Round Hill Sees the Light
New Oxford-based turkey company saves
BY GINGER SECRIST MYERS
Adams Co. Correspondent
NEW OXFORD - “I don’t know
any other turkey production
company in the country that has
done this much research with these
types of lights.” So states Steve
Jones, live production manager for
Round Hill Foods, Inc., New Ox
ford, in regards to the company’s
$3OOO research project which
compared electric usage between
conventional incandescent light
bulbs and screw-in fluorescent
bulbs.
Round Hill is concerned about
energy efficiency as a cash savings
for its 39 growers. Relates Jones,
“We feel it is our responsibility to
find ways for our growers to cut
their costs. We can’t raise our
contract price to them, but we can
find ways for them to help their
cashflow.”
Another factor which prompted
Round Hill to begin this research
was the acquisition of 16 growers
from Mandeta when that company
went bankrupt. Jones relates that
most of these growers had two
story chicken houses that were all
power ventilated, fed and lighted.
Since Round Hill has found that
half of the energy cost of running a
house is in the lighting, a closer
look in that area seemed a logical
place to start to find savings.
Round Hill's live production manager, Steve Jones, in
spects hot rock brooders. This house uses 13-watt
fluorescent bulbs for light.
NCA President to Address Cattlemen's Field Day
HARRISBURG Farm tours, The event, which runs from 9
beef-industry related seminars a.m. to 3 p.m., will provide visitors
and an address by the president of with firsthand knowledge of land
the National Cattlemen’s reclamation techniques used to
Association highlight the 14th rejuvenate the 700-acre farm of
annual Cattlemen’s Summer and Harold and Rose Schneider, hosts
Pennsylvania Simmental of the field day.
Association Field Day July 19 at . . ~' _ . .. _
Rolling Ridge Farms, just off State . A t tour 0 Schneider Farm
« d *< features a look at the couple’s 100
Comty y ’ Simmental cow operation and an
LIVESTOCK
Round Hill’s research was done
on their own research farm. The
tests were conducted from October
1984 to October 1985 in two
separate, two-story, power ven
tilated turkey houses each
measuring 40 by 300 feet. Both
houses had two rows of lights on
each floor with 38 lights per floor.
One hundred-watt incandescent
bulbs were used in the top floor
brooder area of one house with 40-
watt bulbs used on the bottom floor
grow-out area. In the other
building, 13-watt fluorescent bulbs
were used in the brooder area and
nine-watt fluorescent bulbs were
used in the grow-out area. The
fluorescent bulbs and the in
candescent bulbs had an equal
light output. The lights were on 24
hours when the birds were housed.
Round Hill had separate meters
hooked to each of the houses; one
to measure the total energy con
sumed, the other was hooked only
to the lighting circuit. The meters
revealed that the conventional
house used 53,174 kilowatts of
which 28,322 KW was for lighting
only. The fluorescent house used
32,467 KW of which 7,337 was for
lighting only. The fluorescent
bulbs used 20,985 less kilowatts
over the one-year period. If the
electricity cost 10 cents per
kilowatt, then the fluorescent bulbs
saved the grower $2,098 annually.
Using these figures, Jones
pencils out a payback on the bulbs
and installation of about five
months. The costs incurred for the
bulbs and installation was $741.
Jones notes that there is a variety
of bulbs and prices on the market,
some ranging as high as $l7 per
bulb. Payback time will be in
fluenced by the price of the bulbs
initially installed.
Following the release of their
findings, Round Hill hosted an
open house for their growers to
demonstrate the lighting concept.
Jones states that over half of the
growers ordered similar bulbs
from that initial demonstration.
Though the figures speak for
themselves, Jones notes that
growers usually wait for more
conclusive evidence before making
any management change. States
Jones, “The growers’ initial
reaction is often to wait for more
proof. I can’t blame them, since
their cost for bulbs and installation
could range as high as $l,OOO to
$1,500 per house."
Another incentive that is helping
to encourage growers in this area
to put in the fluorescent bulbs has
come from Metropolitan Edison
Power Company. Jones points out
that their growers can take ad
vantage of a double savings at this
time since Met-Ed is giving a 10-
cent credit a watt for each kilowatt
of reduced usage by their
customers. He points out that
going from the 100-watt bulb to a
13-watt fluorescent bulb translates
into a $8.70 credit per bulb.
Another energy saving project
recently summarized at Round
Hill was a comparison between
conventional brooders versus hot
rock brooders. The project was
done over three flocks from August
1985 through December 1985 in
which 14,000 hens were started on
12,000 square feet in a power
ventilated building. There was a
solid wall in the building dividing
the two pens. Separate propane
meters monitored each section.
Using 70 cents a gallon for the cost
of the propane, in each trial, the
hot rock brooders were more
energy efficient, saving the grower
$14.70, $321, and $lB9, respectively.
In spite of these favorable results
though, Jones cautions that the hot
rock brooders, because of their
smaller heating capacity, will
attain these kinds of savings only
in a well insulated facility.
In both the lighting and brooder
research projects, there was not
any significant difference in bird
growth performance.
What will Round Hill’s next
research project focus on? Jones
explanation of embryo transfer
techniques they employ to
maintain superior genetic quality
in their herd. Rose Schneider,
recipient of the 1982 Pennsylvania
Cattleperson of the Year Award,
oversees the farm’s breeding and
animal health programs, while her
husband supervises other aspects
of the operation.
In addition, important in
formation on forage conservation
and intensive forage-beef
management systems, expansion
of consumer promotion,
educational and nutritional
programs will be provided.
Don Butler, president of the
National Cattlemen’s Association
and an Arizona cow-herd operator,
will be the speaker at a special
luncheon He will address cat
tlemen’s concerns about economic
and production issues that affect
the profitability of the beef in
dustry.
big with fluorescent lighting
reflects that the company is hard look at our water quality,
always looking into feeds and feed We’re not sure what affect pH,
additives, but their next project nitrates and a host of other
will probably be in a different vain, pollutants might be having on
States Jones, “Our greatest growing birds. I think before long
challenge in our grower Round Hill will be doing some
This grower facility, housing 7,000 12-week-old toms, is
lighted with nine-watt fluorescent bulbs that Round Hill found
to be more efficient than incandescent units with the same
light output.
Wheat and Barley for Laying Rations
Corn is the most commonly used
cereal grain in commercial laying
rations in the United States. The
com is included as a major source
of energy in these rations. The
question of replacing corn with
wheat or barley is important in
Pennsylvania at certain times of
the year. During harvest seasons
for the small grains wheat and
barley, these grains may be
competitive in price with corn and
candidates for inclusion in layer
rations.
Let’s explore some of the
changes in nutrient level and other
factors resulting from the sub
stitution of wheat or barley for
corn in laying rations.
ENERGY
Barley and wheat contain less
energy on a pound-per-pound basis
than com. Any substitution of corn
by these grains will result in a
lower metabolizable energy level
in the ration. The extent of the
reduction will depend on the
amount of com being replaced and
the grain used. The energy content
of barley and wheat averages
about 80 and 90 percent, respec
tively, of that for corn. To maintain
the same level of energy in the
ration, the substitution for com of
wheat or barley should be ac
companied by the addition of a
high energy source such as
stabilized fat. If the energy level is
not maintained, the reduction in
energy will result in an increase in
feed intake. If facilities are not
available for adding fat to the
ration other alternatives must be
explored.
One alternative is to allow the
birds to compensate for the
reduced energy level by increasing
their feed intake. There are two
Forest
On Fowl
by
Forest Muir
Penn State Extension Poultry Specialist
important items with this alter
native. One is that other nutrients
must be adjusted to account for the
increase in feed intake. The second
item is the real key to the practical
use of wheat or barley in laying
rations. The substitution of wheat
or barley for corn may result in a
lower cost feed, but the increased
consumption resulting from the
lower energy content could yield a
higher cost per unit product.
PIGMENTATION
Com is a good source of xan-
thophyll which is important for the
formation of yellow pigment found
in egg yolk, chicken skin and fat.
Since barley and wheat have no
xanthophyll activity, it is im
portant that this activity be sup-
plied to the ration by other
ingredients rich in xanthophyll,
such as alfalfa meal, com gluten
meal or other sources of natural
xanthophyll if the pigment level in
egg yolk is to be maintained.
PHYSICAL FORM
Barley should be finely ground
when it is added to the ration.
Wheat, on the other hand, should
be coarsely ground before being
added to the poultry ration in large
quantities. Finely ground wheat
causes pasting problems on and
around the beak which can result
in the development of beak
necrosis.
In summary, wheat and barley
can successfully be used to sub
stitute for a portion of the corn m
layer rations. The prime con
sideration should be that these
grains are competitively priced
with corn Any substitution
however, should be accompanied
by necessary adjustment in the
ration to ensure that all nutrients
meet established requirements