2013 Poultry Science Association, Inc.

The effect of grouping one-day-old chicks

by body weight on the uniformity of broilers

Roberto Montanhini Neto,1 Diego Surek, Chayane da Rocha,

Fabiano Dahlke, and Alex Maiorka

Veterinary Sciences, Federal University of Paran, Curitiba, Brazil 80035-050

Primary Audience: Flock Supervisors, Field Operations Managers, Researchers

SUMMARY
In this study, we evaluated the effect of the grouping of 1-d-old chicks according to initial
BW on the subsequent homogeneity and distribution of the weight of the broilers at harvest.
Two treatments (placement methods) were tested: in one treatment (random), the chicks place-
ment was at random and not grouped by initial weight; in the other treatment (homogeneous
groups), the chicks were grouped according to their initial weight. The broilers were individu-
ally weighed upon placement and again at 21 and 42 d of age. The lowest dispersion of the
weight at placement was observed for the homogeneous groups, but the dispersion did not
differ between the treatments at the subsequent weighings. Despite the difference in placement,
the distributions of the weight data for the 2 groups did not differ between 21 or 42 d of age.
Based on these results, the grouping of chicks by weight does not produce more uniform broil-
ers at the end of the production period.

Key words: distribution, dispersion, homogeneity, initial weight

2013 J. Appl. Poult. Res. 22:245250
http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/japr.2012-00636

DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM used for processing requires a uniform carcass

The average weight and homogeneity in
weight of a flock of broilers are important pa-
rameters in poultry production [1, 2]. Uniform
flocks with adequate weights present several
management advantages: (1) poultry are han-
dled in large groups and can be simultaneously
exposed to changes in management (lighting,
feeding, and environment), (2) more effective
overall performance is obtained, and (3) the
birds achieve a level of performance that ap-
proaches their maximum genetic potential [3].
The emphasis on broiler uniformity has fre-
quently been dictated by the last step in the pro-
duction line: the processing facility. Automation
size to meet the standards for the quality of the
poultry received by the processing unit [4]. Of-
ten, the quality of the management procedures
used by the producer affects the uniformity ob-
tained in a flock. Indeed, the homogeneity of
harvest weight may be strongly influenced by
events occurring during the production period
[5].
Because increases in uniformity during the
production period are unlikely, several authors
view the uniformity of chicks at placement as
a key prerequisite for obtaining a uniform fi-
nal product [6]. At placement, the weight of
the chicks is an economically important feature
because every 1-g increase in the initial weight

1
Corresponding author: roberto.neto@ufpr.br

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/japr/article-abstract/22/2/245/709872

by guest
on 30 November 2017
 246 JAPR: Research Report

results in a 7 to 13 g increase in the harvest chicks; a lower CV corresponds to higher chick

weight of the broilers [7]. In contrast, several
researchers have shown that improvements in
the uniformity of chicks or segregation by initial
weight, especially in chicks from small eggs or
young flocks, may reduce the degree of compe-
tition, thus decreasing the level of mortality and
increasing the homogeneity of the weight of the
broilers entering the processing unit [811].
Chick flocks that lack sufficient uniformity
cannot be properly managed. This situation re-
sults in lower growth, increased feed intake,
and higher mortality during the first weeks [12].
Based on studies with several broiler flocks,
the CV of individual BW from a single flock of
breeder hens may vary between 7.5 and 10.7%,
with an average of approximately 9.25%. Ac-
cordingly, the 95% CI of the CV would include
values from 8.5 to 10% [11, 13, 14]. In addition,
based on a survey, broiler flocks with higher val-
ues of the CV (reduced uniformity) experienced
higher mortality rates. This measure of disper-
sion can indicate the zootechnical quality of the
quality [15]. The purpose of the present study
was to assess the effect of the grouping of chicks
by initial weight on the subsequent homogeneity
and distribution of weight of the broilers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The experiment was conducted in the experi-
mental poultry house of the Federal University
of Paran in southern Brazil. The study included
720 one-day-old male broiler chicks of the Ross
508 strain from 47-wk-old hens of the same
flock. The chicks were housed in an experimen-
tal facility divided into 24 pens, with 30 birds
per experimental unit. The management proce-
dure used was that recommended by the Brazil-
ian poultry industry [16], with feed and water ad
libitum. Table 1 shows the calculated composi-
tion of the diets of the 3 phases.
The experimental units were randomly dis-
tributed into 2 treatments. In the first treatment,
the chicks were placed at random, without any

Table 1. Composition of the experimental diets

Feeding period

Item d 1 to 21 d 22 to 35 d 36 to 42

Ingredient (g/kg)
Corn 553.0 626.9 632.2
Full-fat soybean 194.0 180.0 159.0
Soybean meal 181.0 102.0 148.0
Meat and bone meal 32.0 26.0 22.0
Poultry fat 4.0 20.0
Poultry by-product meal 15.0 19.0
Feather meal 5.0 24.0
Limestone 6.5 4.5 7.0
NaCl 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vitamin and mineral premix1 4.0 4.0 4.0
Methionine hydroxy-analog 3.2 2.4 2.2
l-Lysine HCl 1.6 2.6 1.0
Choline chloride 0.7 0.7 0.7
Calculated nutritional content
Apparent ME (kcal/kg) 3,100 3,200 3,250
CP (g/kg) 220.0 200.0 181.8
Digestible lysine (g/kg) 12.9 11.4 10.3
Digestible methionine (g/kg) 6.2 5.1 4.8
Digestible methionine + cystine (g/kg) 9.8 8.8 7.9
Calcium (g/kg) 10.0 8.7 7.7
Available phosphorus (g/kg) 4.5 4.1 3.6
Sodium (g/kg) 2.1 2.2 2.0
1
Contribution per kilogram of feed: vitamin A = 8,000 IU; vitamin D3 = 2,400 IU; vitamin E = 16.65 mg; vitamin K3 = 1.5 mg;
vitamin B1 = 0.6 mg; vitamin B2 = 2.36 mg; vitamin B6 = 0.6 mg; vitamin B12 = 1,320 g; biotin = 0.15 mg; pantothenic acid
= 9.32 mg; niacin = 30.12 mg; folic acid = 1.42 mg; selenium = 0.65 mg; iodine = 0.35 mg; iron = 57.72 mg; copper = 12.30
mg; zinc = 141.48 mg; manganese = 173.0 mg.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/japr/article-abstract/22/2/245/709872

by guest
on 30 November 2017
 MONTANHINI Neto et al.: CHICK WEIGHT AND UNIFORMITY
Table 2. Comparisons of the average BW (grams) of chicks aged 1, 21, and 42 d for the different placement
methods of 1-d-old chicks
Placement method
Random (n = 360)
Homogeneous group (n = 360)
P-value1
1
P-values lower than 0.05 indicate significant differences (Mann-Whitney test).
grouping by initial weight. In the second treat-
ment, the chicks were separated into homoge-
nous groups according to their initial weight. For
grouping, cutoff values were based on tertiles
of the initial weight. The chicks were grouped
in pens for this treatment according to the fol-
lowing categories: light (lower tertile), medium
(intermediate tertile), and heavy (upper tertile).
In this treatment, the birds with weights classi-
fied as outliers were excluded. An outlier was
defined as a BW beyond a range of 3 or more
standard deviations above or below the average
weight.
The broilers were individually weighed at
placement and again at 21 and 42 d old. The
central tendency, dispersion, and distribution
of the data were used for statistical compari-
sons [17]. The tendencies were compared with
a Mann-Whitney test [18] because the data did
not meet the assumption of normality according
to a Shapiro-Wilk test [19]. The data were ex-
pressed as the arithmetic mean of the weights.
To compare the percentage difference in mean
weight between treatments for the results of
each weighing, a Chi-squared test and a Fisher
exact test were used [20].
The dispersion was evaluated by compar-
ing the variances with a Levene test [21]. The
dispersion data were presented in terms of a
measure of relative dispersion, the Pearson CV,
which was expressed as a percentage. The val-
ues of the relative dispersion for each weighing
were evaluated and their association tested with
Spearman correlation coefficients.
Table 3. Comparison between the CV (%) of chick body weight data obtained at placement and at d 1, 21, and 42
for the different placement methods of day-old chicks
Placement method
Random (n = 12)
Homogeneous group (n = 12)
P-value
a,b
P-values lower than 0.05 and values with different letters in the same row or column indicate significant differences (Levene
test).
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/japr/article-abstract/22/2/245/709872
by guest
on 30 November 2017
247
1d 21 d 42 d
43.1 (3.8) 799.6 (77.6) 2,381.4 (223.4)
44.5 (0.8) 809.2 (80.9) 2,421.8 (230.1)
<0.001 0.049 0.032
The distributions were compared with a
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and presented as his-
tograms. To determine the position and the flat-
tening of the data distributions, the kurtosis and
asymmetry coefficients [22] were calculated and
compared with a Wald-Wolfowitz test [23]. The
significance level was set at 5% for all statistical
tests used in this study; all tests were performed
with Statistica software, version 8.0 [24].
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The central tendencies differed significantly
(P < 0.05) between treatments for all weighings
(Table 2), with higher weight values observed for
the homogeneous groups. However, the percent-
age difference between the treatments for the 3
weighings was found to be statistically similar
(P > 0.05). If the treatments were compared in
terms of the weighings on d 21 and 42 with the
placement weight as a covariate, the differences
were not significant (P > 0.05). No significant
differences (P > 0.05) were observed in feed
consumption and FCR between the treatments
on the 3 phases of the experiment. Therefore,
the difference in weights for the weighings on d
21 and 42 is directly related to the difference in
weights at placement and not to the treatments.
Based on the literature, in general, if chicks are
heavier at birth, heavier broilers result at harvest
[7]. The broiler weight at harvest is directly pro-
portional to the chick weight at 7 d, resulting in
a high positive correlation between the weight at
placement and at harvest [25].
d1 d 21 d 42 P-value
8.79 9.73 9.39 0.684
1.69b 10.02a 9.52a <0.001
<0.001 0.334 0.631
 248 JAPR: Research Report

Figure 1. Comparisons of the BW distributions of data obtained for chicks at d 1, 21, and 42 for the different place-
ment methods of 1-d-old chicks.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/japr/article-abstract/22/2/245/709872

by guest
on 30 November 2017
 MONTANHINI Neto et al.: CHICK WEIGHT AND UNIFORMITY
Table 4. Comparison between the kurtosis and asymmetry coefficients of chick BW data obtained at d 1, 21, and
42 for the different placement methods of 1-d-old chicks
Placement method
Kurtosis coefficient
Random (n = 12)
Homogeneous group (n = 12)
P-value
Asymmetry coefficient
Random (n = 12)
Homogeneous group (n = 12)
P-value
a,b
P-values lower than 0.05 and values with different letters in the same row or column indicate significant differences (Wald-
Wolfowitz test).
A lower (P < 0.05) dispersion of weight at
placement was observed for the homogeneous
groups. Nevertheless, no difference in disper-
sion was found between the treatments for the
subsequent weighings (Table 3). Note that the
chicks came from the same flock and from
breeder hens of the same age. Furthermore, no
significant correlation (P > 0.05) was detected
between the CV at placement and the CV for the
subsequent weighings. These results are consis-
tent with reports in the literature that describe
low correlations between the uniformity of the
weights of 1-d-old chicks and the uniformity
of broiler weights at 42 to 44 d [6, 7, 2629].
In these studies, several factors have been cited
as determinants of the homogeneity of BW at
harvest, but the consensus is that the individual
capacity of each bird to gain weight over its life
is independent of the initial weight grouping.
Despite the initial grouping reflected in the
low dispersion of the homogeneous groups on
d 1, the CV for the broilers on d 21 or 42 were
similar to those observed for the treatment with
random placement (Table 3). In the present ex-
periment, the weight homogeneity of the broil-
ers midway through the experiment and at the
end of the experiment was not related to the
weight homogeneity at the time of placement.
These findings demonstrated that the uniformity
of the flock does not depend on the initial weight
uniformity of the chicks if this initial weight
uniformity is achieved by equalizing the weight
of the chicks at the time of placement. In prac-
tice, other factors related to broiler management,
such as the intake of water and feed, the forma-
tion of groups and hierarchies, the maintenance
of a suitable density, an appropriate placement
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/japr/article-abstract/22/2/245/709872
by guest
on 30 November 2017
249
d1 d 21 d 42 P-value
0.934 0.081 0.119 0.717
2.223a 1.065b 1.012b 0.002
0.006 0.139 0.334
0.128 0.010 0.090 0.125
0.340a 0.156b 0.123b 0.038
0.044 0.759 0.119
environment, as well as immunity and health,
appear to be more important for maintaining the
uniformity of the flock until the end of the pro-
duction cycle [6, 30].
The distribution of weights differed signifi-
cantly between treatments (P < 0.05) on the day
of placement. One of the goals of the homoge-
neous groups treatment was to exclude chicks
with extreme weights. However, the distribution
of weights did not differ between the treatments
on d 21 or 42 (Figure 1). The CV did not differ
significantly among the weighings (P > 0.05)
for the random treatment; however, the CV was
lower (P < 0.05) on the day of placement than on
the subsequent weighings for the homogeneous
groups. Therefore, grouping by initial weight
does not ensure that broilers subsequently grow
without achieving extreme weights.
Based on the analysis of the difference be-
tween treatments in the kurtosis and asymmetry
coefficients, both measures of the distribution
of the data differed (P < 0.05) only on the day
of placement. The coefficients were similar (P
> 0.05) on the other weighing days (Table 4).
Compared among the weighings, the measures
were similar for the random treatment; however,
the coefficients for the homogeneous groups in-
dicated differences (P < 0.05) between the day
of placement and the 2 subsequent weighing
days. The coefficients did not differ significant-
ly between d 21 or 42 (P > 0.05), though. The
results confirm and strengthen the results based
on the CV. The reason for this outcome is that
the kurtosis coefficient is a descriptive evalua-
tion of the data distribution, but also serves to
assess the dispersion of the data in terms of the
level of flattening of the distribution [22].
 250
CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
1. The grouping of 1-d-old chicks by BW
at placement does not ensure a greater
uniformity of the broilers at the end of
the production period.
2. The difference between mean values of
BW at placement directly influenced
mean values of the weights at subse-
quent ages.
3. The exclusion of individuals whose
weight at placement was classified as
an outlier did not guarantee that the
flocks would show a lower dispersion of
weights at harvest.
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. Dalanezi, J. A., A. A. Mendes, E. A. Garcia, R. G.
Garcia, J. Moreira, and I. C. L. A. Paz. 2005. Effect of broil-
er breeder age on performance and carcass yield of broiler
chickens. Arq. Bras. Med. Vet. Zootec. 57:250260.
2. Molenaar, R., I. A. M. Reijrink, R. Meijerhof, and
H. Van den Brand. 2008. Relationship between hatchling
length and weight on later productive performance in broil-
ers. W. Poult. Sci. J. 64:599604. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S0043933908000226.
3. Kosba, M. A., H. S. Zeweil, M. H. Ahmed, S. M.
Shabara, and A. A. Debes. 2010. Selection for uniformity in
Alexandria local chickens: 2. Correlated response for pro-
ductive and reproductive traits. Egypt. Poult. Sci. 30:114
136.
4. Griffin, A. M., R. A. Renema, F. E. Robinson, and
M. J. Zuidhof. 2005. The influence of rearing light period
and the use of broiler or broiler breeder diets on forty-two-
day body weight, fleshing, and flock uniformity in broiler
stocks. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 14:204216.
5. Judice, M. G., J. A. Muniz, and R. Carvalheiro. 1999.
Evaluation of coefficient of variation in experimentation
with swine. Cin. Agrotec. 23:170173.
6. Rocha, J. S. R., L. J. C. Lara, N. C. Baio, S. V. Can-
ado, M. V. Triginelli, and J. F. C. Leite. 2008. Effect of egg
classification prior to setting on broiler chicken uniformity,
performance and meat yields. Arq. Bras. Med. Vet. Zootec.
60:11811187.
7. Wilson, H. R. 1991. Interrelationships of egg size,
chick size, posthatching growth and hatchability. W. Poult.
Sci. J. 47:520.
8. Joseph, N. S., and E. T. Moran Jr.. 2005. Effect of
flock age and post emergent holding in the hatcher on broil-
er live performance and further-processing yield. J. Appl.
Poult. Res. 14:512520.
9. Gardiner, E. E. 1973. Effects of egg weight on post-
hatching growth rate of broiler chicks. Can. J. Anim. Sci.
53:665668.
10. Hearn, P. J. 1986. Making use of small hatching eggs
in an integrated broiler company. Br. Poult. Sci. 27:498
504.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/japr/article-abstract/22/2/245/709872
by guest
on 30 November 2017
JAPR: Research Report
11. Wilson, H. R., and M. E. Suarez. 1993. The use of
egg weight and chick weight coefficients of variation as
quality indicators in hatchery management. J. Appl. Poult.
Res. 2:227231.
12. Van der Ven, I. L. 2005. Maximizing uniformity
through top-level hatchery practice. W. Poult. J. 21:13.
13. Bondarenko, U. B. 1989. Variation in egg and day old
chick weights of nine fowl species. Inst. Poult. Res. Bull.
26:610.
14. Shalev, B. A., and H. Pasternak. 1995. Incremental
changes in and distribution of chick weight with hen age in
four poultry species. Br. Poult. Sci. 36:415424.
15. Le Turdu, Y., P. Drouin, J. Y. Toux, J. Josse, M.
Guittet, J. P. Picault, G. Bennejean, P. Quemeneur, and N.
Hamet. 1984. Production du poulet de chair destine a Pex-
portation. Bull. Dinform. Stat. Exp. Davic. Plouf. 24:39
47.
16. Mendes, A. A., I. A. Naas, and M. Macari. 2004.
Produo de frangos de corte. Ed. FACTA, Campinas, Bra-
zil.
17. Kaps, M., and W. R. Lamberson. 2009. Biostatistics
for animal science. CAB International, Oxfordshire, UK.
18. Harding, E. F. 1984. An efficient, minimal-storage
procedure for calculating the Mann-Whitney U, generalized
U and similar distributions. Appl. Stat. 33:16.
19. Royston, J. P. 1982. An extension of Shapiro and
Wilks W test for normality to large samples. Appl. Stat.
31:115124.
20. Upton, G. J. G. 1992. Fishers exact test. Stat. Soc.
155:395402.
21. Schultz, B. B. 1985. Levenes test for relative varia-
tion. Syst. Biol. 34:449456.
22. Ferreira, D. F. 2005. Estatstica bsica. Ed. UFLA,
Lavras, Brazil.
23. Thas, O. 2010. Comparing distributions. Springer
Science Business Media, Ghent, Belgium.
24. Hill, T., and P. Lewicki. 2007. Statistics: Methods and
Applications. StatSoft Inc., Tulsa, OK.
25. Tona, K., V. Bruggeman, and O. Onagbesan. 2005.
Day-old chick quality: Relationship to hatching egg quality,
adequate incubation practice and prediction of broiler per-
formance. Avian Poult. Biol. Rev. 16:109119.
26. Wyatt, C. L., J. R. Weaver, and W. L. Beane. 1985.
Influence of egg size, eggshell quality, and post hatch hold-
ing time on broiler performance. Poult. Sci. 64:20492055.
27. Vieira, S. L., and E. T. Moran Jr. 1998. Broiler yields
using chicks from egg weight extremes and diverse strains.
J. Appl. Poult. Res. 7:339346.
28. Tona, K., O. Onagbesan, B. De Ketelaere, E. Decuy-
pere, and V. Bruggeman. 2004. Effects of age of broiler
breeders and egg storage on egg quality, hatchability, chick
quality, chick weight, and chick post hatch growth to forty-
two days. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 13:1018.
29. Fattori, T. R., H. R. Wilson, F. B. Mather, and S. M.
Bootwalla. 1992. Strategies for weighing broilers, broiler
breeder pullets and broiler breeder hens: 1. Sample size and
individual vs. group weighings. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 1:88
94.
30. Gross, W. B., and P. B. Siegel. 1995. Factors which
may affect the precision of experiments employing chick-
ens. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 4:411421.