MANNING’S SCHOOL

CSEC AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE SCHOOL

BASED ASSESSMENT (SINGLE AWARD)

BROILER PRODUCTION

INVESTIGATION AND COST ANALYSIS

Name Of Student: Alicia Washington

Student Registration Number: 1000682860

Name Of School: Manning’s School

Title Of Project: To investigate the average weekly weight gain/ growth rate the
feed conversion ratio (FCR) and profitability of chickens that were fed two
alternate types of feed.

Start Date: September 24, 2023

Termination Date:

Page | 1
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The successful completion of this project would not have been possible without the assistance

and cooperation of a number of people. Firstly, I would like to thank my teacher Mrs. Brown-

Davis, for giving me the opportunity to research this topic and guiding me every step of the way

through this exercise.

I would like to thank my family for helping me with this research and encouraging me to do my

best. I thank my parents for providing for me financially so that I was able to complete this

assessment, as well as relieving me of my household duties while I was engaged with the study.

Finally, I would like to thank my fellow students, for assisting me with the research related to

this study and encouraging me to do my best.

Page | 2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Content Page Number

Cover Page………………………………………………………………………… .1

Acknowledgement………………………………………………………………… .2

Table of contents…………………………………………….……….……………. .3

Introduction……… ………………………………………..………...……………. .4
• Problem Statement
• Aim

Methodology………………………….……………………...…..……………...… .5-12

• Experimental Design
• Materials and Equipment used
• Activities done
• Data Collected

Results……...…………………………………………………….….13-14

• Interpretation of Data

Discussion…………………...……………………………………………………. .15-16
• Findings with references to relevant supporting literature

Conclusion………………….……………………………………………….….… .17

Limitation………………….……………………………………………….….…. .18

Recommendations for improvement……….…………………………………..… .19

References……………….………………………………………….……………. .20

Cost Analysis……….…………………………………………………….……. ….. .21-29

• Sample Projected Budget

• Sample of Actual Income and Expenditure Statement
• Comparison of the cost analysis

Page | 3
 INTRODUCTION

PRODUCTION PROBLEM STATEMENT

When Nutramix feed is compared to Hipro feed, the question arises whether or not Nutramix
chicken has a higher growth rate and FCR when fed Hipro feed than that of Nutramix chicken
fed Nutramix feed over a six-week period.

AIM/OBJECTIVES:
❖ Technical Objective
1. To determine which feed produces a higher growth rate and FCR over a six-week period.
2. To determine which brand of feed and chicken produces a better weight gain/ growth
rate over the six-week period.

❖ Business Objective
1. To determine which feed is more cost effective and profitable for use.

Page | 4
 METHODOLOGY

Experimental Design

• Two compartments of equal dimensions were prepared in the chicken coop.

• The compartments were labelled as compartment A (HiPro mix fed) and compartment B
(Nutramix fed).

• One (1) waterer and One (1) feed pan were placed in each compartment.

• Sawdust and newspapers were applied to the floor of each compartment.

• One (1) heat lamp was installed in each compartment for brooding. Twenty-five (25) Fifty-
day-old Nutramix chicks were placed in each compartment.

• Compartment A and compartment B were supplied with similar water and ventilation.

• Each compartment was treated similarly with regards to the turning of litter, washing of the
waterers and the collection and recording of observed data.

Page | 5
Materials and Equipment Used

• Feed *Hay fork *Feeder *Water pot

• Sawdust *Shovel *Disinfectant *Newspaper
• Rake * Super booster *Knife *Wheelbarrow
• Scratch bright *Chick fonts *Broom *Brooding lights
• File *Scale *Nipple dripper *Defeating machine
• Poly bags *Day-old chicks *Waterers *Curtain

Materials/Equipment Used Use/function

This was used as a bedding medium for the
Sawdust chicks in the poultry house as it absorbs
moisture, absorbs smells, dries feces quickly,
and can easily be poop scooped
This was used to turn over the litter in the
Hay fork poultry house.

This was used because it helped to eliminate

Feeder messes and prevented the feed from getting
knocked into feces.
This was used to precisely and cleanly cut the
Defeating machine jugular veins and carotid arteries as well as
the trachea and esophagus in the front of the
neck.

Poly bags These were used to package the carcasses of

the chicks.

Page | 6
Activities carried out

Activities Explanation Photographs

Turning of litter A hay fork was used to turn

the litter on a weekly basis
or as required. This was
done to prevent the build-up
of ammonia, which may
result in the death of
chickens due to respiratory
issues. Wet spots of litter
were removed when
observed and replaced with
new litter. This was
recorded for later use.

Placing the Bedding Newspaper was placed on

the sawdust in order to act
as a form of bedding for the
chickens and to prevent
them from consuming the
sawdust.

Page | 7
The placement of After the brooding areas
the baby chicks were prepared and the
newspaper was placed to
ensure the safety of the
chicks, they were separated
into two groups of 25. The
first group was placed into a
brooding area specifically
for chicks to be fed
Nutramix feed, likewise the
other 25 were place in their
specified area however they
would be fed Hipro feed.

Washing of waterers The chickens were given

water through waterers.
These waterers were
sanitized daily by washing
with 5-10% diluted bleach
water.

Page | 8
Feeding of the birds The chicks were fed ad lib
(without restriction) for the
entire growing period. The
feed pans were filled
adequately to prevent the
birds from being out of feed,
and to prevent the feed from
lasting too long in the pan,
therefore preventing
spoilage. The amount of
feed added was recorded for
later use.

Weighing of Five (5) random chickens

Chickens were weighed and the
weight was recorded on a
weekly basis until slaughter

Page | 9
Evisceration/ Evisceration involves the
plucking of the birds removal of the internal
organs and the extremities
(feet). The feet were
removed from the
drumsticks at the joint. This
was followed by removing
the neck from deep within
the back of the bird. A
horizontal cut was made in
the region of the cloaca to
gain entry to the internal
organs that form part of the
digestive, circulatory and
respiratory systems. Once
satisfied that all the organs
were completely removed,
the chicken was washed
thoroughly and placed in a
vat of icy water. After
which the offal were
cleaned up and the rest
disposed of.
After each chicken was
Bagging and washed and cooled in a
weighing of the drum of icy water, it was
slaughtered then placed on a table to
chickens/ carcasses drain. The drained chickens
were then placed in clear
poly bags and weighed. The
offal were placed together
and packaged in a poly bag.
Same for the feet and necks.

Page | 10
Data Collected

TABLE SHOWING DATA COLLECTED

BROILER PRODUCTION WEEKLY RECORD SHEET ( HIPRO FEED AND NUTRA CHICKEN)
DATE WEEK # OF WEIGHT (LB) AVERAGE AVERAGE
CKICKEN WEIGHT (LB) WEIGHT GAIN
WEIGHED (LB)

9/10/23 1 5 0.46 0.09 -

16/10/23 2 5 1.72 0.34 1.26
23/10/23 3 5 4.86 0.97 3.14
30/10/23 4 5 10.80 2.16 5.94
6/11/23 5 5 15.48 3.10 4.68
13/11/23 6 5 22.94 4.59 7.46
20/11/23 7 5 22.58 4.52 -0.36
TOTAL
Table 1. shows the average weight and average weight gained per Nutra Mix chicken fed with Hipro feed.

BROILER PRODUCTION WEEKLY RECORD SHEET ( NUTR-MIX FEED AND NURA MIX
CHICKEN)
DATE WEEK # OF WEIGHT (LB) AVERAGE AVERAGE
CHICKEN WEIGHT (LB) WEIGHT GAIN
WEIGHED (LB)

9/10/23 1 5 0.46 0.09 -

16/10/23 2 5 1.36 0.27 0.9

23/10/23 3 5 4.06 0.81 2.7

30/10/23 4 5 7.50 1.5 3.44

6/11/23 5 5 14.38 2.88 6.88

13/11/23 6 5 18.04 3.61 3.66

20/11/23 7 5 23.70 4.74 5.66

TOTAL

Table 2. shows the average weight and average weight gained per Nutra Mix chicken fed with Nutra Mix
feed.

Page | 11
 SLAUGHTERING RECORD SHEET

DATE: Nov.20,2023 Hipro Feed Nutra Mix

NUMBER OF CHICKEN 22 24

WEIGHT (LB) WEIGHT (LB)

MEAT 83.7 96.58

FOOT 3.74 3.80

NECK 2.42 2.38

LIVER 2.28 2.84

GIZZARD 1.30 1.34

Amt. of Feed used 199.76 205.04

Table 3. shows the number of chickens slaughtered, the total weight of the parts extracted and the total
amount of feed consumed by both sets of birds.

Page | 12
 PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

Line Graph Comparing Average Weight Gain of Birds fed on Hi-

Pro and Nutramix over 6 Weeks
8

5
Weight Gain

0
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7
-1
Time

Nutramix feed AVERAGE WEIGHT GAIN (LB) Hipro feed AVERAGE WEIGHT GAIN (LB)

Figure 1. line graph showing average weight of chickens

The graph above shows the difference in FCR between the chicks grown on Hi-Pro feed and
chicks grown on Nutra-mix feed. The FCR (Feed Conversion Ratio) can be summed up as the
number of pounds of feed necessary for the birds to gain one pound in body weight. The FCR
can be calculated by dividing total feed consumed by total weight of animal. The FCR calculated
for the Hi-Pro batch was 2.14:1 with a mortality of 12%. The FCR calculated for the Nutra-mix
batch was 1.92:1 with a mortality of 4%. In conclusion there was some loss of profit in both
batches as both had deaths, but Nutra-mix feeds resulted with a better FCR and a lower mortality
rate therefore it is more profitable for the farmer.

Page | 13
 Total Feed Consumption (lbs)

206
205
204
Qunantity of feed

203
202
201
200
199
198
197
Nutramix Hipro
Feed

Figure 2. bar graph showing total feed consumed

Figure 2 shows the total consumption of feed by both sets of birds. Birds fed with Nutramix feed
consumed approximately 5.28 lbs more feed than birds fed with hipro feed.

Page | 14
 DISCUSSION

The results of the experiment comparing the two feeds, Hi-Pro and Nutra-mix, have revealed a
lot in regards to the maximization of profits. The FCR (Feed Conversion Ratio) calculated for the
Hi-Pro batch was 2.14:1, indicating that it required 2.14 pounds of feed to gain 1 pound of body
weight. On the other hand, the Nutra-mix batch had a lower FCR of 1.92:1. This suggests that
Nutra-mix was more efficient in converting feed into body weight, making it a more cost-
effective option for farmers.
However, it is important to note that both batches experienced mortality rates. The Hi-Pro batch
had a mortality rate of 12% (3 chicks), resulting in a loss of 12% of potential profit. Similarly,
the Nutra-mix batch had a mortality rate of 4% (1 chick), leading to a loss of 4% of potential
profit. These losses highlight the financial impact of mortality on poultry farming.
In terms of profitability, the loss of birds due to mortality prevented the farmer from achieving
maximum profit. The total loss from both batches was calculated as $610, with $457.50
attributed to the Hi-Pro batch and $152.50 to the Nutra-mix batch. This loss was primarily due to
natural causes, despite the farmer's efforts to mitigate environmental factors that could contribute
to mortality.
The findings of this study align with previous literature on the relationship between feed
conversion efficiency and profitability in poultry farming. Research by an article entitled
“Maximize Efficiency and Profits: Understanding and Improving Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR)
in Layers” states that “efficiency is key to maximizing profitability. One crucial measure of
efficiency is the Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR), which quantifies how effectively animals convert
feed into body weight gain or product output.” Therefore, improving the FCR can significantly
enhance the economic performance of broiler production. Similarly, a study caried out in 2023
titled “Productivity and profitability of commercial broiler chickens under various farming
conditions.” highlighted the importance of reducing mortality rates to maximize profitability in
the poultry industry.
Based on the results, it can be concluded that Nutra-mix was more effective in terms of feed
conversion efficiency, resulting in better profitability compared to Hi-Pro. However, the
presence of mortality in both batches indicates that further measures need to be taken to
minimize losses and maximize profit potential.
It is also worth mentioning that during the course of this study the researcher faced challenges,
two of which were 1. not all the prices of the materials used were recorded, this led to set backs
when writing up the budgets and 2. As this investigation was carried out by students, we did not
have the freedom to be involved with the chickens as we should have been due to our busy
schedules. These limitations affected our ability to complete this study in a timely manner but
never the less they were resolved, some recommendations to note are to 1. prepare all tools and
materials necessary beforehand and to take note of the prices of said materials as soon as they are
purchased and 2. Try as best as possible to construct a schedule so that everyone has a day where
they care for the chickens and ensure they have a well-maintained living environment.

Page | 15
Additionally, when constructing the budget, it was observed that the cost for hipro feed was
$3065.79 per bag and the cost for nutra mix feed was $2,874.16 per bag. It was also noted that
the batch of chickens who were fed nutra mix feed had a much lower mortality rate of 4% (1
chick) on the other hand the batch of chickens fed hipro feed had a higher mortality rate of 12%
(3 chicks). These results indicate that when rearing nutra mix chickens the best feed to use is the
nutra mix feed as it not only has a lower mortality rate but it is also cheaper making it a much
more economically friendly choice for the farmer as in the long run when rearing a larger amount
of chickens for the purpose of making a profit, the use of nutra mix feed would allow the farmer
a much larger profit margin as opposed to the use of the hipro feed.
Overall, these findings emphasize the need for farmers to carefully consider feed options and
implement strategies to reduce mortality rates. By selecting feeds with better FCR and
implementing effective management practices, farmers can improve profitability and ensure a
more sustainable poultry industry.

Page | 16
 CONCLUSION

The project spanned over a seven-week period starting with 50 chicks but on the day of
slaughtering only 46 chicks were killed. The results collected showed that there was a total
mortality of 8% (4 chicks), hence, $610 of total profit has been lost to death contrary to
everything being done to keep them alive, such as: regular feeding, having a constant supply of
water, the sanitization of the brooding house, feeders and waters etc. and living in a controlled
environment. In conclusion the most suitable feed according to the results in terms of making a
profit is Nutra-mix as it was not only cheaper but also had a lower mortality rate. Nutramix feed
also has a better FCR when compared to Hipro feed which means those chickens produced a
better weight gain/ growth rate over the seven-week period.

Page | 17
 LIMITATIONS
• When carrying out this study not all the prices of the materials used were recorded which
led to set backs when writing up the budgets.
• Due to the schedules of those involved in this study the chickens were only able to be
observed twice weekly, this was not the best situation as poultry are known to be very
susceptible to diseases and an outbreak can quickly spread throughout the entire flock for
reasons such as a contaminated water source which may occur as a result of fecal matter
going into the waters.

Page | 18
 RECOMMENDATION
• All items needed be prepared beforehand and their prices checked to better the accuracy
of the budget.
• Construct a table where all students involved in the study have a specified day throughout
the week in which they observe and care for the chickens.

Page | 19
 REFERENCES
Ramharracksingh, Ronald. 2011. Agricultural Science for CSEC Examinations. Oxford:
Macmillan Publishers.

Maximize Efficiency and Profits: Understanding and Improving Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) in
Layers. 2023.
https://champrix.com/articles/maximize-efficiency-and-profits-understanding-and-improving-
feed-conversion-ratio-fcr-in-layers

Khan, S. U., Fouzder, S. K., & Sarkar, P. K. (2023). Productivity and profitability of commercial
broiler chickens under various farming conditions. Journal of Experimental Biology and
Agricultural Sciences, 11(1), 209–215.
https://doi.org/10.18006/2023.11(1).209.215

Page | 20
 COST ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTIONS
• Average weight/Bird: 4 to 4.5 lbs
• Average feed/bird: 10 lbs
• Expected Mortality: 8% ( 2 birds died)
• Avg. Wt/foot: 2 to 3 oz
• Avg. Wt/Neck: 2 to 2.5 oz.
• Avg. Wt/Gizzard: 1.5 to 2 oz.
• Avg. Wt/ Liver: 1.5 to 2 oz.
HIPRO FEED & NUTRA MIX FEED AND NUTRA MIX CHICKENS

PROJECTED
BUDGET
INCOME WEIGHT (lbs) UNIT UNIT PRICE ($) TOTAL

*BROILER MEAT
(24 chicken Avg. Wt.
4- 4.5 lbs.) 250 lbs 250 $62,500

FOOT 4.50 lbs 200 $900

NECK 3.00 lbs 200 $600

GIZZARD 2.65 lbs 200 $530

LIVER 3.25 lbs 200 $650

% Mortality 8 TOTAL INCOME $ 65,180

EXPENSES

ITEMS QUANTITY UNIT COST ($) TOTAL

DAY OLD CHICKS 48 180 $8,640

Saw Dust 5 bgs 300 $1,500

Nutra Mix BROILER

FEED (Crumble)
(10LBS/BIRD) 3 bgs 1,950 $5,850

Super Hiprovit 2 pk 300 $600

PACKAGING Bags
(9x14) 2 pk 250 $500

Page | 21
J-FLUID 1 Lt 2,100 $2,100

Hipro Broiler feed

(Crumble)
(10lbs/Birds) 3 bgs 2,000 $6,000
TOTAL
PROJECTED
EXPENDITURE $25,190

= Total Income – Total Expenses

Projected Profit $ 65,180 - $25,190 = $39,990

Page | 22
 Actual Income and Expenditure for:
(HIPRO FEED AND NUTRA-MIX CHICKEN)
COST ANALYSIS FOR BROILER PRODUCTION
(HIPRO FEED AND NUTRA-MIX CHICKEN)

ACTUAL
BUDGET
INCOME WEIGHT (lb) UNIT UNIT PRICE ($) TOTAL

*BROILER MEAT
(24 chicken Avg. Wt.
4- 4.5 lbs.) 83.7 lbs 300 $25,110.00

FOOT 3.74 lbs 200 $748.00

NECK 2.42 lbs 200 $484.00

GIZZARD 1.30 lbs 200 $260.00

LIVER 2.28 lbs 200 $456.00

% mortality 12 TOTAL INCOME $ 27,058.00

EXPENSES

ITEMS QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL

DAY OLD CHICKS 22 $152.50 $3,355.00

Saw Dust 2 bgs $250 $500.00

Hipro BROILER
FEED (Crumble)
(10LBS/BIRD) 2 bgs $3065.79 $6,131.58

Super Hiprovit 1 pk $602.10 $602.10

PACKAGING Bags
(9x14) 1 pk $200 $200.00

Page | 23
J-FLUID 1 Lt $2070.35 $2,070.35

TOTAL EXPENSES $12,859.03

Total Income – Total Expenses =

Actual Profit $14,198.97

Page | 24
 Actual Income and Expenditure for:
(NUTRA -MIX FEED AND NUTRA MIX CHICKEN)
COST ANALYSIS FOR BROILER PRODUCTION
(NUTRA -MIX FEED AND NUTRA MIX CHICKEN)

ACTUAL
BUDGET
INCOME WEIGHT (lb) UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL

*BROILER MEAT
((# of chicken and
Avg. Wt) 96.58 lb $300 $28,974.00

FOOT 3.80 lb $200 $760.00

NECK 2.38 lb $200 $476.00

GIZZARD 1.34 lb $200 $268.00

LIVER 2.84 lb $200 $568.00

% mortality 4 TOTAL INCOME $31,046.00

EXPENSES

ITEMS QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL

DAY OLD CHICKS

(Nutra Mix) 24 $152.50 $3,660.00

Saw Dust 2 bgs $250 $500.00

Nutra Mix BROILER
FEED (Crumble)
(10LBS/BIRD) 2 bgs $2,874.16 $5,748.32

Super Hiprovit 1 pk $602.10 $602.10

PACKAGING Bags 1 pk $200 $200.00

J-FLUID 1 Lt $2070.35 $2,070.35

TOTAL EXPENSES $12,780.77

Page | 25
 Total Income – Total Expenses =
Actual Profit $18,265.23

Page | 26
 COMPARISONS OF THE COST ANALYSIS
Upon completion of the broiler bird production, a comprehensive cost analysis was conducted to
compare the projected budgets with the actual outcomes. Initially, the total income was projected
to be $65,180. However, the actual income for Hipro was $27,058, and for Nutramix, it was
$31,046. Consequently, the combined total actual income for both budgets was $58,104.00. This
represents a shortfall of $7,076 or 11% (rounded to the nearest whole number) compared to the
projected total income. As a result, this is lower-than-projected yield. The yield projected was
250 lbs; however, only 180.28 lbs of whole meat was available for market. This resulted in a
sales deficit of 69.72 lbs or $ 20, 916 (using actual price of $300). The higher-than-projected
mortality rate also resulted in a lower-than-projected yield in offal and chicken feet. See Figure
3.

In terms of expenditure, the total projected expenditure for the production was estimated to be
$25,190. However, the total expense for Hipro amounted to $12,859.03, and for Nutramix, it was
$12,780.77. As a result, the total actual expense incurred by both budgets was $25,639.80. This
represents an increase of $449 or 2% (rounded to the nearest whole number) compared to the
projected total expenditure. The higher-than-projected cost resulted from the higher-than-
projected cost for feed and super hiprovit. See Figure 4.

Considering the actual income and expenses, the projected profit for the broiler bird production
was $39,990. However, the actual profit for Hipro was $14,198.97, and for Nutramix, it was
$18,265.23. Therefore, the total actual profit generated by both budgets combined was
$32,464.20. This represents a shortfall of $7,525.80 or 19% (rounded to the nearest whole
number) compared to the projected total profit. The difference is a result of lower-than-projected
yield, which resulted in lower actual income. The variance in profit was offset due to the lower-
than-projected expenditure and consistency in market price. See Figure 5.

The cost analysis highlights the impact of various factors on the financial outcomes of broiler
bird production. The actual income fell short of expectations due to the higher-than-projected
mortality rate. This, in turn, affected the profitability of the production. The total actual expense
exceeded the projected expenditure, further increasing the financial strain. Overall, the actual
profit achieved was lower than projected, indicating a deviation from the initial expectations.

Page | 27
 Income

Actual
Projected 47%
53%

Figure 3. Pie chart showing projected income versus actual income.

Expenditure

Projected Actual
50% 50%

Figure 4. Pie chart showing projected expenditure versus actual expenditure.

Page | 28
 Profit

Actual
Projected 45%
55%

Figure 5. Pie chart showing projected profit versus actual profit.

Page | 29