See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/221705093

Poultry Farms: Housing Systems, Mechanization, and Technology

Book · January 2002

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2599.3766

CITATIONS READS

0 63,077

1 author:

Mohamed Samer
Cairo University
110 PUBLICATIONS   757 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Implementation of nanotechnology and laser radiation to prototype a Biological-Chemical Filter for reducing harmful gas emissions from livestock buildings (BCF) View
project

Implementation of nanotechnology to improve the efficiency of microbial fuel cells for bioelectricity generation from wastewater View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohamed Samer on 29 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Cairo University

Faculty of Agriculture

Agric. Eng. Dept.

Poultry Farms

By

Dr. Sc. M. Samer

Assistant Professor, Agricultural Engineering
Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University

2009
 Table of Contents

Page

1. Introduction………………………………………………….……………………3
2. The Study Goal………………………………………………………..…………3
3. Poultry Farms Mechanization ……………………………….…………………4
3.1. Poultry-House Equipment………………………………………...…………..4
3.1.1. Nests…………………………………………………………………...……..4
3.1.2. Perches………………………………………….……………………………5
3.1.3. Mechanical Debeaker……………………………...………………………..5
3.1.4. Cage Systems………………………………………………………………..6
3.1.5. Mechanized Poultry Feeding Systems…………………………………….7
3.1.5.1. Mechanized Feeding of Caged Birds………………..………………….9
3.1.5.1.1. Traveling Hopper……………………………………………………..…9
3.1.5.1.2. Conveyor Feeder………………………………………...…………….10
3.1.5.2. Mechanized Feeding of Floor/Slat Fed………………..………………13
3.1.5.2.1. Centerless Auger Feed Distribution System…………………..……13
3.1.5.2.2. Cable and Disc Feed Distribution System…………………..………13
3.1.5.2.3. Chain Feeders………………………………………………………….13
3.1.5.2.4. Pan Feeders……………………………………………………………14
3.1.6. Watering Equipment……………………………………………….………15
3.1.6.1. Water-Supply Systems…………………………………………...……..15
3.2. Egg Collection Equipment……………………………………………….…..17
3.3. House Care Equipment…………………………………………………..….18
3.3.1. Manure Handling Systems………………………………………………..18
3.3.2. Manure Collecting Equipment…………………………………..………..20
3.3.3. Manure Spreading Equipment……………………………...…………….22
3.4. Mechanical Poultry Harvesting………………………………………….…..23
3.5. Truck Designs for Broilers Transportation……………………..…………..27
3.6. Mechanical Ventilation Systems………………………………………..…..29
4. Recommendations……………………………………………………………...35
5. Summary…………………………………………………………………..…….35
6. References………………………………………………………………………36

2
1. Introduction

The trend in poultry production has been toward large commercial flocks.
With this trend has come an increase in using of mechanization to save time
and labor, this includes mechanical cleaning equipment; automatic and semi-
automatic feeding and watering equipments are common in poultry
enterprises. The use of these types of equipments makes it possible for large
number of bird to be handled in the operation (Gillespie, 2002). These types
of equipments are elucidated in this paper. Controlled feeding and automating
a controlled feeding system of broiler for optimum nutrition is a beneficial step
and must be applied in poultry enterprises (Filmer, 2002).
The author had resorted to the faculty of agriculture central library, the
national agricultural library, and the international network searching for the
following keywords: Mechanization, Poultry Farms, Facilities, Automatic
Feeding, Watering, Manure Handling equipments, Machines, Poultry
Harvesting, Poultry Transportation, Fans, and Mechanized Ventilation.
Moreover, the author had visited some poultry farms and watched the feeding
systems, watering systems, manure handling systems.

2. The Study Goal

This review paper aims to recognize equipment and machines that serve
the poultry enterprises, and to points out the innovations and the recent
advances in poultry mechanization which work in poultry farms saving labor,
time, and providing high efficiency.

3
3. Poultry Farms Mechanization

3.1. Poultry-House Equipment

A poultry house is not complete without the accessory equipments or

features that make it suitable for the particular kind of production for which it
is intended. Pieces of equipment that are built in as a part of the house
should be simple, few in number, adequate in size, removable for cleaning,
and conveniently and systematically placed in the house; so that their care
will take a minimum of labor (Nesheim et al., 1979).

3.1.1. Nests

The desirable qualities of a nest are that it be roomy, easily cleaned and
sprayed, dark, cool and well ventilated, and conveniently located. Dark nests
are preferred because the hens like seclusion for laying. Dark nests also
reduce the likehood of egg eating. Some arrangement for shutting the fowls
out at night prevents them from roosting in the nests and fouling them. This
they are prone to do, especially at molting time, in order to escape being
crowded by other birds in the perch (Nesheim et al., 1979).
Lindley and Whitaker (1996) stated that, nests are banked in lines along
outside wall or on either side of a center alley for convenient manual egg
collection; the nest is available for 4-5 birds.
Nesheim et al. (1979) mentioned that, some poultrymen like the
“community” type of nest, which is really a covered box about two feet wide
and six feet long, community-type nest has an egg conveyor located along
the front, the system can be extended to complete loop in a 350-feet house.

4
 Charles et al. (1994) reported that, nesting systems are fabricated from
litter, plastic, plastic turf and various mechanized systems are available.

3.1.2. Perches

Nesheim et al. (1979) said that, to ensure comfort, the perches should
allow from 8 to 10 inches of room for each bird and 15 to 18 inches apart. The
most common material for perches is 2 by 3 or 2 by 4 in. lumber. This may be
laid on the side or placed on edge. In either case its well to round the upper
edge.

3.1.3. Mechanical Debeaker

Battaglia (2001) says that, the objective of debeaking is to prevent

cannibalism for the life of the flock. To do this, enough of the beak must be
removed to prevent regrowth to its normal length during the lifetime of the
bird. The mechanical debeaker is a machine that cuts off and cauterizes a
portion of the beak (fig. 3-1).

Fig. (3-1): Mechanical Debeaker. (Battaglia, 2001).

5
 It consists of a cutting blade that is heated to cherry-red color, a support
bar on which the beak is held, and a foot pedal that operates the blade.
Depressing the foot pedal brings the red-hot blade down through the beak.
Debeaking of baby chicks is made easier by a guide plate which takes the
place of the beak support. The guide plate is equipped with holes of three
different sizes, the choice of which depends upon how big the chick is and
how much of the beak you wish to remove. The chick’s beak is inserted into
the hole and the hot cutting blade moves down immediately behind the guide
plate, cutting off the end of the beak. Another attachment that makes chick
debeaking semi-automatic is a power unit that attaches to the debeaker. The
power unit is activated by pressing a bar on the front of debeaker, which
moves the blade down behind the guide plate and through the beak. The
power unit automatically holds the cutting blade in adown position for two
seconds for cauterize the cut face of the beak, the blade than returns to its
starting position.

3.1.4. Cage Systems

Lindley and Whitaker (1996) indicates that, cage systems may be

classified by the number of levels of cages and the method manure
elimination from cage area to in-house storage. With the advent of controlled
environment housing, cage designs continued to be improved. Three- and
four-tier systems and now five-tier systems become popular providing
significant increases in bird density within a house. Six tiers require special
elevated people-movers to manage the top levels. The most common cage
sizes are 400 mm (16 in.) or 600 mm (24 in.) across the front and 450 mm
(20 in.) deep. The 410×510 mm (16×20 in.) will house six birds (53.3
in.2/bird), and the 610× 510 mm (24×20 in.) will house nine birds (53.3
in.2/bird). The European battery cage is usually 50×50 cm (19.7×19.7 in.) and
will normally house seven birds (55.4 in.2/bird). Manure elimination is
6
performed using slanted manure collection boards between levels to prevent
manure from entering lower cages causing dirty eggs. Manure was scraped
from manure boards from the aisle on a hanging system or with mechanical
scraper on floor stand systems. The next innovation was the slant back cage,
where the backs of the cages were slanted toward the front of the cage. A
plastic curtain on the slant back, extending to within 25 to 50 mm (1 to 2 in.)
of the cage above, eliminating the heed for manure board and a mechanical
scraper between levels of cages. Four-tier systems should be equipped with
a bump rail located 410 to 610 mm (16 to 24 in.) above the aisle and above
the bottom egg tray toward the aisle to protect the bottom egg tray from
physical damage.
Charles et al. (1994) specified that, the current recommendations for cage
floors are to be flexible floors of moderate slope better than rigid steep slope
floors, if welded wire steep slopes are used, they should have a horizontal
collecting cradle, that to minimize shell damage. The principal design
constraints based on allowing 450 cm2/bird and 10 cm/bird feeder and a belt
scraper as a manure handling system.

3.1.5. Mechanized Poultry Feeding Systems

Nesheim et al. (1979) point out that, the design of feeding equipment
varies considerably on different farms. No matter what style of construction is
used, the feeding devices should be easy to fill, easy to clean, built to avoid
waste, so arranged that the fowls cannot roost on them, and constructed in
such a manner that so long as they contain any feed at all the fowls will be
able to reach it. Automatic or mechanical feeders are standard equipment on
large commercial egg and broiler farms. They save a great deal of labor and
keep fresh feed available to the fowls at all times.

7
 Bebb (1990) named that, all large poultry units are virtually totally
dependent upon efficient and reliable mechanized systems of feeding birds.
Figure (3-2) summarized the mechanized poultry feeding systems.

Mechanized Poultry Feeding Systems

Floor / Slat Fed Caged Birds

Centerless Cable / Rope Traveling Conveyor

Auger Distributor & Disc Distributor Hopper Feeder
Conveyor Conveyor

Pan Chain Button Auger Chain

Feeders Feeders

Cable Wire Drag Core-Type

& Button & Button Auger Auger

Fig. (3-2): Mechanized Poultry Feeding Systems.

(Bebb, 1990)

8
3.1.5.1. Mechanized Feeding of Caged Birds

The following mechanized feeding systems are used in multi-tier cage

laying systems.

3.1.5.1.1. Traveling Hopper

Lindley and Whitaker (1996) cited that, Feed is tored in one or more metal
feed bins outside the building from where is automatically carried by conveyor
to the feed hoppers at the end of each cage row. Traveling hoppers ride on a
track located above the cages or on the floor and dispense feed directly into
the trough. Traveling hoppers require enough capacity to dispense feed the
entire length of the cage row. Long rows make it increasingly difficult to either
carry enough feed or spread it thinly enough to uniformly feed the entire row.
Most troughs are flat bottom with one flared side. Traveling hoppers are
easily automated to operate at desired intervals with timers and automatically
refilled between feedings. Generally traveling hoppers are lower initial cost
than closed loop feeders.
Bebb (1990) said that, with traveling hoppers a series of tapered hoppers,
one per layer of cages is filled up at one end of the row of cages by an
overhead auger. Hoppers are moved along slowly by cable winch and feed is
distributed to a depth set on a feed gate at the bottom of each hopper. When
the hopper unit reaches the far end a reversing switch effects automatic
return of the unit for refilling.
Charles et al. (1994) indicated that, the current recommendations for
feeding systems is using a deep trough with waste prevention lips and keep
the level of feed in the trough low, that to minimize waste.
Nesheim et al. (1979) reported that, a safe rule to follow is to have one
foot of hopper feeding space for every hen.

9
3.1.5.1.2. Conveyor Feeder

Lindley and Whitaker (1996) mentioned that, conveyor feeder are also
called automated closed loop mechanical feeders which can be used in any
of the cage systems. Moreover they added that, there are five common types:

a) Flat-link chain is a heat-treated steel link with a loop (hook) formed

from the center of the link and extending to catch the next link (fig. 3-3). The
connecting loop is nearly closed so that the chain links do not easily
disconnect, but can be forced to make splices and repairs. The chain travels
at 100 to 500 mm/s (20 to 100 fpm) depending on user preference with 200 to
300 mm/s (40 to 60 fpm) being common. A v-belt drive allows easy
adjustment of speed. Ninety degree corners are enclosed with contoured
wheels and chain guides. Higher speeds tend to accelerate wear. A 30 m
(100 ft) circuit requires a ½ hp (1.1 kW) motor. The chain operates in a flat
bottom trough with one vertical side and one flared side.

Fig. (3-3): Flat-Link Chain. (Lindley and Whitaker, 1996).

b) Drag auger is a hardened spring coil similar to a coil spring except

constructed with flat wire instead of a round wire (fig. 3-4). It operates in a
closed loop, and as the name implies, it is dragged around the circuit. The
auger is powered by a toothed gear located above the auger and
successively engaging each flight of the auger. Ninety degree corners are

10
curved tubes where the auger slides around the curve. Feed helps to act as a
lubricant. Auger ends are joined by brazing. A 30 m (100 ft) circuit requires
three, 1/3 hp (0.25 kW) gearmotors to power the circuit. The standard speed
is 80 fpm. The auger travels in a U-shaped trough with sides.

Fig. (3-4): Drag Auger. (Lindley and Whitaker, 1996).

c) Cable and button system is a stranded flexible steel cable with 1-in.
diameter plastic buttons molded in place on two inches intervals (fig. 3-5).
The cable is pulled with a split toothed sprocket which engages the buttons
on the cable. Standard corners are 90o with a cast contoured wheel and are
enclosed in a pressed steel housing. The cable ends are connected with a
swivel fitting which allows the cable to rotate (twist) naturally as the load
increases or decreases. Standard speed is 0.5 m/s (100 fpm) and a circuit of
305 m (1000 ft) requires 1 hp (0.75 kW). The trough is U-shaped with flared
sides. Hold-downs, usually spaced at 1.2 m (4 ft) intervals, are normally
required to keep the cable and button from riding over the feed.

Fig. (3-5): Cable and Button. (Lindley and Whitaker, 1996).

11
 d) Wire link and button system is a pressed steel button shaped to
receive a spherical headed wire and washer. The button is constructed with
two haves who are welded together (fig. 3-6). The wires and buttons smoothly
articulate around a 9 in. corner wheel or the drive sprocket. The buttons are
1.1 in. (28 mm) diameter and are spaced at 2.8 in. (70 mm) intervals.
Standard corners are 90o with a cast contoured wheel and are enclosed in a
pressed steel housing. A 1 hp (0.75 kW) is required for a 305 m (1000 ft)
circuit. The wire link and button travels in a U-shaped trough with one or both
sides flared. Hold-downs are required to keep the buttons from riding over the
feed, and are usually spaced at 3 m (10 ft) intervals.

Fig. (3-6): Wire Link and Button. (Lindley and Whitaker, 1996).

e) Auger, core type is a small (1.5 in. diameter) auger in an open trough
(fig. 3-7). The trough has flared sides with a center U-shaped depression to
guide the auger and contain the feed for distribution around the closed circuit.
This type of auger has a large core relative to the outside diameter and
provides a mixing action not common to other types of feeders. Circuit
lengths over 180 m (600 ft) should introduce feed at two locations in the
circuit to reduce running time. One hp is required to operate 30 m (100 ft)
circuit.

Fig. (3-7): Core-Type Auger. (Lindley and Whitaker, 1996).

12
3.1.5.2. Mechanized Feeding of Floor/Slat Fed

3.1.5.2.1. Centerless Auger Feed Distribution System

Bebb (1990) points out that, the Centerless auger feed distribution system
is a simple system suitable for a relatively limited number of lines of feeders.
The main advantage over most cable and disc conveyors is that no separate
internal supply hopper is needed, not any separate room to house it, and
bends of around 3 m can be accommodated without the need for corner units.
A typical system would also have a much greater carrying capacity.

3.1.5.2.2. Cable and Disc Feed Distribution System

Bebb (1990) cited that, cable and disc conveyors are not only quieter
running than auger conveyors but also accommodate a complete circuit of up
to 500 m needing only a single drive unit, using conveyors of 35-60 mm in
diameter.

3.1.5.2.3. Chain Feeders

Bebb (1990) stated that, the system comprises a supply hopper with drive
unit; one or more complete circuits of feed trough mounted on adjustable
legs, conveyor chain, special corner units, and rotary screen feed cleaner and
control system. Depending on the number of circuits to be served the supply
hopper sited in a room adjacent to the birds, will hold 70-120 kg feed, but this
can be increased to 600-700 kg by the use of extension sides. The chain runs
through the bottom of the hopper, driven by a motor (of 350-800 kW,
depending on chain speed and length) through a gearbox and sprocket drive.
The chain, comprising flat, flexible interconnecting links, draws feed along in
the bottom of an open topped trough of approximately 75-85 mm width at the

13
base with varying shapes and widths at the top for different types and weights
of birds. Special horizontal corner sections, again mounted on adjustable
legs, enable the trough circuit to negotiate 90o, 150o or even 180o bends, with
the aid of a pulley wheel arrangement. Feed is distributed at a chain speed 6-
18 m/min.

3.1.5.2.4. Pan Feeders

Bebb (1990) reported that, pan feeders offer a number of advantages over
chain type trough feeders (fig. 3-8). Pan feeders increase the ability of birds
to move over the whole floor area. Also, pan feeders offer around one third
more feeder space than the same length of trough. The system comprises a
series of circular floor mounted or suspended pan feeders supplied by either
cable and disc tube conveyor or centerless auger conveyor.

Fig. (3-8): Pan Feeder. (Bebb, 1990).

He added that, there are many varieties on pan feeder design and most
are made from molded plastic. Some comprise two parts only: a circular pan
with inward curving lip and a cone to receive feed and allow it to be
dispensed downwards around its bottom periphery. Other pan feeders

14
incorporate a slated grille to segregate birds and also to help minimize waste.
Depth of feed can be adjusted by raising or lowering the central cone on pre-
set holes on a central rod with locating pin. Filling of pans is achieved either
from high or low mounted centerless auger conveyors with drop tubes to
feeders or from a low level circuit of cable and disc conveyor.

3.1.6. Watering Equipment

Tillie (1999) mentioned that, poultry should be provided with sufficient cool
drinking water without wastage. The drinking trough should be easily
reached.
Lindley and Whitaker (1996) reported that, water is critical to egg
production and bird comfort. The water system in each house must be
adequate, reliable, and free of contamination from feed, manure, and
bacterial growth.

3.1.6.1. Water-Supply Systems

Laying Hens
In cage-breeding systems the dripping system is used (fig. 3-9) or the
suckling drinker into which the water is led by gravity from constant-level
tanks located at the end of each battery.

Fig. (3-9): Drop Drinking. (Tillie, 1999).

15
 In the cage two drippers should be available to each hen. A device for
water recovery (cup or gutter) is fitted below each drinker (fig. 3-10). This
contributes to obtain dry droppings.

Fig. (3-10): Cop for Water Recovery. (Tillie, 1999).

Broilers
Tillie (1999) added that, dripping systems (pipette) fixed on a feeding pipe
and hanging inside the building, supplied trough gravity, or round drinkers can
be used. Height above floor level depends on the size of the fowls and on the
period (either starting or breeding).

Turkeys
Automatic round drinking bowls (fig. 3-11) can be used. A flap system
regulates the water level and prevents overrunning, thus keeping the litter
dry. The number of drinking bowls depends on the age of the fowls (Table 3-
1). The drinkers are either hanging or set on the floor. For a 1000-m2 building,
96 turkey-type drinking bowls are provided (Tillie, 1999).

Fig. (3-11): Bell Drinker. (Tillie, 1999).

16
 Table 3-1: Number and type
of drinkers according to age
of the fowls.

Lindley and Whitaker (1996) said that, two more satisfactory methods of
supplying water to cages are in common use today. The first is a water cup
with a trigger in which the flow is activated by the chicken. Generally, one cup
will adequately serve up to 12 birds. Typical line pressure is 14 to 28 kPa for
horizontal valve cups and 150 to 200 mm of water for vertical valve cups. The
second method is a nipple waterer mounted overhead in the cage. The bird
has to push or peck on the valve to get water. Generally one nipple serve up
to 12 birds, 8 to 10 birds per nipple work best. Line pressure usually ranges
from 100 to 200 mm of water.
Modifications of the watering units and cooling systems were made by
Puma et al. (2001), Water flow rate of the modified waterer was measured to
range from 33 to 22 mL/min (0.52 to 0.35 gal/h), corresponding to reservoir
volume of 1500 to 1000 mL (0.40 to 0.26 gal) or column height of 72 to 60 cm
(28 to 24 in.). A copper cooling line was coiled around the water column as a
heat exchanger, and the assembly was then placed inside another 10-cm (4-
in.) diameter water-laden PVC cylinder, forming a cooling water jacket.

3.2. Egg Collection Equipment

Lindley and Whitaker (1996) stated that, cages contribute to quality egg
production by maintaining as closely as possible the characteristics of the egg
as laid. In a cage, the eggs immediately roll away from the body heat of the
17
birds to a holding tray or collection belt. Eggs roll out the front of the cages
either onto an egg tray for hand pickup or onto a collecting belt. Mechanical
collectors employ belts to carry the eggs to the end of the cage rows where
they are raised or lowered to a single level and carried by cross conveyor to
the egg packing or processing room. Cross conveyors are classified as belt or
rod type. Rod conveyors provide many advantages over the belt type.
Most dirt and debris that would occur on a belt will fall between the rods
which results in a more efficient use of automated packing machinery. Rod-
type conveyors can convey eggs at inclines up to 22o and can accommodate
variations in levels between buildings and/or packing rooms. Many of the rod
conveyor designs can also make turns up to 180o which eliminates some
transfer of eggs from one conveyor to another.
They added that, a decision on whether or not to invest in an automated
egg collection system should be made in terms of the initial cost versus
potential savings in labor. The labor saved by the use of mechanical egg
collector is significant only if the eggs are carried directly to a fully automated
processing machine.

3.3. House Care Equipment

Nesheim et al. (1979) reported that, a successful poultry house must be

clean, dry, well ventilated, and, above all, comfortable for the hens. Good
management aimed at maintaining these conditions will pay dividends in
sustained production.

3.3.1. Manure Handling Systems

Lindley and Whitaker (1996) stated that, the stacked cage designs must
be equipped with dropping boards which need to be scraped every one to two
18
days to remove the manure, or be equipped with plastic belts that convey the
manure to the end of the cage row. Several types of mechanical scrapers
designed to be used with specific cages are available. The manure which
drops from the cages may be handled in one of three ways:
1- Manure collects on the floor beneath the cages and is scraped on a two
or three week cycle with scraper blades mounted on a small tractor.

2- Manure collects in shallow pits, 12 to 14 in. (300 to 350 mm) deep,

which are then scraped with cable-pulled pit scrapers on a daily basis.
Stainless steel cables are commonly used to prevent corrosion and
frequent replacement. Flushing systems may be used instead of
scrapers.

3- Manure collects in a deep pit 8 to 10 ft (2.5 to 3 m) below the cage floor.

Cleaning is required not sooner than a year if the ventilation system
works well and the watering system is well managed to prevent leaks.
Manure may be removed when it is most convenient and advantageous
to spread on cropland.

They added that, the manure system dictates much of the building design.
For example, if the flat floor, tractor scraping system is used, the cages must
be suspended from the building trusses, adding a considerable weight that
enters into the truss design and spacing.
Each of these systems can resent problems such as groundwaters in the
deep pits, cable slippage, wear and breaking with the scrapers, and wet spots
and scraper breakdowns with the flat floor system. But with good
management, any of them will work satisfactory. A major factor in deciding
which system is best for a specific case is the manner and timing of manure
disposal once it is out of the house.

19
 The least expensive method of handling the manure is the flat floor,
providing the self-propelled scraper can be used in several houses. The deep
pit system is the most expensive because of the additional cost of
constructing a two-story house.

3.3.2. Manure Collecting Equipment

Nesheim et al. (1979) reported that, with single-deck installations, manure

accumulates on the floor and is removed at regular intervals. Tiered cages
may be provided with belts for conveying manure to one end of the house, or
with platforms that can be cleaned with mechanical scrapers. Examples of
manure collecting devices are shown in figures (3-12), (3-13), and (3-14):

Fig. (3-12): Machine used for cleaning under double-deck cages.

(Nesheim et al., 1979).

20
Fig. (3-13): Mechanical remover of droppings helps to reduce moisture in a
large hen house. (Nesheim et al., 1979).

Fig. (3-14): Three-wheel machine used under cages.

(Nesheim et al., 1979).

21
3.3.3. Manure Spreading Equipment

England et al. (2002) mentioned that, the manure spreading unit was
consisted of a tanker (fig. 3-15); the tanker was equipped with a tandem-
steerable undercarriage with 28L x 26” floatation tires. The components of the
tank are: rear splash pan, compression load cells, tanker centrifugal pump,
and tanker with 28L x 26” floatation tires. A magnetic inductive flow meter
was placed on the upper 6” discharge pipe. The flow meter was positioned at
the midpoint of the discharge pipe to avoid turbulent flow caused by the upper
elbow or rear discharge nozzle. Four compression load cells, which
supported the entire 4600 liter tank, were mounted between the tanker frame
and undercarriage frame. The signals from the flow meter and load cells were
collected, filtered, and displayed with a lap top computer.

Fig. (3-15): Manure Spreading Unit.

(England et al., 2002).

22
3.4. Mechanical Poultry Harvesting

Barbut (2002) cited that, the catching operation still remains one of the few
aspects of broiler production that is not very automated. Overall, most birds,
around the world, are loaded manually; however, this is the starting to change
as poultry companies beginning to automate this step.
He added that, one of the earliest designs was the large foam rubber
paddle that was a self-propelled harvester. The system captured the birds
with large foam rubber paddles that rotated down on top of the birds and then
pushed them onto a conveyor belt. The belt carried the birds to a loading
platform where they were deposited into modules made of a series of layered
compartments that were carried on the back of the machine. The whole
assembly was mounted on a truck-powered vehicle, which maneuvered
inside the barn through almost any type of litter.

Barbut (2002) added that, a vacuum system was an attempt to use the
pneumatic system that could best be described as a large vacuum cleaner.
The birds were suspended in air as they passed through a tubing system
while there feathers helped to prevent or reduce bruising. The birds were
placed by hand in a funnel-like aperture and pulled by suction through tubing
into the crates on a truck. Problems with this system were encountered when
birds were placed in the funnel too quickly, resulting in malfunction and
unacceptable injuries to the birds.
He added that, a built-in conveyor belt was developed and tried in
Georgia. It consists of a mechanized growing, harvesting and transporting
system. The barn was equipped with a permanent, recessed conveyor belt
built into the concrete floor. During catching, the birds were mechanically
herded onto the recessed belt using large paddles that rolled on metal tracks.
The conveyor carried the birds out of the barn to a short, inclined conveyor

23
that lifted them to the rear of a transport truck. Overall, the harvesting aspect
was complex and never reached commercial practice.
Barbut (2002) added that, a collecting mat system was developed in
Netherlands. Mats were laid in sections of the barn’s floor a few hours prior to
catching. Later, the mats and birds dropped into stackable crates as the mats
were rolled up by machine. Overall, the process involved a lot of manual labor
when placing the mats.
He added that, tined fork was developed and involved catching the birds
by scooping them off the floor with a large tined fork. The fork was attached to
a small, front-end loader and could lift 100 broilers at a time. Although the
pickup mechanism was reported to be effective, the other procedures for
transferring the broilers crates were judged to be less than satisfactory for this
purpose.
Barbut (2002) added that, a rubber-fingered cylinder is a pickup
mechanism consisting of a rotating drum with soft rubber fingers that lead the
birds onto a conveyor belt (fig. 3-16, and 3-17). It is crucial that the long
rubber fingers be soft enough not to hurt the birds but also firm enough to not
let them escape or flap their wings. The spacing between the fingers, rotation
speed and the speed at which the machine approaches the birds are critical.

Fig. (3-16): Rotating drum used for mechanical harvesting of broilers.

(Barbut, 2002).

24
 The system draws and lifts birds onto an inclined conveyor that carries
the birds to a caging system designed to fill standard drum-type cages at the
rear of the machine. The harvester is a front-wheel drive machine propelled
by a 70 HP diesel engine. The rear wheel is used for steering and allows for
good maneuverability. The drive system is hydraulic, and the machine is
reported to be extremely adept at picking birds off the ground. The harvester
is designed to catch about 5000 birds per hour, which is close to the average
rate of a manual catching crew.
Barbut (2002) added that, a three rotating drum system (three short
vertical drums covered with rubber fingers) is a different design, and is
designed to handle 7000 to 8000 broilers per hour with a crew of four people.
The system is powered by 43 HP engine, has a telescopic conveyor belt with
a maximum scanning range of 24 m and has steering and operation that can
be maintained by a remote control. The birds are loaded into one of the
modules.

Fig. (3-17): A Complete Mechanical Harvesting.

(Barbut, 2002).

Barbut (2002) added that, an improved vacuum-based system was

manufactured. The machine is a self-propelled, vacuum-based system that
has a pickup head of about 2.5 m wide that can swing back and forth,

25
extending the width of the area to 5-6 m. Broilers that come in contact with
the pickup mechanism are exposed to gentle suction that lifts them onto a
conveyor belt and transfers them to a cage-filling device. The cages are then
automatically stacked and placed onto a pallet and moved by a forklift as
described above. Benefits of using mechanical harvesters include the
following:
• Improved working conditions for the catching crew.
• Lower stress and fewer bruises to the birds.
• Reduced labor costs.
A Poultry harvester was developed recently (fig. 3-18), it is easily operated
by a screw of four, and it allows operators to realize significant labor savings,
reduced turnover and fewer workers. The catching rate is about of 8000 birds
per hour (Poultry International, 2002).

Fig. (3-18): Poultry Harvester. (Poultry International, 2002).

26
3.5. Truck Designs for Broilers Transportation

Barbut (2002) indicates that, minimizing stress during transport is an

important welfare and meat quality aspect. The birds may be exposed to
different stressors during transportation including thermal variations, vibration,
motion, acceleration, withdrawal of feed and water, noise and social
disruption. The combined effect of these factors may range from mild
discomfort and aversion to death. The major stress factor, during
transportation, seems to result from changes in environmental temperature.
Dissipation of temperature and humidity gradients and proper distribution of
the thermal load within the truck should be a primary objective when
designing a new truck or improving the ventilation system of an existing truck.
The typical modern broiler transporter with a modular container system
can carry approximately 6000 birds of 2 kg body weight. Stocking density was
53 kg/m2 using crates 1.3×0.7×0.25 m in size, loaded with 21-22 birds in the
summer and up to 23 birds in the winter. The crates are preferred to be
perforated by vertical slits of 10 mm wide at 55 mm center spacing. The truck
had a solid headboard and a roof, but the rear must be opened.

Barbut (2002) added that, new truck designs take these factors into
consideration, and airspace between the left and right modular crate systems
can be found on some trucks. The space should be kept clear and used to
improve airflow in between the cages. In some other designs, the roof of the
truck can be elevated so that when the truck stops, the driver can raise the
roof and significantly improve the airflow (i.e. preventing hot air and high
humidity conditions at the upper cages).
Figure (3-19) shows an improved truck design that also allows roof height
adjusting. Roof height adjustment is used to facilitate loading and unloading
of the module crates.

27
 Fig. (3-19): A truck design that allows roof height adjustment.
(Barbut, 2002).

Barbut (2002) added that, other designs improvements include a special

floor design that allows better air movement on the truck, without causing
problems with droppings from upper cages.
Kettlewell et al. (2000) used forced ventilation to modify the vehicle
environment. They indicated that, the use of forced ventilation requires the
curtains to be closed at all times to ensure adequate air movement in all parts
of the vehicle. The power required to drive the fans was also a constraint, the
installation of a portable 240 V generator was necessary. The fan ventilation
system was designed to assist the natural ventilation that occurs on the
vehicle due to the vehicle motion. For the lorry, the air movement is from back
to the front driven by the low-pressure regions around the headboard
extracting air from the lorry. The movement of air in the trailer is generally
considered as air extracted from the rear of the trailer and drawn in near the
front and along the length of the trailer.
Kettlewell et al. (2000) cited that, the unmodified vehicle comprises a lorry
of 10 modules and a drawbar trailer of 12 modules, each module comprises
12 drawers, each module held 264 chickens in 12 drawers. Modification is
mounting fans in a plenum chamber and extracted air at right angles to the
forward motion of the vehicle. The ventilation rate is of 2-5 m3/s per 1000
birds provided by one 0.63 m (24 in.) diameter axial flow fan per 1000 birds
(fig. 3-20).
28
 Fig. (3-20): Diagrammatic representation of air inlets and fan outlets to
provide powered ventilation on a lorry/drawbar poultry vehicle.
(Kettlewell et al., 2000).

3.6. Mechanical Ventilation Systems

Charles et al. (1994) point out that, a suitable maximum ventilation rate is
1.5×10-3 m3 s-1 kg-0.75. This is roughly 1×610-630 mm fan per 1000 layers or
broilers. The minimum is a little over one-tenth of the maximum. Typically fan
motors are about 0.5 kW per 1000 birds.
Lindley and Whitaker (1996) cited that, fans are installed high on the wall
and spaced along the protected side of the building perform well. Inlet baffles
should be adjusted to give a velocity of 700 to 1000 fpm (6.6 to 5 m/s). A
manometer reading of 0.04 to 0.08 in. (1.0 to 2.0 mm) of water will insure a
velocity in the recommended range. The thermostatically controlled fan
circuits are activated allowing increasing rates of ventilation as temperatures
rise due to animal heat and warm weather. A ventilation system has the
following components: (1) an envelope (building), (2) inlets, (3) fans or air
movers, (4) control system, and (5) often a supplemental heat source. Control
systems may include thermostats, humidistat, timers, and inlet controllers.
Lindley and Whitaker (1996) added that, fans used to move ventilation air
through buildings are classified as axial flow fans or centrifugal blowers. With
29
axial flow (propellers) type, the air is moved parallel with the fan shaft by two
or more radially mounted blades. Centrifugal blowers discharge air at right
angles to the “squirrel cage” shaft-and-blade assembly. The choice of a fan or
blower depends on the static pressure conditions under which it must
operate. Propeller fans are useful for low pressure applications. The fans may
be direct or belt-driven; belt-driven may be slower and quieter. Tubeaxial and
vaneaxial fans which have large hubs are modified designs and allow higher
pressure. Centrifugal fans may have 10 to 16 blades with the blades inclined
forward, or radially. The forward inclination gives greater flow rate; the
backward inclination develops higher pressure, and the backward inclination
is more efficient. The best fans can be 80% efficient in transferring energy to
air; propellers fans are generally 40% efficient or less. The ability of a fan to
move air is inversely proportional to the static pressure against which it must
discharge (fig. 3-21). Fans for poultry farms ventilation are most often chosen
on the basis of their capacity at 1/8 in. (3.2 mm) static pressure.

Fig. (3-21): Fan Performance Curves.

(Lindley and Whitaker, 1996).

30
 Lindley and Whitaker (1996) added that, propeller fans are the most
commonly used type for ventilating poultry buildings. They are the least
expensive, exhibit high efficiency at low static pressure, and are easily
installed and maintained. A two-blade propeller fan is suitable for static
pressures under ¼ in. (6 mm). Four-blade fans are suitable for pressures up
to 3/8 in. (10 mm) and some six-blade designs operate up to 1 in. (25 mm) or
more. Multiblade fans tend to be less noisy.
Centrifugal blowers, although comparatively more expensive, will operate
well against the pressures expected from long ducts. The blades on blowers
may forward-curved, radial or backward-curved. The latter type offers the
best combination of efficiency and quit operation for applications.
In selecting a fan model from performance tables in a catalogue, the
volume for a wall-mounted fan may usually be taken at 1/8 in. (3.2 mm) static
pressure. When used with a duct of less than 10 ft (3 m), capacity at ¼ in. (6
mm) should be chosen. For longer ducts, fans rated at a higher pressure or
perhaps a blower will be needed. Many fans are belt-driven and therefore
may be subject to changes in speed of operation. Note that:
• Fan capacity is proportional to speed.
• Static pressure is proportional to the square of the speed.
• Horsepower required is proportional to the cube of the speed.

Note that if the speed is doubled, as it might be by substituting a 3450 rpm

motor for a 1725 rpm model, the power requirement increases eightfold.
A shroud that fits fairly closely to the fan, and in effect becomes a bell-
shaped nozzle, through which air flows, will improve efficiency substantially
as compared to plain circular opening (fig. 3-22). Welded wire guards should
be installed over fan to prevent accidental contact with the operating blades
(fig. 3-23). Outlet ducts should be designed to provide 1 ½ ft2 (0.15 m2) of
inside cross-sectional area per 1000 cfm (472 L/s) of fan capacity.

31
Fig. (3-22): Effect of fan housing on fan capacity.
(Lindley and Whitaker, 1996).

Fig. (3-23): Ventilating Fans.

(Lindley and Whitaker, 1996).

32
Lindley and Whitaker (1996) added that, for inlet in figure (3-23):

Q = 0.0012W 0.98 P 0.49 (1)

For the continuous ceiling baffle inlet:

Q = 0.0013W 0.98 P 0.49 (

D
)0.08 exp[− 0.867W / T ] (2)
T

Where:
Q= airflow rate (m3/s per meter length of slot opening).
W= slot width (mm).
P= pressure drop across the inlet (Pa).
D= baffle width (mm).
T= width of ceiling opening (mm).

Pedersen (1999) cited that, the fan capacity depends on the dimension of
the fan wheel, the number of blades, the blade angles, and the rotational
speed. The more blades used and the larger the blade angles, the more air is
moved. Figure (3-24) shows how the blade angle affects the airflow rate, and
figure (3-25) shows the energy consumption and the rotational speed of the
fans. The figures shows that if the blade angle is increased from 25 degrees
to 45 degrees, the ventilation flow rate at 10 Pa will more than double, and
the energy consumption will increase by more than three times.

33
Fig. (3-24): Airflow rate for exhaust fan unit equipped with fan wheels with
different blade angles. (Pedersen, 1999).

Fig. (3-25): Power consumption and speed of the fans.

(Pedersen, 1999).
34
4. Recommendations

The use of Mechanization in poultry farms save time and labor and
provide high efficiency; furthermore, it provides more care, minimum ration
losses. The following recommendations must be taken in consideration when
planning for poultry enterprises:
- The provision of fully automated facilities.
- The feeding devices should be easy to fill, easy to clean, built to avoid
waste, and so arranged.
- Poultry should be provided with sufficient cool drinking water without
wastage. The drinking trough should be easily reached.
- Successful poultry house must be clean, dry, well ventilated; this can be
performed by provision of mechanized manure handling system and
mechanized ventilation system.
- The provision of mechanical harvesting to prevent time wastage injuries
when harvesting poultry.

5. Summary

Equipment and handling forage, mechanized poultry feeding systems and

automatic feeding systems, watering systems and watering equipment, egg
collection equipment, manure handling systems and manure collecting
equipment and manure spreading equipment, mechanical poultry harvesting,
truck designs for broilers transportation, and mechanical ventilation systems
were discussed in this paper.

35
 6. References

Barbut, S. 2002. Poultry Products Processing: An Industry Guide. CRC

Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.

Battaglia, R. A. 2001. Handbook of Livestock Management. 3rd ed.

Prentice Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA.

Bebb, D. L. 1990. Mechanized Livestock Feeding. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, UK.

Charles, D. R., H. A. Elson, and M. P. Haywood. 1994. Poultry Housing, p.

249-272. In: C. M. Walthes and D. R. Charles (eds.). Livestock Housing. CAB
International, Wallingford, UK.

England, T., B. J. Holmes, R. T. Schuler, R. Silha, and R. J. Straub. 2002.

Precision Land Application of Animal Manure Slurry. ASAE Annual
International Meeting / CIGR XVth World Congress, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Filmer, D. 2002. Automation is the future for broiler nutrition. World

Poultry, 18(6): 33-35.

Gillespie, J. R. 2002. Modern Livestock and Poultry Production. 6th ed.

Thomson Learning, Inc., Columbia, USA.

Kettlewell, P. J., R. P. Hoxey, and M. A. Mitchell. 2000. Heat Produced by

Broiler in a Commercial Transport Vehicle. J. Agric. Engng Res. 75, 315-326.

36
 Lindley, J.A. and J.H. Whitaker. 1996. Agricultural Buildings and
Structures: Poultry Housing, p. 565-590. ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan, USA.

Nesheim, M. C., R. E. Austic, and L. E. Card. 1979. Houses and

Equipment, p. 146-190. In: Poultry Production. 12th ed. Bailliere Tindall,
London, UK.

Pedersen, S. 1999. Forced Ventilation, p. 68-86. In: E. Bartalie, A.

Jongebreur, and D. Moffitt (eds.). CIGR Handbook of Agricultural
Engineering: Animal Production and Aquacultural Engineering. ASAE, St.
Joseph, Michigan, USA.

Poultry International: Production, Processing and Marketing Worldwide.

2002. Vol. 41(1): 16-17. Sonsbeck, Germany.

Puma, M. C., H. Xin, R. S. Gates, and D. J. Burnham. 2001. An

Instrumentation System for Studying Feeding and Drinking Behavior of
Individual Poultry. Applied Engineering in Agriculture Vol. 17(3): 365-374.

Tillie, M. 1999. Equipment and Control, p. 115-146. In: E. Bartalie, A.

Jongebreur, and D. Moffitt (eds.). CIGR Handbook of Agricultural
Engineering: Animal Production and Aquacultural Engineering. ASAE, St.
Joseph, Michigan, USA.

37

View publication stats