- Email: [email protected]
Some Effects of the Poultryman and His Management on the Efficiency of Broiler Production*
Some Effects of the Poultryman and His Management on the Efficiency of Broiler Production* J O H N C. H A M M O N D
O. A. Newton £>" Son Company, Bridgeville, Delaware (Received for publication August 5, 1949)
S
EVERAL economic surveys of different phases of the broiler industry have been published which summarize previous knowledge. The most significant of these were written by Termohlen, Kinghorn, Warren and Radbaugh (1936), Poffenberger and DeVault (1937), Young (1939), Davies, Poffenberger and DeVault (1942), Bausman, (1943), and Johnson (1944). These papers reported current practice in brooding, management and marketing. Costs, receipts and best practice were indicated under several variations in management. Although similar in many respects each paper made its own distinct contribution. In no case was an attempt made to evaluate the production efficiency of different poultrymen. MATERIAL AND METHODS
Data available in our files offered an unusual opportunity to evaluate the production efficiency of different broiler growers. Detailed cost account data compiled during 1943, 1944 and 1945 by 0 . A. Newton and Son Co. on the flocks of 40 share broiler growers were used as the source of material for the studies in this paper. This period was peculiarly opportune for the type of study undertaken in that due to the Office of Price Adminis* Presented at the annual meeting of the Poultry Science Association July 22, 1946.
293
The chicks used were hatched in our hatchery from eggs from a mating of Barred Plymouth Rock males with New Hampshire females, both of our own breeding. The hatchery flocks were fed a breeder mash manufactured by us and whole grains. The broiler chicks were fed an 18% protein starting and growing mash manufactured by us.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on May 9, 2015
tration regulations normal price fluctuations were absent, margins were wide enough to permit profitable operation by the inefficient grower, and growers tended to deal with one supplier throughout the period to an extent not true before or since. Each flock owner was represented by data from 7 to 9 flocks sold between May 1, 1943 and November 30, 1945. Data were included only if the same strain of cross-bred chicks and feed of the same manufacture were used. A very high degree of control was possible as the breeding of the chicks and formulation of the feed were both under the author's supervision. Service men supervising the flocks attempted to have the same type of management and the best of known practices carried out by each grower. Three flocks were raised annually by most growers. Size of flock varied from 1,700 to 21,000 with the majority around 7,000. In all but a few cases the birds were cared for by those who shared in the profits. In general, these growers were considered better than the average in the region.
INTRODUCTION
294
JOHN C. HAMMOND
RESULTS The pertinent data for each grower together with the individual standard errors of the means for the feed required per pound of meat and for the total cost per pound of meat are tabulated in Table 1. Also included at the foot of Table 1 are pooled standard errors and the differences required for significance, odds 19:1 and odds 99:1, for each of the factors (a) percent mortality, (b) feed required per pound of meat and (c) total cost per pound of meat. These data reveal that there are three particularly good measures of a grower's
efficiency (1) the total cost of producing a pound of meat, (2) the mortality suffered by his flocks and (3) the feed required to produce a pound of meat.
TOTAL COST PER 1000 3 LB. CHICKENS (DOLLARS)
FIG. 1. The average total cost per pound of meat sold in cents and the total cost per 1,000 3-pound chickens in dollars. Each dot represents the average of allflocksfor one grower.
Figure 1 shows the average total cost per pound of meat sold for each grower for the period May, 1943, through November, 1945. The spread of 6.3 cents between the best and the poorest grower represents a difference in cost of approximately $189.00 per 1,000 three-pound chickens. Variations in total cost were caused principally by differences among flocks in mortality and in feed required per pound of meat sold. Figure 2 shows the effect of mortality and chick price on the cost per 1,000 chicks sold. For example, the loss of 22 percent of chicks costing seventeen cents places an added cost of $31.00 per thousand on chicks sold. In other words, it adds a cent per pound to the cost of producing each pound of meat sold. Each
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on May 9, 2015
The data for every flock of each grower were listed on coded cards and the following averages computed for each grower: the average number of chicks started, the average number of chicks sold, the average mortality in percent, the average pounds of feed required per pound of meat sold, the average weight of chicks at sale, the "total" cost per pound of meat sold, and the average "profit" per thousand chicks started. "Profit" per thousand as used in this paper and in the Del-Mar-Va broiler region is merely the difference between sale receipts and the "total" cost which consists of the cash expenditures for chicks, feed, fuel, grit, and medicants if any. The term "profit," therefore, includes interest on investment, depreciation, litter cost, insurance, taxes, and labor income as well as profit. Individual standard errors were computed on the feed required per pound of meat and on the total cost per pound of meat to show the variability among the flocks of each grower. In addition, analyses of variance were made of the data on percent mortality, feed required per pound of meat and the total cost per pound of meat.
O. A. Newton £>" Son Company, Bridgeville, Delaware (Received for publication August 5, 1949)
S
EVERAL economic surveys of different phases of the broiler industry have been published which summarize previous knowledge. The most significant of these were written by Termohlen, Kinghorn, Warren and Radbaugh (1936), Poffenberger and DeVault (1937), Young (1939), Davies, Poffenberger and DeVault (1942), Bausman, (1943), and Johnson (1944). These papers reported current practice in brooding, management and marketing. Costs, receipts and best practice were indicated under several variations in management. Although similar in many respects each paper made its own distinct contribution. In no case was an attempt made to evaluate the production efficiency of different poultrymen. MATERIAL AND METHODS
Data available in our files offered an unusual opportunity to evaluate the production efficiency of different broiler growers. Detailed cost account data compiled during 1943, 1944 and 1945 by 0 . A. Newton and Son Co. on the flocks of 40 share broiler growers were used as the source of material for the studies in this paper. This period was peculiarly opportune for the type of study undertaken in that due to the Office of Price Adminis* Presented at the annual meeting of the Poultry Science Association July 22, 1946.
293
The chicks used were hatched in our hatchery from eggs from a mating of Barred Plymouth Rock males with New Hampshire females, both of our own breeding. The hatchery flocks were fed a breeder mash manufactured by us and whole grains. The broiler chicks were fed an 18% protein starting and growing mash manufactured by us.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on May 9, 2015
tration regulations normal price fluctuations were absent, margins were wide enough to permit profitable operation by the inefficient grower, and growers tended to deal with one supplier throughout the period to an extent not true before or since. Each flock owner was represented by data from 7 to 9 flocks sold between May 1, 1943 and November 30, 1945. Data were included only if the same strain of cross-bred chicks and feed of the same manufacture were used. A very high degree of control was possible as the breeding of the chicks and formulation of the feed were both under the author's supervision. Service men supervising the flocks attempted to have the same type of management and the best of known practices carried out by each grower. Three flocks were raised annually by most growers. Size of flock varied from 1,700 to 21,000 with the majority around 7,000. In all but a few cases the birds were cared for by those who shared in the profits. In general, these growers were considered better than the average in the region.
INTRODUCTION
294
JOHN C. HAMMOND
RESULTS The pertinent data for each grower together with the individual standard errors of the means for the feed required per pound of meat and for the total cost per pound of meat are tabulated in Table 1. Also included at the foot of Table 1 are pooled standard errors and the differences required for significance, odds 19:1 and odds 99:1, for each of the factors (a) percent mortality, (b) feed required per pound of meat and (c) total cost per pound of meat. These data reveal that there are three particularly good measures of a grower's
efficiency (1) the total cost of producing a pound of meat, (2) the mortality suffered by his flocks and (3) the feed required to produce a pound of meat.
TOTAL COST PER 1000 3 LB. CHICKENS (DOLLARS)
FIG. 1. The average total cost per pound of meat sold in cents and the total cost per 1,000 3-pound chickens in dollars. Each dot represents the average of allflocksfor one grower.
Figure 1 shows the average total cost per pound of meat sold for each grower for the period May, 1943, through November, 1945. The spread of 6.3 cents between the best and the poorest grower represents a difference in cost of approximately $189.00 per 1,000 three-pound chickens. Variations in total cost were caused principally by differences among flocks in mortality and in feed required per pound of meat sold. Figure 2 shows the effect of mortality and chick price on the cost per 1,000 chicks sold. For example, the loss of 22 percent of chicks costing seventeen cents places an added cost of $31.00 per thousand on chicks sold. In other words, it adds a cent per pound to the cost of producing each pound of meat sold. Each
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on May 9, 2015
The data for every flock of each grower were listed on coded cards and the following averages computed for each grower: the average number of chicks started, the average number of chicks sold, the average mortality in percent, the average pounds of feed required per pound of meat sold, the average weight of chicks at sale, the "total" cost per pound of meat sold, and the average "profit" per thousand chicks started. "Profit" per thousand as used in this paper and in the Del-Mar-Va broiler region is merely the difference between sale receipts and the "total" cost which consists of the cash expenditures for chicks, feed, fuel, grit, and medicants if any. The term "profit," therefore, includes interest on investment, depreciation, litter cost, insurance, taxes, and labor income as well as profit. Individual standard errors were computed on the feed required per pound of meat and on the total cost per pound of meat to show the variability among the flocks of each grower. In addition, analyses of variance were made of the data on percent mortality, feed required per pound of meat and the total cost per pound of meat.