- Email: [email protected]
The Economics of Producing Market Turkeys1
TEMPERATURE AND PROTHROMBIN TIME related responses of blood coagulation and prothrombin times to selection for body weight. Poultry Sci. 48: 742-743. Mohapatra, S. C , and P. B. Siegel, 1969b. Selection for prothrombin time at 18 weeks of age in chickens. J. Hered. 60: 289-292. Moses, C , 1963. Atherosclerosis, Mechanism as a Guide to Prevention. Lea and Febiger, Phila-
1989
delphia, pp. 239. Ostle, B., 1966. Statistics in Research. 2nd ed. The Iowa State University Press, Iowa, pp. 585. Soliman, K. F. A., and T. M. Huston, 1972. Effect of dietary protein and fat on the hematocrit and plasma cholesterol of chickens at different environmental temperature. Poultry Sci. (In press).
The Economics of Producing Market Turkeys 1 JOE W. KOUDELE AND WILLIAM 0. CHAMPNEY2 Department of Economics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66502
ABSTRACT This study determined: 1) The capital investment in land, buildings, and equipment and machinery for producing market turkeys as related to enterprise size; 2) the cost per pound to produce Broad-Breasted Bronze toms, hens, and mixed flocks as related to management system (brooding and range rearing from day-old poults vs. range rearing eight-week-old started poults), flock size, and number of flocks per year; 3) the amount and relative importance of variable and fixed cost items of production; 4) the effect of feed conversion efficiency, mortality rate, market age and weight, and utilization of brooding capacity on production costs; and 5) the identity and importance of factors accounting for economies of scale. Five hypothetical models (5, 10, 20, 30, and SO thousand birds), with size based on brooding capacity or number of started poults placed on range at one time, and 1 or 2 flocks per year, were designed using the synthetic method. Budget standards (for physical facilities and inputs) and flock management practices reflected recommendations of Midwest poultry scientists and costs were based on 1965-66 price relationships in Kansas. Production costs for range rearing started poults were slightly higher than for brooding and range rearing. Raising two flocks per year instead of one reduced cost. Tom turkeys could be produced approximately 3 to 4 cents per pound cheaper than hens, and slightly cheaper than a mixed flock. Feed and poults, the largest cost items, amounted to 78.7% of total costs for the brooding and range rearing system; and 85.7% for the other management system. Depreciation on buildings, equipment, and machinery was the largest fixed cost item. Economies of scale—which existed for both management systems, with approximately half of the savings occurring between the 5,000- and 10,000-bird size flocks—were relatively small, especially in flocks larger than 10,000 birds, and were smaller for toms than for hens. The cost reduction per pound (0.95 cent) from brooding and range rearing two 5,000-bird mixed flocks per year rather than one was equal to that obtainable by expanding one mixed flock per year from 5,000 to 50,000 birds. Expanding the turkey enterprise to 50,000 birds, and two flocks per year, appears to be justified in terms of cost savings. But increased mortality (from 9 to 15%) for torn turkeys would offset economies of scale gained by expanding flock size from 20,000 to 50,000 birds. Production costs varied considerably, depending on how fully brooding capacity was utilized. Depreciation, interest on investment, repairs and maintenance, and poult cost were major factors accounting for economies of scale (between 5,000 and 50,000 birds) in brooding and range rearing. The optimum age to market torn turkeys was 26 weeks, based on feed requirements per p o u n d of gain.
INTRODUCTION
G
AINS in efficiency of market turkey production in recent years reflect adoption of new technology (in breeding, 1
Contribution No. 487, Department of Economics, Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station, Manhattan.
POULTRY SCIENCE 51: 1989-1998, 1972
nutrition, and equipment), increases in size of producing units, better utilization of production facilities, and changes in industry structure. Contractual arrangements between producers and integrators have be2
From a Ph.D. dissertation by the junior author,
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Georgia on June 23, 2015
(Received for publication March 10, 1972)
1990
JOE W. KOUDELE AND WILLIAM 0.
come widespread to assure constant supplies of productive inputs, adequate credit, and market outlets. Use of. started poults by growers is becoming more common. While demand for turkeys is increasing slowly, producers have experienced costprice squeezes. Thus, information on the economics of production is useful to decision makers as cost guidelines, in evaluating contract provisions, flock management systems, and other factors affecting production efficiency.
Kansas State University, June, 1969. Present address : Division of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Nevada. Reno. 'Standardized costs were applied to physical plant requirements to obtain capital investment, and to physical input requirements to derive cost functions for the model production units.
from published government sources and local businesses, pertained to Kansas for 1965-66. Hypothetical turkey enterprises for meat production reflected two systems of management commonly found in the Midwest: 1) Brooding and range rearing poults from day old until market age (one and two flocks per year); and 2) range rearing eight-week-old started poults to market age (two flocks per year). Model sizes (single flocks) were: 5, 10, 20, 30, and 50 thousand birds. Production costs were calculated for toms, hens, and mixed flocks. Hens weighed 15.4 pounds when marketed at 20 weeks; toms averaged 30 pounds when marketed at 26 weeks. Brooding and range rearing was a complete growing operation. Poults were brooded for 8 weeks in insulated houses (of wood-truss construction, with corrugated steel sides and roof) equipped with gas brooders, automatic waterers, medicators, and feeders to minimize labor needs. At the 9th week, birds were separated by sex and transferred to fenced range plots equipped with portable shelters, bulk feeders, and an automatic watering system. Plots were rotated for disease control. Flock mortality for brooding and range rearing was: hens (5%), mixed flock (8%),and toms (11%); for range rearing started poults (on range only): hens (2%), mixed flock (3%), and toms (4%). Major assumptions underlying the study were: 1) The turkey enterprise bore the cost of real estate taxes on land for brooder houses and range rearing (4 acres per 1,000 poults); 2) the operator was equally capable of managing each system for any size model; 3) labor productivity was constant irrespective of model size; 4) the value of droppings was not credited to the enterprise; 5) flock mortality was distributed weekly with percentages equalling total mor-
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Georgia on June 23, 2015
PROCEDURE Capital investment and production costs of the market turkey enterprise were synthesized,3 based on precise budget standards for land, buildings, equipment, machinery, labor, mortality rates, feed consumption, and variable and fixed productive inputs. Budget standards were based on: 1) Turkey management guides by poultry scientists in Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska (Adams and Kahrs, 1964; Russell, 1967; and Sullivan et al., 1966); 2) a three-state survey of turkey producers; 3) annual contract-settlement records of feed companies for Midwest turkey producers; 4) 1965 turkey feeding trials at Cornell University (Scott, 1966); and 5) engineering books. The feed formula reflects recommendations of a commercial poultry feed manufacturer. Specifications and prices of equipment and machinery were obtained from manufacturers' catalogs or local dealers. Prices and rates for productive inputs, obtained
CHAMPNEY
1991
ECONOMICS OF PRODUCING MARKET TURKEYS
TABLE 1.—Capital investment per poult in land, buildings, and equipment and machinery to produce market turkeys, as related to system of management, number of floiks per year, and flock size Flock size T,.
5,000 Brooding and range rearing1 One flock per year Land Buildings Equipment and machinery
10,000
20,000
30,000
50,000
Dollars per poult .64 1.36 2.23
.64 1.36 2.02
.64 1.36 1.87
.64 1.36 1.80
Total Two flocks per year Land Buildings Equipment and machinery
4.9S
4.23
4.02
3.87
3.80
.64 .78 1.80
.64 .78 1.40
.64 .78 1.28
.64 .78 1.22
.64 .78 1.18
Total Range rearing started poults2 Two flocks per year Land Buildings Equipment and machinery
3.22
2.82
2.70
2.64
2.60
.63 .30 1.46
.63 .30 1.14
.63 .30 .98
.63 .30 1.00
.63 .30 .94
2.39
2.07
1.91
1.93
1.87
Total 1 2
From day-old poults through market age. Started (eight-week old) poults were purchased and range reared to market age.
tality at the end of 16 weeks; 6) for hen and torn flocks, sexed poults were purchased; 7) poult prices were discounted for quantity purchases; and 8) equipment was budgeted at wholesale prices plus 10 percent. For other details and budget standards refer to Champney (1969). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Capital Investment. When investing capital in the turkey enterprise, producers must consider two main points: 1) Lack of sufficient capital may limit enterprise size; and 2) interest on investment is an opportunity cost to the enterprise for the use of capital. Total capital investment to produce market turkeys was determined in relation to management system, number of flocks per year, and flock size. Investment for brooding and range rearing (one flock per year) ranged from $24,735 (5,000 birds) to $190,006 (50,000 birds); and from
$32,193 (5,000 birds) to $259,580 (50,000 birds) for two flocks per year. Investment for range rearing started poults (two flocks per year) ranged from $23,964 to $187,072. Investment also was determined on a per poult basis (Table 1). Land investment was constant for all flocks regardless of size because of a fixed space requirement per bird. Investment per poult was lower for two flocks per year than for one, reflecting greater use of buildings, and equipment and machinery even though some additional items were needed to produce two flocks. Investment per poult was lower for range rearing started poults than for brooding and range rearing (two flocks per year for each system), because of no need for brooder houses and equipment in the firstnamed system. Investment differences had implications for fixed costs since interest on investment,
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Georgia on June 23, 2015
.64 1.37 2.94
1992
JOE W. KOUDELE AND WILLIAM 0.
CHAMPNEY
TABU; 2.—Average variable,fixed,and total costs and percentage distribution of average total costs, by items, of producing market turkeys (two 10,000-bird mixed flocks per year), as related to system of management System of management Item
Brooding and range rearing
Range rearing started poults
Percentage of total
Cents per pound
Percentage of total
3.09 12.03 0.02 0.36 0.22 0.12 0.08 0.01 0.03 0.72 0.75
16.1 62.6 0.1 1.9 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.1 3.7 3.9
6.31 10.33 0.01 0.30 0.14 0.03
32.5 53.2 0.1 1.5 0.7 0.2
— —
— — —
Total Average fixed costs Depreciation Repairs and maintenance Interest 2 Insurance Property taxes
17.43
90.6
18.17
93.6
0.88 0.27 0.41 0.05 0.20
4.6 1.4 2.1 0.3 1.0
0.62 0.18 0.28 0.03 0.13
3.2 0.9 1.4 0.2 0.7
Total Average total costs
1.81 19.24
9.4 100.0
1.24 19.41
6.4 100.0
Average variable costs Poults Feed Grit Medications Poult insurance Fuel and electricity Litter Brooder guards Supplies Interest 1 Labor
1 2
0.01 0.68 0.36
3.5 1.9
On operating capital. On investment.
keys as influenced by system of management, number of flocks per year, flock sex, and flock size for an enterprise operated at 100 percent of budgeted capacity. Cost reCosts to Produce Market Turkeys. Enter- lationships for one management system prise costs, divided into variable and fixed (brooding and range rearing) are shown in Figure 1. categories,4 are itemized in Table 2. It cost least to produce toms and most to Table 3 shows average variable, fixed, and total costs of producing market tur- produce hens. Costs for a mixed flock were closer to those for toms than for hens, re* Variable costs are those that change with the flecting the weight influence of toms in a volume of output. Fixed costs are incurred whether mixed flock on total pounds of turkey sold. or not there is any output. Total costs are the More pounds of turkey sold and the fact sum of variable and fixed cost components. Aver- that certain cost items vary with sex exage vanable or average uxeu costs per pounu are plain why toms had lower average variable obtained by dividing total variable and total fixed costs, respectively, by the pounds of market turkey costs than did hens. Greater poundage of sold. Average total costs are the sum of average turkey sold also caused average fixed costs variable and averagefixedcosts. to be lower for toms. insurance, property taxes, repairs and maintenance, and depreciation varied directly with the investment level.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Georgia on June 23, 2015
Cents per pound
1993
ECONOMICS OF PRODUCING MARKET TURKEYS
Cost differences, as influenced by flock sex, decreased as size of flock increased. For example, average total costs for toms were 4.19 cents per pound lower than for hens for a 5,000-bird flock but only 3.60 cents lower for a 50,000-bird flock (Table 3). To illustrate the influence of flock size alone on costs, for brooding and range rearing (one flock per year), costs declined
0.74 cent per pound (toms), 0.95 cent (a mixed flock) and 1.33 cents (hens) as flock size increased from 5,000 to 50,000 birds (Table 3). For a given size flock, average total costs were slightly lower for two flocks per year than for one, and cost differences were greater for hens than for toms. For example, savings from rearing two 5,000-bird flocks (instead of one) amounted to 1.41
Flock size T
f
xtem
5,000
10,000
20,000
30,000
50,000
Cents per pound Brooding and range rearing One flock per year Mixed flock Average variable costs Average fixed costs Average total costs Bens Average variable costs Average fixed costs Average total costs Toms Average variable costs Average fixed costs Average total costs Two flocks per year Mixed flock Average variable costs Average fixed costs Average total costs Hens Average variable costs Average fixed costs Average total costs Toms Average variable costs Average fixed costs Average total costs Range rearing started poults Two flocks per year Mixed flock Average variable costs Average fixed costs Average total costs Hens Average variable costs Average fixed costs Average total costs Toms Average variable costs Average fixed costs Average total costs
17.22 3.31 20.53
17.20 2.80 20.00
17.17 2.61 19.78
17.15 2.52 19.67
17.10 2.48 19.58
18.62 4.69 23.31
18.59 3.97 22.56
18.55 3.72 22.27
18.52 3.59 22.21
18.45 3.53 21.98
16.54 2.58 19.12
16.52 2.17 18.69
16.50 2.05 18.55
16.48 1.96 18.44
16.45 1.93 18.38
17.45 2.13 19.58
17.43 1.81 19.24
17.40 1.70 19.10
17.38 1.66 19.04
17.32 1.62 18.94
18.86 3.04 21.90
18.82 2.59 21.41
18.78 2.43 21.21
18.75 2.37 21.12
18.68 2.31 20.99
16.78 1.66 18.44
16.76 1.42 18.18
16.74 1.33 18.07
16.71 1.30 18.01
16.68 1.27 17.95
18.26 1.48 19.74
18.17 1.24 19.41
18.12 1.12 19.24
18.07 1.13 19.20
17.97 1.10 19.07
19.96 2.16 22.12
19.82 1.81 21.63
19.75 1.63 21.38
19.68 1.65 21.33
19.61 1.60 21.21
17.37 1.13 18.50
17.29 .95 18.24
17.24 .86 18.10
17.22 .86 18.08
17.15 .84 17.99
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Georgia on June 23, 2015
TABLE 3.—Average variable, fixed, and total costs of producing market turkeys, as related to system of management, number of flocks per year, flock sex, and flock size
1994
JOE W. KOUDELE AND WILLIAM O. CHAMPNEY
26 r
One flock per year
24 -
— - —
Two flocks per year
^Hsns
-S 5,000 10,000
20.000
30,000
FIG. 1. Average total costs of brooding and range rearing market turkeys as related to number of flocks per year, flock sex, and flock size.
cents per pound (hens) and 0.68 cent (toms). But average variable costs for two flocks per year were slightly higher than for one flock, reflecting the greater charge for interest on operating capital (more capital being required) and the longer time period of interest payments. Average fixed costs for two flocks per year were lower than for one flock because of spreading total fixed costs over greater output. Brooding and range rearing had a slight
Amount and Relative Importance of Cost Items, Table 2 shows a breakdown of average variable and fixed costs to produce market turkeys for two 10,000-bird mixed flocks per year. Cost items are shown on a cents-per-pound basis and as a percentage of average total costs. There was a slight cost advantage (0.17 cent per pound, or 3.859 cents per bird) in favor of brooding and range rearing (Table 2). That was because lower average variable costs offset slightly higher average fixed costs. Higher poult cost per pound in range rearing started poults reflected a slight profit by specialized poult producers. The two main variable cost items were poults and feed, though interest on operating capital and labor were important. De-
TABLE 4.—Cost differences and relative importance of cost items accounting for economies of scale between the 5,000- and 50,000-bird mixed flocks (two flocks per year), as related to system of management System of management Item
Depreciation Poults Interest 1 Repairs and maintenance Property taxes Insurance Interest 2 Total 1 2
On investment. On operating capital.
Brooding and range rearing
Range rearing started poults
Cents per pound
Percent of total
Cents per pound
Percent of total
.27 .12 .09 .08 .05 .02 .01
42.19 18.75 14.06 12.50 7.81 3.13 1.56
.19 .26 .08 .07 .04 m .01
28.36 38.81 11.94 10.45 5.97 2.98 U49
.64
100.00
.67
100.00
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Georgia on June 23, 2015
FLOCK SIZE (TURKEYS)
cost advantage over range rearing started poults, especially for hens. For 5,000- or 10,000-bird flocks, the cost difference amounted to 0.22 cent for hens and only 0.06 cent for toms. The advantage of lower average fixed costs for range rearing started poults was offset by higher average variable costs.
ECONOMICS OF PRODUCING MARKET TURKEYS
1995
TABLE 5.—Feed requirements and costs to produce market turkeys1 {two 10,000-bird flocks per year), as related to system of management and flock sex Feed required2 Per pound of gain
Per turkey sold Pounds
. , r e r ton
Per pound of turkey sold
Dollars
Cents
p
3.36 3.33 3.38
76.31 51.33 101.46
71.56 73.40 70.49
12.03 12.25 11.92
3.73 3.83 3.67
67.71 43.72 92.04
69.25 70.55 63.38
10.33 10.01 10.49
1 For toms marketed at 26 weeks and averaging 30 pounds, for hens marketed at 20 weeks and averaging 15.4 pounds, and for a mixed flock marketed at the age given for each sex and averaging 22.7 pounds, live weight. Flock mortality: 5% f or hens, 8% for a mixed flock, and 11% for toms. 2 Concentrate and grain. 3 Total feed cost divided by tons of feed consumed; reflects feed lost through flock mortality and sex differences in consumption.
preciation (on buildings, equipment, and machinery) was by far the main item of fixed costs. Cost Items Accounting for Economies of Scale. Certain cost items contributed to economies of scale between the smallest and largest size flocks. Cost items (shown in order of importance in Table 4) accounting for cost differences included all fixed costs but only one variable cost—• poults. Three cost items—depreciation, poults, and interest on investment—accounted for | of total economies of scale for brooding and range rearing and almost f of the economies of scale for the other management system. Depreciation was the major contributing item in brooding and range rearing while poult cost was most important in range rearing started poults. Factors Affecting Feed Requirements and Costs. Feed, the most important expense item in turkey production, is commonly used as a basis for comparing flock performance. Table 5 shows feed requirements (per pound of gain and per turkey sold)
and feed costs as related to system of management and flock sex. As indicated, it took more feed per pound of gain (0.37 pound more for a mixed flock, 0.5 pound more for hens, and 0.29 pound more for toms) for range rearing started poults than for brooding and range rearing. However, because less feed was required per turkey sold, with relatively more feed grains and less concentrate, feed costs per ton were lower for range rearing started poults. Hence, feed cost per pound of turkey sold was correspondingly lower. Table 6 shows feed conversion efficiency and feed costs—both of which are affected by the interdependent, sex-related factors of age and weight of turkeys when marketed and flock mortality—for brooding and range rearing torn turkeys (two 10,000-bird flocks per year, 11 percent flock mortality) in relation to market age and weight. The toms were marketed from 24 to 28 weeks at average live weights ranging from 27 to 32.5 pounds. As market age and weight increased, feed requirements per pound of gain and per turkey sold increased. But when the toms
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Georgia on June 23, 2015
Brooding and range rearing Mixed flock Hens Toms Range rearing started poults Mixed flock Hens Toms
Feed cost
1996
JOE W. KOUDELE AND WILLIAM 0.
CHAMPNEY
T A B L E 6.—Feed conversion efficiency* and feed costs of brooding and range torn turkeys (two 10,000-bird flocks per year, 11 percent flock mortality), as related to market age and weight
1
average live weight
Per pound of gain
Week 24 25 26 27 28
Pounds 27.0 28.5 30.0 31.3 32.5
3.29 3.35 3.38 3.47 3.61
Per turkey sold
Pounds 88.76 95.46 101.46 108.46 117.46
Feed cost Per ton ^er ton
Per pound of turkey sold
Dollars
Cents
71.34 70.86 70.49 70.12 69.70
11.73 11.87 11.92 12.15 12.59
Feed per pound of gain of salable turkey, live weight. Concentrate and grain.
were held longer before marketing, relatively more feed grains were included in the ration; thus, feed cost per ton declined. However, each bird consumed more feed per pound of gain, which increased feed cost per pound of turkey sold. Feed required per pound of gain increased from 3.29 pounds (at 24 weeks) to 3.3S pounds (at 25 weeks), an increment of 0.06 pound. The increment over the previous week's feed requirement reached a minimum (0.03 pound) at 26 weeks; thereafter, it increased. Feed cost per pound of turkey sold changed similarly. Thus, under conditions specified in this study, 26 weeks was the optimum age to market torn turkeys. The effect of mortality rate (9, 11, 13, and IS percent) on feed conversion efficiency and feed costs for brooding and
range rearing torn turkeys (two 10,000-bird flocks per year) to 26 weeks is shown in Table 7. For each 2 percent increase in mortality, only a slight (.01 pound) increase in feed was required per pound of gain; but for a 6 percent increase in mortality, feed required per turkey sold rose 1.07 pounds. Feed cost per pound of turkey sold increased slightly as mortality rose. For each 2 percent increase in mortality (beginning from a base rate of 9 percent), feed cost increased .05, .06, and .03 cent, respectively, or .14 cent per pound over the 6 percent range. This .14 cent difference was roughly 60 percent of the economies that might have been achieved by increasing flock size from 10,000 to 50,000 birds (Table 3).
T A B L E 7.—Feed conversion efficiency and feed costs of brooding and range rearing torn turkeys to 26 weeks1 (two 10,000-bird flocks per year), as related to mortality rate Mortality rate Percent 9 11 13 IS 1 2
Feed required2 Per pound of "ain 3.37 3.38 3.39 3.40
Per turkey
Pounds
Feed cost per pound of turkey sold 20/300
101.06 101.46 101.85 102.13
Average live weight at 26 weeks was 30 pounds. Concentrate and grain.
Cents 11.87 11.92 11.98 12.01
30,000
FLOCK SIZE (TURKEYS)
FIG. 2. Short-run average total cost curves of brooding and range rearing market turkeys (two mixed flocks per year) for five size flocks and an economies of scale curve.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Georgia on June 23, 2015
1
Feed required2
Age marketed
rearing
1997
ECONOMICS OF PRODUCING MARKET TURKEYS TABLE 8.—Average total costs of brooding and range rearing a mixed flock of market turkeys, as related to number of flocks per year, percentage utilization of brooding capacity, and flock size Flock size Ttpm
5,000
10,000
20,000
30,000
50,000
Cents per pound 28.83 23.30 21.45 20.53
27.06 22.34 20.77 20.00
26.45 22.01 20.53 19.78
26.12 21.84 20.39 19.67
25.93 21.71 20.29 19.58
25.05 21.41 20.19 19.58
23.89 20.81 19.76 19.24
23.51 20.59 19.60 19.10
23.35 20.49 19.52 19.04
23.18 20.39 19.43 18.94
1 Implies, for example, that only 1,250 poults weie brooded when brooding capacity was available for 5,000 poults; or only 2,500 wheie capacity was for 10,000.
Production Costs as Influenced by Utilization of Brooding Capacity. Table 8 shows average total costs of brooding and range rearing a mixed flock of turkeys as related to number of flocks per year, degree of utilization of brooding capacity (budgeted at 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent), and flock size. Clearly, using brooding capacity more fully (up to 100 percent) and having two flocks per year instead of one lowered production costs sharply, reflecting a decline in average fixed costs. Short-run average cost curves (each representing a given flock size) were drawn by plotting and connecting points representing average total costs at the four different percentages of capacity utilization (Figure 2). Such curves represent the production costs for a time period that is too short to adjust the size of plant (brooding and range rearing facilities) but that permits variations in the number of poults brooded at one time within the limits of the brooder house capacity. As flock size increased, the shortrun average cost curves (representing successively larger flocks) had smaller slopes at a given unit cost reflecting the decline in fixed costs relative to total costs.
An economies of scale curve (the dotted line drawn tangent to each short-run average cost curve near points representing 100 percent of defined capacity) shows the level of costs to produce various outputs of turkeys in the long run when a firm has time to build any desired scale of plant (Figure 2). For two mixed flocks per year, economies of scale were 0.64 cent per pound as size increased from 5,000 to 50,000 birds. Of those economies of scale, 53 percent (0.34 cent) occurred between the 5,000- and 10,000-bird flocks (Table 3). Two flocks per year had smaller economies of scale than one flock because fixed costs were spread over more pounds of turkey sold. Production costs were lower for a two-flock than for a one-flock system because smaller capital investment per poult was involved. REFERENCES Adams, A. W., and A. J. Kahrs, 1964. Turkey management tips. Kansas Agricultural Extension Leaflet No. 82. Champney, W. O., 1969. The economics of market turkey production and specialized brooding of poults in Kansas. Ph.D. Dissertation, Kansas State University.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Georgia on June 23, 2015
One flock per year Percent of capacity utilized 25 1 50 75 100 Two flocks per year Percent of capacity utilized 25 50 75 100
1998
JOE W. KOUDELE AND WILLIAM 0.
Russell, W., 1967. Missouri turkey record analysis, 1967. University of Missouri Extension Division. Scott, M. L., 1966. Toms lead in '65 growth rate, feed conversion. Poultry Meat, 3: T70-T76.
CHAMPNEV
Sullivan, T. W., E. W. Gleaves and T. E. Hartung, 1966. Turkey management guide. Department of Poultry Science, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
The Lack of Effect of Dietary Inositol Supplementation on Egg Production and Liver Lipid Metabolism in the Laying Hen
(Received for publication March 11, 1972)
ABSTRACT An experiment is described in which the effects of dietary inositol supplementation on egg production and liver lipid metabolism in the laying hen were examined. Forty laying hens were randomised into 4 groups of ten birds and each group received a cereal-based laying ration containing either 0, 1, 2 or Sg. inositolAg. diet. The experiment lasted for three 28 day periods. The addition of inositol to the diet had no significant effects on liveweight, egg production, egg size, food consumption or the efficiency of food utilisation. Similarly, there were no significant differences in liver size, liver total lipid content or hepatic ATP-citrate lyase and "malic" enzyme activities between the dietary treatments. These observations are discussed in relation to the results of other workers on the effects of dietary inositol on liver lipid and egg production in normal laying hens and birds affected by the fatty liver syndrome. POULTRY SCIENCE 51: 1998-2001,
INTRODUCTION
T
HE fatty liver syndrome in the chicken was first described by Couch (1956) and post mortem examinations of birds suffering from this syndrome have shown an excessive amount of body fat and the liver is usually enlarged, extremely fatty and friable (Reedy, 1968). In the laying hen, the fatty liver syndrome manifests itself in a precipitous fall in egg production, sometimes to below 50% production. The birds otherwise appear quite bright and healthy. Several workers (Deacon, 1968; Parker and Deacon, 1968; Reedy, 1968) have suggested that this condition may be relieved by supplementing the diet with a fatty liver syndrome premix consisting of choline chloride, vitamin E and vitamin B 12 . The increase in liver lipid content which occurs in the fatty liver syndrome with a concomitant decrease in egg
1972
production suggests that lipid transport may be deranged because the liver is the site of over 90% of lipid synthesis in the domestic fowl (Goodridge, 1968; O'Hea and Leveille, 1969) and so is the source of lipid for egg yolk formation. Recently, inositol has been investigated as a lipotropic agent in the laying hen in relation to the fatty liver syndrome. Reed et al. (1968) and Bull (1968) reported that the addition of inositol, either alone or in combination with the above premix decreased the liver fat content and increased the egg production of affected birds. It has been also reported that the addition of inositol to broiler breeder diets, while not having any effect on egg production, does cause a significant decrease in liver total lipid content suggesting that this compound might possibly prevent the accumulation of excessive fat in the liver and ab-
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Georgia on June 23, 2015
J. PEARCE
Department of Agricultural Chemistry, Queen's University of Belfast, Belfast, BT9 6BB and Ministry of Agriculture, Northern Ireland
1989
delphia, pp. 239. Ostle, B., 1966. Statistics in Research. 2nd ed. The Iowa State University Press, Iowa, pp. 585. Soliman, K. F. A., and T. M. Huston, 1972. Effect of dietary protein and fat on the hematocrit and plasma cholesterol of chickens at different environmental temperature. Poultry Sci. (In press).
The Economics of Producing Market Turkeys 1 JOE W. KOUDELE AND WILLIAM 0. CHAMPNEY2 Department of Economics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66502
ABSTRACT This study determined: 1) The capital investment in land, buildings, and equipment and machinery for producing market turkeys as related to enterprise size; 2) the cost per pound to produce Broad-Breasted Bronze toms, hens, and mixed flocks as related to management system (brooding and range rearing from day-old poults vs. range rearing eight-week-old started poults), flock size, and number of flocks per year; 3) the amount and relative importance of variable and fixed cost items of production; 4) the effect of feed conversion efficiency, mortality rate, market age and weight, and utilization of brooding capacity on production costs; and 5) the identity and importance of factors accounting for economies of scale. Five hypothetical models (5, 10, 20, 30, and SO thousand birds), with size based on brooding capacity or number of started poults placed on range at one time, and 1 or 2 flocks per year, were designed using the synthetic method. Budget standards (for physical facilities and inputs) and flock management practices reflected recommendations of Midwest poultry scientists and costs were based on 1965-66 price relationships in Kansas. Production costs for range rearing started poults were slightly higher than for brooding and range rearing. Raising two flocks per year instead of one reduced cost. Tom turkeys could be produced approximately 3 to 4 cents per pound cheaper than hens, and slightly cheaper than a mixed flock. Feed and poults, the largest cost items, amounted to 78.7% of total costs for the brooding and range rearing system; and 85.7% for the other management system. Depreciation on buildings, equipment, and machinery was the largest fixed cost item. Economies of scale—which existed for both management systems, with approximately half of the savings occurring between the 5,000- and 10,000-bird size flocks—were relatively small, especially in flocks larger than 10,000 birds, and were smaller for toms than for hens. The cost reduction per pound (0.95 cent) from brooding and range rearing two 5,000-bird mixed flocks per year rather than one was equal to that obtainable by expanding one mixed flock per year from 5,000 to 50,000 birds. Expanding the turkey enterprise to 50,000 birds, and two flocks per year, appears to be justified in terms of cost savings. But increased mortality (from 9 to 15%) for torn turkeys would offset economies of scale gained by expanding flock size from 20,000 to 50,000 birds. Production costs varied considerably, depending on how fully brooding capacity was utilized. Depreciation, interest on investment, repairs and maintenance, and poult cost were major factors accounting for economies of scale (between 5,000 and 50,000 birds) in brooding and range rearing. The optimum age to market torn turkeys was 26 weeks, based on feed requirements per p o u n d of gain.
INTRODUCTION
G
AINS in efficiency of market turkey production in recent years reflect adoption of new technology (in breeding, 1
Contribution No. 487, Department of Economics, Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station, Manhattan.
POULTRY SCIENCE 51: 1989-1998, 1972
nutrition, and equipment), increases in size of producing units, better utilization of production facilities, and changes in industry structure. Contractual arrangements between producers and integrators have be2
From a Ph.D. dissertation by the junior author,
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Georgia on June 23, 2015
(Received for publication March 10, 1972)
1990
JOE W. KOUDELE AND WILLIAM 0.
come widespread to assure constant supplies of productive inputs, adequate credit, and market outlets. Use of. started poults by growers is becoming more common. While demand for turkeys is increasing slowly, producers have experienced costprice squeezes. Thus, information on the economics of production is useful to decision makers as cost guidelines, in evaluating contract provisions, flock management systems, and other factors affecting production efficiency.
Kansas State University, June, 1969. Present address : Division of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Nevada. Reno. 'Standardized costs were applied to physical plant requirements to obtain capital investment, and to physical input requirements to derive cost functions for the model production units.
from published government sources and local businesses, pertained to Kansas for 1965-66. Hypothetical turkey enterprises for meat production reflected two systems of management commonly found in the Midwest: 1) Brooding and range rearing poults from day old until market age (one and two flocks per year); and 2) range rearing eight-week-old started poults to market age (two flocks per year). Model sizes (single flocks) were: 5, 10, 20, 30, and 50 thousand birds. Production costs were calculated for toms, hens, and mixed flocks. Hens weighed 15.4 pounds when marketed at 20 weeks; toms averaged 30 pounds when marketed at 26 weeks. Brooding and range rearing was a complete growing operation. Poults were brooded for 8 weeks in insulated houses (of wood-truss construction, with corrugated steel sides and roof) equipped with gas brooders, automatic waterers, medicators, and feeders to minimize labor needs. At the 9th week, birds were separated by sex and transferred to fenced range plots equipped with portable shelters, bulk feeders, and an automatic watering system. Plots were rotated for disease control. Flock mortality for brooding and range rearing was: hens (5%), mixed flock (8%),and toms (11%); for range rearing started poults (on range only): hens (2%), mixed flock (3%), and toms (4%). Major assumptions underlying the study were: 1) The turkey enterprise bore the cost of real estate taxes on land for brooder houses and range rearing (4 acres per 1,000 poults); 2) the operator was equally capable of managing each system for any size model; 3) labor productivity was constant irrespective of model size; 4) the value of droppings was not credited to the enterprise; 5) flock mortality was distributed weekly with percentages equalling total mor-
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Georgia on June 23, 2015
PROCEDURE Capital investment and production costs of the market turkey enterprise were synthesized,3 based on precise budget standards for land, buildings, equipment, machinery, labor, mortality rates, feed consumption, and variable and fixed productive inputs. Budget standards were based on: 1) Turkey management guides by poultry scientists in Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska (Adams and Kahrs, 1964; Russell, 1967; and Sullivan et al., 1966); 2) a three-state survey of turkey producers; 3) annual contract-settlement records of feed companies for Midwest turkey producers; 4) 1965 turkey feeding trials at Cornell University (Scott, 1966); and 5) engineering books. The feed formula reflects recommendations of a commercial poultry feed manufacturer. Specifications and prices of equipment and machinery were obtained from manufacturers' catalogs or local dealers. Prices and rates for productive inputs, obtained
CHAMPNEY
1991
ECONOMICS OF PRODUCING MARKET TURKEYS
TABLE 1.—Capital investment per poult in land, buildings, and equipment and machinery to produce market turkeys, as related to system of management, number of floiks per year, and flock size Flock size T,.
5,000 Brooding and range rearing1 One flock per year Land Buildings Equipment and machinery
10,000
20,000
30,000
50,000
Dollars per poult .64 1.36 2.23
.64 1.36 2.02
.64 1.36 1.87
.64 1.36 1.80
Total Two flocks per year Land Buildings Equipment and machinery
4.9S
4.23
4.02
3.87
3.80
.64 .78 1.80
.64 .78 1.40
.64 .78 1.28
.64 .78 1.22
.64 .78 1.18
Total Range rearing started poults2 Two flocks per year Land Buildings Equipment and machinery
3.22
2.82
2.70
2.64
2.60
.63 .30 1.46
.63 .30 1.14
.63 .30 .98
.63 .30 1.00
.63 .30 .94
2.39
2.07
1.91
1.93
1.87
Total 1 2
From day-old poults through market age. Started (eight-week old) poults were purchased and range reared to market age.
tality at the end of 16 weeks; 6) for hen and torn flocks, sexed poults were purchased; 7) poult prices were discounted for quantity purchases; and 8) equipment was budgeted at wholesale prices plus 10 percent. For other details and budget standards refer to Champney (1969). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Capital Investment. When investing capital in the turkey enterprise, producers must consider two main points: 1) Lack of sufficient capital may limit enterprise size; and 2) interest on investment is an opportunity cost to the enterprise for the use of capital. Total capital investment to produce market turkeys was determined in relation to management system, number of flocks per year, and flock size. Investment for brooding and range rearing (one flock per year) ranged from $24,735 (5,000 birds) to $190,006 (50,000 birds); and from
$32,193 (5,000 birds) to $259,580 (50,000 birds) for two flocks per year. Investment for range rearing started poults (two flocks per year) ranged from $23,964 to $187,072. Investment also was determined on a per poult basis (Table 1). Land investment was constant for all flocks regardless of size because of a fixed space requirement per bird. Investment per poult was lower for two flocks per year than for one, reflecting greater use of buildings, and equipment and machinery even though some additional items were needed to produce two flocks. Investment per poult was lower for range rearing started poults than for brooding and range rearing (two flocks per year for each system), because of no need for brooder houses and equipment in the firstnamed system. Investment differences had implications for fixed costs since interest on investment,
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Georgia on June 23, 2015
.64 1.37 2.94
1992
JOE W. KOUDELE AND WILLIAM 0.
CHAMPNEY
TABU; 2.—Average variable,fixed,and total costs and percentage distribution of average total costs, by items, of producing market turkeys (two 10,000-bird mixed flocks per year), as related to system of management System of management Item
Brooding and range rearing
Range rearing started poults
Percentage of total
Cents per pound
Percentage of total
3.09 12.03 0.02 0.36 0.22 0.12 0.08 0.01 0.03 0.72 0.75
16.1 62.6 0.1 1.9 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.1 3.7 3.9
6.31 10.33 0.01 0.30 0.14 0.03
32.5 53.2 0.1 1.5 0.7 0.2
— —
— — —
Total Average fixed costs Depreciation Repairs and maintenance Interest 2 Insurance Property taxes
17.43
90.6
18.17
93.6
0.88 0.27 0.41 0.05 0.20
4.6 1.4 2.1 0.3 1.0
0.62 0.18 0.28 0.03 0.13
3.2 0.9 1.4 0.2 0.7
Total Average total costs
1.81 19.24
9.4 100.0
1.24 19.41
6.4 100.0
Average variable costs Poults Feed Grit Medications Poult insurance Fuel and electricity Litter Brooder guards Supplies Interest 1 Labor
1 2
0.01 0.68 0.36
3.5 1.9
On operating capital. On investment.
keys as influenced by system of management, number of flocks per year, flock sex, and flock size for an enterprise operated at 100 percent of budgeted capacity. Cost reCosts to Produce Market Turkeys. Enter- lationships for one management system prise costs, divided into variable and fixed (brooding and range rearing) are shown in Figure 1. categories,4 are itemized in Table 2. It cost least to produce toms and most to Table 3 shows average variable, fixed, and total costs of producing market tur- produce hens. Costs for a mixed flock were closer to those for toms than for hens, re* Variable costs are those that change with the flecting the weight influence of toms in a volume of output. Fixed costs are incurred whether mixed flock on total pounds of turkey sold. or not there is any output. Total costs are the More pounds of turkey sold and the fact sum of variable and fixed cost components. Aver- that certain cost items vary with sex exage vanable or average uxeu costs per pounu are plain why toms had lower average variable obtained by dividing total variable and total fixed costs, respectively, by the pounds of market turkey costs than did hens. Greater poundage of sold. Average total costs are the sum of average turkey sold also caused average fixed costs variable and averagefixedcosts. to be lower for toms. insurance, property taxes, repairs and maintenance, and depreciation varied directly with the investment level.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Georgia on June 23, 2015
Cents per pound
1993
ECONOMICS OF PRODUCING MARKET TURKEYS
Cost differences, as influenced by flock sex, decreased as size of flock increased. For example, average total costs for toms were 4.19 cents per pound lower than for hens for a 5,000-bird flock but only 3.60 cents lower for a 50,000-bird flock (Table 3). To illustrate the influence of flock size alone on costs, for brooding and range rearing (one flock per year), costs declined
0.74 cent per pound (toms), 0.95 cent (a mixed flock) and 1.33 cents (hens) as flock size increased from 5,000 to 50,000 birds (Table 3). For a given size flock, average total costs were slightly lower for two flocks per year than for one, and cost differences were greater for hens than for toms. For example, savings from rearing two 5,000-bird flocks (instead of one) amounted to 1.41
Flock size T
f
xtem
5,000
10,000
20,000
30,000
50,000
Cents per pound Brooding and range rearing One flock per year Mixed flock Average variable costs Average fixed costs Average total costs Bens Average variable costs Average fixed costs Average total costs Toms Average variable costs Average fixed costs Average total costs Two flocks per year Mixed flock Average variable costs Average fixed costs Average total costs Hens Average variable costs Average fixed costs Average total costs Toms Average variable costs Average fixed costs Average total costs Range rearing started poults Two flocks per year Mixed flock Average variable costs Average fixed costs Average total costs Hens Average variable costs Average fixed costs Average total costs Toms Average variable costs Average fixed costs Average total costs
17.22 3.31 20.53
17.20 2.80 20.00
17.17 2.61 19.78
17.15 2.52 19.67
17.10 2.48 19.58
18.62 4.69 23.31
18.59 3.97 22.56
18.55 3.72 22.27
18.52 3.59 22.21
18.45 3.53 21.98
16.54 2.58 19.12
16.52 2.17 18.69
16.50 2.05 18.55
16.48 1.96 18.44
16.45 1.93 18.38
17.45 2.13 19.58
17.43 1.81 19.24
17.40 1.70 19.10
17.38 1.66 19.04
17.32 1.62 18.94
18.86 3.04 21.90
18.82 2.59 21.41
18.78 2.43 21.21
18.75 2.37 21.12
18.68 2.31 20.99
16.78 1.66 18.44
16.76 1.42 18.18
16.74 1.33 18.07
16.71 1.30 18.01
16.68 1.27 17.95
18.26 1.48 19.74
18.17 1.24 19.41
18.12 1.12 19.24
18.07 1.13 19.20
17.97 1.10 19.07
19.96 2.16 22.12
19.82 1.81 21.63
19.75 1.63 21.38
19.68 1.65 21.33
19.61 1.60 21.21
17.37 1.13 18.50
17.29 .95 18.24
17.24 .86 18.10
17.22 .86 18.08
17.15 .84 17.99
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Georgia on June 23, 2015
TABLE 3.—Average variable, fixed, and total costs of producing market turkeys, as related to system of management, number of flocks per year, flock sex, and flock size
1994
JOE W. KOUDELE AND WILLIAM O. CHAMPNEY
26 r
One flock per year
24 -
— - —
Two flocks per year
^Hsns
-S 5,000 10,000
20.000
30,000
FIG. 1. Average total costs of brooding and range rearing market turkeys as related to number of flocks per year, flock sex, and flock size.
cents per pound (hens) and 0.68 cent (toms). But average variable costs for two flocks per year were slightly higher than for one flock, reflecting the greater charge for interest on operating capital (more capital being required) and the longer time period of interest payments. Average fixed costs for two flocks per year were lower than for one flock because of spreading total fixed costs over greater output. Brooding and range rearing had a slight
Amount and Relative Importance of Cost Items, Table 2 shows a breakdown of average variable and fixed costs to produce market turkeys for two 10,000-bird mixed flocks per year. Cost items are shown on a cents-per-pound basis and as a percentage of average total costs. There was a slight cost advantage (0.17 cent per pound, or 3.859 cents per bird) in favor of brooding and range rearing (Table 2). That was because lower average variable costs offset slightly higher average fixed costs. Higher poult cost per pound in range rearing started poults reflected a slight profit by specialized poult producers. The two main variable cost items were poults and feed, though interest on operating capital and labor were important. De-
TABLE 4.—Cost differences and relative importance of cost items accounting for economies of scale between the 5,000- and 50,000-bird mixed flocks (two flocks per year), as related to system of management System of management Item
Depreciation Poults Interest 1 Repairs and maintenance Property taxes Insurance Interest 2 Total 1 2
On investment. On operating capital.
Brooding and range rearing
Range rearing started poults
Cents per pound
Percent of total
Cents per pound
Percent of total
.27 .12 .09 .08 .05 .02 .01
42.19 18.75 14.06 12.50 7.81 3.13 1.56
.19 .26 .08 .07 .04 m .01
28.36 38.81 11.94 10.45 5.97 2.98 U49
.64
100.00
.67
100.00
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Georgia on June 23, 2015
FLOCK SIZE (TURKEYS)
cost advantage over range rearing started poults, especially for hens. For 5,000- or 10,000-bird flocks, the cost difference amounted to 0.22 cent for hens and only 0.06 cent for toms. The advantage of lower average fixed costs for range rearing started poults was offset by higher average variable costs.
ECONOMICS OF PRODUCING MARKET TURKEYS
1995
TABLE 5.—Feed requirements and costs to produce market turkeys1 {two 10,000-bird flocks per year), as related to system of management and flock sex Feed required2 Per pound of gain
Per turkey sold Pounds
. , r e r ton
Per pound of turkey sold
Dollars
Cents
p
3.36 3.33 3.38
76.31 51.33 101.46
71.56 73.40 70.49
12.03 12.25 11.92
3.73 3.83 3.67
67.71 43.72 92.04
69.25 70.55 63.38
10.33 10.01 10.49
1 For toms marketed at 26 weeks and averaging 30 pounds, for hens marketed at 20 weeks and averaging 15.4 pounds, and for a mixed flock marketed at the age given for each sex and averaging 22.7 pounds, live weight. Flock mortality: 5% f or hens, 8% for a mixed flock, and 11% for toms. 2 Concentrate and grain. 3 Total feed cost divided by tons of feed consumed; reflects feed lost through flock mortality and sex differences in consumption.
preciation (on buildings, equipment, and machinery) was by far the main item of fixed costs. Cost Items Accounting for Economies of Scale. Certain cost items contributed to economies of scale between the smallest and largest size flocks. Cost items (shown in order of importance in Table 4) accounting for cost differences included all fixed costs but only one variable cost—• poults. Three cost items—depreciation, poults, and interest on investment—accounted for | of total economies of scale for brooding and range rearing and almost f of the economies of scale for the other management system. Depreciation was the major contributing item in brooding and range rearing while poult cost was most important in range rearing started poults. Factors Affecting Feed Requirements and Costs. Feed, the most important expense item in turkey production, is commonly used as a basis for comparing flock performance. Table 5 shows feed requirements (per pound of gain and per turkey sold)
and feed costs as related to system of management and flock sex. As indicated, it took more feed per pound of gain (0.37 pound more for a mixed flock, 0.5 pound more for hens, and 0.29 pound more for toms) for range rearing started poults than for brooding and range rearing. However, because less feed was required per turkey sold, with relatively more feed grains and less concentrate, feed costs per ton were lower for range rearing started poults. Hence, feed cost per pound of turkey sold was correspondingly lower. Table 6 shows feed conversion efficiency and feed costs—both of which are affected by the interdependent, sex-related factors of age and weight of turkeys when marketed and flock mortality—for brooding and range rearing torn turkeys (two 10,000-bird flocks per year, 11 percent flock mortality) in relation to market age and weight. The toms were marketed from 24 to 28 weeks at average live weights ranging from 27 to 32.5 pounds. As market age and weight increased, feed requirements per pound of gain and per turkey sold increased. But when the toms
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Georgia on June 23, 2015
Brooding and range rearing Mixed flock Hens Toms Range rearing started poults Mixed flock Hens Toms
Feed cost
1996
JOE W. KOUDELE AND WILLIAM 0.
CHAMPNEY
T A B L E 6.—Feed conversion efficiency* and feed costs of brooding and range torn turkeys (two 10,000-bird flocks per year, 11 percent flock mortality), as related to market age and weight
1
average live weight
Per pound of gain
Week 24 25 26 27 28
Pounds 27.0 28.5 30.0 31.3 32.5
3.29 3.35 3.38 3.47 3.61
Per turkey sold
Pounds 88.76 95.46 101.46 108.46 117.46
Feed cost Per ton ^er ton
Per pound of turkey sold
Dollars
Cents
71.34 70.86 70.49 70.12 69.70
11.73 11.87 11.92 12.15 12.59
Feed per pound of gain of salable turkey, live weight. Concentrate and grain.
were held longer before marketing, relatively more feed grains were included in the ration; thus, feed cost per ton declined. However, each bird consumed more feed per pound of gain, which increased feed cost per pound of turkey sold. Feed required per pound of gain increased from 3.29 pounds (at 24 weeks) to 3.3S pounds (at 25 weeks), an increment of 0.06 pound. The increment over the previous week's feed requirement reached a minimum (0.03 pound) at 26 weeks; thereafter, it increased. Feed cost per pound of turkey sold changed similarly. Thus, under conditions specified in this study, 26 weeks was the optimum age to market torn turkeys. The effect of mortality rate (9, 11, 13, and IS percent) on feed conversion efficiency and feed costs for brooding and
range rearing torn turkeys (two 10,000-bird flocks per year) to 26 weeks is shown in Table 7. For each 2 percent increase in mortality, only a slight (.01 pound) increase in feed was required per pound of gain; but for a 6 percent increase in mortality, feed required per turkey sold rose 1.07 pounds. Feed cost per pound of turkey sold increased slightly as mortality rose. For each 2 percent increase in mortality (beginning from a base rate of 9 percent), feed cost increased .05, .06, and .03 cent, respectively, or .14 cent per pound over the 6 percent range. This .14 cent difference was roughly 60 percent of the economies that might have been achieved by increasing flock size from 10,000 to 50,000 birds (Table 3).
T A B L E 7.—Feed conversion efficiency and feed costs of brooding and range rearing torn turkeys to 26 weeks1 (two 10,000-bird flocks per year), as related to mortality rate Mortality rate Percent 9 11 13 IS 1 2
Feed required2 Per pound of "ain 3.37 3.38 3.39 3.40
Per turkey
Pounds
Feed cost per pound of turkey sold 20/300
101.06 101.46 101.85 102.13
Average live weight at 26 weeks was 30 pounds. Concentrate and grain.
Cents 11.87 11.92 11.98 12.01
30,000
FLOCK SIZE (TURKEYS)
FIG. 2. Short-run average total cost curves of brooding and range rearing market turkeys (two mixed flocks per year) for five size flocks and an economies of scale curve.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Georgia on June 23, 2015
1
Feed required2
Age marketed
rearing
1997
ECONOMICS OF PRODUCING MARKET TURKEYS TABLE 8.—Average total costs of brooding and range rearing a mixed flock of market turkeys, as related to number of flocks per year, percentage utilization of brooding capacity, and flock size Flock size Ttpm
5,000
10,000
20,000
30,000
50,000
Cents per pound 28.83 23.30 21.45 20.53
27.06 22.34 20.77 20.00
26.45 22.01 20.53 19.78
26.12 21.84 20.39 19.67
25.93 21.71 20.29 19.58
25.05 21.41 20.19 19.58
23.89 20.81 19.76 19.24
23.51 20.59 19.60 19.10
23.35 20.49 19.52 19.04
23.18 20.39 19.43 18.94
1 Implies, for example, that only 1,250 poults weie brooded when brooding capacity was available for 5,000 poults; or only 2,500 wheie capacity was for 10,000.
Production Costs as Influenced by Utilization of Brooding Capacity. Table 8 shows average total costs of brooding and range rearing a mixed flock of turkeys as related to number of flocks per year, degree of utilization of brooding capacity (budgeted at 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent), and flock size. Clearly, using brooding capacity more fully (up to 100 percent) and having two flocks per year instead of one lowered production costs sharply, reflecting a decline in average fixed costs. Short-run average cost curves (each representing a given flock size) were drawn by plotting and connecting points representing average total costs at the four different percentages of capacity utilization (Figure 2). Such curves represent the production costs for a time period that is too short to adjust the size of plant (brooding and range rearing facilities) but that permits variations in the number of poults brooded at one time within the limits of the brooder house capacity. As flock size increased, the shortrun average cost curves (representing successively larger flocks) had smaller slopes at a given unit cost reflecting the decline in fixed costs relative to total costs.
An economies of scale curve (the dotted line drawn tangent to each short-run average cost curve near points representing 100 percent of defined capacity) shows the level of costs to produce various outputs of turkeys in the long run when a firm has time to build any desired scale of plant (Figure 2). For two mixed flocks per year, economies of scale were 0.64 cent per pound as size increased from 5,000 to 50,000 birds. Of those economies of scale, 53 percent (0.34 cent) occurred between the 5,000- and 10,000-bird flocks (Table 3). Two flocks per year had smaller economies of scale than one flock because fixed costs were spread over more pounds of turkey sold. Production costs were lower for a two-flock than for a one-flock system because smaller capital investment per poult was involved. REFERENCES Adams, A. W., and A. J. Kahrs, 1964. Turkey management tips. Kansas Agricultural Extension Leaflet No. 82. Champney, W. O., 1969. The economics of market turkey production and specialized brooding of poults in Kansas. Ph.D. Dissertation, Kansas State University.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Georgia on June 23, 2015
One flock per year Percent of capacity utilized 25 1 50 75 100 Two flocks per year Percent of capacity utilized 25 50 75 100
1998
JOE W. KOUDELE AND WILLIAM 0.
Russell, W., 1967. Missouri turkey record analysis, 1967. University of Missouri Extension Division. Scott, M. L., 1966. Toms lead in '65 growth rate, feed conversion. Poultry Meat, 3: T70-T76.
CHAMPNEV
Sullivan, T. W., E. W. Gleaves and T. E. Hartung, 1966. Turkey management guide. Department of Poultry Science, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
The Lack of Effect of Dietary Inositol Supplementation on Egg Production and Liver Lipid Metabolism in the Laying Hen
(Received for publication March 11, 1972)
ABSTRACT An experiment is described in which the effects of dietary inositol supplementation on egg production and liver lipid metabolism in the laying hen were examined. Forty laying hens were randomised into 4 groups of ten birds and each group received a cereal-based laying ration containing either 0, 1, 2 or Sg. inositolAg. diet. The experiment lasted for three 28 day periods. The addition of inositol to the diet had no significant effects on liveweight, egg production, egg size, food consumption or the efficiency of food utilisation. Similarly, there were no significant differences in liver size, liver total lipid content or hepatic ATP-citrate lyase and "malic" enzyme activities between the dietary treatments. These observations are discussed in relation to the results of other workers on the effects of dietary inositol on liver lipid and egg production in normal laying hens and birds affected by the fatty liver syndrome. POULTRY SCIENCE 51: 1998-2001,
INTRODUCTION
T
HE fatty liver syndrome in the chicken was first described by Couch (1956) and post mortem examinations of birds suffering from this syndrome have shown an excessive amount of body fat and the liver is usually enlarged, extremely fatty and friable (Reedy, 1968). In the laying hen, the fatty liver syndrome manifests itself in a precipitous fall in egg production, sometimes to below 50% production. The birds otherwise appear quite bright and healthy. Several workers (Deacon, 1968; Parker and Deacon, 1968; Reedy, 1968) have suggested that this condition may be relieved by supplementing the diet with a fatty liver syndrome premix consisting of choline chloride, vitamin E and vitamin B 12 . The increase in liver lipid content which occurs in the fatty liver syndrome with a concomitant decrease in egg
1972
production suggests that lipid transport may be deranged because the liver is the site of over 90% of lipid synthesis in the domestic fowl (Goodridge, 1968; O'Hea and Leveille, 1969) and so is the source of lipid for egg yolk formation. Recently, inositol has been investigated as a lipotropic agent in the laying hen in relation to the fatty liver syndrome. Reed et al. (1968) and Bull (1968) reported that the addition of inositol, either alone or in combination with the above premix decreased the liver fat content and increased the egg production of affected birds. It has been also reported that the addition of inositol to broiler breeder diets, while not having any effect on egg production, does cause a significant decrease in liver total lipid content suggesting that this compound might possibly prevent the accumulation of excessive fat in the liver and ab-
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Georgia on June 23, 2015
J. PEARCE
Department of Agricultural Chemistry, Queen's University of Belfast, Belfast, BT9 6BB and Ministry of Agriculture, Northern Ireland