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< ; :;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 1 361,659 991 471 654 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 2 171.990 610 3 238,820 1,004 4 929.902 3,099 5 379,630 1,307 (i 129,329 513 7 254. lis 995 8 246,901 761 9 554.328 1 ,936 10 :;52.s;;:2 1,341 11 589.257 2,126 12 70s,:>o:i 2.727 i :: 305,011 1,060 14 1 si). 677 751 15 256,913 1.057 16 167.07:; (i 1 3 17 212,899 S62 18 407, S Hi 1,314 1 * # 250,782 1.000 20 404.1 10 1,350 21 176. 55: 575 22 195,056 1,731 522,883 1,673 Total 8,357,226 995 29.07S 363,358 1.290 May, 1932] Economic Study of Poultry Farms 5 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 ©1 o so to a. a u to to c V. to < > - ■ S C = Jo - r 3 £ - c — - - > r - c > 0) So ■ ■ CO r- c oa i- — tc ; ; h . CM - r- O — CM »-i CO I- O • tO CO • tO CO eft o 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 cm 00 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 n CO to O lO w w * I- <"- C. -f r-5 cm cm' d if tO CO X 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 cm CO if lf5 UO i-l - 4/ »3 2 >. • Pu C tO - •<- i-i ■-, 0, — I Oj to Ph C -« -^ K C i i 73 !0 £ £ Qv 4, ■ p 3^ o o c t. c - - g. 3 = 41 u 4j 10 o o c o r/) rr u - — S. ce ^ u '■ o ■"^ > u cd :- 4- I- ft a 5r >. <4^ s a o bx Or, t- to <^ to c v. o 4) 0 4J May, 1932] Economic Study of Poultry Farms 1 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 400 t*1 r* i* k* f T w. -f ^ »' 300 lF "» or « F., i - 7 ZOO T 100 A ffiPil MM! F(i("j _Evfii n 1800 1700 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 600 H Rl rC cift: V •N \ / \ ,'• ' -. -. y r V ,» <' 7- -. / r > \ -I :« PF N! ^E s -' NM ? / * r' V •, ft ■ " » », »• * « .* A VF P \<"i F 1 "A Rl US r r' s K .' -v -F X PF N SF r> ^ 'S —« — • ,« !J ,'■ ». ». .«' **< -»■ ** ** ,_j A Vf m >i <: 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.) 12 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 23 22 21 20 19 is -\: 16 15 1 ! 13 12 11 Ki 9 8 7 6 4 2 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. 14 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 15 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 f Other Hired Cost of hired Total hours Owner Wife unpaid labor labor 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 16 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 On On On miscel- On On miscel- On On in- laneous real outside laneous Total Month hens chicks cuba ti on poultry estate labor farm labor hoars hours hours hours hours hours 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 .9 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 17 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 DC §300 £250 ^200 150 100 50 0 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 1> 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 layers layer cockerels pullets raised 1 99] 2224 2.2 2048 969 47 2 471 1010 2.1 721 619 86 3 654 1945 3.0 1855 3184 172 4 2548 5370 2.1 4300 1959 46 5 1040 2115 2.0 1825 1119 61 6 354 2057 5.8 985 1879 191 7 697 1571 2.2 1346 925 69 8 676 1630 2.4 811 717 88 9 1 5 1 it 2735 1.8 1915 964 50 10 967 2756 2.8 1855 1313 71 11 1014 1715 1.1 3508 1598 46 12 2105 7386 3.5 2620 3429 131 13 836 2240 2.7 1175 898 76 14 40") 1380 2.8 800 910 114 15 704 1467 2.1 812 852 105 16 458 947 2.1 772 862 112 17 583 1183 2.0 1410 931 66 IS 1 1 17 2086 1.9 1500 1034 69 19 687 2220 3.2 1262 1371 109 20 1107 2 74 9 2.5 1180 785 66 21 484 14 83 3.1 1210 847 70 22 1356 2798 2.1 2304 1990 84 23 1433 3 1 58 2.2 2270 999 44 Total 22896 54225 38544 30160 Weighted average 2.37 78 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 19 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 A labor Average cost hired man labor Percent of total labor hired Average number birds for year r Average per farm Average per 100 birds Average hired per farm Less than 500 501 — 1000 1001 — 15C0 1501 — 2000 Over 2000 5 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 23 995 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 21 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 s '/ ]>' 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. lbs. lbs. % '; lbs. 18 .(is 1.21 1.89 36.0 : 9.8 8.14 99 .48 1.37 1.85 25.9 37.9 8.37 6 .::; L.09 L.82 40.1 44.3 7.04 1 .91 1.13 °..04 44.6 42.5 8.23 21 .73 1.13 1.86 39.2 43.2 7.3,8 16 .87 1.18 2.05 42.4 311.4 8.92 5 .66 1.22 1.88 35.1 36.1 8.93 23 .89 1.20 2.09 42.6 39.6 9.05 7 .77 1.20 1.97 39.1 41.5 8.14 14 .92 1.1 1 2.03 45.3 42.0 8.28 13 .98 1.23 2.21 44.3 39.9 9 50 9 .75 1.10 1.85 40.5 40.4 7.85 3 .83 .92 1.75 47.4 27.0 11.11 8 .94 1.01 1.95 48.2 41.0 8.15 11 .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 23 Table 14— Average weekly feed consumption per bird on six old hen flocks and per doz en eggs Farm number Peed Mash CO isumed per bird A per week Per ci nl Mash Per cent production Feed per dozen eggs Scratch To tal feed 18 lbs. .68 lbs. 1.23 lbs. 1.91 3."). 6 % 25.7 lbs. 12.7 1 22 .4 6 1.51 1.97 23.3 26.0 12.1H) (i .74 L.03 1.77 41.8 35.4 8.57 1 .65 1.15 1.80 36.1 22.4 13.74 21 .47 1.33 1.80 26.1 24.6 12.54 16 .93 1.13 2.06 45.1 28.7 12.42 Weighted Average .65 1.26 1.91 34 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~ 1 I 9b 52 Pi rr DP Ejb a 36 if *> ° V I 30 J M "• 26 °c ,, g 18 & 1* z - » -- ,"' — ■- ... Ff r Nt > ? r 0 r rT n -- ■ .„ ... -. -- , ._ „*' — -- — .-> __ .-' " — . -- • 0 i 4Z 5 %~ !t 8- «Si ojL'iwoiOMm*|^« OliD Jp © O ' 8: , _ E g _ c £ ~ | ■no'-'' WEEK BEGINNING Figure 4 — Weekly feed consumption per dozen eggs in 15 pullet flocks (heavy breeds) 24 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 ci i £ ... 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 41 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. 26 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 - *••<... **- Tn Tf\ L4 "" —• --!■ "< ■N fj t 19 P9 Pi \- 'N *" ^s s t ± / r ^ 1 :~z z % X ^^ i f ± ^ i 'V- ' / V 500 • ■ / \j / c — s s / ^-yT i S X £ - T v y 5 l i r ■ • . 450 370 .... 255 1075 2 ■ . . .... .... .... 370 240 610 21 . . . 271 .... 140 120 .... 531 8 . . . .... .... 659 102 761 20 ■ • ■ .... .... 450 450 450 1350 12 . . > .... • . • • • • . . 1076 1076 2152 4 .... 1400 1250 456 3106 Total number 130 1236 4039 9846 7421 4519 27191 Per cent .5 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- 30 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. ' |U ^v r 6f- -H- 50- 4fl £ j* V ii=: 1 ■ 40 % Ml j4 ns-^ K Piurr- J! j V- \ /^V /.5s*/ 1 SC""N--V'l< V- \ / Twi / 1 P 32- V--. <^S^ > - / r T" 2 30- o ?R \ "• -< •' — > / y " -p a '■'-' V fUJO. FteOOULTKM / / ^< \ j »- 24 ^ 1 N-. /■"- 1930 R :i: \ \ \ s \ / / \ ^ t \ / t v-^ h t ; 0L | 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 fc 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 31 84 eo - 'b y Isl* I~ 68 M 60 / t F — 1— Mrtls A. 56 15? rf g44 i — - > S40 a36 \ h-s X" ft a zo 16 12 _ 8 4 -r 0 c 0 « — 2 3 - c 0 0 r J C 3 D es 3 r :r -i ] 3 * -j »- 0£«£in^2iS^JO*E£^,0>!eC8*0£Sfc",* - 5= (W -=.g£'~o^3- 45 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. 32 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- >- <; OO nO CO UJ >- O ~3 3 < 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. 34 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 i __Li " 25 24 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 ^ 1 3 — ' / / i -A 4- -/-- -->' 1 3- ^ V- \ \ + ,r- rH^^fH-^..^*^^ L 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 35 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. 1 i I Ij L 80 ± \ i ! ^SLc*_ 2!LOitL. \ / p V, s. r'M ' ■^j i / " "N X L / *l s b If \ f S d 50 ^ m A> — k is i i/*., V .-• \ * "° ; i '' < 1 / V r ?f O t. 3R OvfCR B ,1 l F»AS.TV4A* ' \ * > V -- — . \ s ^ i ^T \ / i / '>, 1 * Jf 1 * \ f 10 — ±44- _t />-%, 4- 1 0 1 1 ir^r i- "~>Jt~Lj?.aEI* f" 13 + 2 3 u> 3 0 3 5 41 3 4 60 55 6 ) 65 7 > 76 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. 36 \. 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 90 7t ^ighMock! !± — L J lj 1 oo v T 70 J\ ^%. -A vr ^AC ,fof ?2nicKs 7 s ' 1 n 60 « 50 s / Z ^m T »_ 1 — »■ / * .' / V l,< >w Fi |K <<1 / y > / < M* y / * £ 40 I y * S / / y < &«. 30 / ,' ' / / r / f o) / 10 4* *" ** y *> £5 30 35 40 45 Age of Flock in Weeks 50 55 60 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 3? 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 30 J2 28 5 26 O 24 22 20 18 ib 14 12 10 a 6 4 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: . . V \ S"~~"" \ .-£-> " — " " A±j^r "* " W Fl — ■ (*J (VJ •- "- M •" 6J W » «*J OJ --" 1 \ I I Si -lOinpjdiLn (*Jl£&MO>e2iGr,t c 2 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. M 52 60 46 46 44 42 40 38 zx 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 ,' / \ \ \. / ^~7UL *" 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 ! — \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 y 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 45 Teed l1 8 c 93 Depreciation on Stock 10.3 Labor loo 9HHH Use or Buildings 3.3 UH Misc. Supplies m Interest on Stock .9 B Takes .8 1 Litter .5 1 Insurance 4 Use of Equipment 4 1 Land .3 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 A 08.0 $2.91 2.7 $2.85 $1.42 $.91 $.53 $.68 $6.39- B '.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 I) 84.9 2.70 ::.:. 2 '.' '. i 1.69 1.40 .33 .39 6.10 E 104.:; 3.07 2.7 ! .99 1.04 .16 .19 5.58 F 108.9 2.:; 3 :;.i 2.5 l 1.32 1 . 1 5 .31 .:;2 5.64 G 1 19.8 2.40 3.5 2 81 .94 .37 .48 6.00 H 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 J n:.:. 2.63 :;.7 2.56 .87 1.4 6 .45 .87 6.21 K 116.8 2.79 2.:. 3.26 .79 .90 .66 .59 6.20' L 95.0 2.48 7.1 2.36 .96 2.59 .44 .;.:; 6.88 M 106.9 2.59 2.1 2 . 3 7 1.35 .95 .21 .61 5.89 N 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 1" 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 E 81.7 2.58 :;.:; 2.11 1.60 1.30 .70 1.11 6.82 s 115.2 2.47 4.1 2.84 1.63 1.26 .44 .54 6.71 T 100.7 2.7(i :>,.:> 2.78 1.19 1.41 .50 .87 6.75 r 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 w 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 45 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 A % 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 B 36.9 8.60 .22 23.5 7.9 7.5 1.3 3.9 44.1 C 35.9 9.03 .19 21.8 8.5 7.5 3.8 2.7 44.3 D 43.0 6.49 .27 17.5 13.0 10.7 2.5 3.0 46.7 E 39.0 8.79 .22 24.5 8.3 8.7 1.3 4.3 47.1 F 38.4 9.32 .27 21.7 11.3 9.8 2.7 2.7 48.2 G 40.6 9.70 .29 23.3 7.6 10.9 3.0 3.8 48.6 H 39.9 8.92 .29 21.3 10.6 9.9 1.6 5.4 48.8 I 40.6 8.32 .28 21.9 10.1 9.6 2.4 5.4 49.4 J 40.5 7.91 .30 20.8 7.8 11.8 3.6 7.2 51.2- K 40.0 9.61 .21 26.8 7.0 7.4 4.6 5.7 51.5 L 43.9 7.11 .53 17.7 7.4 19.4 3.3 3.8 51.6 M 36.4 9.65 .21 25.0 12.2 8.6 1.6 5.7 53.1 N 34.8 9.25 .33 24.3 10.7 12.3 3.4 3.6 54.3 0 34.9 9.18 .33 21.4 12.8 13.0 2.0 5.2 54.4 P 33.9 9.46 .27 24.4 9.7 10.8 3.0 7.6 55.5 Q 39.3 7.98 .20 21.3 18.8 7.8 3.7 5.1 56.7 R 39.0 6.89 .28 17.8 13.4 11.0 7.5 7.8 57.5 S 38.0 9.98 .36 24.6 14.1 10.9 3.8 4.7 58.1 T 37.8 8.74 .30 24.1 10.6 12.3 4.4 7.5 58.9 U 41.0 8.50 .35 21.8 11.5 14.2 4.5 8.7 60.7 V 40.9 8.41 .46 19.5 12.8 18.5 4.9 5.8 61.5 w 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 49 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 A per dozen egg r i hatching eggs of of mated Per hatching costs per egg» per mated bird farms birds Total mated hen eggs dozen per dozen cents cents cents Less than 2 dozen 4 1222 1105 .9 23.7 49.2 72.9 2 to 3 dozen 5 1215 3142 2.6 13.1 49.1 62.2 3 to 4 dozen 4 688 2547 3.7 16.2 54.5 70.7 'Over 4 dozen 3 1458 7459 5.1 4.8 46.1 50.9 All farms 16 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 <;.■> 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 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 1 .->00 4300.0 2775 555.0 12.9 7.9 - 28.2- r.ooi & over 0 •10304 (1717.3 r.478 013.0 13.6 6.8 - 20.4 All Farms 23 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 53 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 Total Per cent of 18 flocks chicks ; started 7.868 12.4 22.241 35.1 1,493 2.4 417 .7 2,175 3.4 160 .2 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 55 $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 .6 2.59 1.2 2.41 1.1 5.17 2.5 2.22 1.1 2.22 1.1 .94 .5 2.08 1.0 1.86 .9 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 0 .4 .9 9 920 1.5 1.0 3.2 3 2.:; 4 300 .5 1.0 5 20 .1 6 20 .1 8 9 1330 2.1 4.6 10 3.-)f.S 5.6 12.4 11 7726 12.2 20.9 12 4597 7.3 16.0 13 2461 3.8 8.(1 14 1048 1.7 3.7 i.~> 242:> 3.8 8.4 16 1)22 1.6 :;.<; 17 427 7 1 4 18 174 .3 .<; 19 131 .2 .5 20 1049 1.7 :;., 21 293 .5 1.0 22 118 .2 .4 2:; 1 :> ■ • • • .1 2 1 • • • . 25 30 .1 86 12 27 * > • • 2S LOO .2 .3 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 of Per cent of Cost credits total cost $68.99 40.6 .86 .5 4.34 2.6 .95 .6 1.94 1.1 1.90 1.1 3.57 2.1 1.51 .9 1.28 .8 .92 .5 2.08 1.2 32.92 19.4 2.80 1.7 45.68 26.9 $169.74 100% $30.26 13 .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 ().