Evaluation of working time requirements of different grading and vaccination processes.
Good uniformity allows flock managers to ensure the nutritional needs of the birds are met by way of feed increases and it also adds to the success of the photo-stimulation period thus resulting in a better overall flock performance (Robinson 2003, Marcos 2013). It also helps to eliminate competition between birds improving their welfare. In order to enable consistent development of the entire flock, dividing into different weight groups is an established and effective method to manage broiler breeders.
In practice, birds are graded various times according to their weight and fed in a way that achieves a desired weight, leading to a more uniform population (Harrison 2006). The leading breeding companies grade birds either by visual assessment or by weighing each individual bird. This process can be ergonomically challenging and labor-intensive. During the rearing period, many routine tasks are not automated. Another task that requires considerable manual input is vaccination.
Solution approach
Because the wings are supported in a fixed position, the chest is easily accessible. As well as grading, the device allows precision breast vaccination, as well as other types of vaccination methods – via the eye, neck or wing. All of these are undertaken in a calm manner with the birds head in an upright position at all times.
Until now there has been no scientific data to determine the hourly rate and working time requirements of manually undertaking the grading or vaccination process versus automation of the process.
Method
A project at the University of Göttingen examined the extent to which automated vaccination and grading processes are superior to manual processes. Before comparing the different procedures, the University’s Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development used a questionnaire to evaluate the vaccination and grading processes in different Aviagen® grandparent operations throughout the world. Wage levels and processing costs in different countries were examined for economic assessment. The results of the survey showed differences in the grading process between individual farms, meaning grading processes could not be directly compared. The most comparable farms were therefore selected based on working times. Farms with faster grading and vaccination processes were selected in order to set a benchmark for the device output.
For the study, working times were measured in accordance to the established REFA method (time and motion study), which breaks the process down into individual working elements, which were measured until the metrics were statistically valid.
Working elements are differentiated between cyclic and non-cyclic. For cyclic working elements, the epsilon value is applied to assess data quality. The epsilon value should lie below 15 percent in agricultural working time recording. The aim is to achieve the lowest possible epsilon value (Schick 2006; Fricke 2016). The quality of non-cyclic working elements is determined by the CV, which should lie below 35 percent in agricultural measurements. The lowest-possible CV is desirable (Marbé-Sans et al. 2005).
Analysis
The survey of the operations showed that both grading and vaccination are carried out in various different ways. The manual grading scales (as applied in the U.K.) and the manual vaccination (as applied in the Netherlands) were used as the basis for further research. Only vaccinations in the chest were considered.
Within the survey, work flows were classified in different working elements, and were documented from the set-up to dismantling of the necessary equipment. Measurements were recorded from the device entering the pen until leaving the pen. Within the six month investigation period from April until September 2017, 3,461 individual measurements of different working elements were performed. As well as working time recording of manual processes in the U.K. and the Netherlands, an evaluation of automated grading and vaccination in Spain took place. The main reason for this was that Aviagen S.A.U. had already used the first prototype of the grading and vaccination device and thus had experience with the new device.
Results
The results of the analysis were statistically evaluated and differences were statistically tested. All epsilon values and CVs were below P=x, in line with the parameters provided in the literature.
Apart from the acquisition costs of the grading and vaccination device, knowing the hourly wage and possible number of gradings and vaccinations per device is crucial to determine the cost-effectiveness of automation.
Conclusion
The newly developed automated vaccination and grading process is superior to the manual process when it comes to working time requirements. The total run time of 7.02 hours enables the vaccination and grading of an average farm with five employees within a working day. Due to the device’s support and the integration of vaccination and grading processes, the working time requirements are reduced by simultaneously increasing efficiency and accuracy.
The automated process is preferable to manual grading and vaccination as seen in the results of this study. However the advantage of the automated process is that it reduces the labor requirement. Furthermore, when using the device, it is recommended that vaccination and grading are to be carried out at the same time. By combining the grading and vaccination process it promotes animal welfare by reducing the number of times the birds are handled and also because the birds head stays in an upright position.
With regards to workplace efficiency, automated processes offer additional benefits apart from ergonomic advantages. The digital collection of the flock’s individual bird weights enables optimal flock management and a record can be maintained and referred back to. Special attention was paid to the biosecurity and hygiene of the device during the design process. The risk is minimized by having one device per site, a multi-stage cleaning and disinfection program, and rest periods between grading and vaccinations. The reduced need for personnel when using automated grading and vaccination also improves biosecurity because fewer external workers are needed.
References
Fricke, W. (2016): Arbeits- und Zeitwirtschaft verstehen – Von der Zeitstudie bis zur Abtaktung. 1. Auflage. Books on Demand, Norderstedt.
Harrisson, J. (2006): Management of broiler parent stock in rear after grading to 15 weeks. Zootecnica International (2006) 58 (9): 1 – 2. Marbé-Sans, D.; Heitkämper, K.; Schick, M. (2005): Arbeitswirtschaftliche Kennzahlen in Spezialkulturen. Agrarforschung 12 (8): 338 – 343.
Marcos, C. (2013): Grading breeder pullets for uniformity and best production. Zootecnica International 65 (5): 54 – 58.
Robinson, F. E. (2003): Flock Uniformity and Female Broiler Breeder Management. In: Robinson, F.E., Fasenko, G.M., Renema, R.A. (Hrsg.): Optimizing Chick Production in Broiler Breeders – Volume 1: Broiler Breeders Production Series. Spotted Cow Press, Edmonton, S. 59 – 64.
Schick, M. (2006): Dynamische Modellierung landwirtschaftlicher Arbeit unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Arbeitsplanung. Habilitationsschrift. Ergonomia Verlag, Stuttgart.
Zuidhof, M.J.; Holm, D.E.; Renema, R.A.; Jalal, M.A.; Robinson, F.E. (2015): Effects of broiler breeder management on pullet body weight and carcass uniformity. Poultry Science 94 (6): 1389 – 1397.
Authors
Prof. Dr. Ludwig Theuvsen and Hauke Tergast, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Germany
Jörg Hurlin, Agri Advanced Technologies GmbH, Visbek, Germany