Your cart is currently empty!
+86 18765158812
18765158812@163.com
During El Niño events, heavy rainfall or prolonged drought alter housing microclimates, affecting disease risks differently in open-sided and closed poultry houses.
In open-sided houses, heavy rainfall increases litter moisture and ammonia levels, promoting coccidiosis and pododermatitis. Dry conditions increase airborne dust, irritating the respiratory tract and increasing the incidence of colibacillosis.

Closed houses with mechanical ventilation can better control humidity; however, power outages during storms can lead to rapid ammonia buildup. During drought, air recirculation may concentrate pathogens, increasing the risk of viral respiratory diseases.

To mitigate these risks, in open houses during wet periods, litter turning should be increased and ridge ventilation should be installed. During dry periods, misting systems can be used to reduce dust levels. For closed houses, backup generators and ammonia sensors integrated with exhaust fan control systems are recommended. Cleaning schedules should also be adjusted based on rainfall forecasts. These targeted measures can reduce disease incidence under El Niño extremes.
For a 1,000‑bird flock, the choice between cage and floor systems affects costs, labor, and risk. For small farms with 1,000 birds, floor rearing is often more practical due to lower entry cost and simpler biosecurity. However, if space is extremely limited and local regulations allow, cages may boost output. Choose based on your target…
Conventional poultry houses often struggle with heat stress during summer, leading to reduced feed intake and higher mortality. Tunnel ventilation retrofitting offers a proven solution. The technical pathway involves installing high-capacity fans at one end, evaporative cooling pads at the opposite end, and sealing side inlets to create uniform 2–3 m/s airflow. This system lowers…
This study builds an ROI model to evaluate automation upgrades for a 10,000-bird floor rearing farm. The model compares total investment (equipment + installation) against annual savings from labor, feed, medication, and mortality reduction. Key inputs: automated feeding system cost – 12,000;manuallaborcost–12,000;manuallaborcost–15/hour; feed waste reduction – 7%; mortality decrease – 2%; medication saving – 20%. Calculation:…
For floor rearing farms, automation becomes cost-effective when scale passes a certain threshold. Using a 12–24 month payback benchmark, analysis shows that 10,000 birds per house is the minimum viable scale for automated feeding systems. Below 8,000 birds, labor savings do not offset equipment costs. At 15,000–20,000 birds, payback drops to 12–18 months, and automated ventilation becomes…