~, ----- - ------------ Jnl. - )y tj ' )L \ EGG! COST STUJY -! S Fl 9 5L- D E G fj l~eport CCU n TY! Agrcultural Extenson Servce j Unversty of Calforna l [ ; Prepared n Cooperaton wth the San Dego County Poultry ndustry
0 0 3,/;8/55 Unversty of Calforna Agrcultural Extenson Servce San Dego County Bldg., 005 Rosecrans St. San Dego 0, Calforna POULTRY EGG COST STUDY- REPORT, SAN DEGO COUNTY Compled by Robert H, Adolph, Farm Advsor A, D, Reed, Farm Management Specalst The Poultry Egg Cost Study s conducted by the Unversty of Calforna Agrcultural Extenson Servce n cooperaton wth the poultry ndustry of San Dego County. Partcular reference has been made to comparatve results wth one brd to a cage, two brds to a cage, and wre colony housng. Flock sze average 379 layers. All exoept two of 38 flocks were of whte-leghorn breed. Ths report s a comparatvcy study of effcency of producton of 38 poultrymen n San Dego County, Reports,cannot be consdered as representatve of the ndustry n the county, The purpose of the study s to provde partcpatng poultrymen a detaled analyss of ther poultry operaton, t s publshed to help partcpatng producers and other poul trymen n the count 0 to mprove producton effcency by a oomparatve study of the records compled, Poultrymen nterested n partcpaton n the study may contact the Farm Advsor, Defntons of Terms Used COSTS & NCOME are based on totals for year, dvded by ~-age number brds over ;! months old on a hen day bass, ~dentfes cooperator's record, arranged accordng to management ncome, SZE OF FLOCK: A - under 2000; B - 2000-3000; C - 3000-000; D - 000-5000; E - over 5000 layers, LABOR - Hred. labor at cost, Famly labor at $,00 per hour, --- - H!TJREST - Based on average nvestment at 5%, l\[aj\jagejent NCOME - All ncome less all costs, FARM NCOME - labor and nterest on nvestment not ncluded as a cost, Same, except farm OTHlR NCOME - debt. ncludes total poultry, manure sales, and stock nventory credt or ONE BRD TO A CAGE - mostly 8" x 8" cages. Tl'r<J BRDS TO A CAGE - 2 x 8, WRE COLONY - Mostly x 2' and 6' x 6' pens, ORGNAL COST BULDNG AND EQUPMENT PER CAPACTY - based on number of square fe3t of poultry housng equpment used for layng flock only, Allowance was made wherfl equpment was used part of tme for layers and the other part of tme for grown!l; brds. EGGS PER HEN AHD PER CENT DED, CULLED, ADDED - average number layers. based on totals for year, dvded by FEED COSTS: fot costs after sacks and potental refunds consdered. LAYE:RS ONLY - FEEDt Based on total feed, less estmated amount used for growng pullets. --
',30 TABLE, COSTS--AVERAGE LAYNG HElJ--* (n Dollars) Rank -&! Total nt, Flock Msc, Depree- Hred Cash & Famly on Sze ----'---'-"-=-!Feed Chx : Cash aton Labor 'Depree, ', Labor nv, _:.:;::::c c --J- -B 5-E 0-B 3-C 9-C! One Brd to Cage ------ - ~ 5,0,,9 -,,3 6,5,36! 5,3,7,8,,2 6,3!,56 ~.5,26,8,5,58 6,28.o5 5,08,0,29,2,5 6,6,22 5,25,2,58,,5 7,,7 ' 22-C,76,30,38,35,39 6,8,.08,20 23-A ~ 5,3,57,25,0 6,56,36,26 28-A ~,,5,2,50 6,7, l,06,26,2,25,22,23,30 Total Costs 7,08 7,5 6,55 7,09 7,9 7,6 8,8 7,9 8,5,93 7,30 3-D 6-C 7-C 8-E 9-D 5-B 8-E ',88 5,07 l' :,2 : 5,26,9,: 5,05,9,62,,59,9,6,37,25,53,5,,2,5, 6 Two Brds to Cage 3.7 38,0 30, 20 5,50 3,0,26,57 5,82 6,2 6,9 6,6 6,9 6,05 6,,28,,,36,83,23,2,7,20,2,5,26,9,7 6,27 7,60 7, 6,67 7,58 7,7 6, 79 2-B., 92, 6,3 f7,33 6,70,09,2 8,03 25-E : 5,,5,7,33,29 6,,26,8 7,09 26-D jl, 72,69,3,32,53 6,60,7,20 7,27 29-B! 5,,5,87,27,3 7,6,35,9 8,5 30-B 5,30,9,53,0 6,72,2,25 8,09 35-A 5,,75 37-C 6,30,38 --=---- ;~L... ~~.--.-... 7._ ---.t'-. 3.:;._ ~ l:~~. -.-:~. t.--. L.. ~:..;6. - A :v_::ec::_r::.:_agsce=----='-'-'-"9-"-9~- 52,33 - -~--- _3_o ~.!.:8 - ~ -- _._2_~!_7,27 -E 2-D -C -2-A -E 6-B 7-D ),20 ; ~56!,69 l 5,9,j!:~~,6 H 20-E ~ 0 2-D! : 90 27-B,88 3-A ~, 2 32-A,50 33-C r, 38-D 6,5 Average,59 Ave, All,86 37 35,38,37, 30 5 62,37,,9 22,5,8,3 28,,5,3, 8 36,,38,37,2,00,69,56,5,6.6.0 Wre,5,29 * See Page for explanaton of terms, Colony,28 5,35 5,60,26,26 5,92,37,97 7,99,23,85 6,8,7 6,0,36,7 6,0,3,9,7, 3,,9,8,,2,7,2,5,2,23 5,80 6,75 6,56 8,36 6, 7,9 7,08,35.7 S,7,6,9 6,82.2,56 6.sa,5,2 7,55,29,35 6,0',56.8 6,78.22 5,23,99,6 7,38,37,7 6,33,,22 7,99.2.so s.so,3,9,22,38,8 -L-2-26,57 ;23 9,06,28 ----.5 ~,29,6,9 6,9,3,0 6,'6,5,20 7,20 ---- ------ --..!.---- - ----+-----'---- ----'----"--- 3-B [5,70,,35,52,55 7,56,70,25 36-A ~ 7,6,6-0 _9_6 '--,59,66 0,28 ~3 _±~- _A_ve"-r'--a"'g'-'e--':--'-5::,0:..:;l-'---=-',,,32 -~-6. ~ J _,5~ l_,5~,2-2-
' TABLE, NCOME vs EXPENSE PER AVERAGE LAYNG HEN, * Rank & noomo per Hen n Dollars. Per Dozen Produced (n Cents) Flock Egg Mgmt. Farm Cash All All Vgmt 0 Sze Sales Other Total ncome ncome! Cost - --one Brd to Cage Costs ncome ncome -B 7,59, 8,2,6, 73 30,3 35,3,l 5,8 5-E 7,6,79 8,25,0,9 30, 36, 2~0 5,6 0-B 6,99,3 7,2,87, 30,8 3.6 39,2,6 3-C 7,3,55 7,86 77,22 3,5 35,9 39,8 3,9 9-C 7,87,56 8,3,52,99 33,8 39. 2,0 2,6 22-C 7,33,57 7,90,, 72 30,l 38,5 0,7 2,2 23-A 7,80,80 8,60,2 2,0 28,9 38, 0, 2,0 28-A 6,50.9 7, -,05,27 3,0 0,9 0,6 -,3 3-B 7,07,75 7,82 -,69,26 37,0..:l:, 7, -3,6 36-A 8,8,77 0,6 -,32,33 ±7. 58, 52,0-6, \JZ'.e.=ge --..Q.~..(3 l_l.q._7_±,50 30 ~-- ~l_._. '0. 9_ ~? Two Brds to Cage 3-D 6,80,76 7,56 r.-29,7 28,9 32,9 39,6 6,7 6-C 7,67 8,62,02 2,20 3, 39,2,5 5,3 7-C 7,55 59, 8,,00 l, 29,6 3 ::,0 38,8,8 s-e 6,78,86 7,6,97,8 3,7 35 0,6 5,2 9-D 7,87,6 8,8,90,99 27,5 3, 8 38,9, 5-B 7,2,0 8,3,66 2,08 29,5 38,,8 3, 8-E 7,6,20 7,36,57 3,7 35,0 38,0 3,0 2-B 7,8,62. 8,3... 0,73 30,0 38,7 0,6,9 25-E 7,09,0 7,9,0.,8 3,0 3:, 7 36, 7 2,0 26-D 6,9,75 7,66,39,06 33,6 38,9,0 2, 20-B 7,02,99 8,0 -,, 0 0,,5 3,9 -.8 3C-B 7,6,6 7,92 -,7,20 29,7 38,0 37,2 -,8 3c-A 7,"9,80 8,29 -,92,3 33,2 5, 2 0,7 -,5 37-C 6,,39 7,02 -,3 -.37 38,l 6,0 38,7-7,3 Avera_@ 7,20,6 7,8,5,33 3,l 36,7 39,5 2,8 - -- ~--------~--------- ------- -- - -" ----- --- ---------- Wre Colony -E 7,36, 6 7,82 2,02 2.<h7 26,l 29,2 39. t. 0,2 2-D 7,66, 8,3,59 2,7 25,8 32,7.:.0. ± 7,7 -C 7,0,32 7,2,86,50 27,7 32,0 36,2,2 2-A 7,8 2,00 9,8,82,9 39,7 3,5 7,8,3 -E 6, 72,6 7,8,7,00 32,3 35,0 39,0,0 6-B 7,2, 7,80,6,76 28,0 36,2 39,2 3,0 7-D 6,79,90 7,69,6, 29,9 37. 5 0.8 3,3 20-E 7,07,22 7,29,7.2 29,9 35,0 37, 2 A 2-D 7,6,5 8,00,5, 33,7 38,5 0,8 2,3 27-B 6,6,87 7,03,25,99 3,9 37,6 39,0, 3-A 6,29,87 7,6 -,22,93 3,5 6.''. tj:.5,0 -, 32-A 7,0,5 7. 9 -,50,6 3, 6,l 3,2-2,9 33-C 5,9, 6,59 -, -,0 38,l 3,2 39,5-3,7 38-D 6.5.20 6, -2, -,6 [5. 2 52. l 38,2-3,9 Average 6,93,55 7.8,5,9 3,8 36,6 39,5 2,9 Ave, All 7, 2,6 7,73 53,27 3,6 37,3 0.0 2.7.. * S0e Page, for explanaton of terms, -3-
TABLE, ~GG PRODUCTON AND REPLACEMENT * Rank &, Eggs Dozen, Layng F ock F' lock Prod- per Sold Large % % % Ded % Chck Sse ucton Hen Per Hen Eggs Ded Sold & Sold Replcd. Mort. ~-~--~ ~~~~~----'--onelrd~c~a-g-e-----"'c.;.;_~_..:.."-"'-=--+-'-.:...;c'-- -B 5-E 0-B 3-C 9-C 67 66 67 2 20 229 238 26 20,l 9,6 8,9 9,7 7,3 7 2,3 69! 5, 3 70,3 72,2 9.0 86 00 72 86 89 03 02 22-C 237 9, 70 5, 7 87 93 90 23-A 72 262 2,3 53 6,8 29 36-8 2 28..A 6 22 8,3 66 0,l 85 9 3 3 -B. 230 9,0 7, 2,2 85 27 8 ~!;!age J ~;~-- 3-D 6-C 7-C 8-E 9-D 5-B 8-E 6 69 72 62 6 23 237 25 230 2 228 235 _ -~:; 9,l 9, 2,0 8,8 2,8 9,5 9, _6~_. Two Brds to Cage 7,2 2,3 9, 6, 9 62 7,2 58 3,6 2,3 l.~ ~-- -~~.-~ 07 92 62 03 85 0 70 9 0 79 20 28 0 89 89 08 2 g_~ 02 9 2 09 9 0 6 5 0!_ 0 9 8 8 2-B 25... E 26- D 29-B 30-B 35.-A 37-C.Average 70 62 GO 66 59 255 250 227 220 28 20 26 20,7 20, 8, 7 8,3 2,3 20, 8,2 60 8 9 7 2,9 20,l 5,6 8, 9,5 20,2,0, 6,0 0 7 0 85 92 03 90 26 9 7 93 0 3 06 23 5 29 0 36 38 28 2 5 0 2 0 5 9 l 0 -E 2-D -c 2-A -E 6-B 7-D 20-E 2-D 27-B 3-A 32-A 33-C 38-D AveragG Ave, All 69 70 6t 6 6 67 66 59 53 57 56 57 6 '. 239 253 25' '" 23 22 235 25 238 20 26 92 209 205 209 23 235 9,9 20,6 20 5 9,2 8, 9.9 8,9 9,5 9,6 8,0 5,9 7,3 6, 7 7. 8,9 9,3 Wre 60 55 5 60 55 50 9 -- 52 5 69 58 53 -- 55 6 Colony 9,6 ' 6,5 28 ' 3 l 6.,9 0,3 7, 0, l! 26,2 ' 8. 5 22, \,8 0,8 lc,3 jl3,8 Tl3,s 9 60 05 35 99 90 93 73 20 86 99 8 86 0 03 76 80 6 52 09 6 2 35 3 00 06 93 27 2 97 09 29 7 77 25 08 38 ll 0 9 l 3 9 5 2 8 9 3 9 8 - * See Pago, for explanaton of terms, --
TABLE V, PRCES AED NPUTS* Rank and Flook Sze -B 5-E 0-B 3-C 9-0 fyoo "''' '"''""'" ',l! "' -. >Hom (Cents)!Net Cost Per Hen Lbs,Feed!Labor Doz. Cull!Feed Per L~, Layers! Per Per Eggs Hens Cwt, Only & Chu Doz! Eggs _ Hon One Brd to Cage 37,8,56 3,9 03 29 6, 3s,o,7 3, 07 29 6,6 37,0.n 3,87 9 6 6.2 37,0,7 3,8 05 32 6,7 39,2,53,2 2 6,2 İ. 9,7,0,9,0 Orgnal Cost Bldg, & Equpmt, Per Cap., ctars).,02,28,78 3,8 6, 36 % A"Te. No, Hens of Capacty 97 05 22-C 23-A 37.8 36,6,9 ', 3,9,03 99 28-A 35,5,5. 3,90 3-B 37,2,53 3, % 36...A 3,2,50,33 j37!':'.':~!~ 37 -~-- 5~_3_~-~~---~?2 3-D 6-C 7-C a... E 9-.D 5-B 8..E 35,6 39,6 36,0 36,0 36, 36,6 36,9,5,53,5..36,3,5 3,93,0, 3,99 3086,0 3,87 2 32 28 3 75 27 - ---------- -'- Two Brds 86 0 86 6 93 2 8,07 37 03 28 02 30 6,2 6,2 7,0 7,5 8,6 6, to Cage 5,7 6,0 5,9 5,9 6,3 6,3 6,7,5,,,2,8 2,0,8,0,7,9,8,2,9 3,28 3,38 3,8,0,9,28 2,,0,58 2,6,23 3,,08 9 85 77 79 77 9 06 5 8 09 ll7 2.. B 25-E 26-D 29-B 30-B 35-A 37-C Ave, -E 2-D -C 2-A -E 6,-B 7~D 37,7 3~. 7 37,0 38,3 35,l 36,7 36,5! 36, 37,l 37,l 3,7 37. 36,6 35,8 35,9,52,53,3,8,8,56 50,7,57,6,50,8,59,29 3,,)2 3,89 3,90 3, 99 3,87 -,5 -.00 3, 72,03 3,62 3,80 3,82 3.9 3,82 93 89 90 5. 99 h j05. 86 90 97 0 83 97 85 2 6,0, 27 6,2,7 22 6,5,0 6 8,0,8 33 6,2, ~LL ~:j : l-- Wre Colony 3 5, 7 3 5, 5 30 6,3 <- 7,5 07 5,8 2 6,2 7 6,2,7 9 ',0 l. :,9, 9, 5,3 3,5.27 2, 56,5 3, 52,l9 3,79 5 3S 2 90 89 3 ~---- --------- ' 2, 52 2,72 ' 2,8 2,55 2,66 3,86 3,93 20-E 36,3,88,00 8 0 5,6, 2,9 83 2-D 38,0,50 3,85 90 26 6,,l,73 6 27-"B 3,2,5 3,86 9 26 7,0 ',0 2,23 78 3.. A 39,6, 3,97 88 07 6,7 2,0,77 8 32~A 0,6,2 3,87 85 6 6,7 2. 3, 00 f.3-c 35,6,53 3,86 88 5 6,9, 2,8 9 ~8-D ~3~7,~0;._,-=.. 3~7. +...,L~±,,,6~5--+ ~0~--~~39,,...j---,8~,~0,...-~~~ ~9-t-~2~,8~,...--~~~7~;---.Ave, 36,6,5 3,9 89 7 6,2,0 2,76 97 Ave,A l 36,3,52 3, 23 6, '.h,0 3.'0 0 * See Page, for explanaton of terms, 7 9 08 5 82 0
TABLE v. SUlllMARY COMPARSON--TYPE OF HOUSNG* One Brd to Cage Two Brds to Cage Wre Colony Ave. All** No, Records Ave, Flock Sze 8 322 3 3 3853 59 38 379 % Hens Ded %Hens Culled 9.5 9,5 6,() 3,8 89, 7. 8,2 3.8 86,2 Eggs per.hen Prce per Dozen % Large Eggs Sold Lbs,_ Feed per Dozen Eggs Feed Cost per Cwt. 239 37,6 69 6. 3, 239 23 36, 36,6 55 6.3 '6.2,00 :;s,9 235 36,8 6 s. 3, Hours Labor par Brd,,0,9.,0,0 Value per Hen Total ncome Hred Labor Cash Costs Deprecaton 8,0,3 6,08,6 7,8 7,8.30,5 6, 6,0,3,28 7. 73,0 6,2,3 Farm ncome,50,33 09,27 Famly Labor nterest on nv,,52,2,59,6,20,9,5,20 Management ncome 7,5,6,53 CONCLUSONS:, An average of lower mortalty n the ndvdual cage group s the most evdent dfference n comparng the three types of housng, 2, Deprecaton Costs wero hgher wth the brd to a cage group due to a hgher orgnal cost of housng and equpment, 3, No great dfference s shown n average net earnngs n favor of any one type of housng, 0 Factor of type of housng s not as mportant as other factors of care and management, Net earnngs and average costs of producton vary n a wder range than the group averages for the three types of housng 5 These conclusons arc smlar to those developed n the 3 Poultry Egg Cost Study Report, San Dego County, * Seo Pago, for explanaton of terms, ** Average All-ncludes four other mscellaneous records not consdered under the three specfc types~of housng. -6-
... TABLE V, COMPARED WTH PREVOUS YEARS Sx Year 99 0 2 3 Ave. No, Records 2 23 27 30 35 38 29 Ave, Flock Sze 2070 283 257 303 380 379 2887 % lons Ded 5 5 3 5 % Hons Culled 77 6 7 82 76 86 77 Eggs per Hen 23 27 222 23 228 235 22 Prce per Dozen 52,t 3,6 55,2 6,0 5,5 36,8 7,5 % Largo Eggs 6 6 60 6 Lbs, Food per Hon 0 27 29 26 22 23 28 Lbs, Food per Dozen Eggs 8,0 7,2 7,0 6,6 6,5 6, 6,9 Food Cost por Cwt,. 3' 79 3;.06,53 ;06. 3,,0 Hours Labor por Hen,6.,3,2,,0,3 Value por Hon Total ncome 0, 76 8,66,8 9,69 0,60 7,73 9, 77 Cash & Depree, Cost 7, 6,08 6,89 7,2 6,70 6, 6 6,87 Farm oome 3,08 2. 58 ", 29 2.27 3,90,27 2,90 Famly Labor,08,9,3'. 0<:,85 5Ll:,97 nterest on nv, 2:±,23,25.2,2,20,23 Management ncome, 76._..l!.:l.2. 70,99 2,8,53,70 CONCLUSONS Progress s shovm n comparng the averages for the sx years of tho San Dogo County poultry study!, Fower pou.~ds of feed per dozen eggs, 2, Fewer hours labor per layer, 3, Moro eggs per hen,, Average mortalty losses contnue at a hgh levo, 5, Producers are now relyng more on pullot performance as ndcated by a cull and mortalty average total of 00 per cent n, -7-