‘— — ‘ w- —_ v

J‘MMWIWIll'M\l

‘UWVM'JHH‘W

\H

 

TH _

CQST {3F Rémfifié FULLEE 3%
REPRESEN’E'AT Vii 35.!Ci‘flfizz3d‘é FARI‘J‘S

'i‘hocis far Hm Degree: ea! M. S.
MECWGAN szfi- CGLEiG-E
CM CE‘ftaera Hazy?
339555

11“in

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

Cost of Raising Pullets on Representative
I
Nichigan Farms.

presented by

Carl Charles Hoyt

has been accepted towards fulfillment
'of the requirements for

_I‘_S____ degree in MEY—

L. E. Dawsonjgflau H

Major professor

Date March 29, 1955

 

0-159

 

COST OF RAISIHG IULLQTS UN RAPHSSLUTATIVE lehIGaN FARRS

E» y

Carl Charles Hovt
M

AN ALS‘l‘RACT

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

Department of Poultry Husbandry

Year 1955

Approved 4: 6‘: DW

Carl Charles Hoyt
l

The poultry enterprise both in Michigan and the United
States is a major source of farm income. Michigan farmers
received a Cross income of over ninety-four and one-half
million dollars from poultry and poultry products in 1955.
Returns from the layinO hen enterprise actually accounted
for between 85 and 90 percent of this value. Approximately
two-thirds of the birds in the laying flocks in hichigan
in 1955 were pullets. Since no recent accurate records
were available on the cost of rearing pullets to maturity
it seemed desirable to undertake a study of this nature.

Seventy poultry producers were contacted by corres-
pondence in regard to their willingne‘s to COOperate in a
pullet cost study. Seven farms were selected. The Opera-
tors on these farms kept complete records on the cost of
rearing pullet flocks to maturity.

A personal farm visit was made with each COOperator
to eXplain an approved method of keeping records and a
later visit was made to assist him with any subsequent
problems. The personal visits were supplemented by letters
of instruction to each farmer-producer.

Four thousand one hundred twelve chicks were started

on these farms in 1954. Three thousand three hundred and

thirty seven were housed as pullets. The difference

represents losses due to culling and mortality. The
average mortality was 13.8 percent but varied between
farms from 1.9 to 46.3 percent.

Feed consumption varied from 25.0 to 46.9 pounds per
pullet raised. Feed cost ranged from §.95 to $2.16 per
pullet. The average feed eXpenditures on these farms
represented 46.4 percent of the pullet cost.

A close correlation between flock size and the cost
of producing pullets was found. On the farms studied, the
flock size ranged from 70 to 1709 pullets. Although the
largest flock was reared by a man with considerable GXpeP-
ience, it was noted that such items as labor and overhead
per pullet were considerably lower on this farm.

The net cost per pullet housed varied from 61.89 to
a4.06. This variation was due largely to mortality and a
variation in total feed cost. both mamlagement and environ-
ment affected these items considerably. mortality on Mich-
igan farms should and could be reduced considerably through
the use of reconmended practices. The variation in feed
consumption undoubtedly represents not only the difference
in pullet ability to utilize feed efficiently but also the

difference in feed wastage.

COST OF RAISING PULLETS 0N REPRESENTATIVE MICHIGAN FARMS

By
Carl Charles Hoyt

A THESIS

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studios of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree or

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Poultry Husbandry
Year 1955

THESIS

 

C“_:‘~\§ ‘

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author wishes to express his appreciation to
Mrs. Wilbur Achcnbach, Mr. Jack Auringer, Hr. Harry Burns,
Mr. Darrell Fuller, Mr.'Uilliam.Gunningham.and Mr. James
Lightfoot for their willingness to cooperate by keeping
accurate poultry account records and making these records
available for this study. Also a special thanks to those
men who were willing to cOOperate with.ths record keeping
but were called into the Armed Forces.

The author also wishes to thank Dr. L. E. Dawson,
Dr. H. G. Zindel, Professor J. M. Moore and Professor
J. A. Davidson from.the Department 0! Poultry Husbandry,
for their guidance, assistance and cooperation in making

this work possible.

354.778

I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.

INTRODUCTION
LITERATURE REVIEW

PURPOSE

PROCEDURE . . .

TABLE

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .

SUMMARY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIX

OF CONTENTS

Page

17
18
22
11,2
1+3

TABLE

I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.

VIII.

Cost
Cost
Cost
Cost
Cost
Cost
Cost

Expense, Income, and Net cost in rearing pullets
to twenty-four weeks of age, seven Michigan

of
of
of
of
of
of
of

rearing
rearing
rearing
rearing
rearing
rearing

rearing

farms g 195“-

Influence of mortality on pullet cost, 7 Michigan

farms, l95h

The influence of breed and sex on pullet cost,
7 Michigan farms, 195h

LIST OF TABLES

pullets
pullets
pullets
pullets
pullets
pullets
pullets

to
to
to
to
to
to
to

.maturity,
maturity,
maturity,
maturity,
maturity,
maturity,
maturity,

Farm
Farm
Farm
Farm
Farm
Farm

Farm.

No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.

O‘Ul-F’UNH

7

Page

23
25
26
28
3o
31
32

37

39

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE Page

1. Location of farms where records were kept . . . . 21
2. Relationship between pounds of feed consumed and
total cost per pullet (pounds of feed per pullet
raised), 7 Michigan farms, l95h . . . . . . . . . 36

3. Average pullet cost, 7 Michigan farms, 19Sh . . . . kl

INTRODUC TI ON

The poultry industry in the United States has grown
to the place where it is a major source of farm.incomm.
According to Butler (l9Sh) farmers received a gross income
of more than four billion dollars tram poultry and poultry
products in 1953. Poultry ranked third or all agricultural
industries in value of products produced and was surpassed
only by returns from.dairy products and meat animals.

Hichigan.has kept pace with the nation in poultry pro-
duction. In 1953 Michigan farmers received a gross income
of over ninety-four and one-half million dollars from the
sale of poultry and poultry products. As a source of farm
income poultry was surpassed only by dairy products and meat
animals (Borum.l95h). Of this total gross income, eggs
contributed over two-thirds and chickens (other than broilers)
accounted for another one-firth. Thus, according to the ’
Michigan statistics, returns from.the egg production enter-
prise actually accounted for between 85 and 90 percent of
the total poultry income in Michigan.

Since l9h0 poultry production.has increased more rapidly
than.any other comparable group of farm commodities. This
increased production was encouraged by war-time requirements

and resulting high prices, and was sustained by the adaptation

of new development by poultrymen in nutrition, breeding,
disease control, management and marketing. iDue to these
developments the total cost of production.per unit increased
less than the increase in feed and other cost items would
indicate (Agricultural.Marketing Service, l95h).

In l9h0 poultry was found on 78 percent of all Michigan
farms. The percentage of farms with poultry decreased
slightly to 75 percent in 1945 and to 67 percent in 1950
(U.S.D.A. Census, 1950). In the same period egg production
per hen, based on hen-day average, increased from.168.7
eggs (average for l9h3-52 period), to 185.5 eggs in 1952
and 186.3 eggs in 1953 (Borum.195h). There has also been an
upward trend in numbers of layers per flock on Michigan
farms. The average farm.flock in 1950 was more than 17 per-
cent larger than in l9h0 (Census, 1950).

The poultry business in Michigan, as in other states,
fluctuates in relatively short cycles. This is due to the
short period of time required to get into production with
a poultry flock when the cost-price relationship (egg-feed
ratio) appears favorable and the ease of disposing of birds
when prices decline. Some poultrymen have found it advisable
to decrease or eliminate their poultry enterprise while
others have continued to produce and some have expanded their
volume of procmction. Management practices which either re-
duce the cost of production or increase sales have consider-

able effect on these decisions.

Michigan farmers must decide whether or not to replace
a majority of hens in their laying flocks each year. Sixty-
four percent of the total number of hens on farms January 1,
1951;, were classed as pullets and 30 percent as hens (Kimball,
Smith and Moore, 19514.). The remaining six percent were not
classified.

It was felt that a study of the factors affecting costs
of replacing poultry flocks would be timely since economic
conditions have changed greatly during the past few years.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Studies have been carried on in different parts of the
United States to determine the cost of raising pullets as
replacements for the laying flock. However, many factors
influence production costs in different geographical loca-
tions and under varying economic conditions.

wright (1938) analyzed the poultry-records from.316
Michigan farm flocks. During a five year period (1932-
1937), the costs of raising 210,000 pullets varied between
individual farms. Some of the major variations were due to
(1) feeding efficiency, (2) death loss or mortality, (3) cost
of baby chicks, (h) breed, (5) hatching date, and (6) number
of chicks raised. ’ ‘ .

Feeding Costs

One of the largest cost items in producing pullets is
feed. wright (1938) found that feed costs averaged h? per-
cent of the total cost of producing pullets on.Michigan
farms. The number of pounds of feed used to raise a three
and one-half pound pullet varied from 13.3 pounds on the
more efficient farms to 22.h.pounds on the less efficient
farms. It was also reported by Oberholtzer (19MB) that feed

cost per chicken was the most important cost itemion poultry

farms in North.Central Indiana. He found that feed comprised
#7.? percent of the total cost of raising pullets. This per-
oentage varied from.h5 for sexed.pullets to R9 for straight
run pullets.

In a study of records from general farm.flocks and semi-
commercial farm.flocks in Illinois, Wilcox and Card (19h2)
reported that 28 pounds of feed were required to produce a
pullet and during the six year period an average of h9.5
percent of the total pullet cost was feed.

In a study of cost records from poultry farms in Central
Indiana, Johnson, Robertson and Sicer (19h8) attributed h7.8
percent of the total cost of raising pullets to feed. It
was reported by Pickler (1950) that feed consumption of
pullets on poultry farms in New York was almost the sans in
l9hl as it was in l9h7. He concluded that the feed cost for
raising pullets can be predetermined if the cost per hundred
pounds of feed is known. Feed expenditures comprised 50.7
percent of the total costs in l9h7.

Keperling (l95h) found that 20.3h pounds of feed per
pullet were required-to raise 2000 Single Comb white Leghorns
to maturity in Pennsylvania. According to Maxton (1936)
feed was also found to be the largest single item of expense.
His study included records from.157 Virginia farms with an
average of 569 pullets per farm. Feed accounted for 6h
percent of the total cost in 1931. In 1932, however, the

records from.207 farms (R63 pullets per farm) showed that
feed accounted for only 53 percent of the total cost.

Sicer and‘wilhelm (l9h2) found that feed contributed
7h percent of the total cost of raising “light breed",1
pullets on Indiana farms in l9hl-u2 and 85 percent of the
cost of producing I'heavy breed" pullets. No labor charge
was made against the bird, however, which.accounts for this
high.percentage.

The average feed cost to produce pullets from.thirty-
three cooperators in the New'York‘Randmm Smuple Test was
56 percent of the total cost of producing the pullets (King
1955). The average consumption of feed was 38 pounds to
produce a pullet. The number of pounds of feed consumed
varied from 32.9 pounds for the most efficient white Leghorn
pullets, to h6.6 pounds of feed per pullet fer the least
efficient New Hampshires.

These results indicate that feed cost is definitely a
‘major expense item.in producing pullets. Feed cost as a

percentage of total cost varies from.h7 to 85 percent.

Mortality

The number of pullets raised from.each one hundred
chicks started affects both feed consumption and total pullet

cost.

1 "Light breed” in this paper will refer to Leghorns,
Minorcas and any of the light weight hybrid chickens. ”Heavy
breed"will refer to Plymouth Rock, Rhode Island Reds, New
Hampshires and any others which commonly reach a weight of
five and one-half to six pounds at maturity.

bright (1938) reported a range in mortality from.0 to
ho percent, with an average mortality of 15 percent in
Michigan farm.flocks. (Although.no definite reasons for these
differences in death loss were shown by the data compiled,
one reason suggested by the author was that the floor space
provided for each one hundred chicks started was larger in
those flocks which had the lower mortality.

A.mortality of 13 percent in sexed Leghorns, 10 percent
in sexed heavy breeds and 23 percent in straight run.heavy
breeds was reported by Piekler (1950) on New'York farmm.

His records showed an average mortality of 1h percent. In
Indiana, Sicer and‘Wilhelm (l9h2) reported a mortality of
27 percent in light breeds but only 16 percent in heavy breeds.

Haxton (1936) did not report mortality to be one of the
factors affecting variations in pullet costs on Virginia
poultry farms.

Records from.Iowa demonstration flocks showed an average.
mortality for sexed chicks of lh.8 percent and fior straight
run chicks 13.0 percent (Whitfield 1951).

Records from.182 Indiana farms (101 straight run and
60 sexed flocks) showed an average mortality of only 12-h
percent over a three year period (Oberholtser l9h3). This
average was the same for both straight run and sexed flocks.

Johnson, Robertson and Sicer (l9h8) reported that mor-

tality was about the same for large as for small flocks on

Central Indiana farms. They found that flock mortality was
reduced nearly one-half from.l9h2 to l9h6. This decrease in
mortality from an average of 1h.percent in l9h2 to 8 percent
in l9h6 was attributed to a combination of factors. The
major factors reported.were (1) an increase in use of better
sanitation practices, (2) better quality chicks purchased,
and (3) better feeding programs followed.

(In a summary of records kept by Indiana poultrymen,
Sicer (19h?) reported a range in mortality in Leghorn flocks
from.8.6 to 21.h percent. Mortality in heavy breeds varied
slightly between flocks in the upper one-third on the basis
of efficiency and lower one-third on the same basis. The
mortality was 36 percent and 35 percent respectively. Effi-
ciency was based on the cost of producing pullets to maturity.

‘Hilcox and Card (19h2) did not report mortality as one
of the factors affecting pullet costs. However, they did
find that a 10 percent increase in.mortality.over the six
year period of the study increased the cost of producing a
dozen eggs by 2.5 cents per dozen. It is assumed that this
included pullet mortality as*well as mortality during the
laying year. King (1955) reported that mortality ranged
from.0 to 19 percent in the New York Random.Samp1e Test.

From.these studies it can be concluded that mortality
has a very definite influence on pullet cost. Mortality

ranging from.0 to no percent indicates the need for adopting

practices which.will help to curb the death loss. Good
management practices call for adequate floor space, effec-
tive sanitation, good feeding programs and the purchase of
well bred chicks.

Cost of Chicks

One of the direct costs in producing pullets is the
cost of baby chicks.

wright (1938) reported that chick cost averaged 21
percent of the total cost of’producing pullets on.Michigan
farms and was second to feed in importance. He found that
those producers who purchased medium priced chicks had a
medium.cost pullet, and received more profit than did either
those who purchased low priced chicks or high.priced chicks.

In the New'York Random Sample Test, King (1955) re-
ported a range in chick cost from 29 cents per chick for
New Hmmpshires to 60 cents per chick for ”Hybrid'1 chicks.

Sicer (l9h7) reported a chick cost of 26.7 cents for
the more efficient light breeds and 29.8 cents for the less
efficient light breeds on Indiana poultry farms. The cost
of heavy breed chicks varied between 1h.9 cents and 17.7
cents per chick. Efficiency in this study was based on pul-

let costs at maturity.

 

1 ”Hybrid” will be used in this paper to designate any
of the so-called hybrid strains.

10

Differences in chick cost between farms reporting were
not listed by Johnson, Robertson and Sicer (l9h8) on Central
Indiana farms. They did report, however, an average chick
cost of 13 cents per chick in 19h2 and 18 cents per chick in
19h6. .

‘Hilcox and Card (l9h2) did not report chick cost as
having a significant influence on the cost of raising pullets.

The total cost per hundred for sexed pullets was found
to be $18.03 more than for straight run chicks on.Indiana
farms (Oberholtzer 19h3). He found, however, that the labor
return per hour for both groups was about equal.

Chick cost ranged from.u0 cents per chick for sexed
flocks to 21 cents per chick for straight run chicks in
Iowa (Whitfield 1951). He concluded that it is profitable
to buy straight run chicks if a special market for cockerels
can be found and they are sold at an early age.

Summarizing poultry records from.Indiana farms, Sicer
and‘flilhelm (19h2) reported that light breeds cost 13 cents
per chick and heavy breeds 11.5 cents per chick.

Pickler (1950) did.not report chick cost as being an
important factor in affecting pullet costs.

A wide variety of prices are paid by poultrymen for
day-old chicks. From these reports it may be concluded that
chick cost is important in determining the cost of rearing
pullets. Straight run chicks are usually lower priced and

offer some advantages if there is a market for the cockerels

at an early age. In general, there appeared to be little
correlation between price paid per pullet chick and total

rearing cost.

Breed

The cost of raising pullets to maturity varies between
light breeds and heavy breeds for two reasons. Light breed
chicks are more commonly purchased as sexed pullets than
are heavy breed chicks and this affects chick cost. Light
breeds also weigh less at maturity and reach sexual maturity
at an earlier age than do heavy breeds and consequently re-
quire less feed for their growth.

wright (1938) found that the cost of producing light
breeds on Michigan farms was 17.6 cents per pound as compared
to 16.0 cents per pound for heavy breeds. He reported that
this difference was due largely to more efficient gains made
by the heavy breed broilers. These broilers also sold for
5 cents more per pound than did the light breed broilers.
This higher broiler income resulted in lower total costs
for producing these pullets. In the New York Random Sample
Tests, King (1955) reported differences in costs of rearing
pullets between breeds. The total cost of production did
not include a labor charge for rearing or a value for poul-
try products sold. It was based on the number of chicks
started and not on those raised. The entries which had the
highest pullet costs were an entry of New Hampshires which

12

had a total cost of $3.76 per chick started and a "Hybrid"
entry which had a total cost of $3.h0 per chick started.
The entries which had the lowest costs were a white Leghorn
entry with.a total cost of $2.73 per chick started and a
second "Hybrid” entry which had a total cost of $2.79 Per
chick started.— .

Reports from the Iowa demonstration flocks (1950-1951)
did not indicate differences in rearing costs between breeds
but did indicate considerable differences between breeds in
the net income per hen per year during the first year of
production. It was reported that Leghorns earned 5.7 percent
interest on the investment, "Hybrids” 2.7 percent, White
Rocks 1.8 percent, mixed or cross breeds .3 percent and New
Hampshires a loss of 7.2 percent interest on the investment
(Whitfield 1951).

Indiana poultry flock records (l9h6—l9h7) indicated that
the cost per pullet ranged between $1.06 for the most effi-
cient light breeds and $2.02 for cm. 1.3. efficient light
breeds based on the total costs of production. Uith heavy
breeds these differences ranged between $0.59 and $l.hh.on
the most efficient farms and the less efficient farms re-
spectively (Sicer 19h7).

Haxton (1936) found considerable variation in the cost
of producing pullets on Virginia poultry farms but did not
attribute this to breed differences.

In an effort to determine the differences in costs of

producing pullets between heavy and light breeds in New

13

York, Pickler (1950) analyzed the records from.167 farms.
He reported that the total cost of producing sexed light
breed pullets averaged $2.31 with a net pullet cost of
$2.27 while the cost of producing sexed heavy breed pullets
averaged $2.56 with a net cost of $2.h9. No records were
reported on straight run light breeds but straight run
heavy breeds were produced for a total cost of $3.9h.per
pullet with a net cost of $2.27 per pullet. 0n Indiana
farms Sicer and Nilhelm.(l9h2) found differences in.rearing
costs between light and heavy breeds. The average net cost
for each light breed pullet was 69 cents and the average
cost for each heavy breed pullet housed was no.6 cents.
Hilcox and Card (19h2) did not report differences between
breeds in cost studies of producing pullets on Illinois
farms. Oberholtzer (l9h3) did not report breed differences
as a significant factor in the costs of raising pullets to
maturity on farms in North Central Indiana.

From.these studies it can be concluded that there are
considerable differences between the total cost of producing
light breed and heavy breed pullets. Light breed pullets
can be produced with less feed and at a lower total cost.
However, the net pullet cost may be reversed between heavy
breeds and light breeds if well bred straight run chicks are
purchased and a good market is available for the cockerels

at broiler age.

Hatching Date

The hatching date can be expected to have some influence
on the cost of raising pullets because of the differences
in brooding costs during warm.and cold seasons of the year.

In a study of records from poultry farms in.Michigan
bright (1938) reported that the hatching date influenced
several cost items in raising pullets to maturity. He
found early hatched chicks were higher priced than those
purchased later, more feed was consumed, mortality was
slightly higher, and more labor was required to care for
them. Although early hatched broilers brought a higher
price per pound, the net cost of March hatched pullets was
slightly higher than those hatched in.April.and considerably
higher than those hatched in May. He concluded, however,
that the purchase of late hatched chicks was not necessarily
the most desirable plan because of cheaper costs, since late
hatched chicks will come into production when there is a
surplus of eggs and the price may be considerably lower.
Hhitfield (1951) reported.the purchase of early chicks in
Iowa as one of the key practices followed by those poultry
cooperators who were the most successful.

After summarizing records from.1ndiana poultry farms,
Sicer (19h?) reported that purchasing chicks early enough to
get 50 percent production by early September was one of the

essential steps for successful poultry raising.

15

Although.most of the studies have not included the
hatching date as an important cost factor between poultry
farms in raising pullets to maturity, it is very important
as far as profit during the laying year is concerned. From
these studies it can be concluded that early hatched pullets
will cost slightly more to raise to maturity but this dif-
ference should be more than off-set by the advantage of

selling eggs at a higher price.

Flock Size

It is generally conceded that an adequate volume or
size of business is necessary if any business is to be suc-
cessful. Although size alone does not insure efficiency in
a poultry enterprise, the larger units should have a lower
overhead and a lower labor cost per bird.

wright (1938) reported that the main advantages of
larger flocks, in Michigan, were better labor efficiency
and lower building and equipment cost. The farmers with
less than hOO chicks, (average flock size of 282 chicks)
produced pullets for 6h cents each. Those farmers with be-
tween.h01 and 800 chicks, (average of 535 chicks) produced
pullets for 56 cents each and the larger flocks over 800
which averaged 1,376 chicks cost 58 cents per pullet. He
concluded that the size of flock was actually not a very

important factor in affecting the pullet cost.

16

Pickler (1950) reported that a particular advantage
was gained with larger poultry flocks on New'York farms
when sexed pullets were raised. When farms with all sexed
chicks were divided by breed and then into two groups, one
with flocks of less than 800 pullets and the other with 800
or more pullets, every item of cost per pullet, except in!
terest was less for the larger flocks. The amount of labor
per pullet was about 50 percent less with the larger flocks
and as a result the total cost was considerably less. The
chick cost was slightly less and the amount of feed consumed
and/or wasted per pullet was also less. As a result the feed
cost was substantially lower. The net effect was that Leg-
horn pullets in large flocks cost 60 cents less per pullet
to produce than those in small flocks. For heavy breeds
the difference was R9 cents.

Flock size has not been considered of major importance
in influencing the cost of raising pullets in most of the
studies. However, the results from.the Michigan and New
'York studies do indicate that there are certain efficiencies
to be gained by maintaining larger flocks.

1?

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine the cost
of raising pullets on representative Michigan farms and
to evaluate the factors affecting those costs.

This study could give farmer-producers some assistance
in planning their poultry enterprises and making the neces-
sary adjustments. In addition, such records would offer
invaluable help to young people, or anyone, who wanted to
get started in the poultry business.

l8

PROCEDURE

Since a uniform method of reporting poultry production
costs and returns was not being followed by Michigan.poultry-
men, two problems were apparent. What records should be se-
cured and from.whom.should they be obtained? A simple yet
satisfactory record form'was necessary which would include
the necessary costs and returns with a minimum.of time and
effort by the producer. For this purpose, the mimeographed
record form, Baby Chick Record,1 was selected for this study.

Poultrymen, who would record and make available the
necessary records, had to be selected. An interest survey
of graduates of the specialized poultry short course at
Michigan State College and of a number of recommended
poultrymen was conducted in 1953. Seventy questionnaires
were mailed to these poultrymen. Thirty replies were re-
ceived, but only twenty were interested in keeping detailed
records for our purpose.

Only seven kept complete enough records for use in this
report. Several had flocks of mixed ages with no accurate
method of segregating costs. Others discontinued their

records for military reasons.

 

1

Agricultural Economics Department, Michigan State
0011380. .

19

During the summer of 1953, all of the farm operators
who had indicated a willingness to cooperate in the project
were visited by the author. A poultry cost record book
was presented to each cooperator. Suggested methods fer
keeping records were discussed and the plans for initiating
the study were outlined.

During the pullet growing season two personal letters
were mailed to each cooperator. Additional personal service
was given to several of these farmers. This included bring-
ing birds back to the poultry pathology laboratory, getting
information on disease control from.the poultry extension
veterinarian and, in one or two cases, making contacts for
the extension veterinarian to work with the cOOperator‘ on
his farm.

During the summer of l95h all of the poultry farmers
still cooperating by keeping records were again visited
by the author. ‘During this same visit the record books
were examined and analyzed. Some of the records were not
complete and others were not accurate. Suggestions were
made for entering the correct information in the record
books which were incomplete. These records were later sent
to the author for summarizing. Some of these farmers had
already summarized their books but some errors and omissions
were found in each record. Personal correspondence was
necessary to correct errors that were not found during the

farm.visit. It was not until after January 1, 1955, that

all of the records were received and the summarization could
be completed.

The farmers who cooperated in this study were located
in the counties of Kalkaska, Lapeer, Livingston, and two each

from.1ngham.and Tuscola.

’1
' l
. _ 2
. / .
Y
. I o . ' ' ' f l a a . ‘
. I 5 e. e . ,
. . - e - .
-‘ . .. , . v'. ‘
. I v 7 as . I" . A ‘ . . ‘
l
‘ I I- , ,' ‘ l '
‘.¢ . ‘ - a In . - , a
l.
. v ' . : -
.r . I i w. ’ v
‘ I M - o _;
. 7 . ‘
. A . ' v .
- I
‘ A J t . . , n' - V. g
, _, ‘. - . ,
I . ' ~ 7 e «a. 3
«5 , ‘ - a . h k5 ‘ l 5
'
i s: i ‘ ‘ g v . A g '7'! _ _ ,
r .'~ . J . we . ‘ . h "t g t. I,
\' ' - e
i * II " .' . t I . r
A l. (H t . t ’1‘ l ‘ A ~
I - i
"i 3 ',' .. ' ' ' -

 

 

.‘. ‘ v c -. ._ .r- o ¥ . w p, .. . V' Q 13.; a" ,_ , ., ‘ 7 ‘ I, V
‘ 4 , . .g . y .
» n . ' '-' -..2.. s 1 i- - k ‘ J w J U I. Ll s x. , ‘ A I
o ' e d
. - fl a ..
. y ‘ ' :‘* . ’.‘ ‘1— k' I" f. 9'“ w v—r—th
- M \, It 5 V . A. 1.- ‘e. - .Ia- \- aa" . a. a. -u .
, .n‘. e s > v
- V . , A' .
_. - <- , ~ _ V. a. . 1

f7;

4 pp were kept._,:. ,1..

a '- . ‘ a .
. - l . ‘ * ,. .I
' .'
- . " --w . - . . - . v
‘
a - u .. _, g a , ‘
. r

4 an ...a,.. c - "F-(I _. . — 3-. «a .—
n
i
a r ‘ .' . e ’
.a . ~ 8
‘ r .i
~ _ .n .| .u - ~ . A u. .
. e
- e x .
. . . 1 A ‘ ‘
r H
_. _ - . e a _ u 1' e .
“. a
- - , -
, . 1 t-

”I

Location of farms where records

5*

21

 

 

 

8'».
LJTOOQ'I

C
e

V‘ '
i3

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Case Study, Farm.No. 1

This is a general farm located in Lapeer County,
Michigan. The farm.land was leased to a second party but
the poultry enterprise was operated by the owner. On
January h, l95h, four hundred fifty-one sexed Single Comb
White Leghorn pullet chicks were purchased at a cost of
33.h cents per chick.1 Table I shows the costs for rearing
pullets up to twenty-four weeks of age.

From.these records a high feed cost is noted. Actually
the feed consumption was no.8 pounds per pullet raised.

One of the reasons for this high feed cost was the high
rate of mortality. During the first twelve weeks the mor—
tality was hh.8 percent but was only 1.5 percent during

the second twelve week period. Because of this high death
loss, the remaining 53.? percent of the pullets had to bear
the entire costs. Since the greater losses were incurred
during the first twelve weeks of age, the feed costs still
appear rather high. This might be due to excessive feed

wastage.

 

1 Chick numbers in this study included extras given
when chicks were purchased, but chick costtms based on the
number of chicks purchased.

23

TABLE I
COST OF BEARING PULLETS TO MATURITY, FARM NO. 1

 

 

 

Cost Items Total Cost Cost per Pullet
(Dollars) (Dollars)

Feed M38.90 1.81
Laborl 280.50 1.16
Chicks “138.20 .571
Overhead (5% of all charges) h8.01 .198
Building and Equipment 7 26.20 .108
Fuel and Lights 60.00 .2h8
MUscellaneous l6.h0 .068

TOTAL 1,008.21 11.163

 

The majority of chick losses was. due to crowding and/or
smothering. This undoubtedly was caused by inadequate brood-
ing facilities. The chicks were started in a.milkhouse which
was converted to a brooding house. This building was small
and excessive ventilation was necessary to remove moisture
from the house. The chicks also tended to crowd and losses
were excessive in severe weather, because of these conditions.

Returns from.the sale of eggs and poultry, together

with.a value for the products used by the household gave a

 

1 Labor was charged at $1.50 per hour in this study.

credit to the flock of $.O99 per pullet. Fifty-three and
six tenths percent of the birds purchased were housed at a

net cost of $h.06 per pullet.

Case Study, Farm No. 2

This is a specialized poultry farm.where poultry products
are the main source of farm.income. This farm.is located in
Tuscola County, Michigan. Since this farm.does a large
volume of business, feed is purchased in carload lots at
a low cost. The owner also has had several years experience
with poultry which gives him.an added advantage over those
with less poultry experience.

For flock replacement purposes, 1,872 Single Comb White
Leghorn pullet chicks were purchased February h, l95h, at a
cost of 52.5 cents per chick. Table II shows the costs for
rearing the pullets to twenty-four weeks of age.

Economies of scale and good management show up in these
cost figures. Feed consumption was only 25.1 pounds for
each pullet raised. Costs for feed, labor, buildings and
overhead were low because of the size of the flock and good
management practices. The central heating system.contributed
to the low costs of brooding.

The pullets were vaccinated for bronchitis when they
were moved into the laying house. Apparently one pen of the

TABLE II
COST OF REARING PULLETS TO MATURITY, FARM NO. 2

 

 

 

 

Cost Items Total Cost Cost per Pullet

(Dollars) (Dollars)

Feed 1,628.72' .953 '
Labor 378.00 .221
Chicks 9h6.00 .55h.
Overhead 158.83 .093
Building and Equipment 58.50 .031;
Fuel and Lights mono .082
Miscellaneous 2h.78 .Olh
TOTAL 3.335.53 1.951

 

birds had contracted the disease prior to vaccination, be-
cause it spread through the flock before the vaccination had
an opportunity to take effect. Although few losses were in-
curred, about 3 percent of the birds were removed as culls
and sold.

The returns from.the sale of eggs and cull birds, to-
gether with.the value of those products used by the household
accounted for 3.063 per bird housed. Ninety-one and two
tenths percent of the pullets purchased were housed at a net

cost of $1.89 per pullet.

26

Case Study, Farm.No. 3

This is a general farm.in Livingston County, Michigan,
and is operated by a retired salesman. Five hundred Single
Comb White Leghorn pullet chicks one month old were pur-
chased May 8, l95h, at a cost of 60.2 cents per chick. Table

III shows the rearing costs for pullets on this famm.

TABLE III
COST OF REARING PULLETS TO MATURITY, FARM NO. 3

 

Cost Items Total Cost Cost per Pullet

(Dollars) (Dollars)
Feed 630.01“ 1.607
Labor #17.00 1.06M
Chicks 310.00 .791
Overhead 73.18 .187
Buildings and Equipment 72.35 .185
Fuel and Lights 11MB .038
Miscellaneous 19.50 .0h9

TOTAL _ 1,536.79 [3:92;-

 

In reviewing the records of this farm.it becomes apparent
that feed consumption was high. A total of hh.9 pounds of

feed was required for each pullet raised. This high feed

27

consumption was due largely to the high rate of mortality.
Since birds were purchased at one month of age the feed con-
sumption should have been somewhat less than normal. How-
ever, a.mortality rate of 21.6 percent means that the birds
which survived had to bear extra costs for feed.

The high mortality in the flock may have been due to
several factors. The chicks received.were not very uniform
in size, although they were presumed to be the same age.
When the chicks arrived the brooder houses were not yet come
plete. This meant that the necessary preparation had not
been made previous to the arrival of the chicks.

Apparently the birds became infected with a respiratory
disease during the summer which resulted in considerable
losses. These losses resulted in extra costs for those which
survived since pullet costs were based on the number of pul-
lets raised.

Since started chicks were purchased, the chick cost was
considerably higher than would normally be expected.

Returns from the pullet flock accounted for 3.251 per
pullet. This left a net cost of $3.67 per pullet housed.

Case Study, Farm.No. h

This famm is located in Ingham.County, Michigan. It
is a general farm with only a small poultry enterprise. One

hundred fifty-six straight run White Plymouth Rock chicks

28

were purchased January 26, 195R, at a cost of 17.5 cents per
chick. The cockerels were marketed at about eleven weeks
of age at $.27 per pound. The cost records on this farm.are

shown in Table IV.

TABLE IV
COST OF REARING PULLETS TO MATURITY, FARM NO. h

 

 

 

Cost Items Total Cost Cost per Pullet

(Dollars) (Dollars)

Feed 151.21 ' 2.16 '
Labor 5h.00 .771
Chicks 26.35 .376
Overhead 13.93 .199
Building and Equipment 30.00 .h29
Fuel and Lights 8.85 .126
Miscellaneous 8.25 .118
TOTAL 292.59 I38—

 

Since straight run chicks were purchased, the feed con-
sumption charged against each pullet was relatively high with
hh.3 pounds being used for each pullet housed. The small
flock size resulted in overhead, building and labor costs per
pullet being higher than.they might have been with a larger

enterprise. Mortality was very low, since only 1.9 percent

29

of the chicks died during the twenty-four week growing period.
The cost per chick was not high because of the purchase of
straight run chicks, since the purchase price per chick was
about one-half as much for straight run as for sexed pullets.
Forty-four and nine-tenths_percent of the chicks purchased
were housed as mature pullets. Returns from.the sale of
broilers and eggs plus a value for products used by the house-
hold amounted to $1.71 per pullet housed leaving a net cost

of $2.h7.

Case Study, Farm No. 5

This farm is located in Tuscola County, Michigan. Four
hundred sexed White Plymouth Rock pullets one month old were
purchased February 26, 195u, at a cost of 27 cents per pullet.
Table V shows the cost records for rearing this flock to
maturity.

The feed consumed per pullet housed on this farm.was
27.3 pounds. Since these were heavy pullets, the feed cone
sumption was quite favorable. The chicks were purchased at
a very reasonable price considering they were one month old.
Mortality was relatively low with losses of only 7.5ipercent
during the pullet growing period. The labor per chick was
very high.with each pullet being charged with $1.17 for labor
during the twenty-week period. This undoubtedly represents
time spent with the chicks rather than actual labor being

30

TABLE V

COST OF REARING PULLETS TO MATURITY, FARM NO. 5

 

 

Cost Items Total Cost Cost per Pullet

(Dollars) (Dollars)

Feed h77.589 1.291 9
Labor h32.00 1.168
Ch1Ck8 108.00 .292
Overhead 56.26 .152
Building and Equipment 97.00 .262
Fuel and Lights 6.66 .018
Miscellaneous 3.88 .010
TOTAL 1,181.38 3.193

 

performed. Since this is not an "out of the pocket” cost
item, it apparently has been allowed to assume a large part
of the cost of production on this farm. Ninety-two and five-
tenths percent of the pullets purchased were housed. Returns
from.the sale of eggs amounted to $.00h per pullet leaving a
net rearing cost or $3.19 per pullet.

Case Study, Farm.No. 6

This is a general purpose farm.located in.Ka1kaska
County, Michigan. On March 1h, 195b, two hundred and three

31

sexed White Plymouth.Rock pullet chicks (day old) were

purchased, at a cost of 2h.5 cents per chick. The cost

records frmm.this flock are shown in Table VI.

TABLE VI

COST OF REARING PULLETS T0 MATURITY, FARM N0. 6

 

 

 

Cost Items Total Cost Cost per Pullet
(Dollars) (Dollars)
Feed .298.81' 1.669 .
Labor 201.00 1.123
Chicks h9.00 .27h
Overhead '29.00 .162
Buildings and Equipment 13.35 .075
Fuel and Lights 16.00 .089
Miscellaneous 1.85 .010
TOTAL 609.01 3.h02

 

The records from this farm showed that feed consumption

was high. Even though sexed pullets were purchased, h5.9

pounds of feed were required for each pullet raised. Mor-

tality in this flock was 13.7 percent, based on number of

chicks started. This high feed consumption apparently is

due to an error in the records and/or excessive feed wastage.

It is true that there is a difference in the efficiencies of

32

different breeds and strains to utilize feed, but this dif-
ference cannot be conceived as being this great.

Returns from.this flock were 8.306 per pullet. Eighty-
eight and one-tenth percent of the chicks purchased were
housed as mature pullets. This left a net rearing cost of

$3.10 per pullet.

Case Study, Farm.No. 7

This is a.small acreage farm located in Ingham County,
Michigan. The poultry enterprise was administered as a part
of a supervised farming program.in vocational agriculture.
Five hundred thirty New Hampshire sexed pullet chicks were
purchased January 26, l95h, at a cost of 30 cents per chick.
The rearing costs for this flock are shown in Table VII.

TABLE VII
COST OF REARING PULLETS TO MATURITY, FARM NO. 7

 

 

Cost Itemw Total Cost Cost per Pullet
(Dollars) (Dollars)
Feed h65.23' (1.2h1 *
Labor 112.88 .301
Chicks 150.00 .hOO
Overhead 39.98 .107
Buildings and Equipment 36.h7 .097
Fuel and Lights 1h.50 » .039
Miscellaneous 20,55 l_;Q§5_

TOTAL 839$), 2.21m

 

33

The rate of mortality in this flock was 10.1 percent.
Chickens were reared in inadequate quarters and as a result,
a high percentage of culls were removed from the flock before
housing. This loss, through culls and mortality, resulted
in the feed consumption being rather high per pullet housed.
A total of 30.1 pounds of feed per pullet was required to
rear these pullets to twenty-three weeks of age. Due to an
error in the farm records, costs were computed on this flock
for twenty-three weeks instead of twenty-four weeks.

The mortality and the high percentage of culls re-
sulted in the chick cost being relatively high, as well as
the other costs being higher than they otherwise would have

bQCD. e

A Comparison of Costs Between Farms

The total costs for rearing pullets on seven Michigan
farms ranged from.$l.89 on the most efficient farm to $h.06
on the farm.which was the least efficient. Table VIII
shows a summary of the production costs and returns on these
, farms.

Several factors influenced the costs of production in
rearing the pullet flocks. In general they were very sbmi-
lar to those reported by wright (1938).

Feed Costs

Feed consumption ranged from 25 to #5.9 pounds of feed

38

TABLE VIII

EXPENSE, INCOME, AND NET COST IN REARING PULLETS T0

TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS OF AGE, SEVEN MICHIGAN FARMS, 195M

 

 

Item EST? fl”? $333“ 3231‘? $33? $332 $31?

(Dollars per pullet raised)

Charges . '
Chicks .571 .5su .791 .376 .292 .278 ~h00
Feed 1.810 .953 1.607 2.160 1.291 1.669 1.211
Labor 1.160 .221 1.06u .771‘ 1.168 1.123 .301
Fuel and Lights .288 .082 .038 .126 .018 .089 .039
Building and Equip. .108 .038 .185 .829 .262 .075 .097
Miscellaneous .068 .Olh .0h9 .118 .010 .010 .055
Overheadl .198 .093 .187 .199 .152 .162 .107
TOTAL CHARGES n.163 1.951 3.921 8.179 3.193 3-h02 2-2h0

Credits

Sale of Eggs, Meat .072 .0h9 .087 .861 .00h .093 .216
Home Use .015 .01h .20h .710 -- .079 .019
Other .012 .1h3 -- .138 .027
TOTAL CREDITS .099 .063 .251 1.71h .306 .262
Net Cost h.06u 1.888 3.670 2.u65 3.189 3.096 1.978

 

Overhead charges at 5 percent of all charges.

35

per pullet raised on the seven farms. Figure 2 shows the
relationship between feed efficiency and pullet cost. Feed
cost ranged from 8.95 to $2.16 per pullet raised. This
higher feed cost was for straight run chicks, however, and
does not offer a direct comparison. The highest feed cost
for sexed pullets was $1.81. Both the high and low feed
cost were for sexed Single Comb White Leghorn pullets.
This difference is due largely to high mortality in the
less efficient flock which reflected higher costs attributed
to the birds which survived.

Feed represented h6.h percent of the total pullet cost.
This compares very favorably with the results found by
wright (1938) who reported feed cost as #7 percent of the
total cost of producing pullets on Michigan farms. Although
changing economic conditions have increased the total feed
costs, the proportion of the costs attributed to feed remain

about the same.

Death Loss or Mortality

The results of this study show that flock mortality
does have a direct bearing on pullet cost. Although the
lowest mortality rate did.not result in the lowest cost
pullet, those flocks with the lower mortality rate did pro-
duce the lower cost pullets. Table IX.shows that mortality
ranged from.l.9 percent to h6.3 percent of the chicks

started. Several factors contributed to these death losses.

36

  
  
    
   

Farm 2

2 lbs .
Vlllllllllllllllllll 81 . 89

Farm 5

2 lb
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII :53 . 19

0.1 lbs.
'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIA 81 . 98 -

 

Farm 7

Farm 1

0.8 lbs.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi 31+ . 06

66.3 lbs.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIA £73 2 . 1+7

Farm h

Farm 3

-.' lbs
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIA $3 . 67

65.9 lbs.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIA $3 . 10

Farm 6

Fig. 2. Relationship between pounds of feed don-'
sumed and total cost per pullet (pounds
of feed per pullet.raised),.7 Michigan 7--
farms, 1951..

The most apparent contributing factor, however, was inade-
quate floor space per chick. ,_ A respiratory infection was '
present in two f1ocks~whichr added to the losses. ' I
. Although, not considered as mortality, the percentage
of culls which was removed before the pullets were housed
affected the, cost (of, pullets housed. This seemed to be
aggravated {in one instance by the outbreak of bronchitis,
which might have been prevented by earlier vaccination. In

another flock, overcrowding seemed to be the stress factor.

(9

urn-1.»..aum'an ”‘2‘”, 2' ‘J
l. .J F " " o "“
,. ‘ . _ ‘

..":'..x1_'~.' _ '1; - v§

.‘,. r try-re .,
a: .. . _,', ‘i‘ \ \‘I {:3“. A; v \

V)
I

H

'7

    

v__I-A-‘ “:9 -_'.J o“! H‘W-w— I
I

.1r C‘ " * - . .r'
'5! 6 1.171331
. \;-.T

., [TI—Ix X '1‘“:\-\ \L- .\\\ i“.
“ ' \“ 1.1.2.1 ._L;\.\..; 41.1.4;ng 1

xfj

thaw-7 nun-Wm. a! u.- 7-...“1:

82’: 1A Tupi: : ffi:

‘ amt-.44..-. Joni-n-..-p—_-r—vz—u-~nn_nl
....'. (‘1..\ b v'-" ‘ $ v .“..--.‘I

,v

=44 I .31.“;

"I ‘ I ' IT‘T'..\' \" \C'Y'V"" 'V""‘”’ 2 '. -, M \‘
"} +5" I‘m—AA—QA.L AAA. .A...—.—.\_\.A..A -LA-J—LLA ‘ \ \‘\ \4.LA.A..\ A1

41
a
.1
m
.13

 

 

[Pad-AM; 30%;... 7“ ‘ I . f, . T -WA.I.“:7'
- ‘ ‘ ...\ . .
. . ,

re

1‘. " 1
.;J(1L .4. , ‘7'” ' ...—
1 ‘. .;‘- . _ o. e .{ :AuL;

.. ..
\m‘“ 3‘" MA&4.A—L.J.L.L

121'! :31

g

.1

i
’1!
I?"
1;.

 

‘) [I “I. F1P:': «wmuw-«M_¢“v“:fl “-1: ' "
E m s ‘1

v\‘(‘-V~ :1"
m\11_‘1‘l 1x.kl:_1_i'LL\A\ \‘LJX¥\\ \1_\\\ \

 

  

:;::P:1 ;I' ' : .231- II ”5;; a “11 51
x \ v - .

   

“,4, I‘

#103 (123‘1'1 '1“) 81111.03 {1535;‘r.'13.:_e1“'1 (.Lji’ist-I :31 (F131; .3; HI;

‘ 1:"; 'itwg 312031-1303 ixrzis Jemima

,{befis'l J.- [1.2; “1%; but-'1 '10
.ufivi ,amw-l

M3513 new ,Tevewod ,Todosl yniiydiminito Jasmsqq 3 330m s-T

(..

sew neidoslnl zuo+suiqeeu A .Totno qu see 43 10011 sisup
.asaaoI ed: OJ boobs daldw afiooil ow: a1 ineaeuq
egsicaneq sdJ ,Ediiejucm gs beesbianoo Jon dguofidIA

eusw aleiiaq 0H3 ousted bsVGHST ZBW' dolfl w aIIuo lo

7".
U
(3‘.-
r"
L.
K4
7
"w

en 03 bsmoes 214T .Dssucn aiefiisq lo deco ed: bedoslls
,siJldonowd lo Asssfijno as: {d eonsiani eno n1 bedevsmags
a: .aotjsniousv Telluse {d bsdmevsfiq need svsd ddglm doldw

.103021 233132 943 ed OJ {m ates mlnuomoqevo ,mooIl "e '3ons

37

TABLE II
INFLUENCE OF MORTALITY 0N PULLET COST, 7 MICHIGAN FARMS, 195M

L
“ : —_-

Item Farm Farm Farm Farm Farm Farm Farm
No.11. No.2 No.5 N007 N006 N0e3 N001

 

 

Number Chicks Started 156 1872 #00 530 203 500 h51
Number Pullets Housed 70 1709 370 375 179 392 2&2
Hatching Date (1951;) 1-26 241 1-26 1-26 3-111 h—8 1.11
Chick Cost (dollars) .376 .551; .292 .1100 .27h .791 .571
Mortality 1st 12 wks - % .6 11.2 6.0 9.0 3.9 111.0 1111.8
Mortality 2nd 12 wks - 9% 1.3 1.8 1.5 1.1 9.8 7.6 1.5
Total Mortality - % 1.9 6.0 7.5 10.1 13.7 21.6 116.3

Net Cost per Pullet
Raised (dollars) 2.87 1.89 3.19 1.98 3.10 3.67 8.06

 

Mortality was highest in the sexed light breeds, inter-
mediate in the sexed heavy breeds and least in the straight
run heavy flock. It does not necessarily follow, however,
that mortality is related to these breeds in that order, or
due to sexing. The lowest mortality was in the straight run
heavy breed, which was one of the smaller flocks and popula-
tion density was not an adverse factor. The second lowest
mortality was in a flock of sexed Single Comb White Leghorns
and the highest mortality was also in a flock of sexed Singhe
Comb white Leghorns.

38

Chick Cost

Although chick costs represented 19.6 percent of the
total costs of producing pullets in this study, it did not
necessarily follow that lower priced chicks produced lower:
cost pullets. wright (1938) in a study of Michigan farm.
flocks found that chick cost constituted 21 percent of the
total cost of production, second only to feed. In this
study chick cost ranked third in importance and was lower

than feed and labor.

Breed

The cost of raising pullets to maturity varies mater-
ially between light and heavy breeds. As shown in Table I
sexed light breeds were raised more economically than were
sexed heavies or straight run pullets.. Straight run heavy
breed pullets cost second highest and sexed heavy breeds
cost the most.

It was the observation of the author that management
affected costs more than breed and variety differences did.
Although the most economical production was found in a flock
of sexed Single Comb White Leghorn pullets, the least economy
ical production also occurred in a flock of Single Comb White
Leghorns.

39

TABLE X

THE INFLUENCE OF BREED AND SEX ON PULLET COST,

7 MICHIGAN FARMS, 195u

 

All

 

Light Heavy Run Farms
Number of farms 3 3 1 7
Chicks Started 2823 1133 156 #112
Pullets Raised 23h3 92k 70 3337
Percent Mortality 15.2 8.3 1.9 12.8
Labor (minutes per bird) 18.10 32.3 30.8 22.5
Feed (pounds per bird) 6 29.98 32.038 hh.3 30.9

Cost Per Pullet

Dollars Dollarjs Dollars Dollars

Chicks .595 .332 ' .376 .517
Feed 1.151 1.311 2.160 1.226
Labor .h59 .807 .770 .562
Fuel and Lights .092 .OMO .126 .073
Bldgs. and Equip. .067 .159 .h29 .100
Miscellaneous .026 .028 .118 .029
Overhead ( 5 Percent .120 .136 .199 .126
of all charges)
Total Cost per Pullet 2.510 2.796 h.l78 2.638
Returns other than pullets .099 .167 1.668 .151
Net Cost per Pullet 2.hll 2.629 2.510 2.h87

 

 

ho

Hatching Date

Since all of the chicks in this study were hatched in
January, February, March and early April, the advantages
and disadvantages of early and late hatched chicks could

not be compared.

Flock Size

There was a range in flock size from.70 to 1,709
pullets on the farms studied. Pullets were produced the
most efficiently in the largest flock. The mmallest flock
was straight run chicks and the net pullet cost was reduced
by returns from the sale of broilers. The difference in
size of flock on the other farms was not considered signifi-
cant.

The total cost and percentages in the various cost

items for producing pullets are shown in Figure 3.

Feed

H

Labor
Chick -

Overhead

Buildings_
& Equip.

Fuel & Lights '

. * axv
Miscellaneous

hit

 

    
 
 

3.8% -:
,08.
3.0%,

3.03 ~ .
l.l%" '

592:,

L4

4--"

_Fig. 3. Average pullet cost, 7 Michigan farms, 195h '

u‘ f r
\ . a".
. ‘ O v

 
 

- .5; k 12:1. .‘_A'_ {max-ta.“ :3 :1 u: a. “sift-‘1' -.- a!" "_ an'cu’n‘r . .cv...’ ; ax‘LPJ *‘gffufwwu .‘a, :,...._
L“\f\a.i.‘1l t' y- . «rah . ‘. ‘-~ 0.. ' 9 -".' " " ' a - ' T ‘ b8 9:!
. . . . ‘ . V. ,. . ‘ . . ~ ' . .
J- “rrxr—ruw—v "mu-- .- - 3"“. May. 5"fl - 1 was» w:aw;-§pvz"n&‘—huh.

,3»

 

t. . 1.
. _‘ -. ,r :lug'alw-J¢Iawfi-ummn I. 'u M
7 r » ~- _ 7 . . ~
1' L .1: -'a;1a3.1__;r-'~: 1' ML . _H '10de
{:2 .

l . w . 1.5-I" “was _ . -
‘ f \ " . \‘3 y. ”’5." . . . ~ ‘4'" ‘ ‘1':- .
L .J 0 ‘{ J- -.'. .h A“ - ’9 -. 71‘3“». "- I“ I; m- in a!

5.1
c:
h-
(3

a8.A agfi": beedvavl

 

8:3flitJliLffi
.qirna s

ejdgii 3 Ian?

eucenblleoaiM

 

v' 3 1 '0 , : _'_ I ' ‘fi ‘ ‘f ‘7‘, 7' n. a , .fif'V
36%E ‘emvoi as.1xoaa T {JaLu J 11L: Udalea .E .511

u H_.___

 

1.

2.

3.

AZ

The net cost of raising pullets on these farms ranged
from.$l.89 t0 $h.06 per pullet housed.

Feed consumption ranged from.251pounds per pullet to
h5.9 pounds. Feed costs averaged h6.h percent of the
total cost of production . These costs ranged from

$.95 to $2.16 per pullet housed.

Mortality ranged from 1.9 percent to h6.3 percent of

the chicks started.

The chick cost averaged 19.6 percent of the total rearing
costs but did not seem to have a direct correlation with
cost of the pullet at maturity. These costs per chick
at the time of purchase varied from.17.5 cents to 52.5
cents for day old chicks and from.30 cents to 60.2 cents
for started Chicks.

Labor contributed 21.3 percent of the total pullet cost
and was second to feed cost,.

Pullets were produced most efficiently in the largest
flock. The net pullet costs ranged from $1.89 to $h.06

per pullet housed.

#3

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agricultural Marketing Service, 195k. Poultry and egg
situation, Outlook issue, 1955. United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.

Borum, G. J., 195h. Michigan agricultural statistics 1953.
Michigan Department of Agriculture, Lansing, Michigan.

Butler, Clara H., 195h. Poultry and egg statistics. United
States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Market-
ing Service, Washington, D. C.

Carpenter, K. 8., 1953. Estimated costs of producing eggs,
New York State, 1926-1952. Cornell Experiment Station,
Bulletin 897.

Census, 1950. Farms, farm.characteristics, livestock and
products. United States Census of Agriculture, United
States Government Printing Office, Hashington, D. C.

Darrah, L. B., 19h3. Costs and returns from the laying flock
on commercial poultry farms, 19h0-hl. Cornell Experi-
ment Station, Bulletin 802. _

Darrah, L. B., 19h7. Make your poultry farm pay. Cornell
Experiment Station, Bulletin 713.

Gooding, P. H., 19h8. A guide to poultry farming in South
Carolina, twenty years of poultry records. Clemson
Agricultural College, Circular 318.

Johnson, H. A., L. S. Robertson, and J. W. Sicer, 19h8.
Profitable poultry management on central Indiana farms.
Purdge Agricultural Experiment Station, Special Bulletin
NO. 310

Kearl, 0. D., 1950. Seasonal costs and returns in producing
eggs New York, l9h6-h7. Cornell Agricultural Experiment
Station, Bulletin 1950.

Keperling, Paul 8., 195A. Production cost of growing pulleys.
Route #2, Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

Kimball, E. 8., P. w. Smith, and R. F. Moore, 19Sh. Agricul-
tural Marketing Service (Egg Marketing Service), April

l95h.

King, Steven C., 1955. Fifth random.sample poultry test
at Horseheads, New'York. Cornell Agricultural Experi-
ment Station, Poultry Department, Mimeographed report.

Lee, C. E., l95h. Cost of raising pullets in 195M. Beacon
Milling Company, Inc., Caguga, New York. Mimeographed
report dated, September 2 , 195A.

Maxton, J. L., 1936. An economic study of poultry farming
in Virginia. Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station,
Bulletin 300.

Oberholtzer, J.‘W., l9h3. An economic study of semi-commercial
egg farms in north central Indiana. Purdue Agricultural
Experiment Station. Bulletin.h86.

Pickler, M. J., 1950. Costs of raising pullets on New'York
farms, 19 7. Cornell Agricultural Experiment Station.
Bulletin 59 e

Plaxico, J. 8., 1950. The laying hen enterprise, costs and
returns l9h6-h7. Virginia Agricultural Experiment
Station. Bulletin h3 .

Sicer, J. W., l9h7. Cooperators' summary Indiana poultry
flock records. Purdue University Poultry Department,
Mimeographed report.

Sicer, J. W., and L. A. Wilhelm, l9h2. Cooperators' summary
Indiana poultry flock records. Purdue University,
Poultry Department, Mimeographed report.

Smith, E. E., P. W. Smith and Robert F. Moore, 195h. Egg
Marketing Service, United States Department of Agricul-
ture, Washington, D. 0., April 195k.

Whitfield, W. R., 1951. Report Iowa poultry demonstration
flocks 1950-51. Iowa State College, Agricultural Exp
tension Service, Mimeographed report.

Wilcox, R. H., and L. E. Card, 19h2. Poultry costs and
profits, a six year study of general farm flocks and
semi-commercial flocks. Illinois Agricultural Experi-
ment Station, Bulletin h86.

Winner, E. B., and T. L. Joule, l9h9. Poultry record summary.
MissouniAgricultural Experiment Station, Poultry
Department.

Wright, K. T., 1938. Profitable poultry management. Michigan
Agricultural Experiment Station, Special Bulletin 29h.

APPENDIX

'45

 

1+6

BABY (TH/CK RECORD

From To

 

Name

 

Post Office

 

 

 

Township
County

Index Page
Feed ———————————————————————— 1
Inventory ————————————————————— 2
Cash expenses ——————————————————— 3-5
Losses _______________________ 6
Labor, regular chores on baby chicks ———————— 7
Labor, special and marketing ———————————— 7—8
Chickens, used and sold -------------- 9
Eggs. used and sold ———————————————— 9
Supplementary notes ———————————————— 10
Financial summary of the record —————————— ll

***¥******

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT
Agricultural Experiment Station
Michigan State College
of Agriculture and Applied Science
East Lansing, Michigan

FEED“ ~1-
FIRST 12. ms 3001:]: 12 ms

1. First four-weeks: u. Fourth four-weeks:

Kind of feed 0 feed Lbs.

 

 

 

Total To
11 ? I
2. Second four—weeks: 5. Fifth fouruweeks:
Kind of feed Lbs. value Kind of feed ' Lbs. Value

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Total

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:E 4.1: m
3. Third four—weeks: 6. Sixth four—Weeks:
Kind of feed Lbs. Value Kind of feed Lbs. Value
ii $
Total Total
Total mash (12 weeks)x Total mash (2H wedks)x
" n ' .
Total scratch" x ==L===I=T°ta1 scrich ' " x t [

 

 

 

* Total feed fed, which includes both purchased and home—grown feed, should be
recorded here. Feed bought and expense for grinding should also be entered
under cash expenses, pages 3, h or 5.

x Carry these totals to page 11, lines 2 and 3.

 

 

q ”.7...” . .

#8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-2-
INVENTORIES
1. Poultry Buildings and Equipment
Items At beginning, At end
No. Value No. i Value
Brooder house . $
Brooders
_§eeders
Raterers
Poultry fencing
.5 ii i— 14
Totals "“'
Expenses on equipment (from.page 5)
Interest on investment @ 6% W p
Total
Less total value at end of 2H weeks
Buildings and equipment cost (to page 11,11ne 8)

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Land used by baby chicks acres. Charge for it's use $ .
}1 Chicks on Hand at End of 12 weeks — (Date )
merimtggh 1 N0. Av.Wt. Total- Price Value
Rfllets
Broilers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals (to pagefill, line lu, column 1)

 

1+. Young stock on Hand at End of 21+ weeks —. (Date )

 

Description No. Av.Wt. Total Price. value

 

Pullets (for layers)

 

Pull ets (culls)

 

Cockerels

 

Meat StOCk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals (to page 11, line lu. column 2)

 

«.~.

-
'.
I
.
4
.
..
--

 

.
4.-
..~-
- .

 

 

0' ‘0 u
. ..u
-

8‘ .4.

. .

e

on '

:Jh-aa 4
o -

- ~ 9

.v‘ e

.. n.‘ -

.
n
1
o
- L
-‘- I o
nv-\ -

 

 

 

 

49

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.13...
CASH EXPENSES
F060. Equip... F1161 .
Date Item and description Amt. bought Grinding :1 ent and 1.11 sc. *
1 ight s .
% s s $
Total 5 i:

 

 

 

*Miscellaneous expenses include cost of the baby chicks, litter, medicine, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

no».

.4.

 

O
--..
.--.
.—..
. .
.

 

 

 

CASH EXPENSES
i Feed Equip— Fuel
Date Item and description Amt. bought Grinding ment and Misc.
“ ‘lightgg
$ $

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals of page M

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

O o-. um ‘ - - | -_ .10. in v-' -'--1Ms l.\ . . “‘33.:ass-

 

 

 

 

 

 

c
. .
U a
.
~.
9 0 ’ ' . . - - c . e a‘ ' -' o o - ..
. . , . . . .
. . nv- . - ~
. v— . .
7 0 I o
. _ . .
.
. -1. e ‘
o a . . .
.
n ‘ ‘~. 0
' ' . ‘7‘ h h ..o. va. .
g - . . . -
.p .
1
v
.' . . . . v ‘ - - 9 . . . . < .
a
.. . ‘ .. e. .. . .
.
t
. e t.. .o-n. .-, .. .. ‘ .. .
I
. .
‘ I
-" ‘ ~' " ‘ ' 7 ' ‘9 - -.., . ., . .
l
. I
. ‘ , Y
. .. ... .u “ -- ' ‘ - n ' " ‘ o ' --'-'vI. -'. ---. a . u- '. - .
' _ M , . y ' . . , .A . .o"< .,., ‘4 «n . I. .. -~~ ”pug” .. ..-'. ... ..... ---. . --o‘.- 9.. . . n .
r I
; .
- .
- I
',..... .¢.. -. . . ....pf-. ., - . .'_ _ . _ .
u
! I
. , « .~ 17. . _ ,‘a. _ .
‘ I
. .
I
'__‘. , .. - r... . u... -v. .. , .. o h . . . . . . .
u
I ' I
' ‘
' I
. I .
. .o . . .‘ . .. v .c , . .-. . -. 4"~" .. I . .
7
.
u
. I I . .1
.,, .‘I I - "o. ' . a. t-. I.- -. _ .n’., . ' ~ ,, .. . _' _
I
I
.
_ . Q .... ‘ n ‘ < a '.I .- r r ‘V g. 2 . . . . —-. .. ..
- I
l
. ..' . . . n .o .- -' . ~ . . . v .
i . '
I l
I
. ’ 1
_ . , _ .~ - 0-. .- -- § . . - . . 9.. . . . i
' 3
. I. .. e ¢.,--o‘ .. . n...» F... . - . 2 .
I
.
e... .-. i 0 a so!" 0 a n.- . . .
.
I
I
..‘.. - . - —o. .- . f , . .
1
8
. . O . - .Q4—-......O.- . . . .
.
.
. . . a- . ----.o-'~a¢ .- . . .. . . .
I .
. .
_ . ’- . _ . . - - .c-n.‘~ . .-_. , .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

r5~
CASH EXPENSES
I
. Feed . . E i .5181
Date Item and descriptlon Amt. bought Grinding ;:n€~ and Misc.
lights
!
$ $
Totals, from page 3
Totals, from page M
TOTALS*

 

=====§
*The total of the equipment expense column is to be transferred to page .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘18

 

===

totals of the fuel and miscellaneous columns are to be transferred to the proper

lines on page 11.

.l n‘

 

 

 

 

 

52

 

 

LOSSES *5"
Losses in first 12 weeks Losses in second 12 weeks
31,70 if no 7 fl No 130 T
Date lost left' Cause CA 1083 Date lost left Cause of loss

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total loss in 2nd 12 weeks
Total loss in let 12 weeks

Unaccount ed for
Total loss in 211- weeks

 

53

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H7”
LABOR
- Regular Chores on Baby Chicks - #
lst l«\a—Weaks 2nd lJr-Jfleeks i 3rd LWGCI’LS nth hafieeks 5th l+—-'f.’eeks ‘ 6th lLJ-Jeeks
Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours
Bk. per wk. Wk. per wk. Wk. per wk. Wk. per Wk. Wk. per wk. Wk. per wk.
lst 1st 1st 1st lst 1st
2nd 2nd 2116. 2nd 2nd 2nd
Ed 3rd 3rd 31:4, 3136. 3rd
nth 14th nth l+th hth nth
Total Total Total Total Total Total
- Special and Marketing Labor‘“ ~
_‘ t F' d f w 1, Man Horse Tractor Auto
”a e "m 0 or ‘ hours hours hours LIil es
Totals

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Al so indicate the number loads of
hauled in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-g-
Special and Marketing Labor — (Cont'd)
Let 9 Ki nd 0 f we rk Man H0 r s e T racto r Ant 0
hours hours hours miles
Totals (Brought forWard from page 7)
Totals* _#¥

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Combine regular chore labor with special and marketing labor for the 12 and 2M

weeks and carry to the proper lines on page 11.

 

1'1“

55

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.9-
CREDITS
~ Chickens —
h T g
Chickens used Broilers sold in 1st 12 wks. Sales in End 12 weeks
* Arnount Amount
Date No. Kt. Price Value Date No. Wt. Price rec'd. Date No. Wt. Price rec'd.
$ $ $
Potals*
- Eggs -
PMllet eggs used Pullet eggs sold Pullet eggs sold
Amount Amount
Date Doz. Price Value Date Ibzl Price rec'd. Date Doz. Price rec‘d.
g
2 $

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Transfer totals to proper lines on page 11.

56

 

 

 

 

~10—
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES '
‘ M “I: L a
Date chicks were hatched Number Breed
Were chicks bought From.whom

 

 

Were chicks raised on new ground Any growing crops on the ground‘

 

Ias a starting mash fed Home—mixed or commercial

Formula or brand of starting mash

 

 

 

Was a growing mash fed Heme—mixed or commercial

Formula or brand of growing mash

 

 

 

 

 

Was milk fed In what form
Was cod liver oil fed Price per gallon
Was any green feed fed Kind

 

 

Were chicks raised in battery breeders Kind

Were chicks raised on screened porches

 

Were summer shelters used

Kind of brooder house used Size No.

 

How many times was brooder house moved Kind of brooder stove

 

.Feeders ~ description:

 

 

Taterers — description:

 

 

Date first egg laid Date pullets put in laying house

Zhnaber pullcts put in laying house Ayerage weight of pullets then

 

no. chidks started Sold Used Died
No. pullets left No. cockerels left No. not accounted for

Ramarks:

 

 

 

I
. .
. a.
a
at...

;
a I-
Q...-

0

.4

 

-.s.

H“

57

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total credits . . .

Profit or Less per 1b.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY or BABY CHI CK ACCOUNT -ll~
nun—IL V ‘ #‘
Total charges and credits: At 12 weeks age I At an weeks age
I'CHABGES: Amountk *Value 1 Amount Value hi

1. Baby chicks . .(from p. 5) $
2. Mash . . . . . .( " " 1) fl
3. Scratch . . . . .( " " 1)
1+. Man labor . . . .( N ,. 8)
5. Horse labor . . .( " " 8)
6. Tractor use . . .( " " 8)
7. Auto use . . . .( " " 8)
8. Buildings & equip. " " 2)
9. Use of land . .( " " 2
10. Fuel . . . . .( " " 5)
ll. Litter . . . . .( " " 5)
12. Other items . . .( " " 5)
13. Overhead (5% of all charges)
Total charges . . . . .
CREDITS: No. Wt. No. Wt.
1‘4. Poultry on hand (from p. 2) 3 J
15. Poultry sold . .( " " 9)
16. Poultry used . .( u " 9)
17. Eggs sold and used " " 9) "”” ””“ ""“ L”” ““" “”"
18. Hanure . . . . .( " " 8) _._ ~"" "A" _""
Total credits . . . . . $
PROFIT OR LOSS . . . . . . . . .
RETURN PER HDUB.LABOR . . . . . .
1m COST PER PULLET AT 2: WEEKS AGE (No. ) . . .
Charges and credits per Pound of Poultry: Charges per Pullet: fl
Items At 12 Weeks At 2’4 Weeks (Cost per 1b. times av. wt. )
Baby chick cost . . . ¢ ¢ Baby chick cost . . . . ¢
Feed cost . . . . . . Feed cost . . . . . . .
Labor'charge . . . . Labor’charge . . . . .
Bldgs. & equip.charge Bldgs. & equip. charge
Other charges . . . . Other charges . . . .
Total charges . . . ¢ Total charges* . . . ¢

 

 

*The total charge per pullet is

 

Lbs. mash fed "
Lbs. scratch frd "

 

 

 

_.—&q——

 

 

than the

Net Cost Per Pullet above due to the

 

on broilers.

MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE
EAST LANSING

School of Agriculture
Department of Short Courses

Deer

As you may know, since January lst of this year I have been working with the
Poultry Department here at Michigan State College in teaching Short Courses.
I am doing advanced work in poultry management and have found that we have

no form records available for the cost of producing eggs and raising chicks
in Michigan. We are aware that cost account records involve some extra book-
keeping but we are hoping that we can offer the farmer some service in re-
turn for this work. Because of my work with Short Course students I am try-
ing to confine these records to the fame of alert Course students or fonner
Short Course students. I hope these records will assist in studies in the
cost of production with future classes.

The Farm Mensgemmt Department in cooperation with the Poultry Department
has prepared a simplified cost account record book for the laying flock
and also for the baby chicks. We know it is too late to get an accurate
record on baby chicks this year, but we would like to get a record on the
laying flock from as many cooperators as we can, and next spring get the
record on the cost of producing chicks. In return for the farmers keeping
these records we will supply the record books, sumnsrize the records and
compare your flock with the flocks of the other cooperators. All records
kept and sumsrized here at the college will be confidential. We believe
a record of this type would be very valuable for you as a flock owner and
also would be of much value for future Short Course classes in their poultry
studies.

If you would be willing to cooperate in a project of this kind will you re-
turn the enclosed card with the information requested. I will then contact
you personally and help you start out the record book. I want to thank you
for your co nsideretion.

Sine erely yours,

(gt-algae 1M Ass't to

Director of Short Courses

CCH :nln
Enclosure

we

 

 

Name
location of farm:

 

A.

Produce market eggs Hatching eggs only
average number of layers kept _

“‘4“ ._._4 ‘

Date replacement chicks were purchased

 

Signed

 

59

 

 

 

| r I'- 1's“
licl .
. ., a i‘r.’ ‘ L 1

I .lh’ ‘1‘}

-o—~

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVER ITY LIBRARIES

S

3 1193 03012 9133