BULLETIN No. 290JUE15

JUNE

1954

COSTS and RETURNS to COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCERS

STATION AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT the ALABAMA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE

a

E. V. Smith, Director

Auburn, Alabama

CONTENTS Page
INTRODUCTION--------------------------------

Purpose of study-------------------------------3 Method of study----------4

FARM ORGANIZATION AND EXPERIENCE----------

---------------

GROSS RETURNS FROM COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCTION--------7 COST OF PRODUCING EGGS-----------------FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS, RETURNS, PROFITS, AND LABOR INCOME--------------------------------

8

l

Production factors-------------------------------------------------11
Selected marketing factors--------------------------------------

18

Combined production and marketing factors----------------20 Investment in buildings and equipment per layer----------21
COMPARISON OF PROFIT AND

Loss PRODUCERS----------------------22

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS-------------------------------------------24 RECOMMENDATIONS-------------------------------------------------------27 APPENDIX------------------------------------------------------------------29

FIRST PRINTING 8M, JuNE 1954

COSTS and RETURNS to COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCERS*
J.
H. A.
HOMER BLACKSTONE, HENDERSON,

Agricultural Economist Assistant Agricultural Economist*

INTRODUCTION

COMMERCIAL

egg producers should know and analyze their

production costs. Egg production often is hazardous, and is highly sensitive to many changing conditions. Cash expenses form an important part of the costs of producing eggs. To be most successful, egg producers must not only know how to handle their flocks, but they must also understand the business principles related to the industry and employ sound business procedures in general. Successful egg producers must keep two things in mind. First, there are certain factors in production that effect the profitableness of the laying enterprise. These factors include size of flock, rate of lay, labor and feed efficiency, and mortality. A mistake on any one or a combination of these factors can cause the business to be unprofitable. Second, and of equal importance, are factors affecting efficiency in marketing eggs. Efficient marketing is of utmost importance, but it will not insure profits if production costs are too high. Some farmers produce eggs at a low cost per dozen, while neighbors produce at an excessively high cost. This indicates the need for studying the conditions underlying business success in egg production.
PURPOSE OF STUDY

The general purpose of this study was to describe the various methods used by commercial poultrymen in producing eggs, the types of facilities used, the size of operation, and the amount of
*This study was supported by Federal and State Research Funds. **The authors acknowledge the assistance and cooperation given in this study
from the 130 commercial egg producers surveyed, and from personnel of the Ex-

tension Service of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute. Acknowledgement is also due J. M. Jones for collecting most of the data; to E. E. Mansfield for supervising the tabulation of the data; and to staff members of the Poultry Husbandry and Agricultural Economics departments for helpful suggestions throughout the study.

4

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

labor required; and to determine costs of production. Only in recent years has a sizeable number of Alabama farmers become interested in egg production on a commercial basis. Consequently, few State data are available to these farmers to guide them in their operations. Specific purposes of this study were: (1) To describe the organization and operation of the poultry enterprise on commercial hatching egg and market egg farms in Alabama. (2) To determine and evaluate the more important cost items on these farms, showing variations in these items, and indicating some of the factors associated with such variations. (8) To analyze factors affecting efficiency. (4) To compare the results of farm operators producing eggs at a profit with those producing at a loss, and to indicate factors associated with profit.
METHOD OF STUDY

The period selected for study extended from September 1, 1951, through August 31, 1952. Data pertaining to this 12-month period were collected by a survey of poultry farms during the fall of 1952. Twenty-three counties were selected on the basis of location, general type of farming practiced in each area, and prevalence of commercial poultry farms. A total of 130 farmers were interviewed during the course of the survey. Of these, 49 were primarily hatching egg producers and 81 were market egg producers. For purposes of this study, commercial egg producers were designated as those producers who had 400 or more layers on hand January 1, 1952. The average number of layers on hand during the year for any one producer may have dropped lower than this number where rigid culling was practiced or where other factors caused a large part of the flock to be disposed of after the first of the year. FARM ORGANIZATION
AND

EXPERIENCE

Of the 130 commercial poultry farms studied, 70 were fulltime market egg producers, 11 were part-time market egg producers, 32 were full-time hatching egg producers, and 17 were

COSTS and RETURNS to COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCERS

$

part-time hatching egg producers. Of the total, 102 produced eggs throughout the year of the study, while 28 produced eggs only part of the year. However, the part-time producers sold eggs for some 9 to 11 months of the year. The average size farm (total land area) of market egg producers was 88 acres and of hatching egg producers, 82 acres. According to the 1950 Census of Agriculture, the average farm in the State had 99 acres of land. The commercial egg producing farms studied varied in size from 1 to 500 acres. Fifteen per cent consisted of 10 acres or less. Of the 86 acres of land in the average commercial egg producing farm, 34 were used for cultivated crops and 16 were in open pasture. The remaining 36 acres included woodland, farmstead, roads, and waste land. Approximately 28 per cent of the farms studied had no land in cultivation and 42 per cent had no land in open pasture. As a whole, the total land area of commercial egg producing farms was less than that of the average census farm in the State, and was used for less intensive crops. Some 94 per cent of the commercial egg producing farms studied were operated by owners. Only 2 per cent were operated by part-owners. The remaining 4 per cent were operated by tenants. Ninety-nine per cent of all the commercial egg producing farms were managed by white operators and 1 per cent by colored operators. The average age of operators of the 81 farms producing market eggs was 45 years, and of the 49 farmers producing hatching eggs, 47 years. The age range of operators was from 23 to 77 years. Some 24 per cent of all operators were less than 36 years of age; 56 per cent were from 36 to 59 years of age; and 20 per cent were 60 years or older. Of the 180 farms studied, the size of family ranged from 1 to 11 people. Most families ranged from 2 to 4 people, with the average consisting of 3.6. Fifty-four per cent of the families consisted of 3 people or less. As a whole, the average commercial egg producing farm was smaller than the average census farm in the State, was operated by an older operator, and the operator's family was smaller than average size. Eighty-eight per cent of the operators studied performed some work on their farms during year of the study. Family labor was used on 58 per cent of the farms; 87 per cent used some hired

6

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

labor. Some 22 per cent of the operators worked off-farm for all or a part of the year covered by the study. A slightly higher percentage of the hatching egg producers worked off the farm than did market egg producers. Some 21 per cent of the commercial egg producing farms studied produced poultry products other than hen eggs. Eighteen per cent produced broilers, 2 per cent produced market turkeys, and 1 per cent produced turkey hatching eggs. Only 14 per cent of the market egg producers grew broilers, while 27 per cent of the hatching egg producers grew broilers. The market egg producers included in this study had an average of 10 years' experience in commercial egg production. The hatching egg producers had an average of 6 years experience in producing hatching eggs. The number of years experience in commercial egg production varied from 1 to 40 years. Some 42 per cent of the market egg producers had less than 6 years' experience. On the other hand, 69 per cent of the hatching egg producers had less than 6 years experience in commercial egg production. Approximately 42 per cent of all commercial poultrymen studied had plans to expand the size of their laying flock sometime in the near future. They reported that they planned to add between 100 and 5,000 birds per farm. As an average, 400 to 500 birds would be added to each flock for which expansion was planned. Of the 58 per cent of the poultrymen who had no plans for expanding, most of them planned to keep the same size flock as they had during year of the study. Only a small percentage were considering reducing the size of their flocks. Should only half of all producers in the State who had plans for expanding be able to do so, some 200,000 birds would be added to existing commercial flocks in the State. Egg producers included in this study were asked the question: "Why did you start producing eggs commercially?" Most of the answers, as was expected, were "to secure extra income." However, a surprisingly high percentage gave retirement from former jobs as their answer. Some 20 per cent of all producers studied were 60 years old or older. Within this group were many who had moved to small farms and had gone into the egg producing business after retirement. Quite a number of the egg producers studied began producing eggs as a "hobby" and grew into a com-

COSTS and RETURNS to COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCERS

7

mercial business. Replies to the question: "Who advised you to go into the poultry business?" indicated the following:
Who advised Feed dealers
Neighbors Extension poultryman County agent Vocational agriculture teacher Farmers Home Administration No one or don't remember

Per cent 5
4 8 2 2 2 82

Most commercial egg producers started out with relatively small laying flocks which they expanded over the years. The average egg producer included in this study began with an original commercial flock of 353 birds. During the year included in the study, the average producer had a flock of 784 layers. Thus, there was an average increase of 122 per cent over the original commercial flock. This increase occurred over a period of about 10 years. Market egg producers on the average had doubled their flock size from the time they began until the time of the study. However, hatching egg producers on the average had increased their original flock size by 165 per cent. This change had occurred over a period of about 6 years and corresponds with increased broiler production in the State. Some 63 per cent of the producers included in this study began with White Leghorn flocks. Since beginning commercial egg production, 51 per cent have changed breeds one or more times. GROSS RETURNS FROM COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCTION Gross returns totaled $957.04 per 100 layers, or 61.6 cents per dozen eggs produced, Table 1. Almost 96 per cent of the gross returns per 100 birds, or 59.0 cents per dozen, was realized from
TABLE 1. GROSS RETURNS FROM EGG PRODUCTION, 180 COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCING FARMS, ALABAMA, SEPTEMBER 1, 1951- AUGUST 81, 1952 Average returns Per dozen Per 100 eggs layers total returns

Source of receipts

Eggs sold
Eggs consumed Feed bags sold or used Manure credit TOTAL

Dollars 916.21
11.28 11.40 18.15 957.04

Cents 59.0
.7 .7 1.2 61.6

I

Per cent 95.7
1.2 1.2 1.9 100.0

8

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

the sale of eggs. Eggs consumed on the farm accounted for 1.2 per cent of returns, or 0.7 cent per dozen eggs produced. About the same amount was realized from the sale of feed bags. The value of manure was estimated at $18.15 per 100 hens, or 1.2 cents per dozen eggs produced. The average returns included in this study covered some 102,000 layers and 1.6 million dozen eggs. Gross returns per 100 layers for market egg producers averaged $865.90, or 53.6 cents per dozen eggs produced. Of these returns, 51.4 cents per dozen came from sales, 0.8 cent from home use of eggs, 0.7 cent from feed bags, and 0.7 cent from manure credits. Gross returns per 100 layers for hatching egg producers averaged $1,094.78, or 75.0 cents per dozen eggs produced. Of these returns, 71.6 cents per dozen came from sales, 0.7 cent from home use of eggs, 0.8 cent from feed bags, and 1.9 cents from manure credits, Appendix Table 1. Hatching egg producers received larger returns from manure credits partly from larger birds and partly from selling manure at prices higher than most farmers allowed as credit for that used on the farm. Hatching egg producers sold hatching eggs at an average price of 84.0 cents per dozen. The average sale price of 71.6 cents per dozen received by hatching egg producers included both hatching and non-hatching eggs.
COST of PRODUCING EGGS

Records of varying detail were kept on the 130 farms included in this study. Where records of particular costs were not available, producers were asked to make estimates to the best of their ability. Since the survey was carried out during the fall of 1952, information concerning the preceding 12-month period was still fresh in most farmers' minds, and such estimates were used in the average data on costs. Most commercial egg producers had records of commercial feed costs or they could be determined from cancelled feed bills. Home-grown grains were charged to the poultry enterprise at average market values. Family and operator labor were charged at hourly wage rates for which such labor could have been replaced with comparable hired labor. These rates averaged 64 cents per hour but varied slightly for various sections of the State. Hired labor was charged at the actual wage paid, includ-

COSTS and RETURNS to COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCERS

9

ing an allowance for items furnished, such as house, eggs, etc. Labor included the time spent in caring for the flock, and in gathering, grading, packing, and delivering eggs. Flock depreciation was calculated by taking the difference between the total estimated value of birds at the beginning of the year plus the value of birds added during the year, and the value of birds sold or eaten during the year or on hand at the end of the year.' Six per cent interest on average flock investment was added as a part of flock depreciation cost. Depreciation on laying houses and other buildings used by the laying enterprise was based on the farmers estimated value of such buildings at the beginning of the year divided by the number of years of usefulness remaining. Six per cent interest was charged on the average investment in land, buildings, and equipment. This was added to house and equipment costs. Equipment depreciation was charged in the same manner as building depreciation. Miscellaneous charges included such items as cartons, crates, electricity, veterinary fees, medicines, hauling costs, and other similar items. On the 130 farms studied, the most costly item in the production of eggs was feed. This item accounted for $532.73 per 100 birds, or 63.2 per cent of the total cost of producing eggs, Table 2. Labor costs accounted for 13.9 per cent of total production costs, and flock depreciation 13.3 per cent. These three items constituted 90 per cent of all costs. Total costs per dozen eggs for all farms averaged 54.2 cents.
1 An example of how flock depreciation was computed for each flock is shown below: Value Price Number $1,843 $1.00 1,843 on hand, Sept. 1, 1951 Layers 8,500 1.75 2,000 Layers added (9/1/51-8/81/52) $4,843 38,343 TOTAL Layers on hand, Aug. 81, 1952
Layers sold during year Layers used in home during year Layers died during year TOTAL Loss in value during year
TOTAL

2,938
87 3 865

$1.50
1.00 1.00

4,407
87 8 0 $4,447 $ 896

8,348

Interest on average investment during year @ 6 per cent
FLOCK DEPRECIATION COST

172
$
568

Number dozen eggs produced -- 20,035
FLOCK DEPRECIATION COST PER DOZEN EGGS: 2.8 cents

10

ALABAMA

AGRICULTURAL

EXPERIMENT

STATION

TABLE 2. ITEMIZED COSTS OF EGG PRODUCTION PER 100 LAYERS AND PER DOZEN EGGS, 130 COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCING FARMS, ALABAMA,
SEPTEMBER 1, 1951-AUGUST 31, 1952

Average cost AvragPero
Item Per 100 layers Per dozen eggs

Percentage of total cost

Dollars
Feed 532.73

Cents
84.3

Per cent
63.2

Labor Flock depreciation
Laying houses

117.49 112.50
36.59

7.6 7.2
2.3

13.9 13.8
4.3

Miscellaneous
Taxes, insurance Litter Equipment

27.44
2.99 2.31 8.40

1.8
.2 .1 .5

8.8
.4 .3 1.0

Land Other buildings
TOTAL

1.44 .92
842.81

.1 .1
54.2

.2 .1
100.0

Costs per dozen eggs for hatching egg flocks averaged 59.5 cents, as compared with total costs of 51.1 cents per dozen for market egg flocks, Table 3. On a per 100-layer basis, hatching flock costs totaled $868.20 and market flocks only $826.00. The market egg flocks as a whole used smaller birds and did not keep roosters in flocks; consequently, feed costs per dozen eggs were considerably less for this group. Some saving in labor was made by the hatching egg group, largely through marketing. The hatching egg group held flock depreciation costs slightly lower largely because of the higher return from heavier culls sold.
TABLE 3. ITEMIZED COSTS OF EGG PRODUCTION, 81 MARKET AND 49 HATCHING EGG FLOCKS, ALABAMA, SEPTEMBER 1, 1951-AUGUST 81, 1952

Average cost Item Per 100 layers Per dozen eggs

Percentage of total cost

Feed
Labor

Market flocks Dollars 508.95
123.68

Hatching flocks Dollars 576.23
108.12

Market Hatching Market Hatching flocks flocks flocks flocks Cents Cents Per cent Per cent 66.4 61.0 39.5 81.2
7.6 7.4 15.0 12.5

Flock depreciation Laying houses Miscellaneous
Taxes, insurance Litter Equipment Land Other buildings
TOTAL

117.63 36.33 80.65
2.82 2.12 6.58 1.12 1.12 826.00

104.75 36.97 22.60
8.26 2.58 11.16 1.91 .62 868.20

7.3 2.2 1.9
.2 .1 .4 .1 .1 51.1

7.2 2.5 1.5
.2 .2 .7 .2 .1 59.5

14.3 4.4 8.7
.3 .3 .8 .1 .1 100.0

12.1 4.8 2.6
.4 .2 1.2 .2 .1 100.0

COSTS and RETURNS to COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCERS

11

Housing costs were slightly higher for hatching egg flocks because of space requirements for larger birds and roosters. Miscellaneous costs were higher for the market egg group because of the relatively large number of producers who sold eggs in individual cartons to household consumers and retail stores. Also, delivery or hauling costs were higher for market egg producers. The difference in miscellaneous costs would have been much more in favor of the hatching egg group had they not had expense of vaccinations and of blood testing at yearly or semi-yearly intervals. Equipment costs ran higher for the hatching egg group because they were newer in the industry and had somewhat more modern and costly equipment than did the market egg group. FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS, RETURNS, PROFITS, AND LABOR INCOME There are two distinct groups of factors that permit or prevent the attainment of the desired profit margin on any poultry enterprise. One group can.be classified as production factors and the other group as marketing factors and methods related thereto. The production group includes such variables as flock size, rate of lay, feed and labor efficiency, and mortality. These factors will be given major consideration in this report. Marketing factors will be covered in detail in a subsequent report.
PRODUCTION FACTORS
SIZE OF FLOCK.

Size of flock is an important factor in minimiz-

ing production costs and maximizing profits. Between flocks averaging about 300 layers and those averaging about 1,400 layers, there was a cost spread of almost 10 cents per dozen and a profit spread of almost 13 cents per dozen eggs produced, Table 4. The larger flocks returned a labor income of $1.12 per hour more than smaller flocks. As size of flock increased, feed cost per dozen eggs tended to decline. Also labor costs and flock depreciation per dozen eggs decreased. Some savings were made by large flock groups in housing costs. Most of the other costs per dozen eggs were about the same regardless of flock size, Appendix Table 2. Rate of lay was slightly higher for the small flocks. However, the small flock group used more labor and feed to produce a dozen eggs. These inefficiencies, along with a higher mortality, resulted in costs of

12

ALABAMA

AGRICULTURAL

EXPERIMENT

STATION

TABLE 4. RELATION OF SIZE OF FLOCK TO GROSS RETURNS, TOTAL COSTS, AND NET PROFIT OR Loss PER DOZEN EGGS, AND LABOR INCOME PER HOUR, 130 COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCING FARMS, ALABAMA, SEPTEMBER 1, 1951-AUGUST 81, 1952 Number of layers in flock

Item

Number of flocks Average number of layers Returns per dozen eggs

Under 400 33 807 Cents 59.1

400 - 699 49 498 Cents 61.0 53.5 7.5 116.5

Average 700 or more L) 130 48 784 1,404 Cents Cents 62.2 53.2 9.0 155.0 61.6 54.2 7.4 125.9

~I

62.8 Costs per dozen eggs -3.7 Profit or loss per dozen eggs Labor income per hour JC;KS 43.4

production that were greater than returns. Flocks averaging about 300 layers gave a return of only 94 cents for each dollar of expenses, Appendix Table 3. Farmers with flocks under 400 layers used an average of 10.9 minutes of labor per dozen eggs produced, while those with 700 or more layers used only 6.0 minutes. This study indicates that flocks averaging 500 or more layers are needed in order to secure all-around efficiency for profitable egg production.
RATE OF LAY. A high rate of lay does not, in itself, guarantee a

profit to the producer. However, the greater number of eggs produced per bird in any given flock the greater will be the prospects an average flocks that of profit. The group of flocks that produced an average of less at a loss, Table 5. The groups than 150 eggs per layer produced that produced an average of 179 eggs or more per year produced at a profit. This indicates that the minimum objective should be a 50 per cent rate of lay for the year. The profit spread between the low and high rate of lay groups amounted to 25 cents per dozen, and the cost spread to 85 cents per dozen.
TABLE 5. RELATION OF RATE OF LAY TO GROSS RETURNS, TOTAL COSTS, AND NET
PROFIT OR CIAL EGG

Loss PER DOZEN EGGS, AND LABOR INCOME PER HoUR, 180 COMMERPRODUCING FARMS, ALABAMA, SEPTEMBER 1, 1951 - AUGUST 81, 1952

Item Number of flocks Average number of layers
Returns per dozen eggs Costs per dozen eggs

Number of eggs laid per hen per year Under 150 150 - 199 200 or more 54 58 23 797 682 987 Cents Cents Cents 59.7 45.4 14.3 205.9

rrvvr r

Average 130 784 Cents 61.6 54.2 7.4 125.9

ry

61.4 69.4 57.5 80.1 3.9 -10.7 Profit or loss per dozen eggs Labor income per hour V~ ~' I'-. 8 -c~7~195.1 ~"~'~"k~ -

COSTS and RETURNS to COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCERS

13

Combining hatching egg flocks and market egg flocks make it somewhat difficult to show the over-all effects of rate of lay on profit, costs, etc. Data in Table 5 indicate a high gross return per dozen eggs for flocks with low production and a low gross return for flocks with high production. However, the high rate of lay group was more profitable because costs were low. The high rate of lay was mostly that of market egg flocks, consequently the lower gross returns per dozen eggs. Market egg flocks produced an average of 194 eggs per bird. There was a profit spread per dozen of 27.5 cents between the market egg flocks that produced under 150 eggs and those that produced over 200 eggs per layer. Because of the lower selling price of market eggs, a higher rate of lay and the attendant lower cost was necessary for profitable production. Only those market egg flocks that were equal to the average (194 eggs) or higher in rate of lay were profitable. The average rate of lay for the hatching egg flocks studied was 175 eggs. This included hatching flocks producing eggs for replacement stock and also for broiler chicks. Some 48 per cent of the hatching egg flocks studied produced an average of less than 160 eggs per layer. Due to the price of hatching eggs, flocks that produced an average of 159 eggs or more were profitable. Those that produced at a lower rate of lay were generally unprofitable. In terms of the 130 flocks studied, feed costs per dozen eggs decreased as rate of lay increased, Appendix Table 4. This was also true of most other costs. Size of flock was not closely associated with rate of lay. However, feed and labor efficiency and mortality were closely associated with rate of lay, Appendix Table 5. As an average, flocks producing 200 or more eggs per layer gave a return of $1.31 per dollar of costs. Flocks producing under 150 eggs per layer gave a return of only 87 cents for each dollar of costs.
FEED EFFICIENCY. On farms where the average feed efficiency

was highest, operators were able to produce eggs at a cost of 56.6 cents less per dozen than those whose flocks had the lowest feed efficiency, Table 6. Grain, mash, shell, etc., were all used to compute pounds of feed consumed. There was a profit spread of 86.7 cents a dozen between the group that used the least feed and the group that used the most feed to produce a dozen eggs. Variation in feed cost between the high and low group amounted to 43.2 cents per dozen eggs. The profit spread would have been much greater between the low and high feed efficiency groups had not

14

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT

STATION

TABLE 6. RELATION OF FEED EFFICIENCY TO GROSS RETURNS,

TOTAL COSTS, AND

NET PROFIT OR LOSS PER DOZEN EGGS, AND LABOR INCOME PER HOUR, 180 COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCING FARMS, ALABAMA, SEPTEMBER 1, 1951-AuGuST 31, 1952

Item

Pounds of feed consumed per dozen eggs' Under 5.0 7.0 9.0 11.0 or 5 6.9 8.9 10.9 more 36 811 39 754 21 671 9 960

Average 130 784

Number of flocks 25 Average number of layers 824

Cents
Returns per dozen eggs Costs per dozen eggs 53.8 41.2

Cents
59.7 47.6

Cents
65.8 55.9

Cents
68.2 77.0

Cents
78.7 97.8

Cents
61.6 54.2

Profit or loss per dozen eggs
Labor income per hour

12.6
194.0

12.1
166.5

9.9
147.5

-8.8
9.9

-24.1
-83.8

7.4
125.9

1Includes grain, mash, shell, and grit.

many of the low group been selling hatching eggs and as a result received a greater average return per dozen eggs produced. As an average, market egg flocks that used 7.0 pounds or more of feed to produce a dozen eggs produced at a loss. Hatching egg producers that used 9.0 or more pounds of feed to produce a dozen eggs tended to produce at a loss. As an average, market egg producers used 6.4 pounds of feed and hatching egg producers 7.8 pounds to produce a dozen eggs. As the pounds of feed used to produce a dozen eggs increased, the gross returns per dozen eggs increased. This was due to the hatching egg producers falling into the heavier feed consumption groups. The hatching egg group generally had heavier birds to feed and also maintained roosters. The feed consumed by roosters was charged to egg production. High feed consumption was not offset entirely by high egg prices. Since feed costs accounted for 63 per cent of the total cost of producing a dozen eggs on the farms studied, producers should work to hold this cost down. Poultrymen producing eggs should be as concerned about their feed conversion ratio as are broiler producers. Producers that were inefficient in the use of feed also tended to have higher costs for most other items used in the production of eggs, Appendix Table 6. Flocks that used the most feed to produce a dozen eggs had a low rate of lay; they used more labor and had a higher layer mortality, Appendix Table 7. Producers who used under 5.0 pounds of feed to produce a dozen eggs had a return of $1.31 for each dollar of costs. Producers who used 11.0 pounds or more of feed to produce a dozen eggs had a return of only 75 cents for each dollar of costs.

COSTS and RETURNS to COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCERS LABOR

15

EFFICIENCY. Operators who used the least labor to pro-

duce and market a dozen eggs made the largest profit, Table 7. There was a profit spread of almost 27 cents per dozen eggs produced between producers who used the least labor and those who used the most labor. Between the low labor and the high labor usage groups, there was an average difference of 12.0 minutes per dozen eggs in the time taken to handle the flock and market eggs. The cost spread between the two groups was the same as the profit spread. Labor efficiency was closely related to size of flock. Producers with flocks of about 500 layers used more than four times as much labor to produce a dozen eggs as did producers with an average of 1,300 layers. Producers who were efficient in the use of labor also tended to be efficient in other respects. The group using the least labor also used 9.2 cents less feed to produce a dozen eggs than did the high labor group, Appendix Table 8. Labor efficiency was associated with rate of lay, feed consumption, and mortality, as well as size of flock, Appendix Table 9. Producers using the least labor had a labor income of $3.21 per hour, while those using the most labor to produce and market a dozen eggs had a labor income of only 16 cents per hour. While the producers with the largest flocks were in a better position to use laborsaving equipment, many other producers could make changes that would lower their labor requirements. All commercial egg producers should consider the possibility of making more effective use of their labor, particularly if they have other uses for the labor that could be saved or if they could use it to increase the size of flock.
TABLE 7. RELATION OF LABOR EFFICIENCY TO GROSS RETURNS, TOTAL COSTS, AND NET PROFIT OR Loss PER DOZEN EGGS, AND LABOR INCOME PER HOUR, 180 COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCING FARMS, ALABAMA, SEPTEMBER 1, 1951-AuGUST 31, 1952

Minutes of labor required per doz. eggs
Item Number of flocks Average number of layers Returns per dozen eggs Costs per dozen eggs Under 5.0 8.0 11.0 or Average

5
22 1,326

7.9
45 860

10.9
32 585

more
31 520 180 784

Cents
65.2 50.0 15.2

Cents
57.9 51.0 6.9

Cents
60.7 53.2 7.5

Cents
65.3 77.0 -11.7

Cents
61.6 54.2 7.4

Profit or loss per
dozen eggs

Labor income per hour

820.9

180.4

110.4

16.5

125.9

16

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

MORTALITY. Mortality refers to the number of layers that died during the year expressed as a percentage of the average number of layers on hand during the year. Mortality appeared to have less influence on costs, profits, and labor income than did feed and labor efficiency, and rate of lay. However, it appeared to be more important than size of flock in determining costs and profits. The spread in costs per dozen eggs between the two groups of flocks with the lowest and highest mortality was 18 cents, the spread in profit was 21 cents, and the difference in labor income was $1.96 per hour, Table 8.
TABLE 8. RELATION OF MORTALITY TO GRoss RETURNS, TOTAL COSTS, NET PROFIT OR Loss PER DOZEN EGGS, AND LABOR INCOME PER HOUR, 130 COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCING FARMS, ALABAMA, SEPTEMBER 1, 1951-AUGUST 81, 1952

Item Number of flocks Average number of layers

Under 10.0 28 992

Percentage of mortality 10.0 20.0 19.9 29.9 58 708 27 852

30.0 or Average more 17 596 180 784

Returns per dozen eggs
Costs per dozen eggs Profit or loss per

Cents 63.2
49.7

Cents 61.3
52.5

Cents 60.5
57.9

Cents 60.3
67.7

Cents 61.6
54.2

dozen eggs
Labor income per hour

13.5
203.1

8.8
183.8

2.6
88.3

-7.4
7.0

7.4
125.9

About two-thirds of the operators were able to keep mortality losses below 20 per cent. The remaining one-third of the operators had mortality losses above 20 per cent. Thirteen per cent of the operators had mortality losses of 30 per cent or higher. In many cases, the most damaging effect of sickness was not the direct loss of the layers, but the indirect loss arising from reduced production. As mortality increased, so did feed, labor, and flock costs per dozen eggs produced, Appendix Table 10. As mortality increased from less than 10 per cent to 30 per cent or more, feed costs increased by 8.0 cents per dozen eggs produced, labor costs increased 2.2 cents, and flock costs increased 5.6 cents per dozen. As mortality increased, rate of lay decreased, Appendix Table 11. The group with the lowest mortality had returns of $1.27 for each dollar of costs. The group with the highest mortality had returns of only 89 cents for each dollar of costs.
COMBINED EFFECT OF ALL PRODUCTION FACTORS.

In order to de-

termine the effect that the five main factors of production (size

COSTS and RETURNS to COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCERS

17

of flock, rate of lay, feed efficiency, labor efficiency, and mortality) had on costs and profits per dozen eggs and labor income per hour, flock owners were classified according to the number of factors in which they rated as average or above average as determined for the 130 farms as a whole. Only eight flock owners, or 6 per cent, rated as average or above in all five factors. Because of the small number in this group, these were combined with the 20 flock owners who rated average or above on four factors. Combined, 28 flock owners or 22 per cent of all farms rated average or above on four or more factors. Of the 130 farms studied, 13 rated below average on all five factors. Twenty-six operators rated average or above in only one factor; 33 in two factors; and 30 in three factors. The 28 operators having the highest degree of managerial skill (rated average or above in four or five factors) realized a profit of 16.2 cents per dozen eggs and a labor income of $2.70 per hour. At the other end of the scale, profits and labor income were nonexistent for the 13 operators who were below average on all five factors, Table 9. Between the two groups there was a profit spread of 31 cents per dozen, a cost spread of 35 cents, and a labor income spread of $2.84 per hour in favor of the four-ormore factor group. Operators who were below average efficiency in all five production factors had high total costs. They were especially high on feed, labor, and flock costs, Appendix Table 12. These farms had a total cost of 79.4 cents per dozen eggs produced. As the operators increased in rating from zero to four or more production factors, they increased in size of flock from an average of 426
TABLE 9. RELATION OF THE COMBINED EFFECT OF PRODUCTION FACTORS ON GRoss RETURNS, TOTAL COSTS, NET PROFIT OR Loss PER DOZEN EGGS, AND LABOR INCOME PER HouR, 180 COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCING FARMS, ALABAMA, SEPTEMBER 1, 1951-AUGUST 81, 1952

Number of production factors in which
Item operator rated as average or above average Average

0 Number of flocks Average number of layers Returns per dozen eggs Costs per dozen eggs Profit or loss per
dozen eggs

1 26 557

2 3388 660

8 30 730

4 or more 28 1,866 180 784

13 426

Cents
64.5 79.4 -14.9 -14.5

Cents
64.9 74.1 -9.2 16.0

Cents
64.6 62.7 1.9 75.2

Cents
58.4 51.6 6.8 118.5

Cents
60.8 44.6 16.2 269.9

Cents
61.6 54.2 7.4 125.9

Labor income per hour

18

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT

STATION

layers to 1,366 layers, and in rate of lay from 181 eggs to 220 eggs. The pounds of feed used to produce a dozen eggs dropped from an average of 9.8 to 5.8, Appendix Table 18. These data indicate the danger of neglecting even one of the production factors. For example, better than average gross returns were received by the groups rated zero-factor and onefactor. However, the effects of a good job of marketing and the selling of eggs at above average prices were lost through excessive costs. Size of flock may be a factor that cannot be improved on many farms for a number of reasons, but if any layers are kept on the farm, the closest possible attention should be given to production, feed consumption, labor-saving economies, and disease prevention. Unless the operator makes some attempt to control these factors, he cannot expect the poultry enterprise to be a money-making proposition.
SELECTED MARKETING METHOD OF SALE. Market

FACTORS

egg producers did not receive profits

as large as those who produced hatching eggs. As an average, market egg producers received a profit of 2.5 cents per dozen eggs produced, while hatching egg producers received a profit of 15.5 cents per dozen eggs produced, Table 10. The labor income per hour of poultry work amounted to 83 cents for market egg producers and $2.03 for hatching egg producers. The major difference in the cost of producing a dozen hatching eggs over that of a dozen market eggs was feed cost. This difference was due to heavier birds, keeping of roosters, and a lower rate of lay in hatching egg flocks. Detailed costs for the two
TABLE 10. RELATION OF METHOD OF SALE TO GROSS RETURNS, TOTAL COSTS, NET PROFIT OR Loss PER DOZEN EGGS, AND LABOR INCOME PER HOUR, 130 COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCING FARMS, ALABAMA, SEPTEMBER 1, 1951 - AUGUST 81, 1952

Item Number of flocks Average number of layers Returns per dozen eggs Costs per dozen eggs Profit or loss per dozen eggs Labor income per hour

Eggs sold as Market eggs Hatching eggs 81 757 49 828

Average 130 784

Cents
53.6 51.1 2.5 88.1

Cents
75.0 59.5 15.5 203.4

Cents
61.6 54.2 7.4 125.9

COSTS and RETURNS to COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCERS

19

TABLE 11. RELATION OF METHOD OF SALE TO SIZE OF FLOCK, RATE OF LAY, LABOR
EFFICIENCY, FEED EFFICIENCY, MORTALITY, AND RETURNS PER DOLLAR OF EXPENDITURE, 130 COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCING FARMS, ALABAMA, SEPTEMBER 1, 1951 - AUGUST 31, 1952

Number Average

Minutes

Pounds of

Returns

Method
of sale

of
flocks

size
of

Rate
of lay

of labor

feed con-

Mortal- per dollar
ity of ex-

per dozen sumed per

flocks eggs dozen eggs penditure Number Number Number Number Pounds Per cent Dollars
Market 81 757 194 7.3 6.4 19 1.05

Hatching
TOTAL

49 130

828 784

175 186

6.8 7.1

7.8 6.9

17 18

1.26 1.14

OR Av.

groups are given in Table 3. The market egg group used an average of 6.4 pounds of feed to produce a dozen eggs, while the hatching egg group used an average of 7.8 pounds, Table 11. Mortality was slightly higher for the market egg group. Of the 130 operators studied, 62 per cent produced eggs at a profit and 38 per cent at a loss. Results indicate that high or low selling prices do not necessarily mean a high or low profit per dozen eggs produced. Obviously, the most profitable combination occurs when selling price is high and cost of production is low. More than a third of the operators studied did not obtain this favorable cost-price relationship. Of the 49 hatching egg producers, 73 per cent produced eggs at a profit and 27 per cent at a loss. Some 54 per cent of the market egg producers produced eggs at a profit and 46 per cent at a loss. Cost of production needs to be watched closely by both groups of producers. However, the hatching egg producer has a greater chance of profit because of the higher selling price for his product. Relatively speaking, the year of this study was one in which conditions were more favorable for hatching eggs than for market eggs. Expanded egg production is needed in Alabama both for hatching and consumption. The largest market, however, is for market eggs.
BREED OF LAYERS. The breed of layers is important in produc-

ing the kind of eggs desired by the consumer or the buying agency. Of the 49 hatching egg flocks studied, 41 were New Hampshires of one strain or another. With so few records of other breeds, it was not possible to make a comparison of the profitableness of the various breeds of layers used in hatching egg flocks. Of the 81 market egg flocks, 64 were White Leghorns, 12 were crosses and/or mixed, and 5 were heavy breeds. Again, there were too few records on breeds other than White Leghorn

20

ALABAMA

AGRICULTURAL

EXPERIMENT

STATION

for reliable comparative purposes. The White Leghorn group showed a profit of 2.6 cents per dozen eggs; the crosses and mixed, a profit of 2.2 cents per dozen; and the standard heavy breeds, a profit of 0.7 cent per dozen. These differences seem to have been due more to costs of production than to sales prices of eggs. Of the 64 White Leghorn flocks, 22 were of the Auburn strain and 42 were of other strains. The major difference between the two groups was in mortality. The Auburn strain White Leghorn had an average mortality rate of 17 per cent while the other group had an average mortality of 20 per cent.
RANK OF POULTRY ENTERPRISE IN FARM BUSINESS.

Poultrymen

who place more importance on egg production as an enterprise on their farm will likely do a better job of producing and marketing eggs. Operators who placed egg sales as number one or two in importance as a source of farm income produced eggs at a profit, while those who placed egg sales as third or lower as a source of farm income produced eggs at a loss, Table 12. Operators who did not place major emphasis on egg production produced eggs at a loss so far as total costs were concerned; however, they were able to obtain about 35 cents per hour for the labor used on the poultry enterprise. The major differences in costs for the non-profit group were in higher feed, labor, flock, and housing costs. Rate of lay was low and mortality was high for the group that did not emphasize egg sales.
TABLE 12. RELATION OF RANK OF POULTRY ENTERPRISE TO GRoss RETURNS, TOTAL COSTS, AND NET PROFIT OR Loss PER DOZEN EGGS, AND LABOR INCOME PER HoUR, 180 COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCING FARMS, ALABAMA, SEPTEMBER 1, 1951 - AUGUST 31, 1952

Item Number of flocks Average number of layers

Rank of poultry enterprise as a source of farm income

Average 180 784

1
88 868

2
80 647

3 or lower
17 616

Returns per dozen eggs
Costs per dozen eggs

Cents 61.5
58.8

Cents 59.3
50.0

Cents 67.2
71.5

Cents 61.6
54.2

Profit or loss per dozen eggs
Labor income per hour

8.2
182.2

9.3
151.0

-4.3
35.3

7.4
125.9

COMBINED PRODUCTION AND MARKETING FACTORS

Combining high receipts with low costs leads to a profitable enterprise. Only a
RECEIPTS PER DOLLAR OF EXPENDITURE.

COSTS and RETURNS to COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCERS

21

TABLE 18. RELATION OF RECEIPTS PER DOLLAR OF EXPENSES TO GRoss RETURNS, TOTAL COSTS, NET PROFIT OR LOSS PER DOZEN EGGS, AND LABOR INCOME PER HOUR, 180 COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCING FARMS, ALABAMA, SEPTEMBER 1, 1951 - AUGUST 81, 1952

Receipts per dollar of expenses 80 - 99 $1.00 - $1.20 - $1.40 or Average Under more 1.89 1.19 cents 80 cents 180 19 27 84 80 20 of flocks Number 784 1,044 848 730 710 661 Average number of layers Cents Cents Cents Cents Cents Cents 61.6 71.4 59.7 57.1 60.6 58.0 Returns per dozen eggs 54.2 44.1 45.9 51.5 85.0 67.2 Costs per dozen eggs Profit or loss per 7.4 27.3 18.8 5.6 -,6.6 -27.0 dozen eggs 125.9 401.7 193.0 111.0 14.3 Labor income per hour -71.5 Item

limited number of poultrymen were able to reach this objective. There was a profit spread of 54.3 cents per dozen eggs between the group with lowest receipts per dollar of expenses and the group with highest receipts per dollar of expenses. Between these two groups the cost spread amounted to 40.9 cents per dozen eggs produced, and the labor income spread to $4.73 per hour, Table 13. Since feed costs made up a high percentage of the total cost of producing eggs, it was expected that the major difference between the group with low receipts per dollar of expenses and the group with high receipts per dollar of expenses would be feed costs. The spread in feed costs between these two groups amounted to 24.2 cents per dozen eggs produced, Appendix Table 14. Size of flock and rate of lay tended to increase with receipts per dollar of expenses. On the other hand, smaller amounts of feed and labor were required to produce a dozen eggs as receipts per dollar of expenses increased. Percentage of mortality decreased with an increase in receipts per dollar of expenses, Appendix Table 15.
INVESTMENT IN BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT PER LAYER

Operators who were able to hold the average investment in buildings and equipment under $2.50 per layer produced eggs at a profit of 9.0 cents per dozen as compared with 6.0 cents per dozen for those operators with a higher investment, Table 14. The major difference in costs between these two groups was in the cost per dozen eggs for houses, equipment, and other buildings.

22
TABLE

ALABAMA

AGRICULTURAL

EXPERIMENT

STATION

14.

RELATION OF INVESTMENT IN BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT TO COSTS AND RETURNS, 130 COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCING FARMS, ALABAMA,

SEPTEMBER 1, 1951 - AUGUST 81, 1952

Item

Unit

Building and equipment investment per layer Average Under $2.50 $2.50 or more

Returns per dozen eggs
Costs per dozen eggs Profit per dozen eggs Labor income per hour

Cents
Cents Cents Cents

62.2
53.8 8.9 187.6

61.0
55.2 5.8 114.0

61.6
54.2 7.4 125.9

Receipts per dollar of expenses Itemized costs per dozen eggs:
Feed Labor

Dollars
Cents Cents

1.17
84.6 7.8

1.10
33.9 7.8

1.14
84.3 7.6

Flock depreciation Laying houses Miscellaneous Taxes, insurance Litter Equipment Land Other buildings
TOTAL Number of flocks Average number of layers

Cents Cents Cents Cents Cents Cents Cents Cents
Cents Number Number

7.4 1.7 1.5 .1 .2 .4 .1 .01
53.8
72 758

7.1 3.0 2.0 .8 .2 .7 .1 .1
55.2 58 828

7.2 2.8 1.8 .2 .1 .5 .1 .1
54.2 130 784

Rate of lay Minutes of labor per dozen eggs Pounds of feed per dozen eggs Percentage mortality

Eggs Number Pounds Per cent

179 7.1 6.9 15

195 7.2 7.0 21

186 7.1 6.9 18

' Less than 0.05 cent per dozen eggs.

COMPARISON OF PROFIT AND LOSS PRODUCERS Some operators produce eggs at a profit, while others produce at a loss. Many reasons have been shown why this is true in the discussion of the relation of various production and marketing factors, such as rate of lay, pounds of feed used to produce a dozen eggs, method of sale, etc., to specific items. However, it is well to consider these factors as they relate to profit and loss producers. Of the 130 farms studied, 80 produced eggs at a profit and 50 at a loss. The profit farms had a profit above all costs, both cash and non-cash, of 15.0 cents per dozen eggs produced. The loss farms lacked 13.8 cents per dozen of covering all costs and received no return for their labor, Table 15. The profit group received a gross return of 2.6 cents per dozen greater for all eggs produced. Their costs were 26.2 cents per dozen less. The profit spread between the two groups amounted to 28.8 cents per dozen. Both market eggs and hatching eggs can be produced profitably in Alabama.

COSTS

and

RETURNS

to

COMMERCIAL

EGG

PRODUCERS

23

TABLE 15. COMPARISON OF PROFIT AND Loss PRODUCERS BY METHOD OF SALE, 180
COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCING FARMS, ALABAMA,

SEPTEMBER 1, 1951 - AUGUST 31, 1952

Item

Market egg flocks Profit Loss 37 679 54.1 66.7 -12.6 -23.7

Hatching egg flocks Profit 36 867 74.3 52.3 22.0 294.0 Loss 18 722 78.5 96.2 -17.7 -20.8

Average Aea Profit 80 848 62.8 47.8 15.0 210.6 Loss 50 690 59.7 78.5 -18.8 -22.9

Number of flocks 44 Average number of layers 823 Returns per dozen eggs, cents 58.3 Costs per dozen 43.5 eggs, 'cents Profit or loss per dozen 9.8 eggs, cents Labor income per 155.4 hour, cents Itemized costs per dozen eggs: Feed Labor Flock depreciation Laying houses Miscellaneous Taxes, insurance Litter Equipment Land Other buildings TOTAL Rate of lay, eggs Labor per dozen eggs, minutes Feed per dozen eggs, Percentage mortality, per cent Receipts per dollar of expenses, dollars
pounds

Cents 24.9 7.0 7.0 2.1 1.6 .2 .1 .4 .1 .1 48.5 221 6.5
5.8

Cents 44.0 9.0 7.9 2.4 2.5 .2 .1 .4 .1 .1 66.7 155 9.0
8.7

Cents 85.2 6.2 6.6 2.1 1.3 .1 .2 .5 .1 .01 52.3 191 5.8
7.0

Cents 61.4 13.5 10.8 4.9 2.6 .8 .1 2.0 .8 .8 96.2 124 11.9
11.8

Cents 29.8 6.7 6.8 2.1 1.5 .2 .2 .5 .01 .01 47.3 207 6.2
6.0

Cents 48.0 10.1 8.4 3.0 2.5 .3 .2 .7 .2 .1 78.5 147 9.7
9.4

15 1.22

24 0.81

14 1.42

27 0.82

15 1.32

25 0.81

SLess than 0.05 cent per dozen eggs.

Some 54 per cent of the market egg producers produced eggs at a profit, while 46 per cent produced at a loss. Of the hatching egg operators, 73 per cent produced eggs at a profit, while 27 per cent produced at a loss. In the case of non-profit producers, the loss was great enough that all expenses other than labor were not recovered, and in addition no pay was received for labor. The major difference between the profit or loss group of either market or hatching egg producers was costs. Operators who made a profit seemed to be efficient in holding down all costs, especially feed costs. Operators who produced at a loss seemed to be in-

24

ALABAMA

AGRICULTURAL

EXPERIMENT

STATION

efficient in terms of almost all cost items. In the case of both market eggs and hatching eggs, operators who produced at a loss had a low rate of lay, low feed and labor efficiency, high mortality, and small flocks. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This study included 130 commercial egg producing farms. A farm was included in the study as a commercial farm only if at least 400 layers were on the farm January 1, 1952. The average flock included in the study consisted of 784 layers. Of the 130 farms studied, 81 were primarily producing market eggs and 49 hatching eggs. The average farm included in this study consisted of 88 acres. As an average, the commercial egg producing farms found in the State were relatively small in acreage as compared to other types of farms. Little attention was devoted to production of crops, even grain for the layers. Most commercial egg producing farms were operated by white owners, and by men who were older than the average farmer. Some 20 per cent of all operators of commercial egg producing farms were 60 years old or older. Many of these had turned to commercial egg production after retirement from their former fields of work. The average family on commercial egg producing farms consisted of 3.6 people. Most of the work with poultry was performed by the operator and members of his family. Some 21 per cent of the commercial egg producing farms studied were producing types of poultry or poultry products other than hen eggs. Eighteen per cent were producing broilers. Many egg producers had plans for expanding their commercial egg enterprises. If the expanded production planned by the farmers studied is followed by half of the total producers in the State, 200,000 to 800,000 birds will be added to increase commercial flock size. In addition, it is reasonable to expect that many additional farmers will become commercial egg producers in the State during the next 5 years. The average returns shown in this study were based on 102,000 layers and 1.6 million dozen eggs. Gross returns totaled $957.04 per 100 layers, or 61.6 cents per dozen eggs produced. Almost 96 per cent of the gross returns was from the sale of eggs. The remaining returns were from home use of eggs, feed sack sales, and manure credits. The average returns per dozen eggs produced was 53.6 cents for market egg producers and 75.0 cents for hatching egg producers.

COSTS and RETURNS to COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCERS

25

Total production costs, cash and non-cash, amounted to $842.81 per 100 layers, or 54.2 cents per dozen. Profit - the difference between total returns and total costs - averaged 7.4 cents per dozen eggs produced. Total costs (cash and non-cash) per dozen eggs produced were 51.1 cents for market egg producers and 59.5 cents for hatching egg producers. Profits to market egg producers amounted to 2.5 cents per dozen eggs produced and to hatching egg producers 15.5 cents per dozen. Two distinct groups of factors permit or prevent attainment of the desired profit margin on any poultry enterprise. One group can be classified as production and the other as marketing. The production group would include such variables as flock size, rate of lay, feed and labor efficiency, and mortality. Reductions in production costs can be obtained mainly by improving the efficiency of any or all of these variables. Operators with flocks under 500 layers realized less profit than did those with a larger number of layers. Flocks averaging 300 layers during the year produced at a loss of 8.7 cents per dozen eggs. Flocks averaging 1,400 layers returned a profit of 9.0 cents per dozen eggs produced. Flocks with an average rate of lay of less than 150 eggs produced at a loss of 10.7 cents per dozen eggs. On the other hand, flocks with an average rate of lay of 200 eggs or more, returned a profit of 14.3 cents per dozen eggs produced. Grain, mash, shell, and grit were all used to compute pounds of feed consumed. There was a profit spread of 86.7 cents per dozen between the group that used the least feed and the one that used the most feed to produce a dozen eggs. Market egg flocks that used 7.0 pounds or more of feed to produce a dozen eggs produced at a loss. Hatching egg flocks that used 9.0 or more pounds of feed to produce a dozen eggs produced at a loss. As an average, market egg producers used 6.4 pounds of feed and hatching egg producers fed 7.8 pounds to produce a dozen eggs. Feed costs accounted for 68 per cent of all costs used for egg production. High feed consumption costs cannot be offset entirely by high egg prices. Poultrymen producing eggs should be as concerned about their feed conversion ratio as are broiler producers. Producers that were inefficient in the use of feed tended to be inefficient in the use of other production goods. There was an average difference of 12.0 minutes per dozen eggs in the time taken to handle the flock and to market eggs between the low labor and the high labor usage group. Between

26

ALABAMA

AGRICULTURAL

EXPERIMENT

STATION

these two groups there was a profit spread of 26.9 cents per dozen eggs. High labor usage was closely related to small flocks. Producers using the least labor to produce and market a dozen eggs had a labor income of $3.21 per hour from poultry, while those using the most labor had a labor income of only 16 cents per hour. Mortality refers to the number of layers that died during the year, expressed as a percentage of the average number of layers on hand during the year. There was a spread in profit of 21 cents per dozen eggs between the group of flocks with less than 10 per cent mortality and the group with 30 per cent or more mortality. Mortality affected feed and labor costs and flock depreciation. Flock owners were classified according to the number of production factors in which they were average or above average of all 130 farms studied. Ten per cent of the farms rated below average on all five production factors, 20 per cent were given a one-factor rating, 25 per cent a two-factor rating, 23 per cent a three-factor rating, and 22 per cent a four-or-more factor rating. The operators who were average or above on four or more production factors, and thus revealed the highest degree of managerial skill, realized a profit of 16.2 cents per dozen eggs produced and a labor income of $2.70 per hour. At the other end of the scale, profits and labor income were non-existent for operators who were below average on all production factors. Combining high receipts with low costs leads to a profitable poultry enterprise. However, only a limited number of poultrymen were able to reach this objective. There was a profit spread of 54.3 cents per dozen eggs between the group with the lowest receipts per dollar of expenses and the group with the highest receipts per dollar of expenses. The lowest group had average receipts of less than 80 cents per dollar of expenses and a labor income of minus 72 cents per hour. The high group had receipts of $1.40 or more per dollar of expenses and received $4.02 per hour for their work. Some operators produced eggs at a profit while others produced at a loss. Of the 130 farms studied, 80 produced eggs at a profit and 50 at a loss. The profit group received a gross return of 2.6 cents more per dozen for all eggs produced and their costs were 26.2 cents per dozen less. Thus the profit spread between the profit and loss group amounted to 28.8 cents per dozen. These results show that either market eggs or hatching eggs can be produced profitably in Alabama. Some 54 per cent of the market egg

COSTS and RETURNS to COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCERS

27

producers produced eggs at a profit, while 73 per cent of the hatching egg producers produced at a profit. RECOMMENDATIONS The egg producer individually can do little about the general price level of eggs. He can seek to obtain the best market for his product and in other ways make improvements in his income by doing a better job of marketing. Basically, he can do most to improve his profit condition by increasing his production efficiency, lowering his cost of production, and obtaining top market prices. Since profits represent the difference between selling price and cost of production, egg producers should make intensive efforts to reduce production costs per unit of product wherever possible. Reductions in production costs of a dozen eggs can best be achieved by the following: (1) Increasing size of flock. In some cases, this would not be feasible. However, where possible, the minimum size flock for commercial egg production should be 500 or more layers. (2) Increasing rate of lay. The minimum goal should be 50 per cent production, or 180 eggs per layer. Over half of the market egg flocks were below this level, while many of the remaining half exceeded 200 eggs per layer per year. The average rate of lay of all hatching egg flocks was below this level. This minimum goal of production would be difficult only for those hatching egg flocks producing eggs from certain strains of layers for broiler chick production. (3) Improve feed efficiency. Market egg flock owners should strive to produce a dozen eggs with 6.0 pounds or less of total feed. Approximately 47 per cent of the market egg producers included in this study were using no more than this amount of feed. Hatching egg producers should attempt a conversion ratio of 1 dozen eggs for 7.5 pounds of feed or less. Approximately half the hatching egg producers studied had attained this goal. (4) Increase labor efficiency. Operators with market egg flocks should set a goal of 6.0 minutes of total labor per dozen eggs produced. Operators of hatching egg flocks may be able to reach a goal of 5.0 to 5.5 minutes of labor per dozen eggs. Many adjustments could be made in building arrangements, location of nests, door size, feed storage, water facilities, and other items to reduce the amount of chore time required to care for layers. All operators should plan to do three or more jobs each time a trip is made to the laying house.

28

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT

STATION

(5) Decrease mortality. The percentage of mortality, when expressed as the number of birds that died divided by the average number of birds on hand during the year, averaged 18 per cent on the 130 farms studied. A goal of no more than 10 per cent should be attempted. The present mortality rate could be lowered by the use of better sanitation and disease control practices and more rigid culling. Unprofitable hens should be culled and sold. (6) Make improvements in all production factors. Producers should avoid the mistake of concentrating all their efforts on one production factor, such as labor efficiency, and overlooking such other factors as size of flock, rate of lay, feed efficiency, and mortality. Operators should strive to be above average in all of these factors. (7) Closer supervision on the part of management in production, buying, and selling. The average farm included in this study had cash sales from eggs, feed bags, etc., of approximately $7,800. Cash expenses for feed bought, labor hired, flock replacements, taxes, insurance, miscellaneous items, and other purchased items averaged close to $5,000 per farm. This is sufficient business to merit close supervision. Egg producers should give attention to the possibilities of buying at wholesale, buying at times when products can be purchased cheapest, and buying in large quantities. (8) Growing grain to be used in the grain ration. Most of the grain was purchased. Much of this feed could be grown on the farm. This is an individual problem for each producer to consider. Some commercial egg producers will always find it to their advantage to purchase grain. Others could use available land, labor, and manure to produce grain at a cost that would be less than buying.

COSTS and RETURNS to COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCERS

29

APPENDIX
APPENDIX TABLE 1. ITEMIZED GROSS RETURNS FROM EGG PRODUCTION, BY MARKET AND HATCHING EGG PRODUCERS, 130 COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCING FARMS, ALABAMA, SEPTEMBER 1, 1951 - AUGUST 81, 1952

Average returns for 81 market egg flocks receipts Per 100 layers Per dozen eggs Percentage of total returns

Average returns for 49 hatching egg flocks Per 100 layers Per dozen Percentage oftotal

Eggs sold Eggs consumed Feed bags
Manure credits

Dollars 830.96 12.35 11.06
11.53

Cents 51.4 .8 .7
.7

Percent 96.0 1.4 1.3
1.38

Dollars 1,045.06 9.64 11.91
28.17

Cents 71.6 .7 .8
1.9

Per cent 95.5 .9 1.1
2.5

TOTAL

865.90

53.6

100.0

1,094.78

75.0

100.0

1 Manure credits for hatching egg flocks averaged more than that of market egg flocks because of manure sales by one poultryman. The average returns from 48 hatching egg flocks, when adjusted for the one farm with high sales, were $13.64 per 100 birds for manure credits, or 0.9 cent per dozen eggs produced. This adjustment would reduce the average of the 48 flocks to total receipts of 73.1 cents per dozen eggs produced.

APPENDIX TABLE 2. RELATION OF SIZE OF FLOCK TO ITEMIZED COSTS PER DOZEN EGGS, 130 COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCING FARMS, ALABAMA, SEPTEMBER 1, 1951 - AUGUST 31, 1952

Average costs per dozen eggs produced by size of flock 700 or more 400 - 699 Under 400
layers layers layers

Feed Labor Flock depreciation Laying houses Miscellaneous Taxes, insurance Litter Equipment Land Other buildings
TOTAL

Cents 87.6 11.6 7.8 2.8 2.2 .1 .1 .5 .1 .01 62.8

Cents 82.5 9.0 7.4 2.8 1.5 .1 .1 .5 .1 .01 58.5

Cents 34.4 6.4 7.1 2.8 1.8 .2 .2 .6 .1 .1 53.2

Cents 84.3 7.6 7.2 2.3 1.8 .2 .1 .5 .1 .1 54.2

1 Less than 0.05 cent.

30

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT

STATION

APPENDIX TABLE 8. RELATION OF SIZE OF FLOCK TO RATE OF LAY, LABOR EFFICIENCY, FEED EFFICIENCY, MORTALITY, AND RETURNS PER DOLLAR OF EXPENDITURE, 130 COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCING FARMS, ALABAMA,

SEPTEMBER 1, 1951 - AUGUST 31, 1952

Average number of layers in flock Under 400 400 - 699 700 or more
TOTAL OR

Number Average izeflockf floks

Rate of lay

Minutes Feed conReturns of labor sumed Mortal- per dollar of exity per doz- per dozen eggs en eggs penditure Pounds Per cent 7.6 25 6.6 18 6.9 17 6.9 18 Dollars 0.94 1.14 1.17 1.14

Number Number Number Number 33 307 194 10.9 49 498 191 8.5 48 1,404 184 6.0 130 784 186 7.1

Av.

APPENDIX TABLE 4. RELATION OF RATE OF LAY TO ITEMIZED COSTS PER DOZEN EGGS, 180 COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCING FARMS, ALABAMA, SEPTEMBER 1, 1951 - AUGUST 81, 1952

Item

Average costs per dozen eggs by rate Under of lay per hen Under 150 150 - 199 200 or more eggs eggs eggs Cents Cents Cents 50.7 10.5 9.8 3.9 8.0 .5 .2 1.1 .2 .2 80.1 37.5 7.7 7.6 2.1 1.4 .2 .2 .6 .1 .1 57.5 27.9 6.7 6.3 2.1 1.7 .1 .1 .4 .1 .0' 45.4

Cents 84.3 7.6 7.2 2.8 1.8 .2 .1 .5 .1 .1 54.2

Feed Labor Flock depreciation Laying houses Miscellaneous Taxes, insurance Litter Equipment Land Other buildings TOTAL

SLess than 0.05 cent per dozen eggs.

APPENDIX TABLE 5. RELATION OF RATE FICIENCY, FEED EFFICIENCY, MORTALITY, TURE, 180 COMMERCIAL EGG SEPTEMBER 1, 1951

OF LAY TO SIZE OF FLOCK, LABOR EFAND RETURNS PER DOLLAR OF EXPENDIPRODUCING FARMS, ALABAMA,

- AUGUST 81, 1952

lay per layer

Number Average Average Minutes Rate of rate of number of labor of per dozof lay flocks en eggs layers Number Number Number Number 23 58 54 180 114 179 231 186 987 682 797 784 10.4 7.8 6.1 7.1

Returns Feed consumed Mortal- per dollar of exity per dozpenditure en eggs Pounds Per cent Dollars 10.0 7.8 5.8 6.9 24 16 16 18 0.87 1.07 1.81 1.14

Under 150 150- 199 200 or more TOTAL OR Av.

COSTS and RETURNS to COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCERS

31

APPENDIX TABLE 6. RELATION OF FEED EFFICIENCY TO ITEMIZED COSTS PER Doz-

EN EGGS, 130 COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCING FARMS, ALABAMA, SEPTEMBER 1, 1951 - AUGUST 31, 1952 Average costs per dozen eggs by Underpounds of feed consumed

Item

Average

Feed Labor Flock depreciation Laying houses Miscellaneous Taxes, insurance Litter Equipment Land Other buildings
TOTAL
1

Under 5.0 - 6.9 7.0 - 8.9 9.0-10.9 11.0 lb. 5 pounds pounds pounds pounds or more Cents Cents Cents Cents Cents 65.5 51.8 38.2 29.0 22.3 10.5 10.4 6.7 6.9 7.5 9.9 8.7 7.0 7.0 6.7 5.6 2.8 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.8 2.6 1.5 1.7 1.5 .8 .2 .1 .1 .2 .1 .2 .1 .2 .1 2.0 .6 .3 .5 .6 .3 .1 .01 .1 .01 .3 .1 .01 .01 .1 97.8 77.0 55.9 47.6 41.2

Cents 84.3 7.6 7.2 2.8 1.8 .2 .1 .5 .1 .1 54.2

Less than 0.05 cent per dozen eggs.

APPENDIX TABLE 7. RELATION OF FEED EFFICIENCY TO SIZE OF FLOCK, RATE OF LAY, LABOR EFFICIENCY, MORTALITY, AND RETURNS PER DOLLAR OF EXPENDITURE, 130 COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCING FARMS, ALABAMA, SEPTEMBER 1, 1951 - AUGUST 31, 1952

Feed consumed per dozen eggs Under 5 5.0-6.9 7.0-8.9 9.0-10.9 11.0 or more
TOTAL OR Av.

Number Feed con- Average Rate of sizofe sumed of lay flocks per dozen flock eggs Number Pounds Number Number 25 36 39 21 9 180 4.5 5.9 7.7 9.9 13.6 6.9 824 811 754 671 960 784 228 205 176 151 117 186

Returns Minutes of labor Mortal- per dollar of exity per dozen penditure eggs Number Per cent Dollars 1.31 18 6.2 1.25 13 6.8 1.18 16 9.9 .88 21 9.5 .75 86 9.7 7.1 18 1.14

32
APPENDIX TABLE 8.

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT
RELATION OF LABOR EFFICIENCY

STATION

TO ITEMIZED COSTS PER

DOZEN EGGS, 130 COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCING FARMS, ALABAMA, SEPTEMBER 1, 1951 - AUGUST 81, 1952

ItemAverage

Average costs per dozen eggs produced by minutes of labor required Under 5 Cents 5.0-7.9 Cents 32.6 6.8 7.1 2.2 1.5 .1 .1 .4 .1 .1 51.0 8.0-10.9 Cents 81.6 9.4 7.2 2.1 2.1 .1 .1 .5 .1 .01 58.2 11.0 or more Cents 43.5 16.0 9.1 8.4 8.5 .8 .2 .8 .1 .1 77.0

Cents 84.8 7.6 7.2 2.8 1.8 .2 .1 .5 .1 .1 54.2

Feed Labor Flock depreciation Laying houses Miscellaneous Taxes, insurance Litter Equipment Land Other buildings TOTAL

84.3 4.2 6.7 2.3 1.2 .3 .2 .7 .1 .01 50.0

1Less than 0.05 cent per dozen eggs.

APPENDIX TABLE 9. RELATION OF LABOR EFFICIENCY TO SIZE OF FLOCK, RATE OF
LAY, FEED EFFICIENCY, MORTALITY, AND RETURNS PER DOLLAR OF EXPENDITURE, 180 COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCING FARMS, ALABAMA, SEPTEMBER 1, 1951 - AUGUST 81, 1952

Minutes of labor per dozen eggs Under 5 5.0-7.9 8.0-10.9 11.0 or more TOTAL OR Av.

Number Minutes AverageFeed conReturns of of labor sizagef Rate of sumed Mortal- per dollar flocks per dozen flock lay per dozen ity of exeggs eggs penditure Number Number Number Number Pounds Per cent Dollars 22 45 82 81 180 8.6 6.8 9.2 15.7 7.1 1,826 860 535 520 784 200 190 196 144 186 6.7 6.7 6.6 8.4 6.9 15 17 19 24 18 1.80 1.18 1.14 .85 1.14

COSTS and RETURNS to COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCERS

33

APPENDIX TABLE 10. RELATION OF MORTALITY TO ITEMIZED COSTS PER DOZEN

EGGS, 180 COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCING FARMS, ALABAMA, SEPTEMBER 1, 1951 - AUGUST 31, 1952

Item

Average costs per dozen eggs by percentage mortality 80.0 per 20.0-29.9 10.0-19.9 Under per cent cent or more 10 per cent per cent Cents Cents Cents Cents 88.9 6.2 5.8 1.6 1.8 .1 .2 .5 .1 .01 49.7 82.7 7.9 7.1 2.4 1.5 .2 .1 .5 .1 .01 52.5 84.5 8.4 7.7 8.2 2.5 .4 .2 .7 .1 .2 57.9 41.9 8.4 11.4 2.9 2.4 .1 .1 .4 .1 .01 67.7

Average

Cents 84.3 7.6 7.2 2.3 1.8 .2 .1 .5 .1 .1 54.2

Feed Labor Flock depreciation Laying houses Miscellaneous Taxes, insurance Litter Equipment Land Other buildings
TOTAL

' Less than 0.05 cent per dozen eggs.

APPENDIX TABLE 11. RELATION OF MORTALITY TO SIZE OF FLOCK, RATE OF LAY, LABOR EFFICIENCY, FEED EFFICIENCY, AND RETURNS PER DOLLAR OF EXPENDITURE, 180 COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCING FARMS, ALABAMA, SEPTEMBER 1, 1951 - AUGUST 81, 1952

Percentage mortality

Under 10.0 10.0-19.9 20.0-29.9 80.0 or more TOTAL OR Av.

en eggs en eggs penditure Number Per cent Number Number Number Pounds Dollars 1.27 6.7 5.8 198 992 7 28 1.17 6.6 7.5 186 708 14 58 1.04 6.8 7.5 182 852 25 27 .89 9.2 8.7 168 596 48 17 180 18 784 186 7.1 6.9 1.14

con- Returns NumberAverageMinutes sumed of ofNumber lay of perlabor Feeddoz- perofdollar Average size ofRate exdoz- per flocks mortality flock

34

ALABAMA

AGRICULTURAL

EXPERIMENT

STATION

APPENDIX TABLE 12. RELATION OF ALL PRODUCTION FACTORS TO ITEMIZED COSTS PER DOZEN EGGS, 130 COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCING FARMS, ALABAMA,

SEPTEMBER 1,

1951 - AUGUST 31, 1952

Item

Average costs per dozen eggs produced Average by number of production factors 8 4 or more 2 0 1 Cents Cents Cents Cents Cents Cents 48.4 12.1 11.6 3.5 2.5 .2 .2 .8 .1 .01 79.4 44.7 12.5 10.3 2.6 2.7 .3 .1 .7 .1 .1 74.1 39.4 9.0 7.8 3.2 2.1 .3 .1 .6 .1 .1 62.7 33.5 6.9 6.6 2.2 1.5 .1 .1 .5 .1 .1 51.6 28.6 5.6 6.2 1.9 1.4 .2 .2 .4 .1 .01 44.6 84.3 7.6 7.2 2.3 1.8 .2 .1 .5 .1 .1 54.2

Feed Labor Flock depreciation Laying houses Miscellaneous Taxes, insurance Litter Equipment Land Other buildings TOTAL

1 Less than 0.05 cent per dozen.

APPENDIX TABLE 13. RELATION OF PRODUCTION FACTORS TO SIZE OF FLOCK, RATE OF LAY, LABOR EFFICIENCY, FEED EFFICIENCY, MORTALITY, AND RETURNS PER DOLLAR OF EXPENDITURE, 180 COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCING FARMS, ALABAMA, SEPTEMBER 1, 1951 - AUGUST 81, 1952

Rating on factors

0 1 2 3 4 or more TOTAL OR Av.

Minutes Feed conof labor sumed Mortality per doz- per dozflock flocks en eggs en eggs Number Number Number Number Pounds Per cent 34 9.8 11.6 131 18 426 22 8.9 151 12.1 557 26 8.0 24 8.6 163 660 33 6.6 16 7.0 189 730 30 12 5.8 4.8 220 1,366 28 18 6.9 7.1 186 784 130 Number Averageof Rate of lay

Returns per dollar of expenditure Dollars 0.81 .88 1.03 1.13 1.36 1.14

COSTS and RETURNS to COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCERS
APPENDIX TABLE

35

14.

RELATION OF RECEIPTS PER DOLLAR OF EXPENSES TO ITEM-

IZED COSTS PER DOZEN EGGS, 130 COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCING FARMS, ALABAMA, SEPTEMBER 1, 1951 - AUGUST 31, 1952

Item

Feed Labor Flock depreciation Laying houses Miscellaneous Taxes, insurance Litter Equipment Land Other buildings
TOTAL

Average costs per dozen in receipts per dollar Under 80 cents- $1.0080 cents 99 cents $1.19 Cents Cents Cents 53.4 45.1 32.3 12.7 8.6 7.2 7.1 7.3 10.9 3.2 2.9 2.4 1.4 3.6 1.9 .2 .2 .3 .1 .1 .2 .9 .4 .5 .1 .2 .1 .1 .1 .2 51.5 85.0 67.2

eggs by range of expenses Average $1.40 $1.20$1.89 or more Cents Cents Cents 26.6 29.2 84.8 6.9 5.7 7.6 7.2 7.7 5.2 2.0 1.9 2.8 1.8 1.3 1.8 .2 .2 .1 .1 .2 .2 .5 .5 .4 .01 .1 .1 .0' .1 .01 44.1 54.2 45.9

' Less than 0.05 cent per dozen eggs.

APPENDIX TABLE 15. RELATION OF RECEIPTS PER DOLLAR OF EXPENSES TO SIZE OF FLOCK, RATE OF LAY, LABOR EFFICIENCY, FEED EFFICIENCY, AND MORTALITY, 180

COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCING FARMS, ALABAMA, SEPTEMBER 1, 1951 - AUGUST 81, 1952

Receipts per dollar ofper expenses Under 80 cents 80-99 cents $1.00-$1.19 $1.20-$1.89 $1.40 or more
TOTAL OR Av.

Minutes Feed conAverage Average receipts Number number Rate of of labor sumed Mortality per doz- per dozof of lay dollar en eggs en eggs flocks layers of exDollars Number Number Number Number Pounds Per cent 11.0 82 184 12.0 0.68 20 661 20 8.4 8.5 710 154 .90 80 16 194 6.9 6.5 84 780 1.11 5.5 15 219 6.5 27 848 1.80 6.0 18 4.9 19 1,044 209 1.62
1.14 180 784 186 7.1 6.9 18

flAGr

530 3