Bulletin No. 259 A~7 . l.Ia ~~ AUG 2 qr 81951 U1i1ll• 01:- Production and Marketing 7"~"" of Hatching Eggs in Tennessee --.- - .•. B. D. Raskopf THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION KNOXVILLE B. D. Raskopf Production and Marketing of Hatching Eggs in l'ennessee ASSlJcilll(~ Agl-iclIllllml FCOlwlllisl The author acknowledges the assistance and cooperation given in this study by 517 market egg producers, 116 hatcherymen, personnel of the Department of Agricultural Economics, and the Poultry Department of the Agricultural Experiment Station and Extension Service, and members of the Technical Committee of the Regional Poultry and Egg Marketing Project, SM-15. THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION KNOXVILLE TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Importance and Purpose of Study Methods and Scope of Study CONSIDERATIONS IN SELECTING A MARKET Geographic Location Size of Enterprise Breed of Layer PRODUCTION FACTORS AFFECTING LABOR RETURNS Eggs Per Layer _ Receipts Per Dozen Eggs Feed Cost Per Hundredweight Labor Used Per Layer Flock Mortality Housing and Miscellaneous Costs Per Layer OTHER FACTORS RELATED TO LABOR RETURNS Number of Roosters Used Per 100 Layers Experience of Hatching Egg Producers Importance of Egg Enterprise in Farm Business Capital Efficiency _ Estimated Extra Cost of Producing Hatching Eggs SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS APPENDIX _ Page 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 8 8 10 12 13 15 15 16 16 16 17 _______18 19 23 25 INTRODUCTION Importance and Purpose of Study The poultry enterprise is an important source of income on Tennessee farms. From 6 to 10 percent of the cash farm income each year is from chickens and eggs. From 1950 to 1955 the value of eggs sold in the state averaged over 23 million dollars annually (Appendix I). Hatching egg production has become a specialized enterprise on many farms in the state. In 1952 about 2,000 farmers produced eggs for 116 hatcheries. These farmers produced 3,187,000 dozen eggs of which 1,540,000 dozen, valued at $1,169,000, were sold to hatcheries. Previous studies have reported on the practices of market egg producers, primary and secondary buyers and commercial hatchery operators. 1 These studies revealed various difficulties in the pro- duction and marketing of hatching eggs which merited further research. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the important factors associated with labor returns in the hatching egg enter- prise and to estimate the extra costs of producing hatching eggs.2 Methods and Scope of Study This study is based on records secured from 517 hatching egg producers and 116 commercial hatcheries.:1 The location of 479 producers in Tennessee is shown in Figure 1. Included in the study were 38 farmers located in four adjoining states who produced Figure I.-Location of 479 farmers included in the survey who produced eggs for hatcheries and market in Tennessee, 1952. ----- 1 Keaton, Clyde R. and Raskopf, B. D., Practices of Market Egg Producers in Tennessee, Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station, Monograph No. 249, Oct. 1949. Keaton, Clyde R. and Raskopf, B. D., Distributive Functions of Primary Egg Buyers, Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station, Monograph No. 254, May 1950. Marketing Eggs at the Producer Level in Nine Southern States, Southern Coopera- tive Series Bulletin No. 17, December 1951. Marketing Eggs at the First Buyer Level in Nine Southern States, Southern Co- operative Series BUlletin No. 18, December 1951. Commercial Hatchery Operations in Six Southern States, Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin No. 34, July 1953. Raskopf, B. D., Egg Marketing Wholesale and Retail in Tennessee, Tennessee Ag- ricultural Experiment Station Monograph No. 267, July 1953. " This report deals with the Tennessee phase of the Southern Regional Research Project on Marketing Hatching Eggs. Cooperating agencies in this project include the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and the Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S.D.A. The study was partly supported by funds of the Research and Marketing Act. 3 Producers kept records on receipts and expenses as defined in Appendix II. Supplementary data on practices of hatching egg producers and hatchability of eggs were secured from hatcheries. 6 BULLETIN NO. 259 eggs for Tennessee hatcheries. Data were collected for the calen- dar year 1952. A stratified sample was used. Sampling factors taken into con- sideration included geographic location, size of flock, breed of layer, type and size of hatchery, market outlet, and type of farming. The population from which the sample was taken included 2,000 farmers who produced eggs for Tennessee hatcheries in 1952. Of these farmers 114 were located in four adjoining states. Of the 95 counties in Tennessee, 41 had no active hatcheries and 23 no hatching egg producers in 1952. CONSIDERATIONS IN SELECTING A MARKET Geographic Location There are opportunities for profitable hatching egg production in each of the major areas of the state; that is, East, Middle and West Tennessee. Among the three major areas from 17 to 38 per- cent of the producers operated at a profit and from 31 to 63 percent received labor returns (Table 1). The most important factor associated with the variations in labor returns per hour among areas were egg production per layer, feed and labor efficiency and receipts per dozen eggs. The effects of each of these factors on labor returns are discussed later in the report. Tallie I.-Relation of Geographir' Location to Lahol' Rl'IlIrJls and Oilier Factors, 517 Fanners Producing t:ggs fol' Hatcl/(:!~:",-_ill 'l'ellt/l~~~-"----l~L~-" ------- I Location of Flocks un!~ 'l'~~~' l ~~~~~t__~:~.Isg\~~~,:~_ No. 158 224 97 38 No. 538 396 329 569 No. 172 156 184 178 $ 5.10 4.92 5.03 5.56 Lbs. 95 97 103 121 No. 105 115 135 100 ... - - ---------------_ ...._- ¢ 33.8 36.5 36.2 45.3 ¢ 63.3 66.0 59.6 71.1 Item Flocks* Layers per flock Eggs per layer Feed cost per cwt. Feed used per layer Minutes used per layer Feed cost per dozen eggs Receipts per dozen eggs* ** Receipts per dozen over feed cost Total cost per dozen eggs Profit or loss per dozen eggs Labor returns per layer Labor returns per hour Flocks with plus labor returns**"'* Flocks showing a profit* * * * ¢ 29.5 29.5 23.4 25.8 ¢ 57.7 61.3 58.9 74.0 ¢ 5.6 4.7 0.7 -2.9 ¢ 209.1 135.2 133.0 120.2 (' 119.9 75.0 58.9 56.2 ------_._. - -----_._---- % 63 41 31 55 % 38 28 17 37 * Total flocks. All other items refer to averages. * * Includes flocks located in Alabama, Georgia. Kentucky and Virginia which produced eggs for Tennessee hatcheries in 1952. * * * In this and subsequent tables the receipts per dozen eggs include the value of poultry manure and feed sacks. See Appendix II. * * * * See Appendix II for definitions of profit and labor returns per hour. Size of Enterprise About 27 percent of the hatchery egg producers included in the survey had flocks ranging from 400 to 12,000 layers. There were definite advantages to the larger flock operators in lower price paid for feed through volume purchases, more efficient use of labor, and higher returns per dozen eggs (Table 2>' Egg pro- duction per layer was higher, and percent flock mortality lower, in the larger flocks. This was attributed to the fact that, as an aver- age, better care and management practices used by the larger producers helped increase egg production and reduce mortality. On the other hand, several of the small flock owners with high labor returns maintained high efficiency in such factors as eggs per layer and low flock mortality. The effects of such factors as feed and labor efficiency, receipts per dozen eggs, rate of lay, and percent flock mortality on labor returns per hour are discussed later in the report. Table 2-Relalio/l of Siw of Flock 10 La{)()r Relurns and Olher Factors, 517 Farmers Producing Eggs for Hale/wries in Te/lnessee, 1952.--~._-- --- ---- _._--~---------_._----------------------- --~-,·'---Nuinber-of-'L-ayer-s'ln--theFIoc-k-- 13 /100 I 200 I 4·00 I 700to to to to to ___ I--,tem ~n~_99 __ !~_!L__}Jl9.__ 6_9!l !.;000 Layers per flock No. 69 132 266 506 1915 Flocks' No. 144 150 84 65 74 Feed cost per cwt. $ 5.65 5.56 5.18 5.09 4.96 Eggs per layer No. 127 126 142 171 182 Minutes used per layer No. 178 166 160 128 89 Flock mortality % 18.8 16.7 14.2 12.6 11.7 --------_._- ----'-- Feed cost per dozen eggs 'i 48.6 47.6 40.8 36.9 33.7 Receipts per dozen eggs ¢ 55.4 56.6 59.6 63.9 66.7 Receipts per dozen over feed cost ¢ Total cost per dozen eggs ~; Profit or loss per dozen eggs l' Labor returns per layer l' Labor returns per hour l' ------ --- Flocks with plus labor returns Flocks showing a profit 6.8 82.9 9.0 78.0 18.8 67.2 27.0 60.8 33.0 58.4 PRODUCTION AND MARKETING OF HATCHING EGGS 7 -27.5 -21.4 -192.0 -138.3 -72.1 -46.7 -7.6 8.6 3.1 3.1 140.6 65.9 8.3 252.1 173.2 % % 15 4 30 12 58 31 86 71 96 78 • Total flocks. All other items refer to averages. Breed of Layer Of the 517 producers included in the survey, 15 percent had White Leghorns, 52 percent had New Hampshires and 33 percent had other heavy breeds (Table 3). With respect to breed differ- ences, the White Leghorn flocks had the advantage of higher egg production, less feed used per layer, and lower housing cost due to less floor space required per bird. The extra cost of producing hatching eggs rather than table eggs was also lower for Leghorns (Table 14), Heavy breed flocks had the advantage of lower depreci- 8 ___ B~ULL~'I'_I_N_l\l"0.25_9__ ation cost per layer, and higher receipts per dozen eggs. Receipts per dozen eggs were influenced by differences in premiums paid for hatching eggs, percent of eggs sold to hatcheries, length of the hatching season, and number of layers per flock. The above factors are discussed elsewhere in this report. Labor returns per hour for heavy breeds, other than New Hampshires, were significantly lower than for White Leghorns. This was attributed mainly to the effects of size of flock and egg production rather than to breed differences-see Tables 2 and 5. Labor returns per hour from the best-managed of other heavy breed large flocks were as high as those from the well-managed flocks of White Leghorns or New Hampshires. Table 3.-Relation of Breed of Layer to Labor Returns and Other Factors, 517 Farmers Producin,gJ<;gfSsJor Ha!_~~_~ries in Teml~esse~,,--J952. Breed of Layer - }tem __ I __Unit I. L~~~t:ns Flocks* No. 77 Layers per flock No. 636 Eggs per layer No. 196 Extra feed used per layer** Sq. ft. floor space used per layer No. Housing cost per layer Flock depreciation per layer Eggs sold to hatcheries New I Other Hampshires Hea vy Breeds 270 170 543 184 163 152 Lbs. Feed cost per dozen eggs ~': Receipts per dozen eggs ¢ Receipts per dozen over feed cost ¢ Total cost per dozen eggs ¢ Profit or loss per dozen eggs ¢ Labor returns per layer ¢ Labor returns per hour <, ----------- Flocks with plus labor returns % Flocks showing a profit % 15.3 19.7 2.8 3.5 3.6 21.9 26.9 26.9 162.0 127.0 102.0 15 62 46 29.3 37.7 43.0 57.2 68.2 62.1 27.9 30.5 19.1 49.4 63.3 71.5 7.8 4.9 -9.4 231.5 175.4 -20.8 135.1 98.0 -8.1 _____ 0.-- --.- .._-- 71 55 24 47 36 12 ¢ ¢ % * Total flocks. All other items refer to averages. * * Difference in feed requirements when rate of lay was held constant. About 64 percent of all flocks producing eggs for hatcheries in 1952 were in the National Poultry Improvement Plan. Based on the participation in this plan in Tennessee, important changes PRODUCTION AND MARKETING OF HATCHING EGGS 9 occurred in the popularity of some breeds from 1952 to 1956. Little change has taken place in the popularity of White Leghorns and other breeds including Barred Rocks and Rhode Island Reds. New Hampshire flocks have declined in popularity. On the other hand, a significant increase has taken place in both number and size of flocks of White Rocks and cross breeds (Table 4). Table 'i.-Breed Popularity in Tennessee, Based on Partir'ipation in National Poultry Itnj))"ovement Plan, Tennessl'e, 1952-53 to ]955-56. --------- -----------------------_._----------- ----_ ... -_._------- "- ----------------_ .._-----------------,-, ..,.- Item 1952-53 1953-54 1954-55 1955-56 ----_ ..-----_ ..-----_._----_ ..,- ------ ------- White Leghorns: Flocks (No.) 120 105 104 93 (% ) 9.4 9,0 8.4 9.3 Birds (No.) 26,688 34,042 39,507 41,378 (% ) 8.2 10.4 8.6 11.5 ----- --- New Hampshires: Flocks (No.) 659 529 393 164 (%) 51.6 45.2 31.7 16.4 Birds (No.) 209,343 132,526 107,817 23,143 (% ) 64.5 40.3 23.6 6.5 --------------- -_.'---------------._---",-- ----------_ .. ------ White Rocks: Flocks (No.) 190 251 403 309 (% ) 14.9 21.5 32.5 30.9 Birds (No.) 35,193 84,998 177,743 115,130 (% ) 10.8 25.9 38.9 32.2 -- -"._-------_ ... ---------_ ..•.. ---------_ ... '-------- --------- ---------_._-- Cross-bred and Flocks (No.) 64 64 143 260 In-cross-bred: (% ) 5.0 5.5 11.6 26.0 Birds (No.) 24,594 50,337 102,817 152,204 (% ) 7.6 15.3 22.5 42.5 -----,------- - ----------,._---_ .. --'---------._------------ _._-----_ ... ------ ----_ ....- Other breeds*: Flocks (No.) 243 220 196 175 (% ) 19.1 18.8 15.8 17.4 Birds (No.) 29,044 26,769 29,500 26,189 (% ) 8.9 8.1 6.4 7.3 Total Flocks (No.) 1,276 1,169 1,239 1,001 Birds (No.) 324,862 328,672 457,384 358,044 , Mainly Barred Rocks and Rhode Island Reds. Source:' Annual Reports. Tennessee Poultry Improvement Board, Inc., Nashville, Tennessee. PRODUCTION FACTORS AFFECTING LABOR RETURNS Eggs Per Layer Egg production per layer was one of the important factors re- lated to labor returns per hour. Rate of lay was associated with about 34 percent of the variability in labor returns per hour.1 Among groups of flocks averaging from 91 to 181 eggs per layer, a significant difference existed in labor returns per hour in favor of the flocks with the highest rate of lay (Table 5). Among these groups the labor returns tended to increase about 17 cents per hour for each additional increase in production of ten eggs per layer. Producers with the higher rate of lay made greater use of elec- tric lights in the laying house, tended toward keeping layers in , See Appendix III for net correlation. 10 BULLETIN NO. 259 Table 5.-Relatioll of Fggs Per Layer to Lol)()r Returns alld Other Factors) 517 Fanllers p}(~~~~lIg Fp,[.!,sfor ~~I_~~~heriesi'!,1::::_~::.~~e,-1~52. Eggs Per Layer --j 09--\---I43--- 178 to to to 142 177 254 128 164 181 135 155 165 Item Unit No. No. 64 to 108 91 62 Eggs per layer Flocks* Laying house with electric lights Months in production Flock mortality Pullets in all flocks Flocks culled monthly or oftener Feed cost per dozen eggs Receipts per dozen eggs Receipts per dozen over feed cost Total cost per dozen eggs Profit or loss per dozen eggs Labor returns per layer La~C>.l"retu.rns p~~_hour _ Flocks with plus labor returns Flocks showing a profit 56 60 61 9.9 11 12 15.7 15.1 11.4 61 75 84 19 60 87 -- .-------- ------,,- -------- 46.8 41.5 32.8 58.9 66.0 65.1 12.1 24.5 32.3 75.5 68.9 55.8 -16.6 -2.9 9.3 -98.9 79.7 252.5 -30.1 33.3 178.2 12 53 87 5 20 70 ------_.-- % 40 No. 9 % 18.5 % 38 % 6 ---_.---- (' 60.1 ~? 58.7 ¢ -1.4 ~' 99.4 -40.7 -286.2 -89.9 % 2 % * Total flocks. All other items refer to averages. production the entire laying year, had low flock mortality, kept a high percentage of pullets in the flock, and culled flocks more fre- quently. A combination of these factors accounted for about 66 percent of the variation in rate of lay among groups of flocks or 60 eggs per layer.l Between groups of 62 and 165 flocks averaging from 91 to 181 eggs per layer, the use of electric lights in the laying houses was associated with about 29 percent of the variation in rate of lay, or 25 eggs per layer. Previous studies have indicated that the use of lights with laying hens exercises a pronounced influence on egg production, mainly through sexual activity and feed consumption. In two different experiments, the flocks on which artificial lights were used produced from 19 to 26 more eggs per hen than the flocks on which lights were not used.2 An additional 20 percent of the variation in egg production, or 18 eggs per layer, was associated with the length of time layers were held in production. Egg production tended to increase per layer for each month layers were held in production over nine months, but not above 12 months. Nearly half of the producers did 1 See Appendix III for net correlation. 2 Brumley, Frank W., An Economic Study of Commercial Poultry Farming in Florida, Agricultural Experiment Station Bull. 105. May 1940. Gainesville, Fla., p. 58. Jull, Morley A., Poultry Breeding, John Wiley and Sons, Inc .. New York, New York, 1952, p. 41. PRODUCTION AND MARKETING OF HATCHING EGGS 11 not keep layers during the entire year. This procedure was most prevalent where producers sold eggs to hatcheries only a few months during the year, or where layers were sold in the spring or summer following the break in egg prices. The rate of flock mortality was associated with nine percent of the variation in egg production, or eight eggs per layer. Egg production tended to increase as the percent of flock mortality de- creased. The proportion of pullets kept in the flock accounted for four percent of the variation in egg production, or four eggs per layer. Between groups of flocks averaging from 38 to 84 percent pullets, production tended to increase an average of 1.7 eggs for each 10 percent increase of pullets in the flock. The 165 flocks having the highest rate of lay averaged 84 percent pullets. In flocks averaging over 84 percent pullets the rate of lay tended to decline. Apparently there was some advantage in carrying over from the previous year a small proportion of high-producing hens. The per- cent of flocks culled monthly was associated with four percent of the variation in rate of lay, or four eggs per layer. Rate of lay tended to increase with the frequency of culling. About one-third of the variation in rate of lay was not associated with factors included in this analysis. No data were available to measure the effects on egg production of such factors as inherited capabilities of hens to lay eggs, quality of ration fed, and general care and management. Of these factors the inherited capability of hens to lay eggs was probably the most important. Previous studies have shown that breeding may affect egg production by 25 percent or more.1 Receipts Per Dozen Eggs Receipts per dozen eggs was associated with 18 percent of the variability in labor returns per hour.2 Among groups of flocks whose receipts per dozen eggs averaged from about 52 to 70 cents, existed a significant difference in labor returns per hour (Table 6). Among these groups the labor returns tended to increase 45 cents per hour for each additional increase of 10 cents in receipts per dozeneggs. Four combined factors accounted for about 9 cents or 51 per- cent of the variability in receipts per dozen eggs. In the order of their importance, these factors included: (1) differences in pre- miums paid for hatching eggs, (2)percent of eggs sold to hatcheries, (3) length of the hatching season, and (4) number of layers per flock. Of the above factors, the difference in premiums paid for hatch- ing eggs was associated with four cents or 22 percent of the varia- tion in receipts per dozen eggs. The proportion of eggs sold to hatcheries was associated with 1 Jull. Morley A .. Poultry Breeding, John Wiley and Sons, Inc .. New York, New York, 1952. pp. 289-350. , See Appendix III for net correlation. 12 BULLETIN NO. 259 TallIe ().-Relation of RaeijJts Pn ])ozen Eggs to LalJOr Returns Per Hour and Otlin Fae/ors. 517 Fallfll:rs Pmducing Eggs for Hatcheries in TCllJlessee, 1952. - _ ... _.-._ ..._---- --------- Unit Rece-jpts Per Dozen Eggs (¢) .Ii-54 55-61 - 62-68 69-83 ---- ----- 51.8 57.1 63.6 70.1 103 228 64 122 Item ----._----------~~- - ~----- Receipts per dozen eggs Flocks* Premium per dozen for hatching eggs Eggs sold to hatcheries Months eggs sold to hatcheries No. 5.0 Layers per flock No. 185 _._------_ ..._---- -.-. -- ----------------- Feed cost per dozen eggs 1/: 39.3 Receipts per dozen eggs 1/' 51.8 Receipts per dozen over feed cost Total cost per dozen eggs Profit or loss per dozen eggs Labor returns per layer Labor returns per hour ---------. ---- -- --- Flocks with plus labor returns Flocks showing a profit No. 3.1 26.8 12.5 65A (, (,. -13.6 -8.4 -3A % % 15 5 ------ * Total flocks. All other items refer to averages. 7.7 16.7 30.5 33.5 38.8 57.0 6.2 5.6 9.9 234 375 1069 -----_._-- 38.8 36.2 35.0 57.1 63.6 70.1 18.3 27A 35.1 63.7 61.7 59.7 -6.6 1.9 10.4 9.5 139.2 252.2 4.1 71.6 159.0 33 56 95 16 34 H three cents or 19 percent of the variation in receipts per dozen eggs. Receipts per dozen eggs tended to increase about 1.4 cents per dozen for each additional increase of 10 percent in eggs sold to hatcheries. Length of the hatching season was associated with one cent or six percent of the variation in receipts per dozen eggs. Receipts per dozen eggs tended to increase about 0.3 cent for each increase of one month in the contractual sale of eggs to the hatchery. Size of flock was associated with less that one cent or about four percent of the variation in receipts per dozen eggs. Among groups of flocks averaging from 185 to 1,069 layers the receipts per dozen eggs tended to increase only 1.3 cents for each 1,000 layer increase in size of flock. Because certain market outlets required eggs in volume the year-round, however, some of the larger pro- ducers obtained higher receipts per dozen eggs. About half of the variation in receipts per dozen eggs was not associated with factors analyzed in this report. Data were not secured on type of market outlet, other than hatchery, and the proportion of eggs sold during the season of highest prices. The latter factor is of considerable importance. Another study in- dicated that an increase of 10 percent in the percentage of all eggs produced during the fall months resulted in an increase of one-half cent in the average receipts per dozen eggs.! 1 Oberholtzer. J. W .. An Economic Study of Semi-Commercial Egg Farms in North Central Indiana, Purdue University Bulletin 486, August, 1943. p. 22. PRODUCTION AND MARKETING OF HATCHING EGGS 13 Feed Cost Per Hundredweight For most flocks the feed cost comprised from 55 to 60 percent of the total cost. Among groups of flocks wherein feed cost averaged from $4.70 to $5.49 per hundredweight, a significant difference existed in labor returns per hour (Table 7). However, when other factors were held constant feed cost per hundredweight was as- sociated with only five percent of the total variation in labor returns per hour. I Among the groups of flocks in which feed cost per hundredweight ranged from $4.70 to $5.49 the labor returns per hour tended to increase about four cents per hour for each successivedecrease of 10 cents in feed cost per hundredweight. About 14 percent of the variation in feed cost per hundred- weight was associated with the number of layers per flock. The feed cost per hundredweight tended to decrease about 1.3 cents with each additional increase of 100 layers up to 2,000 layer flocks. Some of the larger producers, through volume purchases, were in position to buy feed at lower prices. About 86 percent of the variation in feed cost per hundred- weight was unaccounted for. This merits further investigation. Estimates obtained from producers on the proportion of home- grown feeds used in the ration indicate that this is an important factor affecting feed cost per hundredweight. TaMe 7.-Relaiion of Price Paid for Feed 10 Lalior Relllrns and Oiher Faclors, 517 Fanners PJ"Odllcing l~ggs for Ha/l'heries in Tennessee, 1952. Item---- Feed cost per cwt. Flocks* Layers per flock Home grown feed used (estimate) ** Price Paid Per Cwt. for Feed I $4.761 $5.00--~115-'-25 Under to to and _________ lLlli~ ___$_4~75_~!:!,~ __ ~~.~,!-_~v_e_r_ 4.70 4.93 5.15 5.49 27 90 126 274 1979 727 434 195 $ No. No. % 45.1 _._-----~-----_.- 35.2 25.8 11.2 ---- <. 30.4 33.5 37.6 45.0 ~', 65.0 64.3 66.0 63.2 <. 34.6 30.8 28.4 18.2 \~ 51.1 57.3 68.7 78.3 \' 13.9 7.0 -2.7 -15.1 \!, 271.1 220.6 111.8 25.7 <. 201.6 125.2 58.8 10.1 ----_._--- ----.--.-------_. % 96 74 59 27 % 89 54 36 13 Feed cost per dozen eggs Receipts per dozen eggs Receipts per dozen over feed cost Total cost per dozen eggs Profit or loss per dozen eggs Labor returns per layer Labor returns per hour Flocks with plus labor returns Flocks showing a profit, I I * Total flocks. All other items refer to averages. *. Home-grown feed included that grown by the producer or purchased locally. Home-grown feed was valued at market price. There was little relation between labor returns per hour and feed cost per layerY The amount of feed used per layer annually \ See Appendix III for net correlation. " The simple gross correlation coefficient: r ccc .0967. 14 BULLETIN NO. 259 between flocks varied 59.4 pounds. As an aid in estimating feed requirements the number of pounds of feed used daily per 100 layers was calculated from 806 records of 485 producers. Factors taken into consideration were breed, age of layer, and rate of lay. The approximate amounts of feed used daily per 100 layers for pullets and hens of the three important breeds at specified rates of lay are shown on Table 8. These figures are based on records of flock averages and should be used only as a guide in estimating feed requirements. The amount of feed used per layer annually at any given rate of lay may be calculated by multiplying any of the figures on pounds of feed used daily by 365 and dividing by 100. For example, a White Leghorn flock of 100 pullets uses about 26 pounds of feed daily at 70 percent egg production. For one year the feed required would be about 9,500 pounds or 95 pounds per layer. Feed requirements per 100 birds daily, presented in Table 8, closely approximate those found in another study 1 However, even under controlled conditions, it is impossible to state exactly how much feed should be given a particular flock every day. Daily requirements may be expected to vary as much as five percent from the average. This is true because the data were compiled without taking into consideration such factors as changes in body weights of layers, kind of diet, and differences in flock care and management. Table S.-Estimated Pounds of Feed Used Daily Per 100 Layers liY Rate of Lay, Breed and Age of Layer, SOG Records of f185 Fanners Producing Eggs for Tennessee Hatcheries, 1952. Percent I Leghorn I New Hampshire-I. Plymouth Rock producti0E:~ Pullets Hens Pullets Hens Pullets Hens (Pounds of feed used daily per 100 layers without roosters) 20 18.1 19.4 21.7 24.8 23.1 25.7 30 19.7 20.9 23.2 26.0 24.5 27.2 40 21.3 22.5 24.6 27.1 25.9 28.6 50 22.9 24.0 26.1 28.3 27.3 30.0 60 24.4 25.5 27.5 29.4 28.8 31.5 70 26.0 27.0 29.0 30.6 30.2 32.9 Source: Summary of basic data are shown in Appendix IV. Labor Used Per Layer For all flocks the cost of labor comprised about 13 percent of the total costs per layer. The amount of labor used per layer was associated with about 3.4 percent of the variation in labor returns per hour.~ Among groups of flocks where the minutes used per layer averaged from 59 to 200, there existed a significant differ- ence in labor returns per hour (Table 9). Among these groups the labor returns tended to increase about four cents per hour for each successive decrease of 10 minutes in labor used per layer. l Jull, Morley A., Successful Poultry Management, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1943, p. 273. " See Appendix III for net correlation. PRODUCTION AND MARKETING OF HATCHING EGGS 15 Number of layers per flock was associated with 22 percent. of the variation in minutes used per layer.1 Labor used per layer tended to decrease about three minutes for each 100 layers added to the flock. The number of roosters used per 100 layers was associated with only two percent of the variation in minutes used per layer, largely because of the small differences occurring among groups of flocks in the number of roosters used. Labor used per layer tended to decrease about 3.2 minutes for each decrease of one rooster used per 100 layers. This was an important factor among individual flocks where more roosters were used than were actually required to maintain high percentage hatchability of eggs sold.2 Table g.-Relation of La/wI' I~fficiency to La/}()r Returns and Other Factors, 517 Fanners Producing Eggs for Hatcheries in Tennessee, 1952. Minutes Used Per Layer ---~~ 1-- ~~ - I' \~O-11t: I \~5 _Unit 79 _-.!_~9_1164 __ -=1-=84~---=3 30,,---- No. 59 107 154 173 200 No. 20 108 131 115 143 No. 2990 929 261 156 101 Item---- -------_.- Minutes used per layer Flocks' Layers per flock Roosters used per 100 layers Feed cost per dozen eggs Receipts per dozen eggs Receipts per dozen over feed cost Total cost per dozen eggs Profit or loss per dozen eggs Labor returns per layer Labor returns per hour ----------- ------ .._--- Flocks with plus labor returns Flocks showing a profit No. 7.1 30.6 65.6 35.0 52.5 13.1 318.7 321.6 % % 95 95 • Total flocks. All other items refer to averages. 1 See Appendix III for net correlation. , See Table 10. 8.2 36.3 66.8 30.5 60.2 6.6 203.4 113.6 8.2 8.7 8.8 -------"------------- 38.8 46.2 54.9 61.1 59.5 53.4 22.3 63.5 -2.4 64.7 25.3 13.3 75.6 -1.5 91.6 -16.1 -38.2 -81.3 -266.3 -28.2 -79.7 89 72 ----------------- 1 o 70 35 30 10 Only 24 percent of the variation in minutes per layer was ex- plained by factors included in this analysis. However, among the 517 flocks many different ways were observed in reducing labor. Some of the more important of these included: 1. Installing running water and automatic fountains. 2. Use of mechanical feeders or overhead feed carriers. 3. Increasing feed storage capacity and having feed source near pens. 4. Use of built-up litter and pits. 5. Mechanical washing and grading of eggs. 6. Planning poultry house arrangement to reduce walking time. ., ' i 16 BULLETIN NO. 259 Flock Mortality Losses in individual flocks due to disease and other causes was a very serious matter. However, the overall influence of mortality on labor returns per hour did not appear to be of major importance among all flocks. The percent of flock mortality was associated with less than one percent of the variation in labor returns per hour.1 The minor association of flock mortality to labor returns found in this study is supported by the results of four other recent studies.2 Death losses varied widely among individual flocks and the factors related to mortality rates merit consideration. About 45 percent of the variation in percent flock mortality was related to six factors.:l Frequency of culling was associated with about 18 percent of the variation in percent flock mortality. The percent flock mortality tended to decrease one percent for each five times the flock was culled. Rate of lay was associated with about 11 per- cent of the variation in percent flock mortality. Mortality tended to decrease one percent for each increase of 55 eggs per layer. The extent of control of the range of layers was associated with eight percent of the variation in percent flock mortality. Flocks without controlled range of layers showed an increase of 1.3 percent flock mortality, over flocks where the range of layers was controlled. The number of layers per flock was associated with about eight percent of the variation in percent flock mortality. Flock mortality tended to decrease one percent with each increase of 1,000 layers added to the flock. Apparently, as the size of flock increased, there was a tendency for the producer to follow better methods of disease prevention. About 55 percent of the variation in percent flock mortality was not associated with factors included in this analysis. Other factors which probably contributed to low flock mortality were programs followed by producers in the prevention of disease and the selection of breeding stock for livability. Housing and Miscellaneous Cost Per Layer For all flocks the cost of housing averaged less than three per- cent of the total cost per layer. Among individual flocks the hous- ing cost varied about 24 cents per layer. Housing cost per layer was associated with less than one percent of the variation in labor returns per hour.:l About 55 percent of the variation in housing cost per layer was associated with miscellaneous costs. 1 Some of 1 See Appendix III for net correlation. " A. Burlington, B. B., and Hertel, Joe; Poultry Management Study, 1949, San Bernardino, California. B. Retson, G. C., Commercial Poultry Farming in Nova Scotia, Canada Depart- ment of Agriculture, Economics Division, Ottawa, 1952. C. Smith, Harold and Trower, John, Relation of Various Egg-Marketing Methods to Producer Returns in Maryland, Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin A70. 1952. D. Blackstone, Homer J., and Henderson. H. A., Cost and Returns to Commercial Egg Producers, Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 290, 1954. " See Appendix III for net correlation. PRODUCTION AND MARKETING OF HATCHING EGGS 17 the unexplained variation in housing cost may have been associated with breed. It cost about five cents less per layer to house light breeds than the heavy breeds. Light breeds required about 20 per- cent less floor space per bird than did the heavy breeds (Table 3). Miscellaneous costs comprised about 10 percent of the total costs per layer as an average for all flocks. Among individual flocks the miscellaneous costs varied about 86 cents per layer. These costs included such items as depreciation on equipment, land, taxes, insurance, interest on investment, electricity, cartons, crates, gasoline and auto repair or hauling charge, veterinary care and medicine, blood testing, litter, telephone and records. Because of the number of interrelationships of these costs no satisfactory meth- od could be devised for measuring the relative effects of each on labor returns per hour. However, all miscellaneous costs per layer (combined) were associated with less than one percent of the varia- tion in labor returns per hour. 1 OTHER FACTORS RELATED TO LABOR RETURNS Number of Roosters Used Per 100 Layers It was costly to maintain male birds in the flock, the average being $8.00 per cockerel in 1952. The most important costs in- cluded feed, depreciation, extra labor and equipment, and selection and blood testing (Table 14). One study has shown that in New hampshire breeder flocks, from 6 to 7 males per 100 females were required for consistently high fertilityY In this study no significant increase in hatchability resulted from the use of more than 6 males per 100 females (Table 101.~ These data suggest that most of the hatchery egg producers were keeping too many males per 100 females in their flock':; Talile IO.-Relalioll of Nlllllller of Hoosiers U\(,d Per ]00 La)'ers 10 Halcl/({uilil)' of Eggs ,""old, 517 Farlllers j>mdllcing F.ggs for Halcheries in Tennr:ssee, 1952. ;:e-~···~··_··---U~i!.J~Joos~~iY~~d1~=}-OO=t~~:lO:25 Flocks (tota1)--------- No. 44 64 215 53 141 White Leghorn flocks No. 19 16 24 7 11 Heavy breed flocks No. 25 48 191 46 130 Layers per flock No. 594 680 464 310 224 !Iatchability of eggs sold % 75.8 76.1 76.1 76.7 76.3 Experience of Hatching-Egg Producers The 517 farmers included in the survey averaged about eight years' experience as producers of hatching eggs. About 37 percent of the producers had less than five years of experience and less , See Appendix III for net correlation. , Bernier, P. E. and Parker. J. E., Relation of Male to Female Ratio in New Hampshire Breeder Flocks to Fertility of Eggs, Poultry Science, Vol. XXIX. No.3. May 1950. . " Data relating to the hatchability of eggs were secured from 116 hatcheries in Tennessee. Ii 18 BULLETIN NO. 259 than 16 percent had more than 14 years' experience (Table 11). Operators with 15 or more years of experience averaged sig- nificantly higher labor returns per hour than producers having from one to 14 years' experience. This was largely attributed, however, to the fact that they had larger flocks, obtained higher egg produc- tion, paid less for feed, or secured higher labor efficiency. The ef- fects of these factors on labor returns have been analyzed in earlier sections of this report. Years of experience is not necessarily related to labor returns per hour or to the adoption of improved practices. Lack of experi- ence as a hatching egg producer, therefore, should not be regarded as a deterring factor by potential producers. It may be offset by following improved practices. Table 11.-Relation of Experience of Producer to Lal)()r Returns awl Other Factors, 517 Fanners Producing Eggs for Hatcheries in Tennessee, 1952. Item "1 Years EX.perience .as Hatching .Egg Producer Unit --'1--2"="4--- 5-910-141-5-19--20-40 Flocks" Layers per flock Eggs per layer Minutes used per layer Feed cost per cwt. No. 54 138 155 88 42 40 No. 297 334 348 508 1019 583 No. 145 152 169 180 174 184 No. 119 125 127 113 85 101 $ 5.22 5.13 5.14 5.06 4.91 5.09 Feed cost per dozen eggs Receipts per dozen eggs Receipts per dozen over feed cost Total cost per dozen eggs Profit or loss per dozen eggs Labor returns per layer Labor returns per hour 4: 35.3 38.3 37.1 37.3 34.2 33.3 \. 58.1 66.7 66.1 63.6 65.0 63.4 4: 22.8 28.4 29.0 26.3 30.8 30.1 If: 59.6 64.3 62.1 62.3 57.7 56.1 I/: -1.5 2.4 4.0 1.3 7.3 7.3 If: 74.5 151.1 152.5 132.9 208.4 221.4 d' 37.5 72.7 71.9 70.3 147.0 131.5 Flocks with plus labor returns % Flocks showing a profit % 31 24 44 23 50 29 50 34 52 40 55 43 * Total flocks. All other items refer to averages. Importance of an Egg Enterprise in Farm Business Among individual flocks the proportion of farm income from the sale of eggs ranged from one to 100 percent and averaged 22 percent for all flocks. As the egg enterprise increased in impor- tance in relation to the producer's farm income, there was a sig- nificant increase in labor returns per hour (Table 12). However, these variations in labor returns per hour between flocks were largely attributed to differences in the following factors which have been analyzed in foregoing sections of this report: 1. Size of flock 2. Eggs per layer PRODUCTION AND MARKETING OF HATCHING EGGS 19 3. Percent pullets in the flock 4. Feed cost per hundredweight 5. Minutes used per layer 6. Roosters used per 100 layers 7. Receipts per dozen eggs The importance of the egg enterprise in the farm business is not necessarily related to labor returns per hour or the adoption of improved practices. There were profitable and unprofitable flocks regardless of the proportion of the producer's farm income result- ing from the sale of eggs. Flocks* Layers per flock Eggs per layer Pullets in all flocks Feed cost per cwt. Minutes used per layer Roosters used per 100 layers Feed cost per dozen eggs Receipts per dozen eggs Receipts per dozen over feed cost Total cost per dozen eggs Profit or loss per dozen eggs Labor returns per layer Labor returns per hour Flocks with plus labor returns Flocks showing a profit No. 8.5 8.4 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.7 ~\ 47.2 38.9 35.7 38.2 33.4 34.8 Ii: 54.4 60.9 60.3 66.2 64.6 67.8 ~/. 7.2 22.0 24.6 28.0 31.2 33.0 4' 77.9 64.2 59.0 64.3 55.8 59.0 If -23.5 -3.3 1.3 1.9 8.8 8.8 If -146.9 49.1 114.4 141.2 237.6 248.4 1: --49.5 20.7 54.1 70.3 132.3 171.3 % 18 33 62 75 79 94 % 4 17 38 58 66 71 • Total flocks. All other items refer to averages. Capital Efficiency Receipts from the egg laying enterprise in relation to money invested in the business determine the returns obtained on invest- ment. In this study the measure of capital efficiency used was the number of months it took for gross egg receipts to equal the money invested in the hatchery egg enterprise. Included in investment was the capital represented in land, buildings, equipment, layers, roosters, feed on hand and supplies necessary to conduct the en- terprise. =-20"-- --=B=-U=L=LETINNO. 25~________________ _ Of all producers showing positive labor returns per hour, 162 required less than 12 months for receipts to equal money invested (Table 13). The most important factors contributing to this rapid turnover included high rate of lay, high proportion of pullets in the flock, less than 8 roosters used per 100 layers, low feed cost and high returns per dozen eggs. The effect of each of these factors on labor returns per hour has been analyzed in earlier sections of this report. This study does not show how much money should be invested on an individual layer basis. Rather, it indicates that the amount of money invested on an individual hen basis does not necessarily measure productive capacity and efficiency. There was little dif- ference between groups of flocks in the amount of money invested per layer, the range being only 34 cents per bird. Table l3.-Relation of CajJital FJIicil:J/(Y to La/)()r Retllms (/1/([ Other Factoys) 517 Farmers Producing Eggs for Halc!lI:rics in Tennessee) 1952. __ J_unit I Months for Receipts to Equal Capital Investment_ .._ ..__ ... . -- _ ... _- .. _._._----_ .... _. --- .. _-_ .._--- Item ,Under 12 12-17}8-23 __Q,,-~~ Flocks* No. 162 240 81 34 Layers per flock No. 1024 208 94 104 Eggs per layer No. 185 132 109 77 Pullets in all flocks % 82 73 49 37 Minutes used per layer Min. 96 148 198 211 Roosters per 100 layers No. 7.7 8.7 8.8 8.8 Feed cost per cwt. $ 5.00 5.25 5.57 5.48 Capital investment per layer $ 6.93 6.60 6.59 6.85 Feed cost per dozen eggs l;" 34.0 43.0 52.3 77.9 Receipts per dozen eggs (: 66.9 57.1 47.1 52.1 Receipts per dozen over feed cost ¢ 32.9 14.1 -5.2 -25.8 Total cost per dozen eggs ~::. 57.4 70.9 86.5 130.4 Profit or loss per dozen eggs (i': 9.5 -13.8 -39.4 -78.3 Labor returns per layer ~\ 257.9 -79.3 -264.1 -395.7 Labor returns per hour <. 160.7 -32.2 -79.8 -112.5 ------------ Flocks with plus labor returns % 100 33 Flocks showing a profit % 86 6 * Total flocks. All other items refer to averag.cs. Estimated Extra Cost of Producing Hatching Eggs There are obvious costs in producing hatching eggs not ex- perienced in producing table eggs. These include feed cost and depreciation of roosters, extra feed cost of breeder mash, extra labor, equipment, and maintenance and blood testing. In addition, there are other costs not so easily recognized and determined. These include layers culled because they are not suitable for breed- ing, reduced number of layers in case of heavy vs. light breE's. of feed used daily production records per 100 layers records per 100 iayers -'-------- 19 to 24 11 22.7 to 23.8 12 25.8 to 26.9 25 to 34 24 24.1 to 25.3 27 26.7 to 28.3 35 to 44 44 25.1 to 26.5 31 28.2 to 29.6 45 to 54 36 26.3 to 28.0 25 29.4 to 31.3 55 to 61 8 27.9 to 28.9 4 31.1 to 31.8 -------_ •...---- • Data on feed requirements do not include the feed used for roosters. Page 1 Titles --.- - .•. . l.Ia ~~ AUG 2 qr 81951 Production and Marketing 7"~"" of Hatching Eggs in Tennessee Images Image 1 Image 2 Image 3 Page 2 Titles Production and Marketing of Images Image 1 Page 3 Images Image 1 Image 2 Page 4 Titles Figure I.-Location of 479 farmers included in the survey who produced ----- Images Image 1 Image 2 Page 5 Titles un!~ 'l'~~~' l ~~~~~t __ ~:~. I sg\~~~ ,:~_ Images Image 1 Image 2 Tables Table 1 Page 6 Titles ------------ ------ - -~-,·'---Nuinber-of- 'L-ayer-s'ln--theFIoc-k-- Images Image 1 Image 2 Page 7 Images Image 1 Image 2 Tables Table 1 Table 2 Page 8 Images Image 1 Tables Table 1 Page 9 Titles --j 09--\---I43--- 178 Images Image 1 Image 2 Tables Table 1 Table 2 Page 10 Images Image 1 Page 11 Images Image 1 Image 2 Tables Table 1 Page 12 Titles , I I Images Image 1 Page 13 Images Image 1 Image 2 Page 14 Images Image 1 Page 15 Titles 16 BULLETIN NO. 259 i Images Image 1 Image 2 Page 16 Images Image 1 Page 17 Images Image 1 Image 2 Tables Table 1 Page 18 Images Image 1 Tables Table 1 Page 19 Images Image 1 Image 2 Tables Table 1 Page 20 Images Image 1 Page 21 Images Image 1 Image 2 Page 22 Titles 23 Extra Cost of Producing Hatching Eggs' LigWBreeds Heavy Breed.s _PR()J)UCTION AND MARKETING OF HATC!IING EGGS ______ Item_"--- _ Images Image 1 Image 2 Tables Table 1 Page 23 Images Image 1 Image 2 Page 24 Images Image 1 Page 25 Titles APPENDIX I Images Image 1 Image 2 Image 3 Page 26 Images Image 1 Image 2 Page 27 Images Image 1 Image 2 Image 3 Page 28 Titles APPENDIX III (mntinued) 5. ---- Vallli's IIlId Fqlllltiolls USi'd ill Net Conellltion Net correlation = Images Image 1 Image 2 Tables Table 1 Table 2 Page 29 Titles APPENDIX IV ~30,,---- B_U_L~LETIN NO. 259 _ Images Image 1 Image 2 Tables Table 1