• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Credits
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Experimental procedure
 Results and discussion
 Summary and conclusion
 Historic note






Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station ; 451
Title: Floor space requirements for broiler production
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027431/00001
 Material Information
Title: Floor space requirements for broiler production
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 15 p. : ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Mehrhof, N. R ( Norman Ripley ), b. 1899
O'Steen, A. W
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1948
 Subjects
Subject: Broilers (Poultry) -- Housing   ( lcsh )
Broilers (Poultry) -- Growth   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: N.R. Mehrhof and A.W. O'Steen.
General Note: Cover title.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027431
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000925532
oclc - 18271868
notis - AEN6185

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page 1
    Credits
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Table of Contents
        Page 4
    Introduction
        Page 5
    Experimental procedure
        Page 6
    Results and discussion
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
    Summary and conclusion
        Page 14
        Page 15
    Historic note
        Page 16
Full Text

November, 1948


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
HAROLD MOWRY, Director
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA










FLOOR- SPACE

REQUIREMENTS

FOR BROILER PRODUCTION


N. R. MEHRHOF
Poultry Husbandman
A. W. O'STEEN
Supervisor, Florida National Egg-Laying Test










Single copies free to Florida residents upon request to
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA


Bulletin 451








BOARD OF CONTROL

J. Thos. Gurney, Chairman, Orlando
N. B. Jordan, Quincy
Thos. W. Bryant, Lakeland
J. Henson Markham, Jacksonville
Hollis Rinehart, Miami
W. F. Powers, Secretary, Tallahassee


EXECUTIVE STAFF

J. Hillis Miller, Ph.D., President of the
University3
H. Harold Hume, D.Sc., Provost for Agr.s
Harold Mowry, M.S.A., Director
L. 0. Gratz, Ph.D., Asst. Dir., Research
W. M. Fifield, M.S., Asst. Dir., Admin.
J. Francis Cooper, M.S.A., Editor3
Clyde Beale, A.B.J., Associate Editor3
Ida Keeling Cresap, Librarian
Ruby Newhall, Administrative Managers
Geo. F. Baughman, M.A., Business Managers
Claranelle Alderman, Accountant3


MAIN STATION, GAINESVILLE

AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING
Frazier Rogers, M.S.A., Agr. Engineers
J. M. Johnson, B.S.A.E., Asso. Agr. Engineer3
J. M. Myers, B.S., Asso. Agr. Engineer
R. E. Choate, B.S.A.E., Asst. Agr. Engineers
A. M. Pettis, B.S.A.E., Asst. Agr. Engineer2 8

AGRONOMY
Fred H. Hull, Ph.D., Agronomist'
G. E. Ritchey, M.S., Agronomist2
G. B. Killinger, Ph.D., Agronomists
H. C. Harris, Ph.D., Agronomists
R. W. Bledsoe, Ph.D., Agronomist
M. E. Paddick, Ph.D., Agronomist
S. C. Litzenberger, Ph.D., Associate
W. A. Carver, Ph.D., Associate
Fred A. Clark, B.S., Assistant

ANIMAL INDUSTRY
A. L. Shealy, D.V.M., An. Industrialist' 3
R. B. Becker, Ph.D., Dairy Husbandman3
E. L. Fouts, Ph.D., Dairy Technologists
D. A. Sanders, D.V.M., Veterinarian
M. W. Emmel, D.V.M. Veterinarian3
L. E. Swanson, D.V.M., Parasitologist
N. R. Mehrhof, M.Agr., Poultry Husb.3
G. K. Davis, Ph.D., Animal Nutritionist3
R. S. Glasscock, Ph.D., An. Husbandmans
P. T. Dix Arnold, M.S.A:, Asst. Dairy Husb.3
L. E. Mull, M.S., Asst. in Dairy Tech.
Katherine Boney, B.S., Asst. Chem.
J. C. Driggers, B.S.A., Asst. Poultry Husb.3
Glenn Van Ness, D.V.M., Asso. Poultry
Pathologist
S. John Folks, B.S.A., Asst. An. Husb.3
W. A. Krienke, M.S., Asso. in Dairy Mfs.3
S. P. Marshall, Ph.D., Asso. Dairy Husb.3
C. F. Simpson, D.V.M., Asso. Veterinarian
C. F. Winchester, Ph.D., Asso. Biochemist3


ECONOMICS, AGRICULTURAL
C. V. Noble, Ph.D., Agri. Economist'3
Zach Savage, M.S.A., Associate
A. H. Spurlock, M.S.A., Associate
D. E. Alleger, M.S., Associate
D. L. Brooke, M.S.A., Associate
R. E. L. Greene, Ph.D., Agri. Economist
H. W. Little, M.S., Assistant

Orlando, Florida (Cooperative USDA)
G. Norman Rose, B.S., Asso. Agr. Economist
J. C. Townsend, Jr., B.S.A., Agr. Statisticians
J. B. Owens, B.S.A., Agr. Statisticians
J. F. Steffens, Jr., B.S.A., Agr. Statistician2

ECONOMICS, HOME
Ouida D. Abbott, Ph.D., Home Econ.1
R. B. French, Ph.D., Biochemist

ENTOMOLOGY
A. N. Tissot, Ph.D., Entomologist'
L. C. Kuitert, Ph.D., Assistant
H. E. Bratley, M.S.A., Assistant

HORTICULTURE
G. H. Blackmon, M.S.A., Horticulturist'
F. S. Jamison, Ph.D., Horticulturist3
H. M. Reed, B.S., Chem., Veg. Processing
Byron E. Janes, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
R. A. Dennison, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
R. K. Showalter, M.S., Asso. Hort.
Albert P. Lorz, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
R. H. Sharpe, M.S., Asso. Hort.
R. J. Wilmot, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
R. D. Dickey, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
Victor F. Nettles, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.4
F. S. Lagasse, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.2
L. H. Halsey, B.S.A., Asst. Hort.
Forrest E. Myers, B.S.A., Asst. Hort.

PLANT PATHOLOGY
W. B. Tisdale, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist'
Phares Decker, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
Erdman West, M.S., Mycologist and Botanist
Howard N. Miller, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
Lillian E. Arnold, M.S., Asst. Botanist

SOILS
F. B. Smith, Ph.D., Microbiologist s
Gaylord M. Volk, Ph.D., Chemist
J. R. Henderson, M.S.A., Soil Technologists
J. R. Neller, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Nathan Gammon, Jr., Ph.D., Soils Chemist
C. E. Bell, Ph.D., Associate Chemist
R. A. Carrigan, Ph.D., Asso. Biochemist3
H. W. Winsor, B.S.A., Assistant Chemist
Geo. D. Thornton, Ph.D., Asso. Microbiologist3
R. E. Caldwell, M.S.A., Asst. Chemist3
J. B. Cromartie, B.S.A., Soil Surveyor
Ralph G. Leighty, B.S., Asso. Soil Surveyor
V. W. Cyzycki, B.S., Asst. Soil Surveyor
R. B. Forbes, M.S., Asst. Soils Chemist
W. L. Pritchett, M.S., Asst. Chemist
Jean Beem, B.S.A., Asst. Soil Surveyor

1Head of Department.
2 In cooperation with U. S.
3 Cooperative, other divisions, U. of F.
4On leave.







BRANCH STATIONS

NORTH FLORIDA STATION, QUINCY
J. D. Warner, M.S., Vice-Director in Charge
R. R. Kincaid, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
W. H. Chapman, M.S., Asso. Agron.
R. C. Bond, M.S.A., Asso. Agronomist
L. G. Thompson, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Frank S. Baker, Jr., B.S., Asst. An. Husb.
Kelvin Dorward, M.S., Entomologist

Mobile Unit, Monticello
R. W. Wallace, B.S., Associate Agronomist

Mobile Unit, Marianna
R. W. Lipscomb, M.S., Associate Agronomist

Mobile Unit, Wewahitchka
J. B. White, B.S.A., Associate Agronomist

Mobile Unit, DeFuniak Springs
R. L. Smith, M.S., Associate Agronomist

CITRUS STATION, LAKE ALFRED
A. F. Camp, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
W. L. Thompson, B.S., Entomologist
J. T. Griffiths, Ph.D., Asso. Entomologist
R. F. Suit, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
E. P. Ducharme, M.S., Plant Pathologist4
R. K. Voorhees, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
C. R. Stearns, Jr., B.S.A., Asso. Chemist
James K. Colehour, M.S., Asst. Chemist
T. W. Young, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
J. W. Sites, M.S.A., Horticulturist
H. O. Sterling, B.S., Asst. Horticulturist
J. A. Granger, B.S.A., Asst. Horticulturist
H. J. Reitz, M.S., Asso. Horticulturist
Francine Fisher, M.S., Asst. Plant Path.
I. W. Wander, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
A. E. Willson, B.S.A., Asso. Biochemist
J. W. Kesterson, M.S., Asso. Chemist
R. N. Hendrickson, B.S., Asst. Chemist
E. H. Bitcover, M.A., Soils Chemist
L. C. Knorr, Ph.D., Asso. Histologist
Joe P. Barnett, B.S.A., Asst. Horticulturist
J. C. Bowers, B.S., Asst. Chemist
D. S. Prosser, Jr., B.S., Asst. Horticulturist
R. W. Olsen, B.S., Biochemist
F. W. Wenzel, Jr., Ph.D., Supervisory Chem.

EVERGLADES STATION, BELLE GLADE
R. V. Allison, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
F. D. Stevens, B.S., Sugarcane Agronomist
Thomas Bregger, Ph.D., Sugarcane
Physiologist
J. W. Randolph, M.S., Agricultural Engineer
W. T. Forsee, Jr., Ph.D., Chemist
R. W. Kidder, M.S., Asso. Animal Husb.
T. C. Erwin, Assistant Chemist
Roy A. Bair, Ph.D., Agronomist
C. C. Seale, Asso. Agronomist
N. C. Hayslip, B.S.A., Asso. Entomologist
E. H. Wolf, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
W. H. Thames, M.S., Asst. Entomologist
J. C. Hoffman, M.S., Asso. Horticulturist


C. B. Savage, M.S.A., Asst. Horticulturist
D. L. Stoddard, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.


SUB-TROPICAL' STATION, HOMESTEAD

Geo. D. Ruehle, Ph.D., VicelDir. in Charge
U. O. Wolfenbarger, Ph.D., Entomologist
Francis B. Lincoln, Ph.D., Horticulturist
Robt. A. Conover, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
R. W. Harkness, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist
Milton Cobin, B.S., Asso. Horticulturist


W. CENT. FLA. STATION, BROOKSVILLE

William Jackson, B.S.A., Animal Husband-
man in Charge2


RANGE CATTLE STATION, ONA
W. G. Kirk, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
E. M. Hodges, Ph.D., Associate Agronomist
D. W. Jones, B.S., Asst. Soil Technologist
H. J. Fulford, B.S.A. Asst. Animal Hush.


CENTRAL FLORIDA STATION, SANFORD
R. W. Ruprecht, Ph.D., Vice-Dir. in Charge
J. W. Wilson, Sc.D., Entomologist
Ben F. Whitner, Jr., B.S.A., Asst. Hort.

WEST FLORIDA STATION, MILTON
H. W. Lundy, B.S.A., Associate Agronomist


FIELD STATIONS

Leesburg
G. K. Parris, Ph.D., Plant Path. in Charge

Plant City
A. N. Brooks, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist

Hastings
A. H. Eddins, Ph.D., Plant Path. in Charge
E. N. McCubbin, Ph.D., Horticulturist

Monticello
A. M. Phillips, B.S., Asso. Entomologist2

Bradenton
J. R. Beckenbach, Ph.D., Hort. in Charge
E. G. Kelsheimer, Ph.D., Entomologist
David G. Kelbert, Asso. Horticulturist
E. L. Spencer, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Robert O. Magie, Ph.D., Gladioli Hort.
J. M. Walter, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Donald S. Burgis, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.

Lakeland
Warren O. Johnson, B.S., Meteorologist2

SHead of Department.
2 In cooperation with U.'S.
3 Cooperative, other divisions, U. of F.
4 On leave.


















CONTENTS


Page

INTRODUCTION ................ ........ ...................... .................. .. 5

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE ...........................................-.................... 6


SRESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................-..................... 7

G row th ........................................................... ................... 7

Feed Consum option ....... ......... ................................................................. 9

Mortality and M management ......................-............. ................... ..... 10


Litter Management ...-..-.........-........----..- ...-....-.----...---.. 12

Live Grading ......................--......................... -.. ..................... 12

D dressed Grading ............................................................. ......................... 13


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ..............-...------..~.-- .. ...... ........................ 14








FLOOR SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR BROILER
PRODUCTION
N. R. MEHRHOF and A. W. O'STEEN1

Introduction
Commercially, broilers are produced in Florida either "on the
floor" or "in batteries." Both methods are used successfully.
In the "on the floor" method, the common practice is to start
all the chicks at one time, grow them to broiler size, market the
entire lot, clean the house, and then start another lot. Broiler
producers using this method will manage generally two, three
or four lots during the year. In some cases, lots of chicks are
started at about 7-week intervals instead of 12 to 14-week in-
tervals.
Broilers produced "in batteries" are started at more frequent
intervals, as "once a week" or every two or three weeks. This
method allows the producer to market a specific number each
week.
The data presented in this bulletin deal with raising broilers
"on the floor."
Experimental work conducted at the Delaware Agricultural Ex-
periment Station2 on floor space requirements for broilers show
that "rate of growth, uniformity of growth, feed consumption,
cost per pound of broiler, and pounds of broilers sold per chick
started are production factors adversely affected by crowding
broilers."
In the experiment at Delaware there were four pens accom-
modating 600, 800, 1,000 and 1,200 birds, with a load of 300, 400,
500 and 600 chicks per stove. Not only did the floor space per
chick vary from 0.50 square foot per bird to 1.00 square foot, but
also the number of chicks per stove and per pen varied. The au-
thors finally conclude: "When all factors concerned with broiler
production are considered, this study indicates that broilers
should be allowed at least 0.6 of a square foot per bird."
The object of the experiment as reported in this bulletin was to
ascertain the effect of floor space allowed per broiler upon rate
of growth, feed consumption, feed efficiency, disease conditions,

'The authors ,are indebted to F. W. Risher, State Department of Agri-
culture, and J. C. Driggers and F. S. Perry, Poultry Division, University
of Florida, for their assistance in grading live and dressed birds.
2Floor Space Requirements of Broilers. A. E. Tomhave and K. C. See-
gar. University of Delaware Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 255. August 1945.






Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


and live and dressed grading when all factors were held as uni-
form as possible, including the number of chicks started, except
the amount of floor space.

Experimental Procedure
The experiment was conducted at the Florida National Egg-
Laying Test at Chipley, Florida.
For the four lots of broilers grown chicks were started in
February, May, August and November. This permitted broilers
to be grown during the different seasons of the year, to deter-
mine if there was any relationship between floor space require-
ments and the different seasons.
Each trial was conducted over a 12-week period. Periods cov-
ered were: first trial February 13 to May 7, 1946; second trial
May 15 to August 6, 1946; third trial August 14 to November 5,
1946; and fourth trial November 12, 1946 to February 3, 1947.
Chicks used were New Hampshire and were purchased as day-
old chicks from a Florida breeder and hatcheryman. The chicks
for all four trials were secured from the same breeder.
All chicks were wing banded and individually weighed at the
start of each trial. The chicks were divided into four pens as
uniformly as possible. The four houses used in this experiment
were uniform in construction and style.
Each house had a canopy type brooder stove and the usual
equipment of feeders and waterers used in brooding chicks.

Floor space allowances in the experimental pens were as fol-
lows:
Pen 1-One square foot of floor space per chick. Plus use of
outside yard 20' x 50'.
Pen 2-One-half square foot of floor space per chick. Plus use
of outside yard 20' x 50'.
Pen 3-Three-fourths square foot per chick. Plus use of yard
20' x 50'.
Pen 4-One square foot per chick. Confined to the house at
all times.
Feed consumption data were secured at four-week intervals.
The birds were pen-weighed at four and eight weeks and indivi-
dually weighed at the conclusion of each trial. At the end of
each trial the birds were individually graded live and dressed,
using the "U. S. Standards for Live and Dressed Birds" as a
basis.






Floor Space Requirements for Broiler Production


An all-mash ration was used in all trials and was kept before
the birds at all times. The formula of this all-mash ration was
as follows:
Ingredients Pounds
Yellow corn m eal-..........................--..............................--....................... 360
Ground w heat............................. ............................ .........---.. ..-- 70
W heat bran -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30
W heat bran........................................................ ................................................ 30
Ground oats................--..----------------- ----------....... 50
Soybean oil meal ........... ......----------------------.. ...---------300
M eat scraps.................................. .. ... ...... ..... ........................ 30
Dried whey--------------........................----------------............ 30
Alfalfa leaf meal..................-...---.......-------.......---------...--- 60
Dried distillers' solubles.....---------- ---------------..................... 30
Steamed bone meal--.......-------------................. .....--------.---- 20
Ground oyster shell-------------------------------................................... 10
Salt ........................................ .. ........................... 10
1,000
Manganese sulphate, 57 grams, and vitamin D-activated ani-
mal sterol, 90 grams, were added to the above formula.

Results and Discussion
Growth.-The average weights of 100 birds at the start and at
four-week intervals are given in Table 1 for each pen by trials
and the average of the four trials.
At the conclusion of each trial (12 weeks) the birds in Pen

TABLE 1.-AVERAGE WEIGHT IN POUNDS OF BIRDS AT 4-WEEK INTERVALS,
BY TRIALS.

Pen Trial Start 4 Weeks 8 Weeks 12 Weeks
1 1 8.6 73.7 165.1 285.7
2 8.3 66.4 175.8 304.8
3 7.5 71.5 x 282.6
4 8.2 87.7 210.6 349.2
Ave. 4 trials 8.2 74.9 183.9 305.6
2 1 8.5 65.3 168.0 265.6
2 8.2 69.7 181.3 273.7
3 7.5 65.7 x 260.0
4 8.1 82.3 198.9 327.7
Ave. 4 trials 8.1 70.9 183.1 282.8
3 1 8.3 64.9 156.1 264.8
2 8.0 70.1 168.8 289.3
3 7.4 69.4 x 283.0
4 7.8 82.4 204.7 330.9
Ave. 4 trials 7.9 71.9 177.0 292.5
4 1 8.3 69.9 158.7 277.7
2 8.0 69.3 166.9 279.5
3 7.4 73.1 x 275.5
4 7.6 81.4 189.3 313.4
Ave. 4 trials 7.8 73.5 171.8 286.9
x-No weights available




A






Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


1 weighed more than the birds in any.other pen with the one ex-
ception of the birds in Pen 3 during Trial 3. However, the dif-
ference in favor of the birds in Pen 3, Trial 3, was only 0.4 of a
pound per 100 birds. This difference can be explained in part by
the percentage of cockerels and pullets in pens 1 and 3, Trial 3.
In Trial 3, the ratio of cockerels to pullets in Pen 1 was 44.4 to
55.6; for Pen 3 it was 64.7 to 35.3. With the weights adjusted
for equal numbers of cockerels and pullets, 100 birds in Pen 1
weighed more than 100 birds in any other pen. The average for
the four trials shows that the 100 birds in Pen 1 weighed 305.6
pounds; Pen 2, 282.8 pounds; Pen 3, 292.5 pounds; and Pen 4,
286.9 pounds.
Final weights of cockerels and pullets are shown in Table 2 by
trials, and the average of four trials by pens. The weights of
birds adjusted for equal numbers of pullets.and cockerels are also
given. Cockerels averaged 70 pounds per 100 more than the av-
erage weight of 100 pullets in Pen 1; 51 pounds more in Pen 2;
51 pounds in Pen 3; and 58 pounds in Pen 4.
The highest weight obtained in any of the four trials was dur-
ing the fourth trial. This trial was started November 12 and
concluded February 3. The lowest weight was in the third trial

TABLE 2.-AVERAGE WEIGHT IN POUNDS PER 100 BIRDS FOR COCKERELS,
PULLETS, AND BOTH AT 12 WEEKS OF AGE, BY TRIALS.
Cockerels Per- Per- Cockerels*
Pen Trial Cockerels Pullets and centage centage and
Pullets Cockerels Pullets Pullets
1 1 317 256 286 49.1 50.9 286
2 334 263 305 59.0 41.0 298
3 317. 255 283 44.4 55.6 286
4 386 307 349 53.0 47.0 347
Av. 4 trials 340 270 306 51.4 48.6 304
2 1 299 240 266 43.5 56.5 269
2 301 251 274 45.4 54.6 276
3 272 242 260 60.1 39.9 257
4 356 296 328 53.3 46.7 326
Av. 4 trials 308 257 283 50.5 49.5 283
3 1 291 239 265 49.4 50.6 265
2 319 262 289 47.5 52.5 291
3 299 254 283 64.7 35.3 276
4 363 301 331 48.2 51.8 332
Av. 4 trials 317 266 292 52.2 47.8 291
4 1 308 250 278 47.5 52.5 279
2 309 249 280 51.3 48.8 279
3 300 250 275 51.0 49.0 275
4 356 283 313 41.9 58.1 319
Av. 4 trials 317 259 287 47.8 52.2 288
*Adjusted to 50-50 ratio of cockerels and pullets.






Floor Space Requirements for Broiler Production 9

when the chicks were started August 14 and were marketed
November 5.
Feed Consumption.-Feed consumption per 100 birds by pens,
for each trial and the average of the four trials at four-week in-
tervals, is shown in Table 3.

TABLE 3.-FEED CONSUMPTION IN POUNDS PER 100 BIRDS AT 4-WEEK INTER-
VALS BY TRIALS.
1-4 5-8 9-12 1-8 1-12
Pen Trial Weeks Weeks Weeks Weeks Weeks
1 1 165 352 544 517 1061
2 173 431 552 605 1157
3 192 384 493 577 1070
4 181 453 679 634 1314
Av. 4 trials 178 405 568 583 1151
2 1 168 406 549 574 1123
2 171 402 493 573 1066
3 196 429 494 626 1119
4 177 437 672 614 1287
Av. 4 trials 178 419 554 597 1151
3 1 167 418. 534 585 1119
2 177 414 516 591 1107
3 181 412 499 594 1093
4 169 427 668 597 1265
Av. 4 trials 174 418 556 592 1148
4 1 172 412 537 585 1122
2 180 425 535 605 1139
3 196 377 457 573 1030
4, 163 410 664 572 1236
Av. 4 trials 178 406 550 584 1134

Feed consumption (average of four trials) per 100 birds was
relatively uniform for the four different pens. During the first
four weeks the difference was only 4 pounds of feed per 100
birds between the high and low pens. From the fifth week to
the eighth week the difference was 14 pounds of feed per 100
birds; and from the ninth to the twelfth week the difference was
18 pounds. However, the difference for the 12-weeks period be-
tween the high pen and low pen was only 17 pounds per 100 birds.
The average feed intake per bird during the first four weeks
was approximately 1.7 pounds; second four-weeks period, 4.1
pounds; and the third four-weeks period 5.6 pounds. For the
entire 12-week period the average feed consumption per bird
was approximately 11.4 pounds of feed.
There was more variation in feed consumption per 100 birds
at four-week intervals by trials within the pen than there was
between pens for any trial. Some of this variation may be ex-






SFlorida Agricultural Experiment Station


plained by season of the year, weight of birds, severity and
duration of coccidiosis and condition of chicks on arrival.
The feed required to produce 100 pounds of broilers at four,
eight and 12 weeks is shown in Table 4. It will be noted that
feed efficiency (pounds of feed required to produce a pound of
meat) decreased as the birds became older.

TABLE 4.-POUNDS OF FEED PER 100 POUNDS OF BROILER AT 4-WEEK INTER-
VALS, BY TRIALS.

Pen Trial 4-Weeks 8-Weeks 12-Weeks
1 1 224 313 371
2 264 347 381
3 269 x 383
4 207 301 378
Av. 4 trials 238 319 378
2 1 260 347 431
2 247 319 391
3 318 x 446
4 216 309 393
Av. 4 trials 256 324 413
S 1 262 376 426
2 254 353 384
3 268 x 399
4 205 291 389
Av. 4 trials 244 335 399
4 1 248 371 411
2 261 368 411
3 269 x 384
4 198 304 394
Av. 4 trials 242 345 400
x-no weights available.

The birds in Pen 1 were the most efficient as far as feed re-
quired to produce 100 pounds of broilers. The data show that
on the average of the four trials, 378 pounds of feed were re-
quired to produce 100 pounds of broilers for Pen 1; 413 pounds,
Pen 2; 399 pounds, Pen 3; and 400 pounds, Pen 4.
In all four trials, the birds in Pen 1 (one square foot floor
space plus yard) were the most efficient utilizers of feed.
Mortality and Management.-The number of chicks started
and the number that died in any one week are shown in Table 5.
In Table 6 the percent mortality at weekly intervals by pens,
by trials, is shown. It will be noted that the mortality rate
was relatively low in all trials. In only one trial did the mortali-
ty rate exceed 10 percent, and that was during the third trial in
Pen 2 when it was 10.1 percent. The average percent mortality







Floor Space Requirements for Broiler Production

TABLE 5.-CHICK MORTALITY BY WEEKS, BY TRIALS.


Pen Trial


1 1
2
3
4
Total
2 1
2
3
4
Total
3 1
2
.3
4
Total
4 1
2
3
4
Total


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total


TABLE 6.-PERCENT MORTALITY BY WEEKS AND TOTALS BY PENS, BY TRIALS
AND AVERAGE ALL TRIALS.

Week
Pen Trial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
1 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ..0 0.0 0.0
2 1.8 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2
3 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.d 0.0 3.6
4 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.2
Av. 4 trials 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 2.2
2 1 3.6 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 7.8
2 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0
3 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.1
4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6
Av. 4 trials 2.1 0.2 0.0 1.2 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 5.4
3 1 3.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 6.0
2 1.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6
3 3.6 0.6 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3
4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.2 2.4
Av. 4 trials 2.2 0.5 1.1 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 5.1
4 1 1.8 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 6.0
2 1.8 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8
3 3.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 6.6
4 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6
Av. 4 trials 1.8 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.2 4.5

for the four trials was 2.2 percent (Pen 1); 5.4 percent (Pen 2);
5.1 percent (Pen 3); and 4.5 percent (Pen 4). Even though the


Number of
Chicks
Started


Number
000
1 0 0
2 0 1
0 0 0
3 0 1


0 1
1 0
1 0
0.0
2 1






Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


mortality was low, considerable difficulty was encountered with
coccidiosis and the condition of the litter in the different pens by
trials.
Litter Management.-Oat straw and air-dried sawdust were
used as litter. Oat straw was not satisfactory in the first trial
due to packing and caking. In succeeding trials air-dried saw-
dust was used and this litter appeared to be much more satis-
factory. Considerable difficulty was experienced in keeping the
litter dry, especially in Pen 2 where only one-half square foot of
floor space was allowed per chick. When litter was added or
changed the same treatment was given each pen. Coccidiosis
was present in all trials in all pens but was more prevalent in
Pens 2 and 4. Coccidiosis made its appearance first in the pen
where the birds were allowed one-half square foot of floor space
per bird.
Live Grading.-At the end of each trial all birds were graded
on a live basis, using the standards set up by the USDA for live
birds. The birds were placed in three grades designated as U. S.
No. 1, U. S. No. 2 arid Rejects.
In Table 7 data are presented showing the percentage of birds
that were placed in the different grades by trials and the average

TABLE 7.-LIVE GRADING (IN PERCENTAGE) BY PENS, BY TRIALS, AND
AVERAGE OF FOUR TRIALS.

U.S. Grade U.S. Grade
Pen Trial No. 1 No. 2 Reject
% % %
1 1 99.4 0.6 0.0
2 97.5 1.9 0.6
3 82.7 17.3 0.0
4 88.6 11.5 0.0
Av. 4 trials 92.1 7.8 0.2
2 1 95.5 4.6 0.0
2 96.9 2.5 0.6
3 67.6 30.5 2.0
4 88.0 12.0 0.0
Av. 4 trials 87.2 12.1 0.6
3 1 93.7 6.3 0.0
2 98.8 1.2 0.0
3 74.7 22.7 2.6
4 97.0 3.1 0.0
Av. 4 trials 91.2 8.2 0.6
4 1 87.3 12.7 0.0
2 93.8 5.6 0.6
3 82.8 15.9 1.3
4 92.8 7.2 0.0
Av. 4 trials 89.3 10.3 0.5






Floor Space Requirements for Broiler Production


of all trials for each pen. Considerable differences occur in the
percentage distribution by trials within the pen. Some of these
differences may be due to the fact that different persons graded
the different trials; however, the same person did grade all birds
in any one trial.
In the first trial there was 12.1 percent difference in the num-
ber that graded U. S. No. 1 from the best pen (Pen 1) to the
poorest (Pen 4). In the second trial the differences between
pens were small (5 percent). In the third trial a larger differ-
ence was noted than in any other trial, it being 15 percent. In
this trial the birds in Pen 4 were the best and the birds in Pen 2
the poorest. One of the main reasons why the birds were placed
in U. S. Grade No. 2 was because of poor feathering.
Averaging the four trials together, there was slightly less than
5 percent difference in the live grades between the high and
low pen. The birds having one square foot of floor space and
yard averaged 92.1 percent U. S. No. 1; three-fourths square
foot plus yard, 91.2 percent; one square foot in confinement, 89.3
percent; and one-half square foot plus yard, 87.2 percent.
Dressed Grading.-After the birds were graded according to

TABLE 8.-DRESSED GRADING (IN PERCENTAGE) BY PENS, BY TRIALS, AND
AVERAGE OF FOUR TRIALS.
U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S.
Pen Trial No. Chicks Grade Grade Grade Grade
AA A B C Reject
% % % % %
1 1 169 50.9 46.2 3.0 0.0 0.0
2 161 51.6 38.5 9.3 0.0 0.6
3 161 24:2 63.4 12.4 0.0 0.0
4 166 48.8 47.0 4.2 0.0 0.0
Total 4 trials 657 44.0 48.7 7.2 0.0 0.2
2 1 154 64.3 34.4 1.3 0.0 0.0
2 163 49.1 43.6 6.8 0.0 0.6
3 151 21.2 62.9 13.9 0.0 2.0
4 167 43.1 50.3 6.0 0.6 0.0
Total 4 trials 635 44.6 47.7 6.9 0.2 0.6
3 1 158 55.7 43.7 0.6 0.0 0.0
2 162 50.0 43.8 6.2 0.0 0.0
3 154 7.8 55.2 32.5 2.0 2.6
4 164 50.0 45.7 4.3 0.0 0.0
Total 4 trials 638 41.2 47.0 10.7 0.5 0.6
4 1 158 65.2 34.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
2 160 43.8 46.3 9.4 0.0 0.6
3 157 28.0 51.0 18.5 1.3 1.3
4 167 26.4 68.9 4.8 0.0 0.0
Total 4 trials 642 40.7 50.5 8.1 0.3 0.5





Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


live grades they were taken to a processor who killed and New
York-dressed all birds.
These dressed birds were then graded according to U. S. Grades
for Dressed Broilers, using the grades AA, A, B, C and Rejects..
In Table 8 the percentage figures are given for each trial. Great-
er variation occurred in dressing grades by trials within the pen
than the average dressing grades by pens.
In only one trial (Trial 3, Pen 3) was the percentage of dressed
birds grading A or AA below 75 percent. In the third trial colds
developed near the end of the 12-week period. However, the av-
erage for all birds by pens and trials was over 88 percent grading
A or AA. It would appear that other factors besides floor space
were responsible for the differences noted.

Summary and Conclusion
Four trials allowing 1.00 square foot per bird with yard (Pen
1), 0.50 square foot with yard (Pen 2), 0.75 square foot with
yard (Pen 3), and 1.00 square foot per bird in confinement (Pen
4), were conducted each over a 12-week period.
The average weight of 100 birds at 12 weeks of age was 306,
283, 292 and 287 pounds for pens 1 to 4, respectively. The birds
allowed one square foot of floor space and yard were the heaviest
and those allowed one-half square foot the lightest; the differ-
ences between these two pens of birds was 23 pounds per 100
birds.
Average weight per 100 cockerels was 340, 308, 317 and 317
pounds, and per 100 pullets was 270, 257, 266 and 2,59 pounds for
pens 1 to 4, respectively.
The average feed consumption per 100 birds at four-week in-
tervals by pens was (Pen 1) 178, 405 and 568; (Pen 2) 178, 419,
554; (Pen 3) 174, 418, 556; and (Pen 4) 178, 406, 550 pounds.
Total feed consumption per 100 birds for the 12-week period
was 1,151, 1,151, 1,148 and 1,134 pounds for pens 1 to 4, respec-
tively.
Pounds of feed required to produce a pound of meat varied ac-
cording to floor space allowed. It required 378 pounds of feed to
produce 100 pounds of broiler in Pen 1; 413 pounds in Pen 2; 399
pounds in Pen 3; and 400 pounds in Pen 4. The birds allowed one
square foot of floor space plus a yard were the most efficient.
Considerable difficulty was experienced in all lots with coccidio-
sis and wet litter; however, in general more difficulty was ex-






Floor. Space Requirements for Broiler Production 15

perienced in the pen allowed only 0.5 square foot of floor space
than the other three pens.
. Mortality varied more during the trials under one method than
the average mortality varied from pen to pen. The average mor-
tality for all trials by pens was less than 6 percent, varying from
2.2 percent .(Pen 1) to 5.4 percent (Pen 2).
The birds in all pens were fairly well feathered and on a basis
of live grading 92.1 percent graded U. S. No. 1 (Pen 1), 87.2 per-
cent (Pen 2), 91.2 percent (Pen 3); and 89.3 percent (Pen 4).
Less than 1 percent were rejects.
The dressed birds graded out fairly uniformly (U. S. Grades
AA and A).
Under the conditions of this experiment, the birds allowed one
square foot of floor space with a yard were the most efficient on
a "per bird basis" when considering rate of growth, feed effi-
ciency and mortality, together with live and dressed grading, and
the birds allowed one-half square foot of floor space with a yard
the least efficient.









HISTORIC NOTE


The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs