CC BY
0Journal of World's Poultry Research
JWPR
© 2016, Scienceline Publication
J. World Poult. Res. 6(3): 139-146, September 25, 2016
Research Paper, PII: S2322455X1600019-6 License: CC BY 4.0
The Effects of Housing and Equipment Status on Egg Yearly Monitored Production Rates in Open Poultry Houses in Gezira
State, Sudan
Nura EL-Dikeir1, Mohamed Y. M. ELBeeli2, Awad Mohamed Abdel-Rahim3 Jumaa Barram Jadalla*4
and Sayda Ahmed Mohamed Ali5
1Department of Animal Production, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Dalanj University, Sudan 2Department of Animal Production, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Gezira, Sudan 3Depatment of Animal Production, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Gezira, Sudan 4Depatmentt of Animal Production, Faculty of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, University of Kordofan, Sudan 5 Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Technology, University of Gezira, Sudan
*Corresponding author's Email: jumaaaringola2000@gmail.com
This study was carried out in Gezira state, Sudan to investigate the effects of housing and equipment status on egg production in open layer houses. Data were collected through individual interviews (questionnaire) of 97 randomly selected among poultry farm owners. The height of 80% of north and south sides of wall were 50-100 cm in Almanagil, 76.5% in Alkamleen and 57%in south of the Gezira localities, while the height of the wall side at the east and west were (3-3.5m) in all (100%) houses in east of the Gezira, 77.8% in Alhasahesa, 60% in Almanagil and 47.1% in Alkamleen. The width was 5-8m in most poultry houses in Gezira State's localities surveyed. In Greater Medani, all the houses were at the width mentioned above while 76.4% and 73.5% in of those building were 5-8 cm in Almanagil, and Alkamleen localities respectively. The most of wall houses were not painted where 50% of those houses were with painted walls in east of the Gezira and 76% in Alkamleen locality. The most floor types were made of bricks. Flours with that type were 55.6% in Alhasahesa and 76.5% in Alkamleen locality. The layer of sand was thin in the major litter type of poultry houses surveyed in Gezira state localities though some houses were without litter, which affect birds' performance by low ventilation and insulation. Round feeders of 40 - 50 cm length were the majority feeders' type observed. In Alhasahesa 55.6% houses had that type of feeders while all houses surveyed had round feeders in east of the Gezira and Greater Medani localities. Oil containers were used as drinkers in most poultry houses surveyed. The troughs were with unsuitable height for hens to drink conveniently. The percent of house with that type of drinkers were 58.8% in Alkamleen and south of the Gezira localities. Birds/feeder and birds/drinker capacity varied between 50 and 75 birds. Clay pots were the mostly used egg nest type in the state. That type of nests were used by 88.2% of farm owners in Greater Medani to 100% in east of the Gezira, Alhasahesa and Almanagil localities. In average one egg nest was allotted to 15 hens. Yearly monitored egg production ranged between 60-70%. Keywords: Layer, Production constraints, Housing, Equipment
To cite this paper: EL-Dikeir N, ELBeeli MYM., Abdel-Rahim AM, Jadalla B and Mohamed Ali SA. 2016. The Effects of Housing and Equipment Status on Egg yearly monitored Production Rates in Open Poultry Houses in Gezira State, Sudan. J. World Poult. Res. 6 (3): 139-146.
Received: 28 Jul. 2016 Accepted: 27Aug. 2016
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
Poultry production is an ancient activity and it has been practiced traditionally in different parts of Sudan. The growing demand of poultry meat and eggs motivated private sector to start commercial production of poultry. Concomitant with that, the government initiated modern poultry farming first in Khartoum and later in many city centers of the country. During the last decades both broiler and layer production gained momentum in Sudan. The fact that poultry is a good source of income and cheap provider of valuable protein products that are needed to secure human body with the essential amino acids encouraged its
expansion. Improved methods of poultry management were introduced to Sudan in the mid 1950s in Khartoum province, since then poultry industry started to grow gradually around Khartoum and other cities in the country (Habani, 2008). The establishment of the research and extension center in early 1960s, led to more development in poultry industry in Sudan (Osman, 1988). There were significant increase in numbers of modern farms established in Sudan, largely concentrated in big cities and communities in urban areas. There are numerous small private farms which are widely distributed in the urban areas and some rural
areas (Elzaki et al., 2011). Although feeding is the main challenges for commercial and small producers, housing has a crucial influence in poultry production. Itshould provide good protection from predators (Fanatico, 2007). Open sided poultry houses are constructed with its length extending from east to west direction to minimize the entry of direct sunlight, to exploit the direction of the prevailing wind and to minimize solar heat radiation (Viswanathan, 2001 and Winchell, 2001). A good location, with a good water source and a well-insulated building, equipped with proper ventilation, heating, lighting, feeding and watering system are important in all types of poultry housing(Winchell, 2001). Wall characteristics are important in good bird's welfare. So the house walls should be without cracks to prevent parasites availability. Walls must be painted with light colored paint such as white color, to reduce heat stress inside bird's house. The height of the sidewall in East-West directions will be around 3-4 meters. North-south direction sidewalls height will be about 0.5 meter to one meter and the remaining space must be covered with chain link mesh. Wall building materials include bricks, concrete bricks and other local materials (Jacob et al, 2014).Poultry house should have elevated ceiling to keep heat radiation away from the birds. Roof height must be about 3-4 meters. The width of the open sided deep litter house is around 8 to 10 m, length of the house determined by flock size and it could be up to 50 m (ElBeeli, 2009).Concrete floor is recommended to ensure all-weather operation, and to secure the birds against rodents and dogs. About 5-10cm thick layer of wood shavings, peanut hulls or other bedding materials, as sand, straw are used as an absorptive base (Grisso, 2009 and Sadkhan, 2011).Egg nests are very important in poultry house equipment; it is made of many different materials, the nest must be safe to the birds and to the eggs; it must distributed in the dark part of the house (Al-Haaisha, 2008).There are many feeder types made of plastic or metal, and get circular or longitudinal shapes. Birds spacing in circular feeder is about 2cm for a bird, and for the longitudinal feeder is about 10 cm for a bird (Merck Veterinary Manual, 2012).This spacing provides suitable area for birds and prevents birds crowding round feeders (Jacob et la., 2014). Minimum floor area per bird in square inches requirements for white leghorn egg-strain birds was reported by Brown (2015) being 60 square inches per bird at18 months of age onwards. Payne (1990) reported that a suitable feeding space for 100 layer birds is about 7.6 to 10.7 m (Payne, 1990).
MATERIALS AND METHODS^HBH
The present study was conducted in Gezira state, Sudan which lies between latitudes 13 - 15.20 N and longitudes 32.5 - 340 E. The total area about is 23373 km2. The state is bounded by Khartoum in the north, Gedarif state in the east, White Nile State in the west and Sennar state in the south. The state is located within the semi arid climate which is characterized by seasonal and limited raining in the summer months (July-September).The Blue Nile River is the most important feature of the surface and is characterized by its course
and its water though being low in salinity of high percentage turbidity during the rainy season (Sudan Metrological Services, 2005).The Gezira state was an approximately ranked second in poultry production in Sudan. Despite of that there was no enough information about birds housing and flocks management (Idris and Ahmed, 1997). A random sample was taken among layer farms owners for data collection of this study using questionnaires from the Gezira state localities (south of the Gezira, east of the Gezira, Alhasahesa, Almanagil, Alkamleen and Greater Medani) from April 5th to June 10th/ 2010. The questionnaire was consisted of poultry farms operation subjects, including questions in poultry housing, equipments, egg production. The data were then analyzed using Statistical Packaged for Social Sciences (SPSS version 20) at P<0.05 and Microsoft excel was used to analyze the collected data.
Ethical approval
Not applicable. This research did not involve the introduction of any intervention in/on birds, or direct collection of cells, tissues or any material from birds.
RESULTS
Poultry house status
Result showed that birds' house direction was from east to west in all localities (100%).The height of poultry houses at north and south sides were about 50100 cm in most of Gezira State localities studied. The heights incited were reported by 80% in Almanagil, 76.5% in Alkamleen localities, by57% in South of the Gezira locality. Wall of 40 cm height was construed by44.5 %, 42.9 % and 41.2 % in Alhasahesa, South of the Gezira and Greater Medani municipality respectively. The height of eastern and western sidesof wall wasabout 3-3.5 m in the localities surveyed. All respondents (100%) reported having walls of that height in East of the Gezira, 77.8% in Alhasahesalocality,60% in Almanagil locality and 47.1% in Alkamleen locality. The width of the majority of house was about (5-8m) in most localities. It was about 100%, 76.4% and 73.5% in Almanagil, Greater Wad Medani and Alkamleen localities, respectively. It was observed that walls were not cracked though were mostly unpainted; status of walls indicated were 76%, 60% and 51% in Almanagil and South of the Gezira locality, respectively (Table 1).The most dominant floor types in poultry houses reported was made of bricks in Gezira State localities covered by this survey. This type was about 76.5%, 75%, 64.71%, 60% and 55.6% in Alkamleen, South and East of the Gezira localities, Greater Medani, Almanagil and Alhasahesa localities, respectively (Figure 1). Most houses were bedded with sand in localities. Such type of bed was followed by86.7% in Alkamleen, 82.4% in Grade Medani and 80% in Almanagil locality (Figure 2). Litter depth was less than 5 cm in most localities; the depth indicated was reported by100%, 88.3%, 82.6% and 80% in Almanagil, Grade Medani, Alkamleen and Alhasahesa localities, respectively (Figure 3).
;L-Dikeir N, ELBeeli MYM., Abdel-Rahim AM, Jadalla B and Mohamed All SA. 2016. The Effects of Housing and Equipment Status on Egg yearly
Table1. Birds house longwise, width and status in poultry farms in different localities in Gezira state in Sudan
Locality House direction% House width (m)% House status%
5 - 8 8 - 10 10 - 12 12 - 15 c.n.p cP gnP gP v.g.n.p vgP
South of the Gezira 100 67.9 10.7 14.3 7.1 21.0 7.0 5.0 14.0 - 7.0
East of the Gezira 100 25.0 50.0 25.0 - 25.0 25 50.0 0.0 - 0.0
Alhasahesa 100 55.6 44.4 - - 11.0 11.0 45.0 33.0 - 0.0
Almanagil 100 100.0 - - - 20.0 - 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0
Alkamleen 100 73.5 23.6 2.9 - 9.0 3.0 76.0 6.0 6.0 0.0
Greater Medani 100 76.4 11.8 11.8 - 18.0 11.0 11.0 31.0 18.0 11.0
c.n.p: cracked and not painted; c.p: cracked and painted; g.n.p: with limited racks not painted; g.p: without cracks and painted; vgnp: very good not painted; vgp: very good painted
Earth
Bricks
I Cement
I Concrete
11.76 23.53
64.71
2o
76.5
2.9
20 20
60
55.6
75
75
3.6
Floor type (%)
Figure 1. Floor type of poultry farms in different localities in Gezira State, Sudan (Localities: 1: South of the Gezira. 2: East of the Gezira.3: Alhasahesa. 4: Almanagil.5: Alkamleen. 6: Greater Medani)
No litter
I Wood shaving
I Sand
■
82.35
6
86.
31.03
5
80
20
4
40
60
3
50 L
25
25 137..68
2 1
Litter type (%)
Figure 2. Litter type of poultry farms in different localities of Gezira state in Sudan (Localities
1: South of the Gezira. 2: East of the Gezira. 3: Alhasahesa. 4: Almanagil.5: Alkamleen. 6: Greater Medani)
No litter
15-8cm
I < 5cm
88.24
r
86.
100
80
1]076 130
5
4
75
0 25
75
Litter depth (%)
T-Dikeir N, ELBeeli MYM., Abdel-Rahim AM, Jadalla B and Mohamed Ali SA. 2016. The Effects of Housing and Equipment Status on Egg yearly
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
3
2
1
Figure 3. litter depth in the poultry farms in different localities in Gezira state in Sudan (Localities: 1 : South of the Gezira. 2: East of the Gezira. 3: Alhasahesa. 4: Almanagil.5: Alkamleen. 6: Greater Medani)
Poultry house equipments
Feeder types and size were shown in (Table 2).Circular feeders were the main feeder type used in the Gezira State localities surveyed; This type was reported being used by all (100 %) of respondents in east of the Gezira and Almanagil localities, 97 % in Alkamleen, 89.3% in south of the Gezira and 88.24%Greater Wad Medani locality. Round feeders diameter was around (40-50 cm) in most Gezira State localities; This type was reported being owned by 100% 87.9% and 80% in east of the Gezira and Greater Wad Medani localities, Alkamleenlocality,Alhasahesa and Almanagil localities, respectively. Longitudinal feeders Size was about 100-150 cmin poultry houses in south of the Gezira, Alkamleen and Greater Wad Medani localities (Table 2). Birds/feeder varied in Gezira State localities; it was less than 50 birds in east of the Gezira locality (100%) and was about50 birds in Almanagil locality (60%)while it was about 75 birds in Greater Medani locality (82.4%) (Figure 4). Oil containers (jerricans) of 18 liter size was the main drinkers used in GeziraState localities; it was about 96.4%, 77.8%, 76.5%, 75%, 60% and 58.8% in south of the Gezira, Alhasahesa, greater Medani, east of the Gezira, Almanagil and Alkamleen.
Greater Medani, East of the Gezira, Almanagil and Alkamleen localities, respectively. Manual plastic drinkers were around 40% in Almanagil, 25% in East of
the Gezira and 22.2% in Alhasahesa localities. Birds/drinker varied between 50 and 75 birds in most localities. Fifty birds/drinker represented 53.6% in South of the Gezira and 53.1%in Alkamleen localities while 75 birds/drinker represents 82.35% in Greater Wad Medani and 55.6% in Alhasahesa localities (Table 3). Pots were the major egg nest type used in thelocalities; it was used by 100 % in East of the Gezira, Alhasahesa and Almanagil localities, 93.8% in Alkamleen and 92.9%in South of the Gezira locality (Figure 5). There were more than 15 birds per nest in most localities. This ratio represented 86.58%, 65.6% and 66%in Alhasahesa, Alkamleen and Almanagil localities, respectively (Table 4).
Birds egg production
Egg production rate was about (60-70%) in most of localities. That rate was reported by 83%, 75% and 60% in Alhasahesa, East of the Gezira and Almanagil localities, respectively.
The relationship between housing status and equipment and average egg production
Table 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 showed a positive relationship between well building house with suitable equipments and average egg production. When the house was well constructed and the equipments were as recommended the production rate was higher.
Table 2. Feeder type and size of poultry farms in different localities in Gezira state, Sudan
Feeder type (%) Feeder size (%of owners)
Locality Circular Longitudinal Circular (cm) Longitudinal (cm)
<40 40-50 >50 80-100 100-150 150-200 >200
South of the Gezira 89.3 10.7 28.0 72.0 - - 100.0 - -
East of the Gezira 100.0 - - 100.0 - - - - -
Alhasahesa 55.6 44.4 20.0 80.0 - 50.0 50.0 - -
Almanagil 100.0 - 20.0 80.0 - - - - -
Alkamleen 97.1 2.9 12.1 87.9 - - 100.0 - -
Greater Medani 88.24 11.76 - 100.0 - - 100.0 - -
100
SP SO
•-
e ■в 60
e
-ft
5Л 40
■e
•-
CO 20
0
ШШ
1
2
s
6
3 4
Localities
<50 50 ■ 75 100
Figure 4. Bird's feeder in poultry farms in different localities in Gezira state, Sudan (Localities: 1 : South of the Gezira, 2: East of the Gezira, 3: Alhasahesa, 4: Almanagil, 5: Alkamleen 6: Greater Medani)
;L-Dikeir N, ELBeeli MYM., Abdel-Rahim AM, Jadalla B and Mohamed Ali SA. 2016. The Effects of Housing and Equipment Status on Egg yearly
Table 3. Characteristics of drinkers and number of birds per drinker in poultry farms in different localities in Gezira state, Sudan
Locality Drinker types (%) Drinker ( litter) Bird/drinker
Manual plastic Jerricans Automatic 8 10 12 18 < 50.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 125.0
South of the Gezira 3.6 96.4 - 3.6 - 3.6 92.8 14.3 53.6 21.4 10.7 0.0
East of the Gezira 25.0 75.0 - 25.0 - - 75.0 - 50.0 25.0 25.0 0.0
Alhasahesa 22.2 77.8 - 22.2 - - 77.8 1.11 22.2 55.6 0.0 1.11
Almanagil 40.0 60.0 - 40.0 - - 60.0 20.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 0.0
Alkamleen 20.6 58.8 20.6 29.5 2.9 8.8 58.8 - 53.1 34.3 6.3 6.3
Greater Medani 17.6 76.5 5.9 17.65 0.0 0.0 82.35 - - 82.35 11.65 0.0
■ Metal pox ■ pot ■ Plastic pox
0 3.1 0 0 0 0
88.2 11.7 6 93.8 2.9 10C 0 100 0
6 5 4 3 2 1
Egg nest type %
Figure 5. Egg nest type in poultry farms in different localities in Gezira State, Sudan (Localities: 1: South of the Gezira. 2: East of the Gezira. 3: Alhasahesa. 4: Almanagil. 5: Alkamleen. 6: Greater deMedani)
Table 4. Egg production /year and birds per egg nest in poultry farms in different localities in Gezira state, Sudan
Locality Egg production /year %_Birds/egg nest %_
<60% 60-70% 70-80% 80- 90% >90
5.0 6 -10 11-15 > 15
South of the Gezira 4.0 39.0 25.0 18.0 14.0 3.6 - 39.3 57.1
East of the Gezira - 75.0 25.0 - - 25.0 - 50.0 25.0
Alhasahesa - 80.0 20.0 - - - 6.7 6.7 86.6
Almanagil 40.0 60.0 - - - - - 40.0 60.0
Alkamleen 6.0 31.0 22.0 41.0 - - - 34.4 65.6
Greater Medani 11.0 39.0 25.0 18.0 7.0 - 17.7 29.4 52.9
Table 5. Correlation between wall status and average egg production (%) in poultry farms in Gezira State, Sudan
Parameters studies_Percent respondents_Pearson correlation
Status of wall
Cracked and not painted 15.5
Cracked and painted 7.2
Good and painted 525
Very good and not painted 62 O.8I9**
Very good and painted2.1 21
Daily egg production percentage
< 60 % 36.1
6O-7O % 52.6
70-80 %_11.3_
** Correlation is significant at 0.01 level
;L-Dikeir N, ELBeeli MYM., Abdel-Rahim AM, Jadalla B and Mohamed Ali SA. 2016. The Effects of Housing and Equipment Status on Egg yearly
Table 6. Correlation between floor types and average egg production in poultry farms in Gezira state, Sudan_ Parameters studied Percent respondents (%) Pearson correlation
Type of floor
concrete Cement Bricks Earthen
Average egg production (%)
5.2 21.6 71.1 2.1
0.696**
< 60 % 60-70 % 70-80 %
36.1 52.6 11.3
** Correlation is significant at 0.01 level
Table 7. Correlation between litter depth and average egg production in poultry farms in Gezira state, Sudan Parameters studied Percent respondents (%) Pearson correlation
Litter depth (cm)
< 5cm 5-8 cm No litter
Average egg production (%)
82.5 16.5 1%
0.637**
< 60 % 60-70 % 7 0-80 %
36.1 52.6 11.3
** Correlation is significant at 0.01 level.
Table 8. Correlation between birds/feeder and average egg production in poultry farms in Gezira state, Sudan Parameters studied Percent respondents (%) Pearson correlation
Birds/feeder
>50 50 75 100
Average egg production (%)
< 60 % 60-70 % 70-80 %
24.7 23.7 35.1
16.5
36.1
52.6 11.3
0.874**
** Correlation is significant at 0.01 level.
Table 9. Correlation between drinker types and average egg production in poultry farms in Gezira state,_Sudan Parameter studied Percent respondents (%) Pearson correlation
Drinker types (%)
Manual plastic
Jerricans
Automatic
Average egg production (%)
< 60
60-70
70-80
16.5 75.3 8.2
36.1
52.6 11.3
0.720**
** Correlation is significant at 0.01 level
Table 10. Correlation between birds/drinker and average egg production in poultry farms in Gezira state, Sudan
Parameters studied Percent respondents Pearson correlation
Birds/drinker
<50 6.2
50 39.2 0.867**
75 41.2
100 10.3
125 3.1 Average egg production (%)
< 60 % 36.1
60-70 % 52.6
70-80 % 11.3
** Correlation is significant at 0.01 level.
;L-Dikeir N, ELBeeli MYM., Abdel-Rahim AM, Jadalla B and Mohamed All SA. 2016. The Effects of Housing and Equipment Status on Egg yearly
DISCUSSION
Feeder space allocation/hen, stocking density, and other aspects of the housing environment can affect the productivity of laying hens housed in cages (Bell and Weaver, 2002).
Bird's house direction that had been found in this study was in line with the findings of Viswanathan (2001) and Winchell (2001) to provide good ventilation in birds' house and to avoid heat stress. The most house width in the present study disagrees with ElBeeli (2009) who mentioned that a width of8-10 m was best for keeping the birds in good ventilation. The floor and litter types were in line with the findings of Fanatico (2006), Grisso (2009) and Sadkhan (2011). Litter depth of 2-5 cm was in disagreement with the previous findings Grisso (2009) who mentioned 5-12cm depth and Sadkhan (2011) who reported (5-10 cm) for well moisture absorption. The results of this study might be attributed to the desire of farm owners in reducing production cost by using very thin litter layers. Use of plastic containers previously used for oil jerricans as drinkers may be due to their availability at low price. Such a trough did not provide adequate drinking space for the birds. Birds/feeders found in the present study was different from those reported by Payne (1990) and Jacob et al. (2010)who mentioned about 10 cm for a single bird per longitudinal feeder and 2 cm in round one as efficient space. This spacing allowed 7.6 -10.7 m for hundred layer birds, respectively and was important to provide adequate feeding space and prevent birds crowding around feeders. Birds/drinker was different from Payne (1990), Ward and McKague (2007) findings who reported 2.5m for 100 birds, and about 10 cm for a single bird to provide well drinking space and to prevent birds crowding around drinkers. Pots were the main egg nest type in the Gezira State localities and might be due to its availability, safety for birds and cheaper price. Birds/nest disagreed with the previous observations of Sonyia (2000) who mentioned (8-10 birds) to provide adequate egg laying space for each bird. .
Englmaierova et al. (2014) studied the effects of laying hens housing system on laying performance and found that the housing system significantly (P< 0.001) influenced the performance characteristics. The authors observed that the highest egg production, lowest daily feed consumption, and feed conversion ratio were measured in conventional cages compared to litter and aviaries. Holt et al. (2011) studied and found that a move from conventional cages to either an enriched cage or a non cage system might have affected the safety or quality or both of the eggs laid by hens raised in that new environment.
CONCLUSION
The result indicated that most poultry houses; length were from east to west, and most of the houses wall were not painted. Bricks were the most floor type and sand in a very thin layer was the most houses litter, beside some of the houses were not bedded. Most feeder type was the round one of 40to50 cm diameter
and oil containers were the most drinkers' type. Birds/feeder and drinker were varied. Pots were the most egg nest type and birds/egg nest were very high in most houses. It was concluded that housing and equipment provided were not all in agreement with standards of layer hens housing and equipment provision of optimal environment. That is why production rates were low.
Competing interests
Authors have declared that there is no competing interest.
REFERENCES
Brown BS (2015). Management of Laying Chickens Merek veterinary manual, 10th Edition
http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/poultry/nu trition_and_management_poultry/managment_of_layin g_chickens.html
D'Mello JPF (2001). Contamination and toxin in assessing quality and safety of animal feeds, FAO Animal production and health Paper http://www.fao.org/3Za-y5159e.pdf.
El Beeli MYM (2009). Manual of Table Eggs and Broiler production (Open Poultry Houses).Sudan Open University Publishers.1st edition. Pp. 155
Jacob JP, Wilson HR, Miles RD, Butcher GD and Mather FB (2014). Factors Affecting Egg Production in Backyard Chicken Flocks, University of Florida website at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu.
Englmaierova M, Tumova E, Charvatova V and Skfivan M (2014). Effects of laying hens housing system on laying performance, gg quality characteristics, Czech Journal of Animal Science., 59, 2014 (8): 345-352
Fairchild BD and Ritz CW (2009). Poultry Drinking Water Primer. Cooperative Extension. Colleges of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Family and Consumer Sciences. The University of Georgia.http://extension.uga.edu/publications/detail.cf m?number=B 1301
Grisso B (2009). Poultry Litter Management Department of Agriculture cooperating. Virginia State University, Virginia State, Petersburg https://pubs.ext.vt.edu/442/442-052/442-052.html.
Hamre ML (2008). Evaluating Egg Production Hens, University of Minnesota Cooperative Extension.www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/livestoc ksystems/DI1189.html.
Holt PS, Davies RH, Dewulf J, Gast RK, Huwe JK, Jones DR, Waltman D and Willian KR (2011). The impact of different housing systems on egg safety and quality Oxford Journals Science & Mathematics, Poultry Science, 90(1): 251-262.
Osman AH (1988).The Role of Indigenous and Exotic Genetic Resources for Poultry Development in the Sudan. Proceedings symposium on Performance of Exotic Poultry Breeds under Sudan Conditions, Khartoum, 16-17 October, pp. 14-21.http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/aq63 5e/aq63 5e.pdf
;L-Dikeir N, ELBeeli MYM., Abdel-Rahim AM, Jadalla B and Mohamed Ali SA. 2016. The Effects of Housing and Equipment Status on Egg yearly
Payne WJA and Wilson RT (1999). An Introduction to Animal Husbandry in the Tropics, 5th Edition, Wiley-Blackwell.
Rios RL, Bertechini AG, Carvalho JCC, Castro SF and Costa VA (2009). Effect of cage density on the performance of 25- to 84-week-old laying hens. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science, RevistaBrasileira de CienciaAvicola, 11(4): 257- 262.
Sadkhan KG (2011). Litter characteristics in poultry houses Agricultural engineer. Internet.Sudan Metrological Services (2005).www.ersad.gov.sd
Sonaiya EB (2000). Issues in Family Poultry Development Research - Proceedings of an International Workshop, December 9-13., 1997, M'Bour, Senegal. Network for Family Poultry Development, Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, ObafemiAwolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria, pp. 308.
Viswanathan K (2001). Poultry Housing for Birds Welfare and Higher Productivity Departments of Poultry Science, Veterinary College and Research Institute, Namakkal
(TN) .http://www.poulvet.com/poultry/articles/poultry housing.php
Ward D and Mckague K (2007). Water Requirements of Livestock, Poultry and Other Livestock - Housing and Equipments. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Ontario.http://www.uoguelph.ca/~pmenzies/Dairy_She ep/Pdf/AIII_References.pdf
Winchell W (2001). Lighting for Poultry Housing. Light levels (intensity of illuminance) and the duration of light (photoperiod) and growth rate. The Canada Plan Service.
http://www.cps.gov.on.ca/english/plans/E5000/5602/56 02L.pdf
;L-Dikeir N, ELBeeli MYM., Abdel-Rahim AM, Jadalla B and Mohamed Ali SA. 2016. The Effects of Housing and Equipment Status on Egg yearly
