MAGR GOVS -----~-------------._:~··----- I I . . MN 2000 EP-no~9 /ROOM tsrrYFARM. I UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTAQJ Agricultural Extension Division@ University Farm, St. Paul, Minnesota POULTRY RECORD FLOCKS IN MINNESOTA UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA '1927 • 1928 . DOCUMENTS ! SEP l ~ lS?S Byfr Cora E. Cooke '/ ST. PAUL c ' ~ ]iimphlet No. 9 Ci) AMPU.;, Li8f:A0.1r:2 ! August 1929 Poultry records tell the story of success or failure. A study of the records will reveal the weak points in management as well as the strong points. This study reports results in a number of Minnesota flocks over a period of two years, with illustrations from individual flocks where some special point in man· agement was noted. PIUBLUtHED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, EXTENSION DIVISION, F.W- PECK, Dll>ECTOR, AND DISTRIBUTED IN FURTH FRANCE OF THE PURPOSES OF. THE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION WORK PROVID· ED FOR IN THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF MAY 8, 1914. 3M a/H POULTRY RECORDS - WHAT THEY SHOW Poul try Record Flocks in Minnesota for 1926-27 and 1927-28 That poultry is 11rofitable as a farm sideline and even as a com· mercial enterprise is evident fro.m. records of two years supplied by poultry rais~~ from all sections of Minnesota enrolled in the· Record Flock i:rolect. Information secured from such records supplies facts for the use of all po11ltry raisers in. the state as to expected costs, possible returns, desirable feeding practices, and other important phases of P?Ultry ~rQduction. How l,l..e~ord(; Are Kept The project is planned to secure reliable data from all sections of the state. Every county agent is urged to secure coQperators, the nutnber being limite4 to three per county .. T~e cooperat<)r keeps a ·daily egg record, an account of all eipe.nses and receipts, including products used at home and farm grown feeds fed and lo~se~ from \}U causes. This info~mation for each flock is rep,prted monthly. Invent9ries at the beginning and end of the year make it possible to determine the value of ~he year's business to each flock owner. Average monthly egg production is figured on the basis of the average num~er of hen& of laying age in }he flock during the different months. Annµal egg production is based on the average ijumber pf hens kept during the year. Feed and other costs an~ determined in the same way. No separate chick record is kept and all feeds and other expenses are charged to hens. Costs of rearing are estimates based on a few chick records that are received each year. Labor costs are not included since nearly all flocks am of the farm flock size, averaging abo~,t 250 hens per fa~ Cf Ch ,qf the two years, and it is assumed that the labor would not produce an inc.ome from some other source if not used for poultry. -2· Summary of Facts for Two Years Number farms furnishing complete records Average . number hens on these farms Largest flock at beginning of year Largest average flock for year Smallest average flock for year Average size of flock Total eggs laid Average eggs per hen Highest production per hen Lowest production Total value eggs sold and used Average price per dozen eggs Average pounds feed· per hen (includes feed used in rearing chicks) .Average feed cost per hen (includes feed-used in rearing chicks) Percent adult stock died Percent chicks died Total returns (including increase of inventory) Total expense (including interest, depreciation and decrease of inventory, not including labor) Net return above al I costs except labor Net return per hen 1926-27 39 9,208 2,677' 2, 111 47 236 1,267,219 137 214 59 $31,786 .27 89 2.09 13% 23% $46_, 009. 71 $31,155.51 $14,854.20 1.61 1927·.28 46 11,386 2,708 2,072 32 247 1, 717, 919 150 229 46 $48,544.71 .34 1101 2.78 12% 24% $73,984.39 $44,970.44 $29,013.95 2.54 The entire study is, of course, based on average figures. These figures can not be expected to tell exactly what practices must be followed. They do, however, indicate which practices are usually success- ful, and ·what general methods in management give the flock o~ner a good chance to make a profit. Interpreted in this I ight the comparisons wi II help to answer some of the questions most frequently asked by poultrymen as to practical methods in feeding, care, sanitation, housing and other factors in successful poultry raising. How Egg Production Effects Profit One of the most common questions asked by poultrymen is, to what extent must the flock be forced for egg production in order to be profitable? The best wa) to determine this is to compare the egg yield with the net returns above all expenses in different groups of flocks classified as to their an~ual egg records. In the 1926-27 project 39 flocks showed results as follows. Eggs No. Hens per hen ---- ~--= 13 high producing flocks 2920 163 13 medium producing flocks 2011 140 13 low producing flocks 2277 99 The following year (1927-28) an even more striking effect was shown. 16 high producing flocks 15 medium producing flocks 15 low producing flocks 6116 3065 2205 181 132 91 Net return per hen ---- $2.36 1. 77 .32 $3.46' 1.87 .80 It is evident that the prof it made per hen increased in direct proportion to the increase in ., · eggs laid. Occasionally a prof it is returned in spite of low production. For example, in the 1927-28 project the fifteen low producing flocks with a production of 46 - 116 eggs, one flock made a net return of $3.21 per .3. hen. However, only two of these 15 flocks made a net return above the average for the 46 flocks and the - fow flock showed a loss of 30¢' per hen. On the other. band, in the high production group, eggs ranging from 156 . 229 per hen, eight flocks made a net return above average, the highest being $6. 59 and the lowest $1.13 per hen. In other words, low net return is the rule rather than the exception in low producing flocks. Cul I ing Important. The· flock 'that ·may be considered the most successful from the standpoint of production a~d return per hen is one that averaged 229 eggs per hen and $6. 59 'per hen net return. . Such. performance migM seem highly improbable if not impossible if one failed to consider how the average production was figured and how this flock owner managed his flock so that average production was kept at a high point throughout th~ year. This flock, owned by S. V. Wirta of St Louis county, started- with 495 Single Comb White Leghorn hens and pullets, in November 1927. Unprofitable birds were culled out regularly during the year so that the monthly production never fell below 9.4 eggs, and, averaged from 13.9 to 23.2 during eleven months. By the end of the year only 247 hens remained and the average size of the flock for the year was 388 hens. Had Mr. ·.Wirta kept his entire flock throughout the year the average production would have been about 179 eggs per hen, a reduction of 50 eggs per hen. This point is illustrated in another flock which averaged 172 eggs per hen, starting with 120 hens and closing with 115. If the original flock had been kept throughout the year, the production per hen would have been only four eggs less. On the other hand the eggs per hen might have been greatly increased by more attention to culling. Feed saving. A high egg record in itself has no particular merit except for the results it may accomplish. As might be expected, the saving in feed was the big i tern. By culling each month in the year and keeping the f19ck at all times on a good producing basis Mr. Wirta saved nearly three hundred dollars on feed alone. -·' The mortality in this flock was only 5% of the original flock, probably also due to the fact that unpromising birds were removed as soon as noticed. A similar low mortality occured in the chicks. Out of 1500 chicks bought only 136 died, or 9% ·Of the total. Six hundred twenty·-five pullets were reared. · The ration used for both chicks and hens was the Ohio all mash ration. The cost was somewhat high, about $2.64 per hen after deducting an average amount of $.83 for each pullet reared. This higher cost W!lS to some extent due to the location in the northern part of the state where all feeds had to be purchased but was partly made up by a premium of four cents a dozen received for eggs. Mortality and Winter Production Winter production followed annual production closely as shown in the table below. In each group during the two years the highest mortality was found in the flocks where production was lowest. No. flocks Eggs per hen Mortality Annual November-February ~-·beginn_!.ng ~ens) ----- ---- 1926-27 13 163 39 10% 13 140 31 8% ' 13 99 14 21% 1927-28 16 181 51 11% 15 132 26 14% 1$ 91 13 24% The above table seems to indicate that disease and unhealthful conditions are principal causes ,, ,, " .4. o,f a low egg yield, rather than that heavy laying necessarily increases mortality. In other words, the very care that helps to increase egg production tends to reduce mortality at the same time. Annual and Winter Production The question is often raised as to whether a high annual production may not be secured even I though the winter egg yield is low. The following figures from the 1927-28 project lead one to conclude that the chances are against it. · No. flocks Average eggs Winter eggs No. flocks No. flocks Average High Low above 50 eggs below 30 eggs 16 high 181 51 70 26 4 1 15 average 132 26 43 3 0 10 15 low 91 13 36 2 0 13 With 13 of the low producing flocks having an average winter production under 30 eggs per hen and only one of the high producing flocks in this class there seems good evidence that the winter production is one of the important elements in a high annual egg yield. In other words, the time lost by hens in winter is almost never made up at some later date. Principal causes of low winter production are, late maturity of pullets, inadequate housing and a poorly balanced ration. Morta Ii ty and its Results Losses were about average during both years, 1-3% in 1926-27, and 12% in 1927-28. Losses listed are from all causes, although principally from natural ones such as disease and accident. Last year's records show a definite relation between mortality and production and between mortality and net return. Mortality, Production and Returns Total no. flocks No. averaging 150 or more eggs per hen No. averaging 100 or less eggs per hen No. averaging $2.54 or more net return per hen Mortality · Adult stock, 12% or less Over 12% 26 12 3 12 20 4 5 2 According to these figures the chances are very much in favor of the flock in which losses are reduced to a minimum. Grouping the flocks as high, medium and low producing the relation is shown even more clearly. Mortality in Hens Net return Hens Eggs per hen per hen Mortality --- -----1926-27 13 high producing flocks 2920 163 $2.36 10% 13 medium producing flocks 4011 140 1. 77 8 13 low producing flocks 2277 99 .32 21 1927-28 $3.46 9% 16 high producing flocks 6116 181 15 medium producing flocks 3065 132 1.87 12 15 low producing flocks 2205 91 .80 18 -5- With one exception lower mortality accompanied increased egg production. At least it indicates tJtat a greater egg yidd do.es not necessari!Y cause .a heavier -mortality. There is also a decided indication ·that a lower.ed return follows increased mortality. Not only does the ~ortality reduce the production directly but it must also be borne in mind th~t conditions that bring about a high mortality are unfavorable to high production in the flock as a lVhole. Mortality in Chicks Morta Ii ty in chicks showed a similar relation to production and to net return. Eggs per hen Net returns Mortality per hen in chicks 1926-27 -------- -- ----- 13 ~1igh prqducing .flocks 163 $2.36 11% 13 average producing flocks 140 1. 77 34 13 low producing flocks 99 .32 36 1927-28 16 high producing flocks 181 $3.46 22% 15 average producing f looks 132 1.87 14 15 low producing flocks 91 .80 35 The lo\V vigo~, and lack of good care found in low producing flocks may be .considered the chief causes of the high mortality in chicks. Similarly, the good car.e required to yield a high production is the best assurance of success in raising chicks without excess loss. While occasionally a flock with a high chick mortality proves profitable, the following table shows that the chances are at least 2 to 1 in favor of the low mortality flock. Mortality in Chirks No. flocks No. averaging 150 eggs or more per hen No. averaging 100 eggs or less per hen No. averaging $2.?4 or more net returns per hen ~~~~~.! 24 11 1 10 ~ver 20% 20 5 7 4 The bighest producing flock of all was in the low chick mortality group, and the lowest pro- ducing flock was in the high chick mortality group. This may be taken to indicate that good egg production does not necessarily cause the production of weak chicks. Ii especially emphasizes the fact that ability to raise a large percentage of the chicks hatched is one of the best assurances of a fair prof it. Mrs. John Hoffman of Goodhue county. kept the mortality in her flock to the low point of 6% in hens and 7% in chicks.:: .This low mortality coupled with a production of 156 eggs per hen in a flock of 186 R. C. Rhode Island R~~. gave her a net return ·_of. $4.16 per hen. Two other flocks whose losses were 5% of the adult stock but over: 40% of the chicks showeil.·a net return only slighly over $2.00 per bird in spite of egg records of 171 and 165- eggs per hen. Another flock in which the mortality amounted to 30% of the hens and 66% of the chicks ma4~ a return of $3.21 per hen only because the stock brought high prices for breeding purposes, an advantage th~t cannot be counted on in~tbe average farm flock. Costs of Feeding Since feed costs are in most cases reported without specifying whether for hens or for chicks it -6- has not been easy to apportion the feed costs to the two groups. However, with the few chick records that have been available, and estimating the amount of feed a hen eats annually, a reasonably good estimate can be reached. With 70 · 75 pounds of feed used per hen each year, 30 to 35 pounds are left to be charged to the pullets reared. On this basis the feed cost per hen in 1926-27 was about $1.56, while it cost about $1. 73 in 1927-28 to feed a hen the entire year. At this rate the feed cost for every pullet raised was about 70¢ in 1926-27 and about 83¢ the following year. The entire feed cost of rearing is thus charged to the pullets and no feed charge is made for broilers. In this connection the records for the past two years showed that chick rearing is one of the money making phases of the business, not only replacing the flock with ready-to-lay pullets but also producing a nice profit on its own account. In 19 flocks the pullets reared exceeded the average number of hens kept. In 13 of these the net returns averaged over two dollars per hen. Only six of the nineteen fell below two dollars per hen in net prof it. On the other hand in only nine flocks in which fewer pullets· were raised than the average number of hens kept, did the return per hen reach $2.00 or more, while in 18 such ffocks it was less than $2. 00 per hen. · Breeds and Production The Leghorns made the highest egg records in both years, 139 per hen and 163 per hen in 1926-27 and 1927-28. Records in dual purpose flocks averaged 120 and 105 for the ·two years. In 1926-27 a third group, composed of 4 flocks of the Leghorns and dual purpose birds the production 'Yas 143 eggs per hen. With this advantage in total eggs laid the Leghorns were also ahead in winter eggs, 26% and 30% of their total eggs being laid from November 1 to March 1 in the two years, while the production of the dual purpose breeds in the same period averaged. 20 and 19% of the total respectively. Ten Highest Flocks · 1926-27 Breed Average hens S.C. W.L. 193 Bl. Min. 121 R.C.R.I.R. & s.c.w.L. 350 S.C.W.L. 111 S.C.W.L. 507 S.C.W.L.Bd.R. & R.I.R. 139 White Wyand. 48 S. C.R. I. R. 164 S.C.W.L. 653 S.C.R.I.R. 60 S.C.W.L. s.c.w.L. S.C.W.L. s.c.w.L. s.c.w.L. S.C.W.L. Bd. Rock S.C.W.L. S. C. W.L. S,C.W.L. Ten Highest Flocks - 1927-28 388 267 757 2072 295 191 117 414 85 43 Average eggs per hen 214 169 169 167 166 165 164 163 159 154 229 188 187 185 185 183 172 171 170 168 " .7. Breed and Net Return The effect of breed on net returns is less clearly shown. In the first year the prof it was $1. 79 per hen in the Leghorn group and $1.66 per hen among the dual purpose breeds, too small a difference to· be significant. The same relatio~ was not shown in 1927-28 when the Leghorn flocks showed a net return of $2.83 per hen and the dual purpose flocks only $1.40 per hen. This wide difference may be partly explained by the fact that all of the flocks of commercial proportions, of 500 or more hens, were Leghorns. Leaving out of consideration these eight commercial flocks, and considering only f~rm flocks, the net return in the Leghorn group in that year was $1.93 per hen as against $1.40 per hen among the dual purpose flocks. Sources of Returns With this lower average production on the part of the dual purpose breeds it is evident that some other source of income !s necessary if dual purpose breeds are to compete with the light breeds in profit making. Not only were the total cash receipts larger in the Leghorn flocks but also the percentage co~tributed by eggs was considerably larger, 79% in 1926-27 and 75% the fol lowing year. The proportion of the total cash recPipts from eggs in the dual purpose breeds in the same ·two years was 54% and 61% respec- tively. The share contributed by sales of poultry in these flocks was then, in 1926-27, nearly half the total cash receipts. On the average, however, even in the dual purpose breeds, the amount received from poultry was not sufficient to pay the cost of feed although nearly half the dual purpose flocks in 1926-27 _and fjy~ .o.ut of 17 of the 1927-28 flocks succeeded in keeping the feed costs lower than the amount received for meat. In only three cases in the two years was this accomplished in Leghorn flocks. On the other hand the average receipts from eggs in both years exceeded the amount paid for feed. In the Leghorn flocks in 1927-28 the eggs contributed en9_ugh so that even if there ~'d been no inco~e fro!D the sales of poµJtry there would ~till have been a net return of about a dollar per hen. This leads to the ronclusion that in :Minnesota where the sale of poultry rarely brings large pre- miums the egg income must be counted on as the chief source of profit and that flock owners cannot afford to sacrifice egg production and sti II hope for a prof it. Egg Production and Feed Cost A question that is always worth ~onsidering is to what extent increased egg production causes an increase in the cost of feeding and whether such an increase in cost is justified. Records for both years indicate that higher feed costs accompany higher egg production. How ever, a definite increase in money made also follows the rise in feed costs, as indicated by the following table. Egg Production Feed cost Net return per hen per hen per hen 1926-27 -·--------- ---- ----- 13 low producing flocks 99 $1.88 $ .32 13 medium producing flocks 140 1. 90 1. 77 13 high producing flocks 163 2."50 2.36 1927-28 15 low producing flocks 91 $2.00 s .80 15 medium producing flocks 132 2.48 1.87 16 high producing flocks 181 3.21 3.46 Profitable to Purchase Supplements With home grown feeds available at a considerably lower cost than feeds purchased, the opinion -8- is frequently expressed that it is not wise to purchase the supplements needed to balance the home grown feeds. This is best answered by the fact that in the eight commercial flocks practically all feeds were purchased, and in these flocks the net return per hen ranged from $2. 00 to $6. 59 per hen, five of the eight flocks averaging over $3. 00 per hen. Information is not available in all cases as to the extent to which the feeds were home grown. However, a survey of all flocks in which the net return exceeded $2.00 per hen shows that twelve of the twenty-two are located outside the usual grain producing sections and so probably purchased most of their feeds, whereas in the twenty-four flocks with returns of less than $2. 00 per h·en only ten were located in these sections. A still further indication may be had from the quantity of mash fed in the high and the low return groups, since mash, or at least a portion of it, is purchased more commonly than the scratch feeds. In 1926-27 the high return flocks averaging $2. 59 net return per hen received an average of 46 pounds of grain and 40 pounds of mash per hen, or nearly equal amounts by weight. In the low return flocks, averaging $ . 65 net return per hen the scratch grain fed averaged 55 pounds and the mash 37 pounds per hen. The following year a greater consumption of mash was noticed in all flocks but the low return group sti II used less mash than scratch feed. In these flocks, with an aver- age net return of $1. 36 per hen the scratch amounted to 58 pounds and the mash 42 pounds per hen. In the high return group, returns averaging $4. 08 per hen, the scratch consumed was 53 pounds and the mash 70 pounds per hen leaving out of consideration one flock which had an all mash ration. The poultryman may · well ask himself whether in the light of these results he can afford to feed poultry at all without supply- ing all of the necessary elements. Cod Liver Oil The use of cod liver oil during the winter months is still new enough to raise a question as to its effect. So far no very definite data from the record flocks is available. However, some obser- vations made may be considered significant. In 1927 a survey of the record flock cooperators showed ten of tlum using cod liver oil in the winter laying ration. Nine of these reported a definite improvement in quality of shells, reduction in egg eating and laying paralysis and in one case an immediate increase in egg production. The following year, in the 1927-28 project, 19 flocks received cod liver oil. The records show that over half of the flocks making the highest net return were fed cod liver oil, while it was given to only one third of those in the lo\v return group. In the three groups classified as to egg production it was noticeable that more cod liver oil was used in the high producing flocks. It was fed to 11 of the 16 highest production flocks, 6 of the 15 average production flocks, and only 2 of the 15 in the low production group. This does not prove that cod liver oil is a sure means of increasing the egg yield but it does show that the feeding of it is a pr act ice that is accepted by successful poultrymen. Size of Flock Of the 46 flocks reporting, eight may be considered as of commercial size, having started the year with over 500 hens. The average size of these flocks for the year ranged from 388 to 2072 hens. When all the flocks are grouped according to size there seems to be a definite advantage on the side of the commerci31 flock. No. flocks Eggs per hen Net return per hen ---- ----~-- -----.~-·--.-- 500 or more hens 8 171 $3.42 200 to 499 hens 21 128 1.47 Under 200 hens 17 124 2.24 Seven out of the eight commercial flocks had a net return of over $2.00 per hen and four of them made over $3.00 per hen. The production in these flocks ranged from ll6 to 229 eggs per hen three flocks falling below 150 eggs per hen. There was much greater variation in both egg production and net return in the flocks of less than 500 hens, some of them proving very profitable and others being .9. kept at an actual loss. This may be taken to indicate that the very importance of the commercial flock is the best assurance of its success, and that good care and management will bring results in any size of flock. Poultry Raising as an Investment There was a decided variation among the 46 flocks in the amount of money invested in stock, buildings and equipment, running as low as $2.10 and as high as $13. 71 per hen. This great difference was due partly to an actual difference in the value of the business as inventoried and partly to a difference in the basis used in estimating the value. In nearly all cases where the investment was charged at less than three dollars per pen, the charge for buildings was little or nothing. In most flocks the hens were valued at about one dollar each. In the flock with an investment of $13. 71 per hen, the hens themselves were in- ventoried at two dollars each. The net return varied from $1. 38 on each dollar invested in stock, buildings and equipmPnt to a loss of seven cents for every dollar so invested. The average net return was $.47 per dollar invested. Only eight of the forty-six flocks showed a return of less than 10¢ per dollar of invest- ment. It wi 11 be not iced that the investment does not include payments throughout the year for feed, equip- ment and the 1 ike. However, this apparent reduction in size of investment is balanced by the fact that returns are also spread out over the entire year rather than withheld until the end of the year. There was a not icable correlation between the net return on the investment and the net return per hen. That is, all of the 21 flocks whose net return per dollar invested was 35¢, or less, showed also a net return per hen of less than two dollars. Also, of the 25 flocks in which return on the dollar was over 35f, only three had a return per hen of less than two dollars. Net return per Return per hen dollar invested No. flocks Highest Lowest ------- ------ ---- ---- Over $.35 25 $6.59 $1.68 $.35 or less 21 1.90 . .30 On the other hand there was practically no correlation between the amount of the investment and returns made. Some of the largest investments per hen were accompanied by the highest returns, and by the lowest returns as well. The same thing can be said of the low investments. These figures tend to show that good management is far more important than the actual amount of the investment. There is, how- ever, a slight tendency for the successful poultrymen to feel justified in increasing the investment, while the less successful ones do not believe it profitable to do so. The Outlook for Poultry Raising Returns for the past two years are encouraging for farm poultry raising and to a somewhat more limited extent for the commerrial flock. The following summary of results for the past six years shows no sign of any trend toward lower prof it making. Av. price % eggs Average size Eggs Net return per dozen laid Year No. flocks No. hens flocks per hen per hen eggs Nov. -Feb. ---- ------ ---- ----- ---- 1922-23 19 3643 191 102 $1.68 $.24 13 ' 1923-24 14 2096 149 120 2.10 .27 16 1924-25 31 6096 196 128 2.53 .34 21 1925-26 29 5440 186 124 2.25 .32 27 1926-27 39 9208 236 137 1.61 .27 25 1927-28 46 11386 247 150 2.54 .34 29 ·10· 'I '~,£-,~t: ' Total net incomes, after all expenses except labet were considered, ran as high as $6700 in a flock of 2072 hens. Net incomes ran over $500 in fifteen of the flocks. Only two flocks showed s loss at the end of the year, both being mixed flocks. Poorly balanced rations were characteristic of both these flocks. Summary and Conclusions 1. High egg product ion brought increased prof its. 2. A high winter production is essential to a high annual egg yield. 3. A high egg yield does not necessarily increase the mortality. 4. High mortality is one factor in low net returns. 5. Feed costs increased with increased egg production, but returns were enough greater to make it profitable to feed for a high production. 6. Chick rearing may add to the profit as well as replace the old stock. 7. The Leghorns led in egg production and held a slight lead over the dual purpose breeds in net returns during both years. 8. In Minnesota the chief sour,ce of poultry income is the eggs produced. 9. Feeding cod liver oil is a well established practice among successful poultrymen. 10. Commercial flocks had a definite advantage in both egg yield and net returns. 11. Poultry raising represents a sound investment, at least for farm flock owners.