of the small-farm units than of the medium and large-farm units used propane gas, but a much l a r g e r proportion used kerosene as the brooder f u e l .  A l a r g e r number  of the large-farm units than v/ould be expected used furnace o i l . (Table V I I ) .  ^Snyder, J.M., O.A. Rowoth, J.C. Scholes and C.E. Lee, "Profitable__Poultr,y Management", 24th E d i t i o n , Beacon Feeds, (Few York, 19b2;. ~  28  TABLE VII TYPE OF BROODER FUEL IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Brooder Fuel  a mall  Propane Gas Natural Gas Kerosene Furnace O i l  large 417 51 16 14  169 (159) 18 ( 20) 1 ( 6) 2 ( 5) 99  ^  Quota Size medium  = 33.56  190  209  significant  (Pr5 0.005)  498  c  a Five small farm u n i t s , one medium-farm unit which used e l e c t r i c i t y and 6 medium-farm units which used a brooder f u e l other than those mentioned, were not included i n t h i s analysis because of t h e i r low frequency of use. Brooder Capacity The data i n Appendix B, Table V shows that about 56$ of the 5  u n i t s had brooders with a rated capacity  of 1000 day-old chicks,  about 29$ with a capacity of 500 chicks and the remainder with varying c a p a c i t i e s .  A large proportion of the remaining units  had hot water brooding. TABLE VIII BROODER CAPACITY IN RELATION.TO, QUOTA SIZE Brooder Capacity (Number of chicks)  small  500 1000 Other  76 (58, 8 (16.  20 ( 3 0 :  104 56.18  Quota Size medium  large 94 ( 6 0 ) 82 (117) 33 ( 31)  33 ( 57; 128 (111, 36 ( 30. 197  209  significant  147 286 77 510  (P<0.005)  ^Rated capacity i s the number of chicks that the brooder manufacturer s p e c i f i e s to be brooded.  29 About 19$ of the small-farm units had brooders with a rated capacity of 500 chicks, 73$ had brooders with a capacity of 1000 and the remaining 8$ had other brooder c a p a c i t i e s . About 17$ of the medium-farm units had brooders with a rated capacity of 500 chicks, 65$ had brooders with a rated  capacity  of 1000 and about 18$ with other brooder c a p a c i t i e s .  About  45$ of the large-farm  u n i t s , however, had brooders with a capa-  c i t y of 500 chicks, 39$ had brooders with a capacity of 1000 and 18$ with other brooder c a p a c i t i e s .  A Chi-square determina-  t i o n i n d i c a t e d that the d i s t r i b u t i o n d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the expected, with a trend towards l a r g e r brooders i n smaller units and vice-versa (Table V I I I ) . The number of chicks brooded under each brooder varied from 60 to 130$ of the rated capacity during the summer (Appendix 33, Table VI) and from 70 to 130$ of the rated capacity during the winter (Appendix B, Table V I I ) . the majority  During the summer  (52$) of the units used the brooders at 100$ of  t h e i r rated capacity and during the v/inter almost 50$ of the units used the brooders at 100$ of t h e i r rated capacity. The Chi-square determinations i n d i c a t e d that the d i s t r i b u tions were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the expected  (Tables  IX & X), and there was a trend f o r a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y large number of units from large farms to use brooders at the rated capacity.  30  TABLE I  X  PERCENTAGE 0E BROODER CAPACITY USED (SUMMER) IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Brooder Capacity  Quota Size medium  small  ($)  Less than 100 100 More than 100 Other  37 51 15 1  (38) (54) ( 7) ( 5)  104  81 92 10 14  ( 72) (103) ( 13) ( 9)  197 significant  23.43  large 68 ( 76) 124 (110) 9 ( 14) 8 ( 9)  186 267 34 23  209  510  (P-5 0.005)  TABLE X PERCENTAGE OP BROODER CAPACITY USED (WINTER) IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Brooder Capacity ($)  small  Less than 100 100 More than 100 Other  42 (4 48 (52 I] 13 6) 1 5) 104  Ex  2  =  20.21  Quota Size medium 80 92 ill] 10 (11) 15 ( 9) 197 significant  large 81 ( 83) 114 (104) 6 ( 12) 8 ( 10)  203 254 29 24  209  510  (P>0.010)  Brooding Area The majority (52$) of the u n i t s had the brooders placed along the centre of the f l o o r area, just over 25$ along one side of the f l o o r area, about 13$ along both sides of the f l o o r area  31 and only about 5$ had the brooders grouped into one section of the u n i t .  (Appendix B, Table V I I I ) . TABLE XI  LOCATION OE BROODERS IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Brooder Location  small  One side of f l o o r 24 (30j Both sides of f l o o r 5 (14 Centre of f l o o r 60 (54 Grouped i n one section 14 ( 6) 103  Z x  2  51.99  Quota Size medium  large  39 ( 57) 26 ( 26) 125 (103)  84 ( 60) 36 ( 27) 81 (109)  147 67 266  6 ( 11)  8 ( 11)  28  196  209  508  c  s i g n i f i c a n t (P< 0.005)  a One of each of the small and medium-farm units with brooder l o c a t i o n other than c i t e d , were not included i n t h i s analysis. One side of the f l o o r area was used f o r brooder placement i n about 23$ of the small-farm u n i t s , 20$ of the medium-farm units and 40$ of the large-farm u n i t s .  However, the centre of  the f l o o r area was used f o r brooder placement, i n almost 60$ of the small-farm u n i t s , just over 60$ of the medium-farm units and just under 40$ of the large farm u n i t s .  Grouping of brooders  i n one section of the f l o o r area occured i n about 13$, 3$ and 4$ of the small, medium and large-farm units r e s p e c t i v e l y .  The  data indicated an increased use of one side of the f l o o r area f o r brooder placement as quota s i z e increased (Table X I ) .  32 To confirm f u r t h e r the trend towards the placement of brooders along one side of f l o o r area as f l o o r area increased, l o c a t i o n of brooders was determined f l o o r area.  i n r e l a t i o n to productive  The a n a l y s i s indicated that productive f l o o r area  and brooder l o c a t i o n were not independent (Table X I I ) . TABLE XII LOCATION OF BROODERS IN RELATION TO PRODUCTIVE FLOOR AREA Brooder Location 2900 One side of f l o o r Both sides of f l o o r Centre of f l o o r Grouped i n one section  38 (43) 20 (20) 86 (78)  31 (43) 12 (19) 91 (78) 15 ( 8) 149  Y>X^  Productive Floor Area (sq. f t . ) 3000-4900 5000-7900 8000  = 41.63  6 ( 8)  46 (42) 31 (19) 62 (75) 4 ( 8)  150  143  significant  (PsO.005)  32 (19) 147 4 ( 9) 67 27 (35) 266 3 ( 4) 66  28 508  1  Two u n i t s with 2900 sq. f t . of productive f l o o r area, having brooders i n a l o c a t i o n other than c i t e d , were not included in this analysis. The brooding f l o o r area per chick  ranged from 0.2 to 1 sq.  f t . with almost 90$ of the u n i t s having areas of 1 sq. f t . per chick (Appendix B, Table IX).  Brooding f l o o r area per chick i s the t o t a l productive f l o o r area of the brooding room, whether i t be the whole unit or a separate section of the u n i t , divided by the t o t a l number of chicks brooded i n that room.  33  A Chi-square determination indicated a d i s t r i b u t i o n  signifi-  cantly d i f f e r e n t from the expected, with about 80$ of the smallfarm units having 1 sq. f t . and about 90$ of the medium and largefarm units having 1 sq. f t . of brooding f l o o r area per chick (Table X I I I ) . TABLE XIII BROODING AREA PER CHICK IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Quota Size medium  Brooding Area (sq. f t . / c h i c k )  small  Less than .5 0.5 - 0.8 1.0  8 ( 6) 12 6) 84 (92) 104  EX  = 11.32  large  7 ( 12) 10 ( 12) 180 (174)  15 ( 12) 8 ( 12) 186 (184)  30 30 450  197  209  510  significant  (P>0.01)  Data r e l a t i n g brooding f l o o r area per chick to productive f l o o r area i n d i c a t e d no trend i n the use of a p a r t i c u l a r brooding f l o o r area i n units of c e r t a i n f l o o r areas, but the d i s t r i b u t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the expected (Table XIV). TABLE XIV BROODING ELOOR AREA IN RELATION TO PRODUCTIVE ELOOR AREA Brooding Area Productive Eloor .Area ( s q . f t . ) (sq. f t . / c h i c k ) 2900 3000-4900 5000-7900 Less than .5 0.5 - 0.8 1.0  EX  8000  8 ( 9) 3 ( 9) 18 9) 1 ( 9) 125 (133) 146 (133)  8 ( 8) 6 ( 8) 129 (126)  11 ( 4) 5 (.4) 50 (58)  30 30 450  151  150  143  66  510  significant  (P<0.005)  = 37.19  34 Snyder e_t a l . recommended that the brooding period should be started with hover space of 7 sq. i n . per chick and f l o o r space of 0.8 sq. f t . per chick or more.  Considering the fact  that most of the units had 1.0 sq. f t . of brooding f l o o r area, i t can be concluded that i n general, p r a c t i c e s with respect to brooding f l o o r areas were c a r r i e d out s a t i s f a c t o r i l y . Brooding P r a c t i c e s Appendix B, Table X i n d i c a t e d that almost 90$ of the units had s o l i d chick guards, predominantly 12 inches high cardboard, around the brooders.  Nearly 7$ of the units used no guard of  any form. TABLE XV TYPES OE CHICK GUARDS IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Types of Guards  None Solid Other  small  Quota Size medium  10 ( 7) 94 (92) - (6) 104  Ex = 2  21.66  large  3 ( 14) 180 (173) 14 ( 11)  22 ( 14) 173 (182) 14 ( 11)  35 447 28  197  209  510  significant  (P<0.005)  A smaller than expected number of small-farm units had chick guards of a type other than the s o l i d ones.  A smaller than ex-  pected number of medium-farm units and a greater number of l a r g e farm units had no chick guards.  Snyder et a l . , l o c . c i t .  35 About 80 - 90$ of a l l three farm size u n i t s , however made use of the s o l i d guards (Table XV), i n d i c a t i n g no d e f i n i t e trend with regard to r e l a t i o n s h i p of quota s i z e to the use of chick guards. TABLE XVI TYPES OE CHICK GUARDS IN RELATION TO BROODING ROOM CONDITION Brooding Room Condition Cool Warm  Guards None Solid Other  E X  23 ( 15) 192 (195) 8 ( 12)  12 ( 20) 255 (252) 20 ( 16)  35 447 28  223  287  510  = 9.61  s i g n i f i c a n t (P^O.10)  The r e s u l t s presented i n Table XVI indicate that 86$ of the warm-room brooding units used the s o l i d chick guards compared to 89$ of the cool-room brooding u n i t s .  A l a r g e r number of  warm-room brooding units than expected used no guards and conversely a smaller number of cool-room brooding units used no guards.  Almost none of the u n i t s used any a u x i l i a r y heating i n  a d d i t i o n to that supplied by the brooders (Appendix B, Table X I ) . The majority (62$) of the units d i d not use any chicka t t r a c t i o n lights- under the brooder (Appendix B, Table X I I ) .  TABLE XVII USE OE CHICK-ATTRACTION LIGHTS IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Presence of A t t r a c t i o n Lights  small  None Some  81 (65) 23 (39)  Quota Size medium 140 (123) 57 ( 74)  98 (131) 111 ( 78)  319 191  197  209  510  significant  (P<0.005)  104  38.33  large  Smaller numbers of small and medium-farm units and a l a r g e r number of large-farm units than expected used c h i c k - a t t r a c t i o n l i g h t s under the brooders (Table XVII).  This i s probably-  accounted f o r i n large part by the f a c t that hot water brooding was used i n a l a r g e r proportion of the large-farm units than of the  small and medium-farm units (Table V) and that units with  hot  water brooding had a l a r g e r proportion with c h i c k - a t t r a c t i o n  l i g h t s than d i d the units with.open flame brooders (Appendix B, Table X I I ) . Brooder  Temperatures  The brooding temperatures that were used during the f i r s t week ranged from 85°E to 100°E.  About 50$ of the units used  95°E and 25$ used 90°E (Appendix B, Table X I I I ) .  37  TABLE XVIII BROODER TEMPERATURE (EIRST WEEK) I F RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Brooder Temperatures (°E)  Quota Size medium  small 5 (10) 28 (26) 58 56) 11 (10)  85 90 95 100  102  YZX  2  29 43 96 21  large 16 57 122 14  ( 19) ( 48) (104) ( 17)  500  209  189  = 14.02  50 128 276 46  ( 21) (54) (116) ( 19)  significant  1  (P>0.05)  Two small and eight medium-farm units that d i d not know the brooder temperature, were not included i n t h i s a n a l y s i s . a  The use of a brooder temperature of 85°E accounted f o r about 5$ of the small-farm u n i t s , 15$ of the medium-farm units and 8$ of the large-farm  units (Table  XVIII).  TABLE XIX BROODING ROOM CONDITION IN RELATION TO BROODER TEMPERATURE Brooder Temperature (°E) 85 90 95 100  I x 2L  2  Room Condition warm cool 19 < 21 53 <( 55) 117 i 118) 24 i( 20)  31 75 159 22  213  287  = 2.22  ( 29) ( 73) (158) ( 26)  50 128 276 46 500  a  n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t ( P ^ 0.10)  Ten units with warm room brooding that d i d not know the brooder temperature, were not included i n t h i s a n a l y s i s .  38 Brooder temperature  seemed to be r e l a t e d to quota s i z e as  i n d i c a t e d by the Chi-square determination (Table XVIII) but i t did not seem r e l a t e d to the brooding room temperature  (Table XIX).  Brooding Times The length of the brooding period (during which heat was supplied) i n the-summer ranged from 4 to 63 days with about 40$ of the u n i t s having a summer brooding period of 28 days or 4 weeks and 23$ of 21 days or 3 weeks (Appendix B, Table XIV). The length of the winter brooding period varied about the same as the summer period being from 14 to 63 days, with about 33$ of the units having a winter brooding period of 42 days or 6 weeks and about 20$ 35 days or 5 weeks (Appendix B, Table XV). The amount of v a r i a t i o n was about equal f o r the two times of the year but i t seems that winter brooding i n general was longer than summer brooding. TABLE XX LENGTH OE SUMMER BROODING PERIOD IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE  Summer Brooding Period (days)  small  Less than 15 15-21 22 - 28 More than 29  11 42 43 8 104  X x  2  =  62.15  ( 8) (26) (59) (11)  Quota Size medium  22' ( 14)  58 ( 48) . 88 (104) 25 ( 22) 193  large 4 22 147 21  ( 15) ( 48) (110) ( 21)  194  37 122 278 54 491  s i g n i f i c a n t (P<0.005)  Four medium and 15 large-farm u n i t s , f o r which length of brooding period was not known, were not included i n t h i s analysis..  39  The data i n d i c a t e d no trend i n the length of summer and winter brooding size.  periods associated with farms of varying quota  A Chi-square determination  d i d i n d i c a t e , however, that  the d i s t r i b u t i o n s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from those expected  (Tables XX and XXI). TABLE XXI  LENGTH OE WINTER BROODING PERIOD IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Winter Brooding Period (days)  small  Less than 22 22 - 28 29 - 35 36-42 More than 42  7 16 33 38 6 100  L X  2  = 62.11  ( 6) 15) (23) (42) (14)  Quota Size medium 18 16 52 95 12 193  (12) (28) (45) (82) (26)  large 4 (11) 39 |(28) 29 (46) 74 48 1  [ill  194  29 71 114 207 66 487  1  s i g n i f i c a n t (P 2 0.005)  Four small, four medium and 15 large-farm u n i t s , f o r which the length of brooding period was not known, were not i n cluded i n t h i s a n a l y s i s .  40 III.  WATERING  The information about the watering equipment and the amount of watering space a v a i l a b l e to the birds was obtained f o r two d i f f e r e n t periods: growing period.  namely, the f i r s t week of brooding and.the  The period of the f i r s t week of brooding was  used to determine the kind and amount of watering equipment that the chicks were started on and the grov/ing period to determine the kind and amount of watering equipment that was used a f t e r the f i r s t week of brooding u n t i l the birds were marketed.  In a  considerable number of u n i t s , the equipment used during the f i r s t week of brooding was not used f o r the f u l l first'week, but only f o r part of the f i r s t week. Type of Equipment In  }  over 50$ of the units c i r c u l a r waterers, i n 30$ a com-  b i n a t i o n of c i r c u l a r and trough waterers and i n about 13$ trough waterers only were used during the f i r s t week of brooding (Appendix B, Table XVI). In general, the c i r c u l a r waterers were the one g a l l o n glass or p l a s t i c fountains and the trough waterers were the eight feet long V or U shaped metal troughs. TABLE XXII TYPES OF WATERERS (DURING FIRST WEEK OF BROODING) IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Type of Waterer Circular Trough Combination  small  81 (58) 2 (14) of above 21 (32) 104  L X  2  = 63.62  Quota Size medium 94 (109) 15 ( 2 6 ) . 88 ( 62) 197  large 108 (116) 50 ( 27) 51 ( 6 6 )  283 67 160  209  510  s i g n i f i c a n t (Prs 0.005)  41 Table XXII shows that about 78$, 48$ and 51$ of the small, medium and large-farm units r e s p e c t i v e l y , used only c i r c u l a r waterers during the f i r s t week of brooding.  About 2$, 8$ and  24$ of the small, medium and large-farm units r e s p e c t i v e l y , however, used only trough waterers during the f i r s t week of brooding.  This data i n d i c a t e s that a larger than expected  number of small-farm units used c i r c u l a r waterers only and a smaller number used trough waterers only during the f i r s t week of brooding.  A s l i g h t l y smaller than expected number of large-  farm u n i t s used c i r c u l a r waterers only and a considerably greater number used only trough waterers during the i n i t i a l brooding period. TABLE XXIII TYPES OP WATERERS (DURING FIRST WEEK OF BROODING) IN RELATION TO TYPE OF BROODING Type of Waterer Circular Trough Combination of above  ZX  2  Hot Water  Type of Brooding Radiant Heat Open Flame  8 (31) 22 ( 8)  266 (246) 45 ( 58)  9 (6) - (1)  283 67  27 (18)  132 (139)  1 (3)  160  57  443  = 6 1 .33  significant  10  510  (PsO.005)  Table XXIII shows that the hot water brooding units had a much smaller number of units.with c i r c u l a r waterers, a much larger number with trough waterers and a considerably l a r g e r number with a combination of trough and c i r c u l a r waterers than would be expected..  The d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r the various types of waterers used  i n the open flame brooding units v/as close to the expected.  42 The data as i n Table XXII, which indicated a trend towards trough waterers i n large-farm u n i t s , combined with previous data which i n d i c a t e d a trend towards hot water brooding i n the large-farm units would seem to point to the use of trough waterers i n hot-water brooding units..  Table XXIII v e r i f i e d t h i s point  since i t showed that units with trongh waterers or a combinat i o n of c i r c u l a r and trough waterers account f o r about 86$ of the units using hot water brooders whereas these units accounted for  only 40$ and 10$ of the open flame and radiant heat brood-  ing  units r e s p e c t i v e l y .  These r e s u l t s were not unexpected,  because the dimensions of trough waterers make them more s u i t able f o r easier accomodation with long s t r a i g h t hot-water ers  brood-  than with the smaller open-flame or radiant-heat brooders.  Quantity of Equipment The number of waterers used during the f i r s t week of brooding  ranged from 1 to 14 per 1000 chicks, regardless of type of  waterers (Appendix B, Table XVII).  Using the type, size and  number of v/aterers, the amount of watering space a v a i l a b l e to the chicks was c a l c u l a t e d .  The a c t u a l amount of watering space  a v a i l a b l e to the chicks during the f i r s t week of brooding ranged from 10 to over 50 l i n e a l inches per 100 chicks.  Just over 23$  of the units had a v a i l a b l e watering space of 25 to 29 inches and about 21$ had 30 to 34 inches per 100 chicks (Appendix B, Table XVIII).  43 TABLE XXIV AVAILABLE WATERING SPACE (DURING FIRST WEEK OJ? BROODING) IN RELATION. TO QUOTA SIZE Watering Space (in./lOO chicks) 10 15 20 25 30 35 40  small •2 31 18 30 16  - 14 - 19 - 24 - 29 - 34 - 39 and over  ( 3) (15) (15) (25) (23) - 15) 7 10)  104  Z x  2  = 143.63  Quota Size medium 13 ( 6) 19 (30) 26 25) 58 (47) 63 (43) 7 (26 11 (20)  large  26 20 34 31 61 33  6  (31) (26) (50) 44 (27) (21)  506  205  197  15 7b 64 122 110 68 51 1  s i g n i f i c a n t (P ff 0.005)  Pour large-farm u n i t s , f o r which the amount of watering space was not known, were not included i n t h i s a n a l y s i s . Although the data of a v a i l a b l e watering space i n r e l a t i o n to quota s i z e d i d not show any d e f i n i t e trend, the Chi-square determination showed a d i s t r i b u t i o n s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the expected.  There was a smaller than expected number of  small-farm u n i t s with 15 to 19 inches and a smaller number with 35 to 39 inches of watering space per 100 chicks.  There was a  larger than expected number of medium-farm units with 30 to 34 inches and a smaller number with 35 to 39 inches of watering space per 100 chicks.  A larger than expected number of large-  farm units had 35 to 39 inches of watering space per 100 chicks. The units with l e s s than 24 inches of--watering space per 100 chicks, accounted f o r 49$, 29% and  22°/o  of the small, medium and  large-farm units r e s p e c t i v e l y (Table XXIV).  44 o  Snyder et a l .  recommended that at the s t a r t of the brood-  ing period water should be a v a i l a b l e at the rate of at l e a s t 15 one-gallon fountains or the equivalent per 1000  chicks.  s i d e r i n g that the average fountain o f f e r s about 28 l i n e a l of watering  10$ of the u n i t s met  I t i s of i n t e r e s t to note that only about  the requirements of t h i s recommendation  with respect to watering  space.  They also recommended that dur-  ing week one to three i n c l u s i v e , the a v a i l a b l e watering should be 58 inches per 100 b i r d s .  by only about 10% of the u n i t s .  Q  Card and Nesheim , on  the other hand, recommended 10 one-gallon fountains per chicks, or about 20 l i n e a l inches per 100 chicks. met  space  Even t h i s requirement could  .  ment was  inches  space, t h i s recommendation would be equal to 42  inches per 100 chicks.  be met  Con-  1000  This require-  by about 80$ of the u n i t s .  In general the watering  of chicks during the i n i t i a l brood-  ing period i s a manual operation, except f o r those units with automatic water troughs.  Manual watering was  discontinued at  anyv/here from two to twenty one days of chick age, with about 68$ of a l l units or almost 75$ of those units with manual watering,  discontinuing the manual operation sometime within the  f i r s t week of age  (Appendix B, Table  Approximately 55$,  XIX).  20$ and 15$ of the small, medium and  large-farm units r e s p e c t i v e l y , discontinued manual watering fore the f i f t h day and about 71$, discontinued manual watering (Table XXV).  A Chi-square  be-  75$ and 62$ r e s p e c t i v e l y ,  before the end of the f i r s t week  determination  i n d i c a t e d that the  o  Snyder et a l . , l o c . c i t . C a r d , I.E. and M.C. Nesheim, Poultry Production, 10th Edition, l e a and Eebiger, ( P h i l a d e l p h i a , 1966). 9  45 d i s t r i b u t i o n v/as s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t than expected. TABLE XXV DISCONTINUATION OP MANUAL WATERING IN RELATION TO . QUOTA SIZE Discontinuation (days)  small  Before 4 4 5 6 7 8-9 10 21 Not Applicable  35 (16) - (5) 8 (20) 12 (16) 20 (15) 2 (10 20 (12) 2 5 3 I 9)  \  105  Z x  2  =  Quota Size medium  150.57  28 (30) 11 ( 9) 34 (38) 20 (30) 52 (29) 13 (20) 19 (22) 5 ( 4) 17 (17) 199  .  significant  ' large 78 23 97 78 74 51 58 10 44  (32) 9) (39) (32) (30) (21) (24) - ( 4) 24 (18)  15 12 55 46 2 36 19  209  1  513  (P < 0.005)  Of those units not a p p l i c a b l e , 3 had no brooding and 44 had no manual watering. Although the amount of watering space a v a i l a b l e to the birds during the growing period ranged from 15 to over 70 inches per 100 b i r d s , the greatest proportion (about 42$) of units had from 35 to 39 inches per 100 birds (Appendix B, Table XX). About 65$ of each of the small, medium and large-farm units had l e s s than 40 inches of watering space per 100 birds during the growing period.  There were a greater than expected number  of medium-farm units which had 20 to 29 inches of watering space per 100 b i r d s , large-farm u n i t s with less than 30 inches and a greater number v/ith 30 to 39 inches (Table XXVI).  46  TABLE XXVI AMOUNT OF WATERING SPACE (DURING THE GROWING PERIOD) IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Watering Space (in./lOO "birds)  small  Less than 20 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 and over  5 2) 16 (10) 52 (57) 16 (20) 16 (:15)  Quota Size medium  105 Y,X  2  According  = 49.50  large 134 44 31  7 ( 5) 32 (19) 94 (109) 39 (39) 27 (29) 199  ( 5) ( 19) (114) ( 40) ( 30)  209  12 48 280 99 74 513  s i g n i f i c a n t (P550.005)  to the recommended requirement of 38 inches per  100 chicks during the period of one to three weeks i n c l u s i v e and  58 inches during the period of four to nine weeks i n c l u -  sive (Snyder et a l .  1  0  and Card and Nesheim ) only about 35% 11  of the u n i t s , with over 40 inches per 100 chicks, had adequate watering f a c i l i t i e s during the period of one to three weeks. However, only about 5%, 3% and 10% of the small, medium and large-farm units r e s p e c t i v e l y , had adequate watering f a c i l i t i e s for  the period of four to nine weeks i n c l u s i v e . During the growing period v i r t u a l l y a l l the units used  waterers which v/ere adjustable f o r height  10 11  Snyder et a l . , l o c . c i t . Card and Nesheim, l o c . c i t  (Appendix B, Table XXI),  47 TABLE XXVII ADJUSTABILITY FOR HEIGHT OF WATERERS IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Adjustability  small  Adjustable Not Adjustable  Ex  2  Quota Size medium  large  104 (102) 1 ( 3)  199 |192|  193 (202) 16 ( 7)  4S6 17  105  199  209  513  s i g n i f i c a n t (P<0.005)  = 21.08  A smaller than expected number of medium-farm units and a greater number of large-farm units had non-adjustable  waterers  (Table XXVII). Maximum Distance to Water The maximum distance any b i r d i n a p a r t i c u l a r unit had to t r a v e l to water ranged from 4 to 20 f e e t , with about 36% of the units having a maximum distance of 10 feet and about 22% a d i s tance of 12 feet (Appendix B, Table  XXII).  TABLE XXVIII MAXIMUM DISTANCE TO WATERERS (DURING THE GROWING PERIOD) IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Maximum Distance (feet)  small  Less than 9 9-12 13- 20  15 ( 8) 50 (67) 40 (29) 105  LX  2  = 26.76  Quota Size medium  large  15 (.14) 139 (124) 41 ( 58)  7 ( 15) 135 (133) 67 ( 61)  37 324 148  195  209  509*  s i g n i f i c a n t (P< 0.005)  Four medium-farm units f o r which the maximum distance v/as not known, were not included i n t h i s a n a l y s i s .  48 There was a greater than expected number of small-farm units with a maximum distance to water of less than nine feet and a smaller number with a distance of 9 to 12 f e e t .  There  was, however, a smaller than expected number of large-farm units with a maximum distance to water of less than nine feet (Table XXVIII).  49 IV. FEEDING The information on feeding equipment was obtained f o r the two d i f f e r e n t periods, as i t was f o r watering equipment, i . e . for  the i n i t i a l brooding period and f o r the growing period.  Type and Amount of Feeders During I n i t i a l Brooding Period. Chick boxes which had been cut o f f to form a tray, were used as feeders by almost a l l (92$) of the u n i t s during the i n i t i a l brooding period.  A small number of units used wooden  mortar boxes (Appendix B, Table  XXIII).  TABLE XXIX TYPE OF FEEDERS (DURING INITIAL BROODING PERIOD) IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Type of Feeders small Chick Boxes Wooden Mortar Boxes Troughs or Combinations of above  98 (98) 2(3) 4 ( 3 ) 104.  £X~  = 27.08  Quota Size medium 197 (185) - ( 7) -  (  5)  197 significant  large 184 (196) 15 ( 7) 10 (  479 17  6)  209  14 510  (PS0.005)  There was a greater than expected number of medium-farm units with chick boxes and a smaller number with other types of feeders.  There were a smaller than expected number of large-  farm units with chick boxes and a greater number with other of feeders (Table XXIX).  types  50 Although the number of feeders used per 1000 chicks ranged from 5 to 12, the greatest proportion of units had 10.feeders per 100C chicks (Appendix B, Table XXIV). TABLE XXX NUMBER OE FEELERS (LURING INITIAL BROODING PERIOD) IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE  Number of Feeders (per 1000 chicks)  Quota Size medium  small  5 6 7 8 9 10 12 No response  2  9 7 34 4 41 3 7  (17) ( 9) (18) ( 5) (47) ( 2)  105 Y,X  2  = 74.96  10 32 25 20 11 94 5 2 199  4) (33) (18) (33) (10) (89) ( 9) ( 3)  large  44 13 32 10 95 15 —  (18) (35) (10) (94 9)  4)  209  10 85 45 86 25 230 23 9 513  s i g n i f i c a n t (P-50.005)  There was a smaller than expected number of small-farm  units  with 6 feeders per 1000 chicks and a considerably greater number with 8 feeders.  There was a greater than expected number of  medium-farm units with 7 feeders per 1000 chicks and a smaller number with 8 feeders  (Table XXX).  Although chick boxes cannot be accurately said to have a c e r t a i n number of l i n e a l inches of feeding space, i t would seem that since the majority of units had over 9 chick boxes per 1000 chicks, the majority-of units met the recommended require12 ment of one l i n e a l inch per chick (Snyder et a l . ). 12Snyder et a l . , l o c . c i t .  51 Types of Feeders During; Growing Period Hanging tube feeders were used i n over 60% of the u n i t s , wooden s e l f - f e e d e r s i n about 14%, metal troughs i n about 8% and mortar bo.res i n about 5%.  By f a r the majority of the units  which had hanging tube-feeders, mortar boxes and wooden s e l f feeders, had these feeders manually f i l l e d .  On the other hand,  almost a l l of the units v/ith metal trough-feeders, had these feeding systems mechanized  (Appendix B, Table XXV).  18% of a l l units had mechanized  feeding systems  Only about  (Appendix B,  Table XXVI). TABLE XXXI TYPES OF FEEDERS (DURING GROWING PERIOD) IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Type of Feeders small Hanging Tube Feeder Pan Self-Feeder Metal Trough Mortar Boxes Wooden Self-Feeder Other than above  67 1 2 9 10 16 105  = 82.48  (66) ( 2 ) . (8) (6) (14) ( 8)  Quota Size medium 145 7 5 21 21  (125) ( 4 ) ( 16) ( 10) ( 28) ( 16)  199 significant  large 110 3 34 18 40 4  (131) ( 5 ) ( 17) ( 11) ( 29) ( 17)  209  322 11 41 27 71 41 513  ( P s 0.005)  There was a l a r g e r than.expected number of medium-farm units v/ith hanging tube-feeders and smaller numbers with metal troughs and mortar boxes but a smaller number of large-farm units with hanging tube-feeders and l a r g e r numbers with metal troughs,  52 mortar boxes and wooden s e l f - f e e d e r s . The use of metal troughs d e f i n i t e l y increased as the quota size increased (Table XXXI). As i n d i c a t e d i n Appendix B, Table XXV, most of the metal trough feeding systems were mechanized, so a greater proportion of the large-farm units had mechanized feeding systems as a l s o i n dicated i n Table XXXII. TABLE XXXII PRESSENCE OP MECHANICAL FEEDING- SYSTEM (DURING GROWING PERIOD) IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Mechanical Feeding Systems  small  Present Absent  10 (19) 95 (86)  Quota Size medium  105 I x  2  . 18.82  large  28 ( 37) 171 (162)  57 ( 39) 152 (170)  95 418  199  209  513  s i g n i f i c a n t (P<0.005)  Appendix B, Table XXVI shows that of the 95 units which had mechanical feeding systems, about 42$ had the chain systems, 40$ had hanging tube-feeders  trough  on a mobile track, 12$  had auger-pan systems and 6$ had mechanically  f i l l e d hanging  tube-feeders. In general, small-farm  units had l e s s mechanized feeding  systems than would be expected, but large farm units had more mechanized feeding.  The data i n d i c a t e d that as quota size i n -  creased, the use of hanging tube-feeders trough feeders increased (Table  XXXIII).  on a track and chain  53 TABLE XXXIII TYPE OP AUTOMATIC FEEDING SYSTEM IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Type of System  Quota Size medium  small Hanging Feeder on Track 4 Hanging Feeder Mechanically F i l l e d 4 Chain Trough 1 Auger Pan 1 Not Applicable (Manual Systems) 95  (8)  14 ( 15)  20 ( 15)  38  (1) (8) ( 2)  2 ( 2 ) 5 ( 16) 7 ( 4 )  - ( 3) 34 ( 16) 3 ( 5 )  6 40 11  (86)  171 (162)  152 (170)  418  199  209  513  105 E X  2  large  = 51.15  significant  ( P s 0.005)  Of the manual feeding systems, the most common methods used f o r f i l l i n g feeders were with buckets, as i n about 54$ of the u n i t s , and with wheelbarrow, as i n about 21$ of the units (Appendix B, Table XXVII). TABLE XXXIV TYPE OF MANUAL FEEDING SYSTEM IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Type of System  Quota Size medium  small Overhead C a r r i e r 1 ( 1) Buckets 74 (57) Wheelbarrow 16 (22) Other than Above 4 ( 5) Not Applicable (Mechanical Systems) 10 (19) 105 Y.X  2  = 73.64  S  4 ( 3) 134 (108) 33 ( 42) - ( 9)  2 3) 70 ( 113) 60 ( 45) 20 ( 10)  7 278 109 24  28 ( 37)  57 ( 39)  95  199 '  large  209  • significant  (P< 0.005)  513  54 Although no overal trend with respect to type of manual feeding system f i l l i n g methods as r e l a t e d to quota size could he detected, there was a greater than expected  number of medium-  farm u n i t s i n which buckets were used f o r f i l l i n g feeders and a smaller number i n which devices other than an overhead c a r r i e r , buckets or v/heelbarrow were used.  There was a smaller than  expected number of large-farm u n i t s which used buckets and l a r g e r numbers v/hich used a wheelbarrow and other devices (Table XXXIV). By f a r the majority of the units, had feeders which were adjustable f o r height (Appendix B, Table  XXVIII).  TABLE XXXV ADJUSTABILITY FOR HEIGHT OF FEEDERS IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Adjustability  Quota Size medium  small  Adjustable Not Adjustable  82 (87) 23 (18) 105  Ex  2  = 34.41  A l a r g e r than expected  large  187 (165) 12 ( 34)  156 (173) 53 ( 36)  425 88  199  209  513  significant  ( P s 0.005)  number of medium-farm units had  feeders which were height adjustable and a smaller number had non-adjustable  feeders.  A smaller number of large-farm u n i t s  than expected had adjustable and a l a r g e r number had nonadjustable feeders (Table XXXV).  55 Use of Secondary Feeders The age of the birds at which time secondary or growingperiod feeders were introduced ranged from one to 42 days, with about 21$ of the units s t a r t i n g at 14 days, 18% at 7 days, 13% at  10 days and 12% at 21 days (Appendix B, Table XXIX). TABLE XXXVI AGE WHEN ON SECONDARY FEEDERS IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE  Age of Birds (weeks) Less than 1 1- 2 2- 3 Over 3  : . small  i  40 (50) 48 (40) 12 (13) 5(2) 105  HX  2  = 72.85  Quota Size medium 67 108 17 7  (94) (76) (24) (5)  199  large 136 39 34 -  (99) (79) (26) ( 5)  209  243 195 63 12 513  s i g n i f i c a n t ( P s 0.005)  A smaller than expected number of medium-farm units started the  birds on secondary feeders before the end of the f i r s t week  of age and a l a r g e r number some time during the second week. A larger than expected number of large-farm units s t a r t e d the birds on secondary feeders before the end of the f i r s t week of age and a smaller number some time during the second week (Table XXXVI). Amount of Feeding Space During Growing Period The number of feeders ranged from one to over 28 per 1000 birds (Appendix B, Table XXX).  Since not a l l feeders were of  56 the same type an i n d i c a t i o n of the number of feeders per 1000 birds does not allow assessment  of the feeding p r a c t i c e s .  The  amount of a v a i l a b l e feeding space, however, i s important and varied wic-ely from 10 to over 100 l i n e a l feet per 1000 birds (Appendix B, Table XXXI). TABLE XXXVII FEEDING SPACE PER 1000 BIRDS (DURING GROWING PERIOD) IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Feeding Space (ft./lOOO birds)  small  Less than 49 50 - 69 70-89 90 and over No Response  25 12 6 52 10  (15) (40) (23) (20) ( 7)  105 E X  2  Quota Size medium 45 81 47 19 7 199  =158.21  (29) (75) (44) (58) (l4)  large 4 61 60 66 18 209  significant  (50) (79) (46) (59) (14)  74 194 115 97 55 515  ( P s 0.005)  There was a smaller than expected number of small-farm units with 50 to 69 feet of feeder space per 1000 birds and a larger number with at l e a s t 90 f e e t .  There was a smaller than expected  number of large-farm units with l e s s than 49 feet of feeder space per 1000 birds and larger numbers v/ith 70 to 89 and at l e a s t 90 f e e t .  This analysis i n d i c a t e d that the d i s t r i b u t i o n was  s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the expected as determined by the Chi-square, and the trend was towards more feeding space as the quota size increased (Table XXXVII).  57 Table XXXVIII i n d i c a t e s that of the u n i t s with  trough  feeders a f a r greater number than expected had at l e a s t 90 feet of feeder space per 1000 b i r d s .  This data substantiates the  information i n Tables XXXVII and XXXI v/hich showed that the largest proportion of the large-farm units had at l e a s t 90 feet of feeder space per 1000 birds and that trough feeders were more prevalent i n large-farm u n i t s than i n small and medium-farm units.  There were a smaller number of units than expected  with  feeders other than the s p e c i f i c a l l y mentioned types, v/hich had 50 to 69 feet of feeder space per 1000 birds and a greater number which had at l e a s t 90 f e e t .  There were no u n i t s which used  mortar boxes with any s p e c i f i e d feeder space.  This i s because  of the d i f f i c u l t y i n measuring the a v a i l a b l e feeder space of such feeders (Table XXXVIII). Snyder ejb al.  recommended 120 feet of feeder space or  30 tube-feeders per 1000 birds at three weeks of age and 200 feet or 30 to 40 tube-feeders per 1000 birds or 2.4 inches per b i r d during the period of four to nine weeks of age i n c l u s i v e . Only, about 60$ of the u n i t s surveyed had 50 to 89 feet of feeding space per 1000 birds which i s f a r below the recommended amount f o r b i r d s of three weeks of age and not even one-half of the recommended amount f o r birds of four to nine weeks of age. It i s interesting, to note that only about 19$ of the units approached or met the recommendation f o r three week-old b i r d s .  Snyder et a_l., l o c . c i t .  TABLE XXXVIII AMOUNT OE FEEDING SPACE PER 1000 BIRDS IN RELATION TO TYPE OE FEEDERS Feeding Space  Hanging  Less than 30 30 - 49 50-69 70 - 89 90 and over Not A p p l i c a b l e  59 154 91 18 -  (  3) 44) (122) ( 71) ( 61) ( 22)  322 E X  d  = 571.10  Type of Feeders Trough Mortar Box  Pan -  1 4 6 11  (-)  (1) (4) (2) (2) (1)  ( -) - ( 6) - (15) — ( 9) 40 ( 8) 1 ( 2)  27  41  27  ( -) ( 4) (11) ( 6) ( 5) ( 2)  significant  Wooden S e l f Feeder 2 7 31 13 18 —  71 (P20.005)  <  1  (10) (27) (16) (13) (.5)  Other 2 3 5 3 21 7  4 ( -) ( 5) 70 (15) 194 ( 9 ) 113 ( 8) 97 ( 3) 35  41  513  59 It must be noted that the amount of a v a i l a b l e feeding space was c a l c u l a t e d as the a c t u a l amount of trough space.  To deter-  mine the adequacy of the amount of feeder space, i t must be pointed out that i n equal amounts of feeding space more birds can be accomodated by that space on round feeders than on s t r a i g h t feeders.  This i s by v i r t u e of the f a c t that on s t r a i g h t  feeders, birds feeding next to each other leave some unused feed space between t h e i r heads, but on round feeders, birds are accomodated as wedges, using more of the space a v a i l a b l e . As such even though i n general, round feeders have l e s s a c t u a l feeding space, they can o f f e r more room than i n d i c a t e d , r e l a t i v e to the a v a i l a b l e space of a s i m i l a r length of a s t r a i g h t feeder. Maximum Distance to Peed During the Growing Period The maximum distance f o r any b i r d i n a p a r t i c u l a r u n i t , to feeding space ranged from four to 15 f e e t .  About 26% of the  units had a 10 foot maximum distance and about 16% had eight feet (Appendix B, Table XXXII). TABLE XXXIX MAXIMUM DISTANCE TO FEEDERS (DURING THE GROWING PERIOD) IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Maximum Distance (ft.)  small  Less than 5 6-10 11- 15  17 (14) 87 (76) 1 (15) 105  Z x  2  =  23.92  Quota Size medium  large  17 ( 26) 145 (145) 37 ( 28)  33 ( 27) 141 (152) 35 ( 30)  67 373 73  199  209  513  significant  ( P s 0.005)  60 A lower than expected number o f s m a l l - f a r m  u n i t s had a max-  imum d i s t a n c e t o f e e d o f 11 t o 15 f e e t and a s m a l l e r number o f medium-farm u n i t s had a maximum d i s t a n c e ( T a b l e XXXIX).  o f l e s s than f i v e f e e t  61 V. FEEDING PROGRAMMES The information obtained on the feeding programs pertains only to the feed formulation used, whether a s t a r t e r , grower, f i n i s h e r or combinations of these r a t i o n s .  Also the form of  the feed used whether mash, crumbles, p e l l e t s or a combination of these, v/as determined, and whether the formulated rations were supplemented  by feeding g r i t .  Ration Formulations In a large majority (86$) of the u n i t s , a combination of s t a r t e r , grower and f i n i s h e r was used.  In about 10$ of the  units a combination of grower and f i n i s h e r only was  used  (Appendix B, Table XXXIII). TABLE XL FEEDING PROGRAMMES USED IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Feeding Programme small Starter grower and finisher Grower and f i n i s h e r Starter and grower  Y,X  2  Quota Size medium  large  101 (89) 2 (11) - ( 3)  183 (173) 16 20 ( 6)  159 (181) 35 ( 22) 15 ( 6)  103  199  209  = 42.92  .  443 53 15 511  a  s i g n i f i c a n t (P_= 0.00.5)  Two small-farm u n i t s , which used combination other than those c i t e d , were not included i n t h i s a n a l y s i s . There were smaller than expected numbers of small and medium-farm units using a combination of s t a r t e r and grower, or  62 grower and f i n i s h e r .  These combinations were more prevalent among  large-farm units with a consequent reduction i n the use of the s t a r t e r - g r o w e r - f i n i s h e r combination. The d i s t r i b u t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the expected, as determined by the Chi-square c a l c u l a t i o n  (Table XL).  Ration Form The types of feed used, with respect to p h y s i c a l s i z e , i n cluded mash, crumbles, p e l l e t s or a combination of these forms. About 25% of the u n i t s used only crumbles throughout the nine week period, about 22% used mash, crumbles and p e l l e t s and about 32% used mash and crumbles only (Appendix B, Table XXXIV). TABLE XLI FORM OF FEED IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Form of Feed  small  Crumbles only Mash, crumbles and p e l l e t s Crumbles and p e l l e t s Mash and crumbles  21 (27)  56 ( 4 9 )  51 (52)  2 5 (23) 2 5 (34) 3 4( 2 1 )  42 ( 4 4 ) 6 0 (63) 3 7 (39)  4 5 (45) 7 8 (66) 2 9 (40)  105 iLX  2  = 18.51  Quota Size medium  195  large  203  128 1 1 2 1 6 3 1 0 0 503  a  s i g n i f i c a n t (P> 0.025)  Four medium and s i x large-fa,rm u n i t s , which had combinations other than those c i t e d , were not included i n t h i s a n a l y s i s  63 Shere was a smaller than expected  number of small-farm  units and a greater number of large-farm u n i t s which used crumbles and p e l l e t s  only and a l a r g e r than expected  number of small-farm  u n i t s and a smaller number of large-farm u n i t s which used mash and crumbles only (Table X I I ) . Seeding  Grit  Approximately  one-half (52%). of the u n i t s included g r i t i n  the d i e t of the birds (Appendix B, Table XXXV). TABLE XLII USE OF FEEDING GRIT IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Use  of G r i t  G r i t Fed G r i t Not Fed  small 49 (55) 56 (50) 105 = 14.99  The supplementation  Quota Size medium  large  89 (104) 110 ( 95)  131 (110) 78 ( 99)  269 244  199  209  513  significant  ( P s 0.005)  of the d i e t with grit.was p r a c t i c e d i n  a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y high number of large-farm units (Table XLII).  64  VI.. VACCINATION AND Information gram which was  was  MEDICATION  obtained about the type of vaccination pro-  used, the time at which the vaccine was  i s t e r e d and the means of administration.  admin-  V/ith respect to med-  i c a t i o n , information on the means of administration and  the  type of medication  first  week of brooding  used was  obtained  separately f o r the  and f o r the period a f t e r the f i r s t week u n t i l  the birds were marketed.  Medication was  considered  to be  the  use of compounds (other than c o c c i d i o s t a t s ^ ) at l e v e l s above 1  normal.  The use of a c o c c i d i o s t a t i n a l l b r o i l e r r a t i o n s i s  standard p r a c t i c e of almost a l l feed manufacturers. Type and Time of Vaccination A l l but about 6% of the units had some kind of vaccination programme.  Eor about 41% of the units the programme was  one  of  vaccinating against Newcastle Disease and f o r about 53% a combination against Newcastle Disease and Infectious Bronchitis (Appendix B, Table XXXVI). There was  a greater than expected number of small-farm  units  which did not vaccinate, but a smaller number of large-farm u n i t s . About equal proportions  (about 50%)  of the units had a combined  Newcastle Disease - Infectious B r o n c h i t i s vaccination programme, but a considerably greater proportion  (15%) of small-farm  units  than medium and large-farm units ( 6 % and 2% r e s p e c t i v e l y ) had  ^Coccidiostat i s a chemical used f o r the prevention c o n t r o l of c o c c i d i o s i s .  and  no  65 vaccination programme (Table X L I I I ) .  The f a c t that there was  a  greater tendency towards vaccination as quota size increased could'' p o s s i b l y mean that the operators of the l a r g e r quota size farms were more aware of the serious p o s s i b i l i t i e s of disease problems than were the smaller quota size farm operators, or i t could r e f l e c t the d i f f e r e n c e i n the size and number of units per farm. TABLE XLIII TYPE OE VACCINE USED IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Type of Vaccine  small  None 16 ( 7 ) Newcastle Disease 34 (43) Newcastle Disease Infectious B r o n c h i t i s 55 (55) 105 E X  2  Quota Size medium 12 ( 12) 79 ( 82) 108 199  = 24.02 :  (105)  large 4 ( 13) 98 ( 86) 107  32 211  (110)  270  209"  513  s i g n i f i c a n t ( P s 0.005)  The f i r s t vaccination, v/hether against Newcastle Disease alone or both Newcastle Disease and Infectious B r o n c h i t i s , was administered age.  sometime between the fourth and fourteenth day of  Of the u n i t s which vaccinated against Newcastle Disease  only, 45$ administered  the vaccine between the fourth and  seventh day, whereas of the units which used a combined vaccine against Newcastle Disease and Infectious B r o n c h i t i s , about 60 administered  the vaccine between the eighth and tenth  (Appendix B, Table XXXVI).  day  This p r a c t i c e agreed w e l l with the  manufacturers recommendation to vaccinate between the f i r s t tenth  day.  and  66 Vaccination before among s m a l l - f a r m large-farm  t h e e i g h t h day was uncommonly p r e v a l e n t  u n i t s whereas a l a r g e r t h a n e x p e c t e d number o f  u n i t s v a c c i n a t e d a f t e r t h e e i g h t h day ( T a b l e  XLIV).  TABLE X L I V TIME OP VACCINATION I N RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Time o f V a c c i n a t i o n (days o f age)  Quota S i z e medium  small  49 (38)  4-7 8 - 10 11- 14 No V a c c i n a t i o n  105 L x  2  77 91 19 12  40 (48) - (12) 16 ( 7)  = 51.76  (72) (92) (22) (l2)  large 60 106 39 4  (76) (97) (24) (l3)  199  209  significant  ( P s 0.005)  186 237 58 32 513  Mode o f A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f V a c c i n e Of t h o s e u n i t s w i t h a v a c c i n a t i o n programme, about 7 3 % u s e d w a t e r a s a means o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and t h e o t h e r 2 7 % u s e d a spray  ( A p p e n d i x B, T a b l e X X X V I I ) . TABLE XLV  MEANS OP VACCIFE ADMINISTRATION I N RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Means o f A d m i n i s tration  small  V/ater Spray No V a c c i n a t i o n  70 (72) 19 (27) 16 7) 105  Lx  2  =  25.36  Quota S i z e medium  large  140 ( 1 3 6 ) 47 ( 51) 12 ( 12)  140.(142) 65 ( 53) 4 ( 13)  350 131 32  199  209  513  .significant  (P<0.005)  67  Administration "by means of a spray was more prevalent than expected among large-farm units but l e s s prevalent among smallfarm u n i t s .  A Chi-square determination indicated that the  d i s t r i b u t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t than expected (Table XLV). o  F i r s t Week Medication - Type and Mode of Administration A v a r i e t y of medicants v/ere used during the f i r s t week; among them were t y l o s i n , and other a n t i b i o t i c s ,  chemo-theraputic  agents such as sulpha-drugs and dewormer, vitamins, health boosters^and germicides. The medicants were used e i t h e r s i n g l y or i n various combina- , tions.  T y l o s i n i n combination with chemo-theraputic agents was  used i n about 34% of the u n i t s , chemo-theraputic agents alone i n about 20% of the units and t y l o s i n alone i n about 17% of the units.  About 10% of the units administered no medication of any  kind during the f i r s t week (Appendix B, Table XXXVIII). There were smaller than expected numbers of small and medium-farm units which used t y l o s i n alone as a medication whereas there was a greater number of large-farm u n i t s .  There was a  smaller than expected number of small-farm units which used t y l o s i n and chemo-theraputic agents and a greater number of medium-farm u n i t s .  A greater than expected number of small-farm  units used chemo-theraputic agents alone but a smaller number of large-farm u n i t s .  I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that as quota size  increased there were fewer units which d i d not medicate at a l l during the f i r s t week (Table XLVT).  The f a c t that as quota s i z e  Health boosters are feeds supplemented trum a n t i b i o t i c .  with a broad spec-  68 increased the use of medication creased, may  during the f i r s t week also i n -  i n d i c a t e a greater r e l i a n c e by large-farm  opera-  tors on preventative rather than curative methods or i t may i n d i c a t e the d i f f e r e n c e i n the size and number of units per farm. TABLE XLVI TYPES OF MEDICATION (DURING THE FIRST WEEK OF BROODING) IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Types of Medication  Quota Size medium  small T y l o s i n only Various other a n t i b i o t i c s only Chemo-theraputic agents only Health booster only T y l o s i n and Chemotheraputic agents Other combinations No Medication  4 (17)  16 (33)  65 (35)  85  7 (  12 (10)  6 (10)  25  37 (21) 2 ( 4)  36 (39) 10 ( 8)  28 (41) 8 ( 8)  101 20  29 (36) 6 (12) 20 (11)  82 (67) 19 (21) 24 (20)  62 (70) 31 (23) 9 (22)  173 56 53  5)  105 YZX  2  large  199  = 92.15  Medication v/as administered  209  significant  513  (P<0.005)  by i n j e c t i o n , water, feed or a  combination of these three means.  The l a r g e s t proportion of  u n i t s , about 36$ of a l l units or 40$ of those units using medi c a t i o n , used i n j e c t i o n and feed as the. means of administration. Almost 25$ of the units used feed alone and about 15$ of the units used i n j e c t i o n alone as the means of administering medi c a t i o n (Appendix B, Table, XXXIX).  69 A smaller than expected number of small-farm units used i n j e c t i o n and water but a greater number used feed as a means of administering medication,  l a r g e r numbers of large-farm u n i t s ,  on the other hand, used i n j e c t i o n and water, but a smaller number used feed as a means of medication administration (Table XLVII). These units used means of administration which allowed the use of a greater v a r i e t y of medicants i n a form which was more e a s i l y adapted to the immediate need of the b i r d s . TABLE XLVII MEANS OE ADMINISTERING MEDICATION (DURING EIRST WEEK OF BROODING) IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE  Means of Administering small Injection Water Feed I n j e c t i o n and Feed Other Combinations No Medication  4 1 42 28 10 20 105  YZX  2  = 98.94  (16) (8) (25) (58) ( 7) (11)  Quota Size medium 20 12 49 94 24  large  (31) (16) (48) (71) (12) (20)  199  55 28 33 62 22 9  (32) (17) (51) (75) (13) (22)  79 41 124 184 32 53  - 209  significant  513  (P__ 0.005)  Medication A f t e r F i r s t Week - Type and Mode of Administration The various medication preparations that were used during the  f i r s t week were also used a f t e r the f i r s t week.  A very  large number of combinations were used, but the most frequently used medicants were chemo-theraputic agents alone i n 25$ of the u n i t s , chemo-theraputic agents and health booster i n 10$, a n t i b i o t i c s alone i n 7$ and chemo-theraputic agents and vitamins i n 7$ of the units (Appendix B, Table XL).  70 Although  the use of t y l o s i n or other a n t i b i o t i c s was  differentiated  i n the survey, f o r purposes of a n a l y s i s of data  these two groups v/ere put under one heading of a n t i b i o t i c s  only,  because of the small number of u n i t s using t y l o s i n by i t s e l f . TABLE XLVIII TYPES OE MEDICATION (AFTER THE FIRST WEEK) IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Types of Medication small Antibiotic(s) Chemo-theraputic agents only Health booster only Chemo-theraputic agents and Vitamins or Health booster Other Combinations No Medication  X  2  large  17 ( 9)  24 (17)  3 (18)  44  12 (26) 8 ( 4)  52 (50) 4 ( 7)  65 (53) 6 ( 7)  129 18  35 (18) 12 (27) 21 (21)  23 (35) 69 (50) 27 (40)  31 (36) 49 (53) 55 (42)  89 130 103  105 £  Quota Size medium  = 82.58  199  209  513  s i g n i f i c a n t (P<0.005)  The units which used a n t i b i o t i c s only accounted f o r ahout 16$,  12$ and 1$ of the small, medium and large-farm units r e -  s p e c t i v e l y , whereas the units using only chemo-theraputic agents accounted f o r about 11$, 26$ and 31$ of the small, medium and large-farm u n i t s respectively.. About equal proportions (20$) of the small and large-farm units d i d not use any medication a f t e r the f i r s t week, although the number v/as greater than expected f o r the large-farm units (Table XLVIII).  71 About 20% of the units d i d not use any medication a f t e r the  f i r s t week compared to the 10% which d i d not use any medica-  t i o n during the f i r s t week.  I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that about  20% of the small-farm units d i d not medicate during the f i r s t week and about 20% d i d not medicate a f t e r the f i r s t week.  About  12% of the medium-farm units d i d not medicate during the f i r s t week and about 14% d i d not medicate a f t e r the f i r s t week.  About  4% of the large-farm units d i d not medicate during the f i r s t week, and about 20% d i d not medicate a f t e r the f i r s t week (Table XLVII and XLVIII). Of the 20 small-farm units which d i d not medicate during the  f i r s t week, 9, or about 9% of the t o t a l , d i d not medicate  a f t e r the f i r s t v/eek e i t h e r .  Of the 24 medium-farm units which  did not medicate during the f i r s t week, 10, or about 5% of the t o t a l , d i d not medicate a f t e r the f i r s t week and of the 9 largefarm u n i t s , 5 or about 2% d i d not medicate a f t e r the f i r s t week. Therefore as farm size increased, the number of units which d i d not  medicate at any time decreased.  This could mean that oper-  ators of large farms recognized the need f o r medication or that small farms had superior management and better recognition of stress periods and thus medicated only when necessary and not as a routine matter.  A l t e r n a t i v e l y , i t could be due to the  differences i n s i z e and number of units per farm. Feed was used by the largest.proportion (49%) of units as a means of administering medication a f t e r the f i r s t , v/eek with a combination of water and feed being used by about 25% of the units (Appendix B, Table XLI).  72 TABLE XLIX MEANS OF ADMINISTERING MEDICATION (AFTER THE FIRST WEEK) IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Means of Administering  small  Water Feed Water and Feed No Medication  10 54 20 21 105  EX^  = 56.08  Quota Size medium  ( 6) (51) (26) (21)  21 113 38 27 199  (12) (98) (49) (40)  large 85 69 55  ( 13) (103) ( 52) ( 42)  209  31 252 127 103 513  s i g n i f i c a n t (P< 0.005)  Water, feed and a combination of water and feed were used as means of administering medication by about 10%, 51% and 19% of the small-farm u n i t s , by about 20%, 56% and 19% of the medium-farm units and by 0% , about 41% and 33% of the l a r g e farm u n i t s r e s p e c t i v e l y .  The large-farm units d i d not use  water medication a t a l l but r e l i e d to a l a r g e r extent than expected on a combination of water and feed (Table XLIX).  73 VII. UNIT OPERATIONS In a d d i t i o n to the operation of the units v/ith respect to p h y s i c a l f a c i l i t i e s , v/hich w i l l not be discussed here,  tbere  were several operational features with respect to management of the birds themselves, such as the use of and type of u n i t d i v i d e r s and the l i g h t i n g regime. Dividers The majority (72%) of the units had no d i v i d e r s to separate them i n t o "pens", but about 24% had wooden and about 4% had wire d i v i d e r s (Appendix B, Table XLII). TABLE L USE OP AND TYPE OP PEN DIVIDERS IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Type of Divider  Wooden Wire No Dividers  45 (25) 60  [ll]  105 Ex  Quota Size medium  small  = 60.76  large  32 ( 47) - ( 8 167 (143)  45 ( 50) 22 ( 9) 142 (150)  122 22 369  199  209  513  s i g n i f i c a n t (P< 0.005)  There were sraa,ller than expected numbers of small and l a r g e farm units that d i d not use pen d i v i d e r s , but a greater number of medium farm u n i t s .  There v/as a considerably greater than ex-  pected number of small-farm  units with wooden d i v i d e r s and a  smaller number with wire d i v i d e r s .  There were smaller than ex-  pected numbers of medium-farm units with wooden or wire d i v i d e r s and a greater number of large-farm units with wire d i v i d e r s (Table L ) .  74 Of those units with pen d i v i d e r s , about 80$ had up to 2500 birds per pen and about 16$ had from 2500 to 5000 birds per pen  (Appendix B, Table XLIII). . TABLE LI NUMBER OE BIRDS PER PEN IN THE DIVIDED UNITS IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE  Number of Birds (per pen)  small  Up to 2500 2501 - 5000 5001 - 7500 No Dividers  40 5 60  Quota Size medium  (23) (5) ( 1) (76)  105 Y,X  2  17 13 2 167 199  = 44.08  ( 44) ( 9) ( 2 ) (143)  large 57 6 4 142  ( 47) ( 10) ( 3 ) (150)  114 24 6 369  209  513  s i g n i f i c a n t (P< 0.005)  There were l a r g e r than expected.numbers of small and largefarm units with up to 2500 birds per pen and a smaller number of medium-farm units with up to 2500 birds per pen.  About 80$,  53$ and 85$ of the small, medium and large-farm units respect i v e l y that had pen d i v i d e r s , had up to 2500 birds per pen (Table L I ) . Lighting A l l u n i t s , regardless (Appendix B, Table XLIV). respect  of farm s i z e , used 24 hours of l i g h t Although the l i g h t i n g regime with  to length of time was uniform, the l i g h t i n t e n s i t y , as  determined by bulb number, size and spacing, d i d vary erably  (Vanderstoep e_t a l . ^ ) .  consid-  VIII. SANITATION Litter Sawdust was used as l i t t e r i n about 44$ of the units and shavings i n about 55$ (Appendix B, Table XLV). TABLE LII TYPE OE LITTER IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Type of L i t t e r  Quota Size medium  small  Sawdust Shavings  large  46 (44) 53 (55)  115 ( 89) 84 (110)  65 ( 93) 144 (116)  226 281  99  199  209 •  507'  = 22.75  significant  (PsO.005)  Six small-farm units which used l i t t e r other than sawdust or shavings, were not included i n t h i s a n a l y s i s . Sawdust was used by about 44$, 58$ and 31$ of t h e small, medium and large-farm  units r e s p e c t i v e l y .  There was a l a r g e r  than expected number of medium-farm units which used.sav/dust, and a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y large number of large-farm  units which  used shavings (Table L I I ) . A four inch thickness the u n i t s , three inches  of l i t t e r v/as used i n about 35$ of  i n 23$, f i v e inches i n 20$ and s i x inche  i n 18$ (Appendix B, Table XLVI).  76 TABLE L I I I AMOUNT OP LITTER IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Amount of L i t t e r (inches) 2 3 4 •5  6 Over 6  Quota Size medium  small  il  3 24 (24 22 (37) 28 (21)  105 = 38.27  Ul]  41 82 ,69) 40 ,40) 35 ,35) 1 7) 199  large  54 75 36 31 13  1) ,49) ,73 .43) (38) 7)  209  3 119 179 104 91 17 513  s i g n i f i c a n t ( P s 0.005)  A Chi-square determination i n d i c a t e d that the d i s t r i b u t i o n of  the d i f f e r e n t amounts of l i t t e r with respect to quota size  was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the expected, with large-farm units tending to use l e s s than 5 inches of l i t t e r to a greater than expected extent (Table L I I I ) . About 61% of the units cleaned out the l i t t e r a f t e r each batch of b i r d s .  completely  The remaining units had some clean-  out or none at a l l on a regular basis a f t e r each batch.  Those  that d i d not cleanout r e g u l a r l y a f t e r each batch d i d so a f t e r two,  three or four batches or only a f t e r a disease problem.  About 25% of the u n i t s cleaned out the l i t t e r completely only once every year (Appendix B, Table XLVII). The analysis i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t differences betv/een the observed and the expected d i s t r i b u t i o n s (Table LIV).  77 TABLE LIV FREQUENCY OE COMPLETE CLEANOUT OE LITTER IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Frequency  of Cleanout_ small  A f t e r every Latch A f t e r two or three hatches Yearly A f t e r disease problem or never  70 (64) 6 23  6 ( 4) 105  T,X  2  10) 27)  =10.19  Quota Size medium 126 (122) 22 45 6 ( 199  20) 51) 6)  large 118 (128)  314  23 ( 21) 64 ( 54)  51 132  4 (  16  6)  209  513  n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t (P>0.10)  B u i l d i n g and Equipment The information on s a n i t a t i o n was obtained i n terms of p r a c t i c e s that were c a r r i e d out a f t e r each batch.  I f a sanita-  t i o n programme was not c a r r i e d out on a regular basis, but rather on an intermittent one, then i n the scope of t h i s report, t h i s was taken to mean that no s a n i t a t i o n programme f o r b u i l d ings and equipment v/as c a r r i e d out. Although not a l l units employed a l l three of the cleaning and s a n i t i z i n g procedures described i n t h i s report, a l l u n i t s , v/ith the exception of 5$ of the small-farm u n i t s , employed at l e a s t one of these procedures a f t e r each batch of b i r d s . Some form of dust removal was employed i n 78$ of the u n i t s . In 63$ of the t o t a l number of units dust was removed by blowing and i n 11$ by sweeping (Appendix B, Table XLVTII).  78  TABLE LV MEANS OE DUST REMOVAL IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Dust Removal  small  Quota Size medium  -  Vacuuming Blowing Sweeping Other than above No dust removal  ( 2) (125) ( ) 0 ( 5) 41 ( 44)  ( 3) (66). 52  141 17  21 (12)  -  5  32 (23) 105  £ X  199  = 46.02  2  There was  2 2  large 6  3) ;i32) 24) 5) 46)  130 20  13  40 209  significant  6 323 58 13 113 513  (P-s 0.005)  a greater than expected number of small-farm units  which removed dust by means of sweeping and a greater number which did not remove dust at a l l .  A greater number of medium-  farm units than expected removed dust by blowing and a greater number of large-farm blowing or sweeping.  units used means other than vacuuming, A greater proportion  units than of medium and  large-farm  not remove dust (Table LV).  (30$)  of small-farm  units (about 20$ each) did  This could p o s s i b l y i n d i c a t e a  greater awareness by operators  of the large farms of the poten-  t i a l problem to health that dust can cause or i t could be  due  to the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the s i z e and number of units per farm. 17 Shaffner  reported  that although birds can t o l e r a t e high  dust loads without disastrous r e s u l t s , i t i s s t i l l believed to 17 Shaffner, C.S., 1968. Dusty Conditions Disease load. Poultry Digest, 27 (312):76.  Can  Increase the  79  be a harmful f a c t o r . ways:  Dust cy.n increase the disease load i n two  organisms may be transported by dust p a r t i c l e s and  i r r i t a t i o n caused by i t may lower the natural resistance of the r e s p i r a t o r y tissue to penetration by organisms.  Even i f disease  i s not present, dust, which i s mainly protein i n nature, could set  up an a l l e r g i c r e a c t i o n i n the r e s p i r a t o r y t r a c t .  Research  c a r r i e d out i n Maryland found that birds i n a dust-free atmosphere gave superior performance over those i n f i e l d  conditions.  Only about 26% of the u n i t s employed wet cleaning and/or steam a f t e r each batch as a means of cleaning the u n i t s .  About  15% of the u n i t s used washing with water and 11% used water and/or steam as a means of cleaning the units (Appendix B, Table XLIX). TABLE LVI EMPLOYMENT OP WASHING OR STEAM GLEANING IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Washing or Steam Cleaning  small  Washing 9 (16) Washing and steaming or steaming alone 13 (11) None 83 (78) 105  £X^  =  15.62  Quota Size medium  large  24 ( 30)  45 ( 32)  78  16 ( 2 2 ) 159 (147)  27 ( 23) 137 (154)  56 379  199  209  513  s i g n i f i c a n t (P<0.005)  80  About 20% of the small and medium-farm units used water and steam or steam alone to clean the units a f t e r each batch whereas about 35% of the large-farm units used t h i s form of cleaning (Table IVI).  This r e s u l t can possibly be accounted f o r by the  f a c t that at the time of the survey, steam cleaning was l a r g e l y contracted  out and the cost may have been considered to be  uneconomical by owners of smaller  farms.  Several s a n i t i z i n g agents were employed, among which were:  d i s i n f e c t a n t s , lime and/or whitewash, fumigants, o i l and  various  combinations of these.  Although 84% of the units  employed one or several of these means, the l a r g e s t (64%)  of the units used d i s i n f e c t a n t s only No means of s a n i t i z i n g was used by 15%,  majority  (Appendix B, Table L ) . 23% and 11% of the  small, medium and large-farm units r e s p e c t i v e l y .  The use of  d i s i n f e c t a n t s accounted f o r 73%, 54% and 68% of the small, medium and  large-farm units r e s p e c t i v e l y .  A Chi-square determination  indicated that the d i s t r i b u t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t than expected (Table LV.TI). . TABLE LVII MEANS OF SANITIZING UNITS IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Means of S a n i t i z i n g  . small  D i s i n f e c t a n t s only 77 (67) Liming and/or whitewashing 12 ( 5) Fumigation only O i l Application 7) 8) Combinations of above None 16 17)  S  105 Y^X  2  = 64.14  Quota Size medium  large  107 (127)  143  10 ( 8)  •-  18 19 45 199  [  I3J  16 ( 33)  (133)  ( 9) 6 15 13) 22 ( 17) 23 ( 34)  209  s i g n i f i c a n t (P20.005)  327 22 6 33 41 84 513  81 1 8  Snyder e t a l . p o u l t r y houses.  The  under h i g h p r e s s u r e o f sweeping and  h i g h l y recommended p r o p e r c l e a n i n g t h o r o u g h w e t t i n g and  procedures  i f b o t h a r e done p r o p e r l y ,  quate c l e a n i n g can.be o b t a i n e d .  ade-  They s t a t e d t h a t the use  d i s i n f e c t a n t s i s n o t alv/ays n e c e s s a r y but done i n c o n j u n c t i o n  c l e a n i n g w i t h water  v/as p r e f e r r e d o v e r d r y - c l e a n i n g  d u s t i n g , hut  of  of  i f u s e d , i t must be  w i t h p r o p e r c l e a n i n g methods, because i f  cleaning i s thoroughly  done t h e r e  but  t h o r o u g h , d i s i n f e c t a n t s w i l l be i n -  i f c l e a n i n g i s not  i s no need f o r d i s i n f e c t a n t s ,  1 o  effective.  S i n g h and  Schaible  , on the o t h e r hand, i n v e s t i -  g a t i n g the e f f e c t o f c e r t a i n s a n i t a r y measures upon and  livability  p e r f o r m a n c e o f p u l l e t s , f o u n d no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n  l i v a b i l i t y , r a t e of p r o d u c t i o n , f e r t i l i t y and  body w e i g h t g a i n , egg  size,  h a t c h a b i l i t y , between groups o f p u l l e t s r e c e i v i n g  c h l o r i n a t e d or t a p w a t e r , nor between t h o s e k e p t i n pens i n w h i c h l i t t e r was  allowed  to build-up  or was  frequently  changed.  They c o n c l u d e d t h a t a l t h o u g h i m p r o v e d s a n i t a t i o n w i l l not  always  improve l i v a b i l i t y and  be  d e l i b e r a t e l y neglected  p e r f o r m a n c e , s a n i t a t i o n s h o u l d not field  c o n d i t i o n s v a r y t o o much and  outbreaks of t r a n s m i s s i b l e diseases  a r e t o o common. 20  I n v i e w o f the r e p o r t by Snyder e_t aJL. be r a i s e d t h a t a l t h o u g h 84$  , t h e p o i n t must  of the u n i t s employed a t l e a s t  one  TO  Snyder e_t al.,  loc. cit •  S i n g h , H. and P . J . S c h a i b l e , 1965. E f f e c t of C e r t a i n S a n i t a r y Measures Upon l i v a b i l i t y and P e r f o r m a n c e o f P u l l e t s . Q u a r t e r l y B u l l e t i n , 48; 173-183, M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . 1 9  20  Snyder e_t al.,  loc. c i t .  82 form of s a n i t i z i n g , 74$ steaming and  22$  of the units did not employ washing or  of the units did not have any dust removed  from them. In view of the very heavy concentration  of poultry  esta-  blishments i n the major b r o i l e r producing areas of B r i t i s h Columbia, perhaps more a t t e n t i o n should be paid to proper cleaning of buildings between each and  every batch, i n c l u d i n g manure  removal, washing or thorough dusting and proper means of sanitizing. Entry to the b r o i l e r growing premises, by people other than those connected with the operation, 85$  v/as r e s t r i c t e d i n about  of the units (Appendix B, Table L I ) .  R e s t r i c t i o n was  forced by various means, among them signs and  locked  en-  doors.  TABLE LVIII RESTRICTION OE ENTRY TO VISITORS IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Entry to V i s i t o r s  Restricted Not R e s t r i c t e d  83 22 105  Z x  2  ' =9.07  R e s t r i c t e d entry was small, medium and greater  Quota Size medium  small (89) (16)  163 36  (169) ( 30)  199  large 189 (177) 20 ( 32) 209  513  s i g n i f i c a n t (P>0.025) practiced i n 78$,  81$ and  90$  of the  large-farm units r e s p e c t i v e l y , i n d i c a t i n g a  tendency towards r e s t r i c t i o n as quota size  A greater  . 435 78  increased.  than expected number of small-farm units and a  smaller  number of large-farm units did not practice r e s t r i c t i o n (Table LVIII).  83 Almost a l l (94%)  units cleaned and d i s i n f e c t e d equipment  between batches (Appendix B, Table L I I ) . TABLE LIX CLEANING AND  Cleaning and infection  DISINSECTION" OE EQUIPMENT IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE  Dis-  small  Sorae None  98 (99) 7 < 6) 105 L X  2  . -  3.32  Quota Size medium  large  192 (187) 7 ( 12)  193 16  109  209  non-significant  (197) ( 12)  483 30 513  (P^O.10)  A Chi-square determination i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ference between the a c t u a l d i s t r i b u t i o n and respect  to cleaning and  quota size (Table Bird  the expected with  d i s i n f e c t i o n of equipment as r e l a t e d to  LIX).  Disposal Although a l l but 3% of the units disposed of dead b i r d s ,  the means whereby i t was  done were quite v a r i e d .  About 31%  of  the units used b u r i a l , 23% the municipal dumps, 15% i n c i n e r a t o r s , 6% disposal p i t s and  22% means other than those mentioned above  (Appendix B, Table. L I I I ) .  84  TABLE LX DISPOSAL OE DEAD BIRDS IN RELATION TO QUOTA SIZE Disposal Means  small  Buried Disposal P i t Incinerator Municipal Dump Other than above None  29 (32) 4 ( 6) 6 15) 34 (24) 26 (23) 6 (3 105  ZX  2  Quota Size medium 56 (61) 20 (12) 42 (29) 53 (46) 23 (44) 5 (7 199  = 53.92  large 73 (65) 7 (13) 27 (31) 31 (48) 65 (47) 6 7) 209  153 31 75 118 114 17 513  s i g n i f i c a n t (P< 0.005)  About 28% of the small-farm u n i t s , 28% of the medium-farm units and 35% of the large-farm of dead-bird large-farm  disposal.  units used b u r i a l as a means  A d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y high number of the  u n i t s used unspecified methods of d i s p o s a l .  square determination  A Chi-  i n d i c a t e d that the d i s t r i b u t i o n v/as s i g -  n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the expected (Table LX).  »5 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION  It  has p r e v i o u s l y  important broiler  for  management p r a c t i c e s  industry  industry and i t s  is  to  to  to  be c o n t i n u a l l y  p r a c t i c e s must  accepted standards  was n e c e s s a r i l y a r b i t r a r y However t h e r e structure further  is  well  to note  operations.  much b e t t e r . a mile  or norms.  other  this  proportion  Bronchitis  poultry  first  use of  week,  the u n i t s  it  the a n t i b i o t i c  industry.  industry  would all'of  establish-  c o u l d have been s h o u l d have been  was i m p o r t a n t  that  had and s h o u l d c o n t i n u e  to  Newcastle Disease or  or a combination of  the  of  establishment.  A l t h o u g h m e d i c a t i o n was u s e d q u i t e the  industry  poultry  t h a n 17$  proportion  v a c c i n a t i o n programmes a g a i n s t  fectious  criticism.  facilities  such establishments  close proximity,  of  to  i n the  the  industry  evaluation  open to  relating  of  the  be-evaluated.:.in  Such an  problems  location  o r more f r o m a n o t h e r  a large  therefore  the  was p o s s i b l e o n v i r t u a l l y  A much l a r g e r  Because of  active  to  Columbia  I n f o r m a t i o n about  t h a t as expansion of  However,  ments i n r e l a t i o n  particularly  p r a c t i c e s w h i c h seemed w o r t h y  h a v e become n e c e s s a r y , t h i s the  is  the B r i t i s h  a n d was c e r t a i n l y  d i s c u s s i o n as p o t e n t i a l  It  it  r e v i e w e d and a s s e s s e d i f  were s e v e r a l f i n d i n g s  a n d management  that  in  remain c o m p e t i t i v e .  management  relation  been o u t l i n e d  these  In-  diseases.  extensively  should probably  have  throughout  h a v e made  T y l o s i n as a p r e c a u t i o n a g a i n s t  wider the  serious  86 p o t e n t i a l problem of Chronic R e s p i r a t o r y Disease. week, m e d i c a t i o n was  a l s o w i d e l y u s e d , but n o t a t a g r e a t  e x t e n t as d u r i n g t h e f i r s t In did  A f t e r the  n o t meet t h e a c c e p t e d norm.  b r o o d i n g , 95°F. i s t h e a c c e p t e d o f 90°  s u p p l i e d brooder  and  an  week.  too l a r g e a number o f t h e u n i t s , t h e b r o o d e r  temperatures  first  temperature  D u r i n g t h e f i r s t week o f temperature,  but some u n i t s had  even as low as 85°F.  Some o f t h e u n i t s  heat f o r v e r y s h o r t p e r i o d s , but t h i s  c a n n o t be c r i t i c i s e d w i t h o u t knowledge o f t h e b r o o d i n g  practice room  temperature. The w a t e r s u p p l y d u r i n g t h e f i r s t week i s v e r y and  f o r t h i s reason a l i t t l e  critical  more a t t e n t i o n s h o u l d have been  p a i d t o t h e w a t e r i n g space requirements,, l i t e r a t u r e recommendations o f 48 and  According to  two  20 i n c h e s p e r 100 c h i c k s ,  a c o n s i d e r a b l e p r o p o r t i o n o f the u n i t s were s u p p l y i n g i n s u f f i c i e n t w a t e r d u r i n g the i n i t i a l b r o o d i n g p e r i o d . w a t e r i n g i s manual o r automated i s o f l i t t l e l o n g as w a t e r i s a d e q u a t e l y  supplied.  Whether the  consequence as  F o r t h i s r e a s o n i t may  have been d e s i r a b l e t o use a few more w a t e r e r s when u s i n g an automated w a t e r i n g s y s t e m .  The  i n d u s t r y was  t h e w a t e r i n g space t o meet the r e q u i r e m e n t s  badly  lacking  d u r i n g the  growing  p e r i o d , w i t h o n l y 35% o f t h e u n i t s h a v i n g t h e recommended amount o f 38 to 58 i n c h e s p e r 100 was  chicks.  Although  the i n d u s t r y  f a s t moving to e f f i c i e n t means o f w a t e r i n g , i t s h o u l d  have s a c r i f i c e d good management f o r ease and  efficiency.  not  87 Feeding space requirement during the i n i t i a l brooding period was not an apparent problem.  However, during the growing period,  over 80$ of the units did not meet the recommended feeding space requirements of 2.4 inches per b i r d . a n i z a t i o n of feeding was  Generally speaking, mech-  l a c k i n g i n the industry, and even  where mechanization had been introduced, the feeding space  was  s t i l l below the recommendation, with the possible exception of most of the automated trough systems.  Although a v a i l a b l e feeder  space was below recommendation, a f t e r brooding the spacing of feeders was  such that the maximum distance to feed was not more  than 10 feet i n 86$ of the u n i t s . Because b r o i l e r s are reared i n confinement, n a t u r a l access to g r i t must be replaced with supplementation of the d i e t . G r i t i s required to separate food p a r t i c l e s to f a c i l i t a t e the churning a c t i o n of the gizzard and f o r the grinding of food particles.  For these reasons i t would have been desirable i f  a greater proportion than 50$ of the u n i t s would have supplemented the d i e t with g r i t . A greater proportion than 60$ of the units should have had complete  cleanout of l i t t e r a f t e r each batch.  With the exception of 5$ of. the small-farm u n i t s , a l l employed some form of s a n i t a t i o n programme.  Dusting  or.washing  with water or steam were used, both of which i f properly done can be very e f f e c t i v e as cleaning procedures. attempt  Although no  could be made to assess the e f f e c t of the cleaning pro-  cedures, since some form of cleaning was'used, and assuming i t  88 was properly done, the industry appeared to have s a t i s f a c t o r y cleaning procedures.  Although no measure of the effectiveness  of the s a n i t i z i n g agents was obtained, 84% of the units used some form of s a n i t i z i n g .  Although 70% of the units used d i s i n f e c -  tants or fumigation, the industry should have made greater use of these means of s a n i t i z i n g . i n conjunction with a properly employed means of cleaning a f t e r complete cleanout of l i t t e r a f t e r each batch. It v/as s u r p r i s i n g that only about 20% of the units disposed of dead birds by means of a d i s p o s a l p i t or i n c i n e r a t o r , and that over 20% used the l e s s e f f i c i e n t and safe measures than the municipal dump as a means of d i s p o s a l . Although c e r t a i n management p r a c t i c e s v/ere predominant i n p a r t i c u l a r farm s i z e s , no o v e r a l l conclusion can be drawn as to the r e l a t i o n s h i p of farm s i z e to management p r a c t i c e s . In general, l a r g e r farms seemed somewhat superior with respect to meeting watering and feeding space requirements.  However, the  v a r i e t y of procedures used i n the management of the operations, can a l l be s u c c e s s f u l i n the hands of the r i g h t operator.  It  can be said therefore, that i n general, with the exception of a few aspects such as feeding and v/atering space and i n part i c u l a r dead b i r d d i s p o s a l , the management of the b r o i l e r farms i n the industry was s a t i s f a c t o r y .  89  CHAPTER VI SUWIARY AND CONCLUSION A sample of 104 B r i t i s h Columbia b r o i l e r farms were surveyed to obtain information on.a number of management p r a c t i c e s . The data thus obtained was analysed, to determine i f management p r a c t i c e s were influenced by farm s i z e .  Farm s i z e i n these de-  terminations was measured by the size of quota held. It was found that an increase i n farm s i z e v/as accompanied by an increase i n the number of u n i t s per farm and the size of the units i n terms of productive f l o o r area. I . BROODING Brooding room temperature v/as not r e l a t e d to farm s i z e , but the use of hot-water brooding systems, with continuous hovers or without hovers, was more common i n large-farm units than i n smaller-farm u n i t s . The use of propane gas and furnace o i l increased as farm s i z e increased, but natural gas and kerosene were used i n a greater than expected proportion of smaller farms. Two main sizes of brooders v/ere used: chicks.  500 chicks or 1000  The data indicated a trend towards l a r g e r brooders i n  smaller u n i t s .  Brooders were used at considerably l e s s to con-  siderably more than 100$ of the rated capacit}', with a tendency f o r a disproportionately large number of units from large farms to use brooders at rated capacity.  90  B r o o d e r s were l o c a t e d i n v a r i o u s a r e a s w i t h i n v/ith a tendency floor  the u n i t s ,  f o r t h e m t o he p l a c e d a l o n g one s i d e  area i n the large-farm u n i t s .  The amount  of the  of f l o o r  area  p r o v i d e d per c h i c k d u r i n g the b r o o d i n g p e r i o d , however, d i d not vary w i t h farm  size.  C h i c k guards were used not a f f e c t e d in  by farm s i z e ,  i n almost a l lu n i t s . b u t t h e y w e r e u s e d more  c o o l room t h a n i n warm room b r o o d i n g .  c a t e d a g r e a t e r use o f c h i c k a t t r a c t i o n  t e m p e r a t u r e was r e l a t e d  frequently  The d a t a , a l s o lights with  b r o o d i n g systems than w i t h open-flame brooding Brooder  T h e i r u s e v/as  indi-  hot-water  systems.  t o quota s i z e but brooding  room t e m p e r a t u r e was n o t . The l e n g t h o f t h e b r o o d i n g p e r i o d v/as f o u n d t o be l o n g e r i n w i n t e r t h a n i n summer, b u t no r e l a t i o n v/as f o u n d t o f a r m - s i z e . II.  WATERING  The t y p e s o f v / a t e r e r s u s e d d u r i n g t h e i n i t i a l p e r i o d was d i f f e r e n t  f o r the v a r i o u s farm  sizes.  t o use c i r c u l a r w a t e r e r s i n s m a l l - f a r m u n i t s  brooding The t r e n d  i n which  f l a m e b r o o d e r s w e r e common, a n d t r o u g h w a t e r e r s o r a tion  o f t r o u g h and c i r c u l a r  was  opencombina-  waterers i n the larger units i n  „which h o t - w a t e r b r o o d e r s v/ere w i d e l y u s e d . The amount  o f a v a i l a b l e v/atering space  p e r i o d was n o t r e l a t e d  t o farm  d u r i n g the brooding  s i z e b u t v/as shown t o be i n a d e -  91 q u a t e t o meet r e c o m m e n d e d r e q u i r e m e n t s i n t h e g r e a t the  majority of  units. The a g e o f t h e c h i c k s a t w h i c h m a n u a l w a t e r i n g  t i n u e d was n o t r e l a t e d  t o quota  The amount o f a v a i l a b l e  discon-  size.  watering  space d u r i n g  p e r i o d was shown t o i n c r e a s e a s q u o t a s i z e a very  was  the growing  increased, but only  s m a l l p r o p o r t i o n o f the u n i t s had adequate  watering  facilities. As during  quota s i z e  increased,  the growing p e r i o d a l s o III.  tial  FEEDING  c h i c k boxes were used as f e e d e r s  brooding  p e r i o d i n almost a l l u n i t s ,  markedly a f f e c t  as quota s i z e  increased.  t h e amount o f f e e d i n g  Quota s i z e  space d u r i n g  d i d not  the  the growing period, hanging tube-feeders  and mortar boxes and m e t a l troughs  increased.  initial  as quota s i z e  the  h a n d , was n o t r e l a t e d  small-number o f u n i t s ;  types  size  systems a l s o i n -  increased, p a r t i c u l a r l y the chain  The u s e o f v a r i o u s  other  were used  u s e d more a s q u o t a  The u s e o f m e c h a n i z e d f e e d i n g  systems.  ately  t h e r e was a t r e n d t o -  period.  During  creased  during the i n i -  use o f c h i c k boxes and g r e a t e r use o f mortar  boxes or troughs  brooding  to water  increased.  Although  wards a l e s s e r  less  t h e maximum d i s t a n c e  o f manual f e e d i n g  t o quota s i z e .  trough  s y s t e m s on  A disproportion-  from l a r g e farms had feeders  which  92  were adjustable f o r height.  A d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y large number  of units from large farms introduced the growing period feeders before the end of the f i r s t week of age. As quota size increased feeder spa.ce also increased.  The  u n i t s with trough feeders i n p a r t i c u l a r , had a greater amount of feeding space r e l a t i v e to the u n i t s with other feeders.  The  largest proportion of the u n i t s had a maximum distance to feed of 6 to 10 f e e t but as quota s i z e increased the proportion of units with over 10 f e e t , a l s o increased. IV. FEEDING PROGRAMMES As quota s i z e increased the use of the combined tions of s t a r t e r , grower and f i n i s h e r decreased of grower and f i n i s h e r increased.  and  formulacombination  Quota size did not noticeably  a f f e c t the use of the d i f f e r e n t feed forms, but the supplement a t i o n of the d i e t with g r i t was  p r a c t i c e d i n a disproportion-  a t e l y high number of large-farm units and i n a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y low numbers of small and medium-farm u n i t s . V. VACCINATION AND  MEDICATION  As quota size increased, i n c r e a s i n g proportions of the units vaccinated.against Newcastle Disease,  Infectious Bron-  c h i t i s or a combination of these diseases.  Vaccination before  the eighth day v/as unexpectedly prevalent among small-farm u n i t s , whereas a l a r g e r than expected number of large-farm u n i t s vaccinated a f t e r the eighth day. of a spray was units.  Administration by means  more prevalent than expected among large-farm  93 Medication v/as used during the f i r s t week of brooding i n almost a l l u n i t s .  I t v/as found that as quota s i z e increased the  number of units that d i d not medicate decreased.  A dispro-  p o r t i o n a t e l y small number of small and medium-farm units and a large number of large-farm units used t y l o s i n alone.  As quota  size increased, the use of feed as a means of administration decreased and the use of i n j e c t i o n or v/ater increased. About 80$ of the u n i t s used medication a f t e r the f i r s t week.  As quota s i z e increased, however, the use of a n t i b i o t i c s  decreased, and the use of chemo-theraputic agents alone i n creased.  I t v/as also found that as quota size increased, the  number of u n i t s v/hich d i d not medicate at any time, decreased. The large-farm u n i t s d i d not use water medication at a l l a f t e r the f i r s t week, but r e l i e d to a l a r g e r extent than expected on a combination of water and feed. VI. UNIT OPERATIONS Wire pen d i v i d e r s v/ere only used i n large-farm u n i t s , but wooden d i v i d e r s were used i n a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y high number of  small-farm u n i t s .  A greater than expected number of medium-  farm u n i t s , however, d i d not use any pen d i v i d e r s .  About 80$,  53$ and 85$ of the small, medium and large-farm units respec-? t i v e l y that had pen d i v i d e r s , had up to 2500 birds per pen. A l l u n i t s , regardless of farm s i z e , used a 24 hour day.  light-  94  VII. There units of  a  larger  which used  large-farm  that  the  respect  to  sawdust  units  quota  with  l i t t e r  expected smaller  than  to  size  the  was  greater  number number  of of  shavings.  different  of  units  tending  expected  The  medium-farm, large  analysis  amounts  significantly  than  both  number  disproportionately  which used  large-farm a  expected  and a  d i s t r i b u t i o n of  expected of  was  SANITATION  of  use  extent.  from  less  units  were  with  the  than  cleaned  out  inches  5  A greater  s m a l l and medium-farm u n i t s ,  large-farm  indicated  l i t t e r  different to  number  than  but  a  after  each  batch.  With  the  exception-of  followed  a regular  the  and probable  type  5% o f  sanitation  the  small-farm units,  programme  effectiveness  of  after the  each  a l l  batch  programmes  units  although  varied  considerably.  A greater and  large-farm  proportion of  small-farm units.than  units  dust.as  removed  part  of  the  of  medium  sanitation  programme.  A disproportionately used  water  and/or  steam  Disinfectants medium and  with  were  large-farm  large  to  clean  used  \mits  Restriction  to  the  enterprise,  broiler  increased.  entry  of  by  number after  73%,  of  large-farm  each  54%  and  units  batch.  68%  of  the  small,  respectively.  premises tended  to  by  people  increase  not as  associated quota  size  95 No farm s i z e e f f e c t could be demonstrated on the p r a c t i c e of c l e a n i n g and d i s i n f e c t i n g equipment a f t e r each  batch.  The means of dead b i r d d i s p o s a l were q u i t e v a r i e d , w i t h b u r i a l tending t o i n c r e a s e as quota s i z e i n c r e a s e d . An e v a l u a t i o n of the i n d u s t r y w i t h respect t o management p r a c t i c e s i n d i c a t e d that w i t h the exception of c e r t a i n p r a c t i c e s such as f e e d i n g and watering  space and p a r t i c u l a r l y dead b i r d  d i s p o s a l , the i n d u s t r y v/as reasonably v / e l l managed.  o  BIBLIOGRAPHY  97  A. Theses Gubbels, Peter M . The Adoption and Rejection of Innovations by Dairymen in.the Lower Praser Valley.' M . S . A . Thesis. The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. 1966. B. Government  Publications  B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of Lands and Porests. The Lower Coast B u l l e t i n Area - B u l l e t i n Area No. 5. Queen's P r i n t e r , V i c t o r i a , B.C., 1959. Canada, Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Canada Yearbook D i v i s i o n . Canada Yearbook:-1967. Queen's P r i n t e r , Ottawa, 1967. Canada, Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Census of Canada - 1966:A g r i c u l t u r e - Census - Parms by Economic Class; Commercial Farms by Product Type. Queen's P r i n t e r , Ottawa, 1967. (Catalogue No". 96-62?). Canada, Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s . Census of Canada - 1966:A g r i c u l t u r e - Data f o r Census - Farms and Commercial Farms Queen's P r i n t e r , Ottawa, 1.967. (Catalogue No. 96"^b*26T^ Canada, Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s . Census of Canada - 1966:A g r i c u l t u r e - Livestock and Poultry on Census - Farms. Queen's P r i n t e r , Ottawa, 1967. (Catalog~ue~No. 96-653") • Canada, Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s . Census of Canada - 1966:A g r i c u l t u r e - Population of Census - Farms; Tenure, Age and Residence of Operators, Part-Time Operators. Queen's P r i n t e r , Ottawa, 19bT^ [Catalogue No. 96-625)." Canada, Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s . Prices and Price Indexes - January, 1967. Queen's P r i n t e r , Ottawa, A p r i l , - 1967 (Catalogue No. T 2 - 0 0 2 ) . C. General Works Card, I.E. and MiC. Nesheim. Poultry Production, 10 and Febiger, Philadelphia7 1966.  th  Ed.  lea  Pankratz, J . and P.H. Chau. The_._Business of Farming and Ranch- . ing i n B r i t i s h Columbia - 1965. B r i t i s h Columbia Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , Farm Economics D i v i s i o n , V i c t o r i a , B.C., 1966. S t e e l , R.G.D. and J.H. T o r r i e . P r i n c i p l e s and Procedures of S t a t i s t i c s . McGraw - H i l l Book Company, Inc. New York, I960.  98  S n y d e r , J.M., O.A. Rowoth, J.C. S c h o l e s and C.E. l e e . P r o f i t - P l e P o u l t r y Management, 24 Ed. Beacon F e e d s , Cayuga, New Y o r k , 1962. a  th  V a n d e r s t o e p , J . , H. Gasperdone, W.H. Pope and J . F . R i c h a r d s . A Study of B r i t i s h Columbia's B r o i l e r I n d u s t r y , P a r t I , I I , I I I and I V . B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e and the Department o f P o u l t r y S c i e n c e , The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1967; 1968 ( a , b, c ) . S p e c i f i c Works B e n t l e y , C F . Food f o r A l l - Can A g r i c u l t u r e P r o v i d e ? Cent e n n i a l l e c t u r e , A g r i c u l t u r a l I n s t i t u t e o f Canada, G i v e n a t M a c d o n a l d C o l l e g e , P.Q., June 26, 1967. S h a f f n e r , C.S., 1968. D u s t y C o n d i t i o n s Can I n c r e a s e t h e D i s e a s e Load. P o u l t r y D i g e s t , 27 (512)7 76. S i n g h , K. and P . J . S c h a i b l e , 1965. E f f e c t o f C e r t a i n S a n i t a r y Measures,.Upon . L i v a b i l i t y and P e r f o r m a n c e o f P u l l e t s , Q u a r t e r l y B u l l e t i n . 48: 175 - 185. M i c h i g a n S t a t e University.  APPENDIX A  SURVEY SCHEDULE  A STUDY OF BROILER HOUSING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA  Card Number One Farm Code Number. Location of B r o i l e r Premises? 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)  Richmond-Delta Surrey-White Rock Langley Matsqui-Sumas Sardis-Chilliwack  Size of B r o i l e r  6) 7) 8) 9)  Coquitlam-Haney Haney-East Van. Island Other  1)  Yes  1)  Yes  Quota.  Is t h i s a lease farm? 0)  No  Is t h i s a company farm? 0)  No  Is the owner (or one of the owners) employed 0)  No  1)  on the farm?  Yes  What i s the t o t a l farm acreage? In order of importance what are the farm enterprises?  2) 3) 4)  None Broilers Beef Dairy Other poultry  5) 6) 7) 8; 9)  Other.livestock Small f r u i t s Other h o r t i c u l t u r e F i e l d crops Other  What percent does the b r o i l e r enterprise represent i n r e l a t i o n to t o t a l farm income? 1) 2) 3)  0 - 19 20- 39 40- 59  4) 5) 6)  What i s the proximity of the nearest poultry enterprise? 1) 2)  Under 200 f t . 200 - 1200 f t .  3) 4)  60 - 79 80 - 99 100 neighbouring i - 1 mile Over 1 mile  What are the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of expansion premises? 1) 2) 3)  No l i m i t a t i o n s Limited by zoning Limited by acreage  4) 5)  on the present  l i m i t e d by 2 & 3 Other  Is the b u i l d i n g s i t e wet or dry? 1)  Wet  2) Dry  What i s the general topography of the land at the building site? 1) 2)  Level S l o p ing i  3)  Steep slope  Is the a i r drainage adequate? 0)  No  1) Yes  What i s the minimum distance between buildings? 1) 2)  Under 50 f t . 51 - 100 f t .  3)  101 f t . or over  Does the owner reside on the premises? 0)  No  1) Yes  I f no, i s there a resident operator or farm manager? 0)  No  1) Yes  What i s the t o t a l d o l l a r investment i n the b r o i l e r enterprise? exclude owners home and land used f o r other a g r i c u l t u r e ) i n hundreds of d o l l a r s ) What percent of the t o t a l farm value does t h i s represent? 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)  Less than 20 21 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 to 60  6) 7) 8) 9)  61 71 81 91  to to to to  70 80 90 100  What i s the source of farm labour?  3)  Owner operation only Owner and family Owner and h i r e d  4) 5)  Owner and family and hired Hired labour only  What i s the approximate number of hours of Operator labour per week Family labour per week Hired labour per week Labour per year: How many men per year does t h i s represent? (2288 hours = 1 man year) How many b r o i l e r s grown per year? (In hundreds) How many b r o i l e r s grown per man, per year? ( i n hundreds)  How many b r o i l e r s grown per tnan, per batch? ( i n hundreds) (assume 4 1/3 batches per year) How many b r o i l e r s does the operator consider that he could s u c c e s s f u l l y care f o r at one time? (in hundreds) (assume one man f u l l time employment) Is the owner employed 1)  elsewhere?  No  2) Yes  What i s the age of the grower? 1) 2)  20 to 35 years 36 to 50 years  3) 4)  How long has grower been i n b r o i l e r 1) 2)  Up to 5 years 6 to 10 years  3) 4)  51 to 65 years Over 65 years farming? 11 to 20 years Over 20 years  How long has grower been i n a g r i c u l t u r e ? 1)  Up to 5 years  3)  11 to 20 year  2)  6 to 10 years  4)  Over 20 years  How many b r o i l e r buildings on the premises? How many b u i l d i n g questionnaires to be completed? How many buildingr-storey questionnaires to be completed?  Has the grower agreed to supply production f o r four hatches of "broilers? OJ 1) 2;  No Yes, on a storey Yes, on a b u i l d i n g basis only  3)  information  Yes, on a farm basis only  I f the grower has both s i n g l e and multi-storey b u i l d i n g s , does he have a preference of one over the other? 0)  1)  No Yes, s i n g l e storey  2)  Yes, multi-storey  2)  Yes, consumption only  4) 5)  Municipal Other  Is the water supply adequate?  I)  No Yes, f o r a l l purposes  What i s the water source? 1) 2)  Well or a r t e s i a n Dug-out Stream or lake  Card Number Two Farm Code Number B u i l d i n g Code Number Number of Storeys For what storey was t h i s questionnaire completed?  Are tiie'answers applicable to any other  storey(s)?  now i s b u i l d i n g oriented: 1) Age  of b u i l d i n g : l;  2)  3;  4)  Has  Mostly worth & South  2)  Mostly East & West  5)  1963 - 1965 1966 Under construction  Built  P r i o r to 1941 1941 - 1949 1950 - 1959 1960 - 1962  6j 7)  b u i l d i n g been remodelled or improved since I960? 0)  No  1) Yes  I f yes - was tne reason 1) 2)  Construction f a u l t Decrease heat l o s s Improve v e n t i l a t i o n Increase labour e f f i c i e n c y 2 & 3 2 & 4 3 & 4 2, 3 & 4 Otner  I f b u i l t since 19b0, what v/as the construction cost of t h i s building? (in cents per square foox) What was the equipment cost f o r t h i s building? ( i n cents per square foot) What was the t o t a l cost of b u i l d i n g and equipment? {In cents per square foot)  Does construction cost include labour? Oj 0)  No Yes,  2)  Yes, a l l labour  partly  wnere are bulk bins located? 0) 1) 2j  None Outside Outside Inside  - separate from ouilding - part of ouilding  Where are bulk bins located? 3) 4)  End About i way  5) About § way b) Otner  What materials are bins made of? 0) 1)  None Wood  2) n e t a l 3) Otner  What i s the t o t a l feed capacity of the bins f o r t h i s building? ( i n tons) Is the e x t e r i o r of the b u i l d i n g painted? 0)  No  1)  Yes  Is any remodelling or improvement planned future? (approx. 1 year) 0)  No  1)  i n the near  Yes  I f yes - i s the reason 1) 2) 3) 4} 5)  Construction f a u l t 6) Decrease heat loss 7) Improve v e n t i l a t i o n 8) Increase labour e f f i c i e n c y 2 & 3  2 & 4 3 & 4 2, 3 & 4  Is t h i s b u i l d i n g used year round? 0)  No  1)  Yes  I]  Other Other  2)  Continuous  Is t h i s b u i l d i n g used f o r 1) Broiler 2.) Roaster 3) 1 and 2 45 1 and/or 2 and other poultry  livestock  Is t h i s b u i l d i n g operated 1)  A l l i n a l l out  Is the water drainage adequate? 0)  No  1)  Yes  1)  Yes  Is the a i r drainage adequate? 0)  No  What i s the width of the building? (in feet) What i s the length of the building? (in feet) What i s the t o t a l square feet of growing area? ( i n hundreds) (deduct non-productive f l o o r area) What i s the t o t a l square feet of growing area? (one f l o o r ) ( i n hundreds) (deduct non-productive f l o o r area)  What type of b u i l d i n g materials on e x t e r i o r wall? (outside i n ) 0) 1) 2) 3) 4)  None Siding Shiplap Plywood B u i l d i n g paper  5)  Aluminum or she metal Asphalt Shingle Other  4) 5 6  Insul board Paper Other  What type of w a l l i n s u l a t i o n ? 0) 1) 2) 3)  None Shavings Pibreglass Rock wool  What i s the thickness of w a l l i n s u l a t i o n ? ( i n inches) What type of m a t e r i a l on i n t e r i o r walls? (inside out)  0, None 1. S i d i n g 2, Shiplap 3,  4.  Plywood Paper  5) 6) 7) 8)  Hardboard Aluminum f o i l Polyethelene Other  How many walls with windows? Where i s the bottom edge of windows located? 1) 2) 3)  About b i r d height About -g v/ay up About 3/4 v/ay up  4) 5)  Roof Other  What i s  the  percent  Calculate a) b) c)  Is  are  0) 1) 2) 3)  None Glass Plastic Other  this  building  1)  w i n d o w s made o u t  No  this building bird  this building 1)  clear  o f rows  -3 there any a u x i l i a r y 1)  No  of?  2)  Yes  2)  Yes  2)  Yes  2)  Yes  proof?  span?  No  -1 no - number  .  light-proof?  1) Is  area?  -  T o t a l number o f windows A v e r a g e w i d t h o f windows A v e r a g e h e i g h t o f windows  "•/hat m a t e r i a l  Is  o f v/indow a r e a t o w a l l  of  posts.  cooling?  Card Number Three Farm Code Number B u i l d i n g Code Number Storey Code Number V/hat type of foundation? 0) 1) 2) 3)  None Concrete block Concrete f o o t i n g Concrete wall  4) 5) 6)  Post (raised) Wood Other  5) 6) 7) 8)  Paper Polyethelene Aluminum f o i l Other  5) 6) 7)  Aluminum Other metal Other .  4,  Quonset Semi-monitor Other  What type of f l o o r ? 0) 1) 2) 3) 4)  None Dirt Concrete Single wood Double wood  What type of r o o f i n g material? 1) 2) 3) 4)  Asphalt r o l l or shingle Wood shingle or shake Plywood Tar and gravel  V/hat type of roof design? 1) 2) 3)  Gable Shed Flat  6.  Are there roof gutters?  1)  No  2)  Yes  Is there a c e i l i n g ? 0) 1) 2)  None P a r t i a l , about i P a r t i a l , about i  3) A) 5)  P a r t i a l , about 3 / 4 Complete Other  5)  Insul board Shavings Fibre glass or rock wool Other  What m a t e r i a l used f o r c e i l i n g ? (inside up) 0) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)  None Wood board Plywood Paper Polyethelene Aluminum f o i l  8)  9)  What i s the thickness of c e i l i n g i n s u l a t i o n ? What i s the height from f l o o r to plate? (in feet) What i s the height from f l o o r to ridge? (in feet) What i s the (average) height of the c e i l i n g ? Calculate cubic volume of t h i s storey, ( i n hundreds) What type of v e n t i l a t i o n . 1) 2)  Natural Mechanical (pressure)  3) 4)  Mechanical (exhaust) Natural & mechanical  Where are a i r intakes located? 1) 2) 3) 4) 5;  One wall Two walls Three walls Pour walls Ceiling  6) 7) 8) 9)  Roof Wall(s) & c e i l i n g Wall(s) & roof C e i l i n g & roof  6) 7) 8) 9)  Near w a l l i n c e i l i n g About middle of c e i l i n g Roof peak Gable area  Where are a i r intakes located? 1) 2) 3) 4) 5;  Ahout Ahout About About Plate  "bird l e v e l i way up wall i way up wall 3/4 way up w a l l height  Are a i r intakes continuous or spaced? 1)  2)  Continuous  Spaced  What i s the t o t a l square area of a i r intake openings? (in feet) a) b) c) d)  Number of openings Ave. length of openings Ave. width of openings Or diameter of openings  How are a i r intake openings regulated? 0) 1)  None Manually  How are a i r intake openings None Shutters Plaps  2) 3)  Mechanically Other  regulated? 3) 4)  Slides Other  Are a i r intake openings a l s o used f o r exhausting  21  No Yes, e x c l u s i v e l y  2)  Yes, with openings.  air?  other  NOTE:  I f the answer to the previous question i s Yes, e x c l u s i v e l y , then tho remaining questions p e r t a i n i n g to intakes can he answered with a " 3 " . I f the answer i s Yes, with other openings, then these questions should be answered as they p e r t a i n to the other openings only.  Where are a i r exhausts located? 1) 2 3  One w a l l Two walls Three walls Eour walls Ceiling  6) 7) 8) 9)  Roof Wall(s) & C e i l i n g Wall(s) & Roof C e i l i n g & Roof  6) 7)  Near w a l l i n c e i l i n g About middle of ceiling Roof peak Gable area  Where are a i r exhausts located? 1) 2) 3) 4) 5;  About About About About Plate  bird level i way up w a l l i way up w a l l 3/4 way up wall height  8) 9)  Are a i r exhausts continuous or spaced? l)  Continuous  2)  Spaced  What i s the t o t a l square area of a i r exhaust openings? (in feet) a) b) c) d)  Number of openings Average width of openings Average length of openings Or diameter of openings  I f v e n t i l a t i o n i s mechanical, what i s the t o t a l number of fans f o r t h i s storey? What i s the t o t a l CEM rating? ( i n hundreds)  Are fans v a r i a b l e speed? 0)  Ho  Are fans time 0)  Yes  1)  Yes  controlled?  No  Are fans t h e r m o s t a t i c a l l y 0)  1)  controlled?  No  1)  Yes  1)  Yes  Are fans r e v e r s i b l e ? 0)  No  Y/hat i s the average number of fans per control? Are a l l fans on the same c i r c u i t ? 0) No 1)  Yes  In the event of fan f a i l u r e , can b u i l d i n g be ventilated? 0)  No  1)  Yes  How are a i r exhaust openings regulated? 0) 1) 2)  3) 4)  None Shutters Slides  Flaps Other  How are a i r exhaust openings regulated? 0) 1)  2) 3)  None Mechanically  How many rows of l i g h t  bulbs?  Manually Other  How many bulbs per row? What i s the size of the l i g h t (watts) 1) 2) 3)  25 40 60  bulbs? 4) 100 5) Other  What i s the distance from f l o o r to l i g h t  bulb?  What i s the l i g h t bulb spacing: Distance one way Distance other way Are l i g h t r e f l e c t o r s used? 0) Are  No  1) Yes  walls-  I]  Bright Dull  3)  Dark  What i s the width of l a r g e s t service door? (feet) What i s the length, of l a r g e s t service door? (feet) How many openings of t h i s approximate size? Where are these doors located? 1)  End  2)  Side  How many other service doors are there?  Carci Number Four Farm Code: B u i l d i n g Code: Storey Code: What type of brooding i s used? a)  c)  il I) 3) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)  V/arm room Cool room No hoovers I n d i v i d u a l hoovers Continuous hoovers Hot a i r Hot water Open flame Radiant Other  What type of brooder f u e l i s used? 1) 2) 3)  Propane gas Natural gas Kereosene Stove o i l  5)  Furnace o i l Electric Other  What i s the rated capacity of the majority of the brooders?  I]  500 1000  3)  Other  V/hat percent of brooder capacity i s used i n summer? 6) 7)  8) 9) 5) 100  110 120 130 Other  What p e r c e n t o f b r o o d e r  c a p a c i t y i s used i n w i n t e r ? 6) 7) 8) 9)  110 120 130 Other  I f o n l y p a r t o f the s t o r e y i s used f o r b r o o d i n g , or i f c h i c k s a r e c o n f i n e d d u r i n g t h e b r o o d i n g p e r i o d , what i s t h e square f o o t a r e a p e r c h i c k ? Where a r e b r o o d e r s l)  located?  A l o n g one s i d e o f t h e f l o o r a r e a Along both sides of the f l o o r area Along the centre f l o o r area Grouped i n one s e c t i o n o f t h e s t o r e y Other  What t y p e o f b r o o d e r g u a r d s a r e u s e d ? None Solid What h e i g h t a r e b r o o d e r  2)  Other  guards?  About 12 i n c h e s About 18 i n c h e s  3) 4;  About 24 i n c h e s Over 24 i n c h e s  How many b r o o d e r s p e r g u a r d ? I s t h e r e any a u x i l i a r y h e a t i n g on t h e f l o o r ? 1)  Yes  0)  Are b r o o d e r p i l o t l i g h t s u s e d ? 1)  Yes  0)  No  Do you know what the brooder temperature i s the f i r s t week? 1)  2) 3)  4) 5)  About 100°J?  About 95 About 90  About 85 Doesn't know  Approximately how l o n g are the brooders used i n summer? ( i n days) Approximately how l o n g are the brooders used i n w i n t e r ? ( i n days) What type of l i t t e r i s used?  I]  SawdustShavings  Approximately how much 1. 2, 3, 4  0 1 2 3  3)  Other  litter? 4 inches 5 inches 6 inches Over 6 inches  inches inch inches inches  How o f t e n i s l i t t e r completely cleaned out? 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)  A f t e r each batch A f t e r every second batch A f t e r every t h i r d batch Yearly Only a f t e r disease problem Never Other  V/hat type of waterers are used the f i r s t week? . 1) 2)  C i r c u l a r type Trough type  3) 4)  How many waterers per.1000 c h i c k s ?  Combination of c i r c u l a r & trough Other  How many inches of water trough per 1 0 0 c h i c k s ? (day o l d ) (double l e n g t h i f 2 s i d e s ) At what age ( i n days) i s manual w a t e r i n g d i s c o n t i n u e d ? How many inches of water space d u r i n g growing p e r i o d per 100 c h i c k s ? Can waterers be a d j u s t e d f o r h e i g h t ? 1)  Yes  0)  No  What i s the maximum d i s t a n c e a b i r d MIGHT t r a v e l t o a waterer d u r i n g the growing p e r i o d ? What type of feeders are used the f i r s t week? 1) Egg f l a t s 2) Chick boxes 3; -Wooden mortar boxes 4) Trough  5) Pan 6) Other ( s p e c i f y ) 7) Combination ( s p e c i f y )  How many feeders per 1000 c h i c k s ? ( f i r s t week) What type of feeders are used d u r i n g the growing 1) 2) 3)  Hanging feeder Pan s e l f - f e e d e r Metal trough  Are feeders m e c h a n i c a l l y 1)  Yes  period?  4) 5) 6)  Mortar box Wooden s e l f - f e e d e r Other  0)  No  filled?  I f y 3 s , what system i s used? 1) 21 3; 4) 5) 6} 7)  Shaker' Hanging f e e d e r o r t r a c k Hanging f e e d e r mech. f i l l e d Auger t r o u g h Chain t r o u g h Auger pan Other  I f f e e d i n g i s o t h e r than m e c h a n i c a l , 1) 2) 3)  4) 5)  Overhead c a r r i e r Buckets Wheelbarrow  How many f e e d e r s p e r 1000 How many f e e t period?  what method i s used? Sacks Other  b i r d s d u r i n g growing p e r i o d ?  o f f e e d e r space p e r 1000  b i r d s d u r i n g growing  What i s the maximum d i s t a n c e a b i r d would t r a v e l t o f e e d e r d u r i n g growing p e r i o d ? Can  f e e d e r s be a d j u s t e d f o r h e i g h t ? 0)  1)  No  At what age  a r e b i r d s on secondary  What i s the l e n g t h o f the l i g h t  Yes feeders?  day?  Are pen d i v i d e r s used? 0) I f yes  1)  No are  Yes  dividers  Wood Wire  3)  Other  I f yes, how many birds per pen? 1} •2) 3)  Up to 2500 2501 - 5000 5001 - 7500  4)  7501 - 10,000  5)  Over 10,001  What i s the maximum feed handling  distance?  What i s the minimum feed handling  distance?  What i s the average feed handling  distance?  What feeding program i s followed? Starter Grower Pinisher 1, 2 and 3  8)  1 and 3 2 and 3 1 and 2 Other  I]  •2 & 3  5) 6)  V  V/hat type of feed i s used? i;  2, 3, 4, Is g r i t 0)  Mash Crubles Pellets 1, 2 & 3  I  1 & 3 1 & 2 Other  fed? No  1) Yes  When are b i r d s vaccinated f o r the f i r s t time? 0) 1) 2) 3)  None 0 - 3 days 4 - 7 days 8 - 1 0 days  4) 5) 6)  1 1 - 1 4 days 15 - 21 days Other  What type of vaccine i s used? 1) 2)  NT) - IB combined Other  Newcastle Bronchitis  How i s vaccine administered? 1) 2) 3)  Water Spray Dust  4) 5)  Ocular Other  Card Number Five Farm Code B u i l d i n g Code Storey Code What medication program i s followed during the f i r s t week? (other than c o c c i d i o s t a t ) 1) 2) 3) 4)  Injection Water Feed 1 & 2  5) 6) 7) 8)  1 & 3 2 & 3 1, 2 & 3 Other  What type of medication i s used during the f i r s t week? 1) 2) 3)  Tylosin A n t i b i o t i c - other than t y l o s i n Chemo-theraputic  4) 5) 6) 7)  Vitamins Health booster Germicide Other  What m e d i c a t i o n program i s f o l l o w e d a f t e r f i r s t week? (other than c o c c i d i o s t a t ) 1) 2) 3)  4)  Injection Water Peed  5) 6) 7)  1 &2  8)  1 & 3' 2 &3 1, 2 & 3 Other  What t y p e o f m e d i c a t i o n i s u s e d a f t e r f i r s t week? 1) 2) 3)  Tylosin A n t i b i o t i c - other than t y l o s i n Chemotheraputic  Vitamins Health booster Germicide Other  Where a r e b i r d s m a r k e t e d ? Health of A plant Other How a r e dead b i r d s  2) 2)  Is  3)  1 &2  3) 4) 5)  Incinerator M u n i c i p a l dump Other  disposed?  None Buried Disposal p i t  equipment c l e a n e d and d i s i n f e c t e d between b a t c h e s ?  0)  No  1)  Yes  What i s t h e g e n e r a l c l e a n - u p p r o c e d u r e a f t e r e a c h b a t c h . Is  l i t t e r removed?  0) 1)  No Yes, p a r t l y  2)  Yes, completely  Is dust removed?  0) 1) 2)  No Vacuumed Blown  3) 4)  Swept Other  2) 3)  Washed and/or Other  3) 4) 5)  Fumigated O i l applied Other  1)  Yes  Is b u i l d i n g c l e a n e d '  0) 1)  No V/as he d  Is b u i l d i n g  0) 1) 2)  No Disinfected Limed and/or whitewashed  Are v i s i t o r s  0)  sanitized?  No  restricted?  steamed  .APPENDIX B  FREQUENCY  DISTRIBUTIONS  TABLE I GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OE CHICKEN BROILER'FARMS SURVEYED Location  No.  Percent of Total  B r o i l e r Farm Investment U'OO)  Surrey-White Rock Langley Matsqui Sumas Sardis-Chilliwack Coquitlam-W. Haney Haney East Vancouver Island & Other  19 33 41 4 1 2 4  18.3 31.7 39.4 3.8 .9 1.9 3.8  5394 10337 9079 1084 400 950 1791  4183 7353 6978 522 360 731 1196  29035  21323  104  Total ' Size (  TABLE I I TYPES OF BROODING SYSTEMS Type of Brooding  No.  fo of Total  Warm room - with no hovers Warm room - with i n d i v i d u a l hovers V/arm room - with continuous hovers  32 167 24  6.2 32.6 4.7  Cool room - with no hovers Cool room - with i n d i v i d u a l hovers Cool room - with continuous hovers  9 276 2  1.8 53.8 0.4  3  0.6  Not Applicable - No Brooding  513  TABLE I I I TYPES OF PROODERS No.  Types of Brooders Hot Water Open Flame Radiant Heat No Brooders  57 443 10 3  % of Total 11.1 86.4 2.0 0.6  513  TABLE IV TYPES OF BROODING FUEL USED Types of Fuel  No.  Propane Gas Natural Gas Kerosene Furnace O i l Electricity Other than above No Brooding  417 51 16 14 6 6 3 513  % of Total 81.3 9.9 3.1 2.7 1.2 1.2 0.6  TABLE V THE PREDOMINANT RATED CAPACITY OP THE BROODERS IN A UNIT Rated Brooder Capacity (Number of Chicks)  No.  500 1000 Other than above No Brooding  147 286 77 5  % of T o t a l  28.6 55.8 15-0 0.6  515  TABLE VI USE OP BROODER CAPACITY IN SUMMER Brooder Capacity Used i n Summer (% of rated capacity) 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 150 Other than above No Brooding  No.  1 60 79 46 267 4 28 2 25 5 515  1o of Total  0.2 11.7 15.4 9.0 52.0 0.8 5.5 0.4 4.5 0.6  TABLE V I I USE OP BROODER C A P A C I T Y I N WINTER Brooder C a p a c i t y Used i n W i n t e r (fo o f r a t e d c a p a c i t y ) 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 Other t h a n above No B r o o d i n g  No.  °/o o f  Total  12.5 18.9 8.2 49.5 1.4 3.9 0.4 4.7 0.6  64 97 42 254 7 20 2 24 3 513  TABLE  VIII  PLACEMENT OP BROODERS Brooder  Placement  A l o n g one s i d e o f f l o o r a r e a Along both sides of f l o o r area Along c e n t e r o f f l o o r a r e a G r o u p e d i n one s e c t i o n o f u n i t Other than above . No B r o o d i n g  No. 147 67 266 28 2 2 513  f of  Total 28.6 13.1 51.8 5-5 0.4 0.6  TABLE IX ALLOTED ELOOR AREA PER CHICK DURING BROODING No.  Ploor Area per Chick (sq. f t . )  8 20 2 21 7 2 450 3  0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 No Brooding  % of T o t a l  1.6' 3.9 0.4 4.1 1.4 0.4 87.7 0.6  513  TABLE X TYPES OE CHICK GUARDS % of T o t a l  Types of Guards  No.  None  35  6.8  418 27 2  81.5 5.3 0.4  14 8 6  2.7 1.6 1.2  3  0.6  S o l i d - about 12 inches high S o l i d - about 18 inches high S o l i d - about 24 inches high Other than above - about 12 i n .high Other than above - about 18 i n .high Other than above - about 24 i n .high No Brooding  513  TABLE XI PRESENCE OE AUXILARY HEATING IN UNITS Auxilary  io o f T o t a l  No.  Heating  501 9 3  None Some No B r o o d i n g  97.7 1.7 0.6  513  TABLE X I I ' USE OE BROODER ATTRACTION LIGHTS TYPES OE BROODERS  WITH  :DIFFERENT  fo o f T o t a l  A t t r a c t i o n L i g h t s and Type o f Brooder  No.  Hot Water - w i t h o u t l i g h t s Hot Water - w i t h l i g h t s  23 34  4.5 6.6  286 157  55.7 30.6  10  1.9  3  0.6  Open Flame - w i t h o u t l i g h t s Open Flame - w i t h l i g h t s R a d i a n t Heat - w i t h o u t No B r o o d i n g  lights  513  TABLE XIII BROODING TEMPERATUREi? DURING FIRST WEEK Approximate Brooding Temperatures (°E)  No. 46 276 128 50 10 3  About 100 About 95 About 90 About 85 Not Known No Brooding  io of T o t a l 9.0 53.8 25.0 9.7 1.9 0.6  513  TABLE XIV AVERAGE LENGTH OE SUMMER BROODING PERIOD Summer Brooding Period (days) 4-14 15 - 21 22 - 28 29-63 No Response No Brooding  No.  37 122 278 54 19 3 515  fo of T o t a l  7.2 23.8 54.2 10.6 3.7 0.6  TABLE XV AVERAGE LENGTH OE WINTER BROODING PERIOD No.  Winter Brooding Period (days; 14 - 21 22 - 28 29 - 35 36 -,42 43 - 63 No Response No Brooding  29 71 114 207 66 23 3  % of T o t a l  5.6 13.8 22.3 40.3 12.9 4.5 0.6  513  TABLE XVI TYPES OE V/ATERERS USED DURING THE FIRST WEEK OF BROODING Types of Waterers  No.  C i r c u l a r (fountains) Trough Combination of C i r c u l a r and Trough No Brooding  283 67 160 3 513  % of Total 55.2 13.1 31.2 0.6  TABLE XVII NUMBER OP WATERERS USED DURING THE PIRST WEEK OP BROODING Number of Waterers (per 1000 chicks)  No. ' .'  1-4 5-8 9 -14 No Response No Brooding  108 253 144 5 3  % of T o t a l 21.0 49.3 28.0 1.0 0.6  513  TABLE XVIII AMOUNT OP WATERING SPACE DURING THE PIRST WEEK OP BROODING Watering Space (inches per 100 chicks) 10-14 15 - 19 20-24 25 - 29 30 - 34 35-39 40 and over No Response No Brooding  No.  15 76 64 122 110 68 51 4 3 513  % of Total  2.9 14.9 12.5 23.8 21.5 13.3 10.1 0.8 0.6  TABLE XIX AGE OF CHICKS AT DISCONTINUATION  OF MANUAL WATERING  Discontinuation of Manual Watering (age of chicks i n days)  No.  % of T o t a l  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 21 Not Applicable - No Manual Watering Not Applicable - No Brooding  13 65  2.5 12.7 4.5 18.9 15.2 14.4 8.8 1.2 11.3 1.9 8.0 0.6  23  97 78 74 45 6 58 10 41 3 513  TABLE XX AMOUNT OF WATERING SPACE DURING GROWING PERIOD Watering Space (in./lOO b i r d s ) 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60 - 64 65 - 69 over 70  No. 12 16 32 62 218 17 82 23 20 5 6 20 513  $ of T o t a l 2.3 3.1 6.2 12.1 42.5 3.3 16.0 4.5 3.9 1.0 1.2 3.9  TABLE XXI HEIGHT ADJUSTABILITY OE WATERERS DURING THE GROWING PERIOD A d j u s t a b i l i t y of Waterers  No. 496 17  Adjustable Not Adjustable  % of T o t a l 96.7 3.3  513  TABLE XXII MAXIMUM DISTANCE TO WATERERS DURING THE GROWING PERIOD Maximum Distance 4 5 6 7 8 " 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 20 No Response  (feet)  No. 2 4 10 5 16 17 187 5 115 17 25 48 27 6 25 4 513  % of T o t a l 0.4 0.8 1.9 1.0 3.1 3.3 36.4 1.0 22.4 3.3 4.9 9.4 5.3 1.2 4.9 0.8  TABLE XXIII TYPES OE FEEDERS USED DURING FIRST WEEK OF BROODING No.  Types of Feeders Chick Boxes Wooden Mortar Boxes Trough Combination of Above None - No Brooding  fo of T o t a l  479 17 6 8 3  93.4 3.3 1.2 1.6 0.6  513  TABLE XXIV NUMBER OF FEEDERS USED DURING FIRST WEEK OF BROODING Number of Feeders (per 1000 chicks) 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 No Response Not Applicable  - No Brooding  No. 10 85 45 86 25 230 23 6 3 513  f of Total 1.9 16.6 8.8 16.8 4.9 44.8 4.5 1.2 0.6  TABLE XXV TYPES OE PEELERS USED DURING THE GROWING PERIOD No.  Types of Peeders  <fo of T o t a l  278 44  54.2 8.5  11  2.1  Metal Trough - Manually f i l l e d Metal Trough - Mechanically f i l l e d  1 40  0.2 7.8  Mortar Box - Manually f i l l e d  27  5.3  Wooden Self-feeder - Manually f i l l e d  71  13.8  Other Than Above  41  Hanging Tube - Manually f i l l e d Hanging Tube - Mechanically f i l l e d Pan Self-feeder - Mechanically  filled  a  8.0  513 Some of these 41 units had several combinations of the mentioned type of feeders. a  TABLE XXVI TYPES OP MECHANICAL PEEDING SYSTEMS Types of Systems Hanging Peeder on Track Hanging Peeder Mechanically P i l l e d Chain Trough Auger Pan Not Applicable - Manual Systems  No. 38 •6 40 11 418 513  fo of T o t a l 7.4 1.2 7.8 2.1 81.4  TABLE XXVII TYPES OE CARRIERS USED IN" MANUAL FEEDING SYSTEMS No.  Types of C a r r i e r Overhead Container on Track Buckets Wheelbarrow Other Than Above Not Applicable - Mechanical Systems  7 278 109 24 95  % of Total 1.4 54.2 21.4 4.7 18.3  513  TABLE XXVIII HEIGHT ADJUSTABILITY A d j u s t a b i l i t y of Feeders Adjustable Not Adjustable  OE FEEDERS No. 425 88 513  % of Total 82.8 17.2  TABLE XXIX AGE OE BIRDS AT WHICH SECONDARY FEEDERS WERE INTRODUCED No.  Age of Birds (days)  fo of T o t a l  16 10 29 23 42 29 94 19 65 3 108 63 1 9 2  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 14 21 24 28 42  3.1 1.9 5.6 4.5 8.2 5.6 18.3 3.7 12.7 0.6 21.1 12.3 0.2 1.8 0.4  513  TABLE XXX NUMBER OF FEEDERS USED DURING THE GROWING PERIOD Number of Feeders (per 1000 b i r d s ) 1 - 8 9-16 17 - 25 28 and over No Response Not Applicable  No. 96 243 111 3 48  a  fo of T o t a l 18.7 47.3 21.7 0.6 2.3 9.7  513 The 48 u n i t s not applicable were those with various combinations of feeders, wooden s e l f - f e e d e r s and metal troughs, f o r which l o g i c a l data could not be obtained.  TABLE rXXI AMOUNT OP PEEDING SPACE DURING THE GROWING PERIOD Feeding Space (ft./lOOO  birds)  10 - 1 4 20 - 2 4 30 - 34 35 - 39 40 - 44 45 - 49 50 - 54 55 - 5 9 60 - 64 65 - 69 70 - 74 75 - 79 80 - 84 85 - 89 90 - 94 99 and over No Response Not Applicable  No.  f of T o t a l  2 2 17 7 28 18 34 39 81 40 42 16 14 41 14 83 7 28  0.4 0.4 3.3 1.4 5.4 3.5 6.6 7.6 15.8 7.8 8.2 3.1 2.7 8.0 2.7 16.2 1.4 5.4  513  TABLE XXXII MAXIMUM DISTANCE TO FEEDERS DURING THE GROWING PERIOD Maximum Distance ( f t . ) 4 6 8 10 12  - 5 - 7 - 9 - 11 and over  No. 67 142 97 138 69 513  fo of Total 13.0 27.7 18.9 26.9 13.4  TABLE JDCXIII FEEDING PROGRAMMES Feeding Programmes  No.  S t a r t e r , grov/er and f i n i s h e r Grower and f i n i s h e r Starter and grov/er Other than above  443 53 15 2  % of Total 86.3 10.3 2.9 0.4  513  TABLE XXXIV TYPES OF FEEDS Types of Feeds  No.  Crumbles only Mash, crumbles and p e l l e t s Crumbles and p e l l e t s Mash and crumbles Other than above  128 112 163 100 10  % of Total 24.9 21.8 31.8 19.5 1.9  513  TABLE XXXV FEEDING OF GRIT Feeding of g r i t  No.  None Some  244 269 513  % of Total 47.6 52.4  TABLE.XXXVI TYPES AND TIME OE EIRST VACCINATION Types and Time (days) of Vaccination  No.  Newcastle Disease a t : 4 - 7 8-10 11-14  95 76 40  18.5 14.8 7.8  91 161 18  17.7 31.4 3.5  32  6.2  Newcastle Disease - Infectious Bronchitis combined a t : 4 - 7 8-10 11-14 No vaccination  % of T o t a l  513  TABLE XXXVII MODE OP VACCINE  ADMINISTRATION  Mode of Administration  No.  Water Spray Not Applicable  350 131 32  (no vaccination)  513  % of T o t a l 68.2 25.5 6.2  TABLE XXXVIII TYPES OE MEDICATION ADMINISTERED DURING THE-FIRST WEEK Types of Medication  No.  $ of T o t a l  85 20 173  16.6 3.9 33.7  8  1.6  4  0.8  A n t i b i o t i c only 5 A n t i b i o t i c and chemo-theraputic agent(is)10  1.0 1.9  101 Chemo-theraputic agent(s) only Chemo-theraputic agent(s) and vitamins 6 Chemo-theraputic agent(s) and others 5  19.7 1.2 1.0  T y l o s i n only T y l o s i n and other a n t i b i o t i c s T y l o s i n and chemo-theraputic agent(s) T y l o s i n , chemo-theraputic agent(s) and germicide T y l o s i n , chemo-theraputic agent(s) and others  Vitamins only  15  2.9  Health booster only  20  3.9  8  1.6  53  10.3  Germicide only Not Applicable (no medication)  513  TABLE vXXXIX MODE OF ADMINISTRATION OF MEDICATION DURING FIRST WEEK Mode of Administration Injection Water Feed I n j e c t i o n and V/ater I n j e c t i o n and Feed V/ater and Feed I n j e c t i o n , v/ater and feed Not Applicable (no medication)  No. 79 41 124 10 184 14 8 53 513  fo of Total 15.4 8.0 24.2 1.9 35.9 2.7 1.6 10.3  TABLE X L  TYPES OE MEDICATION ADMINISTERED AETER THE EIRST WEEK % of Total  Types of Medication  No.  T y l o s i n only T y l o s i n and other a n t i b i o t i c s T y l o s i n and chemo-theraputic agent(s) T y l o s i n , chemo-theraputic agent(s) and vitamins T y l o s i n , chemo-theraputic agent(s), vitamins and others T y l o s i n and h e a l t h booster  5 4 14  1.0 0.8 2.7  5  1.0  6 4  1.2 0.8  35 agent(s) 15 8 7  6.8 2.9 1.6 1.4  Antibiotics Antibiotics Antibiotics Antibiotics  only and chemo-theraputic and vitamins and health booster  Chemo-theraputic agent(s) only 129 Chemo-theraputic agent(s) and vitamins 35 Chemo-theraputic agent(s) and health booster 54 Chemo-theraputic agent(s), vitamins and health booster 6 Chemo-theraputic agent(s), vitamins and others 4 Chemo-theraputic agent(s) and germicide 29  25.1 6.8 10.5 1.2 0.8 5.6  Vitamins and health booster Vitamins and germicide  21 4  4.1 0.8  Health booster only Health booster and germicide  18 3  3.5 0.6  4  0.8  Germicide  only  Not Applicable (no medication)  103 513  20.1  TABLE XLI MOLE OE ADMINISTRATION OE MEDICATION AETER PIRST WEEK Mode of Administration  No.  Water Peed V/ater and feed Not Applicable (no medication)  31 252 127 103  fo of T o t a l 6.0 49.1 24.8  20.1  513  TABLE XLII USE OP PEN DIVIDERS Type of Dividers  No.  Wooden Wire No Dividers  122 22 369  fo of T o t a l  23.8  4.3  71.9  513  TABLE XLIII NUMBER OP BIRDS PER PEN IN DIVIDED UNITS Number of Birds  No.  Up to 2500 2501 - 5000 5001 - 7500 Not Applicable (no d i v i d e r s )  114 24 6 369 513  fo of T o t a l 22.2 4.7 1.2 71.9  TABLE XLIV LENGTH OE LIGHT-DAY — • - •••••• • ••-  Length of Light-Day (hrs.) 24  No. 513  - "-* • -rrr r :-\ rr-r^ ,  i  /o of T o t a l  a  100.0  513  TABLE XLV TYPES OE LITTER USED Types of L i t t e r  No.  Sawdust Shavings Other than above  226 281 6  •fo of Total 44.1 54.7 1.2  513  TABLE XLVI DEPTH OE LITTER USED Depth of L i t t e r (inches)  No.  % of Total  2 3 4 5 6 Over 6  3 119 179 104 91 17  0.6 23.2 34.9 20.3 17.7 3.3  513  m  TABLE XLVII FREQUENCY OE COMPLETE CLEANOUT OF LITTER Frequency of cleanout  No.  A f t e r each batch A f t e r every second batch A f t e r every t h i r d batch Yearly Only a f t e r a disease problem Never  314 47 4 132 6 10  $ of Total 61.2 9.2 0.8 25.7 1.2 1.9  513  TABLE XLVIII MEANS OF DUST REMOVAL AFTER EACH BATCH Means of Dust Removal  No.  No dust removal Vacuumed Blown Swept Other than above  113 6 323 58 13  fo of T o t a l 22.0 1.2 63.0 11.3 2.5  513  TABLE XLIX EMPLOYMENT OF WASHING OR STEAM CLEANING AFTER EACH BATCH Washing or Steam Cleaning-  No.  No washing or steam cleaning Washing only Washing and/or steam cleaning  379 78 56 513  % of T o t a l 73.9 15.2 10.9  TABLE L MEANS OE SANITIZING UNITS AFTER EACH BATCH %.of  Total  Means of S a n i t i z i n g  No.  D i s i n f e c t a n t only D i s i n f e c t a n t and liming and/or whitewashing D i s i n f e c t a n t and fumigant D i s i n f e c t a n t and other  327  63.7  26 10 5  5.1 1.9 1.0  22  4.3  only  6  1.2  O i l Application  33  6.4  None  84  16.4  Liming and/or whitewashing only Fumigation  513  TABLE LI RESTRICTION OF ENTRY BY VISITORS TO UNITS R e s t r i c t i o n of Entry  No.  Restricted Not R e s t r i c t e d  435 78  fo of T o t a l 84.8 15.2  513  TABLE LII CLEANING AND DISINFECTION OF EQUIPMENT BETWEEN BATCHES Cleaning and D i s i n f e c t i o n  No.  Cleaned and D i s i n f e c t e d Not Cleaned and D i s i n f e c t e d  483 30 513  %o of Total 94.2 5.8  TABLE LIII DISPOSAL OE DEAD BIRDS Disposal Means None Burial Disposal P i t Incinerator Municipal Dump Other than above  No. 17 158 31 75 118 114 513  $ of T o t a l 3.3 30.8 6.0 14.6 23.0 22.2  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0104191/manifest

Comment

Related Items