CIRCULAR No. 110 OTBR15 1952 OCTOBER LAYING CAGES MARKET EGG PRODUCTION .4 S A GR IC U L TUR AL EX P ER I ME NT ST AT IO N 4/ Me ALABAMA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE E. V. Smith, Director Auburn, Alabama CO NTE NTS Page HIS T ORY - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES CAGES AND CLIMATE --------- ------ - -- --- 3-6 7 STARTING THE CAGE SYSTEM CAGE HOUSE AND EQUIPMENT ---------- --- ------7-H ouse Plans -- - -- - --- ---- - --- -- -- - --- - ---- -- - 9 Laying Cages ---- ---- --- -- -- --- ---- --- -- -- - - 9 MANAGEM ENT 11-----------------------_ ___- 11_____________ Feeding Water Supply ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- - - -14 -------- -------- - - -16 Breed to Use ----- ----17-----Record System 18--Culling --19 Lights for Caged Layers ----Fly Control --- --- -- --- --- -- ---- - --- -- -- --- - - -20 Range- or Confinement-Raised Pullets ----------------- 22 Equ ipm en t -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- 2 3 V accin ation - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 6 REPLACEMENT PROGRAM-21 POSSIBLE PRO FITS -------------------------------------. 28 ACKNOW LEDGM ENT-------------------------------------80 The COVER . . . Aisle view of typical cage house. The operator is filling feed trough directly from a 50-pound paper bag. This method requires less labor than supplying mash from feed carts or buckets. FIRST PRINTING 8M, OCTOBER 1952 LAYING CAGES MARKET EGG PRODUCTION DALE F. KING, Poultry Husbandmana URING the past few years there has been a great deal of interest in the use of single-deck individual laying cages in the Southeast. The cage system described here should not be confused with the three- or four-deck system that has been used to a limited extent for many years in the South and East. The singledeck cage has several advantages in mild climates over the multideck cages. (1) It is simple to build and is less expensive. (2) The manure falls to the floor and therefore requires less labor for manure removal. (3) The single deck of cages eliminates overcrowding the house, resulting in every bird having plenty of fresh air without forced ventilation. D HISTORY Single-deck cages were perhaps first used in Hawaii. However, the greatest advances actually have been made in southern California where the cages have been in use commercially since 1935. It is estimated that in Los Angeles County, the most*densely populated poultry area in America, 90 per cent of all poultry farms starting market egg production since 1945 have been of the individual, wire-cage type. In 1946 the author visited many of these plants and upon return to Alabama constructed the first cages of this type in the Southeast in 1947. Since that time the Agricultural Experiment Station has pioneered research with cages. ADVANTAGES aed DISADVANTAGES The single-deck cage method has many advantages over other systems of producing market eggs. In general, production of 60 *Acknowledgment is given J. C. Belcher, poultry farm foreman, for valued assistance in collecting records, building equipment, and supervising tests reported herein. MONTHLY RATE of LAY of 550 HENS in CAGES MANAGED as a COMMERCIAL FLOCK-60 hens culled, 60 pullets added each month Per cent 100 Production 90 80 70 60 50 - 40 30 20 10 0 N D J F M A M J J A S birds FIGURE 1. Because of regular replacements, is quite constant throughout the year. rate of lay of cage-managed to 70 per cent throughout the year is obtainable because of extensive use of young birds and accurate, heavy culling. Not only is high average production obtainable with this system but the rate of lay is quite constant during all seasons. This fact is illustrate,d by the actual production of a 550-hen cage flock at the Agricultural Experiment Station during 1951-52, Figure 1. These hens averaged 62 per cent production for the year. Their lowest production was 52 per cent in May and the highest production was 70 per cent in October. Uniform production of fresh eggs throughout the year is very desirable in planning a marketing program. Very few hens show signs of broodiness because of the use of wire-floored pens. A high percentage of the eggs is gathered clean if the egg baskets are kept brushed free of dust. The hens cannot develop the habit of eating eggs if the cages are correctly constructed. Weekly culling greatly reduces death losses, while losses from roundworms, lice, mites, and coccidiosis are easily prevented. Individual cages prevent birds from developing cannibalistic and pick-out habits. The amount of labor used is uniform throughout the year, and all work is done inside a wellventilated house under clean conditions. Regular replacement enables the poultryman to keep his house completely full of laying hens every day of the year. This is quite [4] different from the average floor-operated poultry farm where the plant usually operates at full capacity for only about 1 month during the year. Culling and death losses usually result in the plant being about 50 per cent idle during the late summer months. In Figure 2 is shown the percentage of idle plant throughout the year with floor layers. Cage houses should always be full of laying birds. Perhaps the greatest advantage is the positive egg record of each hen, which makes culling easy and accurate. This enables a poultryman to obtain a large number of eggs per bird fed. The relationship between costs and profits from layers at various rates of production is shown in Figure 3. Since cage operators average about 225 eggs per hen fed and floor operators average about 180 eggs per hen fed, it is easy to see the advantages of keeping hens in cages for the production of market eggs. The disadvantages most commonly cited include rather heavy investment per hen, labor requirements, fly problem, and replacements. Investment per hen varies considerably depending upon the amount of mechanical devices used and elaborateness of buildings. Results at this Station indicate that the cage system requires a little more labor than the floor method. Sometimes PER CENT of IDLE Per cent 90 PLANT with FLOOR-MANAGED LAYERS Per cent 80 1 he mchancal aountof 10 .. evics90 IDLE PLANT 20 30 6O 50 LAIN 60 30 20 I0 LAYING FLOCK 70 80 plant is 30 to 60 per cent idle four months of the year. [51 COSTS and RETURNS from LAYERS at RATES of PRODUCTION VARIOUS i A I- PRL ~f :"N: 0 Ix. D aM osts Income e__4i -iiii A U) (I) 0 N-J -U, Number of Eggs per Hen per Year FIGURE 3. As the rate of lay increases, the margin of profit above feed and other costs goes up rapidly. Other costs include labor, housing, interest on investment, taxes, and insurance. Operators who use their own labor to a large extent realize a labor income in addition to the profit shown. flies become quite a problem around cage plants due largely to improper management. Growing replacements, which requires starting chicks each month throughout the year, may also be a disadvantage under some conditions. CAGES azd CLIMATE Until the introduction of cages into the Southeast, single-deck cages had been used only in mild climates where only a roof was [61 necessary. Those being operated in the Southeast, with the exception of Florida, are placed in more or less standard poultry houses. This, of course, adds to the starting cost. However, the cost of the house for cage birds is no greater than that for hens under floor-type management. It is not necessary to heat houses for caged layers unless they are located where the outside temperature goes below 15 degrees F. rather often. When cages are located in a well constructed house, the cage system may be found satisfactory for all of the southern half of the United States; if supplementary heat is provided to warm the water, the cage system might be used to an advantage in any section of the country. STARTING Ite CAGE SYSTEM The best plan to follow in starting the cage-laying system is for the poultryman to decide on the number of layers to be kept and then build the house to accommodate that number of cages. Next he should order enough chicks to fill the house at one time, sometime between January and April. The chicks are brooded on the floor in one end of the cage house, using heat lamps as brooders. Under normal weather conditions, one 250-watt heat lamp will provide heat for 100 chicks. When the chicks are 8 to 10 weeks old, they may be allowed to range outside the house during the daytime. This will allow the operator to complete the assembly or construction of laying cages in time for putting the pullets in cages at 4 to 5 months. About 2 months after the chicks are started, the operator should start his regular replacement stock, following the plan described uhder "Replacement Program", page 21. CAGE HOUSE and EQUIPMENT The house described here is suitable for central Alabama. Operators in Florida may find it desirable to use no side walls of any kind, while operators in northern Alabama should consider building their cage houses so they can be kept warmer during the winter. Most cage houses are rather narrow compared to the modern types of laying houses. Wide houses do not have any particular advantages for hens in cages. In a wide house [71 FIGURE 4. Above is one of the 1,000-hen capacity cage houses ot the Agricultural Experiment Station of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute, Auburn, where cage-house research was pioneered in the Southeast. snakes~ it dilhcliilt to \ enitiiiite. I lIns inl tihe center ofI the hoil~se ofte1nI'~It snore air need1'i~ il thos ill( Iea 1111 ithe 1l I inii~r ti 1111(\toi a 1ter )I'iiI tl'd(ii lutit 'for2,' Ther illt NIis s 11 i to ll' I e ventilat l 1111 Whenli ti ) t(' II in ii ifeiation hrits i ('1s,( hest t'I huldte caN iyii littd till c t ilk 11 iri'\'i n to hel IN iled ' 1 31 ldI' liNI , il'ii"i)ast housesI ~ areIl l Nil snii i tid tiln an call 11111iie he1 iiii I ] House Plans \ hliiejl-iuit (\o5. \I [-5) show\ iiw2the details oft (olsti Iiltill t laiu' (le hotisc all (l fiijll t nila\ I e ohitaiuc iiat (( rom01the lXtensioll Se! \ Re of the ALlhallmi 1'ulxtcelllic llstlit(t \ill)ilrnl. vv as prepared froii flans (hex 'l01 ed lel the IDepartIollltrx Iii s!)uld~rx of, tihe \x'rie ilti nl [.\pe 1wiilt Stationl. While (fllite satislacetoi \these 1 I c5 ti all 1 modifiedI to si lit particlilar e~oi iitiol s Xx tllont affectii" l~ sef1iii lss. A lesc cs kc il se cani le lhiilt bx i siuir treate(I posts set ini thei 1(01110(1d as e the framcexx 1)k for tile side xv ails ilisteiai of tihe fliiatioii and~ stud(s as shown il tie dra (ll\ 01. This is the t\ ]x ofi(onil aciition used( in ll c1( limates \\11(iiv no0 sidlo gxails are needed. I Wilt of The hliiepriiit It is lisllx 1)est' to lea\ ( a (lirt floor iinider thle eauos if iiialoire is to 1 e reii o ed on l- 2 to 4I tim es per .\ear. ( 01 crete XXAI a as x nlia\ lhe construcetedl ol thle aisle to aidl inl ii for tile henis. (al bult (lilt Ilpldr the ea 4es ten ds to keep the I ai lr oirx ando helps iin tf control. If flies are to 1 e conitrloledl Im \ (kix or selilli xx oekhx dli iiI. ( corte floor 15ale al Il \k I Al Laying Cages Li il 1114 es n1ll\ K p' ~Id I~isoof Icd Ol\-llilt, or Ina hAX colstrucetedi Im the x1lltrx filaIn er. N lIm factories ma l( hke c(14( ill (;aliforllia and~ sexra finesjl1 ill tie Soll tieast offler f ietorx Ii ade ea~yes foi sale. The ehije ilnthis llatter is elltireix il1) to tihe I S) To determine the best feeding method for layers in cages, the Agricultural Experiment Station in a preliminary test compared the following: (1) commercial pellets; (2) commercial all-mash; (3) commercial all-mash with added B vitamins; (4) homemixed all-mash ration with high analysis of vitamin D, calcium, and vitamin B; (5) commercial mash with grain fed separately; and (6) 26 per cent supplement and grain mixed together. The protein content of all rations was approximately 18 per cent. The egg-laying records of caged layers fed the foregoing rations in the 255-day test are given in Table 2. These results should not be taken as final until additional tests have been completed. It does appear that hens in cages fed only pelleted mash did not maintain satisfactory egg production. The commercial mash used gave higher production when supplemented with other nutrients. All-mash gave the same results as mash and grain fed separately. The all-mash ration was, however, easier to feed from the standpoint of labor. All-mash rations can be used for caged layers. The ration should be made special for this type of operation, since a common all-mash ration similar to that used for floor birds will quite likely be too low in protein, vitamin D, and possibly other nutrients. Twenty-six per cent supplement mixed with grain also gave good results. In selecting the brand of feed to use for cages, the poultryman is faced with the same problems as in selecting a feed for floor management. There is always some question as to which brand of feed will give the best results. The poultryman can determine this for his particular conditions only by making the comparisons on his farm. The Agricultural Experiment Station conducted tests with caged layers using five common commercial brands of laying mash with limited amounts of grain. Each brand of feed was fed to 100 layers. The results are given in Table 3. The birds on this test were handled as recommended for caged layers. They were culled each week and the cull birds were reTABLE 2. RATIONS FOR CAGED LAYERS, 1950 Ration Egg production Per cent 52 59 63 63 59 64 Com m ercial pellets, hen size------------------------ ------------C om m ercial all-m ash ----------------------------------- ------------Commercial all-mash plus vitamin B................................ Hom e-m ixed, high analysis----------------------------- ----------Commercial mash with grain fed separately (80:20 ratio) ------------26% supplement, corn, wheat, and oats mixed together ............... [ 12 ] ' FIGURE 6. Side view shows width of cags., which may be 6, 0 or 12 inchsdepending upon operator's preference. Above the cage doors are the record cards for each individual hen. inI(8a1h ca.c so that ( ....l1hll colmThiis 'IX tell 1118\ IC1 rased1 he c01i1)phiut( iiiietriue wh'Iichj hen1 is lax iiiir. so)ilIetinllCs tlI( f au~lt0c5s \0hcl t\\s() 1bi1(1 arct in placdC(( (8ach( I hm cvi cr(. MANAGEMENT Feeding I)hR (10al 111811 caifc(5 is sIcIhdul used~ fur las l CCdiIu (hifIcICIt froiit that used( fur la's kCpt (m th (Is 1 ntot it (fl(8t HCfour. TI-lu e (hifIereclcC i.s ill thiC a11111 nlot (,et mllchi exercise: t (If ri aol fed. \ Ihelltn it a does1 much ever \' fee~d as i4 hen1 01b its 8' therelore, shie d11)0s nut1 rtir(1 kept oil theouri . Ini -4(I(14. l,(k (111-halt hlts shold rccCIX c il' 8101t as muichi ga1in eac da(1 it(1) pcI c(1nt pro1 tein plash iis fed. 1 as Ilirds oni theC fluor. \\he a1bo11 5 poilids If grai p111 hell per1. dlC(la is colisitl', d adIC10 ta' b)cCImei too fa1t if miore thon ithis qualite. T1he hens1 is fCel for it co)lsidIerablC Ili 4tlI of timeo. inioi iit [II ] To determine the best feeding method for layers in cages, the Agricultural Experiment Station in a preliminary test compared the following: (1) commercial pellets; (2) commercial all-mash; (3) commercial all-mash with added B vitamins; (4) homemixed all-mash ration with high analysis of vitamin D, calcium, and vitamin B; (5) commercial mash with grain fed separately; and (6) 26 per cent supplement and grain mixed together. The protein content of all rations was approximately 18 per cent. The egg-laying records of caged layers fed the foregoing rations in the 255-day test are given in Table 2. These results should not be taken as final until additional tests have been completed. It does appear that hens in cages fed only pelleted mash did not maintain satisfactory egg production. The commercial mash used gave higher production when supplemented with other nutrients. All-mash gave the same results as mash and grain fed separately. The all-mash ration was, however, easier to feed from the standpoint of labor. All-mash rations can be used for caged layers. The ration should be made special for this type of operation, since a common all-mash ration similar to that used for floor birds will quite likely be too low in protein, vitamin D, and possibly other nutrients. Twenty-six per cent supplement mixed with grain also gave good results. In selecting the brand of feed to use for cages, the poultryman is faced with the same problems as in selecting a feed for floor management. There is always some question as to which brand of feed will give the best results. The poultryman can determine this for his particular conditions only by making the comparisons on his farm. The Agricultural Experiment Station conducted tests with caged layers using five common commercial brands of laying mash with limited amounts of grain. Each brand of feed was fed to 100 layers. The results are given in Table 3. The birds on this test were handled as recommended for caged layers. They were culled each week and the cull birds were reTABLE 2. RATIONS FOR CAGED LAYERS, 1950 Ration Egg production Per cent Com m ercial pellets, hen size------------------------ ------------- 52 C om m ercial all-m ash ------------------------------------ -------- 59 Commercial all-mash plus vitamin B ............................... 63 H om e-m ixed, high analysis---------------------------- ---------- -63 Commercial mash with grain fed separately (80:20 ratio) _............59 26% supplement, corn, wheat, and oats mixed together ............... 64 [ 12 ] TABLE 3. COMPARISON OF FIVE COMMERCIAL FEEDS FOR (51/2 MONTHS), 1950 CAGED LAYERS Mash Culled Per cent Productionpr Per cent 70.6 72.4 69.6 72.5 76.2 Cracked eggs Per cent 2.0 4.1 2.3 1.9 2.2 Price dozen Cents 49.4 48.9 49.1 48.8 50.0 Feed cost per dozen Cents 22.50 21.22 24.27 23.94 26.12 Income per cage above feed cost Dollars 2.58 2.74 2.35 2.46 2.65 A B C D E 43 39 34 36 25 placed with nearly mature pullets. In the case of four of the feeds, the percentage culled was about the same, whereas with feed E it was quite low. The percentage of production also was higher from feed E than from any of the other feeds. Feed D had the fewest cracked eggs, which is an indication of shell quality. All of the eggs laid by each flock each day were graded into large, medium, and small, and were sold according to the daily prices for those particular grades. The price per dozen shown in Table 3 is the price received for all of the eggs laid by each feed group, and, therefore, is a guide to .egg size. In this test, there was very little difference in egg size, which is considered usually not affected much by feed. The cost of feed per dozen is based on the price of the feed and, of course, the rate of lay. Feed E had a very high cost per dozen even though hens on this feed laid at the highest rate. Feeds A, C, and D had about the same feed cost per dozen, while feed B was quite low in this respect. The income above feed cost for the 5 1 -month period is, of course, the item of interest to most poultrymen. It will be noted that the feed that gave the highest rate of lay and the largest eggs did not return as much income over feed costs as feed B. All of the feeds used were quite satisfactory. This test indicates that regular commercial laying mashes that give good results with floor-managed layers will also perform well when the hens are kept in laying cages. Hens in cages make more efficient use of their feed if supplied some grit. This is fed usually at the rate of 2 pounds per 100 hens on top of the mash about once each week: Oyster shell or limestone is fed also on top of the mash as an added source of calcium for eggshell formation. This should be done 2 or 3 times each week or mixed with the grain and fed daily, since hens cannot store much calcium for future use in forming eggs. Some com[13] Water Supply sit of a taink iii whlii tir \\ titr l(\i i' i iotiole b11( \ it float at thicrs C hick-size Il (lips pa'~ )rtitionsi' so ari juist thaCt tie ar a Ccrxsiihl fr four111 hiens. dts satisfactorl\its lieuize/. illnt oi1 erate ii itaii s to) (i\ c the o irOct pri(5i iic. wd( to The cups wi C pre NI t eai e \((55 'I)!!lii h(. rentll i\ ;alid Il Oh liii istn lii i -- FIGUE7.Close-up view of a hen drinking from a chick-size fountain cup. Oni of these is located at the cross partitions of four cages ond serves four hens. I I the floor, which makes it difficult to control breeding of flies. The supply tank and the cup fountains should be checked daily to be sure that the hens are getting water. It is advisable to drain the pipes once or twice daily during extremely hot weather to provide the hens with cooler water. Care should be taken to prevent a water system of this type from freezing, since the system is easily damaged and repairs are costly. It may be drained those nights when freezing temperatures are expected, provided the cage rows are hung at a slight slope to allow the water to drain freely. The water should not be turned on until the temperature in the cage house is above freezing. There are several methods of heating the water that may be used if the cages are to be operated in climates where a considerable amount of freezing weather might be expected. Insulated nichrome wire, like that used in soil-heating cable, may be threaded through the water pipe containing the cups to serve as a heating element. At each end of the pipe the wire is thrust through a rubber cork. One end of the element is connected to the electrical system and the other end is grounded. A wire 105 feet long with .41 ohms per foot will make a 310-watt heater that will raise the water temperature about 15 degrees. Longer wire gives less heat and a shorter wire provides more heat. Consult an electrical concern for advice before attempting to heat the cage water supply by this method. Another method of preventing a frozen water system is to heat the water in the supply tank. The warmed water is circulated through the cage supply pipe and back to the tank by a centrifugal pump installed in the water system. Still another method for supplying water is a continuous open trough extending the length of the cages. The troughs are V type with 11/-inch sides. They are made of galvanized sheet metal in sections and cemented or bolted together as they are put into the cage unit. The water tank with a float valve is connected to the trough with a rubber hose. The tank is elevated just enough to supply /2 inch of water in the trough. The trough must be leveled to prevent some cages being without water. Another way of using this water system is to allow a small amount of water to run continuously in at one end and out at the other. This type of water supply is less expensive than cup fountains, keeps the floor drier, gives less trouble during freezing weather, provides a watering place for each hen, and allows cowardly hens to drink all the water they want. The greatest disad[15] V i . FIGURE system. 8. A V-type water trough has certain advuntag2.4 over the pipe-cup plulld thblollgi to the iithei cnd( \v ith a fleXible lootp 0 iliil ) 1w coilit ai wxire or fisliiiy line. The line IIIA thrugh the trough a1lIlhack to the other (lid unil rlath tihl 2i ofi tie ii it alit1 Breed to Use I~ III \ 2riei I ithii ls l Ajel iulielt Station ha co1)1litcl 2 X car,, hatchiIIg test XXa cSi~onuted h\ 1)11 day-ol chic~ hone dtiiiet 1 jks startedi laX iur, andt thieni raisiulw thli to4Ythcir iiitii tli( tries, kepiiit thitmi in cages foi a 6-1iioiitl )41 iod. A ifflere(lt straiin imore iitai lx the ~l d each( scal r ini all atttcii 1)t to inlct Was s siltS )Illy e1 )resenlt till ireets iIsed. I Io (\cr I strajis that twos( strajins of eath hreeti XXc(rt tested, it is ohX iolis tiit r ecolts tf)midi( a X (IX aicin-iatc nilasi ire of theI resp~etobitaii ed doI iot iX c hi tetis. Tht results ,a ( aj\ eli ini lahie 4. i ule The cost oiftihe iiatin- 1)114XXas dtetrin incomoc of thle d h\t ded(~uictingi tile fixcr isoli~d at 10 XXeks of arc( froiu the teed aid (I ho] TABLE 4. COMPARISON OF BREEDS FOR EGG PRODUCTION IN CAGES, 1950 AND 1951 Breed Pullet cost Dollars 130.50 127.50 130.00 Six-month record per 100 hens starting test Feed Value Culled Mortality eggs cost Per cent Per cent Dollars Dollars 136.51 168.56 157:28 163.41 186.23 246.65 309.32 294.41 350.42 430.28 37 39 48 35 37 24 7 15 6 6 White Plymouth Rock_____ New Hampshire---------White Leghorn______________ Rhode Island 129.00 Red_____________________ Leghorn X New Hampshire---------126.00 chick cost. Since fryers were a good price at the time these were sold, the heavy breeds had some advantage over the Leghorns. There was practically no difference in the cost of producing pullets of the various breeds. In general, the breed that had the highest feed cost produced the greatest number of eggs as indicated by the value of eggs. Breeds with a low feed cost produced the least number of eggs. The Leghorn-Red cross produced eggs at the lowest feed cost per dozen followed by Rhode Island Reds, White Leghorns, New Hampshires, and White Plymouth Rocks. The strain of Leghorns used in 1950 performed very poorly and it is believed from other tests and field trials that Leghorns rate higher for use in laying cages than the results of this test indicate. The performance of the cross-bred birds was very good. There was not a great deal of difference in the percentage culled, and the relatively low culling rate for cages accounts for higher than usual mortality and also the rather low income per hen above feed cost. The mortality among the White Plymouth Rocks and White Leghorns was especially high, due mostly to fowl leucosis. These tests seem to indicate that any breed or strain that will do well in the production of eggs under floor management will also do well when kept in cages. Record System One of the main advantages of the cage system is that closer culling can be practiced, which in turn results in a higher per[17] most of tils attd alIta2e it is I It 1)to cccss1 01 c atll( adequaIt 1) lioost \ alo e, it 51101(I lnotlt 51) I~~o e nIdl tiltforl~)tl a teills.] \\ ass 15Oi pills a \\ ire to clothes- oIll came wxirs, Ior pe(gs in hoids alt to 14-a (laX uisedi recoird a 7 perod Whil FIGURE 9. To save time, the operator records only hens that fail to lay. I 1)('at 1(11 s. to1 It is allm1(st '01Itc Sal>\ a\ e t\ pc I ecesl4 a Xx ich(1 silt started to mlatimil call ibe eaech cawc, or ((Iurse. tile (kte sh e XXa" ihatcedi br1tlingl~ iltolnatiIoi date Ia> Imlit [)eriodls, iroodlinI ss, aid simIlilr iuI rl 1 kept. \ cardi of tihis kind illax b)( lttactiled to . kept inl a 1)00k (If at tile Lintralnce tXXII sx sttIms of tilt hlouse. llltX also ill 01) a comlliniation tilest il5sl. Iy I>s(Ime o)111( simll~le de ict and tihis recolrt pu~t illtile 1o)k alton, xxitih llct'ssarx illillIIllitioll at tile end( of (lull ?-wxeek thlat xx iiisuit tile jparticlar CaWt peiodt. It ta< es. 'Ii It S tunm opetlator andt pr1OX itic tie foregoil l!'facts is tile olnl thlat dIldit le uised. Culling (flnlit> of p)hltts r aised, filet, (f eggs. andl ric m1t mI larket foi ordier to jistil> tiltrathe ti i iIestlilelt per h irdl allot to illake rate tilt ofptrationl pl~iitahie. ( lilll- is (lil XXay of keeping thet of lay high. However, under certain conditions culling may have to be kept to a minimum, while under other situations there is practically no limit to the number that may be culled profitably. To answer this question, the operator must know the cost of growing a replacement pullet and the average value received for each cull hen. When these two figures are about the same, the culling program should be very strict. As a guide, the operator should each week remove any hen that has failed to lay 7 eggs in the past 14 days. When the cost of growing a new pullet is considerably greater than the amount received for a cull hen, the operator should be a little more lenient in culling the slower producers, especially if eggs are bringing a high price per dozen. The culling rate may vary from 5 to 10 per cent of the flock each month. When the operator is a good manager and breeding, feeding, and disease are properly looked after, an average of 240 eggs per cage per year can be maintained by culling about 8 per cent each month. Lights for Caged Layers Hens in cages will respond to artificial light about the same as hens kept on the floor. It is best perhaps to use both morning and evening lights in cage houses, since no dimming system is necessary. By so doing the operator can control the end of the working day. He will not have to keep changing the turn-on time of morning lights to prevent the daylight period from getting shorter due to the sun setting earlier each day during the fall of the year. A 14-hour light day is desirable. It is usually necessary to start using light sometime in August to maintain this length of day and to continue using light during the fall, winter, and until about April. During the winter months if the rate of lay goes unusually low, a longer working day may be used with the corresponding increase in production. However, when more light is used, it is more difficult to discontinue light in the spring without a drop in the rate of lay. One light bulb every 10 feet down a row of back-to-back cages supplies adequate light for the hens. If 3 rows of cages are placed in the house, the center row of lights should be staggered so that the bulbs in this row will be located midway between the bulbs on the two outside rows of cages. One 25-watt bulb per socket will provide enough intensity of light; however, if winter production lags, the hens may be further stimulated by increasing the intensity with 40[19] watt bulbs. The more nervous Leghorns seem unable to stand light of this intensity for any great length of time. Fly Control If a cage-type poultry unit is located in a suburban area close to other dwellings and town property, flies must be controlled because of public health. There are two ways to attack the problem; killing adults and controlling breeding. Both are necessary in order to obtain satisfactory control. Adult flies in and around the cage house may be killed by several different methods. The walls and doors may be sprayed with a DDT or a BHC spray. These sprays have a fairly long life and the areas treated will continue to kill flies and mosquitoes for several weeks. Since flies become resistant to either of these products, it is best to alternate between the two. Little danger is involved as far as the chickens are concerned. Other sprays usually of the pyrethium type are good adult fly killers, but they do not have any great lasting effect. Many flies also can be killed by electrically baited fly traps, common home-made fly screen traps, or poison bait. All of these systems are of little value unless efforts are made to prevent flies from breeding in the manure under the cages. Flies do not breed freely in dry manure. Therefore, excess moisture in the manure should be prevented. The watering system should be checked regularly in this respect. Adequate floor ventilation is helpful. The area directly underneath the cages should consist of coarse sand or gravel that will drain well so that excess moisture will drain quickly. Manure piles that resemble a cone under each hen dry much more quickly than piles that are flat. Therefore, every effort should be made to assist in the formation of cones by (1) allowing manure to accumulate before start of fly season, (2) maintaining dryness, and (3) spraying to kill larvae. If fly breeding cannot be controlled by dryness, larval poisons may be used. Usually these are applied in liquid form with a garden sprinkling can. One or two applications per week are necessary. Aldrin or dieldrin may be used at the rate of 51/ and 7 ounces of 18 or 23 per cent emulsion per 100 square feet; or borax may be used at the rate of 2 pounds per 100 square feet per week. As a word of caution, this amount of borax will make the manure unusable as a fertilizer for crops having a low-boron tolerance. Another warning is that aldrin and dieldrin are quite [20 1 poisonous in the concentrated solutions. Therefore, they should not be allowed to remain in contact with the skin. Fuel oil sprinkled under the cages also will control fly breeding, but the manure is not satisfactory for crops after much of this product has been used. The oil also increases the danger of fire. No one particular control measure will solve the fly problem. It will require a combination of measures, putting most effort on the conditions that are most troublesome. When the cage house is located close to dwelling houses, it may be necessary to clean under the cages once or twice each week during the fly season to attain absolute control of fly breeding. This can be done without excessive amounts of labor if a V- or U-shaped drag is pulled the entire length of each back-to-back row of cages. The manure is then picked up at the end of the house and hauled to distant fields ,or spread very thinly over adjacent areas. Sawdust sprinkled under the cages after each cleaning allows the drag to be more easily and effectively used. REPLACEMENT PROGRAM After the cage system is underway, a few chicks are started each month to keep the cages full of laying hens at all times. This means that the growing equipment is used continuously throughout the year. Therefore, only a tenth or twelfth as much equipment is required as is usually needed. There is some variation in the number of replacement pullets each month. The rates at which the hens were culled by months over a 1-year period to maintain a 60 per cent or better production are as follows: MONTHS AVERAGE CULLING RATE PER MONTH Per cent January, February, March April, May, June July, August, September October, November, December 6 7 10 6 The foregoing rates show that the heaviest culling was done during summer months when weather was hot and normal molting tendency was greatest. The largest number of replacement pullets should be started in the early spring to take care of this high culling rate. It is advisable to have plenty of replacement pullets available. The extra pullets usually can be sold at a profit [21] to back-yard poultry keepers. It is pointed out that cage operations are never as profitable as they should be when there is a shortage of ready-to-lay pullets. When this is the case, culling is neglected, rate of lay declines, mortality increases, and income is materially lowered. Range- or Confinement-Raised Pullets In 1950 the Agricultural Experiment Station bought 300 chicks of each of five different breeds. The chicks of each breed were brooded on the floor of a colony brooder house until 2 months old. The pullets were then divided; half of them were raised to maturity in wire-floored outdoor growing pens and the other half was allowed free range on a clover-grass area. All pullets were given the same management in laying cages after reaching maturity at about 5 months. Results of this test are given in Table 5. The range-raised pullets showed their superiority over pullets raised in confinement. The range pullets in this test cost less to raise, laid more eggs, and had lower mortality and fewer culls. The exception was with the New Hampshire breed. It is possible that this breed, used so much for confinement-broiler production, may excell all other breeds under close confinement. It must be kept in mind that providing range for small flocks of replacement pullets of different ages throughout the entire year is much more difficult than raising a flock of about the same age on range during the spring season. Pullets of different ages must be separated by a fence or the shelters located quite a distance apart to prevent mixing. This adds considerably to the cost of rearing because fences must be provided or extra time must TABLE 5. COMPARISON OF CONFINEMENTWITH RANGE-RAISED PULLETS Cost Breed Range Dol. White Rock-...... 1.15 New Hampshire-Leghorn 1.15 1.30 fined Dol. 1.22 1.20 1.34 1.26 1.24 1.25 Eggs laid ned R No. 94.3 91.6 85.1 118.4 106.9 99.3 nd No. 90.0 113.0 70.4 71.6 97.9 88.6 Mortality Range Pct. 4 2 4 0 4 2.4 fined Pct. 4 0 6 4 2 4.0 Culled Range Pct. 42 52 66 32 42 46.8 fined Pct. 44 32 62 70 52 52.0 Rhode Island Red..... 1.18 New Hampshire X Leghorn-..... 1.19 AVERAGE......- 1.19 [22 1 Mood0( rallg dhrin 4 th hot oioierc., dr\ falL S (' and( cold \\in tcr uuonths. 1pilicts do1 niot rat 114( riods. Aklso, there&is tlic (lal 4 wXithi raiige rdard Blle1ts. \t thec A 2,ittltOI-al hlwl- iiit Sta)(1 w am11(i the(se peofX of pliasitc and( dhis(as( tU()I1l(s fre(l\ doi as XX '11 (111111( LlN~ iti(4 p1riod till. Equipment lllc'(1( ((jllipniidlit are lnla! hXt\ of houdu arc satisftctorl f or raisioiT a11111 (I dI )ulhlets. lii Inlani 11(iI YX (111111)1 ci it that or cas(s tihl ' shari ftll snccc ssfu11 1)XoII( grower tXXill hay e toi lil modi(fied sonlcw hat to fit con ditionis of otherI opera1tors. At tihe \gI) a(115I Isill ricnlttn-al EXpcrinl'ht Statioul txx~ (4tolcral 'Asem teie fore sth t 2mofnhsl The room edc hove somen spleetar he et pnwhcr suheoint ete letial ished shlOuld( ~ltt i htlr I -d '", if'ri~ i:t Ir~ l ~ii, Irttr>1In1M - ~ ~. x~' ~('~V~ '~q 4 ~ 1i"~~ A, 4, '''4 rlct-mao, 3, 4, and 5 months old. culled hens. j, n tuft, r u rc 6 L o,6, for developing pullets When mature the pullets are used as needed to replace lCk. t IS tot luiuilt li,lc 41 \\iIi Imtt(1\ ad fh I I ippcr of tlhc gro0\x i hUit is dlie idlt' ilitl txxo Iwutls, Oit (i(111,l ti ollit-third ai1(d tilt otliti txxitirds oiftiie floor ii ta. LIaih ii ion ti about 75 sexcd femiale hadi) clicks arc placed ill tlit startinI(g txxo ( clack biatttix -1iicx rilili tiu~ii tiit first 1liluitil aind art tiici im edc~ to u1pp)r deck tlic f1111rth iiiiitii. toim d tck of the (Yrmin eiiiiit and~ fiuiallx ar c iioxcd to the hotfor the fifth month of the "r1ow i 4 d pciriod. \\ilcli 5 mon)this o1d1 ti 5110111( h Il Ii 1- at d cat cx li i ( as lax (i to replice tic hells cuilued. All ofithis utljiliIcilt is ioiiscol in ,1 20O-foof cihicktin ioilsu. Tis us stu ii has the audx aiita 4u of luiaxii all thic (4roxx ihl stock close' to 2,utiir foi uasu ill xxaturctc. Wiithi all puiiits mlid chicks ii licn 00111m htxxcx cr. it is (diflicuilt to foilowx _i accin atiii 4 pro 41aiu andh to p1 ox idc for adut~itatt' x Cittioi I lw secoiit s\ steiln uscth 1) tihl -\ricuhtuiiai [rsxpcriiiicot Statiool tonisists of simaii ralwe shittrs, 'iiitauilc for both hroiiuihii chlicls 4 iii1 fecdiit, °Coiphtc I\ xl iled ill Ll~olct \s. 2S \'rtinlloiial r iOw \lao~ol'odx ooloOOhn lio~itootc\oolooooo A,~looooa. l:loOII II Stohioooi, t4 [24] rai i4I shl~tri s tih "-" t\ I)( roofs 6 ,_ fect ill sizc as slioxX on illis( shelter s have IfXXii floors. ht first shellter is 1s ((jill fjpcd onl for l)Voolii" by iXcoX Ifiii( tlic south xx XX th all thet (ntir( flor. aind it ofIthl( thitBortlh wXall wXitli 1)1ii ii xxhitc feed saks I IcaX X papflT is tiic (OX 1(4 panci. ali i pla(ed (111Xitli dli c If 5lha\ i11(- at to dl(pth 25(1-\v att licat hiolse ablolt 2() iliches ahox till litter iu 1(1XX teii" Iouitaiu s for chiicks are jpiaccd 01 tihe f1oo11 d ai ;)(0 sexed, femlc(hicks o 0 ( uilsexedt chicks arc broodctd lir 0 for t11 mouth. Thcx arc tihci i ii x ( to thll i lct I ai l( sheiter and( kept oil tiht \v ii I floor, vXitil sonic heat firm idi(( from1) iaheat laiiip foi tihe r4oXX ill piiiiets iiiitil arct iiatiir. tiicv p flts If the wx atlili is at iatheiclose05 to(,letilcr 11nd till confined1( all timcs to thic rageelters fo oth brodingu lm chikondidetong Mo u dt pullets? h oto hsclip i or~~~~~~~~~~~~ l usb Jlmnh ilw ."h t .. VI FIGURE 1 3. Range-raised pullets are superior to confinement-raised range and weather conditions are favorable. birds when u sed Ilio i) itIis tioi itat Iinit\. Vaccination ot loss l\ iX driIi I iia\ th)( la\ iii4 periodi. I his is a sitiplc, ilitsp(i siS practtict that o)1d b)((lont alix tiiii alftr thie ch~icks [re 2?we andit unitil tlics arc 4 iliouitlis of a(,c. Perhiaps thitimost dI- 1 sial inisO alit d to liktIS to m cis init0O 4t ( ont to the (r ai 1')( nolth F( m o i o ka pro5 itded ioosjiiitocs i1 .. 1110(1Oitct oodl lsesi .. proti ctioii o lOih kept ,4 t :0 it is in a0flock kept on1 ithI floor, arc ktpt miuidll cuiitiol. I11055 05 (I it is still prct c to Sacnt pit to 1 )rtS ot this dlisea se. Ini imaii sectiolis NOSS castic (distast is irath o n uiiiiiil. Ini orde(I to )1(5 tiit losses ini ((p4 oldiictioli tiiu this dliscast, it is adto \ isai)It to S accin atc puiOlts IM>thlt55 ci -5 ii 0 I itetiod 0 usii " a lSiC c- irus S accilic 55hlin tli( alt about 2? :3 tii iiioiitis old( Shouild thise s ml505 its apital Olicc ill .ouilg chicks, it iias be ieciake t55a1 S to listtli( nasal-t. p \ aciou da odchicks to prcS cut lossts. If this is doneo thit pullets4 55 ti)-55 i104 methotd just detscrihedt shlid~ 1oe xxihcl thies it accililtt( 1)\ thie of1 t c' to 3> min ths i. arc~~~~~~~~~~~~( ul-lf-iefm) inodrt]aecrano ti ratier 110l i(tiet al practicc to 1mix\ the %iftns (I\ fl()\\ (1(1I of( \cw In tm ot )th tlisc~tscs pit the samie ai I (5 atieas it ills 1) Ie Inl(\ss itst tiiii. \ to tot isitict ilnmttli/il tis th putllits itifictiotis 1)tonlclitis. Silice this (lisist ii tit if Iii I)(t too t P iit(, ~ fI lr ,p itdl-n ilit> 1(1 fo itiott if I .4 FIGURE 14. Shown here is ih wing-typc method at vaccinating 2- to 3-monthold pullets against fowl pox and Newcastle diseases. ['? I] POSSIBLE PROFITS The question of how much profit can be made from producing market eggs in single-deck cages is one that is impossible to answer. There are many factors to be taken into account, none of which can be forecast with any degree of accuracy. Any kind of estimate depends upon normal conditions that, according to many, never exist. First, the cage system is not a substitute for good business judgment and poultry knowledge. It might be easier for the beginner to start with cages rather than with the floor system. However, over a period of time, success will depend more on the operator than on the method. There are so many different systems of managing hens on the floor or in cages and the two systems are so different that it is almost impossible to actually compare the two systems under similar conditions. Perhaps the best reason to consider hens in cages more profitable for production of market eggs than hens on the floor is that, where this system has been used for any length of time, practically all of the new houses are of the cage type. This is true for those starting in business or for old-time poultrymen who are remodelling or otherwise increasing their laying flocks. L. P. Sharp and A. D. Reed, University of California, in 1950 made a survey of 25 different flocks involving 31,000 layers. Their results show that cage flocks returned to labor and investment $2.68 per bird, whereas, floor-managed flocks returned $2.22 per layer. The cage flocks returned above labor and investment 78 cents per bird as compared to 34 cents per floor-managed bird. Cage flocks had a higher income per hen from eggs - $8.72 compared to $7.47. Cage flocks laid an average of 230 eggs, or 24 more eggs than the average of the floor flocks. Cage flocks laid 2 per cent more large eggs, 2 per cent more fall eggs, and 17 per cent more pullet eggs. The floor-managed flocks had a lower feed cost per hen than cage birds, $5.41 as compared to $6.27. Cage flocks used 17 pounds more feed per hen. Culls from cages brought 9 cents more per hen than those from floor flocks. At the Experiment Station, Auburn, Leghorn hens managed on the floor averaged about 200 eggs per year, with an 18 per cent mortality. Similarly managed hens in cages laid about 236 eggs per year per hen fed, with about 3 to 5 per cent mortality. This means that the culling system used results in about 3 dozen more eggs per year per hen fed, and in reduced death losses of about [28] 14 hens out of each 100 kept. The 3 dozen extra eggs had a value (August, 1952) of about $1.50. This together with the lower mortality amounted to about $1.75 more labor income per hen, since other costs were about the same. In other words, if an operator realized a labor income of $2.00 per hen from a floormanaged flock, he should realize a $3.75 labor income per bird from hens managed in cages. The cage plant is really a factory where routine schedules can be adopted and factory methods of efficiency can be applied. Since little land is necessary, it can be located near attractive markets for poultry and eggs. While this system is not likely to supersede floor and range plants as a whole, it will supplement production of high quality eggs or compete for the market. No one can advise any poultryman off-hand whether he should adopt the cage system in preference to the floor system or vice-versa. However, a study of conditions in the area where the poultryman intends to build his business, an examination of available capital and other assets, and an evaluation of his own inclinations and abilities should make it reasonably easy to determine whether he should continue to use the old standard floor system or adopt the newer cage system. [29] ACKNOWLEDGMENT Credit is given to Lawrence W. Todd of the Progressive Farmer staff for photographs appearing on the cover page and on page 16. [30]