Combi systems have many com- monalities with cage systems which make them a logical choice for producers, but also vulnerable to consumer pushbacks.
PHOTO: KOOS GROENEWOLD
Return on investment At first sight, combi systems appear to provide a superior re- turn on investment. They offer higher stocking densities than are possible with floor systems or aviaries. The cost of installa- tion is less than for multi-tier aviaries. However, by actually running the numbers, producers will find that the long-term return on investment is not as good as with multi-tier aviar- ies. The increased labour requirements of combi systems greatly hinder the return on investment and this has become a major struggle, especially for large producers that have in- stalled these systems. An even bigger disadvantage is the lower percentage of Grade A eggs. The egg belt design of combi systems, apart from having too many top-level eggs, results in dirtier eggs, more cracked eggs and, in general, re- duced egg quality than would be obtained with a typical multi-tier aviary. Despite higher stocking densities, the poorer bird perfor- mance and lower percentage of Grade A eggs from combi systems undermines the return on investment and long-term profitability. Multi-tier aviaries have proven to be a better in- vestment over time, owing to lower labour costs, more Grade A eggs per bird and improved overall bird performance. Some producers that have converted from combi systems to
38 ▶ POULTRY WORLD | No. 8, 2021
multi-tier aviaries have earned the investment back in a single flock.
Future ready As commercial egg production continues to move towards a cage-free future, some producers initially favoured the con- cept of combi systems. These systems tend to resemble cage systems which many are comfortable using. The doors also al- low the option of reverting back to a caged system in the event that the cage-free trend reverses. In reality, combi sys- tems have an uncertain future making investment in these systems a gamble. Because they resemble cages, combi sys- tems are at a greater risk of scrutiny. In fact, the industry has already seen some pushback from retailers not accepting eggs produced in a combi system as ‘cage free’. And the idea of food suppliers switching back to favouring caged eggs is not likely in the foreseeable future. Considering all the above points, the advantages of lower in- stallation costs and higher bird stocking densities may not out- weigh the drawbacks of combi systems. What is most important is that producers understand the true return on investment for each housing option, allowing them to make the best possible decision for the long-term success of their operations.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44
