RESPONSE of LAYING -IENS to
SUDDEN FEED CHANGES
POULTRY SCIENCE
DEPARTMENTAL SERIES NO.
APRIL 1964
MTAGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
AUBURN
2. V. SMITH, Director
UNIVERSITY
AUBURN, ALABAMA
RESPONSE of LAYING HENS to
SUDDEN FEED CHANGES
D. F. KING
Professor, Poultry Science
NUMEROUS CAUTIONS and warnings have been
issued by leaders in poultry husbandy against sud-
den feed changes.
These citations state that birds will go off feed
and suffer an interruption in egg production and
probably go, into a partial or complete molt as the
result of sudden feed changes. There are very lit-
tle experimental data available on this subject and
all tests were completed more than a decade ago.
In recent years there is less variation between
brands of feed than several years ago and breed-
ers have, been successful in developing strains of'
layers that show less tendency to molt or decrease
in egg production.
If sudden feed changes: could be made without
affecting rate of lay, it would aid manufacturers in
formulating cheaper rations, as price of ingredients
change. It would also allow the poultryman to
bargain periodically with various feed manufac-
turers in his: locality and take advantage of price
differences. This report provides more definite in-
formation on the effects of changing feed.
Stout (9) stated, that, "If changes are made
from one feed to another, they should be gradual."
Card and Kirkpatrick (1) suggested gradual
changes of feed to avoid any possible setback in
growth. Spencer (8) stated that, "Young chicks are
quite sensitive to any changes of feed." Card (2)
pointed out that cheaper feeds may be substi-
tuted, but that change should be made gradually
to avoid a drop in egg production or possible molt.
Kempster (5) reported that changes may be ad-
vantageous in poultry rations, but that all changes
must be gradual, otherwise there may be a reduc-
tion in egg production accompanied by a partial
molt. Heuser (3) also advised that changes or sub-
stitutions in laying rations should be made grad-
ually. Sipe and Polk (7) reported that suddenly
changing the feed of laying birds did not reduce
egg production or cause birds to molt during the
first month after the change. In fact, the annual
average egg production of birds subjected to 4
sudden changes of feed during 1 year was higher
than that of 4 comparable lots with feed un-
changed. Platt (6) reported that absence of mash
for 6 days, if grain was available on the cafeteria
basis, did not have a serious effect upon egg pro,-
duction. Heuser (4) reported on a test where the
laying mash was replaced for 2 weeks during April
by a mixture of 40% cornmeal, 20% wheat mid-
dlings, 20% wheat bran, and 20% ground oats. The
total feed consumption decreased somewhat and
there was a drop in egg production of about 15%
the week after the mash without animal protein
was fed. These reports indicate sudden feed
changes may lower egg production. However,
many of the reports were based on opinions and
some tests involved changes from an adequate to
an inadequate ration.
PROCEDURE
Leghorn pullets raised on uniform feed reach-
ing 5 months of age on October 16, 1961 and Sep-
tember 1, 1962 were randomly divided into 10
laying houses with 40 pullets per house. Conven-
tional floor management practices were followed
throughout the test. Three different commercial
all-mash rations (A, B, and C) were fed for a 10-
month laying period. The feeds selected were
manufactured by mills of medium size having dis-
tribution in a 2- to 3-state area. Each maintained
a nutritionist for formulation, conducted limited
research on their feeds, and utilized a chemical
TABLE 1. FEEDING SCHEDULE FOR EACH PEN BY MONTHS
Pen
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Months
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(A, B, and C feeds mixed equally
and fed constant throughout test)
A A A A A A A A A
B B B B B B B B B
C C C C C C C C C
A B C A B C A B C
A C B A C B A C B
B A C B A C B A C
B C A B C A B C A
C A B C A B C A B
C B A C B A C B A
10
A
B
C
A
A
B
B
C
C
laboratory in manufacturing feed. The 
feeding
schedule for each pen is given in Table 1. In
pens 5 through 10 where the feed was changed on
the first day of each month, the complete change
was made all at one time.
Trap nest egg records were taken 5 days each
week in 1961-62 and 3 days each week in 1962-63.
Feed consumption, mortality, and rate of lay were
calculated and analyzed statistically.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Rate of lay calculated on a hen day basis for
1961-62 is shown in Table 2 and for 1962-63 in
Table 3.
Feed consumed per dozen eggs produced by
each pen is given for both test periods in Table 4.
There appears to be no difference in the feed
consumed per dozen eggs produced between flocks
receiving a constant brand of feed and those re-
ceiving a different brand of feed each month.
Mortality for the 10-month laying period for
each pen during each test period is given in Table
5.
Mortality varied considerably between pens.
At no time was there an outbreak of any particu-
lar disease and rate of mortality was no higher for
the period immediately following a change in
feed than at other periods. Although pens receiv-
TABLE 2. EFFECT OF SUDDEN FEED CHANGES ON AVERAGE EGG PRODUCTION BY PENS BY MONTHS 1961-62
Pen No.
Feed
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Av.
1
ABC
Pct.
62.83
68.4
69.4
63.8
68.2
65.8
66.5
63.0
58.5
55.9
64.2
2
A
Pct.
50.3
58.0
56.5
51.7
56.7
53.8
48.5
44.5
42.5
46.5
50.9
3
B
Pct.
61.4
59.8
60.9
54.6
54.2
50.7
46.8
44.2
39.5
29.1
50.1
4
C
Pct.
64.0
69.8
68.1
67.9
63.9
58.9
59.8
54.1
49.7
46.4
60.3
* Feed changed each month as indicated in Table 1.
TABLE 3. EFFECT OF SUDDEN FEED CHANGES ON AVERAGE EGG
Pen No.
Feed
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
Av.
1
ABC
Pct.
54.6
69.6
59.5
62.6
55.0
57.1
58.4
57.0
56.2
46.9
57.7
2
A
Pct.
52.8
67.4
68.6
62.2
52.8
58.4
56.0
56.1
50.1
44.9
56.9
3
B
Pct.
57.0
67.6
67.9
58.7
61.5
57.8
58.5
63.0
59.1
54.5
60.6
4
C
Pct.
56.1
66.7
69.3
62.2
60.9
60.2
58.1
51.8
48.5
45.1
57.9
5
*
Pct.
48.6
71.3
76.4
76.0
66.3
63.7
70.5
66.9
61.6
54.3
65.6
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
6
5 6 7 8 9 10 2-3-4
* * * * 
* * Av.
Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct.
50.8 60.8 59.1 56.8 54.8 54.4 58.6
59.5 55.4 66.7 67.2 64.1 56.7 62.5
54.2 63.7 54.3 67.6 71.1 53.9 61.8
57.9 59.9 58.3 65.4 69.3 61.8 58.1
54.4 60.4 60.9 62.2 72.5 59.5 58.3
53.9 57.0 58.0 63.0 69.0 56.8 54.4
49.8 63.0 56.0 66.7 69.5 61.3 51.7
46.8 60.1 53.5 62.7 65.4 56.5 47.5
43.9 53.3 50.5 53.8 57.5 41.2 43.9
44.1 53.9 45.2 52.0 59.4 45.6 40.7
51.5 58.8 56.3 61.7 65.3 54.8 53.8
5-10
Av.
Pct.
56.1
61.6
60.8
62.1
61.7
59.6
61.1
57.4
50.0
50.0
58.1
PRODUCTION BY PENS BY MONTHS 1962-63
6 7 8 9 10 2-3-4
* * * * 
* Av.
Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct.
;1.8 63.9 58.0 46.3 58.9 55.3
3.7 76.3 66.0 63.6 66.1 67.3
6.1 74.2 68.3 64.6 60.1 68.6
5.2 66.9 55.7 62.8 62.2 61.0
0.4 64.3 60.0 60.4 54.6 58.4
1.8 66.1 54.4 49.7 57.1 58.8
7.0 55.8 50.9 56.4 56.6 57.5
3.6 56.9 56.3 55.0 56.1 56.9
).0 57.9 54.9 51.0 61.1 52.6
18.6 54.7 51.1 46.9 47.9 48.2
2.1 63.7 57.5 55.7 58.1 58.5
5-10
Av.
Pct.
54.6
67.8
68.3
64.8
61.0
58.8
59.4
59.1
58.3
52.2
60.4
* Feed changed each month as indicated in Table 1.
In each of the two tests the pens receiving a
change in feed on the first day of each month
(Pens 5-10) laid at a higher average rate than the
pens receiving a constant feed (Pens 2, 3 and 4).
The difference in favor of changing feed amounted
to slightly over one dozen eggs per hen over the
10-month period in 1961-62 and 1/2 dozen eggs per
hen over the 10-month period in 1962-63. These
results indicate that laying hens may be changed
abruptly from one good commercial feed to an-
other as often as once each month without lower-
ing the rate of lay. In fact eight times out of ten
the rate of lay would be higher after the change.
ing a change in feed each month
average mortality the differences
cant.
had the lowest
are not signifi-
SUMMARY
These tests show that farmers may change
brands of laying mash every month without low-
ering egg production. Feed is the biggest cost
item in producing eggs. If a farmer can lower his
costs 300 per 100 pounds by bargaining with vari-
ous feed mills each month he will reduce his cost
of producing eggs about 1/ 2< per dozen and there-
fore increase his profits per hen per year by about
,,,
TABLE 4. FEED CONSUMED PER DOZEN EGGS LAID., POUNDS
1 2 3
ABC A B
4.5 5.7 6.0
4.9 5.0 4.7
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2-3-4
C 4 0 -4 :0 .4 Av.
4.7 5.4 4.6 4.8 4.6 4.3 4.6 5.5
5.0 4.4 4.9 4.6 5.0 5. 1 5. 1 4.9
5-10
Av.
4.7
4.9
Feed changed each month as indicated in Table 1.
TABLE 5. PER CENT MORTALITY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
5.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 12.5 10.0 17.5 15.0 12.5 2.5
15.0 15.0 10.0 17.5 10.0 10.0 2.5 15.0 17.5 2.5
2-3-4
15.0
14.2
5-10
11.7
9.6
300. Care. of colurse, should be exercised in se-
lecting the brands of feed used to prevent an in-
adequate ration that might be available at an ex-
tremely low price.
LITERATURE CITED
()CARD, L. E. AND KIRKPATRICK, W. F. Rearing Chick-
ens. Storrs Agri. Expt. Sta. Bul. 96:355-398. 1918.
(2) CARD, L. E. Feeding For Egg Production. Ill. Agri.
Expt. Sta. Cir. 275:1-12. 1923.
(3) HEUSER, G. F. Feeding For Egg Production. The
Cornell Reading Course 157:373-412. 1920.
(4) HEUSER, C. F. Feed Poultry. John Wiley and Sons,
New York. p. 381. 1946.
(5) KEMPSTER, H. L. Feed For Egg Production. Mo.
Agri. Expt. Sta. Cir. 111:1-11. 1923.
()PLATT, C. S. Emergency Substitutions For Laying
Mash In The Diet Of White Leghorn Pullets. Poul-
try Sci. 23:126. 1944.
()SIPE, C. R. AND POLK, H. D. The Response Of Lay-
ing Hens To Sudden Feed Changes. Poultry Sci.
18:94-98.1939.
()SPENCER., A. P. Poultry In Florida. Coop. Dem. in
Agri. and Home Ec. Bul. 9:1-24. 1917.
()STOUT, S. R. Feeding Arkansas Hens Through The
Winter. Ark. Ext. Cir. 202:1-4. 1926.
Pen No.
Feed
1961-62
1962-63
Pen No.
1961-62
1962-63
rr YAA~ T.I~C\YITrT\TI AT\A~ W AICI? r\n rr\rrr~r\c~rr in Inhlr\