Full text of "Bulletin"

See other formats

nil

■I

7_5\-lll C

-l&- V"

*X±<*- 42-d

oK. -RB^

*%.

EXPERIMENT STATION LIBRARY

Bulletin 265

May, 1932

NEW HAMPSHIRE AGRICULTURAL
EXPERIMENT STATION

ECONOMIC STUDY OF NEW
HAMPSHIRE POULTRY FARMS

By H. C. WOODWORTH and F. D. REED

UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
DURHAM, N. H.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

THE STUDY -Introduction

Farms Selected- Type and Size

THE FINANCIAL SIDE- Investment £

Depreciation Charlies *

Receipts '

Expenses (l

Monthly Relationship of Receipts and Expenses •>

Financial Returns

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT— Breeding Stock 13

Management oi Layers and Breeders

Brooding and Rearing

LABOR- Division of Time ' 5> J 'J

Comparison of Labor on Laying Flocks

Comparison of Labor in Rearing Pullets ' S

Labor Efficiency "

Hired Labor "°

FEED CONSUMPTION OF LAYERS— Pullet Layers 21

Old Hens JJ

Weekly Feed Consumption per Dozen Eggs ~»

MORTALITY AND CULLING— Mortality 24

Cullin.

Rate of Decrease in Population of Laying Flock 2b

Per Cent of Housing Capacity for the Year 2 .

F< ;<i PRODUCTION— Annual Egg Production 28

Egg Production by Weeks 29

Seasonal Production on Individual Farms 30

EGG SIZE: — Egg Size Distribution by Agcbf Pullets 33

Distribution of Eggs into tirades by Age of Pullets 34

Effect of Dates of Hatch on Distribution of Eggs into Grades 35

Difference in Egg Size Between Flocks 36

THE PROBLEM OF DATE HATCH— Production Curves on Three Dates of

Hatch 36> :;r

The Effect of Date of Hatch on Value of Total Yearly Product 39

Evening Up Production ''■'

Efficiency in Use of Equipment 4"

THE COST OF PRODUCING MARKET EGGS— Eggs a Joinl Product 40

A Form u la

Use of Formula in Out look Work

Relal Lve < omparison of Cost of Producing Eggs

\--<~rf\ COS! 4«j

Labor Cost 4I_>

Depreciation of Stock

Use of Buildings

Old Hens for Market Eggs 47

COST OF PRODUCING HATCHING EGGS Producing Hatching Eggs for

Replacements 48, 49

INCUBATION RECORDS AND COSTS -Cost of incubation 50

Cost of Producing Day-Old Chicks :>1

GROWING PULLETS Detail Records on Cost of Growing Pullets on L8

Farms 52, 53

I Be of Formula in Outlook Work ,!

Detail Cost of Producing Pullets (Heavy Breeds) 55

Detail Cos1 of Producing Leghorn Pullets 57

Further Studies Needed :,;

SUMM \I Y :,s

Economic Study of New Hampshire Poultry Farms*

H. C. WOODWORTH and F. D. REED

Commercial poultry raising; has been expanding in southern New
Hampshire for a decade or more. In this period many small dairy farms
have gradually been converted into poultry establishments, and the in-
dividual poultry farm has tended to become larger in size as measured
by hens housed. This development of the highly specialized commercial
poultry farm has been stimulated by a period of very favorable condi-
tions.

Tn the first place, the New England egg markets, especially during
fall and winter, have taken large quantities of fresh hennery eggs at a
considerable premium above mid-west eggs. Also, grain prices since the
war have been low, giving the poultryman a favorable feed-egg price
ratio. In addition, a large group of poultrymen developed special poul-
try skill and technique, which enabled them to turn the low-priced
grain into premium eggs with a margin that encouraged the expansion
of the industry. The development of disease-free flocks and the produc-
tion of eggs in early fall and winter by use of early hatched pullets
have been of no small significance.

According to the 1930 census, the value of poultry meat and eggs
produced in New Hampshire for the preceding year was $6,464,481, —
practically double the figure in 1920. While the industry as a whole has
sailed along without mishap and with good margins for a considerable
period, it was believed that a detailed economic study was needed as a
guide to the future.

Consequently, a study was undertaken in the fall of 1929 to secure
details of management and costs on twenty-three commercial poultry
farms. For a period of one year beginning with August and September,
1929, weekly or bi-monthly visits were made to each farm to collect and
check information, and to observe the individual management prob-
lems. The co-operating poultrymen kept financial records of expenses
and receipts, weekly egg production, brooding and incubation records.

* Acknowledgment is made to the staff of the Poultry Department, especially
to T. B. Charles, for assistance in the study.

Acknowledgment is also due to the following- poultry farm operators for their
patience in keeping records and for their co-operation in studying poultry
problems :

George Blodgett Harold French Harry Tufts

Ernest Campbell Edward Larrabee J. P. Weston

Henry Colson . Arthur Lucas Earl Whipple

Harry Curtis, Jr. Thomas Mazza P. O. Whitney

Victor Eliason George McDuffee W. T. Whittle

Lindley Farr Robert Merrill Herbert Willard

Orlo Fiske Ernest Paige Henry Willgeroth

Perley Fitts Mrs. Albert Peterson Irving Wilson

Arthur Poor

N. II. A.gr. Experiment Station [Bulletin 265

The field man was able to secure data on egg size by weighing samples
of 100 eggs at weekly visits. Much of the other material gathered and
analyzed could not have been secured without these frequent visits.

Farms Selected

Farms were selected in Rockingham, Strafford and Hillsborough

Counties on the basis of type, size, the convenience with which the farm
fitted into a route and the willingness of the individual to co-operate.
Very few commercial poultry farms in Xew Hampshire are diversiii sd
to the extent of combining poultry with such other enterprises as apple
orcharding or dairying; ami consequently, the diversified type could
not be included in the study. Thus, all the farms selected were of a
highly specialized commercial poultry type. Fifteen had some diversi-
fication within the poultry business itself through the production of
hatching eggs, day-old chicks or breeding stock. Eight specialized in
market eggs.

The numlx r of birds (Table 1) housed in the fall of 1929 ranged from
513 to 3,09!) with an average of 1,290. Eight farms had less than 1,000
layers, and three had over 2.000. The average number of layers for the
year (a figure obtained by dividing total hen days for the year by 365)
was 995.

Table 1 — Size of flock on '-l commercial poultry form : studied

Farm No.

Total
hen days
for year

Number

average birds

for year

Maximum
number

of birds

361,659

991
471
654

2.548

1.040
354
697
676

1,519
96?

1,614

2,105
836
495
704
458
583

1.1 17
687

1,107
484

1,3 56

1,433

•

1.273

171.990

610

238,820

1,004

929.902

3,099

379,630

1,307

129,329

513

254. lis

995

246,901

761

554.328

1 ,936

:;52.s;;:2

1,341

589.257

2,126

70s,:>o:i

2.727

i ::

305,011

1,060

1 si). 677

751

256,913

1.057

167.07:;

(i 1 3

212,899

S62

407, S Hi

1,314

1 * #

250,782

1.000

404.1 10

1,350

176. 55:

575

195,056

1,731

522,883

1,673

Total

8,357,226

995

29.07S

363,358

1.290

May, 1932]

Economic Study of Poultry Farms

With the exception of two young men under 30 who had been in
business only three years, the operators had become well established.
The average length of experience in commercial poultry keeping of the
twenty-three men was 11 years. One man had kept poultry on a com-
mercial scale for 33 years. The operators ranged in age from 27 to 76
years with an average of 43. Pour men were under 30, and three were
over 60.

While the farms do not represent a random sample, it is thought that
in general the study of the individual farms and the analysis of the
group as a whole show a fairly accurate picture of the commercial poul-
try industry of the state.

On many farms old dairy barns hare been remodeled into poultry
houses with three to four decks

THE FINANCIAL SIDE

Investment

The average investment of the 23 farms was $13,424, or $10.40 per
layer, based on the number of layers housed in the fall of 1929. (See
Table 2.) Of this investment, real estate including land and buildings
represented about 55%, poultry stock 29%, equipment 13% and sup-
plies 2%.

The smallest individual investment was $6,034, and the largest was
practically six times as much, or $36,707. Approximately 44% of the
real estate value was in special poultry buildings.

When the farms were grouped according to size of flocks as in Table
3, the inventory per bird was over $19 in flocks below 800; $13 for

N. II. Age. Expeeiment Station [Bulletin 265

so
to

a.
a
u

to
to

> - ■

S C =

Jo -

r 3 £

- c —

> r -

■ ■ CO

r- c oa
i- — tc

; ; h

. CM

- r- O

— CM »-i

I-

O • tO

CO • tO

CO
eft

o i- ao
— . N. R
W -f '-

i- 7-

>fl C. O t- !- t C

^ S t f K « I-

00 t> O e O 'i
i— ' to -* O I— CM

K L? *t M ».0 C- CM i— I »0 C CM

*-i i-h w w cm

tO OS it C C M K ^ -• -t '" CI
Tl "0 >~. CO i- O CM i— S "~ i— CM

I-

i-H t- OS

^ M i-l

if O CO i— I

CO t© CO CM

cm rt< if co

eft

HflOOOOC'fWtS
tO "5 t— O 00 O © I- i-i

CM CO d "f if CM

e e « o t- «

B H n « I- W
<M

O lO w w

* I- <"- C. -f

r-5 cm cm' d

if tO CO

O0 CO

CO t- iH

iO SO CO

h ei i e ri

co >o I- tO CO

to o cm "f "*

i-i CM CO t-

eft

if lf5 UO i-l <M 'O CO
CO CO i-H r-l t- Ci 5Nt
1-H N

Tf IO if

w m *
to m h

CO l-

O CO

d "0

o t-

00 CO C. t— h-CCffiOWiOHIlOBOOO

if ^h © co m cm -f if if "0 if if i-; cm co

i-4 CM C O if d CM' ITS t- 00 CM 00 00 CM i-i

CO "O C. tO CO C5 1- t- CM tO Ci t- oo to

tc o

i-i CM CO

eft

i- i-H

00 CM CM t^ "f <

si no d n t-'

r- cm co co

i)i B H ri

b.
o

»3 2

>. • Pu C

tO - •<- i-i

■-, 0, — I Oj

to Ph C -« -^

K C

i i 73 !0
£ £ Qv 4,

■ p

o o

c t. c - - g.

3 =

4j 10

o o
c o

r/)

—

■^

•j

r—

-f
eft

■ -

o
o

d
eft

to
o

-f

eft

110

Oi
1—1
CO
1—1

eft

h^WcctcffieHuo^^

o
H

ir.

3 .

C —

x a

-*— •—

o o

c □

4- £
a; h

o 0>

— S.

ce ^

u '■

■"^

> u
cd :-

4-
I- ft

a
5r >.

<4^

s a

Or, t-
to <^

to c

May, 1932]

Economic Study of Poultry Farms

flocks between 800 and 1000; approximately $10 for flocks between
1000 and 1400 ; $8 for flocks of 1600 to 1800 ; and $10 for flocks above
1800 layers. As the size of flocks increased, total investment increased
but the investment per bird tended to decrease.

Table 3 — Capital investment <t»<1 size of flock

Size of flock

Number

of farms

A vera iri"
inventory

Inventory
per bird

500 — 800

$7,432.66
12,563.43
11,182.90
13,432.91

$19.44

801 — 1000

13.19

1001 — 1200

10.75

1201 — 1400

10.20

1401 1600

1601 — 1800

13,592.48
24.642.76

7.99

1801 over

9.97

$13,424.06

$10.40

Depreciation Charges

Depreciation on special poultry equipment and buildings was
assumed to be 10%. This was set fairly high in order to put earnings
on a more conservative basis. Commercial poultry farming has become
a factory proposition in which large amounts of purchased feed are
converted into a product that has enjoyed a special premium. Yet dis-
ease and lack of production due to causes beyond the control of the
individual have in certain instances turned the profits of apparently
skilled and experienced operators to heavy losses. Moreover, new meth-
ods and better equipment are constantly making other equipment obso-
lete. An individual may find it difficult to dispose of his holdings, if for
any reason he is forced to give up the business. Under these conditions
the operator should hesitate to invest in fixed capital unless the princi-
pal can be drawn out within ten years. In the case of the producer who
remains in business and is successful over a period of years, 10% depre-
ciation is probably higher than the actual. In the case of the producer
who is forced to quit or is not very successful, it may be too low. The
successful man with large income will not object to a 10% depreciation
charge ; the beginner will do well to make estimates on at least this
basis. As shown in Table 4, the depreciation of special poultry build-
ings averaged $365 per farm, and depreciation of equipment averaged
$204 — a total of $569 for buildings and equipment.

Receipts

The average farm cash receipts were $9,636 (Table 5). When includ-
ing the increase in inventory of $453, the total receipts averaged
$10,089. This is a gross income of $7.82 per bird housed, or $10.13 per
bird when based on the average number of laying birds through the
year.

It is well to note that only 44% of the gross income was from sale of
market eggs and 11% from hatching eggs. The remaining 45% was
made up of several items, including live and dressed fowl 11%, broilers
11%, day-old chicks 6.7%. In a group of five farms which specialized

8 X. II. Age. Experiment Station [Bulletin 265

Table 4- Depreciation charges* — average of 28 farm*

NkiI EstaU

Poultry laying houses $23.".. 50

Barn used for poull ry 25. .51

Permanenl brooder house.'- 32.35

Other poultry buildings 72.01

Total depreciation real estate $365.37

Equipmt tit

Batteries S4.24

Colony houses 40.17

Shelters 17.84

Incubators 47.87

Brooder stoves 15.18

Eoppers 7.99

Fountains 3.36

Egg eases 1.96

Shipping coops -90

Miscellaneous poultry equipment 15.34

General equipment

Car or truck"!" 39.85

General farm m ichinery 5.85

M iscella aeous 3.07

Total depreciation equipmen' $203.62

Grand total depreciation real estate plus equipment $568.99

* Depreciation charged at 10% on poultry, real estate and equipment.

No depreciation charged on other real estate including dwelling house.

Money spent for minor repairs does not entitle item of real estate or

equipment to any deduction in depreciation charge,
t Where car or truck was used largely for business, depreciation was
charged.

in market eggs, 51.4' ,' of the total receipts were from sale of market
eggs, 18% from sale of broilers and roasters, and 12.5% from sale of
fowl. On the other hand, in a group of five farms which specialized in
breeding, the receipts from sale of market eggs were 37.8%, hatching
eggs 17.9$ , dav-old chicks 14.8%, broilers and roasters 10.9% and fowl
10.6%.

Expenses

The average cash expense on the 23 farms was $8019 (Table 6). This
is $(i.20 per bird housed, or $8.05 per bird based on average number
through the year. Feed represented the largest single expenditure, be-
ing about 65% of the total. The fact that the average expense for pur-
chased feed was over $5000 indicates the importance of feed prices. A
ten per cent increase in price of Uhh\ without a corresponding change
in price of poultry products would be disastrous to many poultry farm-
ers. Hired labor was the next largest item of expense, representing
10% of the total. On five farms averaging less than 500 layers, the
expense for labor was only 3% of the total. On some of the larger
farms it ran to \l.lc/< .

May, 1932]

Economic Study of Poultry Farms

Table 5 — Receipts — average 23 farms

Number

Market eggs 9955.3 doz.

Hatching- eggs 1613.7 doz.

Live fowl 634 birds

Ducks and geese

Dressed fowl 167.8 birds

Pullets sold 111.7 birds

Cock birds, Live 49.7 birds

Capons 2A birds

Cock birds, Dressed 5.4 birds

Cockerels 1-2 birds

Roasters, Live 182.3 birds

Boasters, Dressed 17-7 birds

Broilers, Live 1657.3 birds

Broilers, Dressed 16.1 birds

Started chicks 1 1 -3 birds

Day-old chicks 3339

Miscellaneous poultry receipts....

Grain sold

Trucking

Commission on grain sold. . . .

Custom hatching 2701.1 eggs

Equipment sold

Miscellaneous farm receipts

Fruit

Wood

Crops

Milk

Other stock

Bent of house to hired man . .
Increase in value inventory

Total receipts

Value

Per cent

$4392.18

43.5

1124.09

11.1

827.62

8.2

1.78
288.08

2.9

185.99

1.8

56.84

7.23

6.79

3.10
225.89

2.2

24.91

1051.64

10.4

20.28

6.52

675.60

6.7

48.26

314.69

3.1

35.95

9.91

80.46

23.15

13.42

33.77

4.43
88.66

45.82

19.61

18.70

453.53

4.5

$10,088.90

Monthly Relationship of Receipts and Expenses

In a business with large expenses, it is convenient, although not
always of vital importance, to have fairly even distribution of the rela-
tionship between receipts and expenses. The grain bill alone averaged
$434 per month per farm, and on one farm averaged $1048 per month ;
if income is delayed over many months, problems of finance arise which
are difficult to overcome.

The average monthly income and outgo on the 23 farms as shown in
Figure 1 were not constant. Both the expense curve and the income
curve vary during the year and show no particular relationship to
each other. The receipt curve was high in October and again in March,
April and May, reaching a peak of $1100 in April. Receipts were below
$750 in November, December, January, February, June and July. On
the other hand, the expense curve was highest in April and lowest in
November. Expenses exceeded receipts in January and June. The
periods of greatest margin of receipts over expenses were during fall
and spring.

Naturally, this monthly relationship of receipts and expenses varies
greatly with different farms and is influenced by such factors as time of

X. II. Age. Experiment Station [Bulletin 265

Table 6 Expenses -average iS farms

Expen —

Real estate

Equipment, Poultry

Equipment, < lenera 1

Poultry feed

Supplies, Poultry ,

Shavings

Straw

Peat

Coal

Day-old chicks

Poultry stuck purchased

Ducks purchased ,

Hatching eggs

Hired labor

.Miscellaneous poultry ,

Market eggs purchased.

( !ustom hatching

Test iu<^ and certifical ion . . •

Taxes

Insurance

Miscellaneous farm

Other feed

Truck

Stock purchased

Apples

Total expenses . . .

Amount

Value

Pi r cenl

$348.47

1.4

232.:::

2.9

71.40

.'.i

5212. 12

65.

76.40

L35

hales

53.76

35.6

hales

18.32

8.3

hales

18.24

129.99

1.6

679.5

136.61

1.7

6.3

ckls.

17.3

pullets-hens

24.85

.26

2347.3

eggs

160.74

2.1

2608.6

hours

873.80

10.9

181.61

2.3

38.9

dozen

16.02

1163.6

eggs

42.53

64.83

145.43

1.8

62.45

49.48

34.97

28.60

21.68

3.16

$8018.65

brooding operations, date of selling old fowl and type of poultry
business.

Farms doing a strictly market egg business show a more uniform
receipt curve. On eight farms the monthly receipts varied from $395
in February to $575 in June. In general the receipts were above $500
in October and November due to a combination of high seasonal egg
prices and the sale of old hens, and again in June due to sale of broil-
ers; and were below $450 in September, February, July and August.
On the same group of farms the expenses were above $500 in March
and April when chicks were purchased and brooding operations were
under way. Expenses were below $400 in September, November, De-
cember and February. Expenses exceeded receipts during January,
March, April and August.

On the other hand, eight farms doing a considerable hatching eix\:
and baby chick business had high receipts in March, April and May
due to sale of hatching eggs, chicks and broilers. The receipts were
also high in August, September and October due to the high seasonal
price of market eggs and sale of fowl. The expenses tended to be higher
in March, April and May, the incubation and brooding season.

The monthly cash income, monthly cash expenses and relationship of
the two are much more erratic in the case of individual farms since the
averages discussed above tend to smooth out the differences. But the
general average curves of income and expenses will serve to show the

May, 1932]

Economic Study Of Poultry Farms

(UU

—

600

r p

-.■"•"

'»

►»

500

til'

*,.

400

t*1

-f

»'

300

"»

F.,

i -

ZOO

100

ffiPil

MM!

F(i("j

_Evfii

1800

1700

1600

1500

1400

1300

1200

1100

1000

900

600

cift:

•N

,'•

,»

-I

:«

•,

■ "

»,

»•

\<"i

«•

ifi

R~i

(

L,H

Iff

700

g 600
° 500

400

300

ZOO

100

1200

1100

1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

?00

100

.'"

♦

-F

-v

-F

—«

—

•

,«

,'■

».

.«'

**<

-»■

,_j

>i<i

3
~3

Figure 1 — Monthly relationships of cash receipts and expenses on eight
market egg farms, on eight baby chick and hatching egg
farms and on all 2'A farms. (Taxes and insurance were
allocated evenly over the 12 months.)

N. II. Agr. Experiment Station [Bulletin 265

need of adequate financing in the periods of low margins over expenses.
The advantages and economy of the various credit sources should be
given careful consideration by the poultrymen, and perhaps some
attention to organizing the business to avoid short-time credit.

Financial Returns

Receipts minus expenses, including allowance for changes in inven-
tory, averaged $2070. This "farm income" is the return on capital
invested and labor and management of the operator.

Assuming the returns on capital as b% of the inventory, the interest
would average $671 annually. This taken from the farm income would
leave $1399 for returns on the operator's labor and management, or
"labor income." As shown in Table 7, the labor income varied from
-$726 to $8342. Six operators had minus labor incomes, five were be-
tween 0 and $1000, seven had between $1000 and $2000, and five had
over $2000. The labor income per bird (using average number of birds)
averaged $1.40. In addition to this, the family used farm products in
the home, — not only poultry products, but a considerable amount of
garden produce as well as milk, and wood. Valuation of these items is
shown in Table 8 on the basis of farm prices. In the case of eggs used
in the home, value was placed at 25^ per dozen, since most of them were
cracked or dirty and rather difficult to market. The total average value
of products from the farm used in the home was estimated at $248. It
is well to recall also that the operator had a house to live in which
might be conservatively estimated as worth $250 per year.

Table 7 — Farm income and labor income on individual farms

Rank in
income

Farm
income

Labor
income

Value of
farm product'
used in home

Labor income

plus value
produce used

-\:

1 !

$393.55

-$720.07

$125.00

-$601.67

22.09

005.40

422.50

- 182.90

109.09

594.37

425.00

- 109. 37

540. 90

- 114.01

135.00

20.39

232.30

69.38

292.50

22:;. 12

4 1 1 .84

41.02

104.91

03.29

799.82

85.83

158.25

244. OS

L55 1.99

687.91

552.00

1239.9!

1303.42

735.13

130.00

805.13

l 176.55

812.20

180.50

992.7 0

1299.10

936.00

340.00

1270.00

1446.44

1009.02

120.00

1 1S9.02

1986.40

1272.70

622.00

1894.76

1789.31

1295.70

343.75

1039.4 5

2023.36

1309.30

305.00

1674.36

2192.00

15S9.05

377.50

1900.55

264 1.70

1028.77

10S.75

1797.52

2 148.23

1087.42

212.50

1899.92

2869.70

2095.14

100.00

2195.14

2784.53

2221.75

175.00

2390.75

3605.06

3020.37

190.00

3210.37

6691.33

5481.21

147.50

5628.71

(1177.72

S3 12.30

85.00

8427.30

$2070.25

$1399.05

$248.38

$1647.43

May, 1932] Economic Study of Poultry Farms 13

Table 8 — Farm products and estimated value used in home

(Average 23 farms)

Estimated

Product value

Pork $1.09

Coal 1.39

Wood 71 .09

Poultry 5.43

Fowl 27.09

Broilers 2.93

Roasters 2.83

Eggs 43.70

Milk 37.09

Garden 46.09

Miscellaneous 2.69

Butter 6.96

$248.38

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT

In a general way in the group of 23 farms, flock management prac-
tices were fairly well standardized. However, the details of manage-
ment, which in many cases are the determining factors in success or
failure, varied on the different farms.

Breeding Stock

Most New Hampshire poultrymen have used pullets for breeding
stock for many years, and the enviable record of hatchability and liv-
abilty of chicks indicates that this practice has not lowered the vitality
of the stock. Increased egg production and size of bird indicate that
progress has been made in breeding under the pullet system. Of late
years, however, due mainly to prevailing lower prices of fowl and
broilers, more poultrymen are making a practice of keeping over the
best 20% of the birds for the second laying year and securing hatching
eggs from these pens.

It has been estimated that 90% of the poultry population of the State
are heavy breeds with Reds greatly predominating. The 23 flocks in
this study were divided as follows : 19 Reds, 2 White Leghorns, 1 Reds
and Leghorns, and 1 Reds and Rocks.

The New Hampshire Reds are an exceptionally early maturing
strain. They mature at from four to five months, and have a body
weight of 4!/2 to 5% pounds when housed, and usually 6 or 6V2 pounds
at the end of the first laying year. Certain strains exceed this weight.

Management of Layers and Breeders

The birds are housed in permanent quarters in pens of 100 to 300 at
about the time laying commences. Very few poultrymen have yards for
the lavers, and in most cases the birds are never allowed out of doors
after being placed in the laying pens.

X. II. Age. Experiment Station [Bi-lletiv 265

The type of house varies, although in nearly all eases an open front
i> used. On many farms, old dairy barns have been remodelled into
poultry houses with three to four decks. Three to four square feet of
floor space per bird is usually allowed — 3.47 square feet for the Red
flocks and 3.31 square feet for the three Leghorn flocks. None of the
farms furnished the birds with artificial heat.

Mash was kept before the birds at all times. The majority of the
poultrymen fed commercial mashes, although some were using the Xew
England Conference Ration, or ;i formula of their own based on the
conference ration. The method of scratch feeding varied. Some men
fed scratch in hoppers and kept it before the birds at all times, thereby
allowing them to adjust the mash-scratch ratio according to their body
requirements. Others fed a definite amount morning and night, limit-
ing the quantity according to the condition of the birds. Still other
variations of scratch feeding systems were found. A wet mash was gen-
erally fed during certain periods either to stimulate production or.
with fattening ingredients, to prevent fall molt in early hatched pul-
lets. Green feed was also used extensively; germinated oats were most
popular, with cabbage and mangles following. Those men not feeding
an accessory green or succulent generally incorporated alfalfa leaf
meal in the mash. Cod liver oil or cod liver meal was generally fed dur-
ing the entire period that the layers were housed. Only two of the 23
farms were using liquid milk. Condensed or semi-solid buttermilk was
more popular.

Thirteen farms used lights on their laying flocks, turning them on
in such a way as to allow the birds a twelve or thirteen hour day.
Over half the farms furnished the layers warm water during the cold
weather period, either by carrying or through the use of heated foun-
tains. Shavings, straw, peat or hay were used for litter.

Brooding and Rearing

Colony houses arc still the most common type of brooder building in
New Hampshire, although most of the newer plants use the permanent
continuous type. On four farms chicks were brooded in these new type,
coiil in nous hot water brooder systems with a central source of heat.
On four other farms the newly hatched chicks were kept in batteries
for two or more weeks. The other farms brooded chicks with a stove
in each pen.

One of Die larger poultry plants tiiat co-operated in the study

Mat, 1932]

Economic Study op Poultry Farms

Where batteries were not used, the chicks after removal from the
incubator were placed under the brooder canopy and feed was gener-
ally placed before them immediately. In all but a few cases, scratch
was not fed until the third or fourth week. Most poultrymen fed noth-
ing but a starting mash for the first few weeks. Generally, the birds
were kept in confinement until nine or ten weeks of age when they
were either placed on range in the common New England range shelter
or were allowed to range in front of the brooder house. A few farms
had wire porches for use the first nine or ten weeks.

Pullets were placed on unlimited sod range at nine or ten weeks of
age. The usual practice was to use a range once in three years, leaving
it idle for two years. This, of course, required three ranges used in
rotation.

Fifteen farms had piped water to the range, and eight of these had
installed automatic fountains.

LABOR

On the 23 farms, an average of 6087 hours of man labor was
accounted for. Of this amount 3234 hours, or 53% of the total, was
provided by the owner; 2609 hours, or 43%, by hired labor; and only
245, or 4%, by the owner's wife or other members of the family. The
amount of poultry farm work done by members of the family other
than the operator was very small, averaging only about forty minutes
per day per farm. Considering the average size of flocks to be 1290 at
the maximum, the amount of hired labor required seems large. The 23
farms employed 14 hired men on a full time basis, and in addition a
total of 16,322 hours of hired seasonal or part time labor. The cost of
this hired labor, including in a few cases an estimate on value of board
provided, was $20,092.61, or $874 per farm. The average cost of all
labor hired, including both regular and extra, was 33.4^- per hour.

Table 9 — Man hours monthly expended by owner and others
— average of 23 farms

Month

Hours expended by

Other

Hired

Cost of
hired

Total
hours

Owner

Wife

unpaid labor

labor

254.9

13.6

177.2

$60.66

445.7

266.3

10.6

1.7

198.0

59.83

476.6

257.1

10.4

1.8

190.0

74.90

459.3

267.2

10.6

1.7

193.5

65.70

473.0

272.0

13.2

1.8

191.3

65.71

478.3

261.0

13.0

3.9

180.5

60.71

458.4

291.0

18.3

18.4

230.0

75.61

557.7

300.0

27.0

5.9

256.8

83.01

589.7

278.6

34.5

....

278.6

89.92

591.7

274.0

18.3

2.8

237.3

77.97

532.4

254.0

17.9

2.0

240.7

81.75

514.6

258.1

11.9

5.3

234.7

77.83

510.0

September
October
November
December
January .
February
March . . .
April

May

June

July

August

Total

3234.2

199.3

45.3

2608.6

$873.59

6087.4

N. II. Age. Experiment Station [Bulletin 265

Monthly labor requirements varied considerably, but the expend-
ituiv was evened up somewhat by work on odd tasks, repairs, building,
etc., during the dull periods. The amount of labor needed is naturally
Largest during the brooding season before the young stock is put on
the range. On the average farm this peak labor requirement is in
March, April and -May. and is partly taken up by longer working days
on the part of the owner himself. Note in Table 9 that the owner's
Labor in hours per month jumps from 255 in September to 291 in March
and 300 in April. The requirements drop off in June and are lowest
during the fall and winter.

Division of Time

Work on poultry farms consists of so many small and varied opera-
tions and shifts so greatly from day to day that accurate figures on
division of time are very difficult to obtain. However, through monthly
estimates by the poultrymen data were secured which give the approxi-
mate division of time of the daily regular chore work. A fairly large
proportion of total labor comes under the classification "miscellaneous
poultry," which includes work such as cleaning pens, moving birds,
marketing, dressing fowl, and all time on poultry aside from regular
chore work. It is interesting to note in Table 10 that "chore" work
accounts for about 75% of the total labor expended.

Table 10 — Man hours spent on hoi.s, chicks, incubation, etc., by months

— Average 28 farms

miscel-

in-

laneous

real

outside

laneous

Total

Month

hens

chicks

cuba ti on

poultry

estate

labor

farm

labor

hoars

hours

h rars

September

L96.9

68.3

....

1 1 3.2

13.3

2.6

5 1.1

445.7

< October

210.7

35.6

142.1

17.8

....

64.4

476.6

November

217.4

17.1

3.7

157.8

8.4

54.0

459.:!

I December

225.2

14.9

6.3

175.2

50.5

47:;. 0

.l.i auary

221,9

30.1

12.7

L65.2

2.4

46.0

478.3

February

213.6

64.2

22.!!

118.8

:;.:;

36.2

458.4

M;i rch

107.2

145.8

31.6

1 10.0

0.5

....

36.6

5 5 7.7

April

196.5

225.2

28. 1

Ot.l

3.9

2.6

42.0

580.7

May

182.2

2:;7.7

Ki.2

86.1

5.2

2.0

61.7

501.7

.1 line

17:;.:.

20:5.7

1.7

90.0

4.8

2.6

56. 1

532.4

July

172.1)

L68.8

....

05.7

7.0

....

71.1

514.6

A hL! list

190.4

124.3

....

1 :;:!.:!

0.4

2.6

50.0

5 10.0

Total

2 i 13.5

1 :::::>. 7

122.'.)

1508.5

82.9

13.0

620.9

60S7.4

As would be expected, labor on the Laying flock represents the larg-
est item, accounting for .'}!)..">', of the total labor for the year. This
daily chore work on hens is largest from October to February, when
the number of layers is largest, and is at the lowest point during dune
and duly. (Fig. 2)

Labor on brooding and rearing young stock is not very high until
March and reaches its peak in April and May. Naturally, labor require-

May, 1932] Economic Study of Poultry Farms

ments for young stock drop off as soon as the birds are put on range,
which on most farms was in June.

600
550
500

450
400
350

§300

£250
^200

150

100

Misc. Farm
Real Estate
Incubation
Misc. Poultry
Chicks
Hens

*)*&}

5lpt Oct Nov.

Figure 2 — A comparison of monthly labor requirements of hens,

chicks, etc., on 23 farms.

The amount of miscellaneous poultry labor is largest during October,
November, December and January, the "dull" season. "When labor re-
quirements for chore work are low, the poultryman uses the extra time
by making repairs on poultry equipment, moving brooder houses and
range shelters to new locations, and cleaning and spraying houses.
With the approach of the busy brooding season the time available for
this miscellaneous work naturally becomes less, and the labor on odd
jobs drops off. The miscellaneous farm work on crops or animals not
connected with poultry amounted to only 620.9 hours per farm, or
about 10% of the total.

Comparison of Labor on Laying Flocks

The regular chore work on hens on the 23 farms averaged 2.4 hours
per hen annually, ranging from 1.1 hours on Farm 11 to 5.8 hours on
Farm 6. (Table 11)

On the 14 farms with less than 1000 hens, the daily chores on laying
flocks averaged 2.7 hours per hen per year, and on the 9 farms with
over 1000 hens, 2.2 hours. The men with larger flocks tended to have
more efficient equipment and to use their time to better advantage. The

N. II. Age. Experiment Station [Bulletin 265

daily chore work was not the only time spent on hens, but it offers a
good comparison between farms. When the miscellaneous work on
hens is included, the comparison is not as complete because different
poultrymcn carry their services to different phases of the production
and marketing program. Some packed their eggs in cases without
grading or candling and sold to peddlers weekly. Others carefully
graded and even retailed eggs. Some sold the broilers or fowl at whole-
sale in one lot without much attention to selection. When all the labor
(including miscellaneous) on hens is included, the average was 3.3
hours per hen per year, and the range was from 2.1 to 7.2 hours.

Table 11 — Comparison of man labor on chore work on .?•? farms

Hours

Number

chore

of pullets

Total hours

work

Average

Total hours

Hours

raised plus

chore work

per 100

Farm

number

chores on

per

breeding

on raising

pullets

number

layers

layer

cockerels

pullets

raised

99]

2224

2.2

2048

969

471

1010

2.1

721

619

654

1945

3.0

1855

3184

172

2548

5370

2.1

4300

1959

1040

2115

2.0

1825

1119

354

2057

5.8

985

1879

191

697

1571

2.2

1346

925

676

1630

2.4

811

717

1 5 1 it

2735

1.8

1915

964

967

2756

2.8

1855

1313

1014

1715

1.1

3508

1598

2105

7386

3.5

2620

3429

131

836

2240

2.7

1175

898

40")

1380

2.8

800

910

114

704

1467

2.1

812

852

105

458

947

2.1

772

862

112

583

1183

2.0

1410

931

1 1 17

2086

1.9

1500

1034

687

2220

3.2

1262

1371

109

1107

2 74 9

2.5

1180

785

484

14 83

3.1

1210

847

1356

2798

2.1

2304

1990

1433

3 1 58

2.2

2270

999

Total

22896

54225

38544

30160

Weighted

average

2.37

Comparison of Labor in Rearing Pullets

In the production of pullets, the regular chore work per 100 pullets
raised averaged 78 hours, with a range of Hi to 101 hours. On 13 farms
the time on pullets was below SO hours per 100 pullets, and on 7 farms,
it was over 100 hours. The 13 smallest flock of pullets raised used 90
hours, and the 10 largest flocks used 71 hours per 100 pullets.

May, 1932]

Economic Study of Poultry Farms

Labor Efficiency

"When the farms are grouped by average number of layers, the total
hours of labor is greater for the larger flocks, but the total hours per
bird decreases from 10 hours in the less-than-500-birds group to ap-
proximately 5 hours per hen in the 1001-1500 group. (Table 12.) On
larger farms no significant change appears in hours per bird. It is well
to note that in the flocks of over 1000 birds about one half as much
labor was required per bird as in flocks under 500 birds.

Table 12 — Labor reauirments and size of farm

Labor summary

Number
farms

Average

number

birds

Hours man

labor

Average
cost hired
man labor

Percent

total

labor

hired

Average number
birds for year

Average
per farm

Average

per
100 birds

Average

hired
per farm

Less than 500

501 — 1000
1001 — 15C0
1501 — 2000
Over 2000

9
5
2
o

406

755

1211

1567

2326

4064
5743
6023
7510
11428

1000
761
497
479
491

339
2194
2910
4069
7934

$128.11
644.93
1052.26
1330.98
2836.68

8.3
38.2
48.3
54.2
69.4

Average all farms

995

6087

611

2609

$873.59

42.8

The explanation of this wide difference in efficiency may lie partly
in the fact that the man with 500 birds spends more time because he
has proportionally more time to spend. He is disposed to use freely the
time which he has available. With a change in philosophy and in meth-
ods, perhaps he could just as well take care of more birds.

Of course, most of the 500-bird flocks are operated by those just
entering the business or those feeling their way financially before ex-
panding too rapidly. If they are successful, in a few years they will
have the ability and capital to have a larger unit. The small farms are
often lacking in labor-saving equipment and in organization of work to
do things quickly.

It is difficult to compare operations between farms because the men
combine jobs in different ways to such an extent that the time required
to do one particular task is indefinite. Gathering eggs, for instance, is
associated with watering at noon, with feeding at night and with cull-
ing in the morning.

High labor requirements were due to one or more of the following
factors :

1. Poor arrangement of buildings, requiring much travel in

feeding, gathering eggs, etc.

2. Poor water system, requiring much additional time in

lugging water, cleaning utensils, etc.

3. Unsystematic organization of daily chore work.

4. Poultry in very small units requiring extra attention.

5. Unhandy equipment or poor interior arrangement of pens.

6. Physical ability of operator.

7. Uneconomic management practices requiring large labor

expenditure.

20 X. II. Agb. Expeeiment Station [Bulletin 265

Tn many instances, the use of extra labor resulted from lack of avail-
able capital rather than from lack of understanding of the problem.
Farms with inadequate equipment were considering changes to save
labor as fast as their capital warranted.

Practicallv every farm contributed some rather ingenious labor-
saving method or device. On one farm the operator had practically cut
out the large amount of labor necessary to clean dropping boards by
merely placing his roosts over a wire-mesh frame. The droppings thus
required cleaning only a few times a year. In spite of the fact that this
method was wasteful' of space it suited that particular poultry-man's
conditions. On several farms were found home-made automatic water-
ing devices, automatic switches for turning on lights in laying pens,
central heating plants for brooding, carriers and many other devices
for saving labor.

Hired Labor

On the small farms about 8% of the total labor, or 339 hours, was
hired, and on the large farms 69%, or 7934 hours. The cost of this
labor averaged $128 on the small farms, and $2837 on the large farms.
The nine farms in the 501-1000 bird size found it necessary to hire 38%
of their total labor, which represented an out-of-pocket expense of
$64.1.

In contrast to these rather large expenditures for labor was the situ-
ation on certain individual farms. For instance. Farm 18, with an aver-
age of 1117 layers and a baby chick business, hired only 250 hours of
labor, representing an expenditure of only $84. In other words, on this
particular farm of over 1000 birds only 7% of the total labor was
hired. The efficiency comes from well-planned daily chores and a well
organized plant layout,

This matter of hired labor is of tremendous importance to the indi-
vidual poultryman, and with threatened lower margins will in the
future need to be given more attention. The size of business must be
adjusted to the available labor. On a one-man plant, sufficient layers
should be housed to use the operator's time to best advantage. The
number will, of course, depend on the physical ability of the operator
and the type of poultry business. The operator who expects to keep a
year-round man should plan not only to have business of sufficient size
to keep both the hired man and himself busy but to use the time advan-
tageously. Some of the farms have more layers than one man can care
for conveniently, and yet not enough to keep a hired man employed to
advantage at all times; under these circumstances the operator and the
man put in the time but do not operate efficiently during- most of the
year. An increase in size of business beyond the point where outside or
additional labor must be employed should be planned only when the
additional income will more than offset the additional expenses, includ-
ing the cost of extra labor.

May, 1932]

Economic Study of Poultry Farms

FEED CONSUMPTION OF LAYERS
Pullet Layers (Heavy Breeds)

Accurate daily feed consumption and egg production records were
secured on 15 of the 23 pullet-laying flocks (all heavy breeds) repre-
senting a total of 10,879 birds for the year. From these data the rela-
tionship between weekly feed consumption and weekly production of
eggs was studied.

It will be noted in Figure 3 that the feed consumption curve and the
egg production curve rise and fall somewhat in unison. Increased pro-
duction is accompanied by increased feed consumption, and those who
attempt to increase production at certain periods resort to wet mashes,
etc., to get the birds to eat more. Lighting of laying pens, through in-
creasing the length of day, also makes it possible for the laying birds to
assimilate more feed.

Figike 3 — Weekly feed consumption curve and weekly egg production
curve on 15 pullet flocks (heavy breeds).

A study of the separate curves for mash and scratch brings out sev-
eral interesting facts. Apparently, mash consumption follows the pro-
duction curve more closely than does scratch consumption. This is true
except during June, July and August. Then consumption of mash holds
up while production drops. This is largely due to attempts to stay the
rapidly dropping production by wet mashes.

In the case of scratch consumption, the curve rises from September
15th on, in spite of the fact that production drops very low. This is un-
doubtedly due to the increased energy requirements of the birds in
maintaining body heat during the cold weather.

Table 13 consists of a summary on the individual farms of average
feed consumption per bird (per week), together with the average per
cent production for the year, and feed per one dozen eggs. The
weighted average per bird per week for these flocks shows .81 lbs.
mash, 1.19 lbs. scratch, 2.00 lbs. total feed. Of the total feed, 40.5%
was mash. Thus on an annual basis, it required 42.1 lbs. of mash, 61.9
lbs. scratch or a total of 104 lbs. of feed to keep a laying bird. The aver-

22 N. II. Age. Experiment Station [Bulletin 265

age production on these flocks vras 39.3%. Using average feed eon-
sumption and average production on these flocks, 8.71 lbs. of feed was
required to produce a dozen eggs. The variation in amount of feed per
week in the individual flocks was from 1.75 lbs. to 2. "24 lbs.

Table 13-

-.1 verage

in ( klii ft i
on

// consumption

11 pitllt 1 pur];

p< r bird tin

'/ ]>' r aozt «

eggs

Farm

Total

Per cent

Per cenl

V 1 per

number

Mash

Sera: ih

Ee ed

ma ^Ii

production

l\ I/..T1 etfUS

lbs.

.(is

1.21

1.89

36.0

: 9.8

8.14

.48

1.37

1.85

25.9

37.9

8.37

.::;

L.09

L.82

40.1

44.3

7.04

.91

1.13

°..04

44.6

42.5

8.23

.73

1.13

1.86

39.2

43.2

7.3,8

.87

1.18

2.05

42.4

311.4

8.92

.66

1.22

1.88

35.1

36.1

8.93

.89

1.20

2.09

42.6

39.6

9.05

.77

1.20

1.97

39.1

41.5

8.14

.92

1.1 1

2.03

45.3

42.0

8.28

.98

1.23

2.21

44.3

39.9

9 50

.75

1.10

1.85

40.5

40.4

7.85

.83

.92

1.75

47.4

27.0

11.11

.94

1.01

1.95

48.2

41.0

8.15

.96

1.28

2.24

42.9

40.1

9.58

Weighted

Average

.81

1.19

2.00

40.5

39.3

8.71

In spite of the fact that the weekly feed consumption and weekly egg
production seem to fluctuate together when all the farms are grouped
together as indicated in Figure 3, there appears to be little relationship
between annual feed consumption and production when individual
farms are compared with each other. This is probably due to differ-
ences in strain of birds, in management, and in feed.

Old Hens (Heavy Breeds)

Tn the same way, figures on feed consumption and egg production
were obtained on six lots of old hens, representing an average of 647
birds for the year. The relationship between feed consumption and pro-
duction was not found materially different from that of pullets. How-
ever, the proportion of scratch to mash sums higher in the case of old
hens.

A summary of the feed consumption and production of the individual
flocks is shown in Table 14. It will be noted that average feed con-
sumption per bird per week was slightly lower than that of pullets: 1.0
lhs. compared to 2. lbs. Of (his total, only 34' t was mash, as compared
to 40..")' '< for pullets. Production of old hens was lower. Amount of
feed per one dozen eggs was much higher, 12 lbs., as compared with 8.7
lbs. For pullets. In other words, it took 3.3 lbs. more feed to produce a
dozen cows from old hens.

May, 1932]

Economic Study

of For

ltey Farms

Table 14—

Average

weekly feed consumption per bird
on six old hen flocks

and

per doz

en eggs

Farm
number

Peed
Mash

isumed per bird

per

week

Per ci nl
Mash

Per cent
production

Feed per
dozen eggs

Scratch

tal feed

lbs.
.68

lbs.
1.23

lbs.

1.91

3."). 6

%
25.7

lbs.

12.7 1

.4 6

1.51

1.97

23.3

26.0

12.1H)

.74

L.03

1.77

41.8

35.4

8.57

.65

1.15

1.80

36.1

22.4

13.74

.47

1.33

1.80

26.1

24.6

12.54

.93

1.13

2.06

45.1

28.7

12.42

Weighted
Average

.65

1.26

1.91

27.4

11.96

Weekly Feed Consumption Per Dozen Eggs

The week-by-week feed consumption per dozen eggs is, of course,
influenced by changes in the rate of production of eggs and to some
extent by season of the year.

The average feed consumption was 8.7 pounds of grain per dozen
eggs in the pullet flocks and 12 pounds in the old hen flocks. As shown
in Figure 4, the feed requirement of pullets per dozen eggs was greatest
during the months of October, November and December — the period
of lowest production. It varied from a peak of 12.2 lbs. in October
when production was 29 %, to 5.3 lbs. in March when production was
55%. "

62
60

—r~

Ejb

a 36

if *>

° V

I 30

J M
"• 26

°c ,,

g 18
& 1*

,"'

—

■-

...

? r

rT n

■

.„

...

-- ,

„*'

—

.->

.-'

— .

•

5 %~

!t 8- «Si

ojL'iwoiOMm*|^«

OliD Jp © <G (■"> O '

, _ E g _ c £ ~ |

■no'-''

WEEK BEGINNING

Figure 4 — Weekly feed consumption per dozen eggs in 15 pullet flocks

(heavy breeds)

X. II. Age. Experiment Station [Bulletin 265

In contrast to this the feed consumption per dozen eggs in old hen
flocks varied from 6.7 lbs. in March with 50' < production to the very
high requirement of 60.8 lbs. in November, when production was only
.")', . Old hen flocks took over nine times as much feed per dozen eggs
in November as in March. Of course, while these weekly comparisons
are interesting, the situation over the year period is of much greater
significance. However, a study of Figure 5 does indicate that, on the

a x

...

4tt

1 I

4f v

/ i

i j .. +:

/ \

/ V^i A

\r t /\

/ L J 5

i T \^/ V/i

1 t- v^^

/ \ , ^ ^^

/ r*\ / ^

/ \ /

\ J \ >

y*"^ \ /

\ / \ /

\ / ^^^

V ,r ^

^^ A / ^*

X. £- \ •*'""**-— ^---'^N^ ^,-"***"" ^

\ y' %-k.«— ^|<#, .. ** "*■ — ^•*-

^— '

_i_

_L t~

SlS *5 £ 3 Is* ^ J

Wax Bcginning

Figure 5 — Weekly feed consumption per dozen eggs in 6 old hen flocks

(heavy breeds)

average, old hens are carried several months in the fall at a consider-
able net feed cost. It is roughly estimated, for instance, that in the
four months of October, November, December and January the product
of 100 old hens assuming average rate of mortality and culling would
be 121 dozen eggs, worth approximately $70, while the feed cost would
be 2995 pounds, or approximately $75. Thus, under price conditions at
the time of the study the income from egg production from old hens
was not sufficient to cover feed cost from October to February. In
this case, the poultryman has much the same problem that the dairy-
man has with respect to carrying dry cows over a long period.

Mortality MORTALITY AND CULLING

The average mortality of the laying flock based on the maximum
number of birds was 16.9 per cent. In other words, out of 100 birds
housed in the fall 16.9 died before the year was up. The actual number
that died averaged 217.6 birds per farm. The per cent mortality figure
was obtained by dividing the actual number that died (217.6) by the
maximum number of birds (1290.3) housed per farm. The mortality
per farm ranged from f).(i to 35.9%. Only 5 farms had less than 10%
mortalitv on layers; 6 farms had from 10-15%; 4 farms had from 15-
20% ; and 8 farms had over 20%.

May, 1932] Economic Study of Poultry Farms 25

There was apparently little correlation between the size of the flock
and the mortality since both large and small flocks are well scattered
in all the mortality percentage groupings.

The actual weekly mortality per farm did not vary greatly through-
out the year. Losses were slightly heavier during March, April, May
and June, the period of heaviest production, averaging over 5 birds per
farm per week during that period. At other seasons the losses averaged
less than 4 birds per week per farm.

Estimated at meat prices, the average loss of 218 birds per farm from
the laying flock would amount to about $300. The actual loss in many
instances may be much greater than the value of the birds for meat,
since heavy losses early in the laying period reduce the potential earn-
ing capacity of the flock.

Mortality in old hens, based on number of old hens kept over for a
second year, was 18%. Mortality in pullets was 16.2%. The difference
is slight and probably not significant.

Culling

Out of a maximum number of birds per farm of 1290, culling during
the year removed 850, or 66%. Mortality removed another 17%, leav-
ing only 17% of the original birds to be inventoried at the end of the
year. Heavy culling started about June 15 and reached its peak about
October 1, when housing room was needed for the new crop of pullets.
Culling from November to May was low and nearly constant, averag-
ing about 11 birds per week per farm.

It is quite probable that too heavy culling of the market-egg birds
is practiced on many farms. Such culling during the winter and spring
leaves the poultryman with a greatly depleted flock in July and Au-
gust. But on the other hand, many poultrymen cull too little. A careful
daily check on the condition of individual birds is advisable, as certain
birds in good flesh can be taken out and marketed as poultry meat
which otherwise in a few days would show marked evidence of decline
and would later appear as a loss.

Culling of healthy birds merely because their production is below
certain standards can be carried to extremes. Their removal from the
laying flock does not decrease the general overhead. Depreciation, in-
surance, taxes and labor usually continue about as before. On a farm
that is housing birds to capacity, culling would have little effect on
expense except to reduce the total cost of feed. The decision of whether
to cull or not can be made largely on the basis of returns in relation
to feed cost. For instance, a pen of 100 birds would consume approxi-
mately 200 lbs. of feed in a week, which at present prices would cost
about $3.50. When eggs are worth 35 cents, ten dozen or 17% pro-
duction would pay for the grain ; at 25 cents, fourteen dozen or 24%
production would be needed to balance. As long as the equipment,
buildings and labor are available, something above feed cost may be
better than nothing.

Or based on a year's production and assuming that a low producer
will lay most of her eggs during the low priced spring period, if she is
able to lay more than enough to pay for 104 lbs. of feed, this small in-
come may be better than none.

X. II. Age. Experiment Station [Bulletin 265

If we assume a farm with capacity for 1000 hens and with available
family labor and if it is further estimated that 250 of these hens will
produce only 100 eggs per year, culling them might reduce tin- gross
returns -$600. The gross expenses might be reduced $500. Tims if
these birds were Left in the flock the operator would have $100 more
cash at the end of the year.

It is desirable to grow more pullets than are required and then to
eliminate carefully the poorest prospects until the number is equal to
the capacity of the housing. The farm can then operate to capacity
through most of the year, and the culled pullets can probably be sold
for enough to pay for their cost.

The above discussion of culling applies only to market-egg flocks.
The breeder or producer of hatching eggs and baby chicks cannot be
too strict in his selection of birds in the fall nor in his culling through-
out the breeding season.

Rate of Decrease in Population of Laying Flock

The size of the laying flock during the various periods of the year is
dependent on three factors: (1) removal of birds through death — mor-
tality; (2) removal of birds for sale or use on the table— culling; (3)
addition of birds to the laying flock by housing or by purchase.

The number of birds each week in the average laying flock is shown
in Figure 6. The maximum size of flock was reached the week of No-

1 I 1

f >**

■■"•■•■ .^

■^

I I -

*••<...

**-

Tf\

—•

--!■

■N

t ±

^ 1

:~z z

% X

^^ i

f ± ^

'V- '

500 •

■ /

— s

s /

^-yT

i S

X £

T v

l<r

SO PULLLT

<JUS£0 ^2

5 '

100 -■

^— •— -^^

i- f

upt

li-

*T^r~

it*

—

— '

-^s^

fc u s a

<fi e z q

3 £ 1

Week Beginning

■<

Fioubb () — Average weekly size or population of 23 laying flocks.

vember 17. Due to culling and mortality the number declined gradually
and at nearly a constant rate until about June 1. In spite of the fact
that culling was particularly heavy from dune on, the rate of decline
slackened because of the addition of early hatched birds from the new
crop of pullets. However, in spite of this increase, the total number of
birds dropped rapidly alter duly 1. reaching a low point about the first
of September.

May, 1932]

Economic Study of Poultry Farms

This rate of decrease in the laying flock from a maximum point as
well as the date of maximum population naturally varied considerably
on different farms. In order to study this difference, the number of
layers in four individual flocks each week is charted for the year on the
percentage basis in Figure 7. The maximum number housed is consid-

— -j = o|G-«"r'SiS'o"S~',s::S-<0-S5'r,^2?S'VJ'7'£!3'v'm£2S'D-SE

' £ 8 i & * £ I I

Week Beginning

M ^ — (vj eu -WW — — «^

Figure 7 — Weekly population of laying flock for four farms, two of
which maintained their flock at nearly full capacity and two
of which culled heavily.

ered 100% in each case. These four flocks illustrate entirely different
practices in respect to culling. Flocks Nos. 8 and 4 show only a very
gradual decline in number of birds from the peak about October 1. Ap-
parently very little culling is done on these farms during the fall, win-
ter and spring. In the case of Flock 8, out of the 100 birds housed in
October, 86 were still on hand the following September 1. In the case
of Flock No. 4, heavy culling did not commence until May 11. These
two flocks operated at nearly full capacity, as far as number of birds
was concerned, for the greater part of the year.

In contrast to these flocks, Farms Nos. 6 and 3 culled heavily. On
the last named flock, heavy culling started immediately after the birds
were housed in the fall and continued until June, when the flock was
replenished by the addition of a new crop of early hatched 1930 pul-
lets. Culling was so extremely heavy in this flock that out of each 100
birds of October 20, only a few over 40 remained by the middle of
March, only five months later. By June 1, the flock was reduced to only
12% of the maximum number of birds. It is obvious that this last men-
tioned poultry plant was run at full capacity for only a very short
period.

Per Cent of Housing Capacity for the Year

A comparison of the average per cent of capacity at which the laying
flock was maintained on the various farms is of value as a measure of
efficiency. The estimate in Table 15, based on a direct comparison be-
tween the average number of birds for the year with the maximum
number in the fall, shows that the farms varied from 89% to 65.2% of
full capacity.

28 X. II. Agb. Experiment Station [Bulletin 265

Table L5 Maximum and average number of hints in '■' laying flocks
inn! tin per cent of capacity for the year

Farm

Maximum

Average number

Per cent capacity

Per cent

number

number l> i r<l <

bird-- for year

per year

prod

action

L273

991

39.9

610

471

33.9

:; .

1004
3099

654
2548

30.9

49.7

1307
5 1 3

1040
354

80
69

34,8

43.9

995
761

697
676

40.6

iii.c

1936
L341

1519

967

78
72

36.9

10.

37.8

1 1 .

2126
2727

1614
2105

40.0

12.

43.0

13.

1060
751

836
495

79
66

38.0

14.

41.0

15.

1057

704

39.3

16.

613

458

36.4

17.

862

583

39.0

18.

1314

1117

35.9

19.

1000

687

40.9

20.

1350

1107

39.0

21.

575

484

40.5

22.

1731

1356

34.9

23.

1673

1433

38.4

Total

29678

22896

1290

995

39.7

Six farms maintained an average number of birds of over 80% of full
capacity; 8 farms from 75% to 80% ; 3 farms from 70% to 75% ; and 6
farms were below 70%. On the average the farms maintained an aver-
age population of layers at 77% of the maximum housed in the fall.

Heavy culling may improve the per cent production of an individual
flock, but a comparison of the last two columns of Table 15 shows little
correlation. The six farms which maintained an average number of
birds of over 80% of capacity had an average production of 43.4%. The
six farms below 70% of capacity averaged 40.5%.

EGG PRODUCTION

The seasonal production of eggs is influenced by the date of hatch of
the Laying flock. It will be noted in Table 16 that most of the birds on
the 23 farms were hatched in February, March and April. 1929. Only
5%, were hatched earlier than February 1, and on the other hand, onlv
16.6% after May 1.

Annual Egg Production

Based on average number of birds, the average flock production per
layer was 145 eggs. When expressed in per cent production, the aver-
age was 39.7%. Variation in flock production on individual farms was
from 113 to 181 eggs per bird. Only three Hocks averaged over 150

May, 1932] Economic Study of Poultry Farms

•i!)

eggs. Eleven flocks averaged between 140 and 150; five between 130
and 140, and four between 110 and 130 eggs.

The pullets in all 23 flocks produced approximately 150 eggs per
bird, or 41%. Only one flock was below 130 eggs. Four were between
130 and 140, eight were between 140 and 150, and ten were over 150
eggs.

The production of old hen flocks, which made up about 12% of the
total number of layers, was considerably lower than that of the pullets,
being only 112 eggs, or 31%- per bird. This is 38 eggs less than the
average pullet production.

Toward the end of the year, there were a few pens of early hatched
pullets housed. The production of these 1930 pullets averaged 20.8%
for the short time before the records were closed, and is included al-
though the period was so short that there was little effect on the flock
production for the year.

Table 16-

-Dii

■tribution

of dates of hatch

showing

number of pullets

hatched

montl

s in laying

flocks

on 23 farms in 1929

Number of pullets

Farm No.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

April

May

Total

800

589

1389

. . .

....

735

252

430

(TO

2067

...

....

900

397

....

1297

. . .

....

600

975

....

1575

. . .

....

233

234

933

. . .

....

842

....

842

. . .

....

820

240

....

1060

. . .

....

431

....

862

. . .

....

751

....

751

. . .

175

825

....

1000

. . .

....

170

427

430

1027

. . .

645

....

350

....

995

. . .

....

176

107

243

....

526

130

145

....

300

142

862

. . .

....

1936

....

1936

• • .

....

484

. . .

> ■ • .

450

370

....

255

1075

■ . .

....

370

240

610

. . .

271

....

140

120

....

531

. . .

....

659

102

761

■ • ■

....

450

1350

. . >

....

• . • •

• • . .

1076

2152

....

1400

1250

456

3106

Total number

130

1236

4039

9846

7421

4519

27191

Per cent

4.6

14.8

36.2

27.3

16.6

100%

Egg Production by Weeks

Figure 8 indicates the average percentage production by weeks for
pullets, old hens and the flock as a whole on the 23 farms. Flock pro-
duction was high from the last week in February to the first of June
with a peak in the week beginning March 30; the low per cent produc-

N. II. AGB. Experiment Station [Bulletin 365

tion was iii October, November and December. In a general way, this
production curve is inverse to the price curve, suggesting that this
group of poultrymen is probably little better than the average in secur-
ing high product ion during the period of high seasonal prices.

6f-

-H-

50-
4fl

ii=:

1 ■

ns-^

K Piurr-

V- \

/^V /.5s*/

SC""N--V'l<

V- \

/ Twi /

P 32-

V--.

<^S^ >

- /

2 30-

o ?R

"• -<

•' — >

" -p

a '■'-'

fUJO. FteOOULTKM

»- 24

N-.

/■"- 1930

:i:

\ ^

\ /

v-^

;

f-J — — n,i _ ' _ -_ — - j r-j -— — «j — f\j(Vj — — *J «-*0 — CSJ O •— W W *- » M — t_ cw »- GJ M _ _ co r

SB 5 £ S £

5 o
4l

Sis 4£i 5 f

Wcek Beginning

FIgure 8 — Average weekly percentage e^p- production curves on 2:5 farms.

Of particular interest is the comparison of old hens and pullets.
Production of old hens dropped off rapidly after September 1 and
reached the low point of 5% on December 1. After this date it in-
creased rapidly, reaching 43 % by March 1 and a peak of 52 r/< the last
of May. Spring production of old hens was nearly as high as that of
pullets, while summer production averaged slightly higher.

Since the old hens were very low in production in the fall whim the
seasonal high price indicates a shortage of fresh eggs, the practicabil-
ity of keeping old hens instead of pullets for market eggs may be ques-
tioned. This question will be analyzed in detail later under comparison
of costs.

Keeping old hens for breeding purposes is another question, and
probably is an efficient method of maintaining and improving the qual-
ity of the stock. High production in the early spring after a long rest
is ideal for the production of vigorous chicks. Hens which have sur-
vived a year of rigorous culling and hardship may be important as
breeders. In this case, the low fall production when market eggs are
high is largely ol'fsel by good production when hatching eggs are

needed.

Seasonal Production on Individual Farms

Seasonality of v^x production varied greatly on different farms. In
Figures 9 and 10, the per cent production is illustrated by curves for

four individual farms. Flocks (i and 4 show a high production in Au-
gust, while Flocks 3 and 2 do not come to high production until after
the first of the S car.

May, 1932]

Economic Study of Poultry Farms

Isl* I~

— 1—

Mrtls

56
15?

g44

i —

S40
a36

h-s

ft a

-r

—

- c

0 r

J C

3 r

-i ]

*
-j

»-

0£«£in^2iS^JO*E£^,0>!eC8*0£Sfc",*

- 5= (W

-<o££Sg*>=.g£'~o^3-

Week Beginning

Figure 9 — Weekly egg production curves on two farms with

high fall production.

SSI

53
■"5«

£ ^ e s a S ■? -^ i

Week Beginning

Figxke 10 — Weekly egg production curves on two farms with

low fall production.

It is interesting to note that all four flocks rise rapidly in production
in February, reach a peak some time in March and then slowly decline.
From February on, the production in all flocks tended to follow similar
curves. This would seem to indicate that date of hatch, management
and history of production previous to March 1 has little or no effect on

spring laying. . . .

Individual farms fluctuated more widely in production than is shown
in the curve of average production in Figure 8. The averaging of all
farms tends to smooth the production curve. In the case of Flock 3,
the variation was from 12% to 72% — a spread of 60%.

Flock 6 consisted largely of early hatched pullets. These birds laid
heavily in July, August and September, then declined in production
and went through a molting or rest period of about two months, when
they dropped as low as 20%. The flock began to pick up m production
in December, reaching a peak of 52%) about the first of March.

Flock 4 also early hatched, declined in production from July to
September, after which it averaged about 36% for over four months.
In February and March, it increased in production and held at over
60% for a period of 13 weeks.

X. II. Age. Experiment Station [Bclletin- 265

Flocks 3 and 2 had a record of very low production behind them at
the beginning of tin* spring laying season. For the period September 1
to February 1, Flock 2 had averaged a total of 32.4 eggs per hen and
Flock 3 had averaged 2s eggs per hen. This contrasts with 57.6 eggs
per hen for Flock 6 and 57 eggs per hen for Flock 4. It is needless to
say that these differences in production, especially at a season when
eggs are high in price, reflect no small difference in gross returns per
hen.

During the period of this study, the Boston quotations of top-grade,
fresh hennery eggs averaged 47.4 cents per dozen. In the twenty-five
weeks when the market was above this average. Farm 6 produced
55.5% of its yearly total eggs, while Farm 2 produced 35.1%.

The actual weekly production of eggs on the group of 23 farms, if
plotted, would show a curve slightly different from the per cent pro-
duction curve in Figure 8. It would not fall as low during the fall nor
rise quite as high in the spring, due to the fact that per cent production
figures merely show relationship between number of eggs and number
of birds and do not indicate the actual amount of eggs laid. With the
same per cent production, the larger number of birds in the fall pro-
duce more eggs than the depleted flock in spring and summer. August,
September and October seem to be the low months in numbers of eggs
produced. March and April are the peak months. August. September
and October are the months of low total production, and fresh egg
price quotations are high; February, March and April are the months
of high total production and prices are low.

In Figure 11, the disposition of the eggs is shown by four-week peri-
ods. Since eight of the farms sold a considerable number of hatching
eggs or chicks, the average supply of eggs going to the market was
actually low in January. February and March. In February, over half

/Eggs used tor

llNCUBATION ON FARM
[E&&5 SOLO AS

(Hatching Eggs
{eggs sold a3
IMarket Eggs

Q-

I'n. i re ii Disposal of eggs by 4-week periods on 2:i farms.

May, 1932] Economic Study of Poultry Farms 33

of the eggs produced were used or sold for hatching purposes, and in
December and March, over one-third. Since these farms handled more
eggs for hatching than was required for reproducing their own stock,
the solid portion of the chart illustrates one of the problems facing cer-
tain commercial growers in supplying a regular market. Since they do
supply large quantities at a time when eggs are short, they have so far
been able to fit into the marketing scheme very nicely. There is, how-
ever, the problem of getting a market back after surrendering it to
others for a portion of the year. On one farm approximately 98% of
the eggs in February were used or sold for hatching. Only a few dozen
eggs went to market that month, compared with 22 cases- weekly in
October.

On these farms as a whole, approximately 30,800 more chicks were
hatched than were brooded so that it might be said that in general the
solid, the shaded and about 20% of the white area in Figure 11 would
illustrate the marketing of eggs if hatching were confined to individual
requirements. Or, estimating another way, the 98,032 chicks brooded
on these farms would require about 11,670 dozen eggs a year for hatch-
ing based on a 70% hatch, and these would be taken from the amount
produced during the months of January, February and March. This
would roughly absorb 15% of the eggs produced during that season.

The local egg market is affected by holding eggs for hatching, and
thus is influenced by the expansion or decline of the broiler industry.
In the mid-west, eggs are withheld for hatching largely in April and
May when supplies are very large, which helps to smooth out the pro-
duction curve of eggs of that region.

EGG SIZE

The income from the laying flock depends not only on the number of
eggs produced but also on their quality and their size. Different strains
of birds vary greatly in their production capacity and also in the size
of eggs. In many instances where breeders have attempted to develop
strains of high producing ability, the size of eggs has been ignored. At
the present time, however, more and more importance is being placed
on this factor.

Egg Size Distribution by Age of Pullets

Then, too, there is a progressive change in egg-size distribution as
pullets grow. In the first few weeks of production there is a very large
proportion of "pullet eggs," while six months later practically all the
eggs may be above 24 ounces.

Weekly egg-size distributions were obtained on 22 Ked flocks of
known ages. To secure this data, a pen or group of birds on each farm
was selected ; on a given farm the birds were of uniform age. From the
production of each of these groups, a sample of 100 eggs was secured
weekly. Ordinarily, this sample represented the eggs gathered on the
day of the field man's visit. Each egg was weighed individually, and
its weight recorded by checking in ounce classes. Thus, for each pen
of known age, a percentage distribution of eggs into ounce classes was
made. Then the change of distribution of size of eggs could be com-
pared week by week.

N. li. Agr. Experiment Station [Bulletin 265

The average distribution of egg sizes is shown at four different ages
in Figure 12. The curve at the lefl illustrates the distribution at 24
weeks of age. It will be noted that a greater part of the eggs produced
fell below the 20-ounce line and that only a few eggs were over 24
ounces. At thirty weeks of age. the entire curve of distribution has
moved to the right about 21 L> ounces. At forty weeks, the curve is
practically the same in shape and range but is to the right of the thirty-
week curve by about 2 ounces; and again the fifty-week curve is quite
similar except that it is still further to the right. The highest point of
the curve of the L'4-week old pullets was 20 ounces; of the 30-week old
pullets, 21. and 22 ounces; of the 40-week pullets, 24 ounces; and of the
50-week pullets, 26 ounces.

to
o

z
-J
o

__Li

93 . — | —

e3QV¥EEK3-Cll-B.

' \r^\\

21 ^y

1 l V AWta-xiJZJL

20 "I

\ •■' -3 C

19 —| -f

1/ 1 U**""V /JV—K Weeks Ou

18 •— +

V X X^ -v

17 f-

\ ^A- V t

16 —J —j— — 1 —

JTIi ?Fl---v*V ^

15 1 ~f—

i_Li .J_i_v-j -A ^

14 -f

/ \ inti/ v \

13 -|— f

r Yjr_ _\t v 5^-

12 f- j

\ / 7a v -N ^

11 -i -i-

t / yv ... V V

10 — 1 -f -f-

o J- J—

Hz±: _r \^ \ it

3 \r i
a —t— ' -

7 ztz ^ A ■, ,

0 —f— r~

,K-j- ^ v ^

7 / n

fy\A- J5_ a Y

% r

tr 5t a \ -A

? J 1

/ A \ \ \

V it

' / \ '• V ^

3 — ' / /

i -A 4- -/-- -->'

1 3- ^ V- \

,r- rH^^fH-^..^*^^

12 13 14 15 lb 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Weight of Eggs - Oz per Doz.

I'"i< h uk 12 Average egg size distribution of 22 Rhode Island lied pullel

flocks at four different ages.

This distribution of eggs by ages has an important bearing on
grades. In order to study the effect of size of eggs on gross returns, the
distribution for each week was separated into three weight classes:
(1) 24 ounces or over, (2) 20 ounces up to 24 ounces, and (3) under
20 ounces. This classification is a little stricter than the state grades,
but seems the most practical division.

Distribution of Eggs into Grades by Age of Pullets

In Red flocks, as shown in Figure b'5, the number of eggs under 20
ounces dropped quickly from SO', al 22 weeks of age to about 10$ at
30 weeks of age. The proportion of large eggs (over 24 ounces) in-
creased from 5% at 22 weeks of age to approximately 80% at 50 weeks
of age, after which there was no significant change in weight. At 2!>
weeks of age, less than 1.V,' of the eggs were over 24 ounces, an I less
than 15$ were under 20 ounces. In other words, at this age the aver-

May, 1932]

Economic Study of Poultry Farms

age Red flock was producing mainly medium-sized eggs. Prom 50
weeks on, 80r/i_ of the eggs were 24 ounces and over; 20% were 20 to 23
ounces, and practically none were under 20 ounces.

Ij L

\ i

^SLc*_

2!LOitL.

r'M

■^j

X L

s b

f S

d 50

^ m

— k

i i/*.,

.-•

* "°

; i

OvfCR

l F»AS.TV4A*

—

'>,

* Jf

— ±44-

_t />-%,

1 1 ir^r

"~>Jt~Lj?.aEI* f"

)

Age or Flock in Weeks

Figure 13 — Division of eggs into three grades by age of pullet flock

average 22 red flocks

In the only flock of Rocks available, the eggs over 24 ounces in-
creased in number from 2% at 30 weeks to approximately 60% at 45
weeks. In three flocks of White Leghorns, the per cent of eggs over 24
ounces changed from 5% at 24 weeks to 60% at 35 weeks and to ap-
proximately 80% at 50 weeks. Since the number of Rock and Leghorn
flocks was limited, the data may not be representative and no intent is
made here to compare the breeds.

Effect of Dates of Hatch on Distribution of Eggs in Grades

The proportion of large eggs at different months was estimated for
six different dates of hatch. It was assumed that the average egg-size
distribution of the 22 Red flocks at each age was representative of the
strains in New Hampshire, and also that it was the same for all dates
of hatch for each age. The January-hatched pullets would thus have
42% large eggs in September, 58% in October, 66% in November and
80% in December. On the other extreme, June-hatched pullets would
begin to lay in December, but would have 42% large eggs in February,
58% in March and would not be up to 80% until May. Of course, if
each pen were kept housed for a year, the June-hatched pullets would
be laying large eggs in the fall of the next year. April-hatched pullets
would be laying 42% large eggs in December, 58% in February, 66%
in March and 80% in April.

For very early hatched pullets, provision can be made to lay on
range from July to October. They can then be housed from November
to the next November when the new crop of pullets would require the
house. Thus, without adding to the housing capacity, the birds are
kept for about 16 months after beginning to lay. The mixture of pul-
lets' and old hens' eggs would influence the size of eggs marketed from
July to October, according to the proportion of older birds and the
production of each group. In the fall months when egg prices are high,
a few poultrymen are, thus, able not only to expand their laying popu-
lation but also to secure more large eggs.

\. li. A<;r. Experiment Station |Billetix -0)7)

Difference in Egg Size Between Flocks

There was a marked difference in flocks in egg-size distribution. The
three flocks that were first to reach a point where 75% of the eggs
weighed 24 ounces or more to the dozen were selected as "high" flocks.
The three that failed to reach this point during the year's production
period were considered as "low" flocks. As shown in Figure 14, the

1UU

7t ^ighMock!

!±

— L

J lj

^%.

-A

^AC

,fof ?2nicKs

n 60

« 50

»_

1 —

»■

l,<

<<1

£ 40

&«. 30

£5 30 35 40 45

Age of Flock in Weeks

Figure 14 — Comparison of three high, three low and average Red flocks
in per cent large eggs (24 ounces or over) at various ages.

three high flocks were consistently higher in per cent of large eggs
■over the entire period. At 50 weeks of age, roughly, 87% of the eggs
of the high flocks were above 24 ounces as compared to 61% in the low
flocks. The average weight of one dozen eggs from mature birds was
26 ounces in the high and 24.13 ounces in the low. Both groups reached
the point of maximum egg size at approximately 45 weeks.

The question arises as to whether or not production was enough
greater on these Low egg-size flocks to offset the disadvantage in egg
size. The three large egg flocks produced 148.9 eggs per bird and the
small egg floeks 150.4 eggs per bird — a difference too small to be sig-
nificant.

THE PROBLEM OF DATE OF HATCH

The problem of best date of hatch involves expected egg production
at different dates, sizes of eggs at different dates, price of various
grades at different dates, and cost of raising pullets at different dates
of hatch.

The price received by the farms in this study varied greatly on
account of different markets; some sold at wholesale at the door, others
shipped to Boston and still others marketed all or part of their eggs at
retail. The market quotations of the Boston Globe for the period have
•accordingly been used as data for the price problem involved in date of

May, 1932]

Economic Study of Poultry Farms

hatch. Prices for the medium and small grades were not always avail-
able and in many instances were estimated. (Figure 15.) The medium

70
68
66

64
62
60
58
66
54
6?
50
48
46
44

z ie

£ 40

3 36
^ 36

a 34

& 32

J2 28

5 26
O 24
22
20
18
ib
14
12
10

a
6

z
o

" "■ ■ " ' p

f v

/ \

y \ A

1/ \ / \

>"■*** ' ' V

f 'l 1 1

-"zsfli.s: ,«-%£ T

r,^ a \ f —

> v-" "~^ / \ V _^^^

/ it -"-'- ^23X id- T /

-^ -, ^-t . iSt^i ir ~*f

wt>2 _ „ X ' \3 * ^ --- '

va /v <"* /n. v w «'

-2 * ^£ ±^ V^ S-sr ^i ,Z J-E?

/ Z . S^ \W ^ *?

r .-'" V'ii'V. _>t«h™ Z ?

±il, «? lit ±X s-sZ 15"

2=' 3^ ± 3r ,3^"

*!-' V^-«= i_ -»J«

-■:_ ^ s-s^-^3: . .

\ S"~~""

\ .-£-> " — " "

A±j^r "* "

W Fl — ■ (*J (VJ •- "- M •" 6J W » «*J OJ --"

1 \ I I Si

-lOinpjdiLn (*Jl£&MO><og,t^i<y)iQ<*>e2iGr,t c

Figure 15 — Price curves for three grades of eggs froni June, 1929, to
September, 1930, based on Boston near-by hennery, brown,
quotations. (Due to incomplete market quotations, the
curves for the Numbers 2 and 3 grades were in part esti-
mated.)

grade eggs run approximately 20% below the top grade in price, and
the small eggs approximately 40% below the top.

It is a well known fact that birds hatched at different dates tend to
follow different curves in their production. These differences are par-
ticularly marked in the case of very early hatched birds as compared
with late hatched. Unfortunately, we were able to secure separate pro-
duction figures on birds of definite hatches from only nine lots of birds.
(In most cases, each lot represented a pen.) Comparison is complicated
by the fact that the birds were in different flocks, of different strains
and under different management and conditions. Accurate determina-
tion of the differences in production curves could only be obtained
through a large number of records. However, from the limited data
available typical production curves are plotted in Figure 16* for: (1)
December and January-hatched birds; (2) March birds; (3) May
hatched birds.

1. Production Curve on Early Hatched Birds (December and January)

In general, very early hatched birds produce heavily during July,
August and September of the first laying years, and usually go into a
partial molt the latter part of September or in October. Production is
low during the period October 1 to February 1. These birds, after their

* The curves of production for the different dates of hatch as plotted are
the average weekly per cent production curves smoothed by hand.

:;s

N. II. Age. Expebimeni Station

[ Bulletin -it;;,

rest period, produce heavily during February, March and the spring
months. Peak production will lie reached about March !>. It is inter-
esting to note thai spring production on these early birds is only
slightly Lower than that of May hatched birds.

60
46

46
44

40
38

6 34
6 32
| 30

I ! 1 1 i

± T " _ "' i i

/ / ^Vt. \ ...

1 )f[ ■*.- ^n.\

jT^r AN 1 Ml. ! / // N X \

/ '\' U'y ' \'\

-1 / \ J vf \ \ ">

/ \ n \ ■" — /) \ \ i i

/ v l>' A ,' / \ \ \.

/ ^~7<C /' R ^^ -S IN X

/ f **>UL *" S x

/ / Tr> / X

/ / ' ^^~— ^ v-^

\ft n — -x

/ — i/ / - x

/ -f i -T i i^A

. t - - t M

/ / /

/ it

1 t '

i J /

/ %. /

I L. y

I i / 1 1 1 II 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 !

— <sjr^ — nSJ — •■ pj ^--(*jcj •- ^w == *-*0 "" _ ^ Sj — — to — cu — Kj o — (sj •*-! •- — esj -w Ri — fij «vj — — m e

£ i

Figure 16 Assumed percentage production curves for pullets of three

different dates of hatch

2. Production Curve on March Hatched Birds

.March birds, representing a medium date hatch, do not reach as hign
a peak in early production as do the earlier birds, bnt the slump due to
molt is not as great nor of as long duration. Peak production is reached
about the middle of March, — about two weeks later than is the case
with the earlier birds.

3. Production Curve on May Hatched Birds

Production on May birds shows a gradual increase until the peak is
reached about the middle of April. While it does not reach a very high
point until March, the increase is gradual and is not interrupted by
any molting period. The spring peak in the case of late hatched bird's
comes about six or seven weeks later than that of early or medium
birds.

These figures are subject to great modification through certain man-
agement methods and systems. A \\>\v poultry men are able to carry
March hatched birds through without a molt, It is also true that May
birds, through mismangement, sometimes go through a molt. However,
it is thought that the production curves are fairly typical and repre-
sent the tendency, at least, of the curves of production of birds of these
hatching periods.

doz.

cents

8,432

$3687.46

43.73

7,968

3361.82

42.19

8,111

3196.27

39.41

Mat, 1932] Economic Study of Poultry Farms 39

The Effect of Date of Hatch on Value of Total Yearly Output

Applying' the production curves and the egg-size figures* to the price
quotations, the comparative market-egg value of the yearly product
for the three hatching dates is shown in Table 17. In arriving at these
estimates, mortality and culling were assumed to take place at the
same rate for all three groups, leaving the same number of birds at the
end of the 52nd week of laying. The estimates were worked out on the
hasis of 1000 birds housed in the fall.

Table 17 — Date of hutch and value of annual product of 1,000 birds assuming
average mortality and culUng rate, and per cent production curves

as in Figure 19

Total Total Value

Date of hatch production value eggs per dozen

Early (Jan. ] )

Medium ( Mar. 7 )

Late (May 7)

The gross income from early hatched pullets was thus found to be
43.7 cents per dozen; from medium hatched, 42.2 cents per dozen, and
from late hatched 39.4 cents per dozen. f In production the early
hatched birds have an advantage of over 4 cents per dozen, or approxi-
mately 50 cents per hen, over late hatched pullets. While it may re-
quire more skill to handle the early hatched pullets, the limited data
available indicate that early hatched birds produce a greater gross
value than do late hatched pullets. There are no data available to indi-
cate any significant difference in cost of producing the pullets at dif-
ferent dates.

Evening Up Production

The poultryman, in his decision as to the time of hatching chickens,
must, of course, consider the probable production curves of these birds.
If he desires heavy spring production for hatching egg purposes, he
may do well to hatch rather late — in April or May. If, on the other
hand, market eggs are the sole interest, early hatching should be con-
sidered.

In many cases, it is very desirable that production be evened up, par-
ticularly where a steady supply of market eggs is required. The poul-
tryman may then wish to spread his hatching dates over a considerable

* The average distribution of eggs into grades as shown for 22 flocks in Fig-
ure 13 was assumed as the expected distribution for any given age regardless
■of date of hatch.

t Tn comparing gross income from the year's production of pullets of differ-
ent dates of hatch from the limited data available, emphasis is to be placed on
the gross returns per dozen eggs rather than total gross value. Comparison on
. the latter basis involves differences in total dozens produced, while compari-
sons per dozen is more a comparison of the shape of the production curve,
ignoring to a large extent differences in total production.

40 X. II. Age. Experiment Station [Bulletin 265

period, including some early as well as sunn' late birds. Good produc-
tion during July, August and September, which are usually low
months, can be secured by having early hatched birds.

Efficiency in Use of Equipment

Economy and efficiency in the use of equipment and brooding facili-
ties demand in many cases the raising of two or more lots of chickens,
'■specially where any considerable number of birds are brooded. For
instance, the man requiring 2000 chicks might have half of them
hatched during January or February, and the remainder during April
or May. The early chicks could be put on range by the time the brood-
ing equipment was required for the later ones. In this manner a con-
siderable number of chicks may be raised with limited equipment,

In some cases the very early hatched pullets have been carried on
range during the first three or four months of their production period.
Whether this can be done by all poultrymen without disturbing the
production curve as assumed for birds of that date of hatch is a ques-
tion. But for the men who are able to do it, the flock can be carried as
layers for 16 months with housing capacity for 12 months, and the
doubling up would come at a season of relatively high prices, — July,
August, September and October.

The determination of proper date of hatch is largely a problem for
the individual poultryman. Differences in markets, skill and experi-
ence, and in equipment and buildings will bring men to different con-
clusions.

COST OF PRODUCING EGGS

Eggs a Joint Product

The feed, labor and other expenses entering into the poultry enter-
prise result in eggs, fowl, broilers, etc.; thus, eggs are a joint product
with poultry meat. While it may be possible to assign certain costs to
the whole enterprise, the separation of the cost of producing eggs in-
volves much arbitrary allocation. Whenever the joint products or
by-products are unimportant and have little value, a rough separation
can be made by crediting the value of the minor product to the cost of
the major product. But whenever the joint products are equal or
nearly equal in value, Hie costs of any one product cannot be satisfac-
torily separated from the costs of the other. Estimates on the cost of
producing eggs, therefore, must of necessity be subject to wide fluctu-
ations, depending on changes in price of poultry meat as well as in cost
of grain.

A Formula

In a rough way, as an average of the farms studied, 17 lbs. of feed,
0.6 hours of labor, 4^ of supplies and 18. 1(- in overhead, produced 0.4
pounds broiler, 0.7 pounds fowl. 0.3 day-old chick and one dozen eggs.
And since the price of broilers, fowl and feed fluctuate greatly in value,
perhaps this is as useful a method of studying cost of producing eggs
as any other. By substituting the market prices of fowl, broilers and
Iced, the poultryman may have a guide as to how he is likely to come
out under assumed conditions. Since these are average figures, the in-

May, 1932] Economic Study of Poultry Farms 41

dividual poultryman should make adjustments in the formula to more
nearly fit his special case. Some operators would have larger and oth-
ers smaller inputs per dozen eggs.

However, if this formula is to be used for outlook work, it is well to
note that some of the costs enumerated above may not materially
■change whether the operator keeps hens or not. The 13.7^- for overhead
is based on interest on estimated investment, depreciation, insurance,
etc., and these items would continue even if the hens were all sold.

Use of Formula in Outlook Work

To illustrate how the cost formula may be used, we may assume
approximate prices in the spring of 1932:

30^ grain "1 C 8^ broilers

18^ labor I J 14^ fowl

4^ supplies
13.7^ overhead

5^ chicks

1 dozen eggs

or
1 dozen eggs = 65.7 - 27 = 38.7^

It would appear under the assumption of the formula that the poul-
tryman must average 38.7^ for his eggs if he is to receive wages of 30^
an hour for his time, 5% return on estimated investment and an allow-
ance for depreciation. However, if he decided from a review of the
outlook that the price of eggs for the year would average lower than
38.7^, he might still decide to keep on because some return on capital
invested and some return on labor are better than no return. If eggs
averaged only 25^ per dozen, he would be able to get some return above
the cost of feed and supplies. It will be noted that a five-cent decrease
in value of broilers and fowl per pound raises the estimated cost of pro-
ducing eggs by approximately five cents per doz. Such a formula may
have some value in showing the relationship between cost factors, cred-
its for by-products, and cost of eggs and enable the individual to have
a better measure of his position relative to other years.

Since these costs are based on assumptions of rate of wages, return
■on estimated investment, etc., and since the value of these is somewhat
dependent upon the value of eggs, the definite figure on cost of produc-
ing eggs has little value in itself and should be used only for relative
-comparison with other years or as a means of roughly comparing effi-
ciency on individual farms.

^Relative Comparison of Cost of Producing1 Eggs

Although eggs are a joint product with fowl and broilers, in order to
-study some of the management problems in more detail, the cost of pro-
ducing eggs was estimated for each of the 23 farms. For this purpose
many of the cost items had to be allocated arbitrarily and the inven-
tory of pullets at the beginning of the year was given a definite value.
Since the same methods of allocation and same assumptions were made
in the case of each farm, the results should roughly indicate the com-
parative costs. The costs are based on the following assumptions : —

1. Value of pullets at housing time was assumed at $2.00 —

•■'

N. II. Age. Experiment Station

Bulletin 265

approximately the market price at the time. (It should be
noted that this market price is dependent somewhat on the
outlook for egg prices during the winter and also on the
market for fowl.)

2. Owner's labor was valued at -Kir per hour on all farms.
Other labor was charged at actual cost.

3. Overhead was estimated by allocating- insurance, taxes, in-
terest, etc., on the estimated investment between liens, pul-
let-rearing and other enterprises.

-f. Costs were based on production for market eg<_;-s only and
such extra costs as 15. \Y. 1). testing, certification, the keep-
ing of breeding cockerels and cock birds, were not included.

On this basis the relative importance of the different cost items is
shown in Figure 17.

ITEM

COST
PER DOZ.

Percent or Total Cost

10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Teed

l1 8 c 93

Depreciation on Stock

10.3

Labor

loo 9HHH

Use or Buildings

3.3 UH

Misc. Supplies

Interest on Stock

.9 B

Takes

.8 1

Litter

.5 1

Insurance

Use of Equipment

4 1

Land

Grit and Oyster Shells

.3 1

TOTAL

501

Figvre 17— Cost <>f producing markel e<^s average 2:! farms.

Peed per dozen eggs averaged 8.3 lbs., or 21.8 cents per dozen.*
was approximately 43% of the cost.

This

■ fi:i:d cost

The amount of feed consumed by the laying- flock was estimated by subtract-
ing tlie estimated amount consumed by cockerels in the laying pen from the
total feed supplied to birds in Laying pens. It was assumed for this purpose
that the amount consumed l>y pullets and cockerels was the same. The produc-
.'?<;. 7 sd.ti do/en eggs required the consumption of 3,305,717 pounds

(ion of tin

of feed, divided as follows: —

Total

i ml

Pounds per
dozen <'^s

Total
cost

Cost per
dozen eggs

Mash -H7.:::::;

Scratch 1,355,962

Cod liver oil 2,422

Ca rt ing a nd sacks

Total feed :2.:;o:..7i7

:c42:i

$29,625.40

$.107

1.899

:.'<>,;i.-)<;.:{0

.IOC)

.009

328.80

.001

168.71

.0006

8.33

$59,479.21

$.215

May, 1932 1 Economic Study of Poultry Farms 43

Depreciation in stock was 10.3 cents per dozen eggs, or 20.6% of the
total cost.! This is due to losses from mortality of birds as well as
shrinkage in value per bird when fowl are sold. This expense is de-
pendent to some extent on the inventory value of birds at housing time.

Approximately one quarter hour of man labor was used per dozen
eggs; this is approximately 10 cents per dozen, or 20% of the total cost.

Use of buildings was 3.3 cents per dozen, or 7% of total cost,

It is evident from a study of the bar chart that feed, depreciation in
stock, labor and use of buildings constitute about 90% of the total
•costs.

The relative costs on each of the individual farms are shown in Table
18 on the basis of cost per hen and in Table 19 on the basis of cost per
dozen eggs. In each table the farms are arranged in the order of the
total cost per dozen eggs. The comparison of the cost items on these
individual farms may be facilitated by studying both tables and noting
in detail the situation on a few of the farms. The reader if interested
can himself carry the comparisons to a study of all the farms.

The first farm, marked A, produced eggs for 42.2^ per dozen. On this
farm, the feed cost, the depreciation on hens and use of buildings and
the total cost per hen were above the weighted average, while the labor
•cost was below the average. But on account of the very high produc-
tion of 49.7%, all these costs are below the average when based on
per dozen eggs. This farm, which would rank fourteenth on the list
if on the basis of cost per hen, was first in low cost per dozen. It will
be noted that its consumption per bird was 98 lbs. as compared to the
weighted average of 101 lbs., but that its feed cost was $2.91 per cwt.
as compared to the weighted average of $2.62.

The second farm, B, produced eggs for 44.1 cents per dozen. In this
case the feed consumption per hen is 2 lbs. below A, but with less ex-
pensive feed per cwt. the cost of feed per hen was 22 cents below that
of farm A. Depreciation on hens, building costs and labor costs were
low. With a production of 36.9%, or about 3% below the average, the
feed cost per dozen eggs was above average, but other costs were below
average.

tDEPRECIATION ON STOCK

Depreciation on stock was determined by subtracting- the value of fowl sold,
eaten on the farm or on hand at end of year from the inventory value at the
beginning of the year.

Number Value

Old hens September 1, 1929

Pullets housed during fall

Total birds

Sale fowl

Fowl eaten on farm

Inventory 1930 (1929 birds remaining)
Depreciation

10.8S2

27,748

$15,376.65
.-,5,478.00

38,630

18,717
646

14,318

$70,854.65

$25,227.07

683.16

16,431.10

28,513.32

ll X. II. Agr. Expehiment Station [Bulletin 265

Table 18 — Annua! costs per bird "n .'•>' laying flocks

Farm

Feed
per hen

Ration

cost

per 100

[•otal

labor
per hen

hrs.

I osl

feed

per hen

Depre-
ciation
on sto< k

Labor

I'sf of

bldgs.

Other
costs

Total
costs

08.0

$2.91

2.7

$2.85

$1.42

$.91

$.53

$.68

$6.39-

'.if,.:,

2.73

2.4

2.63

.88

.84

.15

.44

4.94

98.6

2.11

2.1

2.38

.93

.82

.41

.30

1.8 l

84.9

2.70

::.:.

2 '.' '. i

1.69

1.40

.33

.39

6.10

104.:;

3.07

2.7

.99

1.04

.16

.19

5.58

108.9

2.:; 3

:;.i

2.5 l

1.32

1 . 1 5

.31

.:;2

5.64

1 19.8

2.40

3.5

2 81

.94

.37

.48

6.00

108.3

2.:;'.i

3.6

2.59

1.28

1.20

.20

.64

5.91

in:.'. 7

2.63

::..-.

2.70

1.24

1.19

.30

.67

6.10

n:.:.

2.63

:;.7

2.56

.87

1.4 6

.45

.87

6.21

116.8

2.79

2.:.

3.26

.79

.90

.66

.59

6.20'

95.0

2.48

7.1

2.36

.96

2.59

.44

.;.:;

6.88

106.9

2.59

2.1

2 . 3 7

1.35

.95

.21

.61

5.89

100.5

2.63

3.5

2.64

1.17

1.34

.36

.39

5.90

()

97.4

2.33

:;.;.

2.27

1.36

1.38

.24

.53

5.78

97.6

2.58

2.8

2.52

.99

1.12

.31

.77

5.71

<.»

95.4

2. (17

2.1

2..").".

1 .95

.94

.47

.57

6.48

81.7

2.58

:;.:;

2.11

1.60

1.30

.70

1.11

6.82

115.2

2.47

4.1

2.84

1.63

1.26

.44

.54

6.71

100.7

2.7(i

:>,.:>

2.78

1.19

1.41

.50

.87

6.75

105.9

2.56

4.4

2.71

1.43

1.76

.48

1.18

7.56

104.6

2 '.'<'.'

5.8

2.43

1.48

2.30

.61

.72

7.54

91.5

2. si

4.8

2.57

.79

1.39

.45

.88

6.08

Weighted

Average

100.8

*2.C2

3.3

$2.64

$1.25

$1.21

$.40

$.56

$6.06-

The third farm, C, had a cost of 44.3 cents per dozen eggs; 98.6 lbs.
of feed, costing $2.41 per cwt., were consumed per hen. Feed costs per
hen were $2.38, or 47 cents below Farm A. Depreciation per bird was
49 cents below Farm A. Total costs per hen were lower than for any
other flock. Production of eggs was only 35.9%, and on this account
the cost per dozen eggs was higher than Farms A or B.

At the other extreme Farm W produced eggs for 68.9 cents per
dozen. Feed cost per hen and depreciation were below the average, but
other cosfs were above. The total cost per bird was about the same as
the average, but on account of the very low production of 30.9%, the
cost per dozen was the highest in the group of farms.

farm V had a cost of 61.5 cents per dozen eggs. In this case the
feed consumption was 4 lbs. above the average; but as the price of feed
used was only $2.32 per cwt., the cost of feed per bird was $2.43, or 20
cents below I he average. All the other costs were very high. The total
cost per hen of $7.54 was the highest in the group, and even with the
good production of 40.9',' the cost per dozen eggs was very high.

This brief analysis of the low cost per dozen on the first three farms.
and the high cost on the last two farms indicates that not one but sev-
eral factors are important in securing low cost production.

May, 1932]

Economic Study of

Poultry Farms

Table 19 — Annual costs per

dozen

eggs on

23 farms

Farms

Per cent

average

production

Feed Labor
per 1 per 1
dozen dozen

Feed

costs

Dep-
on

stock

Labor

Use of
build-
ings

Other

costs

Total

costs

%
49.7

lbs. hrs.
6.48 .18

cts.
18.8

cts.
9.4

cts.
6.0

cts.
3.5

cts.

4.5

cts.

42.2

36.9

8.60 .22

23.5

7.9

7.5

1.3

3.9

44.1

35.9

9.03 .19

21.8

8.5

7.5

3.8

2.7

44.3

43.0

6.49 .27

17.5

13.0

10.7

2.5

3.0

46.7

39.0

8.79 .22

24.5

8.3

8.7

1.3

4.3

47.1

38.4

9.32 .27

21.7

11.3

9.8

2.7

48.2

40.6

9.70 .29

23.3

7.6

10.9

3.0

3.8

48.6

39.9

8.92 .29

21.3

10.6

9.9

1.6

5.4

48.8

40.6

8.32 .28

21.9

10.1

9.6

2.4

5.4

49.4

40.5

7.91 .30

20.8

7.8

11.8

3.6

7.2

51.2-

40.0

9.61 .21

26.8

7.0

7.4

4.6

5.7

51.5

43.9

7.11 .53

17.7

7.4

19.4

3.3

3.8

51.6

36.4

9.65 .21

25.0

12.2

8.6

1.6

5.7

53.1

34.8

9.25 .33

24.3

10.7

12.3

3.4

3.6

54.3

34.9

9.18 .33

21.4

12.8

13.0

2.0

5.2

54.4

33.9

9.46 .27

24.4

9.7

10.8

3.0

7.6

55.5

39.3

7.98 .20

21.3

18.8

7.8

3.7

5.1

56.7

39.0

6.89 .28

17.8

13.4

11.0

7.5

7.8

57.5

38.0

9.98 .36

24.6

14.1

10.9

3.8

4.7

58.1

37.8

8.74 .30

24.1

10.6

12.3

4.4

7.5

58.9

41.0

8.50 .35

21.8

11.5

14.2

4.5

8.7

60.7

40.9

8.41 .46

19.5

12.8

18.5

4.9

5.8

61.5

30.9

9.73 .51

27.3

12.6

14.8

4.6

9.6

68.9>

Weighted
average 39.7

8.33 .28

21.8

10.3

10.0

3.3

4.7

50.1

Feed Cost

Variations in feed cost per dozen eggs are due to: (1) differences in
production, (2) differences in feed consumption per hen and (3) dif-
ferences in price of ration.

For instance, Farm D had a low charge of 17.5 cents per dozen eggs.
On this farm, the feed consumption per hen was very low — 84.9 lbs. ;
and the ration was about average in price per cwt. Thus, the feed cost
per hen was low, being $2.29 as compared to the weighted average of
$2.64. Only two farms had lower feed costs per hen. Since the produc-
tion of this flock was very high — 43% — the feed cost per dozen eggs
was very low.

In contrast to this, on Farm W, the low consumption of a high priced
ration resulted in approximately an average cost per hen. But on
account of low production, the feed cost per dozen eggs was excessive.

Farm V, with good production, low ration cost and high feed con-
sumption per bird, has a feed cost of 19.5 cents per dozen eggs.

Farm K, with good production, high ration cost and high feed con-
sumption, has a feed cost of 26.8 cents per dozen.

Farm P, with poor production, fairly low feed consumption and
average ration cost, has a feed cost of 24.4 cents per dozen.

There seems to be no particular relationship between cost of ration
p?r cwt. and production, or between yearly consumption and pro-

16 X. II. Agr. Expebiment Station [Bulletin 265

duction. It is true that Farm A fed a certain li i *_i'Ii priced ration and
gol 49.7^5 production, but it is equally true thai Farm W fed the same

ration and got only 30.9%. Also, it should be noted that Farm L, which
had the second highest production, 43.9%, fed a low priced ration. On
the twelve farms with below $2.62 per cwt. ration cost, the production
averaged (simple average) 38.6$ at a teed cost of 21. 7c per dozen.
On the farms which Fed a ration costing more than $2.62, the produc-
tion averaged 39.3$ at a feed cost of 22. Sr per dozen.

This comparison brings up an important problem involving technical
as well as economic phases of poultry feeding. Laying rations based
on the New England College Conference Formula are available
throughout the state at a small margin above the cost of the ingredi-
ents when purchased separately and have proven very satisfactory to
many individual poultrymen. The formula has been used in the official
egg-laying contest at Storrs, Connecticut, where record production has
been attained. Since the conference formula has proven adequate in
securing and maintaining high production, it is suggested here that the
New Hampshire poultrymen should use the market price of the in-
gredients of the conference mixture as a base in comparing ration
costs. In other words, it is not essential or necessary to feed the college
conference formula, but the operator can at all times compare the price
of the commercial feed he is using with the cost of the college confer-
ence mixture and thus guard against paying too much for feed.

No doubt, the individual poultryman is constantly laboring under
the fear of doing something that will throw his laying flock out of pro-
duction. This fear is well grounded because mistakes in feeding or
management may affect production and bring heavy financial losses.
But individual poultrymen in this study in January, 1930, were paying
as much as $12 more per ton above the cost of rations based on the con-
ference formula. On a farm averaging 1000 layers this extra cost of
mash would amount to approximately $250 a year on the laying flock
alone.

In considering laying rations, it is important to realize that pro-
duction is influenced by methods of feeding, quantities fed, proportion
of mash to scratch, adequate supply of clean water at all times,
warmth, li^ht, ventilation and health of stock, and details of handling
the flocks. Failure in any one of these factors may throw the hens out
of production.

Labor

The labor cost is dependent to a Large extent on the number of layers
per worker. Any contemplated organization, however, of a poultry
farm must take into account I he strength, health and capacity of the
operator. It is thought from observation on this group of farms that an
average man in the prime of life can handle 1000 to 1500 laying birds
and real- the pnllets for replacement with very little hired labor. The
poultryman who expects a good income will probably have to plan on
at least 1200 birds for a one-man farm and 2500 for a two-man farm.

May, 1935] Economic Study of Poultry Farms 47

Depreciation of Stock (Including Mortality Losses)

Assuming a value for pullets at housing time based on the market
for good healthy pullets ready to lay, there is a considerable loss dur-
ing the year from mortality and in shrinkage to a merely meat value
when they are culled from the flock.

This loss or depreciation when based on per dozen eggs is influenced
by the time of culling and the time of the mortality losses. If heavy
mortality or heavy culling occurs early in the season, there are fewer
dozens of eggs and a smaller average number of hens to absorb the loss.
Hence, the depreciation charge per dozen eggs would be higher. As
estimated in Tables 18 and 19, the losses from depreciation averaged
$1.25 per bird and 10 cents per dozen eg^s. Farm K, with lowest depre-
ciation cost per dozen eggs, had low mortality, culled regularly and
sold fowl mostly at retail prices.

Use of Buildings

The estimated cost for use of buildings averaged 40 cents per bird
and 3.3 cents per dozen eggs. The high costs on some of the farms re-
sult from operating at low capacity due to mortality and severe culling
as well as to use of new or expensive buildings. The very low costs
of Farms B, E, D, H and M were due to the use of moderate-value
buildings held at near capacity. Farm A used expensive buildings, but
on account of holding the flock at almost full capacity and securing
high production, its building cost per dozen eggs was about average.

The data in Tables 18 and 19 indicate wide variations in each item
of cost, and a careful study suggests that a poultryman may secure a
combination of good production and low costs in all the items. Suffi-
cient number of layers to keep the men employed to the best advantage,
layers housed to capacity in low cost buildings, and fed on good but-
low cost rations is a combination which should bring success.

Old Hens for Market Eggs

The question of keeping over old hens for market-egg production in-
volves a comparison with pullets as to costs and income.

The practice of retaining the best of the flock for the second year
means that ordinarily about 80% as many pullets must be raised to
replace the flock, as when only pullets are kept. Since the costs of
housing, labor and feed, seem to be approximately the same for old
hens as for pullets, the difference in annual cost of keeping birds is
mainly a difference in depreciation in value. Actually on most farms
this is a question of the cost of raising pullets as compared to the sale
value of old hens for meat. For instance, if old hens will sell for $1.25
each and if pullets can be conveniently raised in view of other possible
options for time and equipment for $1.50, the difference in cost of keep-
ing old hens or pullets will be this difference in depreciation of 25 cents
per bird. That is, with the same rate of mortality the old hens woidd
shov\r 25 cents less depreciation between inventory at the beginning
and sales of fowl during the year.

48 -\. II. Agr. Experiment Station [Bulletin '265

It would serin from a study of cost of pullet production, page 55,
that on most farms, pullets can be raised for approximately the sale
value of fowl and under these conditions there would be no difference
in depreciation, and the cost of keeping hens and pullets for a year
Avould be the same.

In comparing the income from old hens and pullets, it will be well to
note differences in seasonal and total egg production and in egg size.
A comparison of the egg production curves for old hens in Figure 8
and for pullets in Figure 16 illustrates the differences in seasonal and
total production. The old hens not only produce fewer eggs, but in
addition the low production comes in the fall when eggs are high. On
the other hand, about 82% of old hens' eggs would sell as firsts, while
eggs from pullets would grade out as shown in Figure 13. The yearly
production of 1000 old hens, assuming the same mortality and culling
rate as for pullets, would be 6609 dozen eggs, valued at $2756.81 as
compared to a production of 7968 dozen eggs, valued at $3361.82 for
March-hatched pullets.

In other words, due to low production in high price egg season, 1000
old hens would return $605 less than March-hatched pullets. Accord-
ing to the differences in costs and income under conditions obtained in
1929 and 1930, old hens inventoried at 60^ below the value of pullets
would give returns equal to those of pullets. To apply the situation to
current conditions, the annual product from old hens is worth 82% as
much as the product from pullets. This difference in gross returns of
18% can be taken to roughly represent the difference in value of old
hens and pullets as layers. Thus, if eggs average 30 cents per dozen
for the year the product per pullet housed would be about $2.39 and
18% of this would be 40 cents. Old hens would be worth 40^ less than
pullets in the fall. The New Hampshire practice of keeping mostly pul-
lets seems to be sound.

COST OF PRODUCING HATCHING EGGS

In addition to market eggs, 16 of the farms also produced a consider-
able number of hatching eggs. On a few of these 16 farms only enough
hatching eggs were produced for replacement of laying flock. At the
other extreme were those selling large numbers of hatching eggs and
using a great many for the requirements of a baby chick business. The
sixteen farms produced (for their own use or sale) a total of 52,699
dozen hatching eggs.

On all of the farms a figure representing the relative cost of pro-
ducing market eggs has been worked out, As previously mentioned,
these "market egg" costs did not include such charges as B. W. D.
testing, certification, or any charge for use of cockerels. To determine
the cost of producing hatching eggs we have merely added these extra
costs to the "market egg" figure. It must be admitted that certain of
the charges included under market egg costs quite probably would not
have existed but for the fact that hatching eggs were being produced.
The ofttimes large amount of labor involved in certain breeding sys-
tems, the extra care in management, and in a few cases extra feed all
represent more or less unmeasureable costs which were absorbed in the
cost of market eggs.

May, 1932]

Economic Study of Poultry Farms

The additional costs averaged 11.1 cents per dozen for eggs actually
used for hatching. Of this amount 2.8^ was for testing and certifica-
tion, 3.7^ for depreciation on cockerels and 4.6^ for cost of feed for
cockerels. The total cost of producing hatching eggs averaged 60.2
cents per dozen.

The additional costs in producing hatching eggs varied from 4.1 to
39.2 cents per dozen. The total cost of producing hatching eggs ranged
from 46.4 to 88.6 cents per dozen.

These costs were estimated on the basis of number of eggs actually
used or sold for hatching, and the great variation can largely be ac-
counted for by the presence or absence of some source of disposal of
the surplus hatching eggs produced. On a given flock of birds tested,
and mated up for the production of hatching eggs, the total extra cost
will not be materially changed whether all of the eggs produced go as
hatching eggs or whether only a small percentage are so used.

Evidently some of the men who had incurred the extra expense were
not able to find an outlet for their surplus and had to dispose of them
as market eggs.

Table 20 — Relation of number of hatching eggs prod need per mated hen
to east of producing hatching eggs

Hatching

Extra

Total
cost

Average

eggs produced

costs

Market

producing

Number of

Number

number

per dozen

egg

r i

hatching eggs

of mated

Per

hatching

costs per

egg»

per mated bird

farms

birds

Total mated hen

eggs

dozen

per dozen

cents

Less than 2 dozen

1222

1105 .9

23.7

49.2

72.9

2 to 3 dozen

1215

3142 2.6

13.1

49.1

62.2

3 to 4 dozen

688

2547 3.7

16.2

54.5

70.7

'Over 4 dozen

1458

7459 5.1

4.8

46.1

50.9

All farms

1130

3294 2.9

11.1

49.1

60.2

In Table 20 the 16 farms are sorted according to dozens of hatching
eggs used or sold per mated hen. The extra costs of production in the
four classes — 23.7^, 13.1^, 16.2^ and 4.8^ — indicate the importance of
this factor.

The average price recived for all hatching eggs sold by these farms
during the period December, 1929, to June, 1930, was 69.7 cents per
dozen. The average price for top-grade market eggs during this same
period was about 40^ per dozen. Obviously, those farms which were
able to produce hatching eggs at an extra cost of less than 10 cents
•over market-egg costs were receiving a considerable margin from this
phase of their business.

Production of Hatching Eggs for Replacement

The practical question of whether or not to produce their own hatch-
ing eggs is raised by many poultrymen. From a breeding pen
averaging 40% production during January, February and March, ap-
proximately three dozen eggs per hen could be expected, or roughly,

X. II. Agr. Experiment Station [Bulletin 265

enough to obtain 10 pullets. This means that the breeding flock would
require about 1<»', of the capacity of the bouse. According to the data
in Table 2i>. the extra costs on the production of three dozen hatching
eggs per hen would be approximately 15 cents per dozen. Of course,
this would mean the spreading oul of the brooding season over several
months which might not lit into the besl use of available time on many
farms.

As Par as costs of producing hatching eggs are concerned, it would
seem fairly practical for a man to raise his own stock. There are other
important considerations, however, such as available time and skill for
incubation, and available time for brooding small lots.

The poultryman has three options in obtaining chicks for replace-
ment. He may purchase day-old chicks from a breeder; he may produce
hatching eggs and have them custom-hatched; or he may produce
hatching eggs and incubate them. The choice of these options should
be made by the individual in the lighl of his own situation and peculiar
skills, as well as prices of purchased chicks.

1 laying house on mic of the co-opera l i u </ farms. Lower pens arc \if.ed
for individual pedigree mating a

INCUBATION RECORDS AND COSTS

Cost of Incubation

The twelve farms which did some incubating hatched 181,423 chicks.
one operator hatched 2500 chicks for the replacement of the nock, but
the others hatched to supply Orders in addition to their own replace-
ments. (Table 21.) One farm, specializing in baby chicks and in custom
hatching, incubated over 60,000 chicks.

The average per cent hatch was 67.8%, and the range in hatchability
on the individual farms was from 4(i.!»',' to 83.0%.

May, 1932]

Economic Study of Poultry Farms

Table 21 — Incuhation record* on 12 farms

Farm No.

Number

eggs set

Total all farms.

19,962

3,990

13,577

9,120

30,803

23,968

8,320

8,400

7,944

19,197

37,036

85,096

Chicks
hatched

10,034

2,499

8,751

4.279

19,766

15.221

4,636

5,661

5,262

13,720

30,740

60,854

Per cent
hatch

50.3

62.6
64.4
46.9
64.2
63.5
55.7
67.4
66.2
71.5
83.0
71.5

267,413

181.423

67.8

The average cost of incubation was $1.86 per 100 chicks, or $1.26 per
100 eggs set, (Table 22.) The range in cost on individual farms was
from $1.05 to as high as $5.23 per 100 chicks. It is to be remembered
that this cost is based on an assumed rate of 40 cents per hour for time
used in incubation and does not include wages of management.

Table 22 — Average cost of incubating 267,413 eggs, and obtaining 181,423

chicks on 1,2 farms

Total

Per 100
eggs set

Per 100

chicks

hatched

Interest on buildings

Depreciation on buildings.

Interest on equipment

Depreciation on equipment

Fuel cost

Labor (2798 hours)

Share of taxes

Share of insurance

Miscellaneous costs

Total

$156.75

$.059

$.086

313.50

.117

.173

419.44

.157

.231

838.89

.314

.462

416.39

.156

.230

1052.37

.393

.580

92.02

.034

.051

60.88

.023

.034

23.60

.009

.013

$3373.84

$1,262

$1,860

Cost of Producing Day-Old Chicks

Using the estimated cost figures for production of hatching eggs and
adding the estimated incubation costs above, the following figures are
obtained as the cost of producing day-old chicks :

Number hatching eggs required for 100 chicks — 147.5

Cost of hatching eggs $7.37

Cost of incubation 1.86

Total cost — 100 chicks $9.23

52 N. II. Age. Experiment Station [Bulletin :><;.■>

GROWING PULLETS

The twenty-three farms started a total of 93,035 chicks for replace-
ment of the laying flock and housed :::».7l,> pullets or 38.4% (Table 23).

Table 23 — Summary of brooding records on 23 farms, showing
disposal of chicks started

Broilers sold

Roasters sold

Pullets and broiler cockerels sold.

Started chicks sold

I'sed in home

Inventoried as broilers, culls

Pullets obtained

Iirced cockerels obtained

Dead

Total started

Total for

Per cent of

23 flocks

chicks started

Number

32,836

35.3

1,853

2.0

1,303

1.4

2,229

2.4

180

2,585

2.8

35,728

38.4

2,816

3.0

13,505

14.5

93,035

100

Three per cent were saved as breeding cockerels, and 35% were sold
as broilers. The total mortality, including all chicks unaccounted for,
was 13,505 birds, or 14.5%. The range in mortality for individual
farms was from 3.3$ to 40.9%. In addition to production of replace-
ment pullets, three farms produced 4997 special winter broilers. The
mortality on these was 589 birds, or 11.8%.

When the farms are grouped according to number of chicks brooded
in Table 24. the difference in losses in mortality are not enough to be
significant except in the group having 3000 to 4000 chicks. This group
contained two farms where the losses were exceptionally heavy. In
general there is no evidence that those who brood large numbers of
chicks have higher losses than others.

Table 24 Relation of number of chicks l>r<io<h<i to mortality

Number

of
farms

Number started

Number died

Per

cent
mor-
tality

Range in

mortality

per cent

number chicks

started

Total

for group

Average
for group

Total

Average

1000 -2000

47C.O

1586.7

569

180.7

11.9

3.3 -22.6

2001 - 3000

.".

12697

2530.4

1407

290.4

11.8

6.8-22.0

3001 - 1000

13774

3443.5

3 1 86

796.5

23.1

10.5 - 40. r

400] - .".000

L> 1 .->00

4300.0

2775

555.0

12.9

7.9 - 28.2-

r.ooi & over

•10304

(1717.3

r.478

013.0

13.6

6.8 - 20.4

All Farms

93035

404.-,. 0

13506

587.2

14.5

3.3 - 40.7'

February, March and April appear to be the favorite months for
hatching, and 79% of the chicks brooded came in these three months
(Table 25). Only 9% were brooded after April 30th.

May. 1932]

Economic Study of Poultry Farms

Table 25 — Dates of hatch of 19M) chick* for replacement of Jailing

flock* on ,>A farms

Month

Number

Per cent of

of chicks

total hatched

24G5

2.6

8609

9.3

20978

22.6

23032

24.8

29447

31.6

7479

8.0

1025

1.1

December
January
February
March

April

May

June

Total

93035

1007o

Detail Records on Cost of Growing Pullets on 18 Farms

In the case of 18 heavy breed flocks more detailed records were
secured as to the feed, labor, and other costs entering into pullet pro-
duction. Of the 63,331 chicks started, 26,762, or 42.3%, were saved as
pullets or breeding1 cockerels. As indicated in Table 26, 35% were sold
as broilers, 2.4% as roasters, 3.4% as started pullets, 3.5% were held
for sale as cull pullets or broilers and 12.4% had died or were unac-
counted for.

Table 26 — Summary of brooding record* on IS flock* of heavy breeds,
showing disposal of chick* started

Number chicks died

Number broilers sold

Number roasters sold

Number pullets and breed stock sold . .

Number started chicks sold

Number used in home

Number inventoried as broilers, culls.

Number of pullets remaitiino

Number breed cockerels saved

Total

Per

cent of

18 flocks

chicks

; started

7.868

12.4

22.241

35.1

1,493

2.4

417

2,175

3.4

160

2,215

3.5

24,678

39.0

2,084

3.3

63,331

100%

On each farm there were usually several lots of different aged pullets
which wpre not kept separate when on range, and it was impossible to
cut off thp cost items at a definite age of pullet. However, the records
included the cost items on pullets until they were removed from the
range and housed. Usually, the operator housed his pullets as they
approached maturity ; groups would be removed from the range at in-
tervals, in general following the order of the hatching dates of the dif-
ferent lots. But under these conditions some of the lots of pullets were
removed at an earlier age than others. Since a definite cut off could
not be made, the age of the pullets as removed from the range should
be noted when considering costs. The average age of pullet when leav-

54 \. II. Agr. Experiment Station [Bulletin 265

ing range was 21.8 weeks. Over 70' ', were between 19 and 27 weeks of
age.

On this group of farms, an average of 287 day-old chicks was
started for every 100 pullets housed. However, in addition, broilers.
cull pullets and other stock were sold or held for sale, roughly equiva-
lent to 210 lbs. of broilers per 100 pullets housed. Tims, in this group of
18 flocks the 100 pullets and 210 lbs. of broilers are joint products and
result from the same expenditure of labor, feed and other cost items.
Jn other words, an expenditure of 237 chicks, 3596 lbs. feed, 85 hours
labor, $18.83 for overhead and $10.67 for supplies produced 100 good
pullets and 210 lbs. of broilers.

For the period of this study, viz., the spring of 1930, the situation
was approximately as follows when the cost items are estimated in
money values :

$47.40 estimated value of chicks"
100.94 feed

100 pullets

31.00 labor \. = ' and

210 lbs. broilers

18.83 overhead
10.67 supplies

or
$208.84 = 100 pullets and 210 lbs. broilers

It is obvious that if the sale value of the broilers is credited to the
cost of growing the pullets, the market value of the broilers may have
considerable influence on the result. Losses or gains on broilers are thus
absorbed by the pullets. Under the conditions obtaining on these farms
the sale of broilers, etc., amounted to $77.61, and when this is credited
to the total cost, the cost of producing 100 pullets can be estimated at
$131.15. In noting this cost, it should be remembered that the figure is
based on the following assumptions:

1. Chicks valued at 20c1 (market value at that time).

2. Peed at actual cost,

3. Labor at eosl tor hired labor and assumed rate of 40^ per

hour For owner's labor.

4. Overhead based on depreciation on buildings and equip-

ment, interest on estimated investment in buildings
and range, and share of other overhead expense.

Use of Formula in Outlook Work

The formula given above for the cost of producing 100 pullets, if
used roughly, should have some value to poultrymen and extension
men in comparing one year with another, and by substituting prevail-
ing prices each year should provide some guide as to a poultryman's
relative position in different years. Without such a formula, when \\^h\
and broilers fluctuate widely in price, it is difficult for the poultryman
to interpret his position.

In the spring of 1032, for instance, with feed and broiler prices low,
the formula would indicate that pullets cost nearly as much as in 1930
when broilers and i'ov(\ were higher. Thus, substituting 1932 values in
the formula:

May, 1932]

Economic Study of Poultry Farms

$35.50 chicks
70.00 feed
30.00 labor
18.00 overhead
10.00 supplies

100 pullets

= 100 pullets and

$37.80

= $125.70

Detail Cost for Heavy Breeds

The cost items are considered in more detail in Table 27, where they
are estimated on the basis of 100 pullets housed and the value of broil-
ers or cull pullets credited. The few breeding cockerels raised were
included in these estimates as "pullets."

Table 27 — Average cost of producing 100 pullets on 18 farms (heavy breeds)

to an average age of 21.8 weeks

Cost

Value of

credits

Per cent of
total cost

Feed

Mash (2238.2 lbs.) $70.61

Scratch (1317.4 lbs.) 29.01

Grit (19.1 lbs.) .20

Oats (9.8 lbs.) 23

Dried milk (3.9 lbs. ) .27

Semi-solid buttermilk (2.1 lbs.) .09

Cod liver oil (1.4 lbs.) .27

Miscellaneous (3.8 lbs.) .26

Total feed (3595.7 lbs.)

Litter

Coal

Interest on equipment

Interest on buildings

Depreciation on equipment

Depreciation on building's

Interest on land

Share of taxes

Share of insurance

Interest on investment in stock

Miscellaneous costs and supplies

Labor 85 hours

237 chicks (estimated at 20c per chick)

Total gross costs

Credits per 100 Birds Remaining

Broilers sold (83.1 birds)

L'oasters sold (5.6 birds)

Bullets and breeding- cockerels sold

(1.6 birds)

Started chicks sold (8.1 birds)

Number used on table (.6 birds)

Broilers and culls inventoried

(8.3 birds)

Total credits (107.3 birds)

Net cost

$100.94

48.3

2.49

1.2

6.32

3.0

1.20

2.59

1.2

2.41

1.1

5.17

2.5

2.22

1.1

2.22

1.1

.94

2.08

1.0

1.86

31.00

14.8

47.40

22.7

$208.84

100%

$58.82

6.80

2.18

2.16

.47

7.18

$77.61

$131.23

56 N. II. A.GE. Experiment Station [Bulletin 265

The total gross cost per 100 birds housed was $208.84. Feed, day-old
chicks, and labor are the largest items of cost and together make up
86% of the total. The cost of chicks was estimated at 20^ each, — an
arbitrary assumption where men produced their own chicks.

For every 100 pullets saved, 107 birds were sold from the flock as
broilers, cull pullets, roasters, etc. As shown in Table 28, about 76% of
those sold were taken out at an age between 10 and 15 weeks. Over
12' \ were sold before 10 weeks of age. This age at which the excess
cockerels and cull pullets are sold has a bearing on the cost of pro-
ducing pullets inasmuch as the amount of feed consumed will be larger
if the broilers are held longer.

*B'

Table 28 — Average age at which broilers, roasters, etc., were sold prom Js flocks
heavy breeds (culls and broilers inventoried at time of cut-off
regarded as sold <it cue when inventoried).

Per cent of

Age

Number

Per cent of

total number

in weeks

sold

chicks started

sold

2(>0

920

1.5

1.0

3.2

2.:;

300

1.0

1330

2.1

4.6

3.-)f.S

5.6

12.4

7726

12.2

20.9

4597

7.3

16.0

2461

3.8

8.(1

1048

1.7

3.7

i.~>

242:>

3.8

8.4

1)22

1.6

:;.<;

427

1 4

174

.<;

131

1049

1.7

:;.,

293

1.0

118

2:;

1 :>

■ • • •

2 1

• • • .

* > • •

LOO

Total

28701

45.3

100

The credits from sale of the 107 birds amounted to $77.61; the esti-
mated net cost per 100 pullets at an average age of 21.8 weeks was
$131.23. (Table 27.)

Since the age at which pullets were removed from range to houses
varied on individual farms, accurate comparisons of costs between in-
dividual farms were not attempted.

May, 1932] Economic Study of Poultry Farms 57

Detail Cost for Leghorns

In addition, costs on three flocks of Leghorn pullets were obtained.
Of the 16,881 chicks started, 41% were saved as pullets, 2.5% were
saved as breeding cockerels, 42% were sold as broilers or culls, and
14.8% died or were unaccounted for. The average age at housing time
was 17.9 weeks as compared to 21.8 weeks for the heavy breeds. On
account of this difference in age at housing time, the data may not be
used in comparing breeds. However, a study of Table 29 indicates that
the gross costs per 100 pullets are lower and that credits from broilers
are considerably lower.

Table 29 — Average cost of producing 100 Leghorn pullets on 8 farms
to an average age of 17.9 weeks

Total Debits per 100 Birds Remaining

Item

Feed

Litter

Fuel

Interest on investment in equipment

Interest on investment in buildings

Depreciation of equipment

Depreciation of buildings

Charge use of land — interest

Share of taxes

Share of insurance

Interest on investment in stock

Labor cost

Miscellaneous costs

Day-old chicks

Total cost

Credits per 100 Birds Remaining

Broilers sold (82.0 birds)

Pullets and breeding cockerels sold (12.0 birds)
Started chicks (.7 birds)

Total receipts (94.7 birds) $43.92

Net cost $125.82

Further Studies Needed

A general study such as this opens up many problems that can be
adequately solved only by further more detailed investigations. For in-
stance, in dealing with the problems of different dates of hatch of lay-
ing flock, technical studies are needed in management of flocks of early
hatched pullets to determine best practices in avoiding molt and in
maintaining steady production. Also, production records are needed on
a large number of pens of pullets in order to have more accurate data
for comparing different dates of hatch.

Value

Per cent of

Cost

credits

total cost

$68.99

40.6

.86

4.34

2.6

.95

1.94

1.1

1.90

1.1

3.57

2.1

1.51

1.28

.92

2.08

1.2

32.92

19.4

2.80

1.7

45.68

26.9

$169.74

100%

$30.26

.53

.13

N. II. Agr. Experiment Station [Bulletin 265

Data are needed on weekly consumption of feed and weekly gains of
chickens Erom beginning of brooding to 20 weeks of age in order that
the poultryman may be able to dispose of the male birds to the best
advantage.

Labor efficiency studies are needed to determine in detail the most
efficient methods for each operation as guides to those who are now
unable to handle large numbers of layers. From this material there
should be projected types and sizes of poultry organizations for one-
man and two-man units.

SUMMARY

1. Detailed records for the period, September, 1929, to September,
1930, were secured by regular visits to 23 specialized commercial poul-
try farms in southern Xew Hampshire. These flocks averaged as fol-
lows: 995 layers; $13,424 investment; $2070 farm income; and $1399
labor income.

2. Great variations in the amount of chore labor were found. The
range was from 1.1 to 5.8 hours per laying hen. The high labor re-
quirements on certain farms were due to poor arrangement of build-
ings, poor watering equipment, unsystematic organization, small size
of flock and uneconomic practices.

3. Peed consumption averaged 8.7 lbs. per dozen eggs. Of the 104
lbs. of feed consumed by the average layer in a year, 40.5% was mash.

4. Mortality and culling were found to reduce the size of the flock
to such an extent that the average population of layers was only 77%
of the maximum housed in the fall. Mortality averaged 16.9%, with
a range of 5.6 to 35.9%. Depreciation and mortality losses on layers
amounted to 10 cents per dozen eggs.

5. Pullets exceeded old hens in production, averaging 150 eggs per
bird as compared with 112. Average production of all flocks was 145
eggs per layer, or 39.7%.

6. Eggs were found to increase gradually in size from the beginning
of laying at about 24 weeks of age to a maximum size at 50 weeks of
age; but certain flocks showed a small-egg tendency during the whole
period, and other's a large-egg tendency. There was no evidence of re-
lationship between egg size and production.

7. When price of eggs, egg size and production are considered,
early hatched pullets gave a higher return than late hatched; and
pullets gave better gross returns than old hens.

S. As a rough statement of the cost of producing eggs, tin1 follow-
ing formula was developed :

17 ll.s. feed ~1 r 0.4 lbs. broiler

().<i hours Labor [ produce ' "^ ")S- tmv'

4('- supplies
l::.7r overhead

0.3 day old chick

1 dozen eggs

A similar formula was developed for the cost of producing 100
pullets.

May, 1932]

Economic Study of Poultry Farms

9. Hatching eggs were found to cost an average of 11.1 cents more
per dozen than market eggs. The range was 4.1 to 39 cents, depend-
ing largely on the number of hatching eggs used per mated hen. The
average per cent hatch was 67.8, and the range in hatchability from
46.9 to 83%. Incubation cost averaged $1.86, and day-old chick cost
$9.23 per 100 chicks. The mortality on chicks reared for pullet re-
placement was 14.5%.

10. It is believed that a young man, given proper organization of
business and efficient equipment, can handle from 1000 to 1500 layers
and produce the pullet replacements with very little hired labor. A
sufficient number of layers to keep the man employed to best advan-
tage, layers housed to capacity in low-cost buildings, fed on good
but low-cost rations, is a combination which should bring success.

if! \

ill

111
Hi

HBi^i'i'i

lii III

isp

;i » ft '••[>

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Bulletin"

See other formats