UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Number 95 May 31, 1989 EGG ECONOMICS UPDATE CAGE UTILIZATION -- ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS. several issues must be understood:

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Number 95 May 31, 1989 EGG ECONOMICS UPDATE CAGE UTILIZATION -- ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS. several issues must be understood:"

Tyrone Pearson
5 years ago
Views:

1 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION AN UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Number 95 May 31, 1989 EGG ECONOMICS UPDATE CAGE UTILIZATION -- ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS The proper space allowance for laying cages must be based upon the net effects of increases in variable costs (feed, pullets and labor) versus the relative performance of the flock at various stocking rates. The comparison would be simple if layers would perform equally in the two arrangements -- 33% more chickens would yield 33% more profit or loss. The comparison is complicated, though, by the fact that they do not perform equally -- egg numbers and feed consumption are both dramatically different. To most egg producers, it is easier to think in terms of no housing or equipment costs for the extra hens than it is to estimate losses in performance resulting from higher densities. It is always easier to rationalize that my performance won t be affected enough to offset my gains in total prdtictkfi. In analyzing this question, several issues must be understood: I. An extra hen per cage means more pullets will have to be purchased. 2. More hens will require more feed. 3. More hens may or may not require more labor. 4. Egg numbers per hen will be less. 5. Mortality rates will be higher. 6. Feed consumption per hen will be less. Other conditions will also change: more manure, more flock heat production, more cage wear, more egg breakage, more medication costs, and more eggs to market. At higher feed and pullet costs, the benefits of increasing stocking rates go down. At higher egg prices, benefits are greater. The egg producer must determine typical conditions for each factor: costs, prices and performance. The tables and figures on pages 2, 3 and 4 were based upon results obtained at the North Carolina Random Sample Test covering five tests between 1981 and Each test included 5 to 8 White Leghorn strains and 3 brown egg strains. Cages were eita * L-r er 12 wide by 18 deep conventional cages or 18 wide by 12 deep reverse cages. Hens were stocked at either 3 per cage (72 square inches/hen) or 4 per cage (54 square inches/hen). Two basic types of houses were used in the comparison -- environmentally controlled and curtain (open-sided) houses. The tables on pages 2 and 3 list the performance differences observed between the two -stocking rates for the two types of birds in the two housing types. The figure: illustrate the income over feed and pullet costs per cage at each stocking rate for different egg prices. Tables 5 and 6 illustrate the calculations which were used in figures I to 4. Fiftyfive cents per dozen was used for large white eggs and sixty-five cents was usec for large brown eggs. I accordmca rlth appiicsbl* Federal 11.1 snd lhlr.,,lty poiic*. tk* Ullv*,Sltl Of Calltornl* doa not dlxrlmlnat~ In *ny 01 It* pollcles. D,=*du,*S Or P,=tlC*S On the basis Ot rat.. rellglon. color, nstlonal orlgln.,.i, marltal status. s.ru., qr,.ntatlon 0 s9.. r.t.rm stat,. r*dlc*i Conaltlon (as datln*d In s*ct1on ot th* Call!ornla Gorwrnnmnt Cod*) or hen*,c,p. Inqulrl*r regsralnp th. Unl wllt~ s.qu.t ;$W;nlty DOllClW.I ba dlrctd to the P~rronn~l Studlgr & Afflrn~tlv, Actlo,,.n@g.,, AqrIcultur* L NlJtural Rwxrc*s hlrwslt~ I 8*,k*lwv, Calttornla Phona: ( lhlr*rslt* ot Calltornla end th* IBIte s1at.s o.pwtn*nt Of hyrleult r* c~.r~tlng.

TABLE 1 WHITE LEGHORNS CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT HOUSE 3 S TRAIT 4 S.-----_--------------------------------- 245.0 EGGS PER HEN HOUSED 235.

2 TABLE 1 WHITE LEGHORNS CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT HOUSE 3 S TRAIT 4 S.-----_ EGGS PER HEN HOUSED Figure 1 CAGE DENSITY AND EGG PRICES WHITE LEGHORNS IN ENVIRONMENTAL HOUSES 3 VS 4 HENS PER lp X 18 CAGE S INCOME OVER FEED AND PULLET COSTS/CAGE 23.3 FEED PER 100 HEN-DAYS (LBS) FEED (LBSIDOZEN) LARGE EGGS (%I CRACKED EGGS (%I MORTALITY (%I ESTIMATED AV. EGG PRICE (CENTSj51.7 LARGE EGG PRICES IN CENTWDOZEN - 3/crge - 4fcqr TABLE 2 WHITE LEGHORNS CURTAIN-SIDED HOUSE 3 S TRAIT 4 S EGGS PER HEN HOUSED Figure 2 CAGE DENSITY AND EGG PRICES WHITE LEGHORNS IN CURTAIN-SIDED HOUSES 3 VS 4 HENS PER 12 X 18 CAGE spy o. S INCOME OVER FEED AND PULLET COSTS/CAGE / I 23.9 FEED PER 100 HEN-DAYS (LBS) FEED (LBSIDOZEN) LARGE EGGS 1%) CRACKED EGGS ($ MORTALITY (%) ESTIMATED AV. EGG PRICE (CENTSI52.5 SD.00 I I IS hQO $ $10.04 $ lcrgI SO $1241 $ LARGE EGG PRICES IN CENTS/DOZEN - 3lcago - 4hge -2-

3 TABLE 3 BROWN EGG LAYERS CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT HOUSE 3 S TRAIT 4 S Figure 3 CAGE DENSITY AND EGG PRICES BROWN LAYERS IN ENVIRONMENTAL HOUSES 3 VS 4 HENS PER 12 X 18 CAGE S INCOME OVER FEED AND PULLET COSTS/CAGE EGGS PER HEN HOUSED FEED PER 100 HEN-DAYS (LBS) FEED (LBSIDOZEN) LARGE EGGS (%I CRACKED EGGS (%) MORTALITY (%I ESTIMATED AV. EGG PRICE (CENTS)63.1 LARGE EGG PRICES IN CENTS/DOZEN - 3/tags - 4/cag1 TABLE 4 BROWN EGG LAYERS CURTAIN-SIDED HOUSE 3 S TRAIT _ EGGS PER HEN HOUSED FEED PER 100 HEN-DAYS (LBS) FEED (LBSIDOZEN) LARGE EGGS I%) CRACKED EGGS (%) MORTALITY (%) ESTIMATED AV. EGG PRICE (CENTSj63.3 Figure 4 CAGE DENSITY AND EGG PRICES BROWN LAYERS IN CURTAIN-SIDED HOUSES 3 VS 4 HENS PER 12 X 18 CAGE S INCOME OVER FEED AND PULLET COSTS/CAGE LARGE EGG PRICES IN CENTS/DOZEN - 3hgr - 4lcrg8-3-

4 Table 5. ECONOMIC RETURNS FROM WHITE LEGHORNS HOUSED 3 VS 4 HENS PER 12" x Ia** CAGE IN ENVIRONMENTALLY CONTROLLED AND OPEN-SIDED HOUSES ENVIRON. CONTROL. OPEN-SIDED INCOME PER CAGE (Sl Q/CAGE 3/CAGE Q/CAGE EGG INCOME FOWL TOTAL EXPENSES PER CAGE (S) FEED PULLETS TOTAL INCOME MINUS FEED AND PULLET COSTS ($1 PER CAGE PER HEN-HOUSED _ _ Based on 55 cents per dozen for large and above eggs, 48 cents medium, 25 cents for cracks. S 7.50/cwt teed prices. S2.00 pullets. and 25 cents for Sod. Table 6. ECONOMIC RETURNS FROM BROWN EGG LAYERS HOUSED 3 VS 4 HENS PER 12" x 18" CAGE IN ENVIRONMENTALLY CONTROLLED AND OPEN-SIDED HOUSES ENVIRON. CONTROL. OPEN-SIDED INCOME PER CAGE (9) I/CAGE O/CAGE 3/CAGE Q/CAGE EGG INCOME FOWL TOTAL EXPENSES PER CAGE ($1 FEED PULLETS TOTAL INCOME MINUS FEED AND PULLET COSTS (9) PER CAGE PER HEN-HOUSED Based on 65 cents per dozen for large and above eggs, 58 cents for medium. 35 cents for cracks, S 7.50/cwt feed prices, $2.50 pullets. and 50 cents for fowl. -4-

5 I DISCUSSION L Based on the performance differences noted in the North Carolina tests, 3 bird cages would appear to be advised only when egg prices were below the levels shown below for the four systems: ctsldozen larqe eqgs White Leghorns in environmental houses 38 White Leghorns in curtain-sided houses 40 Brown egg birds in environmental houses 52 Brown egg birds in curtain-sided houses 50 Higher per bird costs caused by higher feed prices or higher pullet prices would shift all of these relationships towards the lower density but not necessarily to the point of favoring it. Egg producers who must sell a portion of their production at lower than market prices must consider this factor relative to the additional production from the more crowded cages. Note that the 4 bird density is equivalent to 54 square inches per bird. A significant number of the nation s flock is kept at 48 square inches or-less per bird. L The crowding effects shown in Tables I-- 4 are representative of the North Carolina tests and the type of housing and management employed.. These test showed the following differences between the two densities for the four systems tested. White Leghorns in environmental houses White Leghorns in curtain-sided houses egqs/hh mortality Brown egg birds in environmental houses Brown egg birds in curtain-sided houses Individual strains (White Leghorns) though, two densities in the five tests reported. White Leghorns in environmental White Leghorns in curtain-sided houses houses varied somewhat in their responses to the Ranqe iti resuits gqs/hh mortality 3.; to to to to 5.7 Our - general conclusions relative to stated in Progress in Poultry #36. the density/housing type/strain question were Hen-housed egg production consistently favors the lower density. Housing type and strain/breed appear to have very little influence on the differences observed between the two densities. In general, the 3 bird cages outperformed the 4 bird cages by about I2 eggs. Feed consumption was 4 to 5 percent more in the 3 bird cages and about 2 percent higher in the curtain sided housing. All strains/breeds showed similar Q relationships. I The feed required to produce one dozen eggs is about. 4 percent higher in the curtain-sided house but is essentially the same in the two densities. All strains -5-

6 I L I perform similar relative to these factors. Density appears to have practically no effect on egg size. Egg size, though, i!f about 4 percent larger in the curtain-sided house. Total egg mass is primarily affected by the hen-housed egg production differences. The 3 bird cages produced about 6 percent more total weight of eggs. This was consistent with all strains. The curtainsided houses produced about 3 percent more egg mass. The environment- The 3 bird cages produced less cracked eggs, 2.75% vs. 3.45%. ally controlled house produced less cracked eggs, 2.78% vs. 3.43%. Considerably less mortality was observed in the 3 bird cages. Total mortality for the average test combining housing ty Pes was 7.7 percent for the 3 bird cages compared to IO. 7 percent for the 4 bird cages. Mortality was slightly higher in the environmentally controlled house. The feed requirement to produce a pound of eggs was practical!y the same between densities and housing types. The combined results for the two chicken types (white vs. brown) were practically the same in both types of houses and in both densities. In conclusion, there is very little evidence that strains perform differently with respect to cage density or housing. Density advantages or disadvantages appear to be shared equally among the strains tested. Effects of housing are also common to different strains. Copies of this complete report are available from this office. *************t****** Donald Bell, Poultry Specialist Cooperative Extension Annex #20 University of California Riverside, CA

An EGG ECONOMICS UPDATE. Donald Bell, Poultry Specialist (emeritus) University of California, Riverside, CA 92521

An EGG ECONOMICS UPDATE. Donald Bell, Poultry Specialist (emeritus) University of California, Riverside, CA 92521 Number 261 April 5, 2004 An EGG ECONOMICS UPDATE Donald Bell, Poultry Specialist (emeritus) University of California, Riverside, CA 92521 A RECAP OF EGG INDUSTRY STATISTICS - 2003 Poultry statistics are