IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v14y2023i1p10-d1304508.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of the Economic Profitability of Fattening Selected Chicken Genotypes in an Organic Farm

Author

Listed:
  • Kazimierz Obremski

    (Department of Veterinary Prevention and Feed Hygiene, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, 10-718 Olsztyn, Poland)

  • Józef Tyburski

    (Department of Agroecosystems and Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland)

  • Paweł Wojtacha

    (Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Collegium Medicum, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, 10-082 Olsztyn, Poland)

  • Ewa Sosnówka-Czajka

    (Department of Poultry Breeding, National Research Institute of Animal Production, 32-083 Balice, Poland)

  • Iwona Skomorucha

    (Department of Poultry Breeding, National Research Institute of Animal Production, 32-083 Balice, Poland)

  • Janusz Pomianowski

    (Department of Meat Technology and Chemistry, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland)

  • Paweł Parowicz

    (SBP Feeds Ltd., Piastowska 38A, 14-240 Susz, Poland)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether production costs can be reduced and whether the profitability of organic chicken fattening can be increased by selecting the appropriate genotypes. Rhode Island Red (K-11) and Sussex (S-66) conservative chicken genotypes, as well as modern chicken genotypes such as slow-growing Hubbard JA 957 hybrids and fast-growing Ross 308 hybrids, were selected for the study. One hundred and sixty chickens were used in the experiment (forty birds per group). The birds were fed commercial organic complete feed up to 52 days of age and organic farm-made feed (to reduce costs) between 53 and 81 days of age. Population distribution was determined using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. The results were analyzed statistically using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with multiple comparisons and the post hoc Tukey test at a significance level of p < 0.05. The 81-day fattening period (the minimum recommended period in organic farming) led to considerable weight deficits in Rhode Island Red and S-66 chickens and excessive slaughter/trade weights in Hubbard JA 957 and Ross 308 chickens. The feed conversion ratio was high in Rhode Island Red (K-11) and Sussex (S-66) chickens at 4.19 and 4.50, respectively, and much lower in Hubbard JA 957 and Ross 308 chickens at 2.79 and 2.53, respectively. The choice of chicken genotypes had a major impact on the profitability of organic farming, and the total costs of feed and other ingredients per kg of body weight were determined at EUR 3.83 for Rhode Island Red (K-11), EUR 3.90 for Sussex (S-66), EUR 6.57 for Hubbard JA 957, and EUR 6.62 for Ross 308 genotypes. The profitability of organic farming can be increased by selecting modern, meat-type, slow-growing chicken genotypes.

Suggested Citation

  • Kazimierz Obremski & Józef Tyburski & Paweł Wojtacha & Ewa Sosnówka-Czajka & Iwona Skomorucha & Janusz Pomianowski & Paweł Parowicz, 2023. "Assessment of the Economic Profitability of Fattening Selected Chicken Genotypes in an Organic Farm," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:14:y:2023:i:1:p:10-:d:1304508
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/14/1/10/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/14/1/10/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Klaas Calker & Paul Berentsen & Gerard Giesen & Ruud Huirne, 2005. "Identifying and ranking attributes that determine sustainability in Dutch dairy farming," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 22(1), pages 53-63, March.
    2. Verena Seufert & Navin Ramankutty & Jonathan A. Foley, 2012. "Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture," Nature, Nature, vol. 485(7397), pages 229-232, May.
    3. M. Lichovníková & J. Jandásek & M. Jůzl & E. Dračková, 2009. "The meat quality of layer males from free range in comparison with fast growing chickens," Czech Journal of Animal Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 54(11), pages 490-497.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Karol Kociszewski & Andrzej Graczyk & Krystyna Mazurek-Łopacinska & Magdalena Sobocińska, 2020. "Social Values in Stimulating Organic Production Involvement in Farming—The Case of Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-21, July.
    2. Shingo Yoshida & Hironori Yagi, 2021. "Long-Term Development of Urban Agriculture: Resilience and Sustainability of Farmers Facing the Covid-19 Pandemic in Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-23, April.
    3. Jie Zhao & Ji Chen & Damien Beillouin & Hans Lambers & Yadong Yang & Pete Smith & Zhaohai Zeng & Jørgen E. Olesen & Huadong Zang, 2022. "Global systematic review with meta-analysis reveals yield advantage of legume-based rotations and its drivers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    4. Movedi, Ermes & Valiante, Daniele & Colosio, Alessandro & Corengia, Luca & Cossa, Stefano & Confalonieri, Roberto, 2022. "A new approach for modeling crop-weed interaction targeting management support in operational contexts: A case study on the rice weeds barnyardgrass and red rice," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 463(C).
    5. Wang, Linlin & Li, Qiang & Coulter, Jeffrey A. & Xie, Junhong & Luo, Zhuzhu & Zhang, Renzhi & Deng, Xiping & Li, Linglin, 2020. "Winter wheat yield and water use efficiency response to organic fertilization in northern China: A meta-analysis," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    6. Lucia Mancini, 2013. "Conventional, Organic and Polycultural Farming Practices: Material Intensity of Italian Crops and Foodstuffs," Resources, MDPI, vol. 2(4), pages 1-23, December.
    7. Daniel P. Roberts & Autar K. Mattoo, 2018. "Sustainable Agriculture—Enhancing Environmental Benefits, Food Nutritional Quality and Building Crop Resilience to Abiotic and Biotic Stresses," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-24, January.
    8. Katarina Arvidsson Segerkvist & Helena Hansson & Ulf Sonesson & Stefan Gunnarsson, 2021. "A Systematic Mapping of Current Literature on Sustainability at Farm-Level in Beef and Lamb Meat Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, February.
    9. Atanu Mukherjee & Emmanuel C. Omondi & Paul R. Hepperly & Rita Seidel & Wade P. Heller, 2020. "Impacts of Organic and Conventional Management on the Nutritional Level of Vegetables," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-25, October.
    10. Seck, Abdoulaye & Thiam, Djiby Racine, 2022. "Understanding consumer attitudes to and valuation of organic food in Sub-Saharan Africa: A double-bound contingent method applied in Dakar, Senegal," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 17(1), March.
    11. Schindele, Stephan & Trommsdorff, Maximilian & Schlaak, Albert & Obergfell, Tabea & Bopp, Georg & Reise, Christian & Braun, Christian & Weselek, Axel & Bauerle, Andrea & Högy, Petra & Goetzberger, Ado, 2020. "Implementation of agrophotovoltaics: Techno-economic analysis of the price-performance ratio and its policy implications," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    12. Sadowski, Arkadiusz & Wojcieszak-Zbierska, Monika Małgorzata & Zmyślona, Jagoda, 2024. "Agricultural production in the least developed countries and its impact on emission of greenhouse gases – An energy approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    13. Kik, M.C. & Claassen, G.D.H. & Meuwissen, M.P.M. & Smit, A.B. & Saatkamp, H.W., 2021. "Actor analysis for sustainable soil management – A case study from the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    14. Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas & Lusk, Jayson & Magnier, Alexandre, 2018. "The price of non-genetically modified (non-GM) food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 38-50.
    15. Janet MacFall & Joanna Lelekacs & Todd LeVasseur & Steve Moore & Jennifer Walker, 2015. "Toward resilient food systems through increased agricultural diversity and local sourcing in the Carolinas," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 5(4), pages 608-622, December.
    16. Harvey James, 2006. "Sustainable agriculture and free market economics: Finding common ground in Adam Smith," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 23(4), pages 427-438, December.
    17. Nesar Ahmed & Shirley Thompson & Giovanni M. Turchini, 2020. "Organic aquaculture productivity, environmental sustainability, and food security: insights from organic agriculture," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(6), pages 1253-1267, December.
    18. SIngh Verma, Juhee & Sharma, Pritee, 2019. "Potential of Organic Farming to Mitigate Climate Change and Increase Small Farmers’ Welfare," MPRA Paper 99994, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Felizitas Winkhart & Thomas Mösl & Harald Schmid & Kurt-Jürgen Hülsbergen, 2022. "Effects of Organic Maize Cropping Systems on Nitrogen Balances and Nitrous Oxide Emissions," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-30, June.
    20. Delate, Kathleen & Cambardella, Cynthia & Chase, Craig & Turnbull, Robert, 2015. "A Review of Long-Term Organic Comparison Trials in the U.S," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 4(3 Special).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:14:y:2023:i:1:p:10-:d:1304508. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.