_ ' A i,. sb "Fr"" BULLETIN No. 297JUE15 JUNE 1955 PRODUCTION andMAKTN of CAGE-LAID EGGS in Alabama r 4oI.Y2*c 4 D UCr, 4'.. yC t.V AND ARTS STATION AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT INSTITUTE O/ h. ALABAMA POLYTECHNIC E. V. Smith, Director Auburn, Alabama CONTENTS Page ---------------------------INTRODUCTION-------Objectives ---------------------------- 4 Method of Study---------------------------------4 Economic Situation-----------------------------4 STATUS OF CAGED-LAYER FLOCKS IN ALABAMA--------------5 Year Established----------------------------6 Reasons for Entering Caged-Layer Business------------6 ------------ --- 6 Other Poultry on Cage Farms Tenure Status of Operators----------------------7 Land Used for Poultry Enterprise--------7 Importance of the Caged-Layer Enterprise-------------7 Capital Investment---------------------------8 FINANCING THE CAGED-LAYER ENTERPRISE_8 Investment in Caged-Layer Houses and Equipment-------9 10 _Other Buildings and EquipmentTYPES AND SIZES OF BUILDINGS- __- 11___ Floor Space per Cage--------------------------12 13 Utilization of Capacity ----------------13 -------Watering System-----Lighting System----- ----------------------4 PRODUCTION PRACTICES ----------------15 Feeding-------------------------------------15 Culling---------------------------------------------Disease Control and SanitationUse of Lights--------------------------------20 - _ -- _ - --- ----- 1 LABOR REQUIREMENTS------------------------- 20 ------------ 20 Sources of Labor---------------------------------------------20 Producing and Marketing Eggs----MARKETING PRACTICES---------------------------------------------22 Gathering Eggs----------------------------------------Cleaning, Sorting, and Packing Eggs--------------------- 28 2 Selling Eggs----------------------------------------------------24 COSTS AND RETURNS-----------------------------------------------------26 REPLACEMENT PROGRAM-------------------------------------------------28 Number of Lots per Year--------------------------------------28 Breed and Sex--------------------------------------------------29 Methods of Rearing-------------------------------------------29 Replacement Mortality -------------------------------- __30 Costs of Rearing---------------------------------Labor Requirements_---------_____________ ------ 30 1 SUMMARY---------------------------------------------------- CONCLUSIONS--------------------------------------------------------34 FIRST PRINTING 5M, JUNE 1955 PRODUCTION and MARKETING of CAGE-LAID EGGS in Alabama* CHARLES K. LAURENT, Associate Agricultural Economist** INTRODUCTION developed within the past few years. As recently as 1950, there were practically no caged-layer operations in Alabama. In 1954, the number of cage farms in the State exceeded 200, most of which had 500 or more cages. There are several reasons for the rapid increase in number of caged-layer operations, both in the State and in the South. First, commercial egg production has been expanding in the South. Second, certain advantages of the caged-layer system over the floor system make this operation attractive, especially to those just beginning in the poultry business. Third, commercial concerns have been quick to use this new development as a means for expanding the sales of their products, and have utilized their facilities to promote it. As with most new ventures, mistakes are more frequent in the beginning. Methods that appear sound do not always prove practical. Problems peculiar to the new venture arise and have to be solved. Cost-price relationships may shift and cause the new venture to lose some of its initial advantage. Because a thorough knowledge of current production and marketing practices is essential to the development of a program to assist in making needed adjustments, a study of caged-layer operations was conducted in Alabama. * This study was supported by Federal and State research funds. ** Resigned. The author acknowledges the assistance and cooperation of the 73 caged-layer operators and personnel of the Extension Service of the Alabama CONSIDERABLE INTEREST in the production of cage-laid eggs has Polytechnic Institute. Acknowledgment also is due members of the Poultry Husbandry and Agricultural Economics departments for helpful suggestions throughout the study. 4 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION OBJECTIVES The objectives of this study were (1) to determine the marketing and production practices used on commercial caged-layer farms, and (2) to determine the marketing and production costs and returns for eggs produced on commercial caged-layer farms. METHOD OF STUDY ""A list of caged-layer flocks by location in the State was obtained by the Extension poultryman through the cooperation of County Agents. From this list, a random sample of 78 caged-layer farms reported as having 500 or more cages was selected. 0 . S Sthey * *. * ** However, several of the farms had less than 500 cages when -Gee. ,. were visited by trained enumerators, who obtained *""* the desired information for the **gone Fig. 1. Locations of the 73 farms in the study. A total of 73 records was obtained, 5 of the farms in the original sample having out of the caged-layer business. The period of time covered was from September 1 1958 to August 31, 1954. The locations of the 78 farms caged-layer study, Alabama, September 1953-August 1954. are shown in Figure 1. Enumeration was completed in December 1954. Complete records were not obtained on all of the 73 farms in the sample. Therefore, the analysis of some of the factors studied is based on data from fewer than 73 farms. ECONOMIC SITUATION The economic situation for commercial poultrymen during the period covered by this study was highly variable, Figure 2. From September 1953 through February 1954, egg prices were very favorable. However, from March through August 1954 (end of PRODUCTION and MARKETING of CAGE-LAID EGGS 5 I Fig 2. United States egg-feed ratios, by months, 1949-50 to 1952-53 and 1953-54. period studied), egg prices were low and failed to show normal seasonal improvement. The average farm price received by Alabama farmers from September 1953 through August 1954 was 48.2 cents per dozen eggs, compared with 50.9 cents for the same period a year previously. Although economic conditions were relatively unfavorable at the time of the survey, 38 per cent of the caged-layer operators were planning to expand their operations, and 6 per cent were undecided about their plans. The remaining 56 per cent were not planning to expand. Of those with plans for expansion, 60 per cent planned to expand immediately, and 25 per cent planned to do so when they had accumulated additional capital. The remaining 15 per cent had plans to increase their flocks as soon as the price situation improved. STATUS oF CAGED-LAYER FLOCKS IN ALABAMA Prior to 1947, there were no single-deck caged-layer farms in Alabama. In 1947, the Agricultural Experiment Station of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute constructed the first single-deck 6 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION caged-layer plant in the Southeast, and since that time has conducted research with cages.' There were an estimated 1 million hens in cages in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia in 1954. YEAR ESTABLISHED The data in Table 1 give some indication of the rapidity with which caged-layer operations have expanded in Alabama. Only three of the farms visited were in operation prior to 1951. Over half of the operations were established in 1954. TABLE 1. YEAR IN WHIcH CAGED-LAYER OPERATIONS WERE ESTABLISHED, ALABAMA CAGED-LAYER FARMS, 1954 73 Year cage operation was established Number of farms Percentage of farms Number 1947-------------------------------------------------1 1948-------------------------------------------------1 0 Per cent 1.4 1.4 1949--------------------------------------------------1 1950-----------------------------------1951 ------------------------------------- 1.4 .0 4.1 1952------------------------------............... 1958 ..........-----------.-- -- ---....... 1954 ----------................. ... .. -42 5 20 73 6.8 27.4 57.5 100.0 TOTAL REASONS FOR ENTERING CAGED-LAYER BUSINESS A number of reasons were given for entering the caged-layer business, all of which involved the anticipation of greater income from this type of operation. Eighty-five per cent of the operators visited had no poultry prior to starting with caged layers. Fifteen per cent had floor flocks prior to putting in cage flocks. Each of these operators felt he could improve efficiency through better culling and/or lower mortality, thereby improving his income. OTHER POULTRY ON CAGE FARMS Caged-layer operators generally limited their operations to caged layers. Only 8 per cent also had floor flocks, 2 per cent had broilers, and 2 per cent had turkeys. Some of those with both cage and floor flocks were in the process of changing over to allcage flocks. 1"Single-Deck Cages for Laying Hens." A.P.I. Agr. Expt. Sta. Cir. No. 116. May 1954. PRODUCTION and MARKETING of CAGE-LAID EGGS TENURE STATUS OF OPERATORS 7 Eighty-one per cent of the operators owned their farms, and 6 per cent were part-owners. Five per cent of the operators were in partnership, and the remaining 8 per cent operated under other types of arrangements. LAND USED FOR POULTRY ENTERPRISE The poultry enterprise has long been recognized as one in which the amount of land required is a relatively unimportant factor. Although 63 per cent of the farms visited averaged over 50 acres in size, only 18 per cent of all operators used more than 1 acre for the poultry enterprise, 49 per cent used 1 to 1 acre, and 33 per cent used less than 1/2 acre. IMPORTANCE OF THE CAGED-LAYER ENTERPRISE The importance of the caged-layer enterprise as a source of income to the operator is shown below: Percentageof operator's income from caged-layer enterprise Less than 10 10-24 25-49 Percentage of farms 20 20 88 50-74 75 and over 18 9 100 On one-fifth of the farms, the caged-layer enterprise could be considered relatively unimportant, contributing less than 10 per cent to the operator's income. However, on three-fifths of the farms, the amount contributed to the operator's income exceeded 25 per cent, making the caged-layer operation a very important part of the farm business. Off-farm work contributed substantially to the income of cagedlayer operators, especially of those whose income from caged layers was but a small proportion of their total. Of the operators whose receipts from caged layers was less than 25 per cent of their total, off-farm work generally contributed more to their incomes than did all farm enterprises. 8 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION CAPITAL INVESTMENT Investment in land, dwellings, other buildings, poultry, livestock, and other items was obtained on 54 caged-layer farms. 2 The investment averaged $15,769 on 33 farms, $36,058 on 14 farms, and $88,934 on 7 farms, Table 2. TABLE 2. AVERAGE CAPITAL INVESTMENT, BY PRINCIPAL ITEMS, AND BY SIZE OF INVESTMENT, 54 CAGED-LAYER FARMS, ALABAMA, 1954' Item Number of farms Size of total investment ItemAverage Less than $25,000More than investment 54 $25,000 33 $50,000 14 $50,000 7 Land Dwellings Poultry buildings and equipment $ 2,771 6,039 2,642 $ 9,361 13,214 3,494 $39,594 15,714 4,522 3,397 6,643 9,574 6,971 2,338 $88,934 9% $ 9,253 9,154 3,107 1,917 1,523 1,996 2,817 747 $30,514 16% Poultry________________________________________ 2,162 1,500 Other buildings and equipment 616 1,101 Livestock __________ 474 1,704 Cars, trucks, and tractors 1,564 3,693 Feed supplies_________________________ 16 1,329 TOTAL ---------------- . $15,769 $36,058 Average investment in poultry enterprise, percentage of total 26% 16% _-------. 'Based on inventory valuation. The average investment in the poultry enterprise was 26 per cent of the total for the group with an investment of less than $25,000, 16 per cent of the total for the $25,000 to $50,000 group, and 9 per cent for the group with a total investment exceeding $50,000. The average investment in the poultry enterprise for all farms was 16 per cent of the total. FINANCING THErCAGED-LAYER ENTERPRISE Approximately 60 per cent of the caged-layer operators used their own funds to build poultry houses and to buy cages and other equipment. About 35 per cent borrowed money and paid cash for building materials, cages, and equipment. The remaining operators were financed by feed dealers. Of those borrowing, the two main sources of funds were local banks and the Farmers Home Administration. A few received loans from the Farm Credit Administration. In general, interest 2 Based on inventory valuation. PRODUCTION and MARKETING of CAGE-LAID EGGS 9 on bank loans ranged from 4 to 8 per cent, with an average of 6 per cent. The loan period ranged from less than a year to 20 years. Most were for 2 years or less. Loans obtained from the Farmers Home Administration ranged from 3 to 20 years, with an average interest charge of 5 per cent. Most Famers Home Administration loans were for periods of 3 years. There is an initial period of approximately 6 months during which new commercial egg producers receive little or no income. Chicks must be purchased, brooded, fed, and otherwise cared for. As will be brought out more fully later, about $1.75 is required to raise a pullet to laying age. Two-thirds of the caged-layer operators financed this initial cost with their own funds, and about one-fourth borrowed money and paid cash for the items needed. Very few reported they were financed by feed dealers. INVESTMENT IN CAGED-LAYER HOUSES AND EQUIPMENT One of the major investment costs in most poultry enterprises is housing and equipment. Cage houses are similar to conventional poultry laying houses, with the exception that they have individual cages for the layers. In Table 3 is given the average investment in houses and equipment of 73 cage farms in Alabama. The average investment per farm was $1,743 for cage houses, $911 for cages, and $110 for other buildings and equipment. The TABLE 3. AVERAGE INVESTMENT IN CAGED-LAYER HOUSES AND EQUIPMENT, NUMBER OF CAGES, 73 CAGED-LAYER FARMS, ALABAMA, 1954 BY Average investment Number cages Average Number mof cagesfcaes arms cageequipm of Gage Other buildings Average houses Cages' and ment Total ment per cage Less than 500 500- 999 1,000-1,499 1,500 and over TOTAL OR Number Number Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars 8.61 384 9 1,000 368 18 1,386 619 32 1,234 640 99 1,973 3.19 1,027 22 1,890 1,068 111 8,064 2.98 2,355 10 3,719 1,932 228 5,874 2.49 AVERAGE 951 73 1,743 911 110 2,764 2.91 0.12 2.91 PER CAGE 1.88 0.96 ' Includes lighting systems. Also includes feed rooms when separate from cage house. ' Includes feeders and waterers. s Includes egg rooms, egg graders, candlers, washers, refrigerators, egg baskets, and poultry coops. 10 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION total investment was $2,764, or $2.91 per cage. The average investment per cage declined as the number of cages increased. Farms with less than 500 cages had an average investment per cage of $3.61, whereas those with 1,500 cages or more had an average investment of $2.49 per cage. The investment in cage houses and equipment was considerably higher in northern Alabama than in central or southern Alabama. The investment per cage in the three areas is given below: Area Southern Alabama Central Alabama Northern Alabama AVERAGE Investment per cage $2.55 2.96 8.56 $2.91 Part of the difference in investment per cage between southern Alabama and northern Alabama can be explained by the size of the enterprise. The average number of cages per farm in northern Alabama was 704, whereas in southern Alabama the average number was 968. However, this does not account for the difference between southern Alabama and central Alabama. In the latter area, the average number of cages was 1,063 as compared with 968 in southern Alabama. Cage houses in central and northern Alabama were constructed in such a way as to give protection to layers during severely cold weather. This had the effect of increasing housing costs in these colder areas. It appears from the data that cage houses were constructed for one-fifth to one-third less cost per cage in southern Alabama than in the colder areas of the State. OTHER BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT FEED HOUSES. In addition to the cage house, cages, and cage equipment, other buildings and equipment are often necessary to a caged-layer operation. On about one-fourth of the farms, the feed house was not a part of the cage house. Existing buildings were used for feed houses or a separate house was built for this purpose. The average investment in separate facilities for feed storage was $230. If the separate feed house was used only for the purpose of storing poultry feed, the investment exceeded the cost of the feed room included in the laying house.3 In addition, SAssuming a feed room in the caged-layer house with a floor area 10 X 24 feet and an average cost of 75 cents per square foot (including a cement floor). PRODUCTION and MARKETING of CAGE-LAID EGGS 11 having the feed room away from the laying house usually resulted in greater labor requirements. EGG ROOMS. About one-fifth of the caged-layer operators had rooms used specifically as egg rooms. The average investment in egg rooms was $280 on these farms. The remainder of the operators kept eggs in their dwelling houses or used a portion of the feed room for this purpose. Fourteen per cent of the farms visited had refrigeration equipment for holding eggs. The investment ranged from $50 to $800, with an average of $350. OTHER EQUIPMENT. Most of the operators sorted eggs for size and had grading equipment for this purpose. This equipment was, for the most part, very inexpensive, averaging less than $3 on 45 per cent of the farms, and less than $25 on 85 per cent. On 10 per cent of the farms (each with more than 1,000 cages), large automatic egg graders were used; the average investment in this type of equipment was $135 on these farms. Candlers were used by 40 per cent of the operators, but these were generally homemade and very inexpensive, the cost averaging about $2 each. Egg baskets are a necessary part of any laying enterprise but were a small part of the total investment, averaging about $8 per farm. Commercial egg washers were used on only two farms; the remainder of the operators used pans, buckets, sandpaper, and damp cloths for cleaning dirty and stained eggs. TYPES AND SIZES oF BUILDINGS The basic structure of the caged-layer house is very similar to that of laying houses used for floor flocks. Floor-flock laying houses have roosts, dropping pits, nests (either individual or community), feeders, and waterers. Feeders and waterers are usually on the floor. Caged-layer houses have individual cages for the layers. The cages are raised off the floor and are provided with feeders and waterers. The eggs roll down the slanting wire cage floor and are gathered in front of the cage. All except two of the cage farms visited had single-story laying houses; the exceptions had two-story buildings. Ninety per cent of the houses had all-dirt floors, and the remainder had dirt floors with concrete walks. Practically all had wooden and wire 12 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION sides. Three-fourths of the houses had aluminum roofs; one-sixth had galvanized iron roofs; and the remainder had composition roofs. The widths of the houses ranged from 8 to 40 feet, but were generally from 20 to 26 feet. Below are given the percentages of houses with various widths: Width of caged-layer house (feet) Less than 20 20-21 22-28 24-25 26-27 Percentage of houses 8 16 9 50 7 28 and over 10 100 Cage houses 8 feet in width have two rows of single cages, placed back to back. Cage houses 20 to 26 feet wide usually have six rows of single cages placed so that two rows are back to back. On three-fourths of the farms, feed rooms were in the cage house, the location depending on the length of the building. Houses less than 100 feet in length usually had feed rooms on the end, whereas those longer than this had feed rooms in the center of the house. The most general lengths of feed rooms ranged from 8 to 12 feet. Total floor space, of course, would depend on the width of the building, but generally ranged from 160 to 288 square feet. FLOOR SPACE PER CAGE The amount of floor space per cage, excluding feed room space, ranged from 2 to over 6 square feet, with an average of 3.6. The percentages of farms allowing various amounts of floor space per cage were as follows: Square feet of floor space per cage Less than 8.0 3.0-8.4 3.5-8.9 4.0-4.4 4.5 and over Percentage of farms 15 88 84 10 8 100 There did not appear to be any relationship between the size of the operation, as determined by the total number of cages, and the average amount of floor space used. PRODUCTION and MARKETING of CAGE-LAID EGGS 13 From these data, it appeared that the caged-layer operators were using as much or perhaps slightly more floor space per bird than were operators with floor flocks. By keeping the cages full at all times, the cage house might be better utilized throughout the year than would a floor-flock house. Also, better arrangement of cages within the house might result in more efficient utilization of space. UTILIZATION OF CAPACITY The ideal situation on any poultry farm would be the complete utilization of all laying houses and equipment throughout the year. The caged-layer enterprise probably comes nearer to this ideal than does the floor enterprise. By comparing the average number of layers on hand during a month with the actual number of cages available, it was determined that the average utilization of capacity on 28 cage farms was 90 per cent. The percentage of utilization by months is shown below: Month September 1953 October 1958 November 1953 December 1953 January 1954 February 1954 March 1954 April 1954 May 1954 June 1954 July 1954 August 1954 AvERAGE Percentageof cages utilized 88 93 89 88 89 90 87 88 85 96 96 94 90 Utilization varied somewhat during the period studied. There was some indication that cage houses were filled nearer to capacity during June, July, and August than during other months. Part of this may have been due to the late pullet hatch in 1954 and to the fact that rigorous culling had not yet become necessary. WATERING SYSTEM The watering system is an indispensable part of the poultry equipment. Of the farms visited, 99 per cent used the "V" trough, continuous-flow waterer. In practically all houses, the "V" trough 14 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION was placed between cages so that the layers in two rows of cages had access to, the same trough. Drilled wells were used as sources of water on two-thirds of the farms, city water was used on one-sixth, dug wells were used on one-eighth, and the remainder used other sources for their water supply. Much of Alabama suffered from drought conditions during the summer of 1954, and 16 per cent of the operators reported they had difficulty getting enough water for their poultry enterprises during this period. Several of these operators were planning to drill wells to insure a water supply. LIGHTING SYSTEM The poultrymen visited installed lights either over the cages or over the aisles. On 51 per cent of the farms, lights were placed over the cages, on 45 per cent of the farms they were placed over the aisles, and on 4 per cent they were placed elsewhere. The wattage of lights used on the various farms was as follows: Wattage Percentageof farms 15 25 40 8 55 21 60 75 100 15 3 8 100 The number and wattage of lights used may be an important factor in a laying program. The number of lights per 100 cages and wattage is given below: Wattage of lights 15 Average number of lights per 100 cages 4.8 25 40 60 4.3 4.0 2.6 75 100 8.3 1.2 When weighted, the number of watts per 100 cages was 120, or 1.2 watts per cage. This is approximately the 1.0 watt per cage that is recommended by this Experiment Station. Operators using 15-watt lights appeared to have less watts than recommended, whereas those using 75-watt lights had considerably more watts than recommended. PRODUCTION and MARKETING of CAGE-LAID EGGS 15_ PRODUCTION PRACTICES FEEDING TYPE OF FEED. The all-mash feeding program was used by 80 per cent of the caged-layer operators, with only 10 per cent using a mash-grain program, and 10 per cent some other program of feeding. Supplemental feeding of pellets was practiced by about 15 per cent of the operators. Shell or limestone was used on about 75 per cent of the farms, and grit was used by the other 15 per cent. FREQUENCY OF FEEDING. Fifty-one per cent of the operators reported feeding only once a day, 45 per cent fed twice, and 4 per cent three times daily. FEED CONSUMPTION. On the basis of 21 farms where data were available, it was determined that feed consumption was 98 pounds per layer per year.4 This amounted to 5.7 pounds of feed per dozen eggs produced. DELIVERY. Feed was delivered at varying intervals, usually in 50-pound bags. Sixty-six per cent of the feed was delivered weekly or more often, 20 per cent twice monthly, and 14 per cent less often than twice monthly. On 90 per cent of the farms, delivery was made by the feed dealer; on the remaining 10 per cent, the grower hauled his own feed. TERMS OF PURCHASE. The terms for over 90 per cent of the purchases were cash, payable the 10th of the following month. It was evident from talking to cage operators that a great deal of flexibility existed in the terms of payment for feed. An operator may not pay the full balance owed for several months and still obtain feed and supplies on a regular basis. Disease problems, lowered production from heat or cold, low egg prices, and many other factors may temporarily result in an operator being unable to make full payment for feed purchases. Feed suppliers take these factors into consideration. SERVICES. Most feed companies today employ the services of persons trained in helping poultrymen with their production problems. Forty-five per cent of the operators reported that advisory 'This figure includes an unknown, although probably small, amount of feed fed to pullets placed in cages prior to beginning to lay. 16 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION services were provided them, and 49 per cent stated that help was available if needed. Only 6 per cent stated that no services were provided by the feed dealer. CULLING One of the main advantages credited to the caged-layer operation is the ease of determining which birds are nonproductive. Since each layer's eggs are gathered separately, it is simple to determine whether a hen is laying. CULLING RATE. The culling rate refers to the number of layers culled during the year, expressed as a percentage of the average number of layers on hand during the year. On 22 farms where complete data were available, the culling rate was 66 per cent. In addition, 10 per cent of the average number of layers on hand died, which means that three-fourths of the layers had to be replaced during the year. This Experiment Station recommends that a caged-layer operator plan to replace about 100 per cent of his layers each year. FREQUENCY. Caged-layer operators were asked how often they culled and how they determined when to cull. The pattern for culling varied considerably. Nineteen per cent culled weekly, 36 per cent every 2 weeks, 27 per cent monthly, and the remaining 18 per cent either culled continuously or followed no regular pattern. About 80 per cent of the operators culled whenever a hen fell below 50 per cent production during a 2-week or longer period, the length depending on price of eggs, price of fowl, and availability of replacements. A few operators kept a bird in the cage as long as she appeared to be in good condition, even though her rate of production might be below 50 per cent. Cull hens were normally sold to wholesale buyers, although a number of operators sold to local retail stores. Culls sold to the latter were generally dressed on the farm. DOUBLING UP. Since the ease of determining nonlayers is a ma- jor advantage of the cage system, operators were asked whether they ever "doubled up" their cages, or put two birds in one cage. Two-thirds of them reported that they did double up, although PRODUCTION and MARKETING of CAGE-LAID EGGS 17 the practice was limited primarily to young replacements. Replacement pullets not in production often were doubled up until they began laying. Then, as older layers went out of production, the pullets were moved into the empty cages. It should be noted, however, that doubling up was not confined to this use, but was sometimes used by operators as a means of expanding the size of their flock without increasing the capital investment in houses and equipment. In doing so, they were running the risk of being unable to determine whether each bird was laying at a profitable rate, thereby losing one of the advantages of the cage operation. When birds are doubled up, it is usually desirable to debeak them to prevent cannibalism. RATE OF LAY. Caged-layer operators were able to maintain a relatively high rate of lay throughout the year, averaging 56 per cent. The monthly rate of lay is shown below: Month September 1953 October 1953 November 1953 Percentagerate of lay 56 60 62 December 1953 January 1954 February 1954 March 1954 April 1954 May 1954 61 59 61 59 55 55 June 1954 July 1954 55 51 August 1954 WEIGHTED AVERAGE 58 56 The rate of lay was highest during the fall and winter months, and lowest during the late spring and summer months. There are two possible reasons for this variation. First, caged-layer farms may have been operated at a more intensive rate during the fall and winter when egg prices are generally highest. Second, the period March through August 1954 was one of rapidly declining egg and poultry prices. Because of the difference between the value of cull hens and the cost of replacements, caged-layer operators may have found it more profitable to operate at a lower rate of production, keeping the low-producing layers for a longer period than usual. NUMBER OF EGGS PER LAYER. The number of eggs per layer averaged 208 on the 21 farms that had complete egg records, Table 4. 18 TABLE ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 4. AVERAGE NUMBER OF EGGS PER LAYER, 21 CAGED-LAYER FARMS, SEPTEMBER 1, 1953-AUGUST 31, 1954 Number of farms Number Less than 200 __________________8 Number of eggs per layer Average number of eggs Number 185 Average yearly rate of lay Per cent 51 200-209-----------------210-219------------------220 or more-- -----TOTAL OR AVERAGE----- 4 4 5 21 204 216 244 203 56 59 67 56 Eight of the 21 farms produced less than 200 eggs per hen per year, averaging 51 per cent production for the year. Five farms produced more than 220 eggs per hen per year, averaging 67 per cent production. DISEASE CONTROL AND SANITATION About one-half of the operators reported having disease problems with both replacements and layers during the previous year. Of those having disease problems, 30 per cent cited leucosis as the major disease, 27 per cent reported either colds or bronchitis, 16 per cent reported coccidiosis, and the remainder reported combinations of diseases. MORTALITY. Inasmuch as each bird is separated from the others, the caged-layer operator is more likely to discern any symptoms of disease, heat exhaustion, or other factors contributing to mortality. One of the first symptoms that may presage mortality is a drop in egg production. Feathers under a cage may also indicate that something is wrong. By culling such birds, mortality can probably be reduced. Mortality was held to 10 per cent on 22 caged-layer farms with complete records. This is very favorable when compared with floor flocks, which average around 20 per cent mortality. VACCINATION PROGRAM. Eighty-eight per cent of the operators reported vaccinating for Newcastle disease. Practically all of these vaccinated at 1 day of age and again at an age of from 8 to 14 weeks. Most operators vaccinated the second time at 12 weeks, although some vaccinated as early as 6 weeks and some as late as 20 weeks. All except two operators reported vaccinating for fowl pox. Vaccination was usually done at 9 to 12 weeks, although some operators vaccinated at younger and older ages. PRODUCTION and MARKETING of CAGE-LAID EGGS 19 Thirty-four per cent of the caged-layer operators reported vaccinating for bronchitis, and 10 per cent reported natural exposure to the disease. The remaining 56 per cent reported that they did not vaccinate. Of those vaccinating, a few treated at 1 day of age and again in 8 to 10 weeks. The majority vaccinated at between 12 and 20 weeks, or prior to housing the pullets. DISPosAL OF DEAD BIRDS. Various methods were used to dispose of dead birds. Almost half of the operators reported burying the dead birds; one-third burned them; and the remainder disposed of them in other ways, mainly by carrying them off the farm and throwing them away. FLY AND ODOR CONTROL. One of the major problems encoun- tered in a caged-layer operation is that of flies. Under certain conditions the accumulated droppings provide a favorable media in which fly larvae can develop. If enough larvae develop into flies, they can become a nuisance to the caged-layer operator and perhaps to the neighborhood as well. Several caged-layer farms located within cities have been forced to discontinue operation because of flies. The caged-layer operators visited were evenly divided as to whether they thought flies were a problem on their farms. Actually, all farms were bothered to some extent, but satisfactory control measures prevented flies from becoming a serious problem on many of them. Given below are the months during which flies were considered to be a major problem. Months bothered by flies Percentageof operators reportingproblem January February March April May June 0 0 0 0 40 89 July August September October 99 90 85 56 November December 14 0 It is quite obvious that the fly problem in Alabama is generally limited to the 6 months May through October. Malathion, or its derivatives, was the major agent used to control flies. It was applied both as a spray and as a dust. The amounts of the material used varied considerably, depending on condition 20 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION of the droppings and degree of infestation. Other materials used included aldrin, borax, lime phosphate, TEPP, and toxaphene. The average cost for fly control materials for the caged-layer enterprise was $51 per farm. This amounted to about 6 cents per bird. Odors are often a problem in a caged-layer enterprise, especially during damp weather. Lime and/or superphosphate were used by 75 per cent of the operators to control odors and to dry out the droppings, thereby aiding in odor and fly control. Another means of controlling odors and flies is that of cleaning out droppings if they become excessively wet. Half of the operators cleaned under their cages twice a year, one-third once a year, and the remainder more often than twice a year. The manure was used principally on pastures and crops. Very little was sold. USE OF LIGHTS Lights are used in poultry houses primarily as a means of maintaining or increasing egg production. However, there is still a lack of knowledge of the physiological basis of lights, and there are many ways in which lights are used. Twenty-five per cent of the operators reported that they used lights only in the mornings, 19 per cent used them only in the evenings, and 56 per cent used both morning and evening lights. The number of hours of light maintained on the cage farms studied were as follows: Number of hour of light (daylight and artificial) Under 14 14 15 16 17 18-28 24 Percentage of farms farms 8 88 18 18 8 5 10 100 LABOR REQUIREMENTS PRODUCING AND MARKETING EGGS Labor is an important item in the caged-layer operation. In Table 5 are given the estimated number of hours used to perform the various jobs in producing and marketing cage-laid eggs. PRODUCTION and MARKETING of CAGE-LAID EGGS TABLE 21 AND MARKETING 5. ESTIMATED LABOR REQUIREMENTS FOR PRODUCING EGGS, 71 CAGED-LAYER FARMS, ALABAMA, 1954 Number of cages on farm Less than 500 500- 749 Average 384 549 Labor required per week Daily Handling Market- Culling' Cleaning house chores' eggs2 ing eggs Hours Hours Hours Hours Total Hours Number Hours 6.2 9.9 4.7 5.7 0.7 2.2 0.8 .5 0.4 .8 12.8 18.6 750- 999 1,000-1,499 1,500-1,999 2,000 and over AVERAGE 898 1,027 1,602 2,187 892 11.9 12.0 17.5 25.1 11.8 1.3 8.0 10.5 17.5 12.5 8.2 0.9 2.8 5.5 6.2 3.1 8.2 0.4 .4 .7 .7 1.1 0.6 0.1 1.1 .7 .7 2.6 0.7 0.1 28.7 29.2 42.6 44.4 24.5 2.8 'Feeding, ment. 2 8 PER 100 CAGES cleaning waterers, gathering eggs, and repairing houses and equip- Cleaning, sorting, candling, and packing eggs. Time spent hauling eggs from farm to market, and in selling. SThese jobs are not always performed on a weekly basis, but are prorated on a weekly basis in order to show total labor requirements. The greatest labor requirements on caged-layer farms were for performing daily chores, although handling and marketing eggs were almost of equal importance. If an operator grows five lots of replacements per year, each lot containing 400 pullets, with an average labor requirement of 7 hours per week, the average worker probably can care for 1,500 to 2,000 caged layers and raise the necessary replacements. Generally, chore labor requirements per 100 cages were less on farms with the greatest number of cages. As shown below, time required for chores by operators with 2,000 cages or more was only about two-thirds of that required by operators with less than 750 cages. Number of cages on farm Less than 500 Hours of chore labor per week per 100 cages 8.2 500- 749 750- 999 8.4 2.6 1,000-1,499 1,500-1,999 2,000 and over SOUnRCES OF 2.8 2.7 2.1 LABOR In Table 6 is given the percentage breakdown on sources of labor for various jobs on the caged-layer farm. Except for cleaning houses, the owner performed most of the work. Hired labor was important in performing daily chores on almost one-third of 22 TABLE 6. ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SOURCES OF LABOR FOR VARIOUS JOBS ON THE CAGED-LAYER FARM, 73 CAGED-LAYER FARMS, ALABAMA, 1954 Jobperformedby: Job performed by: Owner Daily chores Handling Marketing eggs eggs Culling Cleaning house 23 Per cent 60 Per cent 64 Per cent 84 Per cent 81 Per cent 7 10 60 0 100 Owner and/or family Owner and hired labor Hired labor Feed dealer TOTAL 11 10 19 0 100 19 4 13 0 100 9 0 3 4 100 2 5 5 7 100 the farms, and in cleaning houses on almost two-thirds of the farms. The owner or his family performed most of the tasks connected with handling and marketing eggs and culling hens. MARKETING PRACTICES It is the opinion of many poultrymen that the caged-layer enterprise has certain advantages over conventional floor enterprises in marketing practices. This section deals with marketing practices from the standpoint of gathering the eggs, cleaning, sorting, packing, and selling. GATHERING EGGS Most caged-layer operators gathered eggs only once a day, Table 7. The proportion varied according to season, with a larger number gathering more frequently in the summer than in the winter. Caged-layer operators apparently gather eggs much less often than do operators of floor flocks. A recent study in Alabama showed that over 90 per cent of the floor-flock operators gathered eggs twice daily or more often.5 Even during the summer, only TABLE 7. FREQUENCY OF GATHERING EGGS DURING CAGED-LAYER OPERATORS, ALABAMA, SEPTEMBER SUMMER AND WINTER, 73 1, 1958-AUGUST 81, 1954 Winter Frequency of gathering Summer Percentage of operators Percent Per cent Once daily -----------------------------------------Twice daily----------------------------------------------------------Three or more times daily TOTAL ------- 65 25 10 100 81 17 2 100 S"Marketing Practices of Commercial Egg Producers in Alabama." A.P.I. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 291. p. 6. August 1954. PRODUCTION and MARKETING of CAGE-LAID EGGS 23 about one-third of the caged-layer operators gathered eggs twice daily or more often. The two main reasons for less frequent gathering of eggs are (1) less breakage, and (2) more rapid cooling of eggs in cages. With floor flocks, eggs in nests are more likely to be broken the longer they remain in the nest, and eggs in a nest do not have an opportunity to cool so long as hens remain on the nest. Even though most caged-layer operators gathered eggs only once daily, this Experiment Station recommends gathering eggs at least twice daily, especially during hot weather, because egg quality may suffer if they are allowed to remain in cages during the heat of the day. The proportion of cracked eggs varied among farms. Fiftythree per cent of the operators reported cracked eggs as being 1 per cent or less of the total eggs produced; 34 per cent said the proportion was 2 to 3 per cent; and 13 per cent reported cracks as being more than 3 per cent of the total. The weighted average was 1.6 per cent. Four-fifths of the operators stated that all cracked eggs were consumed in the home, whereas the remainder reported that some of them were sold. One reported advantage of the caged-layer operation is the reduction in number of dirty eggs. Fifty-one per cent of the operators reported less than 5 per cent dirty eggs, 24 per cent reported between 5 and 10 per cent, 11 per cent reported between 10 and 20 per cent, and 14 per cent reported over 20 per cent of their eggs were dirty. On a weighted basis, 10 per cent of all the eggs were classified as dirty. This was approximately half the percentage reported for floor layers in Alabama. 6 Operators reported considerably more dirty eggs during wet weather than at other times. CLEANING, SORTING, AND PACKING EGGS All poultrymen reported having some dirty eggs. Seventy-nine per cent reported that they cleaned only the dirty eggs, and the remaining 21 per cent cleaned all eggs. Over half of those cleaning eggs washed them, and almost one-third used a damp cloth. The remainder used sandpaper or other means for cleaning. Only two farms had mechanical egg washers. Not all caged-layer operators sorted eggs for size and color. Eighty-three per cent sorted for size, and 17 per cent did not. SIbid. p. 8. 24 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION The grading equipment varied from simple hand scales to rather elaborate automatic equipment ranging in price up to $150. The farms with automatic equipment had large flocks, which probably justified the larger capital outlay. On 60 of the farms visited (82 per cent), eggs were all of one color. On the remaining 13 farms, 3 operators sorted by color; 10 did not. Fresh eggs are candled to reduce the number of eggs with blood and meat spots. Forty per cent of the caged-layer operators reported candling their eggs. The remaining 60 per cent did no candling. About three-fourths of the poultrymen reported packing eggs the same day that they were gathered. The remainder packed eggs the following day or later. It has often been recommended by authorities that eggs be cooled before packing. With the caged-layer system, the eggs produced during winter and spring become cool in the cages and, therefore, can be safely packed the day they are gathered. However, during the hot summer and fall months, there are many days during which the temperature in the cage house reaches 90 ° F., and, if eggs remain in the house, some loss of egg quality may occur. Ten of the 73 farms visited had refrigeration equipment to keep eggs cool until marketed. The remaining poultrymen held eggs in unrefrigerated egg rooms, feed rooms, or in their dwelling houses. More than one-third of the caged-layer operators reported packing all of their eggs in cartons. The remainder packed some in cartons and some in cases. SELLING EGGS FREQUENCY. Caged-layer operators made a practice of marketing their eggs several times a week; in fact, 68 per cent marketed eggs three times a week or more, and 22 per cent marketed twice a week. Only 10 per cent marketed eggs once a week. This is in contrast to a recent study of floor flocks in Alabama, which showed that most producers marketed their eggs only once a week.7 There appeared to be little difference in the frequency of marketing during the spring, summer, fall, and winter seasons. There was no relationship between the number of layers and the frequency of marketing. Frequency of delivering to the buyer depends a great deal on local situations. 7 Ibid. p. 9. PRODUCTION and MARKETING of CAGE-LAID EGGS 25 OUTLETS. Forty per cent of the eggs were sold to retail grocers, 31 per cent to wholesale handlers of eggs, and about 10 per cent to each, feed dealers, eating places, and directly to consumers, Table 8. Operators with small flocks sold a larger proportion directly to consumers and eating places, whereas the larger flock owners sold to retail grocers and wholesale handlers of eggs. TABLE 8. PROPORTION OF EGGS SOLD THROUGH VARIOUS OUTLETS, BY SIZE OF FLOCK, 69 CAGED-LAYER FARMS, ALABAMA, 1954 Outlets for eggs Number of hens in cages Wholesalers 21 33 81 31 Retail grocers 12 88 45 40 Feed dealers Direct to Eating Direct to places sumers 82 9 6 9 Less than 500 500-999 1,000 and over AVERAGE Percentageof total 16 19 10 10 7 10 10 9 0 0 1 1 Per cent 100 100 100 100 OR TOTAL DISTANCE TO MARKETS. The distance to markets ranged from less than 5 to over 60 miles. The distances were as follows: Distance from farm to market (miles) 5 or less 6-10 11-20 21-40 41-60 Over 60 Percentage of farms 16 16 18 26 12 17 100 It is obvious that a large proportion of the caged-layer operators had to travel long distances to market their eggs. A person making two 30-mile trips a week would travel a minimum of 120 miles (round trips), and under the best conditions would take 8 to 5 hours in travel. PAYMENTS. In general, caged-layer operators were paid weekly or more often for eggs. One-half of the operators were paid for eggs on delivery, one-fifth were paid weekly, one-tenth monthly, and the remaining one-fifth were paid in a combination of ways. Although prices were very low during a portion of the year when this study was made, 92 per cent of the operators reported 26 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION that they had no difficulty selling their eggs. However, 8 per cent did experience problems. Ninety-five per cent planned to continue selling through the same outlet. MARKETS USED FOR PRICING. Given below are the primary markets used for pricing by the caged-layer operators: Market used for pricing Local Atlanta, Georgia Percentageof caged-layeroperators 28 15 Montgomery, Alabama Chicago, Illinois Birmingham, Alabama 11 10 7 Jacksonville, Florida Other 5 24 100 One-fourth used the local market for pricing, and about the same proportion used markets other than local or the large markets listed above. Most operators received a premium when the quotation was based on the large wholesale markets. COSTS AND RETURNS Caged-layer operators are primarily interested in the profit from their operations. If profits are not forthcoming or if they are low in relation to profits from alternative enterprises, operators will discontinue their caged-layer businesses. Cost and return data for producing and marketing eggs were obtained on 21 caged-layer farms, and will enable a limited evaluation to be made of the profitableness of the caged-layer operation during the period covered by this study. The average cost per 100 layers was $881 per year, or 52 cents per dozen eggs, Table 9. Feed was the largest cost item, followed by labor and flock depreciation. Marketing items, such as cases and cartons and hauling, amounted to almost 6 per cent of the total cost. Gross returns totaled $891.29 per 100 layers, or 52.6 cents per dozen eggs, Table 10. Egg sales accounted for 96 per cent of the total receipts from the caged-layer enterprise. Inasmuch as most caged-layer operators used feed that was delivered in paper bags, practically no income was derived from the use or sale of feed bags. PRODUCTION and MARKETING of CAGE-LAID EGGS 27 PRODUCTION and MARKETING of CAGE-LAID EGG 2 The profit on these 21 farms was 0.6 cent per dozen, Table 11. If an operator used no hired labor, his return for labor and management was about 8.8 cents per dozen eggs produced, or 82.5 cents per hour for producing and marketing eggs. This amounted to a labor return of $1.02 per layer. TABLE 9. EGG PRODUCTION COSTS PER 100 CAGED LAYERS AND PER DOZEN EGGS, 21 CAGED-LAYER FAuRS, ALABAMA, SEPTEMBER 1, 1953-AUGUST 81, 19541 Item Averag ge costs rr Per 100 Per dozen layers eggs Percentage of total costs Feed----------------------Labor------------------------Flock depreciation-----Laying Cases and Dollars 521.24 188.19 Cents 80.8 8.2 Per cent 59.1 15.7 9.9 8.4 8.4 2.5 2.5 2.3 .5 .4 houses----cartons 86.97 30.28 8-----0.17 22.80 Miscellaneous ---------------Hauling------------------- 22.16 19.74 Equipment---------------Taxes and insurance ----- 4.65 Land--------------------------83.19 Other buildings---------------2.62 TOTAL------------881.46 vrerate of lay of 21 farms 203 eggs. 2 Medicine, electricity, water, etc. 1 5.1 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.1 .8 .2 .1 52.0 .3 100.0 TABLE 10. gs oalrtun GROSS RETURNSPere 100 layers------- Pe dzn 21 CAGED-LAYER FAMiS, FROM EGG PRODUCTION, ALABAMA, SEPTEMBER 1, 1958-AUGUST 81, 1954 Average returns erdzngs Dollars Cents Source of receipts Percentage ofPe10lars tolrtus Percent 95.7 .9 .1 8.8 100.0 Eggs sold Eggs consumed Feed bags sold or used Manure credits 1 852.68 8.27 .72 29.67 891.29 50.8 .5 1 1.8 52.6 Less than 0.1 cent. TABLE 11. COSTs AND RETURNS, 21 CAGED-LAYER FARMs, ALABAMA, SEPTEMBER 1, 1958- AUGUST 81, 1954 Item Receipts per dozen Costs and returns Cents eggs -----------------------------------------hour ------------------- 52.6 Costs per dozen eggs---------------------------------------------Profit per dozen eggs------------------------------------Labor Labor return return per per 52.0 .6 82.5 101.7 -----------------_-_--------------------- layer --------- 28 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION On the farms where the rate of lay was less than 200 eggs per hen per year, averaging 185, the net loss was 8.4 cents per dozen, whereas, on the 13 farms where the rate of lay was more than 200 eggs per hen per year, averaging 213, the net profit was 4.7 cents per dozen eggs. Although the flocks averaging less than 200 eggs per hen returned a net loss when all costs (including labor at normal wage rates) were included, they did return something for labor. This return amounted to 21 cents per hen per year for these flocks, compared with $2.08 per hen for the 13 flocks averaging 213 eggs. REPLACEMENT PROGRAM The replacement program for caged layers differs markedly from that for floor layers. With the latter, a brood of chicks is generally started in February or March and housed in July or August. Normally, no other replacements are raised during the year. In the caged-layer program, several broods of chicks may be reared at regular intervals during the year in order to keep the cages filled with productive birds at all times. The timing of the replacement program is all-important to the success of the enterprise. NUMBER OF LOTS PER YEAR The number of lots of replacements grown per year will depend on several factors, some of which are (1) culling rate, (2) amount of equipment available, and (3) availability of labor. In Table 12 is given the number of lots per year on 52 caged-layer farms. There was a decided tendency for operators growing only a few lots per year to raise a larger number of replacements at one TABLE 12. AVERAGE NUMBER OF CHICKS PER LOT, BY NUMBER OF LOTS PER YEAR, 52 CAGED-LAYER FARMS, ALABAMA, 1954 Number of lots per year Number of farms Average numbcages Average number of chicks per lot 2 or less 8 -------- Number 5 8 Number 709 847 Number 460 265 ----------------------------- 4--------------------------5 -----------6--------------------7 or more ---------------------TOTAL OR AVERAGE --- 28 1 14 1 1,107 1,000 1,003 1,000 280 200 200 130 270 52 997 PRODUCTION and MARKETING of CAGE-LAID EGGS 29 time, whereas those growing five or more lots raised fewer replacements at one time. It appears that cage operators start enough chicks each year to equal the number of cages on hand. BREED AND SEX White Leghorn was the predominant breed used as caged layers, being used by over 85 per cent of the caged-layer operators. Leghorn-crosses and hybrids made up most of the remaining types of caged layers. The Auburn, Ghostley, Keystone, and Babcock, in that order, were the most popular of the White Leghorn strains used. Only one caged-layer operator purchased straight-run chicks; the remainder used sexed pullet chicks. The cost for White Leghorn chicks generally ranged from 30 to 43 cents, with an average of 36.5 cents. The cost for crosses ranged from 50 cents upward. METHODS OF REARING Pullet replacements can be grown in several ways. They can be grown on the floor in brooder houses, in batteries, or they can be grown in a combination of the two methods. About 90 per cent of the caged-layer operators visited grew replacements on the floor, later transferring them to cages. The remaining operators grew replacements in batteries prior to placing them in cages. Given below is the distribution of ages at which replacements were placed in cages: Age when placed in cages (weeks) Less than 15 16-17 Percentageof farms 16 82 18-19 20-21 Over 21 18 82 2 100 It is obvious that many of the pullets were placed in cages prior to start of lay, whereas others were placed in cages after they had begun laying. Actually, all replacements are not generally placed in cages at the same ages. The more precocious ones usually go in first, perhaps at around. 16 weeks of age, and are followed by the slower maturing pullets as these begin to lay. 30 30 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION REPLACEMENT MORTALITY Of over 23,000 replacements started by 60 caged-layer operators, 84 per cent of that number were placed in cages. Of the 16 per cent that were not caged, approximately 12 per cent died, and the other 4 per cent were culled. It is possible that some of the culls had salvage value and did not represent a total loss. Approximately 45 per cent of the operators caged 90 per cent or more of the pullets started, whereas almost 20 per cent caged less than 80 per cent of the pullets started. COSTS OF REARING Each caged-layer operator was asked to estimate the cash cost of raising replacements to laying age. The range in estimates was from $1.00 to $2.25 per bird, the average was $1.77, Table 13. TABLE 13. ESTIMATED CASH COSTS OF RAISING REPLACEMENTS, OPERATORS, ALABAMA, 1954 66 CAGED-LAYER RangeNumber Rneicstoperators Less than $1.50-------------------------------------------$1.50-$1.74 -----------------------------$1.75-$1.99-----------------------------$2.00 and over----------------------------TOTAL OR AVERAGE ------------ --------_____ ___. -- of Number 6 12 29 Average estimated cost Dollars 1.19 1.62 1.79 19 66 2.04 1.77 Detailed information was obtained on the cash costs of producing 12 lots of replacements. The range in cost was from $1.66 to $2.12, with an average of $1.75. Although actual cost data were limited to these few observations, the results seemed to verify the opinions of many caged-layer operators in the State as to the cash cost of growing replacements. LABOR REQUIREMENTS Caged-layer operators were asked to estimate the amount of labor used daily in growing replacements to 10 weeks of age and from 10 weeks until housing. The estimated average labor to 10 weeks was 35 minutes per day for an average of 100 chicks, 58 minutes for 244, 86 minutes for 564, and 120 minutes for 2,000 chicks, Table 14. Labor requirements for growing replacements were slightly less from 10 to 20 weeks of age, partly because of fewer birds to care PRODUCTION and MARKETING of CAGE-LAID EGGS TABLE 14. ESTIMATED LABOR REQUIREMENTS FOR REARING REPLACEMENTS, 31 BY SELECTED SIZE GROUPS, 64 CAGED-LAYER FARMS, ALABAMA, 1954 Period 1 to 10 weeks chicks 10 weeks until housing Amount of labor Perday P 0 Amount of labor er day Pe Average per flock Average per flock Less than 200 200- 499 Number 100 244 Minutes 85 58 Minutes 35 24 Number 91 227 Minutes 27 58 Minutes 80 23 500- 999 1,000 and over 564 2,000 86 120 15 6 507 1,803 76 86 15 5 for but primarily because birds of this age require less care. During this period, replacements consume more feed and water but do not have to be brooded, which requires considerable labor. The minutes spent per 100 birds declined rapidly as the number of birds reared increased. For example, an operator growing 100 replacements spent 30 to 35 minutes per day per 100 birds, whereas an operator rearing an average of 564 chicks used only 15 minutes per day per 100 birds. Consideration of the labor requirements for replacements as well as for the laying flock is essential to the development of an efficient caged-layer enterprise. SUMMARY A study was made of 73 caged-layer farms in Alabama. The period covered was September 1, 1953 through August 31, 1954. Farms were visited during November and December, 1954. The caged-layer enterprise is relatively new on Alabama farms as shown by the fact that over half of the farms visited began caged-layer operations in 1954, and one-fourth began operations in 1953. The capital investment in land, buildings, equipment, poultry, livestock, and other items averaged $30,514 per farm. Sixteen per cent of this was in poultry, poultry buildings, and equipment. Sixty per cent of the caged-layer operators used their own funds to build poultry houses and to buy cages and other equipment. About 35 per cent borrowed money and paid cash for building materials, cages, and equipment. The remaining operators were financed by feed dealers. 32 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION The average investment was $1,743 in caged-layer houses, $911 in cages, and $110 in other poultry buildings and equipment, or a total of $2,764 per farm. The average investment in caged-layer houses, cages, and equipment was $2.91 per cage. Investment costs per cage were almost one-third higher in northern Alabama than in southern Alabama. The amount of floor space per cage ranged from 2 to over 6 square feet, with an average of 3.6. Caged-layer operators utilized between 85 and 96 per cent of their cage capacity during the year. The average utilization for the year was 90 per cent of capacity. Eighty per cent of the caged-layer operators used an all-mash feeding program, and over half of the operators fed only once a day. Nineteen per cent of the operators culled weekly, 36 per cent every 2 weeks, 27 per cent monthly, and the remaining 18 per cent either culled continuously or followed no regular pattern. On the farms where complete data were available, the culling rate was 66 per cent. In addition, 10 per cent of the average number of layers on hand died; therefore, three-fourths of the layers had to be replaced during the year. The monthly rate of lay ranged from 51 to 62 per cent, with an average of 56 per cent for the year, or 203 eggs per layer. About half of the operators considered flies a major problem on their farms. May through October were the months when cagedlayer operators were most bothered by flies. Malathion was the major agent used to control flies. Lights were used by all the caged-layer operators. Twenty-five per cent reported that they used lights only in the mornings, 19 per cent used them only in the evenings, and 56 per cent used both morning and evening lights. The estimated labor requirements for producing and marketing cage-laid eggs ranged from 12 hours per week on farms with less than 500 cages to 44 hours on those with over 2,000 cages. Labor requirements per 100 cages declined from 3.2 hours per week on farms with less than 500 cages to 2.1 hours for those with over 2,000 cages. PRODUCTION and MARKETING of CAGE-LAID EGGS 33 Most caged-layer operators gathered eggs only once a day. This is in contrast to the practice with floor flocks, where eggs are gathered twice daily or more often. The proportion of cracked eggs averaged 1.6 per cent; and dirty eggs, 10 per cent. Caged-layer operators made a practice of marketing their eggs often. Sixty-eight per cent marketed eggs three times or more a week, and 22 per cent marketed twice a week. Forty per cent of the eggs were sold to retail grocers, one-third went to wholesalers, and one-tenth each to feed dealers, eating places, and directly to consumers. Cost and return data were obtained on 21 caged-layer farms. Returns per dozen eggs averaged 52.6 cents, and costs averaged 52.0, leaving a net profit per dozen eggs of 0.6 cent. Labor returns per hour averaged 82.5 cents. Twenty-five per cent of the operators raised three or fewer lots of replacements a year, 44 per cent raised four lots, 29 per cent raised five or six lots, and 2 per cent raised seven or more lots. White Leghorn was the predominant breed used as caged layers, with Auburn, Ghostley, Keystone, and Babcock strains being used most often. All operators except one purchased sexed pullet chicks. White Leghorn sexed pullet chicks cost an average of 36.5 cents each. Eighty-four per cent of the chicks started were placed in cages. Of the 16 per cent that were not caged, 12 per cent died and 4 per cent were culled. The estimated cash cost of raising a replacement to laying age was $1.77. On a number of farms where detailed information was available, the average cash cost was $1.75 per bird housed. The average labor requirements for approximately 100 replacements from brooding to 10 weeks of age were about 35 minutes per day. For 2,000 replacements the labor requirements were 120 minutes per day, or 6 minutes per 100 chicks. Raising approximately 90 replacements from 10 weeks of age until they were ready for caging required 30 minutes of labor per day, or 33 minutes per 100 chicks. Approximately 1,800 replacements required 86 minutes per day, or less than 5 minutes per 100 chicks. 34 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION CONCLUSIONS The caged-layer enterprise in Alabama has expanded rapidly in the past several years. Of a sample of caged-layer farms in the State, 85 per cent were established in 1953 or later. At the time the caged-layer operators were visited, the economic situation for egg producers was very unfavorable. Even so, about onethird of the operators were planning to expand their operations. This appears to be a significant trend. The investment in cage houses and equipment was about $3 per cage on those farms averaging around 900 cages. The investment in houses and equipment was about one-third higher in northern Alabama than in southern Alabama. Most of this difference was due to higher housing costs in the northern area. It is significant that the most recently established cage farms are in south central and southern Alabama. Part of this trend may be due to lower housing costs in these warmer areas of the State. Half of the operators fed once a day, while the remainder fed two or three times daily. Data are not available in this study to determine the effects of feeding once or more than once daily. Feeding once daily saves labor; feeding more than once daily probably saves feed, and perhaps results in more attention being given the layers. The systems used for culling caged layers varied considerably among operators. Most followed the rule of culling a hen when the rate of lay dropped below 50 per cent for a 2-week period. From this study, it appears that the rate of culling varies according to the price of eggs and the difference between the cost of a replacement and the value of the culled hen. Caged-layer operators maintained a high rate of lay during the fall and winter of 1953-54, when egg prices were favorable. During the spring and summer of 1954, egg and poultry prices were low and the rate of lay dropped. Evidently layers were kept that had low rates of lay because the cost of replacing them was too great. The number of eggs per layer averaged 203 on 21 farms that kept complete records. Although this is fairly high, it is significant that five farms averaged over 240 eggs per layer. These farms had an average labor return per hen for the year of $2.08, whereas eight farms averaging only 185 eggs per layer had an average labor return per hen of only 21 cents. Buying the best replace- PRODUCTION and MARKETING of CAGE-LAID EGGS 35 ment stock available is essential to maintaining the highest possible rate of lay. The average labor requirements for 1,000 caged layers were about 29 hours per week for daily chores, handling eggs, marketing, culling, and cleaning houses. To raise enough pullets to replace all layers would require about 6 additional hours per week, for a total of 35 hours per week. This would be slightly less than a full work week. If a person cared for 2,000 caged layers, he would spend about 44 hours in daily and weekly chores and an additional 15 hours per week raising four lots of replacements a year. This is equivalent to a 9-hour day, 6 days a week, and a half day on Sunday. Most caged-layer operators gathered eggs only once daily. During cool weather, gathering once daily may be sufficient. However, during half of the year, temperatures in Alabama are often above 80 ° F., and, although the egg is not under the hen, the hot air probably reduces egg quality. Inasmuch as 80 per cent of the eggs are usually laid by 2 p.m., it is recommended that eggs be gathered by that time. This will result in fewer eggs in the cages during the 3 to 4 hours that are the hottest part of the day. Many caged-layer operators sold eggs three times a week or more often. Each trip to a market requires time, and costs money for transportation. A poultryman making three trips to a market 20 miles distant can save over $100 per year in transportation costs by reducing the number of trips to two. This saving can be put into refrigeration equipment, which will reduce quality loss on the farm. On the basis of a limited amount of cost and return data, it appears that caged layers offer opportunities for profit, even during unfavorable years, to operators that maintain high efficiency in production and marketing. It appears that a caged-layer operator who does an efficient job can reasonably expect a labor income per hen of $2.00 per year during periods of normal pricecost relationships.