Subscribe Now Subscribe Today
Science Alert
FOLLOW US:     Facebook     Twitter
Curve Top
Asian Journal of Poultry Science
  Year: 2013 | Volume: 7 | Issue: 2 | Page No.: 75-82
DOI: 10.3923/ajpsaj.2013.75.82
Facebook Twitter Digg Reddit Linkedin StumbleUpon E-mail
Economic Assessment of Raising Different Broiler Strains
Adeoti Adetola and Olawumi Simeon

Broiler chicken strains differ in genetic make-up and performance characteristics. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the cost of production and gross revenue of three strains of broiler chicken in order to determine their profitability. Also, the productivities of inputs and cost were determined. The three strains were Marshall, Hubbard and Arbor Acre. Data on costs of production and the live weights of 50 birds per strain; at 8 weeks were obtained. Results show that there were no significant (p>0.05) differences in the production costs to the three broiler strains. Feed cost took the highest percentage (48%) of the total cost of production, while cost of medication was the least (4%). Marshall strain had the highest mean live weight (2.10 kg) at maturity and the least cost ($2.83 kg-1) of producing 1 kg of meat. It also recorded the highest gross margin ($51.8). This is followed by Hubbard strain ($30.4), while Arbor Acre ($26.7) strain have the least gross margin. The highest benefit-cost ratio, profitability index and rate of return on investment were 1.17, 0.15 and 17.5%, respectively for the Marshall strain. The partial productivities were highest for the Marshall strain and particularly for labour (3.91). The results reveal that the level of profitability and productivity of broiler depends among other factors on the strain. The Marshall broiler strain is the most profitable and productive to raise for commercial purpose.
PDF Fulltext XML References Citation Report Citation
How to cite this article:

Adeoti Adetola and Olawumi Simeon, 2013. Economic Assessment of Raising Different Broiler Strains. Asian Journal of Poultry Science, 7: 75-82.

DOI: 10.3923/ajpsaj.2013.75.82








Curve Bottom