In poultry farming, minimum ventilation is one of the most critical phases for both animal welfare and energy consumption.
But here’s the key question:
What is the most energy-efficient way to deliver the same airflow?
Even when the required airflow is identical, the way you generate it can dramatically impact energy use, climate stability, and operating costs.
In this practical example, we compare three different ventilation strategies delivering the same airflow, and analyze their real energy consumption.
Ventilation requirement: the starting point
Let’s consider a typical scenario:
- Required airflow: 20,000 m³/h
- Static pressure: 25 Pa
- Application: minimum ventilation in a poultry house
There are multiple ways to achieve this airflow, including:
- Running a 36” fan continuously
- Running a 50” box fan in ON/OFF cycles
- Running a 55” cone fan with variable speed control
At first glance, all three solutions meet the same requirement.
In reality, their performance is very different.
Why fan speed matters: the hidden limitation
When using variable speed fans, one key factor must be understood:
Static pressure capability decreases with the square of fan speed.
This means:
- At 100% speed → 100% pressure capability
- At 50% speed → only 25% pressure capability
If the speed is reduced too much, the fan may fail to overcome the required static pressure, resulting in insufficient airflow.
This is why correct regulation is critical, not just efficiency.
Comparison of the 3 ventilation solutions
1. 50” Fan (EM50 – ON/OFF Operation)
- Runs only 50% of the time (e.g. 150 seconds in a 5-minute cycle)
- Delivers double airflow when ON, zero when OFF
Implications:
- Temperature fluctuations
- Climate instability
- Power spikes at each startup
Energy consumption:
~0.8 kWh per hour
2. 36” Fan (EM36 – Constant Operation)
- Runs continuously
- Provides stable airflow over time
Implications:
- Stable temperature
- No power spikes
- Still relatively high energy consumption
Energy consumption:
~0.8 kWh per hour
3. Saturn Five E-line (Variable Speed – 48%)
- Runs continuously at reduced speed (48%)
- Matches airflow demand precisely
Implications:
- Stable climate conditions
- No ON/OFF fluctuations
- No power peaks
- Lower noise levels
Energy consumption:
~0.3 kWh per hour
Energy consumption comparison
| Solution | Operation Mode | Energy Consumption | Climate Stability |
|---|---|---|---|
| EM50 50” | ON/OFF | ~0.8 kWh | Low |
| EM36 36” | Constant | ~0.8 kWh | High |
| E-line 55” | Variable Speed | ~0.3 kWh | High |
Key takeaways: why system design matters
This example clearly shows that:
Same airflow does NOT mean same energy consumption
The E-line solution allows you to achieve:
- Up to 60% energy savings
- Stable and consistent indoor climate
- Reduced noise levels
- No electrical stress from motor startups
Conclusion: efficiency is not just about the fan
Choosing a fan is not just about size or capacity.
It’s about how the system operates over time.
- ON/OFF systems create instability and energy waste
- Constant systems improve stability but may still be inefficient
- Variable speed systems unlock true system efficiency
Want to know how much energy you could save in your farm?
Request your Energy Saving Analysis
