




































 

 

 
22 

© 2018 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

STUDY OF FACTORS LINKED TO THE VARIATION IN RENTABILITY IN THE 
FARMING OF BROILER CHICKENS IN NORTHEAST ALGERIA   

 

 

 A Berghiche1+ 
T Khenenou2 
I M Boualleg3   
A Bouacida4 
I Labiad5 

 

1 Laboratory of Life Sciences and Technologies, Institute of Agricultural and 
Veterinary Sciences. Cherif Messaadia University, Souk Ahras, Algeria; 
Laboratory of Animal Productions, Biotechnologies and Health, Institute of 
Agronomic and Veterinary Sciences. Cherif Messaadia University, Souk 
Ahras, Algeria 

 
2 Laboratory of Life Sciences and Technologies, Institute of Agronomic and 
Veterinary Sciences. Cherif Messaadia University, Souk Ahras, Algeria; 
Institute of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, Cherif Messaadia 
University, Souk Ahras, Algeria 

 
3.4 Chadli Ben Djedid Eltaref University, Algeria 

 
5Laboratory of Animal Productions, Biotechnologies and Health, Institute of 
Agronomic and Veterinary Sciences. Cherif Messaadia University, Souk 
Ahras, Algeria 

 
 

 
(+ Corresponding author) 

 ABSTRACT 
 
Article History 
Received: 4 September 2018 
Revised: 8 October 2018 
Accepted: 12 November 2018 
Published: 3 December 2018 
 
 

Keywords 
Broiler chicken 
Weight 
Mortality 
Performance  
Zootechnical 
Rentability. 

 

 
Obtaining good zootechnical performance in broiler chicken farming requires 
continuous and regular zootechnical and sanitary monitoring throughout the breeding 
period to increase its rentability. Our work carried out at the level of private broiler 
chicken farming in Eastern Algeria with the objective of comparing zootechnical 
performance during the breeding period with that obtained under the optimal 
conditions of strain ISA 15. Whose controlled and compared parameters show: a very 
high mortality rate- a very low weight evolution- a higher consumption index. 
 

1. INTRODUCTION 

1. Poultry have acquired their economic importance as suppliers of eggs and meat, whose principle of broiler 

farming is essentially the production of a large quantity of meat in the shortest possible time with low feed 

consumption [1, 2].  

2. This is achieved through a data recording system in which parameters such as feed quantity, mortality rate 

and body weight play a very important role [3].  

3. In recent decades, the increase in the zootechnical performance of broilers and their productivity has been 

considerable. Thanks to concomitant advances in breeding methods, nutrition, genetics and veterinary 

medicine. This progress is reflected in a significant reduction in the age at slaughter, the main determinant 

of the sensory quality of the meat [4].  

4. In all livestock production and particularly in poultry, productivity, livestock profitability and product 

quality are determined by the health and well-being of birds during the farming cycle [5]. 

Animal Review 
2018 Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 22-33 
ISSN(e): 2409-6490 
ISSN(p): 2412-3382 
DOI: 10.18488/journal.ar.2018.52.22.33 
© 2018 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 
 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6355-3591
https://www.doi.org/10.18488/journal.ar.2018.52.22.33


Animal Review, 2018, 5(2): 22-33 

 

 
23 

© 2018 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

5. Farming management depends on several parameters (environmental conditions), which act directly or 

indirectly, alone or in combination, on the state of health and zootechnical performance of birds. 

 

 Study Objectives  

Our present study will focus on the following points: 

 Assess the actual level of zootechnical performance recorded in the farming of broilers in the El Tarf 

region against the standard values provided by breeders. 

 Identify the factors which determine the level of technical performance. 

 

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 

A. Presentation of the Study Region 

The region of El Taref is bordering Tunisia (120 km of border), it extends over an area of 300,000 ha, bordered 

to the north by the Mediterranean Sea, to the east by Tunisia, to the west by the Wilaya of Annaba and to the south 

by the Wilaya of Souk-Ahras and Guelma, it includes 07 daïras and 24 municipalities (according to the Agricultural 

Services Department, 2009). The study is being conducted in the municipality of El Besbes.  

 

 
Figure-1. Geographical location of the Wilaya of El Tarf 

   Source: the Agricultural Services Department ( Wilaya d’El Taref), 2009 

 

2.1. Farming Duration 

The breeding period is 08 weeks, divided into three periods:  

 The start-up period: from 1 to 10 days.  

 The growth period: from 11 to 40 days.  

 The finishing period: from 41 days to slaughter. 

 

3. MATERIELS 

3.1. Livestock Buildings 

The animals are raised in closed or obscure rearing buildings located among a group of 4 buildings that make 

up the broiler rearing centre. They are designed away from the wind and oriented parallel to the North-South axis. 



Animal Review, 2018, 5(2): 22-33 

 

 
24 

© 2018 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

The total surface area of each building is 1380m2 (115m x 12m) (Figure 2). 

 

 
Figure-2. Livestock buildings. 

Source: figure taken from the study site 

 

The ground of the buildings is cemented or concreted. The walls are made of double-walled aluminium foil 

whose interior is filled with glass wool which is used to insulate the buildings. As for the roof, it is of the double 

slope type, made of corrugated zinc and having a projecting part on each side used to clear rainwater. The buildings 

have 4 doors, one at the entrance to the building, a large one downstream in the width direction, a small one that 

communicates between the SAS and the living area and another one next to it in the length direction of the 

henhouse. They are equipped with lateral ventilation trapdoor-type openings that extend along the length of the 

buildings (108m on one side and 68m on the other side where the pad coolling is located), 26 extractors, including 

10 lateral extractors distributed evenly on both sides along the length of the building and 16 others installed on the 

ceiling and two humidifiers (pad-coolling) distributed on both sides. 

The livestock buildings are equipped with a diesel boiler with thermostat for the room heating system (Figure 

3), a water system for automatic watering (siphoid drinking troughs) connected to two tanks with an individual 

capacity of 50 litres, installed in the SAS. Each of the two tanks supplies 2 rows of water troughs located inside the 

building and each consisting of 50 siphoid water troughs (a total of 4 rows for 200 water troughs/building). 

 

 
Figure-3. Gasoil heater with thermostat. 

                                                          Source: figure taken from the study site 



Animal Review, 2018, 5(2): 22-33 

 

 
25 

© 2018 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

The livestock buildings are equipped with an electrical power supply system for lighting, i.e. a number of 108 

homogeneous 75-watt lamps distributed over 4 electrical supply lines over the entire living area. Its light intensity 

is automatically adjustable (1 to 5 watts/m2) from a control cabinet installed on the SAS. 

Finally, for hygienic reasons, all buildings are equipped with foot bath installed at their entrances. In addition, it 

should be noted that there is an autoluve and a manoluve at the main entrance to the breeding centre. 

 

 3.1.1. Farming Equipment 

The equipment used per building during the period of our work is made up of: 

- a diesel oil boiler for room heating. 

- 180 1st age circular type feeders (plates). 

- 180 plastic siphoid-type 1st age drinking troughs, with a capacity of 3 litres. 

- 2nd age feeder of the 4 linear distribution chains type, each 108m long, arranged in parallel in the longitudinal 

direction of the building and connected to a 10kg capacity hopper or scale. The latter is fed directly from the feed 

storage silo by means of a worm screw. Each of the supply chains has 144 plates with an individual capacity of 5kg 

and dosing units, for a total equivalent number per building of 576 plates. 

- 200 2nd stage siphoid-type drinking troughs with a capacity of 1.5 litres, distributed over 4 rows of 50 water 

troughs each. 

- 1 mercury thermometer placed in the environment (at the height of the chickens' backs). 

- an electrical mechanism that automatically stops the distribution of the food. 

The distribution of livestock equipment as a whole is well done (Figure 4). 

 

 
Figure-4. Farming equipment in the building 

              Source: figure taken from the study site 

 

3.1.2. Animals  
A total of 36,000 chickens (18,000 subjects for each building) were involved in our monitoring. These animals 

are of Hubbard-ISA15 strain, received and placed on the same day they are born (D1). 
They are delivered by the hatchery of the Annaba saltworks and come from breeding stock originating from 

France but bred in Algeria. 
 
3.1.3. Lighting and Temperature Program 

- Lighting program: As demonstrated in Table 1, only one lighting program was applied to the two buildings 
(No. 1 and 2). 

 
 



Animal Review, 2018, 5(2): 22-33 

 

 
26 

© 2018 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Table-1. Enlightenment and luminous program 

Age (day) Lighting duration 
Length and time of darkness 

Day Night 

1-8 24 - - 
9-10 22 12h-13h 00h-01h 
11-15 20 11h-13h 23h-01h 
16-21 18 11h-14h 23h-02h 
22-26 16 11h-15h 23h-03h 
27-35 18 11h-14h 23h-02h 
36-40 20 11h-13h 23h-01h 
41-45 22 12h-13h 00h-01h 
46- slaughter 24 - - 

                 Source: Table was constitute from program applied in the study sites 
 

Table-2. The light intensity of the different breeding periods. 

Breeding period Intensity (watt/m2) 

Start-up 5 watt/m2 

Growth 2 watt/m2 
Finition 1watt/m2 

              Source: Table was constitute from program applied in the study sites 
 
-The Temperature 

Also a thermometer located at the height of the chickens' backs records the temperatures listed in Table 3, and 
applied in both buildings. 
 

 
Table-3. Ambient parameter (temperature). 

Age (Day) Ambient heating 

Temperature in the living area 

1-3 31-33°c 
4-7 31-32°c 
8-14 29-31°c 
15-21 27-29°c 
22-24 24-26°c 
25-28 22-24°c 

29-34 19-22°c 
35- slaughter 17-19°c 

                  Source: Table was constitute from program applied in the study sites  

 

3.1.4. The Nutrition 

Food is Manufactured at the Unit Level 

The feed used consists of: Corn, Soybean meal, Soybean meal, from flour mills, and dietary supplements such as: 

Limestone, phosphates, Salt, Amino Acid, Trace elements, Poly vitamins, Antioxidants, Anticoccidants, Growth 

Factor (Antibiotics). 

  
Table-4. La composition des aliments.  

Composition of starter feed: % 
by weight 

Composition of growth 
feeds: % by weight 

Composition of finishing 
feeds: % by weight 

Corn 61%  
Soybean meal 29.7% 
From flour mills 5%. 
Limestone 0.6%. 
Phosphate 1.67% 
D.L. methionine 0.03% 
Mineral Vitamin Complex -anti-
stress 1% 
Mineral Vitamin Complex -DC 
1%. 

Corn 62% 
Soybean meal 26% 
From flour mills 8.5%. 
Limestone 0.90%. 
Phosphate 1.60%  
Mineral-Vitamin Complex -
D.C 1%. 

Corn67% 
Soybean meal 18%. 
From flour mills 12%. 
1% limestone 
1% Phosphate 
1% finish Mineral-Vitamin 
Complex 

            Source: Table was constitute from program applied in the study sites 

 



Animal Review, 2018, 5(2): 22-33 

 

 
27 

© 2018 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

3.1.5. The Prophylaxis Program  
Prophylactic measures taken are based on cleaning premises, using preventive products and following a 

rigorous vaccination schedule. 
As a preventive measure, the use of vitamins and antibiotics in drinking water is recommended. 

A vaccination schedule was established by the administration and followed by the centre's veterinarian. 
 

Table-5. Le programme de vaccination du poulet de chair utilisé 

Age (Days) Pathological affection Vaccine Administration mode 

1sr Day New Castle Poulvac HB1 nebulization  
infectious bronchitis H 120 nebulization  

7th Day Gumboro Gumbol Drinking water 
14th  Day Gumboro IBDL Drinking water 

18 th Day New Castle SOTA Drinking water 
23 th Day infectious bronchitis H 120 Drinking water 
34 th Day New Castle SOTA Drinking water 

          Source: Table was constitute from program applied in the study sites 
 
A- Experimental Protocol 

The experimental scheme adopted is simple and organized as follows: 

Two batches of flesh day-old chick animals are kept separately in two different rearing buildings. 

Each building contains 18,000 subjects, and the same programs usually used by the meat production unit of the 

former ORAVIA have been applied to these batches. 

The two farms were monitored weekly: almost all the parameters characterising the farm and its management 

were recorded thanks to direct observations. 

For this study, we will select the main parameters that have a direct impact on the profitability of a broiler 

farm: 

 The mortality rate.  

 Food consumption.  

 Average live weight and GMQ (average daily gain).  

 The feed conversion rate (consumption index). 

 

A- Mortality Rate  

The mortality rate is an important factor in profitability since it influences both the consumption index and the 

cost price. It reflects the decline in the workforce over time and its resistance to aggression. The mortality rate 

expressed as a Percentage (%) is calculated from the following formula: 

 

MR (%) =  Number of dead animals / Number of animals set up X 100. 

 

The calculation of the number of employees present was followed by daily records of the deaths recorded. 

 

B- Density (Subject /M2) 

The population density has been calculated, it also has a direct influence on the space available to poultry. 

 

C- The Average Body Weight  

Weighing is carried out at the end of each week on a scale, on a sample of 30 subjects, and is given by the 

following formula:                                                                           

Average body weight = Net weight of a sample / Total sample size. 

 

D- Weight Gain            

It is the difference between the final weight (w1) and the initial weight (w0) at a given period of the breeding 

phase. Calculated by the following formula: 



Animal Review, 2018, 5(2): 22-33 

 

 
28 

© 2018 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

w1: final body weight of the chicken.  w0: initial body weight of the chicken. 

 

E- Food Consumption  

The amount of food consumed will be calculated by the following formula:    

Amount of food consumed (g / subject / day) = Consumption total food/residual staff. 

The quantities consumed after the reduction of the rejected feed quantities at the end of each day were 

calculated in comparison to those initially distributed, knowing that the quantities distributed are calculated in 

advance. 

Feed refusals were calculated from a weighing of a sample of 20 hoppers taken at random from different 

locations throughout the building. 

 

F- The Consomption Index 

      This index is the ratio used to evaluate feed efficiency; it corresponds to the quantity of feed made available to 

the animal on the quantity of the product obtained... The feed consumption index is calculated from the following 

formula: 

 

IC = Amount of food consumed in a week (Kg) / Weight gain per subject in the same week (Kg). 
 

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

4.1. The Mortality Rate 

The mortality rates recorded at the level of broiler farms 1 and 2 are illustrated by the following  

 

 
Figure-6. Daily mortality rate in Building 1. 

                Source: figure was constitute from analyzed data of current study 

 

 
Figure-7. Daily mortality rate in Building 2. 

             Source: figure was constitute from analyzed data of current study 

Weight gain (g) = w1 - w0 



Animal Review, 2018, 5(2): 22-33 

 

 
29 

© 2018 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

During the first week, chick mortality in both farms was high: 741 subjects (4.11%) in the building (1) and 388 

(2.15%) subjects in the building (2).   

The mortality rate considered acceptable for batches of broilers is 0.5% per week. Over the entire cycle, the 

mortality rate is set at 4% for an 8-week breeding cycle, and 4.5% for a 9-week cycle (and this rate should not 

exceed 1% over the entire first week) [6]. 

This mortality can be explained by: 

- Stress of transporting from hatchery to breeding complex (poor condition of transport trucks) [7]. 

- The handling of chicks during unloading and placement is also an additional source of very high stress, especially 

on the weakest subjects [8].  

 Poor healing of the umbilicus, complicated by omphalitis despite the treatment introduced [9]. 

 Under normal conditions, the morality peak for the ISA strain is observed during the first week of life 

when the mechanism of thermoregulation of chicks is not yet developed [4].  

 During the 2nd week, mortality was remarkably low after the chicks had adapted to the rearing conditions. 

 On the other hand, from the 3rd week onwards, there will be a sudden increase in mortality in Building 2, 

which will decrease but with a considerable rate of increase from the 7th week onwards, similar to that of 

the 3rd week. ; The same results are observed but to a lesser degree in Building 1 following: 

 The appearance of caecal Coccidiosis, Mycoplasmosis and Colibacillosis.  

 In addition to boiler breakdowns during this period, which results in the accumulation of subjects, especially at 

night. 

 The appearance of abdominal ascites, which was favoured by the high density of the batches. 

 Recommended mortality rates should not exceed 5-6% over the entire band cycle [10]; While the mortality 

rate in Building 1 is 10.77% and 8.91% in Building 2. 

- Despite the measures taken in terms of: staff organisation, control of environmental conditions and livestock 

management, these results can be explained by: 

- The poor bacteriological quality of the chicks received (chicks carrying mycoplasma) and which sometimes become 

stunted or poorly formed. 

- Pathologies (mycoplasmosis, colibacillosis, coccidiosis) [11].  

 

 
Figure-8. Mortality of chicks during transport. 

                                      Source: figure taken from the study site 

 



Animal Review, 2018, 5(2): 22-33 

 

 
30 

© 2018 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

4.2. Livestock Variables 

The zootechnical balance of the 2 farms is presented in the following table: 

 
Table-9. Presentation of equipment ratios at the level of the 02 farms 

  Farming (1) Farming (2) Mean Norm Standard deviation 

Slaughter age (day) 56 58 57 49 - 8 

Chicken/Feeder space (cm) 0.94 1.06 1.00 7.5 - 6.5 

Chicken/Flush space (cm) 1.1 0.9 1 1.22 - 0.2 

Density (Subject / M2) 13.39 13.39 13.39 10 -3.39 

Litter (cm) 10 10 10 10 0 
Source: table was constitute from analyzed data of current study 

 

The analysis of the reduced data in Table 09 shows that the average slaughter age of broilers in the range of 

56 to 58 days. These averages, however, remain higher than the breeding time of "standard" broilers. 

The animals' access to the feeders is 0.94cm and 1.06cm respectively in farm 1 and 2. Access to water troughs is 

1.1cm and 0.9cm in farm 1 and 2 is very limited compared to the standards of 7.5cm/chicken for feeders and 

1.2cm/chicken for water troughs. 

The density in breeding 1 and 2 is very high (13.39 subjects/m2) compared to the breeding standards (10 

subjects/m2). This is a favourable factor for the development of coccidian [12].    

 
Figure-9. Very high density in building 1. 

                                                   Source: figure taken from the study site 

 

 
Figure-10. The access of animals to water troughs is very limited at building level 2. 

                                                   Source: figure taken from the study site 

 

 



Animal Review, 2018, 5(2): 22-33 

 

 
31 

© 2018 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

4.3. Evolution of Live Weight as a Function of Age 

 

Table-10. Evolution of the weight of chickens in the farm (1) in relation to the standards of the strain. 

Age (Week) 
Average body weight (g) 

Breeding (1) Strain standards 

01 120 170 
02 240 447 

03 515 871 
04 840 1375 
05 1200 1918 
06 1555 2480 
07 1900 3020 
08 2250 3504 

                                  Source: table was constitute from analyzed data of current study 

 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Age (semaine)

P
oi

ds
 v

if 
m

oy
en

 (g
) Elevage (1) Normes de la souche

 
Figure-11. Evolution of the weight of chickens in the farm (1) compared to the standards of the strain 

                        Source: figure was constitute from analyzed data of current study 

 
Table-11. Evolution du poids des poulets dans l’élevage (2) par apport aux normes de la souche. 

Age (Week) 
Average body weight (g) 

Breeding (2) Strain standards 

01 95 170 
02 241 447 
03 488 871 
04 820 1375 
05 1170 1918 
06 1500 2480 
07 1880 3020 

08 2120 3504 
                                        Source: table was constitute from analyzed data of current study 

 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Age (semaine)

P
o
id

s
 v

if
 m

o
y
e
n
 (

g
)

Elevage (2) Norme de la souche

 
Figure-12. Evolution of the weight of chickens in the farm (2) in relation to the standards of the strain. 

                       Source: figure was constitute from analyzed data of current study 



Animal Review, 2018, 5(2): 22-33 

 

 
32 

© 2018 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

At the beginning the average weight of the chicks is 37g / chick in the breeding 1 and 40g / chick, a little low 

compared to the standard of the strain which is 42g. It can be seen that the evolution of weight in the two farms 

between the 1st and 8th week was very low compared to the standards of the ISA 15 strain. Chickens in both farms 

(1) and (2) have: very slow growth, characterised by significant heterogeneity during the rearing cycle, with an 

average live weight on delivery (56 days) of 2250g for the farm (1) and 2120g for the farm (2). According to the 

technical standards of the farm concerned, at 49 days the live weight reaches 3020g.  The technical performance 

goals are not achieved. This is due to the low quality of the chicks, the weight of the chicks received, the 

heterogeneity of the batch received and throughout the cycle, and health problems (colibacillosis, mycoplasmosis, 

coccidiosis) [13].  

 

4.4. Food Consumption and Consumption Index 

Feed consumption during the rearing cycle within the farm has been subject to a more detailed 

analysis. Reading the table, it highlights a trend towards under-consumption, during the growth phase of 

chickens; offset, however, by over-consumption of food in finishing, correlated with the lengthening of the 

breeding cycle and the waste induced by the inconsistency in the conduct of feedin g programmes. 

 
Table-12. Feed consumption and chicken consumption index 

Age 
(week) 

Food consumption Consumption Index (I.C) 

Breeding (1) 
(g/ subject /D) 

Breeding (2) 
(g/subject/D) 

Standard of 
the strain 

Breeding 
(1) 

Breeding 
(2) 

Standard 
of the 
strain 

01 16 16 22.57 1.4 1.37 1.21 

02 32 33 57.00 1.86 1.82 1.44 
03 63 66 93.43 2.62 2.62 1.54 

04 74 73 119.57 2.41 2.13 1.66 
05 108 105 153.71 2.90 2.70 1.98 

06 155 150 177.85 3.62 3.84 2.21 
07 214 205 197.28 4.73 4.46 2.56 

08 235 225 210.85 4.80 4.45 3.05 
     Source: table was constitute from analyzed data of current study 

  

At the level of, the I.C. are higher, because they fluctuate in a value going to 4.45 and show, in addition, a 

significant variability (The normal average consumption index must be 1.95 on the 56th day according to the 

standards of the strain [14]). These relatively high averages are to be compared with: 

- Extension of the breeding cycle beyond the required economic threshold (49 days) [15]. 

- The significant waste of food. 

- The excessive mortality rate during the finishing phase, which strongly affects consumption 

(overestimation of the remaining workforce) [16].  

In fact, it should be noted that, given the difficulties in estimating actual food consumption, consumption index 

are overestimated since they incorporate waste losses and errors in estimating the actual weight of feed bags used 

by farmers [17].  

 

5. CONCLUSION ET PERSPECTIVES 

The livestock buildings in the study area are characterized by: 

 Poor environmental conditions, particularly the neglect of hygiene rules. 

 Stress of animals, especially during transport. 

 Food distribution is irregular. 

 

The solutions that can be considered to reduce these welfare problems are as follows: 

 Encourage farms with average stocking densities.  



Animal Review, 2018, 5(2): 22-33 

 

 
33 

© 2018 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 Control ambient conditions such as ambient temperature, ventilation, humidity, toxic gases, litter quality. 

 

Funding: This study received no specific financial support.    
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.  
Contributors/Acknowledgement: All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the 
study. 

 

REFERENCES 

[1] M. O. North, Commercial chicken meat and egg production: Springer Science & Business Media, 2002. 

[2] A. Berghiche, T. Khenenou, A. Kouzi, and I. Labiad, "Importance of antibiotic residues in foodstuffs of avian origin marketed in Souk 

Ahras (Algerian Republic)," International Journal of Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry, vol. 3, pp. 5-10, 2018. 

[3] B. Amine, K. Tarek, B.-A. Farida, and L. Ibtissem, "Detection of the antibiotic residues in broiler chickens by microbiological 

screening test in Algeria," Global Veterinaria, vol. 19, pp. 504-508, 2017. 

[4] Z. Djerou, "Influence of rearing conditions on performance in broiler chickens," presented at the Brief Presented for Graduation from 

Magister in Veterinary Medicine. Option: Pathology 2006. University of Constantine, 2006. 

[5] M. M. Aung and Y. S. Chang, "Traceability in a food supply chain: Safety and quality perspectives," Food Control, vol. 39, pp. 172-184, 

2014. 

[6] F. Grosjean, B. Barrier-Guillot, J. Metayer, A. Bourdillon, F. Rudeaux, A. Huart, P. Leroy, A. Thewis, J. Bindell, M. Muland, and D. 

Kibargo, "Flocks and cultures of the tropics. Special file: poultry. Review of the Tropical Agronomic and Veterinary Center of 

Kinshasa. N 02," p. 96, 2003. 

[7] P. Kettlewell and M. Turner, "A review of broiler chicken catching and transport systems," Journal of Agricultural Engineering 

Research, vol. 31, pp. 93-114, 1985. 

[8] D. Broom, "The welfare of livestock during road transport," Long Distance Transport and Welfare of Farm Animals, pp. 157-181, 2008. 

[9] G. Fasenko and E. O’Dea, "Evaluating broiler growth and mortality in chicks with minor navel conditions at hatching," Poultry 

Science, vol. 87, pp. 594-597, 2008. 

[10] A. Buldgen, R. Parent, P. Steyaert, and D. Legrand, "Semi-industrial poultry farming in tropical climate A practical guide Gembloux: 

Gembloux agronomic presses," p. 122, 1996. 

[11] A. Berghiche, T. Khenenou, A. Kouzi, and I. Labiad, "An investigation on the predominant diseases, its diagnosis, and commonly used 

drugs in the poultry farms in the North-Eastern regions of Algeria," Veterinary World, vol. 11, pp. 986-989, 2018. 

[12] M. R. Shirzad, S. Seifi, H. R. Gheisari, B. A. Hachesoo, H. Habibi, and H. Bujmehrani, "Prevalence and risk factors for subclinical 

coccidiosis in broiler chicken farms in Mazandaran province, Iran," Tropical Animal Health and Production, vol. 43, pp. 1601-1604, 

2011. 

[13] A. Mutasa, "Effect of parental flock age on the performance of broilers reared in environmentally controlled houses," (Doctoral 

Dissertation), 2015. 

[14] K. J. Raphaël, K. F. I. Hermann, N. T. Ruben, P. Patrice, M. K. Hervé, and T. Alexis, "Effect of Incorporation Rate of Remoulding and 

Natron in the Feed on the Growth Performance of Finished-Stage Broiler [The effect of graded level of wheat bran and natron on the 

growth of finisher broiler chickens]," 2015. 

[15] M. L. Scott and M. C. Nesheim, "Nutrition of chicken (No. 636.5084 S2)," 1969. 

[16] National Research Council Subcommittee on Poultry Nutrition, Nutrient requirements of poultry (No. 1): National Academies, 1984. 

[17] C. Beaumant, "Productivity and quality of broilers, INRA edition," Prod. Anim, vol. 17, pp. 265-273, 2004. 

 

 
Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Animal Review shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, 
damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. 

 


