• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Front Cover
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Review of literature
 Method of procedure
 Results at the main station
 Results at the Florida national...
 Discussion
 Summary
 Literature cited






Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station - no. 380
Title: Methods of feeding grain to laying pullets
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027745/00001
 Material Information
Title: Methods of feeding grain to laying pullets
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 27 p. : ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Mehrhof, N. R ( Norman Ripley ), b. 1899
Stanton, E. F
Sowell, D. F
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1942
 Subjects
Subject: Chickens -- Feeding and feeds -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Eggs -- Production -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 27.
Statement of Responsibility: by N.R. Mehrhof, E.F. Stanton, and D.F. Sowell.
General Note: Cover title.
Funding: Bulletin (University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station) ;
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027745
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Marston Science Library, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Holding Location: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station; Institute for Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS), University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000925183
oclc - 18231467
notis - AEN5829

Table of Contents
    Copyright
        Copyright
    Front Cover
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Table of Contents
        Page 4
    Introduction
        Page 5
    Review of literature
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Method of procedure
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Results at the main station
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
    Results at the Florida national egg-laying test
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
    Discussion
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
    Summary
        Page 26
    Literature cited
        Page 27
Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE


The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida





Bulletin 380 December, 1942


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
WILMON NEWELL, Director
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA


METHODS OF FEEDING GRAIN

TO LAYING PULLETS


By N. R. MEHRHOF, E. F. STANTON,
and D. F. SOWELL













Single copies free to Florida residents upon request to
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA


-i~-~ CLL~






EXECUTIVE STAFF
John J. Tigert, M.A., LL.D., President
Wilmon Newell, D.Sc., Director8
Harold Mowry, M.S.A., Asso. Director
L. O. Gratz, Ph.D., Asst. Dir., Research
W. M. Fifield, M.S., Asst. Dir., Admin.,
J. Francis Cooper, M.S.A., Editors
Clyde Beale, A.B.J., Assistant Editor8
Jefferson Thomas, Assistant Editor8
Ida Keeling Cresap, Librarian
Ruby Newhall, Administrative Managers
K. H. Graham, Business Managers
Claranelle T. Alderman, Accountants

MAIN STATION, GAINESVILLE
AGRONOMY
W E. Stokes, M.S., Agronomist'
W. A. Leukel, Ph.D., Agronomist3
Fred H. Hull, Ph.D., Agronomist
G. E. Ritchey, M.S., Agronomist2
W. A. Carver, Ph.D., Associate
Roy E. Blaser, M.S., Associate
G. B. Killinger, Ph.D., Associate
Fred A. Clark, B.S.A., Assistant
ANIMAL INDUSTRY
A. L. Shealy, D.V.M., An. Industrialist1 5
R. B. Becker, Ph.D., Dairy Husbandmane
E. L. Fouts, Ph.D., Dairy Technologist8
D. A. Sanders, D.V.M., Veterinarian
SM. W. Emmel, D.V.M., Veterinarians
L. E. Swanson, D.V.M., Parasitologist'
N. R. Mehrhof, M.Agr., Poultry Husb.8
T. R. Freeman, Ph.D., Asso. in Dairy Mfg.
R. S. Glasscock, Ph.D., Asso. An. Husb.
D. J. Smith, B.S.A., Asst. An. Husb."
P. T. Dix Arnold. M.S.A., Asst. Dairy Hush.s
G. K. Davis, Ph.D., Nutr. Tech.
S. P. Marshall, M.S., Asst. in An. Nutr.
C. B. Reeves, B.S., Asst. Dairy Tech.
L. E. Mull, M.S., Asst. in Dairy Tech.'
O. K. Moore, M.S., Asst. Poultry Hush.
J. E. Pace, B.S.A., Asst. An. Husb.
ECONOMICS, AGRICULTURAL
C. V. Noble, Ph.D., Agr. Economist'
Zach Savage, M.S.A., Associate
A. H. Spurlock, M.S.A., Associate
Max E. Brunk, M.S., Assistant
ECONOMICS, HOME
Ouida D. Abbott, Ph.D., Home Econ.'
Ruth O. Townsend, R.N., Assistant
R. B. French, Ph.D., Asso. Chemist
ENTOMOLOGY
J. R. Watson, A.M., Entomologist1
A. N. Tissot, Ph.D., Associate
H. E. Bratley, M.S.A., Assistant
HORTICULTURE
G. H. Blackmon, M.S.A., Horticulturist'
A. L. Stahl, Ph.D., Associate
F. S. Jamison, Ph.D., Truck Hort.
R. J. Wilmot, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
R. D. Dickey, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.4
J. Carlton Cain, B.S.A., Asst. Hort.'
Victor F. Nettles, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.*
Byron E. Janes, Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
A. L. Kenworthy, M.S., Asst. Hort.
F. S. Lagasse, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.'
H. M. Sell. Ph.D., Asso. Hort.2
PLANT PATHOLOGY
W. B. Tisdale, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist1 8
George F. Weber, Ph.D., Plant Path.8
Phares Decker, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
Erdman West, M.S., Mycologist
Lillian E. Arnold, M.S., Asst. Botanist
SOILS
R. V. Allison, Ph.D., Chemist1
Gaylord M. Volk, M.S., Chemist
F. B. Smith, Ph.D., Microbiologists
C. E. Bell, Ph.D., Associate Chemist
H. W. Winsor, B.S.A., Assistant Chemist
J. Russell Henderson, M.S.A., Associates
L. H. Rogers, Ph.D., Asso. Biochemist*
Richard A. Carrigan, B.S., Asso. Chemist'
L. E. Ensminger, Ph.D., Asso. Soils Chemist
Geo. D. Thornton, M.S., Asst. Chemist
R. E. Caldwell, M.S.A., Soil Surveyors
Olaf C. Olson, B.S., Soil Surveyors


BOARD OF CONTROL
H. P. Adair, Chairman, Jacksonville
R. H. Gore. Fort Lauderdale
N. B. Jordan, Quincy
T. T. Scott, Live Oak
Thos. W. Bryant, Lakeland
J. T. Diamond, Secretary, Tallahassee
BRANCH STATIONS
NORTH FLORIDA STATION, QUINCY
J. D. Warner, M.S., Agronomist in Charge
R. R. Kincaid, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
Elliott Whitehurst, B.S.A., Asst. An. Hush.'
W. C. McCormick, B.S.A., Asst. An. Husb.
Jesse Reeves, Asst. Agron., Tobacco
W. H. Chapman, M.S., Asst. Agron.'
Mobile Unit, Monticello
R. W. Wallace, B.S., Associate Agronomist
Mobile Unit, Milton
J. H. Wallace, M.A., Associate Agronomist
CITRUS STATION, LAKE ALFRED
A. F. Camp, Ph.D., Horticulturist in Charge
V. C. Jamison, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
B. R. Fudge, Ph.D., Associate Chemist
W. L. Thompson, B.S., Associate Ento.
W. W. Lawless, B.S., Asst. Horticulturist'
R. K. Voorhees, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
C. R. Stearns, B.S.A., Asso. Chemist
H. 0. Sterling, B.S., Asst. Hort.
T. W. Young, Ph.D., Asso. Hort., Coastal
J. W. Sites, M.S., Asso. Hort.
EVERGLADES STA., BELLE GLADE
J. R. Neller, Ph.D., Biochemist in Charge
J. W. Wilson, Sc.D., Entomologist
F. D. Stevens, B.S., Sugarcane Agron.
Thomas Bregger, Ph.D., Sugarcane
Physiologist
G. R. Townsend, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
R. W: Kidder, M.S., Asst. An. Husb.
W. T. Forsee, Ph.D., Asso. Chemist
B. S. Clayton, B.S.C.E., Drainage Eng.2
F. S. Andrews, Ph.D., Asso. Truck Hort.'
Roy A. Bair, Ph.D., Asst. Agron.
E. C. Minnim, M.S., Asst. Truck Hort.
SUB-TROPICAL STA., HOMESTEAD
Gee. D. Ruehle, Ph.D., Plant Path. in Charge
S. J. Lynch, B.S.A., Asst. Horticulturist
E. M. Andersen, Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
W. CENT. FLA. STA., BROOKSVILLE
W. F. Ward, M.S., Asst. An. Husb. in Charge'
RANGE CATTLE STA., ONA
W. G. Kirk, Ph.D., An. Husb. in Charge
E. M. Hodges, Ph.D., Asso. Agron., Wauchula
Gilbert A. Tucker, B.S.A., Asst. An. Husb.'
Floyd L. Eubanks, B.S.A., Asst. An. Husb.
FIELD STATIONS
Leesburg
M. N. Walker, Ph.D., Plant Path. in Charge'
K. W. Loucks, M.S., Asst. Plant Path.
E. E. Hartwig, Ph.D., Asst. Agron. & Path.
Plant City
A. N. Brooks, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Hastings
A. H. Eddins, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
E. N. McCubbin, Ph.D., Asso. Truck Hort.
Monticello
S. O. Hill, B.S., Entomologist2
A. M. Phillips, B.S., Asst. Entomologists
Bradenton
J. R. Beckenbach, Ph.D., Truck Hort. in Chg.
E. G. Kelsheimer, Ph.D., Entomologist
F. T. McLean, Ph.D., Horticulturist
A. L. Harrison, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
David G. Kelbert, Asst. Plant Pathologist
Sanford
R. W. Ruprecht, Ph.D., Chemist in Charge
Jack Russell, M.S., Asst. Entomologist
Lakeland
E. S. Ellison, Meteorologists 5
Harry Armstrong, Asso. Meteorologists
1 Head of Department.
2 In cooperation with U. S.
8 Cooperative, other divisions, U. of F.
In Military Service.
I On leave.


Gift of Ilsaing Offit












CONTENTS

PAGE
INTRODUCTION .-................... -------.... .. -. 5
REVIEW OF LITERATURE .............................-----......... --- .....-- .....-- 5
METHOD OF PROCEDURE .......................... --......-------------.............. 7
M methods of Feeding ..................... --....... --...................-- 8
Rations ..............---....-- ..------------ ------------ 8
Management ...........-----........-------------------- 9
Artificial Lights ...... ----.-.............--- ----..--------.. 9
Moist Mash .................------ -------------.....-.---...... 9
RESULTS AT THE MAIN STATION .. --......... .............---------------------------------.............. 9
Egg Production ....................------- -----------........ 9
Egg Weight ........................ ... ---. -----....-- ..........------ 10
Feed Consumption ...........-- ...--- ....- ---.......--..---..------ 10
Body W eight ............................................--- --------- 13
Mortality ................. .... --.. --.. --- ---------.. .... .... 13
Cost of Ration .............. .....-------------.....................----. 14
Egg Prices ......-...--......---....... --------------..... 14
Cost and Returns ..-...........--.-........-.....--------.................... 16
RESULTS AT THE FLORIDA NATIONAL EGG-LAYING TEST ---..........--.................. 16
Egg Production .........-- --- -- ---------......................... 16
Egg Weight .......-- .........--.........----..------....-..-... 16
Feed Consumption ...................................... .........-.. 17
Body W eight ................................. -.. --- ------- .....-- 20
Mortality .............. .........----- ...... ...... ...------ --- ......--. 20
Cost of Ration .........------............--........-- ...................... 21
Egg Prices ................---.. .....---... .---........--- ...-..-- 21
Cost and Returns --....... --........---..... .. ---...... ....... ............. 21
DISCUSSION ..............-....-...-..-------------------------...... ......... ....... 23
Egg Production ...... ........------ ......--------------- -- -..... .. 23
Egg Weights .......---- --... --...........-------..........--....... 23
Feed Consumption ..........-.. ..... .-------........ ---........... 23
Body Weight .......-- .....-......- ..... ..--------- --- ...--........ .... 25
Mortality ................. -------------------- --- ....... ............... 25
Costs and Returns .-----............----..----...................... 25
SUMMARY ------....... -.. .------------------ ........--.....------........---... 26
LITERATURE CITED ..................------...----- .......-------------..................... 27








METHODS OF FEEDING GRAIN
TO LAYING PULLETS
N. R. MEHRHOF, E. F. STANTON, and D. F. SOWELL1
Feeds and methods of feeding are problems in which the poul-
try producer is vitally interested, since they affect the cost of
producing eggs.
Detailed records of commercial poultry farming in Florida
accumulated over a period of years show that feed represents
approximately 50 percent of the total cost of producing eggs
(1).2 A five-year average gives feed as 47.3 percent of the
total cost of producing eggs. Feed represents approximately
70 to 75 percent of the cash cost in producing eggs. This makes
feed the most important item in the cost of egg production. The
feed cost per dozen eggs is influenced mainly by (a) the cost of
the ration, (b) feed consumption, and (c) egg production per
bird.
During recent years several different rations and various
methods of feeding have been formulated to determine the most
economical way to feed layers. Feeding trials were undertaken
at the Main Station and at the Florida National Egg-Laying Test
to evaluate the different methods of feeding grain when meas-
ured by feed consumption, body weight, egg production, and cost.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Many methods of feeding laying birds have been developed
and put into practice, including the feeding of all-mash, mash
and grain, liquid milk and grain, moist mash, pellets, and com-
binations of these different methods.
Martin (14) found that shelled yellow corn and skimmilk with
no mash produced very satisfactory egg yields. Grain for hens
can be fed in boxes night and morning without affecting egg
yields to any marked degree, as shown by Card (2). Cassel (4)
reported that the "no-mash" method of feeding should prove as
satisfactory as the feeding of the Washington State College
standard laying ration which included mash and scratch. Ra-
tions consisting of ground grain mixtures and sour skimmilk,
1Mehrhof, head, poultry husbandry division, University of 'Florida;
Stanton, formerly supervisor, Florida National Egg-Laying Test, Extension
Service; Sowell, poultry husbandman, Extension Service, on leave. The
authors are indebted to O. W. Anderson, Jr., formerly assistant poultry
husbandman, for assistance in planning these trials.
2 Italic figures in parentheses refer to Literature Cited.








METHODS OF FEEDING GRAIN
TO LAYING PULLETS
N. R. MEHRHOF, E. F. STANTON, and D. F. SOWELL1
Feeds and methods of feeding are problems in which the poul-
try producer is vitally interested, since they affect the cost of
producing eggs.
Detailed records of commercial poultry farming in Florida
accumulated over a period of years show that feed represents
approximately 50 percent of the total cost of producing eggs
(1).2 A five-year average gives feed as 47.3 percent of the
total cost of producing eggs. Feed represents approximately
70 to 75 percent of the cash cost in producing eggs. This makes
feed the most important item in the cost of egg production. The
feed cost per dozen eggs is influenced mainly by (a) the cost of
the ration, (b) feed consumption, and (c) egg production per
bird.
During recent years several different rations and various
methods of feeding have been formulated to determine the most
economical way to feed layers. Feeding trials were undertaken
at the Main Station and at the Florida National Egg-Laying Test
to evaluate the different methods of feeding grain when meas-
ured by feed consumption, body weight, egg production, and cost.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Many methods of feeding laying birds have been developed
and put into practice, including the feeding of all-mash, mash
and grain, liquid milk and grain, moist mash, pellets, and com-
binations of these different methods.
Martin (14) found that shelled yellow corn and skimmilk with
no mash produced very satisfactory egg yields. Grain for hens
can be fed in boxes night and morning without affecting egg
yields to any marked degree, as shown by Card (2). Cassel (4)
reported that the "no-mash" method of feeding should prove as
satisfactory as the feeding of the Washington State College
standard laying ration which included mash and scratch. Ra-
tions consisting of ground grain mixtures and sour skimmilk,
1Mehrhof, head, poultry husbandry division, University of 'Florida;
Stanton, formerly supervisor, Florida National Egg-Laying Test, Extension
Service; Sowell, poultry husbandman, Extension Service, on leave. The
authors are indebted to O. W. Anderson, Jr., formerly assistant poultry
husbandman, for assistance in planning these trials.
2 Italic figures in parentheses refer to Literature Cited.






Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


with no scratch feed allowed, proved to be slightly superior to
the unground mixtures fed with sour skimmilk and in which no
mash was given. The ground grain mixtures plus sour skimmilk
were slightly superior to the standard laying rations consisting
of scratch and mash plus sour skimmilk for feeding laying
pullets.
Thompson (17) reported that there was little difference in
results between feeding all-mash for egg production and feeding
a ration of mash and grain separately. Martin and Insko (12)
stated that all-mash and mash and grain appear to give satis-
factory results. Yearling Leghorn hens did not have the ability
or the natural instinct to select the proper proportions of differ-
ent feeds that were placed before them in separate feeders to
meet their physiological needs, according to Tomhave and Mum-
ford (18). Carver (3) concluded that laying hens do not require
scratch grains fed in the litter for either exercise or maximum
production. Kennard and Chamberlin (9) suggested the possi-
bility of using a mash concentrate and free choice of whole
grain as a means of feeding for egg production. Martin and
Insko (13) observed only slight differences in egg production
between the groups fed mash and allowed grain twice a day in
litter and those fed grain ad libitum in hoppers. Proportionally
more grain to mash was eaten by the group that was hopper fed
(grain ad libitum) than by the other group. Kennard and
Chamberlin (11) stated that individual laying hens appeared
to vary in feed and water consumption and body weight, even
though the total weight of eggs produced was practically the
same. Graham (7) found that when pullets were fed whole
corn, whole oats, and mash ad libitum, there was considerable
variation in the intake of each of these by individual birds.
Davidson (5) found that hopper feeding of corn and oats with
a 20 percent crude protein mash gave satisfactory egg produc-
tion. Heiman, Carver and St. John (8) reported that a laying
ration fed at a level of 15 percent protein from adequate sources
can be recommended safely for satisfactory egg production.
When equal parts of mash and grain were fed in the mash-grain
system of feeding, at least 20 percent protein was required in
the mash to provide a satisfactory level of protein for egg pro-
duction. Continuous hopper feeding of grain appeared to be
comparable with daily hand feeding of grain as measured by
egg production, feed consumption, and cost of feed per dozen
eggs, according to Davidson (6). North (15) reported on six






Methods of Feeding Grain to Laying Pullets


methods of feeding laying hens including all-mash and mash and
grain mixtures, and found that the all-mash system of feeding
hens for egg production gave slightly better results over a three-
year period. The five other methods of feeding produced results
similar to each other. Robertson, Carver, and Cook (16) re-
ported results on five different methods of feeding laying hens
and concluded that all of them except the all-mash method gave
equally good results in egg production. Kennard and Chamber-
lin (10) stated that free choice of whole corn, whole oats, and
a 22 percent protein mash appeared to be a satisfactory method
of feeding layers as measured by egg production, feed consump-
tion, and cost of feed.
METHOD OF PROCEDURE
Four different methods of feeding grain were compared in
1938-1939 and 1939-1940 at the Main Station, Gainesville, and
at the National Egg-Laying Test, Chipley.3 They began in Octo-
ber of each year and were continued for 12 28-day periods, or
336 days. These independent tests were made at these two
points to give a more complete check on the methods used. Com-
parisons between results obtained at the two places should not
be made, due to differences in breeds, age, and methods of
handling.
The pullets used in these trials at the Main Station were Single
Comb Rhode Island Reds produced from the Experiment Station
flock. At the Egg-Laying Test S. C. Rhode Island Reds were
used the first year and New Hampshires the second year and
were purchased from two Florida breeders. All pullets had been
vaccinated for chickenpox at an early age.
The pullets were divided as uniformly as possible into four
lots, taking into consideration breeding, maturity, body weight,
age and method of rearing. There were 40 to 48 pullets in each
lot. The four lots of pullets were placed in houses of similar
design containing similar interior equipment. At the Main Sta-
tion each lot of birds had access to a single yard 50 x 100 feet,
while at the Egg-Laying Test the birds had access to two yards
each 20 x 50 feet.
Birds at the Main Station were not confined to the house at
any time during these experiments. Green feed was available
in all pens part of the year. At the Egg-Laying Test green feed
was grown in the yards-rye during fall and winter and cowpeas

3Listed as Main Station and Egg-Laying Test throughout the bulletin.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


in summer. The birds had access to both yards during spring
and summer but in winter the yards were used alternately and
the pullets were allowed in the yards only two or three hours
in the afternoon when the weather was favorable. All birds
were trapnested throughout the entire trial and all eggs found
on the floor were credited to the pen. No birds were removed
except after death.

METHODS OF FEEDING
The methods of feeding mash and grain are given in Table 1.
Grit and oyster shell were available in open hoppers at all times.
At the Egg-Laying Test charcoal, also, was available in open
hoppers.
TABLE 1.-METHODS OF FEEDING MASH AND GRAIN.
Lot System of Mash System of Grain
No. Feeding Feeding Remarks

I Self-fed all day Grain mixture hand-fed The quantity of grain
in litter in evening given each evening
was that which was
consumed in about
30 minutes.

II Self-fed all day Grain mixture hand-fed Same as above
in hopper in evening

III Self-fed all day Grain mixture hopper-
fed ad libitum

IV Self-fed all day Corn, wheat, oats,
hopper-fed separately
ad libitum

RATIONS

The mash and grain mixtures fed at the Main Station and at
the Egg-Laying Test were as follows:


Mash Mixture Main Station
Yellow corn meal .....................--. 100 pounds
Wheat bran .....................--.....--------. 100 pounds
Wheat shorts ......................-..... -100 pounds
Ground oats ......................-------........ 100 pounds
Meat scrap-55% protein .--... 75 pounds
Dried skimmilk ...........-............ 25 pounds
Dried buttermilk .................
Alfalfa leaf meal ..........----........ 25 pounds
Ground oyster shell .-............. 7 pounds
Salt .......---------.... ----------- 3 pounds
Grain Mixture
Whole yellow corn .....-.--........ 300 pounds
Wheat .....................------.. 300 pounds
Oats ......---......---.... ................... 100 pounds


Florida National
Egg-Laying Test
100 pounds
100 pounds
100 pounds
100 pounds
75 pounds
25 pounds
25 pounds
7 pounds
3 pounds


300 pounds
300 pounds
100 pounds






Methods of Feeding Grain to Laying Pullets


MANAGEMENT
Artificial Lights.-At the Main Station no artificial lights
were used at any time during the feeding trials. However, at
the Egg-Laying Test morning lights, turned on at 4 a.m. (CST),
were used from the start of the experiment until April 15 each
year.
Moist Mash.-Moist mash was not fed at any time at the Main
Station but was used in the trials at the Egg-Laying Test both
years. It was prepared by taking 6 pounds of the regular dry
mash, 1/4 pound dried buttermilk, 1/ pound cod liver oil, and
adding sufficient water to make it crumbly.
During the second trial the moist mash was prepared by add-
ing semi-solid buttermilk containing vitamin D to the regular
mash in the ratio of 141/2 pounds of dry mash to 8 pounds of
semi-solid buttermilk. Sufficient water was added to make it
crumbly.

RESULTS AT THE MAIN STATION
EGG PRODUCTION
Egg production per bird by 28-day periods and for the year
for each of the two years is shown in Table 2.

TABLE 2.-NUMBER OF EGGS PER BIRD BY 28-DAY PERIODS AND FOR THE
YEARS 1938-39 AND 1939-40.
Lot I Lot II Lot III Lot IV
Grain Mixture Grain Mixture Corn, Wheat,
Period Hand-fed in Hand-fed in Grain Mixture Oats,
Litter in Hopper in Hopper-fed Hopper-fed
Evening Evening ad libitum ad libitum
11938-39 1939-4011938-39 1939-40 1938-39 1939-4011938-39 1939-40
(number of eggs per bird)

1 2.13 2.48 5.25 4.83 3.32 3.16 3.42 2.57
2 7.52 7.99 8.42 9.78 7.51 6.33 7.75 6.71
3 12.00 13.46 10.43 11.54 14.22 10.95 13.78 12.79
4 11.04 15.90 10.56 12.94 15.71 13.32 13.82 14.48
5 14.07 15.40 12.98 15.30 16.76 15.87 13.72 15.47
6 16.92 17.13 17.50 17.60 16.59 17.60 17.95 17.98
7 17.17 15.87 16.69 17.98 15.92 16.36 18.81 18.92
8 16.62 14.98 15.89 17.03 15.31 14.59 16.69 15.39
9 14.27 14.68 14.88 15.37 12.29 13.89 13.53 13.55
10 11.91 11.51 11.76 11.88 9.60 13.35 11.17 11.77
11 11.74 10.80 10.44 11.69 7.61 9.91 9.53 9.35
12 10.03 10.25 8.27 8.35 4.73 9.04 7.64 8.93


150.45 143.07


154.29 139.57


144.37 147.81
1


Total 1145.42
1


147.91






Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


In the first trial the lot of birds fed corn, wheat, and oats
ad libitum produced a few more eggs than any of the other lots,
while in the second trial the birds hand-fed grain in hoppers
were slightly higher in production. Lot III, fed grain mixture
ad libitum, was low in egg production both years. Peak produc-
tion was reached during the fifth to seventh periods and most
often in the seventh period (April).

EGG WEIGHT
All eggs produced on each Monday during the trials were
weighed and the average weight of eggs in ounces per dozen was
calculated as shown in Table 3. The differences in egg weights
were small and apparently were not associated with the method
of feeding.

TABLE 3.-AVERAGE EGG WEIGHTS IN OUNCES PER DOZEN FOR THE YEARS
1938-39 AND 1939-40.
Lot I Lot II Lot III I Lot IV
Grain Mixture Grain Mixture [ Corn, Wheat,
Year Hand-fed in Hand-fed in Grain Mixture Oats,
Litter in Hopper in Hopper-fed Hopper-fed
Evening Evening ad libitum ad libitum
Ounces per Dozen

1938-39 22.9 22.6 23.0 22.9
1939-40 22.7 22.2 22.4 23.2


FEED CONSUMPTION
Mash, grain, and total feed consumption is given in Table 4.
The total amount of feed consumed per bird did not vary greatly
with the four different lots. In the first trial the difference be-
tween lots consuming highest and lowest amounts of feed was
3.11 pounds per bird, and in the second trial this difference was
3.71 pounds of feed per bird.
Table 5 shows the ratio of mash to grain used by periods and
the average for the year. There appeared to be a considerable
variation in ratio of mash to grain between the different lots.
It was considerably narrower in Lots I and II than in Lots III
and IV, which had grain available at all times. In both trials
the birds receiving corn, wheat, and oats ad libitum had the
widest ratio of mash to grain.




TABLE 4.-MASH, GRAIN, AND TOTAL FEED CONSUMPTION IN POUNDS PER BIRD PER PERIOD AND FOR THE YEARS
1938-39 AND 1939-40.
Lot I Lot II Lot III Lot IV
Period Grain Mixture Hand-fed Grain Mixture Hand-fed Grain Mixture Hopper-fed Corn, Wheat, Oats,
in Litter in Evening in Hopper in Evening ad libitum Hopper-fed ad libitum
Mash Grain Total Mash Grain Total Mash Grain Total Mash Grain Total
1938-39 (pounds per bird)
1 1.93 4.02 5.95 2.58 3.83 6.41 1.30 4.71 6.01 1.11 5.05 6.16
2 1.92 4.12 6.04 2.73 4.07 6.80 1.19 5.30 6.49 1.15 4.92 6.07
3 2.67 4.17 6.84 3.00 4.27 7.27 1.90 5.42 7.32 2.10 5.66 7.76
4 2.49 5.34 7.83 2.42 4.66 7.08 1.67 5.60 7.27 1.44 5.59 7.03
5 2.90 4.65 7.55 2.51 4.62 7.13 1.82 5.90 7.72 1.31 5.86 7.71
6 2.41 5.26 7.67 1.78 5.15 6.93 1.80 6.00 7.80 1.17 6.42 7.59
7 2.16 4.51 6.67 2.13 4.24 6.37 2.04 4.88 6.92 1.58 5.76 7.34
8 1.84 4.68 6.52 2.18 4.48 6.66 1.80 4.72 6.52 1.51 5.33 6.84
9 1.52 4.10 5.62 1.92 3.97 5.89 1.43 3.89 5.32 1.11 4.35 5.46
10 2.63 3.30 5.93 2.34 3.25 5.59 1.64 3.77 5.41 1.26 5.04 6.30
11 2.60 3.89 6.49 1.91 3.67 5.58 1.78 2.95 4.73 1.48 4.42 5.90
12 2.18 3.37 5.55 1.44 3.28 4.72 1.75 2.92 4.67 1.49 4.18 5.67
iotal | 27.25 51.41 78.66 26.94 49.49 76.43 20.12 56.06 76.18 16.71 62.58 79.29
Pounds of crude
protein per bird 14.84 14.94 14.05 13.72
1939-40 (pounds per bird)
1 2.35 3.18 5.53 2.35 3.46 5.81 1.'(9 3.31 5.10 .73 4.63 5.36
2 2.73 3.76 6.49 2.84 3.80 6.64 1.02 5.79 6.81 .88 5.11 5.99
3 2.96 4.40 7.36 2.63 4.13 6.76 1.27 5.19 6.46 1.43 5.20 6.63
4 2.97 4.77 7.74 2.74 4.69 7.43 1.38 5.59 6.97 1.43 5.61 7.04
5 2.31 4.31 6.62 2.24 4.29 6.53 1.87 5.06 6.93 1.72 5.61 7.33
6 2.99 3.92 6.91 2.78 3.57 6.35 1.77 4.82 6.59 1.52 5.26 6.78
7 3.06 3.74 6.80 3.33 4.50 7.83 1.47 4.39 5.86 1.72 6.25 7.97
8 1.97 4.50 6.47 2.70 4.03 6.73 1.92 4.13 6.05 1.43 5.07 6.50
9 2.51 3.43 5.94 2.48 3.57 6.05 1.67 4.10 5.77 1.13 4.61 5.74
10 2.17 3.96 6.13 1.98 3.37 5.35 1.77 4.05 5.82 1.31 5.04 6.35
11 1.43 4.12 5.55 2.31 3.46 5.77 1.49 4,21 5.70 1.29 4.23 5.52
12 1.96 4.15 6.11 2.21 3.99 6.20 1.68 4.20 5.88 1.34 4.67 6.01
Total 29.41 48.24 77.65 30.59 46.86 77.45 19.10 54.84 73.94 15.93 61.29 77.22
Pounds of crude I
protein per bird 15.22 15.33 14.02 13.70







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


TABLE 5.-POUNDS OF GRAIN CONSUMED FOR EACH POUND OF MASH BY
28-DAY PERIODS AND FOR THE YEARS 1938-39 AND 1939-40.
Lot I Lot II Lot III Lot IV
Grain Mixture Grain Mixture Corn, Wheat,
Period Hand-fed in Hand-fed in Grain Mixture Oats,
Litter in Hopper in Hopper-fed Hopper-fed
Evening Evening ad libitum ad libitum
11938-39 1939-401 1938-39 1939-4011938-39. 1939-4011938-39 1939-40
(pounds of grain per pound of mash)

1 | 2.08 1.36 1.49 1.48 3.63 1.84 4.55 6.38
2 | 2.15 1.38 1.49 1.33 4.46 5.68 4.30 5.80
3 1.56 1.49 1.43 1.57 2.85 4.09 2.69 3.64
4 2.14 1.61 1.93 1.71 3.35 4.04 3.88 3.63
5 1.60 1.86 1.84 1.92 3.25 2.71 4.48 3.26
6 2.18 1.31 2.89 1.28 3.34 2.72 5.47 3.45
7 2.09 1.22 1.99 1.35 2.39 2.98 3.66 3.93
8 I 2.54 2.28 2.05 1.49 2.62 2.15 3.54 3.54
9 2.70 1.37 2.06 1.44 2.72 2.46 3.94 4.09
10 1.25 1.83 1.39 1.70 2.30 2.28 3.98 3.84
11 1.50 2.88 1.92 1.49 1.66 2.82 2.99 3.27
12 1.55 2.11 2.27 1.81 1.67 2.49 2.81 3.49

Average 1.91 1.61 1.81 1.53 2.85 2.90 3.77 3.87


Table 6 shows the ratio of
and the average for the year.


oats, corn, and wheat by periods
There appeared to be considerable


variation by seasons and also for the year.


TABLE 6.-RATIO OF GRAIN INGREDIENTS (OATS, CORN AND WHEAT) BY
28-DAY PERIODS AND AVERAGE FOR THE YEARS 1938-39 AND 1939-40.
Lot IV Lot IV
Period Corn, Wheat, Oats, Corn, Wheat, Oats,
Hopper-fed ad libitum Hopper-fed ad libitum
| Oats Corn Wheat Oats Corn Wheat
I 1938-39 (ratio) 1939-40 (ratio)

1 1 4.95 5.73 1 3.71 4.55
2 1 2.55 4.32 1 4.35 4.63
3 1 1.47 1.98 1 1.94 2.08
4 1 2.27 3.05 1 1.37 1.99
5 1 2.32 3.42 1 .92 1.51
6 1 1.16 2.14 1 .67 1.61
7 1 1.17 1.98 1 .74 1.27
8 1 1.21 2.74 1 .72 1.37
9 1 1.80 2.69 1 .70 1.65
10 1 2.24 4.36 1 .85 2.11
11 1 1.49 3.06 1 .82 1.10
12 1 1.73 1.80 1 .95 1.35


1.83 2.84
1


Average


1 1.16






Methods of Feeding Grain to Laying Pullets


BODY WEIGHT
The average body weight per pullet at the beginning of the
experiment and for each period and an average weight for the
year are shown in Table 7. In both trials the greatest weight
was attained at the end of the fourth period. There were no
significant differences in body weights of the four lots of birds
using the four methods of feeding.


TABLE 7.-BODY WEIGHT PER BIRD* IN POUNDS BY 28-DAY PERIODS AND
AVERAGE FOR THE YEARS 1938-39 AND 1939-40.
Lot I Lot II Lot III Lot IV
Grain Mixture Corn, Wheat,
Period Hand-fed in Grain Mixture Grain Mixture Oats,
Litter in Hopper-fed in Hopper-fed Hopper-fed
Evening Evening ad libitum ad libitum
|1938-39 1939-401 1938-39 1939-4011938-39 1939-40| 1938-39 1939-40
(pounds per bird)

Start 4.54 4.41 4.63 4.41 4.54 4.45 4.82 4.28
1 5.06 4.93 4.89 4.88 5.21 4.88 5.25 4.94
2 5.64 5.72 5.58 5.34 5.60 5.45 5.76 5.50
3 5.84 5.95 5.85 5.62 5.78 5.64 5.87 5.67
4 6.15 6.36 6.06 6.05 5.84 6.20 6.04 5.99
5 5.97 5.90 6.03 5.87 5.72 5.85 5.90 5.95
6 5.92 5.90 5.83 5.65 5.71 5.84 5.98 5.84
7 5.67 5.81 5.64 5.68 5.66 5.86 5.74 5.86
8 5.58 5.80 5.72 5.71 5.75 5.80 5.64 5.89
9 5.33 5.59 5.53 5.49 5.25 5.50 5.43 5.58
10 5.42 5.58 5.47 5.57 5.30 5.61 5.42 5.69
11 5.61 5.49 5.58 5.47 5.13 5.46 5.48 5.40
12 5.54 5.37 5.35 5.41 4.91 5.26 5.14 5.37

Average 5.56 5.60 5.50 5.47 5.42 5.52 5.57 5.54

The weight per bird was calculated for those alive during the entire experiment.


MORTALITY
Mortality in all four lots was relatively uniform. During the
first trial the majority of the deaths was due to paralysis and
allied conditions and ovarian disorders. In the second trial
fewer birds died in Lot II than in any of the other lots. How-
ever, it appeared that variations in mortality were not due to
the feeding methods employed. The mortality in the first trial
was 35.42, 35.42, 33.33, and 37.50 percent and in the second
trial it was 33.33, 19.05, 30.95, and 23.81 percent for Lots I
to IV, respectively.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


COST OF RATION

The cost of rations (mash and grain) was figured on the basis
of weekly quotations on the Jacksonville market.
The cost of the ingredients and the rations per 100 pounds for
1938-39, and 1939-40 were as follows:

Ingredient 1938-39 1939-40
W hole yellow corn ............... ................. $1.65 $1.85
Cracked yellow corn ......-.......... .......... 1.81 1.97
Fancy clipped oats ................................ 1.91 2.20
Fancy wheat --...... -................ ... ..... 1.91 2.25
Shorts ....................... .... ......~ ......... .. 1.77 1.86
Bran ............................ ...... ........ ...... 1.66 1.79
Dried buttermilk ....................... ........... 5.46 7.56
Dried skimmilk ...............................- .... 5.43 7.43
Ground white oats ........................... 1.87 2.07
Meat scrap-55% protein .....-................. 2.90 3.02
Alfalfa leaf meal ........................................ 2.12 2.34
Yellow corn meal ...................................... 1.81 1.97
Cost of mash ration ..................... 2.13 2.36
Cost of grain ration .................................. 1.80 2.07

The mash cost 23 and the grain mixture 27 cents more per 100
pounds in 1939-40 than in 1938-39.

EGG PRICES

The egg prices used were based on quotations by the State
Marketing Bureau, Jacksonville, for Florida grade A, whites,
24 ounces.
The monthly quotations and the average for the year were as
follows:
1938-39 1939-40
cents per doz. cents per doz.
October .....-........-............. 36.3 32.4
November ................ ...... .. 36.8 33.9
December .-....-.......--......... .. 40.1 30.9
January ................-.. ........... 30.8 31.4
February .......................... 24.3 26.8
M arch ..............-- ............ .. 21.6 20.7
April ....-.......-...- ...-.. .... ....... 21.9 20.8
M ay ....................................... 22.6 21.2
June .......... ....................... 23.0 23.5
July ................... .............. 29.1 28.8
August .................................. 29.6 31.7
September ..................-- ..... 28.8 34.5
Average .............................. 28.74 28.05
The average egg price was slightly less in 1939-40 than in
1938-39, making the egg : feed ratio less favorable during the
second trial than during the first trial.










TABLE 8.-ANALYSES OF FEED CONSUMPTION, COSTS, AND RETURNS OVER FEED COST DURING TWO TRIALS AT THE
MAIN STATION.
Value of Value of Eggs Pounds of Feed Cost
Lot Method of Feeding Year Feed Cost Eggs per Over Feed Feed per per
S________________ ____ per Bird Bird Cost per Bird Dozen Eggs Dozen Eggs
dollars dollars dollars pounds cents
I Grain mixture 1938-39 1.51 3.41 1.90 6.60 12.7
hand-fed in litter
in evening 1939-40 1.71 3.52 1.81 6.23 13.6

II Grain mixture 1938-39 1.49 3.38 1.89 6.60 12.8
hand-fed in hopper
in evening 1939-40 1.70 3.59 1.89 6.06 13.3

III Grain mixture 1938-39 1.45 3.35 1.90 6.60 12.4
hopper-fed
ad libitum 1939-40 1.59 3.33 1.74 6.24 13.4

IV Corn, wheat, oats, 1938-39 1.52 3.49 1.97 6.60 12.4
hopper-fed
ad libitum 1939-40 1.68 3.45 1.77 6.30 13.8






Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


COST AND RETURNS
Detailed records were kept of the feed cost, value of eggs,
value of eggs over feed cost per bird, pounds of feed to produce
one dozen eggs and the feed cost per dozen eggs. They are shown
in Table 8 (page 15).
Lot III had the lowest feed cost per bird, although there was
a difference of only 7 cents per bird from the high (IV) to the
low (III) lot in 1938-39, while in 1939-40 there was a difference
of 12 cents between the high (I) and low (III) lots. In 1938-39
the value of eggs produced was highest in Lot IV and lowest in
Lot III. During the second trial (1939-40) it was highest in
Lot II and lowest in Lot III.
The value of eggs over feed cost was highest in Lot IV in
1938-39 and the other three lots were approximately the same.
During the second trial (1939-40) Lot II returned the highest
value of eggs over feed cost and Lot III the lowest. No signifi-
cant differences were noted in number of pounds of feed con-
sumed per dozen eggs produced. The feed cost per dozen eggs
was lowest in Lots III and IV in 1938-39 and in Lots II and III
in 1939-40.

RESULTS AT THE FLORIDA NATIONAL
EGG-LAYING TEST

EGG PRODUCTION
As shown in Table 9, the lots hand-fed grain in the litter gave
the best production in both years. In 1938-39 the lot fed the
grain mixture of corn, wheat, and oats ad libitum gave the lowest
production, while in 1939-40 the lot fed corn, wheat and oats
ad libitum in separate hoppers gave the lowest production.

EGG WEIGHT
The average egg weights in ounces per dozen are given in
Table 10. The differences in these between lots were not very
great and did not appear to be associated with the method of
feeding.







Methods of Feeding Grain to Laying Pullets


TABLE 9.-NUMBER OF EGGS PER BIRD BY 28-DAY PERIODS AND FOR THE
YEARS 1938-39 AND 1939-40.
Lot I Lot II Lot III Lot IV
Grain Mixture Grain Mixture Corn, Wheat,
Period Hand-fed in Hand-fed in Grain Mixture Oats,
Litter in Hopper in Hopper-fed Hopper-fed
Evening Evening ad libitum ad libitum
11938-39 1939-4011938-39 1939-40 1938-39 1939-4011938-39 1939-40
(number of eggs per bird)

.1 2.41 14.18 3.23 11.62 3.56 13.84 3.70 12.20
2 12.15 13.68 11.53 13.88 10.12 17.23 10.96 15.02
3 15.84 13.74 16.47 16.71 14.91 16.73 14.42 17.33
4 16.26 17.19 15.85 17.15 12.77 16.47 14.75 17.57
5 16.02 18.73 13.17 18.44 12.19 17.63 13.34 17.54
6 15.02 20.59 11.83 19.45 13.06 19.33 11.70 17.59
7 13.72 19.90 11.09 18.48 10.28 18.41 10.71 16.36
8 12.36 16.68 10.47 16.58 8.47 17.30 9.25 13.25
9 7.79 15.02 8.81 14.94 7.05 14.86 7.56 12.07
10 6.72 13.79 6.18 13.20 6.68 12.15 6.73 10.83
11 7.06 10.79 7.42 10.37 7.98 9.88 7.72 9.42
12 6.01 10.73 7.38 9.44 7.34 8.80 6.35 9.62

Total 131.36 187.02 123.43 180.26 114.59 182.63 117.09 168.80



TABLE 10.-AVERAGE EGG WEIGHTS IN OUNCES PER DOZEN FOR THE YEARS
1938-39 AND 1939-40.
Lot I Lot II Lot III Lot IV
Grain Mixture Grain Mixture Corn, Wheat,
Year Hand-fed in Hand-fed in Grain Mixture Oats,
Litter in Hopper in Hopper-fed Hopper-fed
Evening Evening ad libitum ad libitum
Ounces per Dozen

1938-39 I 23.19 23.68 23.04 22.61
1939-40 24.24 24.96 24.48 24.48



FEED CONSUMPTION

Mash, grain and feed consumption are tabulated in Table 11
by periods and for the year. In 1938-39 differences in feed
consumption per bird were less than five pounds among the four
lots. Birds in Lot I consumed most, those in Lot II the least.
In 1939-40 the differences among the four lots in feed consump-
tion per bird were about two pounds, with the birds in Lot III
consuming the most and those in Lot IV the least.







TABLE 11.-MASH, GRAIN, AND TOTAL FEED CONSUMPTION IN POUNDS PER BIRD PER PERIOD AND FOR THE YEARS
1938-39 AND 1939-40.


Lot I Lot II Lot III | Lot IV
Period Grain Mixture Hand-fed Grain Mixture Hand-fed Grain Mixture Hopper-fed Corn, Wheat, Oats,
in Litter in Evening in Houper in Evening ad libitum I Hopper-fed ad libitum


Mash Grain Total Mash Grain Total I Mash Grain Total Mash Grain Total
1938-39 (pounds per bird)
1 2.10 3.91 6.01 2.49 3.90 6.39 2.14 4.29 6.43 1.88 4.35 6.23
2 1.90 4.41 6.31 2.31 3.75 6.06 1.94 4.05 5.99 1.98 4.02 6.00
3 2.51 4.82 7.33 2.88 4.24 7.12 2.43 4.39 6.82 2.24 4.73 6.97
4 2.31 4.88 7.19 2.59 4.45 7.04 2.43 4.39 6.30 2.24 4.73 6.81
5 2.72 3.82 6.54 2.62 3.27 5.89 2.40 3.92 6.32 1.97 3.86 5.83
6 2.53 3.99 6.52 2.33 3.18 5.51 2.37 3.94 6.31 2.18 3.78 5.96
7 2.27 4.25 6.52 2.34 3.55 5.89 2.22 3.52 5.74 2.01 4.29 6.30
8 2.11 4.03 6.14 2.15 3.45 5.60 2.38 3.25 5.63 1.82 4.23 6.05
9 2.06 3.88 5.94 2.10 2.72 4.82 2.37 3.58 5.95 1.68 3.78 5.46
10 2.07 2.89 4.96 1.71 2.89 4.60 1.67 3.57 5.44 1.57 3.29 4.86
11 2.06 3.33 5.39 2.05 3.78 5.83 1.45 3.80 5.25 1.40 3.61 5.01
12 1.65 3.91 5.56 1.99 3.13 5.12 1.45 3.91 5.36 1.40 3.37 4.77
Total | 26.29 48.12 74.41 27.56 42.31 69.87 ( 25.13 46.21 71.34 22.42 47.83 70.25
Pounds crude
protein per bird 14.58 16.42 14.60 14.61
1939-40 (pounds per bird)
1 4.00 3.41 7.41 3.81 3.43 7.24 2.70 4.85 7.55 2.50 7.11 4.61
2 4.01 3.30 7.31 4.03 3.49 7.52 2.92 5.28 8.20 2.69 5.31 8.00
3 4.13 3.69 7.82 4.16 3.51 7.67 3.02 5.15 8.17 2.89 5.33 8.22
4 3.95 4.19 8.14 4.08 4.35 8.43 2.95 4.99 7.94 2.86 5.54 8.40
5 3.97 4.37 8.34 4.03 4.42 8.45 3.14 5.08 8.22 2.72 5.38 8.10
6 3.57 4.46 8.03 3.43 4.50 7.93 2.55 5.41 7.96 2.34 5.35 7.69
7 3.50 4.35 7.85 3.48 4.32 7.80 2.83 4.50 7.33 2.47 4.65 7.12
8 3.30 4.20 7.50 3.06 4.18 7.24 2.87 4.06 6.93 2.12 4.43 6.55
9 2.85 3.45 6.30 2.80 3.56 6.36 2.59 4.19 6.78 2.14 4.41 6.55
10 2.42 3.67 6.09 2.47 3.57 6.04 2.39 4.10 6.49 1.95 4.12 6.07
11 2.22 3.95 6.17 2.51 3.04 5.55 1.99 3.59 5.58 1.84 3.52 5.36
12 1.90 3.59 5.49 2.24 3.68 5.92 1.99 3.67 5.66 1.91 3.68 5.59
Total 39.82 46.63 86.45 J 40.10 46.05 86.15 | 31.94 54.87 86.81 28.43 56.33 84.76
Pounds crude
protein per bird 15.68 15.73 14.73 14.80







Methods of Feeding Grain to Laying Pullets


Table 12 shows the ratio of mash to grain consumed by periods
and the average for the year.

TABLE 12.-POUNDS OF GRAIN CONSUMED FOR EACH POUND OF MASH BY
28-DAY PERIODS AND FOR THE YEARS 1938-39 AND 1939-40.
Lot I Lot II Lot III Lot IV
Grain Mixture Grain Mixture Corn, Wheat,
Period Hand-fed in Hand-fed in Grain Mixture Oats,
Litter in Hopper in Hopper-fed Hopper-fed
Evening Evening ad libitum ad libitum
11938-39 1939-4011938-39 1939-4011938-39 1939-4011938-39 1939-40
(pounds of grain per pound of mash)

1 1.86 .85 1.57 .90 2.00 1.80 2.31 1.85
2 2.32 .82 1.62 .87 2.09 1.81 2.03 1.97
3 1.92 .89 1.47 .84 1.81 1.71 2.11 1.85
4 2.11 1.06 1.72 1.07 1.73 1.69 1.97 1.94
5 1.40 1.10 1.25 1.10 1.63 1.62 1.96 1.98
6 1.58 1.25 1.36 1.31 1.66 2.12 1.73 2.29
7 1.87 1.24 1.52 1.24 1.59 1.59 2.13 1.88
8 1.91 1.27 1.60 1.37 1.37 1.41 2.32 2.09
9 1.88 1.21 1.30 1.27 1.51 1.62 2.25 2.06
10 1.40 1.51 1.69 1.45 2.14 1.72 2.10 2.12
11 1.62 1.78 1.84 1.21 2.62 1.80 2.58 1.92
12 2.37 1.89 1.57 1.64 2.70 1.85 2.41 1.92

Average 1.84 1.16 1.52 1.14 1.81 1.72 2.12 1.98
In 1938-39 there was no considerable difference in the ratio
of mash to grain, however, the ratio was narrower in Lot II than
in the other three lots. In 1939-40 the birds in Lots I and II
consumed slightly more grain than mash while in Lots III and
IV the ratio was much wider.
TABLE 13.-RATIO OF GRAIN INGREDIENTS (OATS, CORN AND WHEAT) BY
28-DAY PERIODS AND AVERAGE FOR THE YEARS 1938-39 AND 1939-40.
Lot IV Lot IV
Period Corn, Wheat, Oats, Corn, Wheat, Oats,
Hopper-fed ad libitum Hopper-fed ad libitum
Oats Corn Wheat Oats Corn Wheat
1938-39 (ratio) .1939-40 (ratio)
1 1 2.35 2.35 1 1.05 3.29
2 1 1.35 1.45 1 .96 1.69
3 1 1.10 1.03 1 1.12 1.70
4 1 .89 1.00 1 1.02 1.40
5 1 .73 1.02 1 1.06 1.74
6 1 1.25 1.44 1 1.01 1.53
7 1 1.12 1.15 1 1.14 1.73
8 1 1.00 1.00 1 .77 1.05
9 1 .88 1.00 1 .81 1.14
10 1 .79 .87 1 .85 1.10
11 1 1.06 .96 1 1.13 1.08
12 1 1.14 1.36 1 1.02 1.02

Average 1 1.11 1.19 1 .99 1.51






Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


Table 13 presents the ratio of the grain ingredients by periods
and the average for the year. The consumption of corn, oats
and wheat was nearly equal, the preference being for wheat.

BODY WEIGHT
Table 14 shows the average body weight per pullet in pounds
at the beginning of the experiment and for each 28-day period
and an average for the year. During both trials there did not
appear to be any significant differences in the average body
weight regardless of the method of feeding employed. The birds
reached their maximum weight at the end of the third to the
fifth period.
TABLE 14.-BODY WEIGHT PER BIRD* IN POUNDS BY 28-DAY PERIODS AND
AVERAGE FOR THE YEARS 1938-39 AND 1939-40.
Lot I Lot II Lot III Lot IV
Grain Mixture Corn, Wheat,
Period Hand-fed in Grain Mixture Grain Mixture Oats,
Litter in Hopper-fed in Hopper-fed Hopper-fed
Evening Evening ad libitum ad libitum
11938-39 1939-40 1938-39 1939-4011938-39 1939-4011938-39 1939-40
(pounds per bird)

Start 4.17 4.31 4.23 4.39 4.37 4.37 4.40 4.41
1 5.08 5.01 5.00 5.19 5.26 5.18 5.38 5.34
2 5.29 5.33 5.32 5.57 5.35 5.54 5.66 5.49
3 5.86 5.25 5.61 5.35 5.67 5.28 6.15 5.22
4 5.81 5.92 5.61 6.13 5.54 6.03 5.90 5.82
5 5.72 5.96 5.19 5.90 5.14 6.03 5.72 5.82
6 5.65 5.82 5.23 5.96 5.18 5.91 5.72 5.73
7 5.21 5.75 4.76 5.85 4.79 5.84 5.28 5.71
8 4.99 5.90 4.77 5.93 4.58 6.07 5.51 5.80
9 4.47 5.86 4.44 5.83 4.55 5.81 5.28 5.74
10 4.86 5.64 4.76 5.59 4.96 5.74 5.37 5.53
11 4.69 5.67 4.36 5.54 4.70 5.76 4.90 5.54
12 4.83 5.51 4.63 5.35 5.06 5.98 5.22 5.67

Average 5.13 5.53 4.92 5.58 5.01 5.66 5.42 5.53

*The weight per bird was calculated for those alive during the entire experiment.

MORTALITY
Mortality was high during the first trial but it did not appear
to be related to the method of feeding. In the second trial the
mortality was relatively low. The main causes of mortality were
tumors, paralysis, and ovarian disorders.
In the first trial mortality was 57.50, 45.00, 47.50, and 57.50
percent, and in the second trial it was 18.18, 22.73, 15.91, and
22.73, respectively, for Lots I, II, III, and IV.






Methods of Feeding Grain to Laying Pullets


COST OF RATION
The cost of the mash and grain ration was figured on the basis
of weekly quotations on the Jacksonville market. The semi-solid
buttermilk used in the second trial was reduced to a dry basis
and figured in the cost of the mash.
The costs of the ingredients and rations were as follows:

Ingredient 1938-39 1939-40
100 Bran .....----........................---...... $1.66 $1.79
100 Yellow corn meal ................ 1.81 1.97
100 Shorts .................................... 1.77 1.86
100 Ground oats .......................... 1.87 2.07
75 Meat scraps ................-......... 2.18 2.27
25 Dried buttermilk ..-...-......-- 1.37 1.89
25 Alfalfa leaf meal .-..........--. .53 .59
Cost of mash ration ................. 2.13 2.37
Cost of grain ration ................. 1.76 2.04

The mash was 24 cents and the grain 28 cents a hundred
pounds higher in 1939-40 than in 1938-39.

EGG PRICES
The egg prices used were based on quotations by the State
Marketing Bureau, Jacksonville, for Florida grade A, whites,
24 ounces. The monthly quotations and the average price for
the year were the same as stated for Main Station trials.

COST AND RETURNS
Table 15 shows the feed cost, value of eggs and value of eggs
over feed cost per bird, feed cost per dozen eggs, and pounds
of feed to produce a dozen eggs. Lot I had the highest feed
cost per bird in 1938-39, although the difference was only 8 cents
per bird from the high (I) to the low (II) lot. In 1939-40 there
was a difference of only 3 cents a bird between Lots I and II
and Lots III and IV. The value of eggs per bird was highest
in Lot I (both years) and lowest in Lot III (1938-39) and Lot
IV (1939-40). The value of eggs over feed cost per bird was
highest both years in Lot I.
In the first trial higher feed efficiency was observed in Lots
I and II, while in the second trial Lots I, II, and III were ap-
proximately the same. The feed cost per dozen eggs was lowest
in Lots I and II in 1938-39 and in Lots I and III in 1939-40.













TABLE 15.-ANALYSES OF FEED CONSUMPTION, COSTS, AND RETURNS OVER FEED COST DURING TWO TRIALS AT THE
FLORIDA NATIONAL EGG-LAYING TEST.
I Value of Value of Eggs Pounds of Feed Cost
Lot Method of Feeding Year Feed Cost Eggs per Over Feed Feed per per
Sper Bird Bird Cost per Bird Dozen Eggs Dozen Eggs
dollars dollars dollars pounds cents

I Grain mixture 1938-39 1.44 3.26 1.82 6.67 12.7
hand-fed in litter
in evening 1939-40 1.99 4.38 2.39 5.56 12.7

II Grain mixture 1938-39 1.36 3.06 1.70 6.60 12.8
hand-fed in hopper
in evening 1939-40 1.99 4.24 2.25 5.72 13.2

III Grain mixture 1938-39 1.37 2.82 1.45 7.36 13.9
hopper-fed
ad libitum 1939-40 1.96 4.31 2.25 5.69 12.8

IV Corn, wheat, oats, 1938-39 1.38 2.88 1.50 7.15 13.8
hopper-fed
ad libitum 1939-40 1.96 3.99 2.03 6.01 13.8
_ _ _ _ _ 1_ _






Methods of Feeding Grain to Laying Pullets


DISCUSSION
EGG PRODUCTION
The distribution of egg production in these trials by 28-day
periods varied considerably. The pullets at the Egg-Laying Test
came into production more rapidly than did those at the Main
Station. This was probably due partially to the use of artificial
lights and the feeding of moist mash at the Egg-Laying Test.
The pullets at the Main Station received neither moist mash
nor artificial lights.
Summaries of egg production show that no one method of
feeding gave the best results in all trials. In the Main Station
trials the lot fed grain in hoppers once a day produced the great-
est number of eggs in the second trial while the lot fed corn,
wheat and oats ad libitum was highest in the first trial. In the
Egg-Laying Test trials the lot fed grain once a day in the litter
produced the most eggs both years.
A greater difference in egg production per bird was obtained
in the trials at the Egg-Laying Test than at the Main Station
when comparing the four methods of feeding.

EGG WEIGHTS
Eggs laid on Monday of each week at the Main Station were
weighed and used in figuring the average egg weight. At the
Egg-Laying Test average egg weights were determined by
weighing all eggs produced. Differences in egg weights be-
tween lots in any of the experiments are not large and do not
appear to be associated with any of the methods of feeding or
the rate of production.

FEED CONSUMPTION
The total amount of mash and grain consumed per bird was
approximately the same regardless of method of feeding. In
the second trial at the Egg-Laying Test greater feed intake was
obtained than in the first trial there or the two trials at the
Main Station. This may be accounted for in the high produc-
tion obtained during that trial. There was 6.2 percent difference
in total feed consumption between the lots consuming the most
and the least feed. This difference occurred in only one trial,
and in all others the percentage differences were less.
Measurable differences were noted in the ratio of mash to
grain consumption with the different methods of feeding by






Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


periods and for the year. The birds which had access to grain
all day consumed more grain than those which were hand-fed
in the litter or in hoppers once a day. Grain consumption was
greater in proportion to mash consumption in the Main Station
trials than in the Egg-Laying Test trials. Some of the differ-
ence may be due to the feeding of moist mash at the Egg-Laying
Test and no moist mash at the Main Station.
At the Main Station in the first trial mash consumption, ex-
pressed as percent of the total feed consumed, varied from 35.59
percent in Lot II to 20.96 percent in Lot IV. In the second trial
mash consumption varied from 39.53 percent in Lot II to 20.53
percent in Lot IV.
At the Egg-Laying Test in the first trial mash consumption
varied from 39.68 percent in Lot II to 32.05 percent in Lot IV.
In the second trial it varied from 46.73 percent in Lot II to 32.05
percent in Lot IV.
Results indicate that the ratio of mash to grain had very little
effect on egg production. The lots of birds consuming a higher
proportion of mash did not lay the most eggs, and those birds
which consumed the least mash did not lay the fewest eggs.
In Lot IV the birds had access to corn, wheat and oats ad
libitum. Considerable variation occurred in the proportion of
these grains consumed during the 12 periods and the average
for the year. In the first trial at the Main Station the propor-
tion was 1 of oats, 1.83 of corn, and 2.84 of wheat, while in the
second trial it was 1, 1.16, and 1.79, respectively. In the Egg-
Laying Test trials the birds in Lot IV consumed practically the
same proportion of oats, corn, and wheat. In the first trial the
proportion was 1 of oats to 1.11 of corn and 1.19 of wheat; while
in the second trial it was 1 of oats, 0.99 of corn, and 1.51 of
wheat. A wide variation occurred in the proportions of these
three grains by periods, ranging from 1 of oats, 4.95 of corn,
and 5.73 of wheat to 1 of oats, 0.79 of corn, and 0.87 parts of
wheat.
Pounds of feed consumed to produce a dozen eggs is used
often as a basis for evaluating results obtained with feeds and
feeding methods. This is a measure which includes both feed
consumption and egg production.
In the Main Station trials no significant differences were noted
in the feed consumed per dozen eggs produced. In the first trial
it took 6.60 pounds of feed to produce a dozen eggs in each of






Methods of Feeding Grain to Laying Pullets


the four lots. In the second trial the variation was between
6.06 and 6.30 pounds of feed consumed per dozen eggs.
The differences in the Egg-Laying Test trials were more pro-
nounced, the greatest difference being 0.69 pounds of feed per
dozen eggs. In both trials at the Egg-Laying Test it took more
feed to produce a dozen eggs with the birds in Lot IV.
The crude protein content of the ration was calculated and the
protein intake determined for each lot. The pounds of crude
protein consumed per bird per year varied from 14.94 (Lot II)
to 13.72 pounds (Lot IV) in the first trial. The range was from
15.33 pounds (Lot II) to 13.70 pounds (Lot IV) during the
second trial at the Main Station. In the first trial at the Egg-
Laying Test the crude protein intake per bird varied from 16.42
pounds (Lot II) to 14.60 pounds (Lot III), while in the second
trial the range was from 15.73 pounds (Lot II) to 14.73 pounds
(Lot III).
Protein intake per bird was not necessarily in proportion to
egg production per bird. Birds consuming the most protein
did not necessarily produce the most eggs. Nor did the birds
consuming the least protein produce the fewest eggs.
BODY WEIGHT
In both trials at the Main Station and in the second trial at
the Egg-Laying Test there was less than 3 percent difference
between the body weight of the birds in the heaviest and lightest
lots. In the first trial at the Egg-Laying Test this difference
was 9.23 percent. No large differences were observed in the
body weights of the birds in the four lots, regardless of the ratio
of mash to grain.
MORTALITY
The majority of cases of mortality were due to paralysis,
tumors, and ovarian disorders. The rate of mortality did not
appear to be associated with any of the methods of feeding.
COSTS AND RETURNS
Average yearly feed prices and egg prices as quoted on the
Jacksonville market were used in determining the cost of the
ration, feed cost per bird, feed cost per dozen eggs, value of eggs
produced, and value of eggs over feed cost. Pages 14 and 21
show the price of each ingredient, the mash and grain mixtures
and the egg prices of Florida grade A, whites, 24 ounces, for the
periods 1938-39 and 1939-40. Feed was higher in price and eggs
lower during 1939-40 than in 1938-39.






Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


The feed cost per bird was influenced by total feed consump-
tion and the ratio of mash to grain consumed. Slight differences
were noted in the feed cost per bird and this generally occurred
with the lots consuming the most mash.
In the Main Station trials no one system of feeding returned
the highest value of eggs over feed cost per bird and the differ-
ences were small. In the Egg-Laying Test trials hand-feeding
grain in the litter gave highest returns both years. The differ-
ences at the Egg-Laying Test appeared to be significant.
The feed cost per dozen eggs varied more in the Egg-Laying
Test trials than in the Main Station trials. It varied only 0.5
cent per dozen at the Main Station, but at the Egg-Laying Test
the variation was 1.2 cents per dozen.

SUMMARY
Four methods of feeding grain to laying pullets were tested
over a two-year period at the Main Station, Gainesville, and the
Egg-Laying Test, Chipley. The methods used were: (1) mash
self-fed, grain mixture once in litter in evening; (2) mash self-
fed, grain mixture in hoppers in evening; (3) mash self-fed,
grain mixture in hoppers all day; and (4) mash self-fed, corn,
wheat and oats in hoppers all day.
All four methods of feeding laying pullets appeared to give
satisfactory egg production. When lights and moist mash were
used best results were obtained with the lot which had mash
self-fed and grain fed in litter once in the evening.
There were no large differences in egg weight, body weight,
and mortality.
There were significant differences in the ratio of mash to
grain consumption in the different methods of feeding. A
greater percentage of grain was consumed in the lots receiving
grain in hoppers all day. Considerable variation occurred in
the proportion of oats, corn, and wheat consumed during the
different periods and the average for the year.
Feed cost per dozen eggs was approximately the same in the
four different lots in the Main Station trials. In the Egg-Laying
Test trials the feed cost per dozen eggs was lowest with the
birds hand-fed grain in litter once a day and highest with the
birds self-fed the grain mixture and self-fed corn, wheat, and
oats all day.
As a result of these trials it would appear that any of the
methods tested may be recommended for feeding laying pullets.







Methods of Feeding Grain to Laying Pullets


LITERATURE CITED
1. BRUMLEY, FRANK W. An economic study of commercial poultry farm-
ing in Florida. Fla. Agr. Ext. Bul. 105. 1940.
2. CARD, L. E. Box feeding of grain does not cut egg yields. Ill. Agr.
Exp. Sta. 40th Ann. Rpt.: 134-135. 1927.
3. CARVER, J. S. Methods of feeding Leghorn hens. Wash. Agr. Exp.
Sta. Bul. 254. 1933.
4. CASSEL, L. W. Feeding experiments with Leghorns. Wash. Agr. Exp.
Sta. Bul. 210. 1927.
5. DAVIDSON, J. A. Continuous hopper feeding of corn and oats to laying
pullets. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Quart. Bul. XIX (1). 1936.
6. DAVIDSON, J. A. Hopper feeding grain to laying pullets. Mich. Agr.
Exp. Sta. Quart. Bul. XX (2). 1937.
7. GRAHAM, J. C. Individuality of pullets in balancing the ration. Poul-
try Sci. 13: 34-39. 1934.
8. HEIMAN, VICTOR, J. S. CARVER, and J. L. ST. JOHN. The protein re-
quirements of laying hens. Wash. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 331. 1936.
9. KENNARD, D. C., and V. D. CHAMBERLIN. Free choice of whole grain
and mash concentrate for layers. Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Bimonthly
Bul., Vol. XVII, No. 157, July-Aug. 1932.
10. KENNARD, D. C., and V. D. CHAMBERLIN. Rations and methods of feed-
ing layers. Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Bimonthly Bul. Vol. XXIV, No. 201.
1939.
11. KENNARD, D. C., and V. D. CHAMBERLIN. Studies of individual layers.
Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Bimonthly Bul. Vol. XIX, No. 170. 1934.
12. MARTIN, J. HOLMES, and W. M. INSKO, JR. Feeding trials with laying
hens. Ky. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 294. 1929.
13. MARTIN, J. HOLMES, and W. M. INSKO, JR. Hopper versus litter feed-
ing of grain. Poultry Sci. 13: 380. 1934.
14. MARTIN, J. HOLMES. Sources of animal protein for laying hens. Ky.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 260. 1925.
15. NORTH, MACK 0. Feeding systems for laying hens. Wyo. Agr. Exp.
Sta. Bul. 230. 1938.
16. ROBERTSON, E. I., J. S. CARVER, and J. W. COOK. Methods of feeding
laying hens. Wash. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 381. 1939.
17. THOMPSON, R. B. All-mash or mash and grain good. Okla. Agr. Exp.
Sta. Rpt. 1926-1930: 96-99.
18. TOMHAVE, A. E., and C. W. MUMFORD. Self selection of feeds by hens.
Del. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 174. 1931.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs