. "r‘- w COSTS AND RETURNS T0 POULTRY BUSINESSES ' lN-EASTERN NlGERIA, 1967 Thesis for the Degree of M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY . JOSIAH C. 0. NWANKWO 1975 ' - ..€&._ THESIS This is to certify that the thesis entitled Costs and Returns to Poultry Businesses in Eastern Nigeria, 1967 presented by Josiah C . O . Nwankwo has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for .Liaatma—degree in W1 Economics flax/WW Majorp f 501' Date September 3, 1975 0-7 639 ABSTRACT ,1? 14”“ if «.7 (2,1; -. . {9/ "/9 f / é COSTS AND amass TO POULTRY BUSINESSES I IN EASTERN NIGERIA by Josiah C. 0. Frankie Cuneroial poultry farms have develOped around the civil service papulation of Ehugu in the North of Eastern Nigeria, and around the industrial population of Port Harcourt in the South. In 1962 Eastern Nigeria was importing table eggs. By 1966 the Region was producing virtually all the table eggs it needed. Disposal of eggs is now a major problem to poultry farmers. There is an apparent over production of table eggs. The per dozen price of eggs is about 42 pence while the feed price is averaging 4.5 pence per pound. The objectives of this study are: (1) To determine whether poultry farmers in Eastern Nigeria are making profit; (2) To identify the important variables that affect profit to poultry farmers in Eastern Nigeria; (‘3‘) To determine the cost of raising pulls-ts, the cost of rearing neat birds, and the cost of producing table eggs; (4) To establish. iniices of efficiency for Eastern Nigeria poultry farmers; (5) To construct the egg production curves for the common breeds of layers, and (6) To suggest methods for bringing improvement to the poultry industry. Records from 95 poultry farms were studied. Of these farms 80 were located. in the Northern Poultry Area and 15 in the Southern Poultry Ares. Analysis of costs and returns was made for the farm. Josiah C. O. Ewankwo. - 2 About one third of the farms studied were making some profit. Just under one sixth of farms studied were making up to the equivalent of £360 profit per year. Total cost of producing table eggs averages 30.6 pence per dozen for larger farms and 45.3 pence per dozen for smaller farms. It costs between 14 shillings and t7 shillings to rear a pullet up to 25 weeks of age. Feeds account for about 70? of total cost of producing table eggs, and contribute between.44fl and 5433 of total cost of rearing pullets. Pullet year production from the better quality laying breed, lthe "4C4", averages 200 eggs. A relative new comer, the Earco layer, is even more promising in pullet year performance. Rhode Island Red and Leghorn layers produce about 170 eggs per layer in the pullet year. The relatively large poultry farms constitute 18.5fitof all poultry farms, and they produce about 57% of total table egg output. It is recommended that the agricultural credit component of the existing Funds for Agricultural and Industrial DevelOpment be pulled out and constituted into a separate government credit body with powers to give larger loans to farmers. It is further recommended that the Government of Eastern Rigeria takes decisive steps to procure higher quality pullet chicks for poultry farmers. The Government should also make sufficient funds available for developing the new Egg Harketing’Scheme. COSTS AID RETURNS TO POLETRY BUSINESSES IN 33.373313 IIIGSRIA, 1967. by Josiah C. O. Nuankvo A 133313 Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER 01“ SC IECCE Department of Agicultural Economics 1975 AN INTRODUCTORY WORD OF EXPLANATION Josiah Nwankwo began his Master's studies at Michigan State University in the fall of 1964. After completing his course work in the winter of 1966 he returned to the Eastern region of Nigeria to do his field work for his dissertation. In the course of doing that work he was involved in a serious automobile accident. In addition, his field work and analysis of data was interrupted by the outbreak of the Nigerian civil war which 1) stapped all work, and 2) resulted in the withdrawal of the Michigan State University advisors who were helping him with his dissertation. After the war, he recovered his data and brought his thesis to completion without the benefit of faculty, advisers, or assistance. Michign State University has seen fit to grant him an extension of time in view of the above extenuating circumstances and in view of his demonstrated ability to operate independently under very adverse conditions. This note explains to the reader why data collected in 1967 is part of a thesis submitted in 1975. ,1 x I“. {"1" . \\ 4' _—" ['7‘ 9/..//.-' . _',I-’f"“' gwi‘1“” I : ,Vl-V'fl \- ' ,/ Glenn L. Johnson Professor of Agricultural Economics, and Major Professor for Josiah Nwankwo ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I express my most sincere appreciation and thanks to Dr. Glenn L. Johnson for his untiring assistance and guidance through- out my Master's programme, and for his encouragement to work on a problem in my home country. Special thanks are due to Dr. Carl K. Eicher for added encouragement and for planning my thesis work in Nigeria. Much appreciation goes to Dr. Warren H. Vincent and Dr. Charles G. Sheppard for thesis supervision. I wish also to thank Dr. Sylvester U. Ugoh for reviewing and criticizing a portion of the manuscript. Appreciation is also extended to persons whose assistance made my field work possible. They include Mr. D.N. Ajaegbu, Mr. E.J. Orok, and Mr. Vincent Adibe all of the Ministry of Agriculture; Mr. Okezie of the Eastern Nigeria Development Corporation; Mr. Sunday E. Nwachukwu of the Economic Development Institute; Mr. Boniface 0. Nnorom of the Ministry of Economic Planning; the six enumerators who did the data collection; and all the four undergraduates who assisted with field interviewing and data processing. I am indebted to the United States Agency for International DeveloPment for financing my course work. My lasting gratitude is due to the Economic Development Institute of the University of Nigeria for providing funds for my field work and for making its professional facilities available. Finally, I owe my wife Ngozi, the deepest gratitude. Without her encouragement, assistance and understanding patience my graduate-study would have been impossible. And everything considered, I can never thank God enough for making the accomplishment of this thesis a reality. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTORY REMARKS . . . ACBIO-IILEG'I’EITS o o o o o LISTOFTABLES ..... LIST OF ILLUSTRATICI‘S . . LIST OF APl‘EIDICES . . Chapter I. II. INTRODUCTION . . Traditional System of Poultry I—Ianagement Improved. System of Poultry Emnament . . keegs O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O RearingSystems........... Product Specialization O O O C O O 0 Sizes of Poultry Units . . . . . . . Consumers' TastBSOOOOOOOOO. marketingoooooooooooooo GovermnentProgrammes.......... tip—grading the Local Birds . . Training a o o o o o o o o o a Supply Of Day-01d chiCkB o o o supplyOfFee‘iSooo000000000 Grain Storage and Haize Supply . . . . Egg Marketing Scheme . . . . . . . . . CredittonltryFarmers........... Woooooooooooooooooooooo THE IMPORTANCE OF POULTRY INDUSTRY IN EASTERN NIGERIA ANDTHEPROBLEMSITUATION. ......... ..... The Inportanoe of Poultry Industry in Eastern Page ii iii ix xii N 4 4mmmmm¢ p wuuwmm Mimi-8000000000....0000000009 GheProblemSimation. . . . .. . . . . . .. . .10 Objecfives O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O 12 JnStifica-tion o 0 Previous Research In Nigeria . Els ew‘nere iv 0 O O O O O O O .00... O I O 0 13 14 15 III. METEODCLCGi AHD P2933: “3 FCR DATA COLLECTICN . . o 15 Theoretical T2313 For the Study . . . . . . . . 16 FlaanwC'l‘k...oo......o....o 19 The Populaticn o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 21 Selection of Sample Fax-:3 . . . . . . . . . . 23 flaming 0f Enunerators o o o o o o o o o o o o 23 Data COlleCtiCD o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 25 BY Currant Recording'o o o o o o o o o o o 25 From EIiSting Records 0 o o o o o o o o o 25 ByQuestionnaire............. 25 IV. COSTS AND RQWPCTS T0 COI’H‘ImCDJJ POULTRY FA‘fl-TETIS . o 27 Definitiomzmd Kethois . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Definitions Of Prcfit o o o o o o o o o o 27 Labour Inccme o o o o o o o o o o o 2 Return for Inves'ment and liarsgoment 28 Eanagtment IFCCKG o o o o o o o o o o 28 XetFarmInccae........... 28 Methods of Compztation . . . . . . . . . . 29 Results 0 C 0 O C O O O O C O O O O O O O O O C 31 PerformmcebyMFW.......... 31 Performance of Farms by Efficiency Types . Performance of Farms by Size Groups . . . . 37 Performance of Farms by Flock Types . . . 4-3 FactorsofEfficiency.............. 47 StepsinDerivation.... . .. .... . ' 47 The Importance of Efficiency Factors. 50 50 Size 0 o o o o 0 Egg PPOduCtion o o o o o o o o o o o o 54 Feed Consumption. . . .. . . . . . . 54 InventoryChange........... 54 m in ‘8 Chapter V. ESTDEATEIG PROFITABILITI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 The Desirability of an Estimating Equation . . . . 5 Choice of Variables and Selection of Sample Farms . 56 TheDependentVaria‘cle. . . . . . . . . . . . ‘3 The Independent Variables . . . . . . . . . . 55 Egg Revenue per 100 Layers per Month . . 56 Feed Expenses per Livestock Unit per month 57 Transyortaticn Expenses per Livestock Unit xper’fionth................ 57 Selection of Sample Farms for Regression AnalySiS................... 57 @0138 Of 35:51:13 Paws o o o o o o o o o 57 Basis for crying Ihrns with Extreme values Of Y O O O O O O I C O O O C C O O 57 Results of Regression Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 59 Using the Estimating Equation . . . . . . . . . . 62 VI. COST OF PRODUCING POULTRY PROEUCE AND MAJOR POULTRY n;mTS . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 63 cost or Final Prod‘me O O O O O C O C O O O O O O C 63 Tab-19355300000000...coco-co63 MeatBirdB..................57 Cost of Intermediate Produce . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Replacement Pullets o o o o o o e o o o o o 0 70 P011]. try Ra ti CH3 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 74 Day-01d. Chicm o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 79 Deductions From Cost Information . . . . . . . . . 80 VII. PATTERNS OF POULTRY PRODUCTION IN EASTERN NIGERIA . . . 82 Pallet Year Laying Performance 0 o o o o o o o o o 82 CalendarYearRhytlnnofLay.'.......... 85 OutputofPoultryProduce............ 85 TableEggS................o 86 Day-oldChicks................ 88 PoultryFeeds............... 88 Layers and Growing Birds Pepulation . . . . . . . 91 Comparative Poultry Performance Data For Eastern Nigeria....................... 92 vi Chapter VIII. 22333333 03 11311112113 111 32.13 33 or 3 333 .313 3333 1.11 133 CMS -3 .133 2:21 :33 31111331131, .133 .. 3 Inc-2.2.3. 31.13033 3:13:13 131.. :2 13:: 31 111333.33 3131:1333 1:13: 2 -22: . Costs and Returns Situation . . . . . . . . . The Profit Situation . . . . . . . . . . Cost of Producing Table Eggs . . . . . . CostoffiearingBirdS. o o coo o o o o Probable Future Trend in Eastern Nigeria Poultryazsiness............... 7" use is for Inference, Near York State Ezjerience............... to stern Li? ria Situation . . . . . . . Rate Of 33'" PPQd‘lCtiOn o o o o o 0 Size Of Laying F100113 0 o o o o 0 Labour U38 0 o o o o o o o o o o o 0 IX. POULTRY fa. 55.41). PROBLQ‘B . O . g g o o g o a o 0 Opinion P011 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Supply Of Credit 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o S‘lpply Of Day-01d Cum 0 o o o o o o o o o Surply 0f Feed-q o o o o e o o o o o o o o o 0 Marketing of Poultry Produce . . . . . . . . Success Factors for Eastern Nigeria Poultry Industry 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o e o 0 Experience of the Eastern Nigeria Egg marketing SCheme o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Funds and Methods of Releasing; Funds . Size and Composition of I-ianagerial Body Patronage by Poultry Farmers . . . . . . Sales Promotions Unit for the Scheme . . Poultry Labour and Management . . . . . . . . LayingFlockMortality. . . . . . . . . . . I. SUMMARY , CONCIHSIONS AND RECOIWEIDATIONS . . . . . Smarty o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o emoluSIons o o o o o o o o o o o 1: Recommendations e o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 O O O O Page c. r I'J b .5 0-. -‘ Q) C‘) \JJ 11.) 1x) '7) _b O {a 104 105 107 108 110 114 116 116 117 117 118 118 121 122 122 122 124 Chapter X. Continued Page At the Public or Governmental Level . . . . . . . 125 Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Feeds . .”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Chicks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Poultry Farm Management . . . . . . . . . 128 At the Farmers' Level 129 Location of Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Right Type of Chicks for the Specialized Output. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Feeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 watering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Mixing of Breeds and Birds of Different Ages in a Pen . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . 130 System of Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 I At Research Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 APPENDIX . BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O 134 O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O C 170 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 1 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distribution of Sample Poultry Farms by Strata and SUb‘Strataoooo0.000000000000000. Costs and Returns for 74 Farms (6-month Data) . . . . . . Distribution of Poultry Farms by Size of Profit and Laying PIOCks O O O 0 O O O O O I O O O O O O O O C O I O O 0 Costs and Returns to Efficient Poultry Farms . . . . . . . Costs and Returns to Inefficient Poultry Farms . . . . . . Costs and Returns to Large Poultry Farms . . . . . . . . . Costs and Returns to Small Poultry Farms . . . . . . . . . Costs and Returns for Farms with Laying Flocks Only . . . Costs and Returns for Farms with Laying and Growing Flocks Factors that Influence the Profit Situation . . . . . . . Additional Factors that Influence the Profit Situation . . Efficiency Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regression Equation for Estimating Profitability from Egg Production, Feed Expenses and Transportation Expenses Cost of Producing Table Eggs . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cost or Rearing Meat Birds to 10 Weeks of Age . . . . . . Cost or Raising Pullets to 25 Weeks of Age . . . . . . ; . Rearing Data for Pullets of Different Breeds . . . . . Cost of Producing one Short Ton of Ministry's Poultry Rations (1967 prices) . . . . . Cost of Producing Day-old Chicks from Ministry's Main Hatchery, Abakaliki . . . . . . Mbnthly Output of Table Eggs in Eastern Nigeria Population of Layers and Growers in Eastern Nigeria ix Page 22 30 34 38 39 40 61 65 69 71 72 76 78 9() Table Page 22 Standards of Poultry Performance for Eastern Nigeria and Some Advanced Poultry Areas of the World . . . . . . 93 23 Average Costs and Returns per Dozen Eggs at Different Hypothetical Prices of Eggs and Feeds . . . . . . . . . 97 24 Average Costs and Returns per Dozen Eggs at Other Hypothetical Prices of Eggs and Feeds . . . . . . . . . 98 25 Cost of Raising Meat Birds at Different Hypothetical Prices Of Feeds 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 99 26 Cost of Raising Replacement Pullets at Different Hypothetical Prices of Feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 27 Problems of Poultry Industry as Identified by Poultry Farmers (63 Farmers Interviewed) . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Page Map of Eastern Nigeria Showing Towns in which Sample Farms were Located (March 1967) . . . . . . . 24 Number of Eggs Produced per Layer for Each Mbnth of First 13 Months of Lay . . . . . . . . . . 83 Cumulative Number of Eggs Produced per Layer within First 12 Months of Lay . . . . . . . . . . . 84 The Rhythm of Egg Laying, Mean Menthly Temperature and Rainfall for Eastern Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . 87 xi Appendix A. 3. LIST OF AFFEIIDICES List of Towns in which Study Farms were located Me of Former Eastern Niveria Showin the resent P 9 g was 333th atates e e e e e e e o e o e 0 Distribution of Laying F10ok:Sizes . . . . . . . Size, Output, Costs and.Econonic Performance Fer 7 Sample Poultry Farms . . . . . . . . Body Height Development, Feed Consumption, and Feed Conversion for "404" 30:5erels . . . . Bciy Height Develornent ani Peed Consumytion for "4C4", 3.1.3. and Ey-Line Pullet Chicks . . Composition of Chicks and Layers Rations and Cost Contribution by-Ingredients in One Short Ton of Feeds (1967 Prices) . . . . . . . . . . . Questionnaire Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recording Formats Used to Obtain Current Data . Cost of the Study to Eccnonic Development titute of the University of Iigeria . . . Page 134 140 141 142 143 144 158 169. Gill-“331 017.3 ESTRODUCTICH . "I —. " ... .- ' " .. ' ". . ..... L " In ins-stern Linens, pom. try is kept uneer LLO distinct customs e: . a: a .- * 4. i... a 4.1. n “i. ~.. , 4.3 ... .:. managemnt widen may as telnet. .-1e iraol none]. 5:, stem and 9.13 Com..-er3--tl System. Traditional ovate: of poultry keeping is one in :hich domestic birds are allowed to roam about in the village to forage and scavenge for food. The birds ‘suallv return to some permanent shelter or roosting place for the night. They are rarely fed Ly their owners. CL? indigenous breeds of poultry are connonly terred the 'Iccels' and are L . ‘ ‘pn, ,‘ ‘ ,’ Q ‘ g 0-. o v 4'- I u . ' 0 mar- u . entree tensed my .--e.-.n.g r.:=.r..j, rang? and .crg ole-J meta--.“ “pee.- are the clicken that stoned i the rural cemmnitins in Bests-.. Nigeria. The adult female bird lays a few small-sized eggs in a 'nest' and then sits over the eggs till the hatchable ones hatch. Local birds kept under this unimproved system of management supply most of the poultry meat consumed by both rural and urban pepulations. Meat birds are sold live. The local birds in Eastern.Higeria make a negligible contribution to the volume of table eggs consumed by the urban pepulation. But guinea fowl eggs collected from the open woodlands of Northern.Nigeria do make a significant impression on the table egg market in.Eastern.Nigeria during the dry season. Traditional system of poultry rearing cannot advance to commercial production because it is a setting for deriving windfall income from minimal expenditure in labour and capital. It has long been recognised in Eastern‘Nigeria that in order to IQ commercialize poultry keeping a new system with new inputs and new technology must be developed. Improved System of Poultry Management The improved system of poultry keeping was introduced about 1961. It has given rise to the commercial poultry farms which are the subject of this study. Breeds The breeds of poultry kept by Eastern Nigeria farmers are the Rhode Island Red, Plymouth Rocks, Cornish, and Leghorns. The strains of birds commonly seen on Eastern Nigeria poultry farms include the "404," Hyline, Harco and Cobb broilers. Rearing Systems ' Poultry flocks are confined. Most poultry farms adopt the deep litter system for rearing replacement flocks as well as for keeping laying flocks. The use of battery cages for layers is not common. Usually the battery system is adopted by a few corporation farms and by some research institutions carrying on comparative studies. Product Specialization In the earliest stages of the poultry industry there was little specialization. Farmers received most of their day-old chicks from a government hatchery. Many supplemented with chicks they hatched on their farms. It was common to rear meat birds and produce table eggs on a farm: chiefly because the chicks supplied locally were not sexed. Scientifically-compounded poultry rations were available, but many farmers produced some of the feeds on the farm. - .1. 2. .: , ._ _.-, .1 L. .. - A CCZLEFClal hatche-y all a comrercral feed v-ent n:ve since been - , l. .m- u: - ..: ° 'v '3 locally produced for 33 preuuetion. srcilor chices are also loca1l3 u .L . \ ‘ -. . (T .‘ produced and are sold a. FTLCLS WA;Ch spjear rrie..r l.y ~i3h. some farms now buy only pulls cf 9. p. O D 8 £5 3... "d. 3 kl E: 0 (b 3 r... ‘C: d- J I) [J (D D .2 m 0 I 3 :5 (D H u) v 1 H 0 yet no poultry farts producing orly broile u for meat. Sizes of Foul.-.y Units . - - ”tLN- :i-fzv.. ' O r r 4" aw- ':".“" Ree: in.; of i: ro*cd poxl r ,.l. all; was a LJrJh 139 netl.1i. O ‘ Fi9l-ZZT SD?“1€fi:ntsry income. Fcult:y farms raving ur~rr 100 layers UL! -. fl . . q no 4‘ ~ . ‘ ‘ . .J . .' .-. ‘ p: I. were nu ~roxe :CPLS haying ; couple 0; hundred layers were regarded a- ‘ L ’- . .A ' n - 1 D D . .~ A. larg. p~‘l ry farms. air it 1. natal to cave lacs; ”ltd averere size ‘ ‘25“ "‘ ., .. ,. .' ‘ .. - t. asove ,.- envers. serge p011 w] fart" are non considered to hut‘ up .0 1000 or more layers per farm. Consumers' Testes Consumers' tastes have also been or angina. In some localitm' th demand is shifting from live oirds to dressed birds, and from.un3reded eggs to graded table e333. Sore preference for a cer+ sin shell colour of eggs is being shown in areas of deve103ing industrial 3oruliticns. Earketing Marketing channels for poultry produce have not develored to any appreciable extent. Poultry farmers generally have to go out to find the final consumers for each batch of produce they sell. Egg grading and cooling facilities do not exist on.most of the commercial farms. The commercial poultry farms which produce meat birds have to face price competition from the Iowacost local birds reared under traditional system.of management. Table egg producers face similar competition from q the low-cost guinea fowl e333 railed down from- Iortbern Hi;.ria, eageoielly during the dry season. Government'Programmcs Up-grsdin3 the Local Birds Commercial poxLItryf started and deve 10ped mainly through carerIly planned pr03ra.: use of government ass istance to farm rs. Among the earliest efforts in poultry extension work in ass tern Eigeria was the issuing of relatively high quality birds in small Inufiers to individual persons. Recipients were encourr3cd to let the exotic birds run with tlze local birds. The aimx sto gradually up rzde tie Locals throu.h imparting the genes for larger size, early met‘rity, better fee ed conversion and hi; her egg production on the first and subsequent generations which resulted from crossing the Locals with the exotic birds. No doubt, the process gave rise to first few cross generations that were markedly better than the Locals. The method however made ne31i3.ible inpa ct on tle poultry indust r; mainly because the improvement ef re cts 'ere note “st ined. One may attribute this to: (1) Steady decline in the ability of the exotic birds to transmit desirable qualities when they were kept under a system of management that was far below Optimal for their type. (ii) The persistence of some degree of broodiness in the cross generations, a characteristic that adversely affected egg—laying ability. (iii) The absence of ameasurable indicator of success and the lack of identity of particip * ts. The problems posed by (i) to (iii) above became mostly removed when a later government poultry programme directed efforts at establishing comreroial poultrjr :s -25 that would enploy new inputs and new techniques of production. Training The Ministry of Agriculture organizes regular free training courses for persons in the poultry business and for those desiring to start poultry. Co rses of e‘ee months duration cover all the priot‘J sl aspects of poultry management from rearing of chicks to hone processing of neat birds. They are conducted at government poultry farms. Government and University Departments co-operate to organize periodic seminars for poultry farmers. Such seminars afford poultry farmers, poultry specialists and interested manufacturing firms a forum to cone together and exchange ideas. Supply of Day-01d Chic d2s Government hatcheries were the earliest sources of day-old chicks for poultry farmers. They still produce unscxed dayhold chicks. Their average monthly output of 12,000 chicks is just under half of the estimated monthly total production of dayhold chicks in.Eu tern Nigeria. The Government Poultry Centre plans to put out sexed pullet chicks and broiler chicks within the current 1962-68 development plan period. Chicks produced at Government hatcheries sell for 2/- each. These are either the Rlzode Island Red chicks or the Leghorn clicks or chicks from a.cross of the two breeds. ‘ r' 1“!“JN . < L.‘ 1". - I?! ‘4 fil‘.“ Government hui supplied FOlerf ra.1cns for some years oe-ore a p; i a L.) O corners a d mill case into creration. A battc-J of Kinistry's hanmer~nills smash feed grains. The milled prcdu ts are then sired by hand vi h calculated Quantities of other essential irrreiicnts. Tractors pow red such mills up to 1964. How, stationary enr'nes a.e in use. Average monthly output of livestock feeds frtn.Governncnt Y'lls is abcut 254 short tens, which constitute about g-of monthly feed a O. . ~I‘r ~’. on I ‘7' ~‘* production in s stern s1 aria. Governnen feels sell at “~.ce per suppliers of poultry rations ha a since discove_cd that local supply of maize grains to the mills is inadequate and unreliable. flaize required for feed compounding is also an important item in the husnn dict. Besides, maize supply is highly seasonal in the absence of good grain storage system. The Kinistry of Agriculture has therefore introduced a maize subsidy scheme by which seeds and fertilizers are issued to maize farmers who are required to produce maize and sell it back to government at pro-determined prices. As a necessary complement to a public inducement for maize farmers, the Ministry of Agriculture has constructed several grain drying plants and storage bins at convenient collection centres. Egg'flarketing'Scheme various government departments connected with primary agricultural production have for long deliberated on ways of assisting poultry farmers to improve egg marketing. The problem is one of ensuring that farmers sell all saleable table eggs they produce at fair prices and with minimum of delay. As a possible solution, the Ministry of Agriculture has advised poultry farmers to form marketing co-operatives. Towards this end the Eastern Nigeria Government provided about £22,000 for setting up a large egg—cooling plant and a few special vans for handling eggs. The capital items now constitute the nucleus equipment for a government sponsored Egg Marketing Scheme. The challenge for poultry farmers is to make a marketing co-operative work by establishing and financing efficient marketing staff to run the Scheme. Credit to Poultry Farmers Many poultry farmers start and end up with small poultry units. They own only a few hundred birds chiefly because they do not have sufficient capital to expand. Many farmers do not possess the loan- bargaining power to confront banks and other commercial lending institutions. Metivation in establishing Funds for Agriculture and _Industrial Development (F.A.I.D.) is to cater for the credit needs of farmers and small businesses. Some poultry farmers are already benefiting from the F.A.I.D. loans. Summary A large number of non-descript local birds are kept by rural communities in Eastern Nigeria. These unimproved birds are very - poor egg-producers, very slow—maturing, and very poor feed converterso Under the traditional system of poultry management such birds are-not cared for and have to scavenge for their feed. In order to mak any inpact on annual protein intake in Eastern Jigeria through poultry eggs and meat, improved breeds of poultry and new technology are essential. This constitutes the basis for develOping modern poultry in the Region. In such a big innovation it is necessary to have a public institution blare the trail. The Ministry of Agriculture introduced the new technolOQy of modern poultry management by demonstrating to the people that it works. By pioneering into the production of the major poultry inputs like day-old chicks and balanced poultry rations - the Ministry has convinced commercial firms that the hatchery and the feeds sub-industries will have markets for their Specialized products. Government is next to convince poultry farmers that a ready market exists for their table eggs. It is attempting to do this by establishing the nucleus for co~operative egg marketing. If Eastern Nigeria.Ministry of Agriculture succeeds in.all the vital roles of innovation, poultry farmers will still need to continually assure themselves that poultry business will pay in terms of returning good profits for their investment. In this connection a cost and returns study of poultry farms becomes necessary at this stage of the industry. It will be necessary to repeat costs and returns study at convenient intervals of time for as long as poultry farmers continue in the poultry business. CHAPTER II THE IMPORTAHCE OF POULTRY INDUSTRY IN QSTERH NIGERIA sflD THE PROBLEM SITUATION The Importance of Poultry Industry in Eastern Nigeria Before 1960 Eastern Nigeria was importing virtually all the table eggs consumed by its urban populations. Host of the poultry meat consumed then was from indigenous birds reared under traditional system. Commercial poultry keeping appeared to have started in Eastern Nigeria in the 1960/61 period. The growth in the number and sizes of commercial poultry farms in the area was brought about through an intensive programme of agricultural extension mounted by the Eastern Nigeria Ministry of.Agriculture. The prOgress in the new poultry industry was ‘ relatively rapid and Spectacular. And by the end of 1966 the indigenous commercial pOultry farms were supplying virtually all the table eggs and poultry meat consumed in.Eastern Nigeria. The government provided for an allocation of £0.61 million for further poultry development in the 1962-68 Development Plan Period. It also set aside about £0.5 million for a prOposed giant livestock feed mill which would mix poultry.feeds and other livestock rations. A growing poultry industry in Eastern Nigeria has brought some benefits to the Region. It has provided some employment to persons engaged . ~mu— 1Eastern Nigeria Development Plan 1962~68. The Government Printer Enugu. 1962. P. 33. 10 full-time on the bi;:er n sultry farms, on well as to peopl u.) (D H m .4 O by governrente 3d private cents mi::l firms in milling and hatchery operations. The en;lc:rent aspect is e33e ially irportant for the Region that has a relatively hifh degree of n-2"pl ynent. Th. in ust:y achieve 3 some not saving in foreign exchange spending by producing locally what would otherwise be imported. For a peOple whose daily animal protei intake is under 4 grammes per cap*t2’3, a growing poultry industry constitutes one of the fastest means of increasing the intake of relative ely good - quality aninal protein. The nutritional importance derives largely from t: :9 rapid producti on cycle of pcult-; ,- and from the low feed conversion ratio of poultry in the production of meat and eggs. The Problem Situation Poultry industry in.Eastern Nigeria has reached a stage where prices of table eggs are no longer as high as they used to be. Egg prices continue to fall. 0n the other hand, prices of major inputs like feeds, chicks, and labour continue to rise higher and higher. There is an.apparent local over production of table eggs coupled with an apparen _;agricultural Development in Nigeria 1965-1980. Food and Agriculture Org .nisation, Rome. 1966. pp. 16-18. 3and.I.S. Dena. "Uboma: .A Socio—Economic and Nutritional Survey of a rural community in.E°"tern Higeria." Cornwall: Geographical publications Ltd., 1966. pp. 54. 56. 11 seasonal glut in the egg market. For poultry farmers the industry has. reached a competitive situation in which a most rational use of cost factors is essential to profitable production of table eggs and poultry meat. At this stage in the development of poultry industry Eastern Iigerian poultry farmers face three major problems. First, they have to raise capital to expand their poultry units. Second, they must aspire, through good management practices, to achieve high technical efficiency in the use of input resources to produce each dozen of eggs and each meat bird. Third, they have to find the market that will take all their saleable eggs and meat birds at reasonable prices to farmers. For the institutions and government departments that offer necessary supplementary services to poultry farmers there is the problem of deciding at what stages and in what manner they should adjust their pregrammes in order to assist farmers remain in the poultry business. Persons who are grappling with intraefarm and ertra-farm.problems will be greatly assisted in their various functions if they have information relating to the following questions: (1) Given the prevailing level of prices, are poultry farmers making profit under the Eastern.Nigeria conditions? ' (ii) What are the relevant variables which influence profit to poultry farmers under the Eastern.Nigeria conditions? (iii) To what extent does each of the major input factors contribute to the total cost of producing table eggs and of meat birds? ' 12 (it) What production pattern is imposed on poultry farmers by climatic factors in Eastern Nigeria? (v)‘What sizes of poultry farms produce most of Eastern Nigeria table eggs? (vi) What sizes of poultry farms are most profitable in Eastern.Nigeria? (vii) In what ways may the government and interested private institutions further assist poultry farmers to improve profit and expand the poultry industry in.Eastern.Nigeria? A study of costs and returns to poultry business in Eastern Nigeria will provide some answers to the above problem — oriented questions. Objectives The objectives of the study are: (i) To determine whether or not poultry farmers in Eastern Higeria are making profit under the 1967 conditions; (ii) To identify the important variables that affect profit to poultry farmers in Eastern Nigeria; (iii) To determine the cost of raising a pullet, the cost of rearing a neat bird, and the cost of producing a dozen eggs - given the general level of prices for Eastern I O l ‘ O a r . NlQella in 19o7, (iV) To establish some indices of efficiency for Eastern Nigeria poultry farmers; (v) To construct the cog production curves for common breeds U of poultry in Eastern Nigeria, and (vi) To suggest ways of improving business performance of poultry farmers. 13 Justification 'Eastern.Nigeria poultry farmers are profit — motivated. They operate in a free enterprise system. Their ability to continue for long in poultry business would depend on the level of profit they make from poultry. It is from profits that the farmers can reinvest in poultry business in order to maintain or increase inventory. It is from profits that the farmers can maintain their families, pay taxes and school fees, cepecially if they are keeping poultry as a full—time business. In the first few years of the poultry industry egg prices were high, up to 7 shillings per dozen. Prices of imported eggs set such high pace. With the present average prices of 3.5 shillings per dozen eggs and 4.5 pence per pound of feeds, efficiency in poultry management decisions has become critical for poultry farmers. Before farmers can ' achieve any.good measure of efficiency in intrawfarm decisions they must know how much it costs to produce each saleable produce, and how much each cost factor contributes to the total cost. Such knowledge is of equal importance to persons whom farmers look up to for specialist advice and guidance. But up to 1965 no cost studies have been made for poultry farmers in Eastern Nigeria. A study of costs and returns to poultry business in Eastern Nigeria will benefit established poultry farmers. It will assist them in making rational decisions with respect to the rate of use of input factors, and with respect to possible expansion or contraction in the size of operation. It will enable intending farmers to prepare more realistic budgets for the poultry enterprise, and indirectly help operators of agricultural credit in processing loan- 14 applications made by poultry farmers. The study u511 guide government in re-asses sing its price policy in the sale of government - produced chicks and poultry feeds in order to ac] ieve a ration ally-determined level of subsidy. Previous Res earoh In Nigeri The Departments oqugriculture at the University of Ibadan and the University of‘Nigeria, Neukka, have been conducting comparative studies of different laying breeds of poultry and comparative studies of 4 different poultry ration formulations. Scroll in 1965 carried out a flock.mnnagement investigation at Vom Veterinary Research Centre in Northern 11v warts. He attempted to develOp poultry °ations which would contain high proportion of local foodstuffs for the feeding of broiler birds. In 1964 Abaelu5 made a costs and returns study of commercial 0:! production in the Inadan area of. Iestern Nigeria. In the. 1966/67 period two graduate students conducted research in Ba stern Nigeria in the fields of poultry produce marketing and the deveIOpment of poultry industry respectively. Sewell H.U.H. 1965. The Production of broiler in Nigeria. Nigerian grower and producer. 3(3) pp. 351—43. 5. r.baelu J.L. 1964. Costs and returns of private commercial egg production in the It den area. Bulletin of’rrral economics and sociology Vol. 1 Ho. 1. 1° 54. 15 Elsewhere There is an abut once of r search literature on.Various aspects of poultry for other tarts ofthe world, esrecially the'United States of America. The‘United.States Department of Agriculture issues, at regular intervals, Poultry Situation reports for the guidance of poultry farmers and dealers in poultry produce. At the State and County levels the Earl Grant‘Univeraitios and.£gricultural Experiment Stations prepare periodic Reports, Circulars and Bulletins which contain, among other information, current data on poultry costs, returns, and standards of performance. In 1963 Su “eras and James made a very detailed cost study of poultry production in Georgia. 6Saunders F.B. and E.C. James. 1964. Costs and returns from commercial 055 production in Georgia. Georgia Agr. Exper. Sta. pp. 5-29. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE FOR DATA COLLECTION Theoretical Basis for the Study 1.x Farm.managcment is concerned with decisions that affect n profitability of the farm business1. The tools of farm management may broadly include the decision-making process, economic principles, farm records, budgetary analysis and principles of strategy; For a farm.manager confronted with production or disposal problem the decisionrmaking process follows five stages outlined by Bradford and Johnsonz. These are: (i) Getting of ideas and making observations; (ii) Analysis of observations,-including formulation and althoir £— reformulation of problems and ideas concernin solution; (iii) Decision-making; (iv) Action; u, o (v) Accepting responsioilitv for actions. 6 For persons investigating farm management problems or studying the 1 P . Castle E.H. 9.6 H.H. Becker 1969. Farm Business Management. Macmillan Company, New York. p. 3. ? ' - 'Bradford L.A. and Glenn L. Johnson 1953. Thirlhanagement Analysis. John‘fiiley'd Sons Inc. New York. p. 7. 16 17 business behaviour of farm managers the deductive process is employed in formulating ideas. Inductive process is applied in testing the ideas. All these processes are explicitly or implicitly grounded in one or more of the four philosophic concepts: positivism, conditional normativism, pragmatism, and outright normativism,erpoundcd by Johnson}. Economic principles constitute an important tool in the formulation of ideas. They help the farm management researcher determine what types of information he needs to collect and study. Farm records constitute an essential source of information relating' to the farm business. They provide useful materials for testing ideas. Budgetary analysis constitutes the testing device. Through budgetary analysis it is possible to compare one farming alternative with other alternatives, from ex ante position, that is before any money is committed to put the idea into practice - when the consequences of different decisions are sufficiently predictable. Here the farming alternatives are simple bundles of ideas. When consequences of decisions cannot be reduced to predictable alternatives it becomes necessary to adopt'mnzprinciples.of strategy that have been deveIOped for conditions of risk and uncertainty. Budgetary analysis may also be used to compare actual outcome of a 3Johnson Glenn L. "Methodology for the managerial input" workshOp on the management input in Asriculture. New Orleans, March 19 to 20, 1962. pp. 15-17. 18 farm.enterprise or business with some ideal results, fron.an ex post position, that is after the enterprise or business has been operated for a suitable accounting period. Here consequences are definitely known. The summary from budgetary analysis from ex post position will. serve the same purpose as the summary of Operating statements obtained from the analysis of farm records. The study of "Costs and returns to poultry business in.Eastern Nigeria" is a study in farm management. From persistent poultry farmers' complaints problems are believed to exist. These problems are deserving of investigation. By deductive process, utilizing relevant economic principles, the types of input and output information to be collected on individual farms and for the poultry industry are determined. Are poultry farmers making profit? For those farmers making profit, are the net income situations such as to permit the farmers provide satisfactory maintenance for their farm families? What are the identifiable causes of profit or loss to individual poultry farmers? How can the profit or loss situation be improved for the Eastern Nigeria poultry farmers? These are the ideas this study is denisned to Bristing farm records, current farm coords, current measurements on the farms, and questions and ,usuers by personal interviews are used to obtain the desired data. The data are then subjected to budgetary analysis (in the ex post position), and to other forms of cost and factor analyses as steps in the inductive process. Results of the {do H to: Inductive process are built into conclusions and recommendations, heav 19 influenced by both pcsitivistic and normative considerations. Plan of Work A five-stage plan is adopted in the approach to the problem. (i) A.sample of poultry farms is taken. From these farms input ~ output data are collected. The data obtained are subjected to cost analysis for each poultry farm in order to derive the profit and efficiency situations. (ii) in attempt is made to deve10p a method of estimating profitability from some measurable variables. In this connection three independent variables are implicitly hypothesized to influence profit. These variables are: I’ = Volume of egg revenue to the farmer; !| q Total of feed expenses to the farmer; and r = Total of transportation expenses to the farmer. A regression analysis is attempted.using the three independent variables, and a suitable profit - indicator, 3, as the dependent variable. Symbolically the implicit hypothesis may be stated as: S "‘ f(P9 (19 33-) Where 3 stands for poultry revenue per 100 shillings of total poultry expenses; p stands for egg revenues; q stands for feed expenses, and r stands for transportation expenses. 20 Each independent variable is considered a convenient bundle of sub—variables. For instance: Egg prices received by farmer, Number of eggs produced per unit time, 'd N H; Breeds of layers in production, Average age of layers, Level of feeding, watering and health of layers. Average price paid by farmer for feeds, Quantity feeds fed to flocks per unit time, Quantity of feeds purchased at a time, Quantity of feed wastage per unit time, Source of feeds to farmer. Charge per unit load per mile, Average distance to input and produce markets, R‘ F. Number of trips per unit time, Volume of input or produce carried each trip. The adeption of the independent subuvariables in a regression study may give resu ts which would be of direct use in advising poultry farm managers on how to improve their poultry'management practices. It would however involve serious problems arising fr;m quantification and measurement of qualitative sub—variables. The bundling of independent subnvariables into major variables for a regression study ray give results which would not be very useful for advising on management practices. It would however have the advantage of reduced scope of data collection “1d figure worh for an essentially estimation exercise. The bundling approach is adepted here for this reason of relative simplicity. (iii) Data are next extracted to construct cost structur s for important intermediate products like meat birds, replacement pullets, day-old chicks and pen try feeds; 21 (iv) Production pattern is then constructed for table eggs. Estimates of volumes of output of the important" intermediate and final products are no rt dcflr ved; (v).A survey of problems confronting poultry farmers is presented. Conclusions and recommendations are finally drawn, based on the results obtained in (ii) to (v). The Population Commercial poultry farms in Eastern Nigeria constitute the pepulation studied. A poultry farm is considered commercial if it has a minimum of. 50 layers or a minimum of 100 growing birds at the start of the study. Knowledge gained from.preliminary visits to poultry farmers and from discussions with poultry extension staff of the Ministry of Agriculture indicates the existence of two distinctive centres of poultry activity. There is the northern poultry area which has developed around the civil service population centre of Enugu. The administrative divisions of Abekaliki, Udi, hsuklca, inks, and Onitsha constitute the main northern Deultry area. Another poultry rea has developed further south? .3 mind the industrial pepulaticn centre of Port Harcourt. Tl;e Southern poultry area is chiefly made up of Port Harcourt, Abs, Bends, Orlu and Owerri 9? II Divi ions. lr rel iriinary estimates on med on ir .istry of agriculture records indicate that the ten Di visions accoxnt form Wer th of Eastern Nigeria‘s poultry activity. The northern poultry area slightly exceeds the southern poultry area both in the number of birds and the volume of egg production reported. T.ne distribution of Jpoultry f0 rms as outlined, provides a basis for stratifyin3 the populai ion into northern poultry 22 farms and into southern poultry farms. (1) (2) (3) (4) Table I: Distribution of Sample Poultr~ Farms by Strata and Sub—Strata. a Number Number Number of number of Stratum Sub-otratum of of ‘ Farms Farms Farms Towns Study Covered by Covered Studied Farms were. current by old located in Records Records and old only Records (5) (6) 1 0 Northern Poultry Area II .S Outhom Poultry Area The number 1. 2. '7 2. 4. 5. 6. Abakaliki Enugu/Udi Nsukka nuke Onitsha Aguata Port, Harcourt Abe Umuuhia Orlu of poultry farmers is continuously changing. 13 14 12 17 16 8 \n xx 4> \» 95 .qoomvlco-s “min-b 78 2 Nil 15 78 17 New ones come into being and somv established forms fold up within each year. An enumeration survey has to be carried out in order to loCate the current commercial poultry farms and to permit an estimation of sample proportion. 23 _L\ P Q Selection or sample Farms Poultry farms in the Northern Poultry fires were enumerated in the second week of February 1967. All the eighty poultry farms in the Northern Poultry area that net the definition for commercial poultry farm were selected for the study. These farms were covered with current records, and later, Sixtybthree of them were visited with questionna're. In the Southern Poultry Area fifteen commercial poultry farms were also studied. These were the co-oPerating farms which had cost and production records. The identity and locatiOn of farms which had old records could not be determined a priori. They were identified by visiting the readily accessible poultry farms in the Southern Poultry Area. On the whole Ninety» ive poultry farms were studied. The gCOgraphical distribution of the farms studied is given in figure 1. Table 1 summarizes the listribution of sample farms b~r strata. J .6 Training or Bnumcrators Six young men with a minimum of five years' Secondary Education were selected from a group of anplicants and given five-day training in ‘ data recording in the first week of February 1967. They were drilled through all the current record forms at the Enugu office. Three sample poultry farms in the Enxgu area were used for field testine of the "L, record forms. 24 * Figure 1: Map of Eastern Nigeria Showing Towns in which Sample Farms were Located (March 1967). Area Description Area I: Northern poultry area studied. Area 11} Southern poultry area studied. “Mid western Nigeria Northern Nigeria \ {-Niger Ri -r ”*\- 1 ° Abskaliki Cameroons Gulf of Guinea *Note: Eastern Nigeria as an administrative unit no longer exists. The 4—region structure in Nigeria when the study was made in 1967 has since been replaced by a 12-state Structure. See map in Appendix-B for the new administrative units in the‘ area studied. 25 ' Data Collection One cnunerator was no mied to residc~ (at each of the following centres: Ent 51, Abakaliki, naukha, inks, Onitsha and.i3uata. From thes centres the enumerators made flly vie it o to selected poultry farms within their assigned areas to inspect the current records which farmers were requ.este ed to keep. Current Recording Record forms were used for recording production and other poultry enterprise data during the period Ilarch to August 1967. Some of the data were filled in by the farmers themselves with close and regu12r supervision by resident enumerators. The main record forms n.3ed are shown in Appendix 3. They were designed to obtain data for use in budgetary emu wlrsis of tee pcul try enterprise. and for constructing consumption and production patterns for conmon treads of re 1try in the uh p1 $5.10-. -. Ferns were designed to exclude most Calculation work from the farmer and the enumerator. Most of the calculation was left for handling at the head office. It was hoped that this would minimize the possi Mil ty of: ritznetical errors in the results of tle study. Four Undergraduates on vacation job were employed as roving enumerators. Theyw mi-ted refiwrily ace ess ible poultry in ms in the Southern Poultry Area with the aid of agr- '.cultural extcxn ;»30n staff. Port Harcourt and Aha were the Main bases from which they visited._ Production and erzenditure data were extra ctcd from old record books and files of co~0perating farmers that kept records. Resident enumerators '9 ex covering the Northern Poultry'Area also extracted data from old records kept on the farms they regularly visited for current records. Questionnaire A poultry farm.management questionzaire was used to obtain supplementary information from poultry farmers in the Northern Poultry Area. It especially was designed to get qualitative data relating to farmers' eXperienee, intentions, managerial problems, and poultry flock history. The questionnaire is shown in Appendix G. In the next three chapters the results obtained will be presented. CHAPTER IV -COSTS AND RETURNS T0 COMMERCIAL POULTRY FARMERS Definitions and Methods Cash expenses were summed up for each of 74 poultry farmers for the study period of 6 months. The relevant non-cash expenses were imputed for the same period. Returns to the poultry enterprise were estimated for the accounting period. They included returns from eggs and meat birds, corrected for a net change in inventory of laying and growing birds. The sum of poultry returns so computed constituted the gross income. Definitions of Profit The difference between gross income and total cost stands for the net profit if gross income exceeds total cost, or for the net loss if gross income is less than total cost. Farm operators vary as to which imputed cost items (like family labour, operator's labour, and interest on invested capital) they are willing to include in determining their profit or loss situation. It is therefore the practice to compute profit or net returns in the following definitions: Labour Income Labour income is what remains from gross income after subtracting all cash expenses and imputed charges for family labour, depreciation and interest on invested capital. Operator's labour is not costed in this labour income definition for profit. Family labour is normally charged at some suitable opportunity cost rate for the amount of family labOur approximation of actual use. For purposes of this study family labour is charged at a nominal rate of £25 per farm per 6—month period for all the farms. This is because the actual amounts of family labour used were not measured. The flat rate of charge would have the effect of relatively over-costing family labour for some farms while under—costing it for other farms. 27 28 Return for Investment and Management Return for investment and management is what remains from gross income after removing all cash expenses and imputed charges for family labour, operator's labour, and depreciation. Interest is not charged on capital in this investment/nanasement income definition for profit. Operator's labour is charged at the rate of £200 per year in this study. Management Income Management Income is the residual obtained when all cash expenses and all imputable non-cash expenses have been subtracted from gross income. Charges can be sensibly imputed for operator's labour, family labour, depreciation, and interest on capital. Management is not charged, and there is yet no sensible basis for imputing charges for management other than by the residual method just described. Iet Farm Income Net Farm Income is what remains from gross income after removing all cash expenses and imputed charges for family labour and depreciation. Operator's labour and interest on invested capital " e not costed in this net farm.inoome definition for profit. The four definitions above are implicit in the computations o a v y o \ 1 n o 0 given 1n."Poultry Farming'Todny" . Rate or return to investment is 1Kolsey E.P. et a1 0 1964. Poultry Farming Today. Michigan State'University. A.Eo. 962. pp. 2~6. 29 the per cent return for investment and management. Quantitatively 'it is obtained as: (Return for Investment and Management) 100'” (Total value of Investment) 1 Methods of Computation Records of actual revenue from sales of eggs and birds were I 'I oelieved to be incomplete for many poultry farmers. Farmers are habitually reluctant to give out exhaustive information on actual revenue. It was therefore found desirable to estimate total poultry income by applying averages of producer prices for table eggs and meat birds to total of all 9333 produced and total of all saleable live birds culled during the accounting period. Litter was generally not sold. It therefore did not enter into the estimation of poultry income.- Inventory change was calculated as the difference between the alue of all birds at start of the study and the corresponding value in the sixth month of the study. Straight line method was used in calculating depreciation charges on buildings and poultry equipment. Flock depreciation was calculated for layers as half the difference between the value of tho flocks of layers at start of lay and the value of the flocks of layers at completion of lay. For this purpose it is presumed that layers are culled l at the close of the 12th month of laying. Interest was charged on invested capital at $5 of the average of opening and closing valuations. 30 Table 2: Costs and Returns for 74 Farms {Based on 6—Honth Data) Item - (1) Average per Farm (6 months) (2) Average per Dozen Eggs ('5) Percent Contribution (4) Farm Size Average number of Layers Average number of dozen eggs (6 months) ‘Total value of Poultry investment Costs (for 6 months) Feeds Transportation » Labour (hired) Flock Depreciation Depreciation on Buildings and Equipment Interest on Investment Miscellaneous ExPenses Total Cost Operator's Labour at £200 per year Family'Labour at.£50 per year Returns (for 6 months) Revenue from Eggs Revenue from Bird Sales Bird Purchases Inventory Change Gross Income 440 2,782 £1,16903 £293.10 £12.50 ' £18.75 £33.10 £27.80 £23.70 £16.45 £425.40 —- £100.00 £25.00 £417.30 £38.15 ~°°1.20 ca‘. +£22.10 £456.35 .158 100.9d 25.3d 1.1d 1.6d 2.8d 2.4a 2.1a 1.4a 36.7d 36.0d 3.2d ”1.851. +109d 39.3d 68.9 3.0 4.4 7.6 6.6 5.7 3.8 100.0 i! 31 Table 2. (Continued) Item Average Average Eel-cent. per per Contribution Farm Dozen (6 months) Eggs (1) (2) (3) (4) Summary of Costs and Returns (6 chths) Gross Income £456.35 39.2d - Management Income n£94.05 ~8.1d - Labour Income +£5.95 +.5d Return for Investment and Henagement ~£70.55 -6.0d - Rate of Return on Investment —6.U,3 — .. Results Performance by 74 Forms Table 2 shows the average costs and returns for the 74 forms that had complete data. It indicates a low positive labour income of the order of $5.9 per farm and 0.5d per dozen eggs. The averece return for 'L) A investment is «L7O.4 per farm or ~6.0d per dez‘n eggs produced. Management income is n£94.1 per farm or ~8.1d per dozen eggs. Table eggs contribute 90.%§ of gross income while meat birds account for 8.fi3 of gross income. A breakdown of total cost shows that feeds contribute 68.3i. Depreciation contributes 14.25 to total cost. Pail labour ace into for 4.¢?, end transportation accounts for 3.Q3 of 32 total cost. The total cost of producing a dozen eggs is 36.7d. The all~farm averages presented in table 2 do not give certain essential information. For instance they do not indicate how effectively poultry profits contribute to family maintenance. They do not give indication as to what may be responsible for profit or loss for a poultry farm. In order to relate the magnitude of poult try profits to family maintenance needs of poultry farm families some statement is called for regarding some minimal expenditure budget requirement of an average household unit. For this purpose one may derive from urban 3, that a monthly consumer survey data for Enugu2 and Onitsha expenditure budget of £25 or 500/— would just suffice for an average— sized lower-income household under the 1967 conditions in Eastern Nigeria. The average size of household was 4.2 persons per household. From this assumption, an annual family maintenance requirement of- £300 (or.£150 for six months) is obtained. The £300 GXpenditurei wuirement per household per year is considered a reasonable minimal value for t).e follouing reasons: (i) The data from which the minimal requirement figure was derived vere obtained from actual urban consumption surveys conducted in two tounsH1.ps in the poulti y centres studied. 2Urban Cons me~ SurVeys, Enugu. Lagos: Federal ffice of Statistics, Nigeria. UCS/1955/1. p. 9.. 3Urban Consumer Surveys, Onitsha. Lagos: Federal Office of Statistics, riceria. UCS/1967/1. p. 16. 33 (ii) The expenditure data relate to wage—earning household heads of the junior clerical status. (iii) Commercial poultry farming is amodern business employing highly specialized input. Its economic performance should therefore be judged against the measuring rod of satisfying the maintenance requirements of modern-oriented poultry farm families. It is proper to start matching the poultry business results with the maintenance needs of the wage-earning lowernincome group, rather than of the wage- earning middle-income or higher-income groups. As further advancement takes place in the Eastern Nigeria poultry industry and in the general level of income and consumption of the people, the figure of minimal maintenance requirement may then be raised. Table 3 shows the distribution of the sample poultry farms by profitability groups. Profit here is measured as the magnitude of labour income Which the poultry business returns to the owner. It is observed in table 3 that out of the 26 farms which made positive _labour income for the six months' period, only 14 farms made up to £150 profit. The eleven most profitable farms returned profits above £200 for Ithe six-month period. It may therefore be concluded that 14 out of the 74 sample farms (or about 1/5) were making enough profit to permit farm owners to give their families a reasonable level of maintenance. It should be pointed out that labour income is not a sensitive measure of the capability of farm households to maintain their farm families. This is because the amount of imputed costs like family labour, interest on investment and depreciation on buildings and equipment are not actually spent, but are available for saving and for . 34 ploughing into family maintenance budget. Besides, the poultry farms studied were not the only sources of incomes for their owners, and information was not available on other farm and/or non-farm enterprises carried on by these poultry farm owners. The labour income figures would therefore underestimate the capability of poultry farm Operators to maintain their farm families. Table 3: Distribution of Poultry Farms by Sizes of Profit and Sizes of Laying Flocks (Based on 6-Month Data) Profit (Labour Income) Groups Sizes of Poultry Farms _ In (£) '1501 1001 751 501 251 ~ 50 All To To To To To To Sizes 2500 1500 1000 750 500 250 Layers Layers Layers Layers Layers Layers (1) l (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Number of Farms £200 and Above 1 4 1 4 1 11 £150 to £199 ‘ l l 3 £100 to £149 1 2 £50 to £99 1 l 1 3 £1 to £49 1 6 7 £0 t0v£49 8 10 ~£50 to -£99 1 9 12 -£100 to ~£l49 2 9 12 -£150 to -£199 3 3 ~£200 and below 2 2 3 4 11 Total 3 5 6 11 12 37 74 The distribution of 14am on both sides of the zero profit line (column 8 of table 3) is not normal. It appears skewed towards the negative labour income region, with the hump in the zero to a £149 p. labour income range. The breakdown of the distribution into 5 es groups of farms, in columns 2 to 7 of table 3, indicate that the larger farms tend to return either relatively large profit or relatively large loss. Smaller sized farms, on the other hand, tend to return either relatively low profit or relatively small-to-medium loss. These observations are to be eXpected from theoretical considerations. Large sizes of farm are neually recommended, within some reasonable range. Such recommendations are based on the principle of cost reduction and on the effect of size on the magnitude of net incomes. A3 size increases within a certain range, the total cost per unit of output falls because the decrease in fixed cost per unit output is greater than any increase in V*riable cost per unit output. Again, as output increases because of increasing size of operation, the net income per unit output is applied to larger volume of output. The result is that total net income becomes larger, given a competitive product market. Thus, if the reasonably large farms are efficiently managed they would return relatively large positive net incomes. If, however, such large farms are inefficiently managed large negative net incomes would result. With respect to the distribution of farms among the cells on both sides of zero—profit line there appears to be no observable dependence of sign of net incomes on the size of poultry farm. For farm sizes between 251 and 750 layers there are about as many farms making profit as are making less. For farm sizes between zero and 250 layers most of 36 the farms are returning loss. For farm sizes above 750 layers, the distribution of farms on both sides of the zero profit line permits of no decisive statement, mainly because the number of observations in this size range is relatively small. In this connection it may be observed from row for "Total" in table 3 that the distribution of sample farms over the size ranges is highly skewed, with most of the farms falling in the small size ranges. hany more farms may need to be observed in the largewsize ranges before a realistic statement on optimal size of poultry farm may be possible. The next stage is to attempt to identify the probable causes of profit or loss for the poultry farms. The approach adopted is to break down farm performance into certain cost, output and size factors. This will be done for all farms grouped into two, the efficient (profit- naking) farms, and the inefficient (unprofitable)-farms, and then noting how the average factor values vary under the situation of profit and the situation of newprofit. The cross classification procedure will be repeated for other distinctive situations like farm size and flock types. Performance of Fa'ms by Efficiency Types The performance of the efficient and the inefficient groups of farms is next presented. The efficient poultry farms are those that return positive values for labour income while the inefficient farms a‘e those that show zero or negative values for labour income for the study period. The efficient farms have labour incomes ~anging fiom.£3.3 t0 £1067.0, and labour income for the inefficient ones ranges from «$0.2 to w£986.3. Tables 4 and 5 show the average costs and retu us to the poultry business for the group of efficient farmers on the one hand and the group of inefficient farmers on the other hand. Average labour income is £298.4 for the efficient farms and ~£152.1 for the inefficient farms. The efficient group of farms shows positive average return for investment and positive average management income of over £200 for the study period of six months. It is observed that the total cost of producing a dozen eggs is 28.3d for the efficient group of farms. For the inefficient farms the average cost is 45.6d per dozen eggs. The contribution, in pence, from each item of cost is consistently higher for the inefficient farms than for the efficient farms. Column 3 of table 4 and Column 3 of table 5 are relevant for this comparison. For instance, feeds contribute 20.46 to total cost per dozen eggs for efficient farmers, whereas they contribute 30.6d to total cost per dozen eggs for the inefficient ferns. Performance of Farms by Size Groups Two size groups are defined for purposes of the study. A large poultry farm is one which has an average laying flock size greater than 750 layers. A small poultry farm is one that has an average laying flock size of 750 layers or less. The lower size limit for large farms was obtained as the average flock size for the 14 farms that made up to £150 labour income for a six-month period. The 14 most profitable ferns (first two rows of table 3) had flock sizes ranging from 155 to 2472 layers, with the average flock size it 889 layers. This average size falls in the size range 751 to 1000 in table 3. This accounts for the 38 Table 4: Costs and Returns to Efficient Poultry Farms (Number of Observations = 26) Six Months' Data. Item Average Average Percent - Per Farm Per Dozen Contribu- Eggs tion (1) (2) (3) (4) Farm Size Average Number of Layers ‘598 ‘ .146 - Average Number of Dozen Eggs 4,092 - - Total Value Poultry Investment £1,632.5 95.7d - Costs (£) (Pence) — Feeds 347.0 20.4 72.1 .Transportation 15.2 0.9 3.2 Labour (hired) 11.9 0.7 2.5 Flock Depreciation 41.0 2.4 8.5 Depreciation (Building, etc.) 28.0 1.6 5.6 Interest on Investment 25.1 1.5 5.3 Miscellaneous Expenses 15.1 0.8 2.8 Total Cost 483.3 .28.3 100.0 Family Labour 25.0 1.5 - Operator's Labour 100.0 5.9 - Returns Revenue from Eggs 614.0 36.0 - Revenue from Bird Sales 66.8 3.9 “ Bird Purchases -20.9 -1.2 - Inventory Change 146.8 8.6 - Gross Income 806.7 47.3 ; Summary of Costs and Returns (£)~ (Pence) Gross Income 806.7 47.3 ' Management Income +198.4 +11.6 - Labour Income +298.4 +17;5 _ fl Return for Investment and - Management +223.5 +13.1 , ‘ "I . Rate of Return on Investment +13.6 - -. 39 Table 5: Costs and Returns to Inefficient Poultry Farms (Number of Observations = 48) Six Months' Data Item Average Average Percent Per Farm Per Dozen Contribu- Eggs tion (1) (2) (3) (4) Farm Size Average Number of Layers 355 .171 - Average Number of Dozen Eggs 2,072 - ' - Total Value Poultry Investment £981.1 113.6d - Costs (£) (Pence) Feeds 263.9 30.6 67.1 Labour (hired) 22.4 2.6 5.7 Transportation 11.0 1.3 2.9 Flock Depreciation 28.7 3.3 7.2 Depreciation (Building, etc.) 27.6 3.2 7.0 Interest on Investment 22.9 2.6 5.7 Miscellaneous Expenses 17.1 2.0 4.4 Total Cost 393.7 45.6 100.0 Family Labour ‘ . 25.0 2.9 - Operator's Labour 100.0 11.6 - Returns Revenue from Eggs 310.8 36.0 - Revenue from Bird Sales 22.6 - 2.6 - Bird Purchases -21.3 -2.5 - Inventory Change —45.5 . -5.2 . — Gross Income 266.6 30.9 - Summary of Costs and Returns . Gross Income 266.6 30.9 - Management Income -252.1 ~29.2 - Labour Income ' -152.1 -17.6 — Return for Investment and Management -229.2 ~26.S - Rate of Return on Investment -23.0% - - 40 Table 6: Costs and Returns to Large Poultry Farms (Number of Observation = 14) Six Months‘ Data Item Average Average Percent Per Farm Per Dozen Contribu- Eggs tion (1) (2) (3) (4) Farm Size Average Number of Layers 1,237 .144 - Average Number of Dozen Eggs 8,600 - - Total Value Poultry Investment £3,493.5 97.5d - Costs (2) (Pence) — Feeds 773.8 21.6 70.6 Transportation 19.8 0.6 2.0 Labour (hired) 52.6 1.5 4.9 Flock Depreciation 87.3 2.4 7.8 Depreciation (Buildings, Etc.) 67.3 1.9 6.2 Interest on Investment 60.6 1.7 5.6 Miscellaneous Expenses 34.4 0.9 2.9 Total Cost 1,096.1 _§_(_)__6_ M Family Labour 25.0 0.7 - Operator's Labour 100.0 _248_ __:;__ Returns (i) Pence Revenue from Eggs 1,290.0 36.0 - Revenue from Bird Sales 41.8 1.2 - Bird Purchases ~57.8 -1.6 - Inventory Change +32.4 +0.9 -' Gross Income 1,306.4 36.5 - Summary of Costs and Returns Gross Income 1,306.4 36.5 — Management Income +85.3 +2.4 - Labour Income +185.3 +5.2 - Return for Investment and - .Management +145.9 +4.1 - Rate of Return on Investment +4.22 41 'Table 7: Costs and Returns to Small Poultry Farms (Number of Observations = 60) Six Months' Data Item Average Average . Percent Per Farm Per Dozen Contribut- Eggs tion (1) . <2) (3) (4) Farm Size _ Average Number of Layers 254 .178 - Average Number of Dozen Eggs 1,424 - - Total Value Poultry Investment £811.7 136.8d - Costs (£) (Pence) Feeds 180.9 30.5 67.3 ' Transportation 10.7 ‘1.8 4.0 Labour (hired) 10.8 1.9 4.2 Flock Depreciation 20.4 3.4 7.5 Depreciation (Building, etc.) 18.5 '.3.1 6.8 Interest on Investment 15.1 ..2.5 5.5 Miscellaneous Expenses 12.2 2.1 4.7 Total Cost 268.9 _Jflig§ ILQQLQ‘ Family Labour 25.0 A 4.2 - . Operator's Labour 100.0 16.8 '__:;__ Returns 4 Revenue from Eggs 213.6 36.0 - Revenue from Bird Sales 37.3 6.3 — Bird Purchases -12.6 —2.1 - Inventory Change 19.7» 3.3 n 4 Gross Income 258.0 I 43.5 - Summary of Costs and Returns Gross Income 258.0 43.5 — Management Income -135.9 _22.9 g _ Labour Income -35.9 .—6.1 - Return for Investment and . 7 Rate of Return on Investment -l4.8% I - , - w‘ 4.2 choice of 751 as the lower limit for large poultry farms. Average costs and returns data for farms in the two size groups are given in tables 6 and 7. 7 ' F The larger-sized poultry farms show-positive average labour income, and positive average return for investment and management. The corresponding values for the smaller~sized farms are all negative. Average total cost per dozen eggs is 30.6d for large farms compared with 45.3d per dozen eggs for small farms. The average laying flock size for large farms ‘3 1237 layers whereas the average for small farms is 254 layers. Comparing Column 3 of table 6 and Column 3 of table 7 it is observed that each cost item per dozen eggs is higher for small farms than for the large farms. That the fixed cost items are higher for small farms than for large Terms is readily orplained in terms of spreading fixed cost over larger volumes of output. Transportation cost (a variable cost) is also higher for small farms than for large farms. This may be explained in terms of the discount element. Larger farms would generally transport larger quantities of feeds, eggs or meat birds per trip than the small farrs. Larger quantities of such raw materials and products would attrac some discount in the charge per unit. For feeds, it is not so obvious uhy per unit cost should be higher for small farms than for large farms. Bi0105ically, one hen on a large farm should eat about as much as a comparable hen on a small farm if it is presumed they are all fed ad lib, as good poultry practice demands. It would be difficult to explain such differences if they relate to 'feed cost per hen.' 4'5 But for 'feed cost per dozen eggs' the ate of lay in he laying flock is one of the critical factors determining per unit cost. It is held that for any one breed of layers, the feed consumption per hen rises- vith higher rate of lay. It is believed that the feed cost per dozen is higher for small farms than for large farms partly because the average. rate of lay is generally lower on the small farms than on the large farms. In table 7, the first row indicates the value of .178 layer per dozen eggs which is equivalent to 32$ laying rate for small farms compared with .144 layer per dozen eggs or 46% laying rate for la‘ge farms in table 6. It is probable that the large farms own better feeding and watering troughs than do the smaller farms. Such better quality equipment would tend to reduce feed and water wastage which result from the feeding habits of birds. Similarly the large farms may, on the average, be using better quality layers and poultry labour than do the small farms. Differences in the rates of use and quality of major poultry inputs are therefore believed to influence rates of lay. (I Performance 01 Pa AS by Flock Types Costs and returns are determined for farms with only laying flocks . , . . 4 on the one hand and for farms hQVing bo.n laying and growing flocks on the other hand. The average costs and returns are presented in tables 8 and 9 for the two group of rains. 4Costs were also determined for a third group, that is, farms that had only growing flocks. These form the basis for constructing cost of raising replacement pallets in the next chapter. 44 Table 8: Costs and Returns for Farms with Laying Flocks Only (Number of Observations= 13) Six WWS.‘ Date Item Average Ayerage Average ZContribu- Per Per Per tion per Farm Dozen Layer Dozen Eggs Eggs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Farm Size Average Number of Layers 283 .177 - - Average Number of Dozen Eggs 1,594 - 5.6 - Total Value Poultry , ' Investment £1,122.6 169.0d 79.3I- - Ecsts (£) (Pence) (Shill- - ings) Feeds 11103 1608 709 5504 Transportation 9.7 1.4 0.7 4.6 Labour (hired) 2.1 0.3 0.1 1.0 Flock Depreciation 24.4 3.7 1.7 12.3 Depreciation (Buildings, Etc.) 22.5 3.4 1.6 11.2 Interest on Investment 19.1 2.9 1.3 9.6 Miscellaneoulexpenses 12.3 1.8 0.9 5.9 Total Cost 201.4 '30.3 14.2 100.0 Family Labour 25.0 3.8 1.8 - Operator's Labour 100.0 15.0 8.8 - Returns Revenue from Eggs 239.1 36.0 16.9 - Revenue from Bird Sales 34.1 5.1 2.4 - Bird Purchases -0.1 -0 -0 " Inventory Change ~48.8 -7.3 -3.4 - Gross Income 224.3 33.8 15.9 - Summary of Costs and Returns (£) (Pence) (Shill- . ingS) Gross Income 224.3 33.8 15.9 '- Management Income ‘ —102.1 ~15.4 -7.2 - Labour Income -2.1 -0.3 -0.1 - Return for Investment and Management ~83.0 ~12.S - Rate of Return on Investment “704 N ""509 45 Table 9: Costs and Returns for Farms with Laying and Growing Flocks (Number of Observations = 61) Six Months' Data Item‘ Average Average Average ZContribu- per per per tion per Farm Dozen Layer Dozen Eggs Eggs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Farm Size Average Number of Layers 473 .155 - - Average Number of Dozen Eggs 3,035 - 6.4 - Total Value Poultry Investment £1,184.3 93.6d 50.0/— - Costs ' (£) (Pence) (Shill- ings) Feeds 331.6 26.2 14.0 70.1 Transportation 13.1 1.0 0.6 2.7 Labour (hired) 22.3 1.8 0.9 4.8 Flock Depreciation 34.9 2.8 1.5 7.5 Depreciation (Building, Etc.) 28.9 2.3 1.2 6.1 Interest on Investment 24.7 , 1.9 1.0 5.1 Miscellaneous Expenses 17.3 1.4 0.7 3.7 Total Cost 472.8 37.4 20.0 100.0 Operator's Labour 100.0. 7.9 4.2 - Returns Revenue from Eggs 455.3 36.0 19.2 - Revenue from Bird Sales 39.0 3.1 1.6 - Bird Purchases ~25.6 -2.0 —1.1 - Inventory Change 37.2 2.9 , 1.6 - Gross Income 557.1 44.0 23.5 - Summary of Costs and Returns Gross Income 557.1 44.0 23.5 - Management Income -40.7 -3.2 #1.7 - Labour Income +59.3 +4.7 .+2.5 - Return for Investment and Management ' ~16.0 -1.3 ,—0.7 - Rate of Return on Investment -’l.3% - 3 ~ . ‘ - t9. \ 46 In tables 8 and 9 a marked difference is observed in the gross income, labour income, inventory change and total cost values between the two flock types. Total values of poultry investment appear reasonably close for farms with laying flocks only and those with both laying and growing flocks. But farms with both growing and laying flocks have positive inventory change, positive labour income, and a relatively large gross income whereas farms with only laying flocks show negative inventory change, negative labour income and a relatively low gross income. Total cost of producing one dozen eggs on farms with both laying and growing flocks is higher than on farms with layers only. Details of cost and revenue per layer are given in column 4 of table 8 and column 4 of table 9. The difference in gross incomes between the two types of farm organisation appears to be due mainly to the effects of inventory change, and to a lesser extent, due to the effects of egg revenue. Farms having only layers (column 4, table 8) showed 3.4/~fall in inventory, indicating that all the revenues of 2.4/- from bird sales were from culling of the laying flock. Farms that had both layers and replacement flocks (column 4, table 9) had +1.6/- change in inventory. The increase in inventory for this latter group of farms had the effect of increasing gross income. Again, farms with both laying flocks and growing flocks had slightly higher egg revenue than farms with only layers. This appears to be the direct result of higher egg production rate which was 6.4 dozen per layer (for six months) for the former group as compared with 5.6 dozen per layer for the latter group of farms. The reasons for differences in egg laying rates between the two types Of farm organisation probably relate to factors outside 47 organisational type. It is susPected that the ages of laying flocks have some influence. Some of the flocks on farms having only layers were past the usually recommended age (18 non-he) for culling laying flocks. Some of those flocks were actually up to 24 months. On a few of such farms one got a feeling that the poultry farms were on the verge of final close down, since the layers were overdue for replacement and the farmers had no plans for starting new replacement batches. Differences in costs between the farms having only layers and the farms having both layers and growers seem to be mostly due to the effects of feeds and labour costs. The former group of farms showed feed cost of 7.9/- per layer and labour cost of O.1/~, compared with feed cost of 14.0/- and labour cost of 0.9/- per layer for farms with both layers and growers. This difference is understandable for feed costs. Feed costs for the latter group of farms include feeds consumed by both layers and growers whereas feed costs for the former group relate to feeds consumed only by layers. Why the labour costs should be so much higher in layerbcumwgrouer group of farms is not so clear. It is a known fact that total labour hours spent per layer includes time used up in tending breeders, growers and layers which total time (for farms with layers and growers) should be greater than the total labour hours needed to tend only layers on the farms having only layers. Factors of’Efficicncy Steps in Derivation —(;.U Costs and returns avernses presented in tables 2 to 9 permit an 48 exasination of the nature and structure of costs and returns for poultry farms. They also permit a stage by stage inquiry into how certain defined situations like size of farm, and type of farm organisation affect the structure of costs and returns. Having shown in tables 2'to 9 that some poultry farms made profit and others made less, labour ~ income wise, an attempt is next made at showing why farms made profit or loss. To do this, certain factors that appear more consistently relevant than others are a stracted from tables 2 to 9. These factors are: (i) Average Number of layers per farm; (ii) Layers per dozen eggsS; (iii) Inventory change per dozen eggs; (iv) Feed cost as percent of total cost and as pence per dozen eggs; - (V) Value Of poultry investment. 5m. l3" value of 'layers per dozen eggs‘ is the eciprooal of ’dozen eggs per layer‘. Given the six month period (180 days) for the study, ei r of the two units may be readily converted to percent rate of lay. Thus, for the 180—day period, .158 layer per dozen eggs is equivalent to 6.3 dozen or 76 eggs per layer. This gives-ZfiTgalgg” or 425 rate of lay. 49 The factors are summarized in table 10 along with net income results for the different farm situations defined. What factor values are generally associated with the positive income results or with the negative income results? Columns 4 and 6 of table 10 represent situations that returned negative labour income. Columns 2, 3 and 5 represent situations that returned positive labour income. Columns 4 and 6 of table 10 indicate that negative labour income appears to be associated with: (1) Flock sizes less than 400 layers; (ii) Layers per dozen eggs greater than 0.170, that is, a rate of lay less than 40 percent; (iii) Negative inventory change; (iv) Poultry investment lower than £1000 per farmer, and (v) Feed cost contribution lower than 70 percent. Columns 2, 3 and 5 on the other hand indicate that positive labour income appears to be associated with: (1) Flock sizes greater than 400 layers; (ii) Layers per dozen eggs of 0.158 or less, that is, rate of lay 42 percent or higher; (iii) Positive inventory change; (iv) Poultry investment greater than £1000 per farmer, and (v) Feed cost contribution greater than 70 percent. Columns 3 and 5 of table 10 represent two profit situations. In both cases average rates of lay and levels of feed use are similar. The two differ in the amount of inventory change and in size of farm (as measured by both number of layers and by value of investment). 50 Since size of farm in column 5 is more than double that in column 3 ._one would expect column 5 to return higher labour income than column 3 if size is the dominant factor influencing profit. But column.3 actually shows twice the labour income indicated in column 5. One may infer that: (1) Inventory change has much stronger influence on profit than size of poultry farm has, or (11) Size has, at least, equal influence on profit as inventory change, but some other factor(s) not included in table 10 may exert stronger influence on profit than either or both of the factors of size and inventory change. Inference (1) runs against common sense. The more likely condition is that size has greater influence on profit than inventory change but that a new factor exerts greater influence than either or both factors. The Importance of Efficiency Factors The factors listed in table 10 and just discussed provide the basis for categorising of efficiency factors into size, egg production, feed consumption, and inventory change. Efficiency factors under these four categories are given in table 12. Size Three measures of size are adapted. Number of layers per farm measures the major revenue—yielding ability of the farms, that is, their capacity to produce eggs. Number of livestock units per farm measures both the capacity for producing eggs and the capacity to produce meat birds and to replace laying stock. Value of poultry investment per farm also measures laying flock Table 10: Tacfors that Influence the Profit Situation Average Factor Values Factor Values Factors and RGSU1tS Factor By Efficie:ecy By Size Status Values For Status 74 Farms Mfia 3.0nt Ineffi— Large Small cient (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Hamber of Layers 440 598 355 1,237 254 Layers 1391‘ 1307611? «38's .158 0146 0171. 014-4 0178 (and ,. Lay) (410) (4553) (3952:) (465-5) (3775) Inventory Change per Dozen.33gs +2.2d +8.6d —5.2d +0.9d -3.3d 20.4d 30.6d 21.6d 30.5d Feed. Cost and 53 253d Contribution 68.953 72.193 67.15:: 70.67:» 67.33? Value of Investment £1,169 “1,655 £981 £3,491 £812 Resulting labour Incoro +£5.9 +£298.4 «£152 t185.3 «335.9 {@3u].tin:; Ian"' ant wicome «394.1 +U198.4 ~£°5L +£85.3 ~€155 9 Rc:;ulting invet..:nL and lenagoment laser .3 “$70.4 +£223.5 ~9229.2 +5143 «$120.8 Table 11: Additional Factors that Influence the Profit Situation ‘ . Average Factor Values By Factors and Results Factor organisational Type Values For A - W 74 Farms Layers Only Layers and Growers (1) (2) (3) (4) Number of Layers 440 283 473 Layers per Dozen Eggs .158 .177 .155 and $5 Lay) (42%) (37%) (47,3) Inventory Change per Dozen Eggs +2.26. “703d +209d. Feed Cost and 95 Contribution 25.3d 16.86. 26.261 68.953 55.433 70.1% value of Investment £1,169 £1,123 £1,184 Resulting Labour Income +£5.9 n£2.1 +£59.3 Resulting Management Income ~£941 «£102 «£40.? Resulting Investment and Management Income n£70.4 ~£83.0 ~£16.0 Table 12: Efficiency Factors. Factors (1) Farms with Positive Labour Income (2) Farms with Negative Labour Income (3) All'74 Sample Farms (4) Size Number of Layers per Farm 598 355 440 Number of Livestock units-8‘- per Farm 12.7 7.6 9.4 value of Investment par Farm £1,633 £981 £1,169 Egg Production Egg Production per layer per xmmth 14 12 13 Egg Revenue per Layer per month 42.0d 36.0d 38.0d Feed Consumption Pounds of feeds per dozen Eggs 4.8 lb 7.2 lb 6.0 lb Food cost per dozen Eggs 20.4d 30.6d 25.3d Inventory Change Inventory change per dozen Eggs produced +8.6d ~5.2d +1.9d ‘§_Livestock unit equivalents are obtained for birds of all eyes by using;the conversion ratios. 50 Layers I 1 Livestock unit, 200 Growers up to 8 weeks 500 Growers under 8 weeks source: - The Farm 83 a Business. London 1959. p. 44. 1 Livestock 1 Livestock unit, unit 0 His Majesty's Stationery Office. 54 and non—laying fleck sizes, but in addition, it includes some rought measure of a farmer's maximum capacity (space-wise and equipment~uise) for flock size expansion. Egg Production The average contribution by each hen in the laying flock is given as number of eggs it lays per month and‘as the amount of revenue it earns from the eggs laid. These constitute useful indicators of egg laying efficiency of the laying flock. Feed Consumption Because eggs account for over 90553 of total poultry revenue receivable, and because feedsaccount for up to 70% of total poultry expenses per dozen eggs, the feed-egg conversion rate in terms of weight and in terms of money value are given as indices of feed use efficiency. Inventory Change The change in inventory per dozen eggs produced is considered a good index of inventory maintaining efficiency of a farmer. It indicates whether the magnitude of revenue from all sales has been achichd at the expense of laying flock inventory or not. CHAPTER V ESTIMATING PROFITLBILITY The Desirahility of an Estimating Eouation Poultry farmers in.En.tern {igeria hope to make profit from their poultry business. From the profit they hepe to feed and clothe their families, and to set aside funds for re-investing in poultry business. Before exact level of profit or loss can be determined for a farm an elaborate progremme of recording must be carried out for a suitable accounting period. Then analysis of costs and returns must be done. Cy 0f the 63 poultry farms covered by questionnaire 50 reported they were keeping routine records of all poultry eXpenses. Only 27 of those kieping such records reported that they got .heir data analysed. Since it is tedious and time consuming to accumulate usable records and to effect economic analysis of the data it would be useful if some simple assessment of a farm's economic performance can be made from a short time observation of carefully chosen production variables. The values of these variables can be fitted into an estimating equation to obtain a value for a profit-indicator. A usable estimating equation would permit a snapshot assessment of a furmfls economic performance by giving an indication 0f the farm's probable position on a mental profit and loss chart. The importance of an estimating equation arises from the reduced scope of data to be collected, and from the relative ease with which an 56 estimation formula may be applied. Choice of Variables and Selection of Sample Farms The Dependent Varia‘le Choice of the dependent variable presents a problem which arises from definition and sign. Profit, as commonly defined, is the net income1 value finish is greater than zero. Loss is the net income value which is below zero. Profitability relates to information as to whether net income situation places a farm near zero or far from zero. Signs become necessarily involved. A usable profituindicator should be one that has no problem of sign. The profit—indicator chosen is the value of_gross revenueéper 100 shillings of total poultry exncnses. This constitutes the dependent variable Y. For this profit-indicator the value of 100 corresponds to zero profit, a value above 100 corresponds to positive net income, while a value below 100 indicates negative net income. The farther the value is below or above 100 the larger the corresponding loss or profit. This profituindicator does not have any Sign problem. It cannot be negative. To convert to absolute value of loss or profit it has to be multiplied by the value: otal Wrocnses ’“I— "I. Mao-o en‘s-A»- 1 00 The Independent Variables Three independent variables are selected. Ens Revenue per 100 Layers per Konth: Jae) 1 . . . Bet Income 13 what remains from Gross Revenue after subtracting all Cash Exrenses, Depreciation Charges and Interest Charges on invested Capi {33.1. ' 57 Egg revenue per 100 layers per month is the first- 1. The definition of X1 combines the effects of egg production efficiency and egg independent variable, X marketing efficiency. Feed Expenses per Lives took Unit per Month: Feed expenses per livestock unit per month is the second independent variable, X2. 'It reflects the level of feed use for all poultry flocks, both layers and growers. It also reflects the price of feeds. Transportation.Expenses per Livestock‘Unit per Month: Transportation expenses per livestock unit per month 30 The definition oij incorporates the effect of average 3 distances of input and produce markets from the poultry constitutes the third independent variable, X farms, the effect of frequency of poultry business trips, and the effect of transportation charge per mile. Selection of Sample Few s for Revrcs,ion Analvsis hoice of Sample Farms: Poultry farms that had data for deriving all the four variables were selected from the cost and returns annlvs 3 sheets. 69 farms had data for all the four variables. Out of the 69 far.s those having 'revenuc per 100/— erpenses' values less than 40 or ;:reator than 199 were .ropped as extrc*re values. The final nunbe ' of farms that had usable data for cons rusting a VC'TLHSLU‘ equation v«s 57. The data :ere for 1965/1967 poultry farm operations in“ n: :sLern Kigcria. Basis for Dropring Farm 3 with Extreme Values of Y Details of costs and rot urns fcr in 1;}.vid1nl farms indicate that st of the farms having- neg'xtive ex trene values of 1', gross revenue 58 or 100 » total expenses are those that: .. 9 (i) For a considerable fraction of the accounting period, ave a large population of growing flocks relative to the total population of laying flocks. The result is that the total of variable expenses incurred for the period is markedly larger than the total income from the sale of eggs. .The condition generally indicates a period of marked expansion in the size of the poultry farm or the early stage in the establishment of the poultry business, and (ii) For a considerable fraction of the accounting period have a large fraction of laying flocks which are long past their peak production and are overdue for culling. The result is that the total revenue from eggs is low because of the low average laying rate from the flocks. It is a condition that suggests the existence of some serious defect in the farm's flock replacement.policy. Most of the farms having positive extreme values of Y, the Gross Reven1e per 1CQ/- total expenses, tend to show large revenue from the sale of cull birds relative to egg revenue and relative to total of variable expenses. The revenue from culled laying flocks is the direct result of the fixed and variable expenses incurred during the rearing period many months before the time of culling; Large revenue from cull birds may therefore distort th nu. 3 Y~value especially for very short accounting periods which are less than one calendar year. The above three situations which tend to yield extrene values of Gross Revenue per 1OQ/— total expenses are easily detected for any farm 59 where they are present. ‘ince thev represent abnormal stages or periods in poultry Operations the data for such periods for any poultry farm should as eonsi eIed unsuite ble for ass ssing the farm's profitability status. Results of Re:*ession Analysis Values were obtained for the following variables for 57 poultryf :w ms: X. 1 Egg Revenue per 100 Layers per month; X2 = Feed Expenses per Livestock Unit per month; X3 = Transportation Expenses per Livestock Unit per month; H Y Gross Revenue per 100 Shillings of Poultm Ex enses. A preli “nary grsfhical examination for inter—re lationship among the independent variables on the one hand and for possible relationship bet reen the dependent var viable and the independent variables on the other hand was made. There was no :Lpparent relation lip between.Y and.X A linear 1C and negative re?.stionship appeared to exist between Y and X2. A weak lincw ;~elation tip was apparent between Y and.X . Graphically, 5 X1 and X? showed some s ight inter—relationship. No inter- relationship was observable be‘ wzeen X1 and X7, and none was noticeable J betwochXZ and.K3. Findi n~s from the preliminsrv gra ph: oil analysis pointed to a Straight-Line regression We ”ti on for the prefitflzbi ity 60 estimation exercise. Results of regression analysis are presented in table 13. The standard error of est mate is 2. O17/L. This value is relatively - is 0.655. It shows The ce-eific ient of multiple dcterminatio that only about 66 per cent of the variation in the values of the dependent variable Ym be explained by or e. stiuated from the variation in the values of the three independent variables I1, X2 and X,. The relatively low value of cemefficient of multiple J determination is attributed to three probable causes: (i) The exclusion of the important t yet unqu anti +31 ble f etor of nanageme :1t or managerial capacity; (ii) "he effect of random errors viiich c:;n;net be ellrtr” ted by statistical technique, and (iii) The apparent absence 01 any relatieii mlip between Y and X1, and possible non-random errors that could arise frcn definition of the var'ableso The regreeeien eeueffieiento b1 = 00221, b2 3 ~O.61?, and b3 a «0.118. These va lnes inriieat etbrt: (i) in increase of 00221/— in the deyendent varisble - . ' ’- . A . '\‘I § - ' .“"' accompanies ..Q/- lnCTGuCG in egg inc nae per 100 1H30T3 per DC'llth; (ii) A drop of 0.612/- in the dependent variable accompanies 1.0/# increase in feed expenses per livestock .nit per month, and (iii) A fall of 00118/~ in the dependent variable accompanies 1.0/¥ increase in transportation eXpensea per livestock unit per month. 61 Table 13: Regression Equation for Estima+ in lg'Profitability FromflEp qg Production, F ed pren 5 s and Transpor- ation Expenses. Regression Equation: Gee-ficient of Kultiple Correlation R = .815 3 Coefficient of Yultiple De erminctioc R Mt n.dard.Error of Estimate Sy.123 = 2.017 Arithmetic mean of Y 2 104.035. Here: I = Gross revenue in shillings per 100/4 total exre nses. 3! X1 Egg revenue in shillings per 100 Layers per month. X2 = Feed expenses in shillings per livestock unit per month. X3 = Transp rtaticn expen :5 in shilli.ngs nor livestock unit per month. Regression Coefficients: b - b b 0221 ”0612 "0118 S oudzyad B ror of the Coei ficicnt .045 .070 .057 ‘ n e n ** f* t-valum 4.933 8.798 2.070 -x.(g0 0 no n 0 Q o uigriiicant :t 5 level or SlgfilflCEPCC O o o I Sl.g?m.f2.c;311t at 1f: 10ml of SJ "anwcmmo. U Using the Estino ti onTJquntion The dependent vs riable, Y, is 51inply aprofit-indieator. Zer value of absolute profit corresponds to 100 units of the dependent variable. The decision rule may be set at 100 plus 3 sts:adard errors, that is 106.05: 1) If the Y value obtaine :1 for a farm is greater than 106.05, it me" be concl idea that, given the rate of inputu send the volume of output - all determined nultaneously by the values of'X1, X2, and.13, the farm i: appears to be operating at a profit; (ii) For Y value 1 ss than 93.95 it may be conclufied that the farm appears to he Operating at a loss, giv- n the rate of input tee and she volume of output det est-mined simultaneously by the Values of X1, X2, and.}'3; (iii) If :m 1' «mm-e obtained. 101153 in the r: ago from 0 .95 to 106.05 it nnv bee OLUC sdei that the fa~m is probably J making zero profit, given the re.tes of inrm t v.se and (iv) The farther the estimated Y Value is s.b0ve 106.05 the greater the certainty of prorit he co mes; (v) And the f:e tier tile estirated I value is below 93.95 the greater the certainty of loss becomes. For the sit‘ztlon. innnentee in (:ii), (iii) and (v) the farmer ne eds to examine certain established effu iencgr foetC1s in order to trya nd identify probable points of wealness in the poultrv bus nose with a View to making; innediaite adjustments to in eve p~elitu0l11ty. CHAPTER VI COST OF PRODUCING'POULTR PRODUCE AND MAJOR POULTRY IHP”lS The costing of major poultry inputs and final produce is presented in two sections. First, the costs of producing final produce like-table eggs and meat birds are presented. Second, the 1 costs of producing intermediate poultry produce and incermediate poultry inputs are next presenred. Costs of Final Produce Table Eggs Production cosis for table eggs are summarized in table 14. For all sample farms the average cost per dozen eggs is 36.7d. This is about the same as the average price of a dozen eggs. Feeds alone contribute just under 7Q§ of total cost. About 6 lb of feeds are required to produce one dozen eggs. The egg-feed ratio is 8.57 for the going average feed and egg prices. Production costs are also presented for relatively large poultry ' ferns and for the relatively small farms. The large farms show lower per unit cost the the small farms. This difference between large and small poultr* farms is to be or acted, based on the principle of cost 1 economies of size . Size of poultry enterprise is increased by increasing certain 1 . . . . Heady 3.0. and U.R. Jensen, 1958. Farm Lanagenent Economics. Prentice—Hall Inc. Engleuood Cliffs, New Jersey. pp. 453~472. 63 64 capital resources while holding others constant, or by increasing the capital resources diaproportionately. For instance, birds and equipment say be increaSed threowfcld. Poultry buildings and labour may be increased only two—fold. Land and manac warm nt r'ay not be increased at all. Costs due to land constitute fixed costs. Costs due to buildings and labour, to a less er extent, constitute fixed costs. The principle of cost economies of size holds that as larger outputs are produced the per unit cost of production may be falling over a certa'n ran e of output because the effect of decreasing per unit fixed cost remains greater thgn the effect of any rising per unit Variable costs. This explains why cost itens 4, 5, 6 and 7 in table 14 are lower for large farlvs than for s.all farms. Cost of feeds per doe en eggs is also lower for larg;e farms than for small farms. But feeds constitute a variable resource. A decrease in this per unit variable cost with increase in si.e may be the result of an improvement in flock managorent efficiency <3ained from incr wing size. Such an improvement gives rise to increased rate of lay per layer and per pound of food. It goes to decrease the food costs per dozen eggs for large and e;‘;‘ fci r‘i nt :3:me One may i.nfer from tile ler‘e farmms :.all f: 3m comfiars“01 in table 14 that Eastern ITi;;cria Ioult try farms are still in tne star? of development where fertiler increase in {.5 F. O 1") "‘5 O C‘ H r}- H ‘1'. )4, ’3 Q a verage 9'?“ will effect gloater re diction in per unit cost of mechanization or automation of poultry operations is yet to be introduced on any of the commercial poultry fa -rns, more marked cos t Teble 14: v ~— -_‘-‘ — A- 74. Sample Average Per cent per Box. Contri— ngs bution (1) (2) (3) 1. Feeds 68.95% 3.051» 4.1205 25.3d 1.1a 1.6d 2. Transportation 3. Labour (hired) 4. Flock Deprecia» tion 2.86. 7.553 5. Depreciation (Buildings and Equipment) 2.4d 6. Interest on Investment 7. Miscellaneous 8. Total Cost 36.7d 9. Pounds of Feeds per Dozen Er s 6.02 lb .- 0‘) O "fin-.fi» ‘1fit‘xd pr-L . “a, 1 9 “LL; 13L“; .‘ul‘vllv 11. Per cent of Lay :57 .. a At ever“ 0 feel or; on. J- ‘ r. . 4. ° u. \ Per one”). It is .no numb r ( i ‘ J ,1 dozen e Vs own ynrcngso Rb 1L0 Cost of Producing Table Eggs. Large Ferns (n = ‘l4)‘13 1.9d 1.7d .9d 30.6d 5.14 1b 8.57 lb 465'; 'ce of 4.2d per lb or ,1 ' of IOUhiS n 7‘\°‘I' rs“; ‘ L‘- ‘v‘.L \’.“)¥' (5) 70.673 2.0% 4.933 4 0 7. £Q C\ {i re \n 0 id id 400.052: Small Farms (n =2 60)'2 'I r-r‘ ‘UL'JS (6) V '. ‘ bution (7) 67% 4.0;3 14.253 30.5d 1.8d 1096]. am 7.6:? 301d 205d 2o1d 45.3d 8.57 lb - 3775 - 033 price of 3f~ “fl , 'I .2 w reeds mien cnc .erC ‘:3 g 66 advantages may be achieved when some tOp large farms adopt labour- saving mechanization of major poultry form operations. Such Operations relate to feeding and watering of flocks, and to egg grading'and packing. The question may now be asked as to what determine the magnitude of total cost of producing a dozen eggs. By far the most important of the cost factors is feeds. The next important cost factor is Flock depreciation. 'Pounds of feeds per dozen eggs' and 'feed price per pound weight' fix the 'feed cost per dozen eggs'. Price Of feeds is of special importance in the Eastern Nigeria situation where two producers of feeds sell feeds at markedly different average prices of 5.2d per pound and 3d per pound respectively. 'Pounds of feeds per dozen eggs' is itself determined by the breed of layers, the rate of lay, and the degree of avoidable wastage of feeds on a farm. In considering how flock depreciation influences the cost of producing a dozen eggs one has to take note of the variable element in flock depreciation. This variable element is the mortality among the replacement and laying flocks. Higher mortality rate among the replacement and laying flocks has the effect of raising total cost of producing table eggs. The mortality effect is highest if the death losses occur close to (before or after) the commencement of laying. The values of layers per dozen eggs indicate a general low average rate of lay for the farms studied. On individual farm basis a few farms attained average reduction rates of u. to 53% but ideall P I‘ y Y: 67 even this higher rate is not satisfactory. Poultry farmers are usually advised to aim at production rates of 60 to 70 per cent from their laying flocks. One may wonder that some poultry farms among the sample farms studied show positive labour incomes even at the low rate of lay of 4563 to 5055. The existence of two sources of poultry feeds could account for this. The farms us 3the relatively cheap} M.ni tryhureduced rations much of the time could be returning proi‘it even at relatively low e33 production rates if their non~feed costs are Mu Mi ciently low; With the average conversion rate of 6.5 lb feed per dozen e33s ior the fa1M1ns studied, the farms usirt non— Hinistry rations most of the time would have feed costs alone being about canal to the aveza3e 033 price of 3/- per dozen e333. Such farms would hardly return positi vc labour incomes at the rate of lay of 45 to 50 per cent. Heat Birds ‘ Under th 1e Lastsrn Ui3eria conM ns neat bi 1s arise from four common situations. First, t1 ey may be produced from broiler birds which have been develOpcd to yield 3ccd tender poultry meat fast and at optimal feed conversion rate. Second, meat birds may he reduced from cockerel ch icks ‘hat have been separated at dayhold. A farmer keys the cochercl chicks to re: r and sell For mc' at at about 3 months of a3e. Third, meat birds may be produced fr m unscrcd or strai3ht- run chicks meant for e33 production. A f2 rrer buys the chicks, rears them till sexes can be distinguished. Le then separates the cochercls 68 and rears them up to some suitable market weight. Finally, meat birds result from culled layers and breeding birds. Costs of producing meat birds under the first three situations are presented in table 15. Total cost of rearing a cockerel from unsexed RIR - Leghorn chic}: to 10 weeks of age is 52.6d. Feeds contribute about 53% and chicks account for 333 of the total cost. Total cost of rearing cockerel_ from sexed “404" chick to 10 weeks of age is 47.5d. Of this amount feeds alone account for 63.83 and chicks account for about 265. It costs 55.7d to rear Cobb broiler bird to 8 weeks, and 65.7d to rear it to 10 weeks of age. . For purposes of comparing tee}unical performance, cumulative weights of feeds censured and the avere.ge bodtheig hts attained per bird reared are given in table 15. These show that by 10 weeks broilers consume up to 8.7 lb of feeds and attain averagely 4 lb body» weight. Cockcrels,“n the other bani consume about 7 1b feeds to reach body-weight of 2 to 2.6 lb. Broiler birds achieve a feed conversion ratio of about 2, whereas the coolce eels chow feed conversion ratios of 2.8 or above. With the finished birds priced at 1/9d per pound '1 live-weight the not income Iron broil e rs is + 18.3d per bird. Net income from "404" oookerels is + 7.1a, and for F R-Leghorn Cockerels it is ~ 10.6d yer bird. Cempm icon of too fe ed conversion ratios for the hire1 9 moat~bird~ rearing situoti one shows tliat toe broiler birds are much better feed con"erters than cockerels of egg laying strains. The "404" cookerels come next in feed conversion efficiency. Coekerels from Ministry produced chicks are relatively very poor converters of feed 5 into most. Table 15: Item Cost of Re; ring Heat 69 Birds Broiler Bi: d3 Cockerels From (6 Flocks of 3060 Birds) Sexee "404" Birds (2 Flocks of 2046 Birds) to 10'Ueek" of Age. Cockerels From Unsexed RIR+ LH (37 Flee :s of over 6000 Birds) Amount Per cent Aneurt Per cent Amount Per cent Per Contri— Per Contri- Per Contri- Bird ‘rrution Bird bution Bird bution (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 1. Chicks 24.5d 37.35 12.5d 26.3% 18.5d 35.23 2. Feeds 365d 55.553 soon 63.655 29.4a 55.973 3. Labwr 2.4:! 3.753 2.2a 4.63% 2.0a 5.753 4. Fuel .3a .553 .2d . .453 .46. .e: 5. Transportation 1.1d 1535 1.4d 2.9% 1.4a 2.&£ 6:1): «:- .4a .653 .4d 461.853 7. Intern st cog , , . Investment .4d .6fi» .4d .9; .4d .33 8. Depreci 1:104:61 .16. .153 .1d .2: .1d 25 9. Total C t 65.78. 1000.3 47.5d 100. 05'? 522.611 100.0. 10. Value of Bird at 1/9d per lb Live—weight 84.0d - 54.6d — 42.0d - 11. Ct‘unul Live WSiLfllt of feeds used 8.7 lb — 7.2 lb ~ 7.0 lb _ 12. .ivcr030 Body weigllt at 10 woci.s 4.0 lb — 2.6 lb - 2.0 lb - 13. Food Conversion Ratio at 10 weels 2.2 - 2.8 - 5.5 r 14. Cost of Proiu— cing one pound 11v0nmn3h at 10 weeks 16.4d w 17.6d - 26.3d - '. V‘“i“"r not? i . 1) ‘I‘m‘rw 1'; L 4.18.9.1 .. +7.1d .- ..10.6d .. .3 These values were calculated from (1».to.ov : 1;»blo for the too fleolcs of‘ “(wizorels re :1 sexed "1:101" ob 1:53. They are assumed .LA 1.. n'l ,1 ° J -. ‘—“----v-_ In! 1- v .‘ 1-. J J. 4”.-- L--- .9 'I A--- 70 The net income figures show tlit broiler birds are about twice as profitable as the "404" ccckerels in the production of meat. They also indicate that coo ekercls of hinis ry chicks are highly uneconomioal for meat production. With the develoynent of fast grating nee t birds as broiler birds, it has become the practice in s‘ecielised pou try areas of the world to destroy seed coekerel chicks of laying strains. Such cockerel chicks are destroyed on the premise that it is unprofitable to rear them for meat. The comparative results obtained in this study do confirm the basis for this premise. Because the average price or poultry fee is is relatively very high in Eastern Nigeria the farmers who desire to rear cornercial flocks for me at sh ould be emphatically advised to go for specialised broiler breeds, if they are suff: cieutly available. But where the sulply of broiler chicks \ o A} is in “d0 uate relative to the demand, as is oruo n the case in Eastern Hignria, the roaring of sexed cockero s of "404" breed is justified socially end eeenomioslly. Because the roaring of RIB or Leghorn Cocherels from Linistry hatchery is not econorieally justifiable t ‘J. will improve ratters a lot if th- clicks are sold s xei s that the farmers can rut these cookorels on 1t to thrive 1ndcr some sort of 1ich they receive very little of yrocessed t reditionel svstem in w poultry rations. Costs of Intermediate reduce Replacement Fullets About 8: :ins or breeds of loyin~ birds are kept by F astern Table 16 Cost of z 71 Pullets to 25 Week- b O t": h. r C? m O Item (1)7 "404" Sexe&§ filllet Chi 0312s Amount (Shillings) Contri— Pcr 321d (2) BID. 6; Leghorn Unsexed Chichs~ Per cent Contri- bution (5) Amount . (Si-11111133) Per Bird (4) ' Per cent bution ('5) 1. 2o 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 10. 11. Chick orpenses Feed expenses Transportation. expenses Other variable expenses Fixed expenses Total Gross errors Revenue from Cull Birds Net Cost Net Gist to Start Of Lay Feeds used per Bird housed Kortzlity and or culling (:3 504/“ 6.2 ~ .4/-~ .6/— 1.8/- 1404;," 05/“ 13.51/- 1101/“ (20 1700115) 2002 lb ’ m -L v . ‘ ‘ A ~- nbe at hLlCh or trod first Egg a "‘f‘ 'n V Sahel. LC]? 01.50 3.6/- 15.253 12.6/- 3. ,6 .6/- 4.7/— 2.0/.- 3.5/~ 37.60:? 43.231 2.8,"; 19.33 8.555 100.031 2.9.73 4.233 12.153 100.0;3 ~ 70? "" "‘ ~ 1605/" — (26 weeks) "‘ 2208 lb " (’ nz’, 14"", '- 1)/" . “- 19 weeks — 26 wec:s w ‘0f4fl3dfid3 (1' 4'r\il':'lf.f F} ”L. ‘-‘ \" k . ‘1‘: b‘fl'C‘ fiJ'fi'r-J' Id 'JLLCo-JJ s.) be“. U6" 0 72 Table 17: Rearing Data For ?ullets of Different Breeds. I t em 11 4 M0 4 It "PER" II 4042! HQ r00 :1 404:! Scxed Unsexed Sezed Sexed Sexed Pullet Chicks . Pullet Fullet Pullet Chicks Chicks Chicks Chicks (1) Number of Chicks Started Feeds used per Pullet raised (pound wei5ht) hick Exp-331$? as per Pullet r ised (2) (3) 160 (4) 3006 14.0 (5) 225 25.7 (6) 202 6.0/- 9.0/— I: 6 .t‘. -. II of; 0 1:50.11. m O ‘1‘) ~:‘-1 Fned.Ex}b.s g per Pallet 1 L120 d 6.2/- 12.6/.- ;.4/- .0.1/-- Other Exwen ses per * . Pulle’c rxised 2.8/- 7.3/- M. M Tohfl.Gross quxArna 1'er Pullei; “raised 14.4/-- 23.5 - ILA. 17.21. Hot Cost per Pullct raised. 13. 9f.- 16.3/— LA. 3.3.. .Age at which Flock DrOppud first 355 (weeks) 19 26 18 22 Rortality cum Culliig 9 fi.‘ '7 fl ,. . l _ . 4’ ,-" 1n he Blow/1. 145» 1555 1533 3;; N.A. . Hot Available. 73 Nigeria poultry farmers. The common three breeds are the "404", the Rhode Island Red, and the Leghorn. The five less common types are the Byline, the Harco, the White Cornish, the Light Sussex, and the Plymouth Rocks. Rearing data were obtained for RIR and Leghorn flocks, "404" flocks and.Ehrco flocks. Costs of raising'replecement pullets from "404", RIR and Leghorn birds to 25 weeks of age are presented in table 16. Total gross expenses for raising a "404" pullet to 25 weeks is 14.4/-. Feed accounts for 6.2/- of this total cost, and chick purchase contributes 5.4/L. When allowance is made for revenue from cull birds the net cost of raising'e "404" pullet becomes 13.9/;. For RIB and Leghorn pullets from.unsexed chicks the net cost per pullct is 16.3/L. The feed component of total gross expenses is relatively high, being 12.6/L per pullet. This includes the feed requirement of cockerels which, for the first 10 weeks, constitute ’joint products with the pullets. Ages of pullets at start of lay -differ. Assuming that the ages at start of lay recorded for the two flocks in table 16 are reasonably representative of their types, a recomputation of the cost of rearing from deynold to start of lay gives not cost of raising a pullet to start of lay at 11.1/L for "404" pullet, and 16.5/9 for RIR or Leghorn from unsexed chicks, Supplementary data for rearing of pullets to start of lay are presented in table 17 for seven different flocks. Table 17 tends to indicate that feed requirement for raising a pullet is about 22 lb. 74 Feed recuirenont appears to hc%13 310r for the no vier laying birds, like the Harcos t}; . for the liglzt breed. 'Chidk expenses per pnllet rc 'scd Vary with nom*t lit 0y and culling rates in the roaring flocks. Mortality and cull n3 rates vary greatly among flocks, from as slow as 353 to up to 4%? within the 1’“ rat 25 woe-ks of age. Poultry Rations There are two sources of belar need poultry rations in.Eastcrn Nigeria. One is a private commercial food mill. The other is the Ministry of Am wiculture fe cl mill. A commercial establishment does not readily give out its cost of production data. Consequently attention is focussed only on the Ministry feed will for purposes of estimating cos t of proctdct iiOl’l. The Hinistry uses hammer mills, powered by sts tionary engines, to mill feeds at Enu;u and And cliki. Iilledi cod 0 nponents are mixed in calculated proportions by hand, and are measured out and packaged by hand. Costs of produCing cc ed re tiozs at the Entgu mill "\A'.) are presented in table 18. In table 18 date for clmi sration and layers °ction e'o 3 cm1. Estimates of cost for non-inrrodicnt one are some for ‘ioth reti ons. Differences in cost arise from the types and amounts of ingredients in the £01m) lintion. Food composition which formed hie basis for the costing is given in Appendix E. Total costc ‘pxod uci 215 one short ton of chicks ration is 1192.6/- (orafi59.63). This ise ecuivo lent to pr( wction cost of 7.1d per lb. 75 Layers ration costs 1142.4/Q (or1557.12) pc: w} rt ten, or about 6.9d per lb. T.ree major items of cost are 1 Spensible for almost 9Q? of cotal costs of both chicks and layers rations. Feed 0 ingredients as e bendlo 01 sue-items eon ntricute 5Q5 to 56 $3 of total O 313 add 123 . 1+ \J I.) ‘30 l ' I‘- " .- on g. DO 22.. Pachefiing no n.) cost, L: bour a counts for to total cost. Him wry sells all the rations at the flat rate of 5d per lb. At this price one short ton of ration fetches a total revenue of SOO.Q/~ or £25. Hot income .er lb of reti on is ne'cbwve for both d rations, bein ~4.1d f0 or chie'" ration, and ~,.9d for layers ration. The net income figs es su55est the rates of subsidy. But the Ministry also bears cost of distribution of the processed rations. In order to arrive at tote l subsir my rates further 50/~ per shor” ten are allowed to cover transportation reeuL":ncnt for distributing b355ed rations over an avern5e distance of )O-nile resins. Vhen di.st1ibut.ion costs ere edged the in n11 sue idy rat es bee one 4.8a per lb for chicks ration and 4.1d pL2r lo 1'or 1:"ors ration. It morns tim t for Kinistry to sell govern.enc—r*ou1ccd rations and hreziueven t 1967 pri sand feed forwu ations, chicks ration should sell at 7.5d for 1b and layers ration at 7.1d per lb. There is no useful be '18 for estimatine eosa of producing nations by the priVCte commercial food mill from s knowlcd5o of Iiniscry's production cost. It may be 51esscd that the priv:t mill would have lower COSt Of DrOLuetion. The assumetion is based on the follow"3 grounds. A commereia firm would be eng oy2n' S) cos advantages re sult: r: Table 18: 1".oullt1“'R 10:19 Item (1) Cost of Pr'”ucinv One‘ (1967.1 7'6 “rices) Chicks Ration Amount (2) Per cent Contri~ bution (3) . a P. O Snoxfi Ton of Linistry's Layers Ration Amount (4) Per cent Contri- bution (5) 1. Feed Ingrofiients 2. Labour and Supervisory Staff 3. Trzxnspor aLjon 4. Fuel and Oils 5° Spares and Kaintcnanoe 6. Bags, Twine and Minor £213 , *b 7. Lormal LOCS" 8. Depreciation 9. Interesfi on Investment Total“ V at Revenue 1%: In Eilloi Rafiioll I 3 Net Income From Eillod Potion Net Income in pence per 1b Rafiion -¥: 9; One short ton is 31*14C1T1’11 1C8 S 2:1 01 100 do I'Fi 'L the V13 1):] 1‘?“ o..- of)" 59.6/; 263.5/- 26.Q/- 33.o/~ 6.0/- 139.0/- 1,Q/_ 5805/- 1600/" 1192.6/» 7.1a 500.Q/— -692.z/~ ”401d 0315. V3.1 out ‘ .‘0 g Lu‘.’ rln'w \ ‘a—L \- Bxd 11.&1 100.6% ~w to 2,000 61904/“ 263.5/? 26.Q/— 33.0/4 6.0/- 139.0/_ 1.0/— 38.5/- 16.q/— 1142.!’ 9.3 0r? 0 I--. lb. :330 done to stock other actorioration agents. 54.2% 23.0% 12.1% 10335 1oo.q3 7'? .1'.‘ iron mechanization of mixing and packaging. Cost advantages would also accrue to a commercial firm from lareer size of mill Operating on factory pattern. A commercial firm would likely_be better organised to train mill staff and to obtain higher labour efficiencj in the procurement of raw materials, milling Operations and in the distribution of feeds. The private mill is profit—motivated. All the way from planning stage through production stage to final distribution of produce it will strive to minimize costs. A government mill, on the other hand, is generally set up through the desire to solve a definite problem like producing feeds to match the orpanding poultry populatio.. Such motive is usually tagged with target figures to be met in a unit accounting period. The location for a government production unit may have been determined on the basis of certain advantages or considerations that are not necessarilv econozic. In these respects a private commercial mill would likely be achieving lower cost of production than a government~ovned rill. Fceis from the private commercial mill sell sveracelr at about 5.2a per pound. This everere price must contain the profit element. It means that the average cost of producing poultry foods at the private mill must be well below 5.2d per pound - for the situetion in unich total supcly of foods i scarcely meets the demand. 11 1' I 1 1. ’I L. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 78 "e 19: Crst of Prefincinc Doywold Chicks m i fly ’ «it"b ”13.1154 1,5.2. 0 sin ha CI‘o Labour Fee’s Interest on Investment cnd.Knintc n nee Electricitv J Oils (For Vehicles) Amourzt For You £7,13e(a) £7,920 £5.947(b) £5,540 £1,700 £214 £113 ”rem Ministry's Per Cent Contribution (5) 23.33 26.4% 19.33 18.8' ssré 0.%€ o.tf 8. Others £1,328 4.4% ,,’ 90 T 3.1 C, ('4. 9.; 9,0, 000 1000Q~ - 0 C , c 10. Revenue :rcm By~rrouucto £4,218.2( ) ~ 11. Net Cost- £25,731.8 — 12. Hrsber of 3 ll e.ble Dsy~old Chicks 149,401 — 13. Net Cost W‘r Sellaclc Duy~olc Chich< 3045/- (41°45) N 14. Revenue From Cne Duywold Chick 2/; (24.0a) - 15. T"’ct Incc e no r “olln1lo O IL V'. 023—031 Chic 1 «1.45/— (~17.4d) w (a) Dcprceiz. tion 0.1" f1'5, E‘OC‘ on 15-1(151'138, “1““ 531,498 on breeding sleek, .5 ml .31, '{SO 20.: voh clot 01:1 equipment. (b) Feces used for the no ou“”17m ye r were 47,726 lb 85L were veluofl at Kinistry's subsidised price of 36 1or lo. (C) It? “Do i‘l‘on-oym'::1."o‘17c".'s o‘otninm‘ 0:3 (tvblc egos 3? es) + (9:1 3 o" cuil wi"7") + (”ct Flccr lnv;m Lorv C‘irfo) OR 13 3 ,595. 2) + (1,10_.O) - ($479.0) = (:4, 218 .2). Dayhold Chicks Daybold chicks are produced by the Ministry of Agriculture at .Abakaliki. A big private commercial hatchery operates at.Aba. Two or three other private hatcherics also operate, but on a relatively small scale. Costs of production were estimated for the Ministry hatchery. Results are given in table 19 for the 1967 volume of output and prices. In the 1966/67 accounting year Abakaliki hatchery maintained an average breeding flock size of 3411 birds composed of pure Rhode Island Reds and pure LeghOrns. It produced a total of 149.401 saleable day-old chicks of which 118,159 were sold to farmers as unsexed chicks. Table 19 shows that the total cost of producing day-old chicks.in the 1966/67 accountins (’3 year was about 330,000. Labour accounts for 26.&3 of gross total cost. The fixed costs, depreciation and interest, tOgether contribute 42.6% of total cost. Feeds add only 19.65 when costed at the Ministry's subsidized price of 3d per lb. When revenue from saleable by—products is allowed for, the net cost of producing 149,401 day—old chicks becomes £25,781.8d. This is equivalent to 3.45/- per saleable day—old chick. Break—even price for unsexed day—old chick is therefore 3.45/-. With the hinistry selling unsexed chicks at 2/— each, the rate of subsidization then becomes 1.45/~ or approximately 18d per chick. From the structure of costs per saleable chick the costs of labour and capital are the most important. And these are the areas 80 in which government production units tend to show a traditional weakness. The tendency to over—employ labour and over—invest in buildings and other structures is almost always present on government establishments. It is therefore believed that the costs contributed by labour, depreciation and interest charges per chick, shown in table 19, are appreciably higher than those obtainable on a private commercial hatchery. Deductions From Cost Information A knowledge of the cost structure for a product enables the producer of the product to make more rational decisions with respect to cost minimization. In the production of table eggs, replacement pallets, and meat birds, feeds constitute the one major item of cost. Efforts on poultry farms must be directed at eliminating feed wastage, and at feeding optinal levels in order to achieve technical and economic efficiency. The difficulty in determining an Optimal level of feeding is removed by the univcr.al recommendation that layers and growers be fed ad lib. Birds that convert feeds most efficiently in the production of meat and eggs should always be sought for by farmers, in order to minimize coats. Fast maturing birds are therefore important in this respect. Decisiozs aimed at reducing costs in the production of poultry rations and day-old chicks have to be taken by different types of farmers. These are the grain crop farmers, and poultry breeders and hatchers. Where feed ingredients cost up to 669.6/« per short ton of ration, or 4d per lb of ration any substantial 81 lowering in feed costs must involve a lowering in the cost of producing and supplying the major feed grains which feed mills utilize. Efforts towards lowering the per unit costs in the production of chicks therefore become more complex. Quality of breeding stock needs to be high in a. definite line of specialization, like egg production or broiler production. Specialization in personnel, equipment, breeding stock and breeding systems is, without doubt, a major step in reducing per unit cost of production. Personnel specialization necessarily involves ability to sex day-old chicks so that pullet chicks may be sold separate from cockerels. CY“ lER VII PATTEP d-TS OF POULTRY PROD'J CTIOI‘I INEASTERIJ NIGERIA Pallet Year Laying Performance 'dh‘n pullets mature and commence le.ying, their “1 st 12 months of la ;ring is usually termed the pullet year. The cumulative average number of eggs a pullet in a laying flock lays in the first 12 months of production is often used as a measure of» the laying ability of the breed, assuming flock management to be optimal. Many successful poultry farmers have established the practice of culling a laying flock at the completion of the pullet year. In figure 2 the laying performance of’Earco flocks, "404" flocks, and Rhode Island Red/Leghorn flocks is pr "sented. Available data for Harco layers are only for the first 9 months of lay. Jarco data came from too flocks. Data for "404“ were obtained from 12 flocks whereas RIPE/Leghorn data were for 18 flocks. Figures 2 and 3 clearly indiCate “ltlat the "404"1 a bette or layer than the RIB or the Leghorn. The flame appears to be a better layer than the "404", the RIR '1 wad the Lerhom. I-‘isny of the farmers: ;‘tudi ed kept a mixture of RIP. and Leghorns in one pen. In other eases the too breeds were kept in separate pens. ('0 Average performance for th two breeds kept in separate pens is compared vi th the average performance obtained for the two breeds mixed in same pens. In figure 2 it is seen that the two breeds perform 82 . Figure 2: 26,3 24 22_ .c 20q u 8 2: 18“ H a 16“ u 9 h .3 14_ H a 12 - (0 d a: 10‘_ v4.4 0 'E 8 _ a a 6.. 4 - 2-4 0 83 Number of Eggs Produced Per Layer For Each Mbnth for First 13 Mbnths of Lay Curve Definitions 0 I 1 Production for Rhode Island Reds and Leghorns mixed in a flock. 2 Production for "404" flocks. 0 ll 0 I 3 Production for Rhode Island Reds and Leghorns kept in separate flocks. C4 8 Production for Harco flocks. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mbnths of Lay 84 Figure 3: Cumulative Number of Eggs Produced per Layer within First 12 Months of Lay. Curve Definitions C1 a Production for Rhode Island Reds and Leghorns mixed in a flock. C2 a Production for Rhode Island Reds and Leghorns kept in separate flocks. O l! 3 Production for "404" flocks. O I 4 Production for Harco flocks. ' 3 200.. 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 4O Cumulative Number of Eggs per Layer 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . 10 ll 12 Months of Lay better when they are kept in separate pens than when they are mixed in one pen. It is suspected that some energy loss results.when.the heavier birds, the RIB, have to chase or bully the lighter birds, the Leghorn, or vice versa, during feeding time. Such loss would show as a drop in total egg production for the mixed flock. Calendar Year Rhythm of Lay It is of interest to know the laying pattern of birds through the calendar year for any geOgraphical area which is poultry active. Such.knowledge helps farmers in planning replacement prOgrammes for their laying flocks. It helps persons connected with egg marketing in making marketing decisions. It is of special importance to farmers in areas with extremes of climate. Data assembled for 32 flocks of about 15,000 layers provide the average production rates graphed in figure 4 for the calendar months. Figure 4 shows 'hat the laying pattern for birds in Eastern Nigeria appears to have one peak and one trough. The peak occurs between November and Hay while the trough occurs between June and Octobero The highest production rate of about 603 occurs in January, and the lowest rate of lay of about 42% comes in September. The difference between the highest point and the lowest point on the curve represents 131 of lay, or 4.5 eggs for a BO—da month. This difference appears quite substantial. In order to hazard an explanation for the presence of a peak and a trough one readily 86 looks to the distribution of rainfall and temperature. The months when average rate of lay apzears to fall off towards a minimum correspond to the heavy rain period, May to October. This period generally has a rate of lay of under 50 per cent. The falling portion of the curve corresponds to the months when mean monthly temperature is less than 80°F. The rate of lay begins to rise with the lessening of the rains during the October - November period. The dry season months and the early months of relative light rain are the months of rising rate of egg production. Observation was not made on the exact periods and duration of moulting in the laying flocks. Information is also lacking on the effect of time of start of lay on the pullet year laying performance. Output of Poultry Produce Table Eggs Data for monthly volume of table egg production are derived fer the Eastern Nigeria poultry industry. Average monthly output by the sample poultry farms, the Eastern Nigeria DevelOpuent Corporation, and the Government Poultry Centre at Abakaliki.are first obtained. A reasoned assumption is then made that the poultry producers covered rewrescnt about twouthirds of all active poultry producers in Eastern Nigeria. On this basis an estimate of the total >gg production for the Region is obtained as 1.5 of sample total. In table 20 the monthly volume of output of table eggs in Eastern Nigeria is shown to be about 63,042 dozen. The estimated - 87 Figure 4: Rhythm ofi Egg Laying, Mean Monthly Temperature and Rainfall for Eastern Nigeria o H . . s . O“ 85.. Jesrg .'-—-""°\ 1”, .\‘~\ Temperature 0 3‘ ' ° ' .80 F 80" V ./\~ :3 75 ‘ ~\\“"""”’" 0 3? _ __75 F.a ‘ H o s 70_ _70F§ 0% 65 _ _!65 F:z 60 55 p, 50 .3 2 45 o o :4 $2 40- o S." 35 ‘ x “ F g d 13 3 <1 30 4124: _ \\\\ 2 -11I—I 25.. -/ 4106 . 9...; 20 - 8:3 '\ ‘71-; 15 _' - I d 6:3 10 £r,,,.——ha1nfall _ 5 j? P“ .41?) . _3g 5.. / . _2== s ~.--“""‘ \ul 1?} 0 l I I I I l l L I I 02 a .5 u a m 2% f: a g .3 g a :3 .2: a a s 2. e a a a e 3 Source: Temperature and Rainfall data for Enugu area are from: Oboli, H.O.N. and R.J. Harrison Church. An Outline Geography of West Africa. G.G. Harrnp and Co. Ltd., London, 1962 (p. 122). 88 monthly output of eggs is worth.£11,033, valued at i/6d per dozen. About 57 per cent of the monthly output are produced by the large poultry farms, that is, the farms which keep more than 750 layers. Dsyhold Chicks In the first half of 1967 the monthly rate of dayaold chick production was 12,450 chicks from Abakaliki Poultry Centre, and 15,636 chicks from a private hatchery at Aha. When production from other Ministry hatcheries (Fekede and Umudike) and about two other private hatcheries is allowed for, the estimate of monthly output for Eastern Nigeria.is placed at 35,000 daybold chicks per month for both sexed and unsercd chicks. Poultry Feeds In the 1966/67 period available data indicate that the priVate feed mill at Aha in Eastern Nigeria prodzced about twice as much poultry rations as did the Kinistry, on tonnage basis. Average monthly output by the two producers toyether was 638 short tons of rations. Given the 1967 ration formulations and ingredient prices, the average off—shore component of foods is £9 per short ton of ‘ O ration. Tnc offmshore represents the foreiga exchange cost of the imports ingredients liLe fish meal, Dicalcium Phosphate (mineral) common salt, Vitamin supplement, antibiotic additives, and dried milk. The total of 638 short tons of rations monthly therefore involve £6,102 off-shore component. If all Eastern Nigeria’s table 89 Table 20: Monthly Output of Table Eggs in Eastern Hireria. Number of Dozen *\ . ye l uvq c—lt‘f .05 Producing Group (1) , (2) * 78 Sample Farms 34, 281 * EoI'IoDoCo Oghe 5,750 * Abakaliki Poultry Centre 1,997 Total 42,028 Estimate for Farms not studied 21,014 Estimated total monthly output in Eastern.fligeri' 63,042 Dozen Eonthly total Valued at 3/6d per dozen £11,033 * , . , Based on 6mmonth Production fiecords. 90 Table 21: Population of Layers end Growers in Eastern Nigeria. Producing Group (1) 81 Sample Fm'ms E.N.D.C. Oghe Abakalilj Poultry Centre ther Frame. not studied Esti.'s'1ated I-Eonthly Average Populations for Eastern Nigeria Ave re {to Number of Layers 62.198 Average Number of Growers (3) 25.672 5,120 11,662 63,681 eggs were to be imported and sold at 3/6d per dozen they would be worth.£11,033. But since all these eggs are produced locally the Eastern Nigeria poultry industry may be said to be effecting a minimum monthly net foreign exchange saving of £5,000. Txe figure of’£5,000 is the rounded difference between.£11,033 and1£6,102. In arriving at this estimate it is assumed that the off-shore component due to imported breeding stock and specialized equipment is approximately balanced Ly the value of meat birds now raised locally from commercial poultry flocks. Layers and Growing Birds POpulation Average population of commercial laying birds in the first half of 1967 was estimated at about 62,000. Table 21 gives the basis of derivation. Population of commercial growing birds is about 64,000. _The "Locals" which are kept under the traditional system of management are excluded from th as figures. Official 1 o o o - sources estimated the number of "nocals" (poultry) in Eastern Nigeria at 14.2 million for June 1965. 1 'I ’n l 0 0 O I h 0 Annual.hostract 0; Statistics. Nigeria 1968 Federal Cfllce 0‘ Statistics, Lures, 1968. p. 34, \J Comparative Poultry pe formance Data for Eastern U H. t It is useful to ccrpvrc the performance of Eastern Nigeria poultry farmers with t;e;pe1';orvonce of poultry farmers in other 1 parts of tee world. This is desir JIIC for purposes of suggesting areas in u‘aich irerowewent is much zeeded in Ee.stern Nigeria. Poultry perfo“”'ncc data a1 e shown in table 22 for Eastern higeria and for some of the advanced poultry areas of the world. The differences in poultry performance between any two geographical areas are chiefly due to differences in poultry production technologies. The elements of a production technology may be 'fdessribed"as the composite quality of the input mix 311d the composite price of that input nix. For any one geOgr.i}vhical area each of the elements of a production teennology varies with the chionolOgicel cor pllys1Molo cal age of the industry. It is therefore considered necessary to attach dates to the F’OTTaPth01 areas listed in table 22. The main features of t; ble 22 are: (i) Average flock size in Bastem Ni ;e~ia is Still very small; 0 Egg production per layer per year in Eastern Hageria A U. n. v is very low; (iii) Average price of poultry feeds in Eastern Nigeria is very high (iv) Tet income per d.ozen eggs 3 low forE torn Nigeria; (v) The rate of mortalityucum—culling is very high for Eastern Nigeria's laying flock'. In Chapter 8 a probable trend will be suggested for future development in Easte rn Ni Jeria's pcu ltry farm business. 93 Table 22: Standards of Poultry Performance for Eastern Nigeria and some Advanced Poultry areas of the World. Cali- United Cali— Georgia Michi- Eastern fornia Kingdom, fornia (U.S.A.) gen Nigeria Data Datah Data Datac Dated Data 1953pk 1955* 19583 1964- 1964— 1967 (1) (2) * ('5) (4) (5) (6) (7) Item of Performance Average size of lasting flock 2754 ILA. 4899 5520 4536 440 Pounds feed for 16.5 raising a pallet to (by- .. point of lay 1M. 31 Line) " 18-3 Laying flock mortality per year 14 24 13 12 12 29.1 Eggs per layer per year 213 196 233 212 234 187 Pounds feed per hen per year , 129 130 117 93 79 N.A. Feed price (pence) 7 Per P01111632 )05 304 299 209 300 402 .Net cost (pence) per " P dozen eggffl .9504 44.0 20.3 32.2 2104 3900 Averave urine ence) . ' per dozefi ecaaé? 45.0 48.0 52.2 36.8 21.4 42.0 Pounds feed for raising a Broiler to 10 weeks N.A. 10.04 N.A. U.A. -H.£. 8.70 AVG rage Li Vt’ W0. 1 {35111; per Broiler at 10 WGOKS 1":vo 3036 3%vo 11vo ”1;.vo 4.00 Conversion Ratio for Broiler at 10 weeks ° N.A. 2.99 N.A. N.A. ~N.A. 2.18 “‘ ____ .g’Shultis A. 858 Production Business in California. Calif. Agr. Bxpt. Ciro. 483, 1959. p. 8._ ' '94 Table 22.(Continued) S 3 .B. & E. C. James. C sts & Returns from C)!T.'.‘.C:1'CI°|."...‘{33 Product ion in Gecwrgia, p. 14 6: 17. to :0 e {1. a! "2 £13 " Kelsey .‘rJ-ua C. 0. She e363» ard. Poultry Faumirg Today. A. E0 21 Iiich. Stat Ur nz'verai ty, Coop. Ext. Service 1955,11p.10, 11, 12. 'n I:- _1_)_ Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries ('1: Food. The farm as ‘a business, III-"'30. London, 1958, pp. 120, 121, 124. a At average 6 chanr (3 rate of (U. s. ) a’ 2. 80 to (Tigerian) £1. CHAPTER VIII EPFBL‘N OF VARIATIONS IN PRICES OF FEEDS AND EGGS ON THE COSTS AND RE‘IURNS SI'NATION AND THE PROBABLE FUTURE MD IN EASTERN NIGERIA POULTRY IZNIIJSTRY Eggs constitute the main produce sold by Eastern Nigeria poultry farmers. Feeds fan: a major single input used to produce eggs and meat. It will be informative to examine the effects that changes in eggs and feed prices will have on the profit situation. The effects of feed price changes on the cost of rearing birds may also be observed. Budgetary principles are adopted in this inquiry. Hypothetical price changes of given magnitudes are assumed, then new costs and returns are recomputed by method of partial budgeting. Costs and Returns Situation me Profit Situation In tables 23 and 24 Column 1 summarizes the costs and returns for the sample poultry farms at the 1967 average prices. Comparing any two columns at a time, it is observed that when feed prices drOp (or rise) by one penny, ceteribus paribus, the labour income increases (or falls) by six pence. As egg prices rise (or fall) by six pence, the labour income increases (or drops) by six pence. The effect on labour income of 1d change in feed price is of 95 95 the same magnitude as the e‘fect of 6d change in egg price, ignoring the signs. This relationship holds because, by coincidence, the. ratio of 'pounds of feeds use d' to 'dozen of egg 3 produced' is 6:1. Cost of Producing Table Eggs In tables 23 and 24 it is observed that when feed prices rise H33) one penny, oetcribus paribus, the total cost of producing ’0" 03 P.) a doze n cg}: rises (or falls) by six pence. The number of pence by which total cost p03 dozen char ngcs as a result of one pez any change in feed price depends on the average number of pounds of feeds required to pros duce one dozen eggs. 7‘- Cost of Rraring birds The e ffe cts of feed price 0} lenses on 1he total cos of rearing neat birds and replam me2;t pullc ts a1 0 presented in sable 25 and table 26. For a pariticula.r type of bird the price effects are observed by comparing total cost fig nee down tlle column. The tables Show fiat t 0 add:‘ mic to or reductions from total cost due to any change in feed prices are si.mrlen maltiples of the number of pounds of feeds required to rear the rer1.i.cular bird. Probable Future Trend in Eastern Nifi ria Poultry Business Basis For Inference: New York 3 ate Experience It is relevant to recount or porienoe in any other poultry region Table 97 23: Average Costs and Returns Per Dozen Eggs at Different Hypothetical Prices of Eggs and Feeds. M A w (1) (2) (3) (5) Egg Price Per Dozen 36d 42d ,36d 36d 30d Feed Price Per Pound 4.2d 3.2d 3.2d 5.2d 4.2d Costs * Feeds (et\6.0 lb per , 'f - Dozen.EggS) 25.3d 19.2d 19.2d 31.2d 25.3d Ron—Feeds 11046- 110441 11046. 1104(1 11041.1 Total Costs 36.7d 30.6d 30.6d 42.6d 36.7d Family'Labour (at . £50 per year) 2.2:: 2.2a 2.2a 2.2a 2.2a Returns Egg Revenue 36.0d 42d 36.0d 36.0d 30.0d Non-Egg Revenue 3.2d 3.2d 3.2d 3.2d 3.2d Summary of Costs and Returns Gross Income** 39.3a 4503a 39.3a 39.3d 33.3a Labour Income +0.4d +12.Sd +6.5d ~5.5d ~5.6d * e . ' Average feed use per dozen eggs is 5.0 lb for the 74 Sample Farms. K‘ . . . Gross Income after adgusting for bird purchases and changes in inventory. Net Inventory change after adjusting for bird purchases is +0.4d per dozen eggs. Table 24: 98 . m (1) (2) Enos and Feeds. k’k) (3) Average Costs and Returns Per Dozen.Eggs at Other Hypothetical Prices of (4) (5) Egg Price Per Dozen 36d 50d 42d 42d 30d Feed Fni JPor Pound 4.2a 3.2d 4.2d 5.2d 5.2d Costs * I Feeds \at) 6 0 1b 1dr Dozen Eggs) 25.3d 19.2d 25.3d . 31.2d 31.2a IIOD‘FUGCIS 110441 11046. 11o4d 1104-6. 11.46- Total Costs 36.7d 30.6d 36.7d 42.6d 42.6d Family'Iiauo our (at £50 Per year) 2Q2d 2026. 202d 2026. 202d. Returns Egg Revenue 36.01 30.0i 42.01 42.0d 30.0d Non~3gg Revenue 3.2d 3.2a 3.2d 3.2a .2d Summary of Costs and Returns Gross Income** 39.3d 33.3d 45.3d 45.31 33.31 La chr Income +0.4d +0.5d +6.4d +0.5i -11.51 * Average feed use 748:.mp1e Farr". ** P9? dozen eggs is 6.0 lb for the Gross Income after ndjus t:?u{; for bird 1arc homes and Changc-s in inventory. Net IHVCLtory chn.n~e after udjus tang for Dde puzchases is +0.4d per do 3en 0' ‘..’\.JE) Table 25: 99 Cost of Raising Meat Birds at Different Hypothetical Prices of Feeds. (we [eat Bird Broilers 0021121313 MIL/m" (1 ) (2) (3) HonnFeed Costs 99.2d 17.2d 23.26 “sight of Foods RequiEO' 8.7 lb 7.2 lb 7.0 lb Feed Cost at 4.2d Ior lb 36.5d 30.3d 29.4d Total Cost per bird roared 65.76 47.5d 52.6d Feed Cost at 3.2d per lb 27.8d 23.0d 22.4d Total Cost per bird reared 57.0d 40.2d 45.6d Feed Cost at 5.2d per lb 45.2d 37.46 36.4d Total Cost per Bird roared 74.4d 54.66 59.6d *RIR for Rhode Islam". Leghorns . 100 Table 26: Hypothetical Prices of Feeds. Cost of Raising Replacement Pullers at Different _ One Replacement Pullet Hoaneed Costs Weight of Feeds Required Feed Cost at 4.2d per lb Total Cost per bird roared Feed Cost at 3.2d per lb Total Cost per bird reared Feed Cost at 5.2d per lb Total Cost per bird reared Harco (1), 707/” 25.7 lb 9.0/- 16.7/— 6.8/- 14.5/- 11.1/- 18.8/— n 404" (2) 7.7/- 20.2 lb 6.2/- 1309 "' 504/" 1301/- 8.8/— 1605/” RIR/LH 3% (3) 803/- 22.8 lb 8.0/- 16.3/~ 6.1/— 14.11/- 909/” 18.2/-- *- RIR for Rhode Island Reds; LH for Leghorns. 101 for guide.c . In this connec Izion Carpenter2 indicated as follows fcr'New York Ste te you.ltry farm business for the period 1926 to 1952. (1) Annual rlt eof egg producti .on increased from an estimated average of 126 03.3 per layer in 1926 to 187 eggs per layer in 1952. Consequent upon this the amount of feed required per layer rose Sheryly; (ii) Labour required per layer declined sharply from 2.1 hours per bird in 1926 to 1.7 hours in 1952. Over the zeriod labour efficiency was increased through (a) the use of labour saving equipment; (b) improvements in housing, and (c) improvement in poultry management practices; (iii) La 3 flock mortality rates declined from about 25 per cent in 1926 to about 18 per cent in 1952; (iv) The nake~1p of laying flock c b"n3ed over the period. The Leghorn breed dominated iron 1926 to before ”orld ‘Nar 11. During world War II there was a shift to the heavy breeds. ISv.t 1rom the end of World War II to 1952 the LL M 01118 1‘0 ’ 221.713. 1:. pulajfiiar; (v) Average size of l.ryin3 flock increased ovc r tize 1996~19r“ period. The oranges outlined for the p; ri.od 1926 to 1952 here generally ' t“ ' V . . ‘ v . f1 . r. -‘~- r u .. av— - - o. 0. ~ -‘ .’.‘ Jo - . ( resulted 1n lSCMCQMIDH tne 1ro¢uctiuc e.ficlency 01 the laying bird and of the youltry labour. They have generally resulted in decreased pfil Anit cost of producing 9333 and lirzro brour:3‘.t charges in_tbc amounts of 1:110 cost factors on} l eyed in the prodnction of C” . six) 2 v n ' .- . Ccrre1ter,‘h.a. Estimated Cos s of fr03u01P G’E”2‘: flew York ) State, 1926~S~2 . Cornell Agr. dry or. Dullt in H0. 897, 1953. p. 4. 102 Eastern Nigeria Situation Historical data are lacking to permit growth study statements for Eastern Nigeria poultry farm business. But judging from the growth patterns within the poultry industry in other parts of the world, the following future development trend in the Eastern Nigeria poultry industry with respect to rate of lay, flock size, and labour use may be suggested. Rate of_Egg Production Rate of egg production, which was lowest in 1961 when commercial poultry rearing was introduced, is now (1967) about 187 eggs per layer per year. The production rate will likely increase to 200 or above in the next decade if more and more pullet chicks of high egg-laying breeds are made available to farmers at prices lower than the current average chick price. The complementary attribute, management, has been improving over the past five years, and it is expected to continue to improve, especially as more of the better poultry equipment become available at lower prices. Size of laying Flocks Average flock size has been increasing in Eastern Nigeria over.. the past five years. It is believed that average flock size will show considerable increase over the next decade, ceteribus paribus. Already the newer poultry farms producing for the industrial population of the Port Harcourt area tend to have 103 larger flodk sizes than older farms. But growth in flock size will greatly depend on the establishing and maintaining of a large market for table eggs. The doveloPment or growth of the egg market will itself depend on the rate of economic deve10pment as reflected in the rate of rise in consumers' real incomes. Growth in flock size will also depend on the rate at which poultry farmers adept libour-saving equipment and on the supply of liberal credit to poultry farmers. Labour U99 No usable information exists on he number of labour hours used per dozen eggs produced or per bird kept in Eastern Nigeria. It is however, known that average flock size is increasing and that the production of table eggs is becoming more highly competitive. Increns 33 flock size and increasing competitiveness will continue to raise the demand for specialized poultry labour. The more specialized labour will necessarily cost more than the less specialized labour. It means that gross labour cost in the production of meat birds and table eggs may rise appreciably higher over the next decade. CHAPTER IX POULTRY FARIBPS ' PRO.» ”* “"23 Opinion Poll Various problems confront Eastern Nigeria poultry farmers. Some are intra—form, and can be solved to a large extent through decisions and actions of the povltry farmer. Others are mainly extra-farm and they may only be solved through concerted actions of groups of poultry farmers or through decisi no and actions of non- poultry farmers. The problems of the poultry industry may be classified on the basis of inputs and Ira luce. These may relate to ore lit facilities, da;--old chick and feed supply, dis t.se control, management, and marketing of produce. It is inform: ive to first list out problems as poultry farmers 1;hensclves see them. Two open questions were built into the poultry form.han agement Questionnaire to permit farmers give their own independent view points. "What do you thing the Governpent or the_pvblic can do togigprove profitability of poultry to farmers"?, and "what do you consider you can do to improve pgofitabilitv of your poultry_e sineggr?. Farmer's responses are summaried in table 27. The breakdown of the responses shows that farmers are more stron3ly conscious of the need for extra-farm approach than for intr w-fa mapproach to solving poultry farmers' problems. On the extra-farm approach they consider supply of credit, 104 105 supply of cheaper feeds and.inproved marketing of poultry produce to be of topwmost importance. From intre-farm angle farmers think mostly in terms of expandin3 poultry structure 8 and fa cilities which is related to the in we tance they attach to the need for Credit. Supply of Credit Of the 63 poultry farmers interviewed by questionnaire only 16 had received any loan for poultry. A Government credit institution, Funds for.A3rieulture and Industrial DevelOpment, was established about 1962. From that date to 1967 the F.A.I.D. made loans to a total of 33 poultry farmers. The largest amount any one farmer received was £2,230 and the least was £250. Such sizes of loan may only help a farmer expand his flock size by a few hundred birds. They ire far too small for inereus n3 flock size by ten thousand birds, assunfn3 some farmers have mena3eriel capacity to keep ten es in the growth of poultry industry elsewhere in the World show a pro 03ression from small size farms to intermediate, and finally to large—sized ferns which 3encr:ll achieve some mma'sure of meehzr ntion and product spec'icli izati.on. Ba .3 tern lligeria peu try industry is ;i"s t advencin3 to the interncli.ute size ste3e. It is believed that problems of credit constitute one of t11o c11icf cos soles to the further expansion in n W12 of the poultry: 151m urine ss inE est rn Hi 3eria. '1‘ 106 Table 27: Problems of Poultry luaustry as Identified By Poult y Farmers (5? Farmers Interviewed) Type of Solution . P'oblems env1saged by Farmers l (1) ‘ (2) Number of Farmers Recoa— nizing the Problem (3) Loans to Poultry'Farmers Supply of Feeds and Feed Prices Increased Public ‘ Veterinary'Services Assistance Supply of Quality Chicks Farketing of Poultry Produce Increased Intra- Construction of more Farm Effort Poultry Buildings and facilities Labour quality and number Feeding and Watering levels for flocks Procurement of better— quality chicks . 41 4O 21 21 26 107 Supply of Dsyhold Chicks I .9“. Poultry farmers experience 8 :11culty in obtainilg SI -ficient numbers of anywold chick at the times wlen they want to receive them.intc their breeder houses. The farmers worry about quality of the cnicxs Iith reswect to t] eir lay-inr ability and the e 3e at ‘k? U. 0 which they come into lay. The qusnt bl ty aSpect of J'he supply problem d- makes some farmers o o. crate their own small hatcheries to supplement *3 the number of chicks they can purchase from the'Einistry of Agriculture 91d f: on private commercial sources It also compels some feim; sto rear many more batches of replacement flocks than they would otherwise raise in one year. On many ferns birds of different ages and, often, from different} WtCICTiGS are mixed in one pen. If a farmer can receive as many chicks as he requires he is unlikely to ad pt the uneconomic flock management practices of rearing many replacement flocks in one y’e r or of mi.xinr birds of 'different ages and breeds in one pen. The hinistry of Agriculture adepts a policy of rationing in the distribution of its deywold chicks. This aims at viCLost possible geoazaphicul coverage b" supplyfi n3 as many J?armers as possible. Alloua_ncc ior the greater neezls of the relatively large ferns is far insufficient. Such policy of rationing places special obstacles in the way of farmers that have the desire and capacity to CXpand Si se . . The quality aspect of the chick supply problem is indicated by lute maturity in the replacement fleets, low rate of lay and poor at — and ee~-c\nver ion rt: ties. There are some replacement flocks which do not come into lav till after 253 .eeks oi are on some I Q poultry farms. Quality of chicks may ce difficult to control in a leries produce chicks for sale to farmers. This woulé be true of txvelcn'ni and private hatcheiies that have no evnerueuced and profeS'ionally trained breeders and chick sexers. Trained and experienced personnel.ere needed to develoP and maintain highly selected parent 5 seek, and to produce sexed day-old chicks. ('1 supply of Foods Fifty out of the 63 fermoic intervi3ved expo Ml ce difficu.ty in oht.1nln~ "up“icicnt for thei1~ birds. They indicate that feeds {zre not re3ul.crly avniL :ble at the supply pci.nts. 1H0 t of the farmers purchase feeds more than two times in a month. The effect of this state of affairs is nee tly three-fold. F3r3t, poultry form a tendants or farm minaficrs themselves spr—nd abnormally high preportion of total poultry 3.a hour hours each month in travelh ing to and from food 3‘ yl.y points. Some of the t"ips do not yield any feeds at all to the farmer. The oisa3pcinh cnt 13 such greater for those farmers who rely a 30rd deal on h-n:1.stry rations. Second, 10 dJ-~SPP°~” Mt arms TS 810 P“10“lucd to resort to rat ionins of feeds when they. olxould o'Ltrs L.G be feeding the biris ad lib. They switch fro ouently from one make of feeds to another, and in some cases 109 employ farm processed feeds of doubtful quality. These feeding practices adversely affect the rate of lay in laying flocks. They also affect the rate of weight gain in meat birds. Production therefore falls and may remain low if these feeding 'disturbances' are frequent for a farm. Third, transportation expenses rise as the number of trips to feed supply points increases in the month. The habit of alternating (or even mixing) different makes of feeds for a flock of layers or growing birds made it difficult to derive, in this study, comparative data of performance for Ministry's poultry rations and the rations marketed by a private firm. Information on comparative performance of different makes of feeds based on farmers' farm conditions would help farmers and feed manufacturers in improving their business decisions. 0n the side of manufacturers of poultry rations a different set of problems is encountered. The cereal grains, maize or guinea corn, which constitute the major carbohydrate component of rations, also form part of the human staple food in Eastern Nigeria and other parts of Nigeria. Feed mills have to compete with consuming house- holds in the purchase of the limited quantity of grains produced in the country. Of course the feed mills can purchase locally or import as much grains as they need if they are willing to pay higher prices. But it is not certain that poultry farmers will be able to buy feeds at the higher prices that would result. Feed mills have to import all the antibiotics, vitamins, and animal proteins that enter into ration compounding. These items are relatively very expensive 110 at c.i.f. prices. With the 1967 formulation of rations, 2,000 lb weight of chicks ration contains 233.5 lb weight of imported come ponents (dried milk, vitamins, antibiotics, fish meal and dicalcium phosphate). The 233.5 pounds of imported feed components cost $10.5 whereas 1766.5 lb of local component (maize, groundnut cake, bone meal and oyster shell) cost $22.9 Marketing of Poultry Produce Out of the 63 farmers covered with the poultry management questionnaire 56 indicate that they are responsible for removing eggs from their farms to points of sale. Only 5 have buyers coming to the farm gate to collect eggs. Twenty-three farmers grade their eggs, usually by visual judgment rather than by use of egg scales. The other 40 farmers do not grade eggs. On 22 farms eggs usually remain 5 to 7 days before being removed to markets or disposal points. On 30 other farms the length of waiting time for eggs is 2 to 4 days. Farmers that grade eggs for sale report selling prices of 42d to 48d per dozen for the larger grades of eggs. About half of the farmers that do not grade eggs sell at prices ranging from 36d to 42d per dozen. A little under half of farmers in this category sell eggs at prices which range from 42d to 48d per dozen. Only 20 out of the 63 farmers interviewed sell eggs through the Egg Marketing Scheme. On the number of times in one month a farmer took poultry produce to 111 disposal points but failed to dispose of all the produce, 34 farmers reported nil times, 17 reported 1 or 2 times, while 11 farmers sore affected 3 or more times. The conclusion one draws from the foregoing is that farmers have difficulty with the marketing of their produce. But farmers do not all experience the same fora of marketing difficulty. Those that experience the same fan of difficulty, do so to varying extent. While sue farmers carry their eggs to sax-bet places and actually stay to retail the eggs, some others sorely take theirs to provision stores and super-Iarkets that contract to sell the eggs under specified contract conditions. Often the super- Isrkets and stores do not pay cash on delivery, they generally pay only after the batches have been sold out at the stores. A for farmers have contracted to deliver specified quantities of eggs to institutions or to food contractors that regularly supply an institutions. it tiles than many poultry farmers were not able to dispose of all their eggs, even at depressed producer prices, the prices of .eggs in the super-markets showed very little drop fru the pre-glut level of egg prices. Putting it another way, during periods of apparent glut the consul-er prices for eggs at the super-narrow did not show the leaked drop that producer prices suffered. The tendency for super-market price of eggs to be sticky while theaverage price ofeggsinthe openaarketvas falling-eybe attributed to the type of consumers who patronize the super-narhts. 112 Buschelds which regularly purchase from the for supermarkets in Boston Nigeria's big townships belong acre or less to the top inane gulps. For such households the total monthly expenditure on foods constitutes a relatively small fraction of their total Ienthly incomes. They may not bother over any gap between prices of eggs at super-sarkets and prices of eggs at market stalls, especially where certain conveniences and services attach to shopping at super-Iarkets. It is generally believed that that have yet to emerge in the egg marketing system are the big egg dealers she would buy off the farmers' eggs, with all the rich attached, pay for then and then proceed to recover the away they have invested by taking the eggs to where consulers will buy then. It was became of the absence of big egg dealers that the Eastern ligeria Government found it necessary to set up an Egg narketing Soho-e in 1965. This raises the question as to why big egg dealers have not yet energed on the poultry scene. In an attempt to explain the absence of established big egg dealers s- agricultural planners indicate that poultry industry in lestorn ligeria is a relatively young one and has, therefore, not sufficiently attracted the attention of traders in the distributive trade. They also advance the argusont that the perishable and delicate nature of eggs tends to discourage prospective egg dealers. such reasons voro usually adduced tc Justify the desirability of creating a governlent sponsored egg—earketing schene. When one, 113 however, calls to mind the facts that perishables like fruits and vegetables move hundreds of miles by rail and read from areas of production to distant places where they are consuned within ligeria, ad that guinea fowl eggs are railed from Northern Nigeria to the South for conunptien - then one cannot help being sceptical about reasons which suggest inadequate information, and lack of expertise in the traditional marketing system in Nigeria, Johnson‘ has advanced a more realistic opinion which holds that the aggregate level of demand for food in Nigeria is severely restricted by low incom- ef consuners. This would especially apply to the level of domnd for table eggs in Eastern Nigeria. The effect is that an appreciable increases in the output of table eggs may cause egg prices to be depressed even to points where table egg production becneo unprofitable to the poultry farmer. Hiddlenen deal in guinea fowl eggs because there is effective demand for th- in the South at the relative low prices the dealers are willing to sell the eggs. Indeed oxpozienco indicates that where there is an effective duand for a euodity in the Nigerian Society dealers emerge and endeavour to find ways ad loans of satisfying the demand. For instance, when ‘ largo instituflons advertise for contracts to supply them with eggs hundreds of contractors apply because they knew the institutions would constitute a steady effective denander of eggs at prices that would allow the contractors good margin of profit. And the suppliers 'Jehnsen, Glenn 1... Scoville, Orlin 3., et al. '71—'13 *-~ ”-0 :‘60‘ n.“ W 5 'vxl-itéiimrm kai;-0' 'Jfl 'rz're But Lanai-D‘s 1'9e Po ‘e CSNRD ROPOfl Ho. ”3e 114 that win such contracts would go into the remotest villages to assemble their supply quota. Success Factors For Eastern Nigeria Poultry Industry It is indicated in chapter II that commercial poultry farming in Eastern Nigeria has made considerable impact within the relatively short period of time that commercial poultry farming was introduced in the Region. What factors contributed to the marked success of the poultry industry in Eastern Nigeria? Firstly, during the initial stages of commercial poultry keeping in Eastern Nigeria the price of imported eggs set the pace for locally produced eggs at the record high of 7/- per dozen eggs. Prices of local eggs gradually fell to 6/-, 5/-and then 4/-. At those relatively high prices many people were attracted into the business. Secondly, while egg prices remained high, the prices of poultry inputs like day-old chicks and poultry feeds were relatively low, being heavily subsidized by government. Thirdly, the keeping of commercial poultry flocks somehow acquired a prestige appeal so that some people went into poultry business and proceeded to expand the sizes of their poultry flocks even when a number of them might not be operating at profit. 115 W, the sizes of poultry flocks canmcnly kept in Eastern Nigeria were such that could be economically efficient in supplementaiity with other farm enterprises or in supplementarity with non-farm business. Fifthly, there existed initially a hard core of table egg consumers made up mostly of expatriates and senior civil servants. During the period that commercial poultry keeping in Eastern Nigeria showed its remarkable development the effective egg consuming population was growing, though at a relatively slow rate. The departure of colonial administrators from Eastern Nigeria about 1960 was probably more than eff-set by the growth in business and industrial expatriate population over the 1950 - 1956 period. Besides, the indigenous civil service population was also growing over the one period. Some effective demand for eggs, therefore, existed and grow at rates determined by rates of growth in the civil service and industrial population. This level of effective demand for table eggs in Eastern Nigeria is however, considered low relative to the large indigenom population which constitutes the potential egg consumers. If the 12.4.2 million people of Eastern Nigeiia should eat one egg per person per month the monthly consumption would be about 1.04 million dozen eggs. The estimated outpit of 63,000 dozen eggs per month, is below one seventeenth of this very low consumption target. But since the low monthly out-pit 28tatistical Digest 1966; Eastem Nigeria. Edition 4. Official Document No. 2 of 1970 Government Printer, Enugu, East Central State of Nigeria. 116 of 63,000 dozen eggs is facing real problem of disposal the conclusion that a low effective demand exists must be considered well founded. How may the effective demand for table eggs in Eastern Nigeria be expanded? Three approaches may be mentioned. Firstly, efforts should be directed at raising the real incomes of the lower income households so that many households that hitherto have not been eating eggs may start taking eggs as a regular item of food. The raising of real incomes of consumers can be achieved in part by a lowering in the cost of producing table eggs with consequent lowering in egg prices. Secondly, efforts should be directed at propagating, widely and continually, the nutritional importance of eggs through schools and on the press and radio. .This may draw some potential consumers at the margin into the effective demand group even when real incomes remain constant. Thirdly, efforts should be directed at encouraging local manufacture of egg products so as to enhance the effective derived demand for eggs. A successful combination of these three approaches to the_egg demand situation may set the stage for the emergence and growth of commercial egg dealers and the improvement of egg marketing in Eastern Nigeria. Experience of the Eastern Nigeria Egg Marketing Scheme During the short period the Eastern Nigeria Egg Marketing Scheme has functioned the following problems were spotlighted: Funds and Method of Releasing Funds The capital vote set aside for the Egg Marketing Scheme was 117 relatively small. It could not suffice for the capital equipment and the housing needed to establish the headquarters and hinterland egg depots at a level that would handle all the table eggs produced in Eastern Nigeria. A lot more money would therefore be needed to equip the egg depots and to purchase or hire sufficient vans for transporting eggs. At least one third of the vote approved for the Scheme was held in the form of a reserve for the Schemc. Money could only be released from this reserved fund by Executive Council action. As to be expected, considerable delays were experienced in obtaining the Executive Council approval. Such delays adversely affected field operations of the Scheme. Size and Composition of Managerial Body The Egg Marketing Scheme was administered by an inter-ministerial Committee made up of representatives of the Ministries of Agriculture, Finance, Comoros, Rural Deve10pment, Economic Flaming, Education, and the Cabinet Office, in addition to poultry farmers' representatives. The same body formlated policy relating to the Operations of the Scheme. The size of the administering body was too uninW- 11‘ hampered the speed of taking executive decisions. Patronage by Poultry Farmers There were farmers who did not patronize the Egg Marketing Scheme. Such farmers disposed of their eggs outside the Scheme's marketing channels. Effectiveness of the Marketing Scheme was necessarily 118 weakened by incanplete patronage by poultry farmers. From point of view of eventual take-over of the Scheme by a Farmers' Cooperative, the greatest problem for the present organizers of the Scheme is to find ways of increasing poultry farmers' cooperation from the present low 40 or 50 per cent to over 9'5 per cent in the very near future. Some famers who had relatively small volumes of turn-over could hardly afford the waiting from the time they take eggs to an egg depot to the time payment is made for the eggs. For many farmers the waiting becomes unbearable when it runs into weeks. Poultry farmers who sell eggs thrcigh the Scheme desire prompt payment to enable them meet the usually high operating expenses for the poultry business. Sales Promotions Unit For The Scheme is the Egg Marketing Scheme handled an increasing proportion of total egg output for the Region it experienced more and more the problem of finding enough customers to purchase all the eggs. With surplus eggs building up at the egg depots the Scheme is now feeling the need to develop a programme for reaching new egg consumers through sales promotion activities. Poultry Labour and Management A farmer wishing to start comercial poultry may undergo a short training course at the Government Poultry Centre. The farmer or his nominee may attend. One may guess that a trainee cannot learn 119 all the essentials of poultry keeping within a short period of three months, especially if he is barely literate. What aspects of the training the farmer comprehends only partly he may probably not improve upon later because a mistake in method tends to perpetuate itsolf in the micro-habitat of his on poultry farm. Such a weakness reflects on the results of poultry farm operations. Errors in management decisions also reflect on the results of poultry falm operations. Some of the weaknesses observed on sane farms and which relate to the quality of poultry labour and supervision are: (i) Mixing of growing birds of different ages in one pen; (ii) Frequent switching from one make of rations to another make, especially in the laying flocks; (iii) Common use of feeding troughs that are not waste-proof, so that a continual loss of feeds from troughs to the litter results; (iv) Inadequate levels of feeding and watering. Feeding troughs and watering troughs may occasionally be seen empty, and (v) Lukewarm disposition or even opposition to the keeping of production records of individual laying flocks and of records of poultry business expenses. Weaknesses which reflect the quality of management may be listed as follows: (i) The locating of a poultry farm far from both the source of feeds and the main egg-consuming centres; 120 (ii) The existence of‘many empty pens on some farms with no known plans for restocking them; (111) The purchasing of poor quality day—old chicks from hatchers of no repute. This error results in the keeping of‘unthrifty birds that are slow maturing and poor layers; (iv) Retaining layers many months beyond their pullet year. On some farms one occasionally finds flocks of hens over 21 months of age, and often, giving no better than 29% of lay. Errors of rearing practices and of management decisions tend to increase costs and or depress revenue. They therefore have direct influence on profit. The role of decision-making or managerial capacity in this connection is sumarized by Johnson as follows: "Whether it is in fact a factor of production or a means of controlling the production process, managerial capacity is an important determinant of production, supply responses, surplus accretion, economic growth and development."3 Special problem arises in attempts to study the contribution of the managerial factor to costs and returns of a farm business and in attempts to advise farmers on how to improve the use of this very important factor of production. This problem derives fro- the difficulty in defining consistent and measurable units of the 3Johnson Glenn L. ’"Methodolog For the Managerial Input" Workshop on the Management Input in Agriculture. New Orleans March 19th and 20th 1962. p. 6. managerial input, and in using the units for inter-personal and inter-farm comparisons. Laying Flock Mortality Available data indicate that average mortalityhcum-culling rate in the laying flocks is in the neighbourhood of 30% for 12 months of lay. Such high rate of mortality and culling indicates that veterinary services may be inadequate, that flock hygiene may be faulty, and that breed qualities need to be watched from point of view of livability. A substantial preportion of poultry farmers recognize that problems exist in these lines (table 27). Indeed, many poultry farmers commonly complain that veterinary attention is far from being prompt in response to actualhdisease outbreak reported, or in response to requests for routine inoculation of Chi-Cu e CHAPTER X SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary A study of the economics of poultry business was carried out in Eastern Nigeria in 1967. In chapters 1 and 2 of this thesis the state of the poultry industry and the major setbacks of poultry farmers at the time of the study were described. The method of data collection was discussed in chapter 3. Results and findings were presented in chapters 4 t0 7- In chapter 8, cost and profit figures were presented and recomputed for hypothetical prices of feeds and table eggs. Poultry farmers' problems were then listed and discussed in chapter 9. It now remains in this final chapter to draw conclusions based on the findings of the study. Conclusions will be followed by recommendations on possible ways of improving profitability of the poultry business to farmers and of matching the rate of growth of the poultry industry with the growing nutritional and economic needs of the Eastern Nigerian society. Conclusions Certain conclusions based on observations made in the study are listed as follows: (1) About four-fifths of the poultry farms studied are small- sized, having average flock size of about 254 layers and a range of 50 to 750 layers. Only about one-fifth of the farms are large-sized, with average flock size of about 1237 layers and a range of 751 to 2475 layers. The large farms account for 57 percent of the total output of table eggs; (ii) A little over a third of the farms studied are making profit, based on labour income, when average price of table eggs is 3/- per dozen. Average cost of producing table eggs 122 it‘ll"! (iii) (iV) (V) 123 is 30.6d per dozen for large farms and 45.3 per dozen for small farms; The factors identified as having influence on profitability are: a. Feed expenses per livestock unit. This variable combines the effects of the level of feeding and the procurement prices of rations; b. Egg revenue per 100 layers per month. This variable reflects the importance of laying flock productivity and the prices a farmer receives for eggs; c. Transportation expenses per livestock unit per month. This embodies the influence of average distance to input and produce markets, and the frequency of poultry business trips, and d. A residual factor, believed to be management, which combines the effects of flock management practices and the soundness of poultry business decisions. The first three factors listed under (iii) may be used to obtain rough estimates of profitability for Eastern Nigeria poultry farmers. Conclusions (ii) and (iii) are based on six months' data. It is likely that the proportion of farms making profit to farms making losses, and the relative values of the regression coefficients underlying conclusion (iii), may be affected if data for a full year or for a number of years are used. Feeds contribute 67% to 70% of the costs. The egg-feed ratio is 8.6 lb. at the average egg price of 3/— per dozen, and feed price of 4.2d per 1b. For the large farms about 5.2 lb. of feeds are required per dozen of eggs, and for small farms 7.3 lb. feeds are used per dozen eggs; The cost of producing meat birds varies with the type of bird reared. It is 16.4d per pound liveweight for broilers, 18.2d per pound liveweight for sexed cockerels of "404", 124 and 26.3d per pound liveweight for cockerels from unsexed chicks of RIR and Leghorn birds. The cost data are for meat birds reared to 10 weeks of age; (vi) The net cost of rearing replacement pullets to 25 weeks of age is about 13.9/- per pullet from "404" sexed chick, and about 16.3/- per pullet for RIR or Leghorn unsexed chicks. The net cost for rearing a pullet to start of lay is ll.l/- for "404" sexed chicks, and 16.5/- for RIR or Leghorn unsexed chicks. The average mortality-cum-culling rate is 15 percent for rearing pullets from day-old chicks to 25 weeks of age; (vii) The average pullet year production is 200 eggs for "404" layers, and 172 eggs for RIR or Leghorn layers. Available data for Harco layers do not cover 12 months of lay, but they do indicate that Harco pullet year production may sub- stantially exceed 200 eggs per layer; (viii) The rhythm of egg laying in Eastern Nigeria shows one peak and one trough. Average rate of lay is relatively low in the June to October period, and relatively high in December to May period. Rate of lay therefore appears to drop during the months of heavy rain and comparatively shorter periods of daylight in Eastern Nigeria. .Since the costs and returns data were collected for the calendar months with declining rates of lay it is believed that costs and returns data for a full calendar year would give slightly more favourable performance results for Eastern Nigeria poultry farms; (ix) The volume of table egg production in Eastern Nigeria for the first half of 1967 is estimated to be 63,042 dozen eggs per month. Recommendations Suggestions are presented from three aspects. These are from the public or governmental aspect, from poultry farmers' aspect, and from the research aspect. 125 At the Public or Governmental Level Considering the contribution of a developing poultry industry to the nutrition of a people whose average daily animal protein intake is below 4 grammes per caput, and considering the need to make most rational allocation of public resources, further public investment in the Eastern Nigeria poultry industry is recommended on the following grounds: (1) Even though present demand appears to be satisfied by present output of table eggs, the poultry industry cannot continue in the future to produce the current level of output without further investment to maintain inventory and to replace obsolete capital. At this stage policy makers need to be reminded that over—investment is a common feature of agriculture1 of which the poultry industry is a component. (ii) Demand for poultry eggs will be growing by some rate that will relate to normal demographic process and to growth in real incomes of marginal and potential consumers of poultry eggs» The civil service population around Enugu and the industrial/ commercial population in the Port Harcourt-Aba axis are believed to be actively growing demographically and income- wise. Further, it is believed that a lowering in the cost of poultry inputs like high-yielding feed grains and pullets restuling from current research efforts will go to lower egg prices and thereby raise real incomes of consumers. (iii) A poultry industry that has up to the present been heavily dependent on government programmes of assistance may be very badly shaken if public assistance is abruptly and completely 1 Johnson, G.L. and C. L. Quance, 1972. The Overproduction Trap in U.S. Agriculture. Resources for the Future, Inc. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London. 126 withdrawn. What is needed is a rationally determined level of future public assistance. Given the monthly consumption of 63,000 dozen table eggs in Eastern Nigeria in 1967, the demand for table eggs would rise to about 87,255 dozen per month by 1977, assuming 2.5 percent average population growth per year and a minimum on one percent growth in consumers' incomes per year. At about the present rate of lay and allowing for laying flock mortality of 5 percent per year 92,000 layers would be required to produce the projected output of eggs in 1977. Some 23 efficiently organized large poultry farms with average laying flock size of 4000 layers would meet the projected output of eggs in 1977. Each of such farms would require about £10,000 total investment capital at an estimated investment rate of £2.5 per layer. Credit Government should encourage the development of about twenty large poultry farms in the context of the conditions outlined in the earlier part of this paragraph. This should be done by granting larger loans up to £7,500 per farmer to the t0p efficient poultry farmers who should raise at least £2,500 from personal sources to enable them to expand to 4000 layers each. Total public fund requirement fox this loans scheme would be about £172,500. A first step in the poultry loans schmeme should be the creation of an agricultural credit organisation which would be separate from any public commercial and industrial credit organisation. Feeds At the 1967 flat price of 3d per pound of all Ministry of Agriculture poultry rations the public is subsidizing the prices:of 127 poultry feed by up to 58 percent. Since the poultry industry has already reached a stage in which a substantial proportion of poultry farmers are making profit the government should now consider completely phasing out within 5 to 10 years the subsidies on poultry feeds. The ministry should locate its feedmills at one place only. One large milling unit, located at Enugu, will have cost advantage over the present set-up of operating one feed mill at Enugu and another at Abakiliki. A steady supply of feed grains, especially maize, from local source is very relevant to efforts aimed at reducing production costs for poultry feeds. In this regard technological innovations in grain production should be systematically encouraged and guided. The Ministry's maize scheme should receive increased emphasis. Use of high-yielding maize seeds, liberal doses of fertilizers, tractorized cultural operations, and good disease/pest control measures. should be adopted on a massive scale if they are assessed to be economic. To reap fully the good results that should follow im- provement in grain growing technology, Ministry may invite the participation of commercial feedmills in establishing grain pur- chasing and storing units which will promptly buy off maize from farmers for drying and storing. Chicks Given the level of feeding and of flock management, the laying performance of a laying flock varies among breeds of layers. 128 Because the birds produced and distributed by the Ministry of Agriculture are slow-maturing and poor layers the Ministry should desist from chick production, especially now that a private commercial hatchery is well established in Eastern Nigeria. The Ministry should instead assist in arranging the bulk purchasing of top quality chicks from reputable local and foreign hatcheries, and effect the distribution of such chicks to farmers at slight cost to government. Marketing Government should continue to provide financial and technical assistance to the Egg Marketing Scheme to enable the Scheme to become firmly established and equipped to handle up to 90,000 eggs per month. Financial assistance in this direction should be on a sliding scale, completely phasing out in the fifth year from now. An effective Egg Marketing Scheme would substantially reduce transportation and marketing expenses for poultry farmers and there- by enhance their profit situation. It would also bring about some slight increase in the effective demand for table eggs through a programme of advertisement by the Scheme. Poultry Farm Management The Ministry of Agriculture should intensify its poultry extensixfil activities in order to be better able to transmit new and tested efficient methods of poultry operations to farmers. Ministry's training programmes for poultry farmers should be reviewed to enablde trainees to obtain longer training in all the critical phases of poultry farm operations. Furthermore, in order to aid the 129 co-operating farmers in record keeping and the periodic analysis of their poultry farm records, it is suggested that the Ministry should co-operate with the University's Department of Agriculture to set up a data analyses service for such farmers who would participate in a programme of farm record keeping on standard forms to be supplied by the Ministry. At the Farmers' Level If the government and other institutions provide the infrastructures for making available chicks, feeds, credit, and egg-marketing channel to poultry farmers in Eastern Nigeria, it would then be the poultry farmers' role to combine the relevant inputs judiciously in order to produce table eggs and meat birds efficiently. Each poultry farmer has to decide on where to locate his farm, at what level of output to operate, and the proportions in which inputs would be combined. All these constitute decisions and actions of management. Location of Farm If intending poultry farmers are known to Ministry's extension staff at the planning stage the farmers-to-be should be reminded of the cost advantage of good location with respect to nearness to either the produce market or the source of bulky inputs. Poultry farmers should avoid the urge to locate poultry farms in their home towns which are far from the nearest feed depot and far from any effective egg consuming centre of population. Right Type of Chicks for the Specialized Output Feeds are costly and they contribute more to total cost of producing poultry meat and eggs than any other poultry input. A poultry farmer should, therefore, always insist on chicks from strains of birds which produce most eggs or most meat per pound 130 of feeds. A farmer who plans to rear meat birds should go for broiler chicks because they produce more meat for each pound of feeds than most other birds. Commercial rearing of cockerels of the "404" laying birds for meat may only be resorted to if broiler chicks are not available. Cockerels of RIR or the Leg— horns should not be reared for commercial meat production because they appear very uneconomical to rear for meat. Feeding Farmers should use feeding troughs that minimize feed wastage from the pecking and scratching habits of birds while feeding. Birds should not be allowed scratching access to feeding troughs. Besides, the lips of feeding troughs should curve inwards to prevent feed losses during pecking. Watering On many of the poultry farms studied the water troughs often contained dirty water. Enough clean water should be provided. Water troughs in deep litter houses should be raised above litter level and should be regularly supplied with clean water. Mixing of Breeds and Birds of Different Ages in a Pen Farmers should not mix different breeds of layers in one pen, especially if the birds are heavy breed and light breed. Mixing of flocks of different ages in one pen should also be avoided. System of Control D. Gale Johnson,1 analysing the problem of American agriculture, observed that farmers often incorrectly anticipate the direction and magnitude of changes in agricultural factor prices and earnings. Such 1Johnson, D. Gale. Forward Prices for Agriculture. Chicago, Illinois. The University of Chicago Press, 1947 (p. 72). AHMJ!!! 1‘. fig 131 incorrect anticipations lead farmers to errors in organizing farms. Further study by Glenn L. Johnson and C. L. Quance1 indicated that these errors in farm organization have certain impacts for ag— ricultural commodities not subject to price supports. Some of these impacts are: (i) overexpansion of production when acquisition prices exceed salvage values; (ii) the fixing of durable factors in agricultural production; (iii) low earnings for labour and durable factors employed in agriculture; (iv) capital losses on overinvestments in durables, and (v) technologically obsolete farm production plants. It is believed that some of the above problems of American agriculture under the conditions of no price supports would have relevance to the Eastern Nigerian poultry industry for the period 1967 to 1977. It would therefore be desirable to consider measures of control that could help check overinvestment and consequent overproduction in the Eastern Nigerian poultry industry. Some control could be attempted through a governmental agency or through a farmers' association or through the unimpeded interplay of market supply and demand. The lack of co-operation shown by poultry farmers under the Egg Marketing Scheme casts serious doubts on the ability and will of 1Johnson, G. L. and C. L. Quance, 1972. The Overproduction Trap in U.S. Agriculture. Resources for the Future, Inc., John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London (page 179). I! I'll iii-ll ill. I I Ii 1‘! ll I-l hill. 132 farmers to operate any control through group effort. Besides it does not appear desirable that agricultural producers should as a group control entry into and investment in a particular sector of agricultural production because they would likely end up protecting inefficient early entrants at unfair prices to consumers. Governmental agency control would be at considerable cost to taxpayers for a very uncertain measure of success. But government would achieve some degree of indirect control in the expansion of the large farms through the administering of poultry loans as already recommended under credit. From the foregoing it is recommended that the control on investment in the poultry industry be left to the market forces of supply and demand for table eggs. Imperfect though this system may be in terms of preventing overinvestment, it is still the only method of control that would promptly reward efficiency and penalize inefficiency in production at minimal cost to taxpayers. What farmers need is regular information on poultry demand and price outlook to aid them in their poultry investment and disinvestment decisions. At Research Level The Ministry of Agriculture and the University of Nigeria should co-operate closely in planning poultry research programmes for Eastern Nigeria. Such programmes should include investigations aimed at developing cheaper balanced poultry rations from local foodstuffs and other raw materials. They should also include the 133 designing of cheaper but efficient feeding and watering equipment and poultry houses constructed from local materials. The Ministry and the University should organize the collection and analysis of poultry market data on a continuing basis. They should issue a quarterly poultry outlook advisory leaflet which would contain among other things a demand forecast for six months in the future, and include also specific advice on whether farmers should plan flock expansion or maintain existing flock sizes. The market data to be collected would need to be complemented with periodic survey of the number and sizes of poultry farms and the volume of table eggs being pro- duced in Eastern Nigeria. As a follow-up to this study it is suggested that further re- search be planned to obtain costs and returns data based on at least a lZ-month period because a full calendar year constitutes an ideal accounting period for the poultry farm business. A study may be made on the effect of month of start of lay on the pullet year per— formance in Eastern Nigeria. The rates of labour use for commercial poultry operations in Eastern Nigeria may also be studied. 134 APPENDIX A pg: of Tom 1; which Stud; Fams were Located Stratu- Sub—Stratum Town "mg’tfdfidp‘m I. Northern 1. Ahakaliki Ahkalild and Poultry Environs 13 (13) Area. 2. Enugu/0&1 Aghnni 1 Enugu 5 Hands 1 06.1 2 01m 1 Avg-u 1 alone 1 031 River 2 (14) 3. much Nsukka 4 Obukpa 2 Abor 1 Okpatu 1 Enugu-Ezike 4 (12) 4. All! Rise 2 Nettie 1 Niko 3 hugu—Ukm 4 Nine 3 Am 4 (17) APPENDIX A (Continued) Number of Earns Stratum Sub-Stratum Town S l I . ed 5. Onitsha Ogidi Nkpor Nnewi Oghmike Alor Oraukwu Abatote Onitsha Ichi Nsugbo ddWA‘uNN-L-b (16) 6. Aguata Ezinifite Adazi Navfija Ekvulawbia Umuohu Ajalli Achins ‘ddddN‘ (8) II. Southern 1. Port Port Harcourt Poultry Harcourt and Environs Area (3) 2. Ala Aha and Environs (4) 3. Umuahia Bends Umuah is ‘N-hu (3) 4. Orlu Nkwerre 3 Aknkwa 1 Anaifeke ~1 (5) TOTAL (95) 136 Appendix B: Map of Former Eastern Nigeria Showing the Present Three Eastern States: East Central State, South Eastern State.and Rivers State. O \ O Kw a State \. I Benue-Plateau State 9 1 .x .0“.\\ . I ‘0~ I L Q I O | I 1 Q x Mid !'(_X_>\_. River Niger W881: ’ v + + x X State ; ! .’ ~ ’ SOUth / + . Eastern / + ' O ‘ . " .’ { State 1!. 4’ f, fivers State .0 ‘0 )1 Cameroons .\ 0' fl * ' I x ++exf Gulf of Guinea "--“I Boundary of Former Eastern Nigeria '"-'- Boundaries of Present Eastern States A" + * * Main Poultry Areas Studied 137 APPENDIX 0 Distribution of Laying Flock 51208 For Farms that have lsxigg Flocks) Number of Per Cent of Per Cent Contri- 8120 Groups Poultry TOtll Farms butirn to Total Pam Egg. Output 1 - 250 39 251 - 500 13 81.5% 42.6% 501 - 750 10 751 -1000 5 1001 -1250 2 1251 -1500 3 1501 -1750 2 185% 57.4% 1751 ~12000 o 2001 - 2250 o 2251 -2soo 1 76 100.0% 100.053 133 APPENDIX D Size, Output, Costs 229 Economic Performance Fo Sam 1e Paul F Fan Average Estimated Total Total Total Net Insane Serial Number Total (£) Dozen Cost (/L) Revenue For Hunter of Poultry Eggs Per Per Per 100/- 6 Months Layers Farm Month Dozen Total (2) Investment Eggs E eases 7M (1) (2) (3) (4) (5.. (6) (7) 411 1149 5542 1277.6 2.01 152 + 400 113 116 N.A. 150.3 1.55 198 + 69 204 571 2085 504.2 2.23 139 + 131 207 545 1851 516.5 2.39 126 + 98 302 110 359 74.5 2.72 120 + 12 303 248 124 260.0 3.00 99 - 1 307 50 163 45.5 2.73 110 + 3 313 137 191 99.7 2.59 161 + 48 407 38 663 34.5 8.76 61 - 35 421 108 304 102.0 3.64 58 - 47 507 366 71 2 236 .0 2.87 268 + 342 603 131 355 71.8 7.14 21 - 251 608 106 11.1. 111.8 3.11 97 - 3 107 1018 NJ. 1355.5 1.75 172 + 510 110 1385 3082 1827.8 2.53 139 + 540 212 785 4244 498.5 4.48 95 -' 37 301 1739 3897 1873.0 2.58 117 + 247 402 785 N.A. 445.0 4.07 74 - 141 410 1313 2653 994.7 2.19 148 + 315 510 788 1543 767.8 2.43 124 + 137 701 2472 N.A. 3509.8 2.66 113 + 354 705 1457 N.A. 1717.1 1.63 178 + 678 706 978 11.11. 1210.2 3.11 97 - 39 711 986 N.A. 455.8 2.44 123 + 243 712 781 N.A. 716.8 1.69 178 + 282 714 1690 N.A. 2419.0 5.60 54 -»1889 101 84 252 83.4 4.73 98 - 2 102 38 N.A. 22.8 18.01 47 - 65 103 27 N.A. 0.5 N.A. 30 - 81 105 156 N.A. 156.7 3.02 208 + 153 106 257 73 231.3 2.88 112 + 23 109 590 N.A. 587.2 3.62 109 + 56 111 715 N.A. 1034.3 1.42 214 + 504 112 70 N.A. 75.5 3.66 94 - 5 201 431 924 380.6 3.38 133 + 128 202 58 1309 28.3 15.83 19 - 109 139 APPENDIX D (Continued) Average Estimated Total Total Total Net Income Fara. Hunter Total (£) Dozen Cost (/—) Revenue For Serial of Poultry' Eggs Per Per Per 1oo/L 6 Months Number Layers Fhrn Month Dozen Total (£) Investment Eggs Expenses U—) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 205 740 1479 441.0 3.61 144 + 210 208 299 1132 337.6 2.23 135 + 78 209 409 1402 482.8 2.23 165 + 210 210 80 809 82.6 4.64 77 - 26 “‘1 139 752 127.7 3.48 86 - 19 306 94 188 115.5 8.01 37 - 173 403 93 319 104.5 3.83 82 - 22 405 98 741 41.0 17.67 22 - 165 406 234 322 122.5 4.05 75 - 37 409 88 N.A. 82.8 3.84 78 - 21 412 131 N.A. 106.7 4.32 82 - 24 413 34 1038 32.4 17.48 25 - 107 414 185 369 168.0 3.79 80 - 24 415 163 1086 126.7 5.97 61 - 89 502 530 1388 585.4 3.01 99 - 2 503 121 1482 99.5 4.62 80 - 28 504 107 ' 592 79.3 11 .w 57 - 123 505 117 844 107.7 2.29 131 + 43 509 357 454 312.3 2.58 134 + 82 512 196 525 178.2 3.88 89 - 23 513 343 1604 410.5 3.29 114 + 56 514 611 798 276.5 3.81 79 - 68 515 160 354 138.0 6.71 84 - 44 601 61 1093 58.2 20.25 22 - 274 602 83 N.A. 73.5 4.10 121 + 19 604 48 569 49.5 8.96 50 - 57 605 186 N.A. 147.3 2.71 122 + 26 606 536 N.A. 610.8 2.84 106 + 31 607 230 ILA. 170.5 4.54 110 + 23 702 650 N.A. 733.3 ,.78 79 - 171 704 637 N.A. 610.1 4.32 70 - 240 709 166 N.A. 154.6 2.58 116 + 19 710 285 N.A. 270.4 7.01 43 - 325 713 462 N.A. 442.5 5.39 56 - 317 715 557 N.A. 572.1 4.15 73 - 195 716 293 N.A. 297.9 3.96 76 - 85 , , 140 APPENDIX E m Weigt Develognent, Feed Consumption and Feed Conversion For 7404? Cockerels --- 4:14 Cockerels (12.1.11. I White Leghorn?) Age in Pounds of Pounds Feed Cumulative Feed Weeks Body Weight for Bird Per Pounds Feed Conversion Heel: Per Bird Ratio 0 0.08 - .. .. 1 0.2 0.3 0.3 1.50 2 0.3 0.3 0.6 2.00 3 0.5 0.4 1.0 2.00 4 0.7 0.5 1.5 2.14 5. 1.0 0.8 2.3 2.30 6 1.4 1.1 3.4 2.43 7 1.7 1.5 4.9 2.88 8 2.2 1.5 6.4 2.91 9 2.5 1.6 8.0 3.20 10 2.9 1.5 9.5 3.27 141 APPEXDIX 1" Eg Weight Develohment, Feed Consumption sagI Feed Conversion: For Cobb Broilers Cobb (whit. Plymouth Rock x white Cornish?) Broilers Age in Pounds of Pounds Feed Cumulative Feed Ween Body Weight Per Bird Per Pound Feed Conversion Week For Bird Ratio 0 0.08 - - .. 1 0.16 0.2 0.2 1.25 2 0.37 0.3 0.5 1.35 3 0.64 0.3 1.0 1.56 4 0.90 0.6 1.6 1.77 5 1.40 0.9 2.5 1.78 6 2.00 1.2 3.7 1.85 7 2.80 1.2 4.9 1.75 8 3.00 1.4 6.3 2.10 9 3.50 1.3 7.6 2.17 10 4.00 1.1 8.7 2.18 149 .22.... 88.8. do moron new... .3. 0.2.8... no on. one: 3...... 5.... en. :3... 2n... 30.3.80 0303.. 8.8 «segue... .8 3.00.. mom 3.31»? 90.... 3.8 331mm... 3.3. 5.. mm.m mm 8.5 0.... «an .8 5.8 mm; oo.n mm .88. 8... 8d mm 8.... «w... «Rm 8.... m... ~.n .m 8.8. m... med n8. 4.. .u 8 5.... m... $.N me. 0. rd m. 2.... m... 8.~ on... m; .4... m. 8.9 8.. 0m.~ n4. 4.. m.~ v. .m... 8.. 88 Tm. n.. .4... m. 8.0. .B.. end 8... n.. n.~ m. 88 5.. own n6. ... .o..~ I .m.m mod SJ. ~.m m.o .4... n. mm... mm... mm.. n.m m.o o.~ m. one 5.0 .m.. e... To .4... .. SE 8.0 5.. m... o.. o.~ o. o..m 3.0 R... m... To .4... m 0 mm... 8.0 mm; m... m.o .4... m n 32 two mm... Rn m6 n.. .. m med 2.... 8.. 0.. no .4... o r 8.. 8.0 .86 Tm 8.0 m6 m u 8.. ~90 $6 5. To .4... e .86 and 56 o... To To n 8.0 8.0 one to To .4... m :6 t6 m..o n6 To .4... . .5 .3 .3 3 E .3 3 I... no. so... on... I... a... In. do... 388.. a... in. u... a... 28...... so... 356.. so... n... 23 a... «6.... 8...... 2.83.88 .8... 356.. 8.3.. 358. 8313.6 .8. e8... neuron Dem .586. 5 our .38 .28... £33.. 8.8... R .3. 6.5 3.3... 58.1.... .88.: 2.5.3... 8...... es. .3... v ‘1 - 3.9.1... .. H m ....... 3. 83.5.9.8 .8... e5 .82..-. I.-. o... . a 143 8.? .. «gm 1 mfiooooor. en. 3888an so «roe .39.. mb¢.nm mwm.om deans cause 03. 88.8 we... .52... .39. ea .bm.m 1 0e 1 1. 1 add: vegan .m 2.4.0 .. 9. 2.4.0 .. m... 59.58.... .m metm .. e 85 .. s iguana 5...»... ... m2... 1 o. emu... .. 8 "new nos-8 .m 98.0 .. m. menu 1 mm 21.3.... 58.33 .m H x 3...... .. 8. 5...... .. 8 7... r3... .4 m .. mom... .4 .. Rd 8 norm 8.26 .n m a $8.... own. .. 3...... $4.. one... no...» .N M 1 some 8.. 1 mmo... 8m 8.8 .8538... .. .8. .8. Am. .4. .m. .m. ..V .3 .3 A3 vnoo «moo A3 amoo pmoo euonmlhmo Hewmm seeped ononmlmuo Hence 3.3.... no no... .838. no no... team e term a 3 .8 .8... "term a .833. 8 so... 5 350988 .3 38.8.88 3 35828... 8. term a 3 3.3.. noduspauaqoo once we season nowvsewuveoo peso loam-H no minnow nunoauenman segues nuewgo leapem enoheq Amour... $2. 38.. no .3... tea... 95 5 383988 .3 93332.80 «rev .3. Boss. 8...... I. 8.3.8 no 33.328 144 APPEFDIK I estionnaire Used 145 Poult Farm I-Eanagement Questionnaire {1261] IE;D.I: University of Nigeria. Enugg Camgus‘ Farmer's lane Farmer's Serial No. I'I Town Province hunerator' 3 Name hunmretor' 3 Serial N o. Date and Place of Interview Time 0.1: Start of Interview *— Questions to be Put to the m of the Poultry Fan REED: 1. Which breed in your past laying floclm has given you - 1) The highest laying performance? (1) RIR, (2) LE, (3) 404. (4) Other specify. 2) The lowest laying performance? (1) RIR, (2) LB, (3) 404, (4) Other specify. 2. Which breed in your past growing flock has been - 1) The fastest suturing (infioming into lay) (1) RIR, (2) m, (3) 404. (4) Other specify. 2) The slowest mamring‘fixfioming into lay) (1) RIR, (2) LB, (3) 4049 (4) Other specify. FLOCK mom 3. Do you w rearing or replacement stock as - (a) Day-old chicks (1) Yes; (0) No. (b) Growers under 2 months? (1) Yes: (0) No. Source? (c) Growers 2-4 months (1) Yes; (0) No. Source? (l) Pullets at point of lay? (1) Yes; (0) No. Source? 146 4. How many months do you usually retain a laying flock before replacement? Breed Replace at months from start of lay 9-12 13-15 16-18 19-21 Above 21 No definite months months months months months period (1) (2) (3) (4) (s) (6) (7) REPLACEMENT 5. How'many batches of replacement flocks did.you rear last year? 0, 2, 3. 4. 5. 6, 7, 8, 9, (Circle the number) 6. Do you keep cocks with laying'flocks for table eggs? (1) Ies{2) No. HEALTH &,SANIT%ETON 7. Do you have foot bath for attendants and visitors? (1) Yes, (a) No. 8. Do you restrict visitors into chick house? (1) Yes, (0) No. 9. Do you exclude alien birds? (1) Yes, (0) No. 10. During the past year did you inoculate your flocks? (1) Ice, (0) No. If yes, indicate the diseases you inoculated against: 1) Newcastle disease 2) Fowl Fox 3) Others. (name them: 11. 12. 13. 14. 147 In the last 12 months, did you use any feeds with coccidiostatic drugs incorporated? 1) Yes 2) No 3) Do not know. Did you in the last year apyly any worm treatment on the flocks through drinking'water or feeds? 1) Yes 2) No. D1d.you in the last year treat your flock against poultry lice? 1) Yes 2) No. In the past 12 months, what poultry diseases or parasites (as identified by you or by the veterinary Staff) called for medical treatment? Name the disease or parasites and state if they were chicks, growers or layers flocks: 1) in flock 2) __ in _ flock 3) in flock 4) l in flock 5) _ in * flock 5) inzz: flock 7) _l. in flock 148 15. What types of flock did you in the last 6 months feed the folbwiug rations? Chick Grower Laying Turkey Guinea Flock Flock Flock Flock Flock (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) A. Chicks' Ration B. Growers Ration C. Layers' Ration D. Broilers Ration 8. Farm Processed Feeds and Supplements. (1hr): 'Yes' under flock type for each ration fed to it). 16. Are feeds delivered to your farm gate? 1) Yes 2) No. If yes, what is total cost per bag? ' weight of bag lbs Brand of feed 17. If you go to fetch feeds from a feed store: What is the distance to the feed store? miles, at ton What is feed cost per bag at the store? weight of bag lbs Brand of feed What is transportation charge per bag? weight of bag lbs. Brand of feed 18. 149 In the past 3 months how may times did you purchase feeds? 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, times (circle the figure). 19. hat was the average quantity (from question 18) that you purchased at a time? No. A 13838. total weight, feed brand 20. How much do you now receive as discount per one empty b}; _ pence, for make of bag. 21. If you sell the empty bags, how much do you now receive per one empty beg? peace, for make 01' bag- 22. In the last 12 mmths, what serious problem did you experience with poultry feeds? ‘ O 2. 3. LAmUR 23. How much family labour do you now engage in the poultry business? Number of Number of Estimated Main Operation Persons Persons with Total Number they Carryout Poultry of Hours per Training week Adults (17 ears and Over) Children (under 1 7 Total years) 150 24. How much hired labour do you now engage in the poultry business? Total No. No. of" Estimated Total No. Main of Persons Persons Total No. of Meals Operation with of Ham's given they Carryout Ioultry Per Week Training Adults (17 years and U over) Children (under 17 years) Total 25. What is the total amount you now pay out to hired labour per month? 5: s d. MARKET PRODUCT DISPWLL 26. How do you now dispose of your eggs? (Circle those that apply) (a) Sell to local merchants (b) Sell at local market places (c) Have a contract to supply an Institution or firm (d) Keep fertile eggs for hatching on farm (e) Sell fertile eggs to hatchery (r) Sell through the Egg darketing Scheme. 27. Do you now grade your eggs? (1) Yes (0) No. 28. 29. 31. 151 If yes, what method of grading do you apply? (Circle main method). (a) Visual Size? (b) Weight (using a scale?) (0) Colour of shell? (d) Other means, specify. During the past three months, how long did your egg usually raisin m the farm before disposal? (Circle the one that applies). (1) 1 day (2) 2-4 days (3) 5-7 days (4) Over 1 week. Who removed the eggs from your farm (follows from question 28)? (1) Yourself (2) the buyer (3) the Egg Marketing Scheme. How do you how dispose of your live birds (culls)? (a) Sell to local merchants (b) Sell at local market places (c) Sell only when buyers can be found (d) Sell them off at any price when I desire to get rid of them. During the last 3 months, what average prices did you receive for - (1) Dozen table eggs ungraded (2) Dozen table 6538 graded large? (3) Dozen hatching eggs? (4) One live bird cockerels? (5) One live bird cull hen? If no sales during that period please enter "No sales". 152 32. How far is your farm from the main points where you deliver or sell live birds? Average distance to delivery point miles, town is Average transportation charges for one round trip shillings. 33. How far is your farm from the main points where you deliver or sell eggs? Average distance to delivery point miles, town is Average transportation charges for one round trip shillings. 34. In the past one month, hour many times did you take poultry produce (eggs and birds) to the disposal points but failed to dispose of all the produce? 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, e, 9, 10. More than 10 times. (Circle the number). 35. What selling policy do you have for cockerels? 1) Sell cockerels as soon as sexes can be identified 2) Sell than as soor. as they reach particular age. (This age is months). 3) Sell them when they reach a minimum weight (That is about lbs. per bird) 4) Sell than when their sizes are "big enough" 5) Sell them off on mass at whatever prices as soon as I judge them due for disposal. 6) Retain the cockerels until market prices improve. 36. Did you in the past 12 months sell litter? 1) Yes 2) No. If yes, what average price did you receive per ton? Or per drum (40 gallon size)? _ AMT THE OWNER 37. How many years have you been in the poultry business? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, years and over. 38. 39. 40. 41. 153 Do you personally manage the poultry business? 1) Yes 2) No. Do you own the poultry business canpletely? 1) 2) Yes No. If no, how many peOple are in partnership? 2) 3) 4) Two Three More than three. And that fraction of the business do you own? 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Less than i- About 4; About {- About -} Almost all. Hgv many poultry seminars and workshops have you attended since your entering poultry business? 0. 29 3’ 4p 5’ more than 5. During the last year, what records did you keep of your poultry business? 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) Record of or; production separately for each flock Record of egg production for all flocks together Record of feed purchases and feed expenses Record of deaths in and addition to flock Record of egg and bird sales Record of all poultry expenses. (Other records you keep, please name than) 154 42. What did you do with those records kept? a) Put them in files b) Got them analysed c) Did not know what to do with them d) Have lost them. 43. If you are still keeping records would you desire assistance in the analysis of your records? 1) Yes 2) No 3) would like discuss this further before deciding; 44. Do you carry any insurance on your poultry houses and equipment? 1) Yes 2) No. If ”yes", what protection does it cover? 1) Against fire 2) Against theft 3) Other protection (please name) 45. Do you pay any rent on lani.or buildings used in.your poultry business? 1) Yes 2) no. 46 ‘Eave you now'any loan for poultry production? 1) Yes 2) N00 155 47. Do you think you have been making profit from your poultry hasiaess? 1) Yes 2) Not sure 3) No. If‘ ”no", what do you consider to be the main causes for non-profit? 1) 2) 3) If ”yes”, by what means do you dctemine profit in your poultry business? 4) m the amount you receive from sales? 5) By observing the prices of eggs, birds, and feeds? 6) By analysis of cost and income records? 7) By sane other means (please name it)? 48. What do you think the government or the public can do to improve 'profitability of poultry to famers?’ 1) 2) 3) 49. What do you consider you can do to improve profitability of your poultry hisiness? 1) 2) 3) 50. Please give us the actual or estimated cost of erection 2; purchases, the year of erection or purchase and your estimate of tots; years of useful service for the capital items in your poultry business. Estimated Year Cost of Estimated Value Acquired Purchase Years of or Service Erection Life Quantity waterers Feeders Breeders Incubators Poultry mildings Fences Wster Supply Land Poultry vehicles Borrowed Capital Outstanding 51. If a pullet 'us on into law were offered you fer sale, what maximul.price would you likely offer for it now? 52. If a grower—pullet of 16 weeks were offered you for sale, what price would you likely offer for it now? 53. If an 18—month laying hen were offered you for sale, what maximum price would.you offer for it now?_#_ Time at close of interview 157 FLOCK HISTORY FORM mam (To be filled out in let week March and 1st week August) Ease of Farmer Date Town Enumerator' 3 name Division Flock or Pen Breed of Data of Sexed Cost No. of Age of Serial Number Birds Hatch or For lullets Pullets at Unsexed Chick Reaching Point of Lay Point of Lay laying Flock NO........... Laying Flock Nanooseeeeoe Laying Flock IIO......O.... Laying Flo ck “0.000.000... Laying Flock I:°........... Growing Flock Nosoeeoeeeeoe Growing Flock No........... Growing Flock NO........... Growing Flock no....eeoeeee Growing neck No........... 45.11143) 1.1 b.5153 158 AP? EINDIX J Recording Formats used to obtain Current Data. 159 FORH.A Recogg of ngygg Flggk Perfoggégcg FarI.Serial No. Flock Serial No. Hatch Date No. of Birds at Start of lay Age (weeks) At Start of Lay Period covered by this Sheet from to Day of No. of Egg Collections Total Week Birds 1st 2nd 3rd 4th E865 mmaum-b week's Total aim-puma Week's Total Remarks APJ to be completed. 160 Addendum to Record of Laying Flock Performance FORM A Ranarlm Entered on Performance Record Sheet on weekly msis: "A“: ”B" : "C”: "D“: "En "F" "G" "H” "J '0 Were birds inoculated this week? — _Y_e_s_ or E3. Any disease outbreak this week? - 133 or 133. Any feed shortage this week? - _Y_e_s_ or 19. Number of birds added this week Number of birds that died this week Average price per cull hen sold this week Total lb. weight of feeds the flock ate this week Average size of egg produced this week Lerg, Medig, Sma Cost of all feeds fed to flock (shillings) 161 FOR! a Record gf‘Peggormsnce For Growers & Broilers Phrn.Serial No. Flock Serial No. Date Hatched: _ flame of Hatchery: number of Chicks Purchased: ___ Sexed or Unsexed: Grover or Broiler Flock: Period covered by this Sheet From to __‘ Day of No. Birds No. Birds No. Birds No. Birds Week Housed Dead Added _ Sold Remarks (1) * (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 1 A: 2 B: 3 C: 4 F: 5 G: 5 'r: 7 Total 1 2 L: 3 B: 4 C: 5 F: 6 G: 7 T: Total 162 game}! to Record of Growers and Broilers Performance ms Remarks Entered on the Performance Record: "1" Were birds inoculated this week? Yes or fig "B” Any disease outbreak this week? Yes or £2. ”0" Any feed shortage this week? layer 1119. ”F" Average price per bird sold this week "G" Weight (1b.) of feeds fed this week "'1'" Were cockerels and pullets separated out frm the flock this week? Ies or 112 Number of pallets separated out from unsexed chicla Number of cockerels separated out from unsexed chicks FOR! C: :63 Farm Serial No. Record of Poultry Business Transactions (Sales) Period Covered by this Sheet From To E g g 8 B i r d 8 Date No. of Average Total '10 Average Total Do zen Pric 0 Revenue ’ ° Price Revame (1) (f2) (3) (4) (s) (6) (7) Total Cumulative Total 14113:»!“11! 164 FOR! D: Record of Poultg Business Transaction (guesses) Farm Serial No. Period Covered by this Sheet From To Transvcriation l" e e d s ”fine-1303 0 t h e r s . Height Cost . g Item Quantity Cost Date (lbfl) £ 3 d a. Q d (1) (2) ('5) (42- (s) (6) (7) 165 Sample Weigts of Egg and Growers lane of Farmer Town Division Name of Enumerator ‘I' I. Weight of Eggs in the Sample (Z-weekly measurement) Date Serial No. of Laying Flock No. of Eggs in the Sample Total weight of Egg Sample Average weight per Dozen *The total collection of wholesome eggs for a flock or the thole tam for a day will constitute a sample. II. Weight Gain by Sample Birds (4-weekly measurement) Date No. of Birds Weighed Age of Flock in Week! Breed Average Live weight per Bird Average live weight gain per Bird Period over which veigt gain was made Periodic Measurements of Feeds Fed to Blocks Farmer's Name: Town: Ehmmerator's Name: Date: Standardized ethetfulls of Feed Pei tn Flerks it Total Fbr Morning Yoon Evening Day Flock Serial No. Flock Serial No. Flock Serial No. Flock Serial No. Flock Serial No. Flock Serial No. IIHIH Flock Serial No. TOTAL 167 FARE IUVEETOIY FORK (To be filled out 3rd week February and 3rd week August) Name of Farmer Town __ Division Date Enumerator's Name Estima- Breed Year Cost of Estimated Quantity ted or Aciuired Erection Life value Make or Purchase (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) A: Poul Chicks (2 weeks and under) Growers (2 - 24 weeks) Cocks Layers B: Other firdg Turkeys Ducks Guinea Fowls C: Feeds: Chicks Hash Growers and Breeder Mash Layers Mash Home processed Supplement Additives 168 Farm Inventory Form (Continued) Estima- Quantity ted value (1) (9‘ Breed Year Cost of or Aeguired Erection Make or Purchase (3) (a) (5} D: Special gapipgent Breeders Heterers Feederers Incubators E: land F: Buildinrn Poultry House 1 Toultry House 7 Poultry House 3 G: improvements H: vehicleg I: Borrowed Capital Outstanding J: TOTAL H-.- -We- n.-- .- .D' .— Estimated Life (6) 169 APPDIDIX K Qggt g; the Study to Economic Develogent Etitute o; the University of Nigria. Salary of 6 Enumeratore (7.5 months) Travelling Claims for humemtors Weighing Scales and other Measuring Equipment Weather Outfit for Emmerators Salary for 4 Underp‘aduates (3 months) Stat ioaery Miscellaneous (Insurance for Ehmnerators, Rest House Bills, etc.) TOTAL £720 £50 £25 £180 £15 .81 .220 170 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books : I Bradford, L.A. and Johnson, Glenn L. Farm Msnggement Analysis. New York : John Wiley 8:: Sons Inc., 1953. Castle, D.N. and Becker, M.H. Farm Bxsiness Management. New York : Macmillan 00., 1965. Ezekiel, M. and For, K.A. Methods of: Correlation and Regession Analysis. New York : John Wiley 8: Sons Inc., 1959. Heady, E.O. and Jensen H.R. Farm Management Economics. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey : Prentice-Hall Inc., 1956. Oboli, H.0.N. and Church, Harrison 3.5!. ALOWQ-él‘e Geogranm of West Afg' ca. London : G.G. Harrap .9: Co. Ltd., 1962. Schultz, TM. Transforming Traditional Amcglture. New Haven : Yale University Press, 1964. . gmmamml Develoggent in Nice: ria 1%5-19§Q. Rome : William Clowes 8: Sons Ltd., 1966. . 'nle Farm as a Easiness. London : His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1959. Articles and Periodicals. Abaelu, J .N. "A Note on the Necessity of an Ea Marketing Board in Western Nigeria” Nigerian Grower and Producer, Vol. 2, No. 3 (1963). 40-42. Abaelu, J .N. "Costs and Returns of Private Commercial Egg Production in the Ibadan Area," Billetin of Rural Economics and Sociolog, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1964) ? Carpenter, LS. "Estimated Costs of Producing Eggs, New York State, 1926-1952", Cornell. A55, mg, mlletig, no. 897 (1953) 2-19. 171 'Saunders, F.B. and. James, E.C. "Costs and Returns From Commercial Egg Production in Georgia,“ georgiLAgr. Harper. Station Bulletin No. 124, 1964 . Searell, M.M.H. "The Production of Broiler in Nigeria," Nigerian: Grover and Producer, Vol. 3, No. '5 1965. Shultis, A. and Newlon, 11.8. "Egg Production Business in California,” California Agr. Exper. Circular, No. 483 1959' Reports: Johnson, Glenn L. "Methodology for the Managerial Input." Workshop on the Ivisnagement Input in Agriculture, March, 19th to 20th, 196g, New Orleans 1962. Kelsey, M.P. et a1. Poultry Fanning Today. East Lansing: Michigan State Univ. Coop. Ext. Service, A.EO. 962, 1964. Kelsey, 14.13., Sheppard, C.C. et a1. Poultgg Farmim Today. East Lansing : Michigan State Univ. Coop. Ext. Service, A.Ec. 21, 1965. Stoddard II, 3.0. and Carncross, J .11. Costs and ReturW ' Egg - Producing Fame. New Jersey, 1964. Washington 3.0. : U.S. Department of Agriculture, E.R.S. FOR-35. October 1965. at; lie Documents and Government Piles . Annual Abstract of Statistigghlfi‘geria 12661. Lagos : Federal Office of Statistics, 1968. Moore, F.C. “Some Notes on the Eastern Nigeria Egg Marketing Scheme," Ministry of Agriculture File, Enugu, 1966. fiimeoggphs. Liedholn, Carl E. A simplified method of computing multiple Linear regressions. Enugu : Economic Development Institute, University of Nigeria, 1165? and 1.3. Dena, "Ubona : A Socio—Economic and Nutritional Survey of a Rural Community in Eastern Nigeria." Cornwall : Geographical Publications Ltd., 1966. HICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES 1293100500705