|
TITLE:
Address: Institute
Full-length paper:
Section preference:
Running headline:
Key words:
of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
Poultry Science Department,
University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida 32611
XXXX Research Note:
Education and Production
Economics of breeder grower programs
Broiler breeder, feed restriction, economics
Send Correspondence to:
H.R. Wilson
Poultry Science Department
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
'Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Series No.
Response of Broiler Breeder Females
To Feed Restriction Below Recommended Levels.
2. Economic Analysis'
T.R. FATTORI, P.E. HILDEBRAND _
and H.R. WILSON
Authors:
j, o /qY
*a
1 i RESPONSE OF BROILER BREEDER FEMALES
2
3 -- "'.. TO FEED RESTRICTION BELOW RECOMMENDED LEVELS.
4
5 2. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS1
6
7 I T. R. Fattori2
8 P. E. Hildebrand3
9 and
10 H. R. Wilson2
11
12 Departments of Poultry Science and
13 Food and Resource Economics
14 University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611
15
16 ABSTRACT An economic analysis of the growth and production
17 response to feed restriction was made for broiler breeder
18 females. Experimental response data were used to: 1) examine the
19 effect of feed restriction on pullet rearing, breeder hen and
20 hatching egg cost components; 2) evaluate the effect of feeding
21 program on the average total cost of rearing a pullet (ATC/P),
22 maintaining a breeder hen (ATC/B) and producing a dozen hatching
23 eggs (ATC/E); 3) test the sensitivity of the ATC/P to changes in
24 component costs; and 4) estimate the change in ATC/P and ATC/E,
25 to simulated changes in pullet rearing density.
26 Each week of delayed maturity increased ATC/P by ca. 1%.
27 Reduced pullet feed costs resulting from feed restriction did not
28 offset increased service and grower payment costs to 5%
29 production. Increased pullet rearing costs were offset by breeder
30 feed savings and increased production by ca. 67 wk of age.
31 Projected ATC/E beyond 67 wk indicate severe feed restriction to
32 be more economical (lower ATC/E) than standard feeding practices.
33 ATC/P was most sensitive to changes in chick, feed and grower
34 payment costs. Projected increased pullet housing density lowered
35 ATC/P, which lowered the ATC/E even further for the more
36 restricted feeding programs. **
37
38 (Key words: Broiler breeder, Feed restriction, Economics)
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46 iFlorida Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Series
47 Number ????.
48 2Poultry Science Department.
Food and Resource Economics Department.
2
1 INTRODUCTION
2 Growth and reproductive performance of broiler breeder
3 parent flocks have a direct impact on net returns to broiler
4 integrators. Economic gains from increased broiler breeder
5 reproductive efficiency can be of major significance given the
6 scale of the broiler industry today. The role of the breeding
7 hen as the basic profit unit in the integrated broiler industry
8 was recognized by Strain and Nordskog (1962) for many years.
9 Research on the biological effects of feed restriction on
10 female broiler breeder growth and reproduction has indicated a
11 number of advantages to such feeding programs. Unfortunately,
12 the economic consequences of these effects are rarely determined.
13 Proudfoot and Lamoreux (1973) compared "monetary returns"
14 resulting from full feeding, restricted feeding (75% of full
15 feed) and full feeding low protein diets (12.3%) during the
16 rearing period, as well as feed restriction during the laying
17 period of different meat-type strains. They found that feed
18 treatments used during the rearing period had a significant
19 effect on "monetary returns" from hatching egg production, with
20 the restricted feeding program resulting in higher monetary
21 gains. The adult breeder feed treatment (full fed vs. 90% of
22 full fed) had no significant effect on*either gross revenue or
23 profit.
24 Proudfoot et al. (1984) evaluated the economic effect of
25 feed restriction during the laying period on the performance of
26 dwarf and normal broiler breeder hens. "Monetary returns" per
1 hen housed for normal breeder hens were significantly higher than
2 for dwarf breeders. This was true despite a significantly lower
3 dwarf breeder level of feed consumption per dozen hatching eggs
4 produced. No difference in returns due to a level of feed
5 restriction 5% below standard could be detected. These authors
6 noted that if dwarf females were housed more densely than normal
7 females, fixed costs of production could be less per bird and
8 provide greater "total returns" to the hatching egg producer than
9 normal broiler breeder strains housed at lower densities.
10 The hypothesis to be tested in this analysis is: If broiler
11 breeders are severely feed restricted (levels below current
12 recommendations) during the rearing period and the resulting
13 biological response is an equivalent but delayed reproductive
14 performance relative to standard practices (Fattori et al. ????),
15 then economic benefits, from a lowered average total cost of
16 production, would accrue to the pullet grower, hatching egg
17 producer and broiler integrator.
18 The specific objectives were to: 1) examine the effect of
19 feed restriction on pullet rearing cost structure; 2) determine
20 the cost of extending the rearing period (delayed sexual
21 maturity) resulting from various levels of feed restriction; 3)
22 test the sensitivity of,the average total cost of rearing a
23 pullet to changes in component costs; 4) compare average total
24 costs of hatching egg production for various degrees of feed
25 restriction; 5) derive the change in cost structure during the
26 rearing period from changes in the density of pullets per unit
1 area;,and 6) derive the change in breeder hen laying cost
2 structure resulting from increased pullet rearing density,
3 assuming,no change to bird performance.
4
5 MATERIALS AND METHODS
6 Feeding Programs and Production Coefficients
7 Experimental data (feed consumption, body weight and
8 hatching egg production) utilized in this analysis were obtained
9 from a broiler breeder female feed restriction experiment
10 (Fattori et al., ????) which formed the basis of the biological
11 response to severe feed restriction. The five feeding programs
12 used in this experiment were: 8 percent above the breeder
13 recommendations (+8%); standard (STD) which approximated the
14 breeder's guidelines; and severe feed restrictions of 8 (-8%), 16
15 (-16%) and 24 (-24%) percent below standard.
16 The broiler breeder life cycle was divided into two distinct
17 accounting periods. The pullet rearing period began at one day
18 of age and ended at 5% production. The breeder hen laying period
19 began at 5% production and continued until flock liquidation.
20 Mortality and Culling. Results of the feed restriction
21 experiment indicated no significant differences in either rearing
22 or laying period mortality due to feed treatment (feeding
23 programs). Therefore, a common cumulative mortality for both
24 pullets and breeder hens was used for all feeding programs.
25 Pullet mortality and culling during rearing (PMRT) was
26 established at an estimated base rate of .2% per wk starting from
5
1 1 wk of age and resulting in 4, 5, and 6% cumulative mortality at
2 20, 25 and 30 wk of age, respectively. Similarly, breeder hen
3 mortality and culling (BMRT) was at the base rate of .175% per wk
4 from the appropriate age at 5% production to 7, 7.9 and 8.7%
5 cumulative mortality after 40, 45, and 50 wk of production,
6 respectively.
7 Sensitivity Analysis and Prices. Sensitivity analysis
8 indicated change in the4average total cost of a pullet rearing
9 enterprise in response to a 20% change in a component cost, with
10 all other costs held constant. The base price situation used in
11 this analysis was consistent with commercial prices found in the
12 Southeastern United States in 1988 (Source:Gold Kist, Inc.). The
13 base price estimates and the corresponding 20% adjustment made
14 to the base prices are listed in Table 1.
15 Fixed Costs
16 Pullet Rearing. Base female and male chick costs (CHK) were
17 estimated to be $1.70 and $2.95 respectively. Initial quantity
18 purchased was adjusted for expected mortality and to achieve a 9
19 to 1 female to male ratio of survivors at 25 wk of age.
20 Breeder Hens. Average total cost of a pullet survivor
21 reared to 5% production became the fixed cost in the laying
22 accounting period. Table 2 lists the pullet rearing costs for
23 each level of feed restriction based on pullet rearing costs
24 detailed in Table 1.
25
26
6
1 Variable Costs
2 Feed Costs. Pullet (PFD) and breeder hen (BFD) feed costs
3 for a particular age were determined by accumulating the product
4 of the base feed cost ($.135/kg) for pullets or ($.125/kg) for
5 breeder hens and the appropriate quantity of feed consumed by
6 birds on a particular feeding program (Tables 1 and 2).
7 Cumulative feed consumption was obtained from experimental data
8 and feed costs included a provision for medication and delivery
9 costs.
10 Service and Supervision Costs. Pullet (PSRV) and breeder
11 hen (BSRV) service and supervision costs were determined for a
12 particular age by projecting a linear increase in cumulative
13 costs at the estimated base rate of $.013/pullet/wk for the
14 pullet rearing enterprise or $.0075/dozen hatching eggs (DZHE)
15 for the breeder hen laying enterprise (Tables 1 and 2). At these
16 rates, the total cost per pullet reared from 1 wk through 25 wk
17 of age was $.325/pullet survivor and the total cost per DZHE
18 through 40 wk of production was $.30/DZHE.
19 Pullet Contract Costs. Pullet-grower payment cost (PPAY)
20 was predicated on contractual arrangements. Using the base rate
21 of $.0275/.0929 mn/wk for each flock and that chicks would be
22 housed at the base pullet density of .1626 m /bird. From these
23 standards, cumulative pullet grower payments increased at the
24 rate of $.04812/pullet/wk.
25 Breeder Hen Contract Costs. Cumulative hatching egg data
26 were obtained from each experimental treatment by subtracting the
7
1 double-yolked eggs from total eggs and averaged into a weekly
2 value. This procedure was used due to a significant feeding
3 program effect on the incidence of double-yolked eggs (Fattori et
4 al., ????). Average weekly production of adjusted total eggs was
5 then adjusted for commercial eggs, e.g., undersized, dirty, or
6 cracked eggs, at an equivalent rate (.08%/wk) for all feeding
7 programs, which allowed the removal of 3.2% commercial eggs after
8 40 wk of production. Cumulative production of hatching eggs was
9 then adjusted for breeder hen mortality and expressed as dozens
10 of hatching eggs per breeder hen survivor. This value for each
11 feeding program represents the output in the production process.
12 Payments to the hatching egg producer (BPAY) were based on
13 the estimated contractual rate of $.30/DZHE which included
14 payment to the producer for commercial and double-yolked eggs
15 (egg salvage at $.10/DZ), and any potential bonus.
16 Vaccination, Beak Trimming and Blood Testing Costs. Pullet
17 vaccination, beak trimming, blood testing and miscellaneous costs
18 (PVAC) were determined by increasing PVAC costs linearly from 1
19 wk of age at the rate of $.012/pullet (Table 1). At this rate
20 the cumulative PVAC costs amounted to $.30/pullet at 25 wk of
21 age.
22 Salvage Prices. Commercial egg salvage values received by
23 the integrator were determined for each feeding program by
24 multiplying cumulative commercial egg quantities at a given age
25 by the estimated salvage base price of $.10/dozen (Table 1).
26 Bird salvage values were determined for each feeding program by
1 multiplying the estimated salvage base price of $.286/kg of live
2 bird by the average live body weight of birds at a salvage age
3 (Table 2).
4
5 Average Total Cost
6 Pullet Rearing Period. The total cost of rearing a pullet
7 was equal to the summation of fixed costs (CHK) and variable
8 costs (PFD, PPAY, PSRV and PVAC)'for a'particular age. Since the
9 technical output of the pullet rearing process is numbers of live
10 pullets, livability data derived from the linear pullet mortality
11 function were used to calculate average total costs (ATC/P) in
12 dollars per pullet survivor. This analysis projected the average
13 total cost and its component costs for each feeding program
14 through 30 wk of age. This time frame captured the changes in
15 rearing cost structure that occurred until birds on all feeding
16 programs achieved 5% production.
17 Breeder Hen Period. Economic evaluation of the breeder hen
18 period was made from two perspectives. The first examined
19 average total cost on a breeder hen survivor basis (ATC/B), so
20 that average cost could be examined independently of production
21 performance. Secondly, average total cost was evaluated on the
22 basis of a dozen hatching eggs produced (ATC/E).
23
24 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
25 Pullet Rearing Period. The average cost structure of a
26 standard (STD) pullet rearing feeding program is illustrated in
.
9
i. : :.. *:. : I .. **- *.. ...::.
1 Figure 1. Average fixed cost per pullet (AFC/P) represents the
2 pullet and cockerel chick cost (CHK) at day of age adjusted for
3 pullet mortality. Average variable cost per pullet for the
4 combined PPAY, PSRV and PVAC costs (AVC1/P) increased linearly
5 through 30 wk of age. Whereas, the average variable cost per
6 pullet for the feed component (AVC2/P) increased linearly to 20
7 wk and then increased at a relatively more rapid rate and
8 surpassed all other average cost groups by 29 wk of age.
9 The effect of feeding program on PFD through 30 wk of age is
10 depicted in Figure 2. The feeding program effect on ATC/P was a
11 proportional reduction in PFD costs at a common age. However,
12 the magnitude of this reduction was not as great when PFD costs
13 and ATC/P were calculated to a common physiological age, i.e., 5%
14 production.
15 Five percent production occurred at ca. 24, 25, 26, 27 and
16 28 wk of age for the +8%, STD, -8%, -16% and -24% feeding
17 programs, respectively. When ATC/P for each feeding program was
18 evaluated to a common age (Table 3), proportional decreases in
19 ATC/P occurred. Even though pullets were a common chronological
20 age they were not the same in terms of physiological development.
21 For example, pullets reared on the STD feeding program were at 5%
22 production at 25 wk of age and at an ATC/P of $5.834. Pullets
23 reared on the -24% program incurred a lower ATC/P of $5.436 at 25
24 wk of age, but these pullets were 3 wk away from production. The
25 cost of delaying sexual maturity relates to holding pullets for
26 this additional time.
1 Enterprise budgets for each feeding program are presented in
2 Table 4, with detailed average component costs for rearing
3 pullets to 5% production. The cost of delaying sexual maturity
4 by ca. 3 weeks was $.171 per pullet survivor or an average cost
5 that was ca. 3% greater than STD (ca. l%/wk). Although the delay
6 caused by feed restriction decreased average PFD cost by $.090,
7 increased PPAY ($.161), PVAC ($.040), PSRV ($.044) and CHK
8 ($.015) costs totaling $.261 resulted in the net increase of
9 $.171 per survivor.
10 The major cost items in a pullet rearing enterprise at 5%
11 production were CHK, PFD and PPAY in that order. PPAY is a
12 function of pullet housing density and contractual grower payment
13 rates. Any change in pullet density will not affect grower'
14 payments, and should lower the average total cost of rearing a
15 pullet for the integrator, unless pullet density is increased
16 beyond some tolerance limit and results in increased mortality,
17 body weight uniformity or other detrimental effect.
18 Sensitivity of ATC/P to a 20% change in a component cost at
19 20, 25 and 30 wk of age, while on a STD feeding program is
20 illustrated in Figure 3. At 20 wk of age ATC/P is more sensitive
21 to changes in CHK than PFD cost. At 30 wk of age the sensitivity
22 of ATC/P to these components was reversed. Increased pullet
23 housing density had an important positive impact (lowered) on
24 ATC/P. ATC/P became more sensitive to'changes in pullet housing
25 density with age.
26
11
1 The change in magnitude of ATC/P to a 20% increase in PMRT,
2 PPAY, PFD and CHK costs at 5% production for each feeding program
3 is illustrated in Figure 4. The derived decrease in ATC/P
4 resulting from a 20% increase in pullet housing density (DNSTY)
5 is of economic importance. For example, at 28 wk of age, the
6 ATC/P for the -24% program was $5.720, and lower than the $5.834
7 ATC/P when the STD program reached 5% production at 25 wk of age.
8 Savings from a derived 20% increase in pullet DNSTY offset the
9 cost of delayed pullet maturity.
10 Breeder Hen Period. Comparison of the breeder hen cost
11 budgets for the STD and -24% feeding programs (Table 5), shows a
12 $.056 lower ATC/B before salvage adjustments for the STD program.
13 The $.172 savings in BFD cost offset the added pullet rearing
14 cost (PUL$) for the -24% program ($.171). The $.056 difference
15 resulted from higher producer payments (BPAY) for the production
16 of hatching eggs. However, the $.056 difference increased to
17 $.128 when salvage adjustments were made, reflecting the heavier
18 average body weight of breeder hens on the STD program after 40
19 wk of production.
20 After 40 wk of production ATC/B for the STD and -24%
21 programs were $15.704 and $15.760, respectively, before salvage
22 adjustments were made. Generally, the ATC/B can be partitioned
23 into 40% for PUL$, 34% for BFD, 24% for BPAY and 2% for BSRV.
24 Salvage adjustments (Table 5) represented a potential
25 recuperation of ca. 7-8% of ATC/B. The combined average cost of
26 rearing a pullet to 5% production (PUL$) and breeder feed (BFD)
12
1 cost accounted for 74% of ATC/B. Mortality in the breeder house
2 increased total cost by $1.10 through lost feed and higher pullet
3 rearing costs, while lowering producer payments. BMRT was costly
4 on two accounts: first, by raising the ATC/B; and secondly, by
5 lowering average production per breeder hen housed.
6 The average total cost values of producing a dozen hatching
7 eggs (ATC/E) for various feeding programs are presented in Table
8 6. Relationships among cost components are similar to those
9 discussed on a breeder hen basis. The slightly higher level of
10 cumulative hatching eggs for the -24% program was able to offset
11 previous differences in feeding programs due to salvage
12 adjustments. Essentially, the ATC/E for the STD and -24%
13 programs were the same. This implies that by ca. 67 wk of age
14 the additional PUL$ charges resulting from the -24% program can
15 be offset by BFD savings and increased production despite the
16 salvage advantage for the STD program.
17 It is important to note that a major difference between
18 these two feeding programs at this age was the level of egg
19 production. Experimental data resulted in a significantly higher
20 rate of production for the -24% program (63.4%) than STD (51.9%)
21 at 64 wk of age (Fattori et al., ????). Prediction equations
22 based on these experimental data projected economically sound
23 (decreasing ATC) levels of production for the -24% program beyond
24 78 wk of age.
25 The changing relationship between breeder hen costs and
26 production (ATC/E) with age is illustrated in Figure 5:? The
13
1 ATC/E for the STD program reached a minimum ca. $1.17/DZHE at ca.
2 72 wk of age. After this age ATC/E for STD turned upward as
3 continued expenses overtook reduced production; whereas, ATC/E
4 continued to fall through 78 wk of age for the -24% program.
5 The effect of feeding program on ATC/E before salvage
6 adjustments were made is presented in Table 7 on a chronological
7 age basis. Differences among feeding programs represent the
8 ATC/E for delayed sexual maturity, which were progressively
9 overcome as the hen aged. Derived ATC/E for 70 and 75 wk of age
10 suggest that the -24% program became more economical (lower
11 ATC/E) than the STD program by 70 wk. Under the assumptions made
12 in this analysis the -24% program achieved an equal ATC/E to the
13 STD program at ca. 67 wk of age (data projected for one week) and
14 resulted in a lower ATC/E than STD when production was projected
15 beyond this age.
16 Pullet Housing Density. Speculated changes in pullet and
17 breeder-hen cost structures, due to increased pullet housing
18 density, is important to this analysis. The simulated-change in
19 pullet housing density was made on the basis of maintaining an
20 equivalent bio-mass (total live-bird weight) in a house. The
21 average live weight of pullets, for a range of ages possibly used
22 when transferring pullets to a breeder house, are listed in Table
23 8. Changing the pullet housing density by -7, 0, +7, +14 and
24 +21% for the +8%, STD, -8%, -16% and -24% feeding programs
25 respectively, will result in ca. an equivalent bio-mass for each
26 feeding program at any probable transfer age.
1 The effect of changing pullet housing density on ATC/P is
2 illustrated in Figure 6. The increase in pullet DNSTY decreased
3 the ATC/P at 5% production from $6.005 to $5.705 for the -24%
4 feeding program. This $.30 decrease lowered the ATC/P for the
5 -24% program (28 wk) to a level that was $.129 lower than STD
6 program (25 wk), eventhough birds would be reared for 3
7 additional weeks.
8 Potential savings from increased pullet DNSTY is passed
9 directly to the breeder laying accounting period. Pullet rearing
10 costs represent ca. 42% of the average total cost of producing a
11 dozen hatching eggs. The lower pullet rearing cost repslting
12 from higher pullet DNSTY shifted the ATC/E curve for the -24%
13 program to the left (Figure 7). The magnitude of this
14 displacement was equivalent to ca. $.025/DZHE. Furthermore, the
15 ATC/E for the two feeding programs reached an equivalent value at
16 ca. 62 wk of age, which was 5 wk earlier than base density
17 conditions (67 wk).
18 Each week of delayed sexual maturity resulting from feed
19 restriction levels below breeder recommendations increased the
20 ATC/P at 5% production by ca. 1%. Feed restriction lowered feed
21 cost, which offset other increased pullet variable costs at a
22 common chronological age, but not when evaluated to the
23 physiological age of 5% production. Essentially, no differences
24 in the ATC/E among feeding programs were evident by ca. 67 wk of
25 age. Derived production estimates beyond this age indicated that
26 the most severe feed restriction program resulted in decreasing
1 ATC through 78 wk of age. This economic advantage for the -24%
2 program would increase even further, if pullet rearing costs are
3 lowered by increasing pullet housing densities to an equivalent
4 bio-mass with standard.
5
6 REFERENCES
7
8 Strain, J. H., and A. W. Nordskog, 1962. Genetic aspects of the
9 profit equation in a broiler enterprise. Poultry Sci.
10 41:1892-1902.
11
12 Fattori, T. R., H. R. Wilson, R. H. Harms, and R. D. Miles, ????.
13 Response of broiler breeder females to feed restriction
14 below recommended levels. 1. Growth and Reproductive
15 Performance. Poultry Sci. ??:????-????.
16
17 Proudfoot, F. G., and W. F. Lamoreux, 1973. The bio-economic
18 effect of nutrient intake restrictions during the rearing
19 period and post "peak" egg production feed restriction on
20 four commercial meat-type parental genotypes. Poultry Sci.
21 52:1269-1282.
22
23 Proudfoot, F. G., H. W. Hulan, and K. B. McRae, 1984. Effects of
24 photoperiod, light intensity and feed restriction on the
25 performance of dwarf and normal maternal poultry meat
26 genotypes. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 64:759-768.
27
28
TABLE 1. Base costs, production coefficients and + 20%
adjustments used in sensitivity analysis of a pullet rearing
enterprise
Price Situations
-20% BASE +20%
Mortality
Pullet, %/wk .16 .20 .24
Cockerel, %/wk .40 .50 .60
CHK cost', $/pullet 1.621 2.026 2.431
Rearing feed, $/kg .108 .135 .162
Service &
Supervision, $/wk .0104 .0130 .0156
Pullet density,
m2/pullet .1301 .1626 .1951
ft/pullet (1.40) (1.75) (2.1)
Grower rate,
$/m2/wk .2368 .2960 .3552
$/ft2/wk (.0220) (.0275) (.0330)
($2.95)
iCHK cost= combined pullet ($1.70) and cockerel
chick costs at a 9;1 female to male ratio.
Grower pay= (pullet density X grower rate).
TABLE 2. Base costs, production coefficients and + 20%
adjustments used in sensitivity analysis of a breeder hen
enterprise
Price Situations
-20% BASE +20%
Average Pullet Rearing Cost / survivor (at 5% production)
a) +8%, $ 4.596 5.745 6.894
b) STD, $ 4.667 5.834 7.001
c) -8%, $ 4.721 5.901 7.081
d) -16%, $ 4.766 5.958 7.150
e) -24%, $ 4.804 6.005 7.206
Breeder mort., %/wk .140 .175 .210
Breeder feed, $/kg .100 .125 .150
Producer pay, $/doz. .24 .30 .36
Adjustment for
Commercial eggs, %/wk .064 .080 .096
Service &
supervision, $/dozt .0060 .0075 .0090
Bird salvage, $/kg .229 .286 .343
Egg salvage, $/doz< .08 .10 .12
TABLE 3. Average total cost of a pullet survivor reared to
common age on five feeding programs
Feeding Program
+8% STD -8% -16% -24%
Average Total Cost/
pullet survivor, ($)
20 wk 4.881 4.796 4.711 4.627 4.544
25 wk 5.967 5.834 5.700 5.567 5.436
30 wk 7.125 6.948 6.780 6.597 6.423
TABLE 4. Effect of feeding program on pullet rearing
average cost budget through 5% production, calculated at
base prices
Feeding Program
+8% STD -8% -16% -24%
Performance factors
Age, wk 24 25 26 27 28
Livability
Pullet, % .952 .950 .948 .946 .944
Cockerel, % .880 .875 .870 .865 .860
Feed, Kg/Surv. 12.96 12.98 12.83 12.61 12.31
Average Fixed Costs / Pullet survivor (AFC/P)
Chick, $ 2.152 2.158 2.163 2.169 2.173
Average Variable Costs / Pullet survivor (AVC/P)
Feed, $ 1.750 1.752 1.732 1.702 1.662
Grower pay, $ 1.213 1.266 1.320 1.373 1.427
PVAC1, $ .303 .316 .329 .343 .356
Service &
supervision, $ .328 .342 .357 .371 .386
Average Total Cost*/ Pullet survivor (ATC/P)
ATC/P, $ 5.745 5.834 5.901 5.958 6.005
1PVAC= Pullet vaccination, beak trimming, blood testing and
miscellaneous costs.
TABLE 5. Effect of feeding program on breeder hen average
cost budget through 40 weeks of production, calculated at
base prices and expressed as dollars per survivor
Feeding Program
+8% STD -8% -16% -24%
Performance factors
Age, wk 64 65 66 67 68
Livability', % .93 .93 .93 .93 .93
Feed, kg/Surv. 45.40 44.65 44.33 43.72 43.28
Average Fixed Costs / Breeder hen survivor (AFC/B)
Pullet rearing
cost, (PUL$), $ 5.745 5.834 5.901 5.958 6.005
Average Variable Costs / Breeder hen survivor (AVC/B)
Feed, $ 5.674 5.582 5.541 5.464 5.410
Prod. pay, $ 3.900 3.988 4.092 3.939 4.044
Service &
supervision, $ .300 .300 .300 .300 .300
Average Total cost / Breeder hen survivor (ATC/B)
$ 15.619 15.704 15.834 15.661 15.760
Salvage adjustment /Breeder hen survivor
Egg salv., $ .131 .131 .131 .131 .131
Hen salv., $ 1.075 1.050 1.021 .981 .978
Adjusted
ATC/B, $ 14.413 14.523 14.682 14.549 14.651
*
IBreeder hen mortality begins at 5% production and not a
common age.
TABLE 6. Effect of feeding program on breeder hen average
cost budget through 40 weeks of production, calculated at
base prices and expressed as dollars per dozen hatching eggs
Feeding Program
+8% STD -8% -16% -24%
Performance factors
Age, wk i 64 65 66 67 68
Livability, % .93 .93 .93 .93 .93
Feed,
kg/doz. H.E. 3.49 3.36 3.25 3.33 3.21
Hatching eggs,
doz/surv. 13.000 13.295 13.640 13.130 13.480
Average Fixed Costs / Doz. H.E. (AFC/E)
Pullet rearing
cost, $ .442 .439 .435 .454 .445
Average Variable Costs / doz. H.E. (AVC/E) *0
Feed, $ .436 .420 .406 .477 .401
Prod. pay, $ .300 .300 .300 .300 .300
Service &
supervision, $ .023 .023 .022 .023 .022
Average Total cost / doz. H.E. (ATC/E)
$ 1.201 1.181 1.161 1.193 1.169
Salvage adjustment / doz. H.E.
Egg salv., $ .010 .010 .010 .010 .010
Hen salv., $ .083 .079 .075 .075 .073
Adjusted
ATC/E, $ 1.109 1.092 1.076 1.108 1.087
TABLE 7. Average total cost of a dozen hatching eggs
produced to a common age by feeding program. calculated at
base prices and before salvage adjustment
Feeding Program
+8% STD -8% -16% -24%
Average Total Cost/
dozen hatching eggs, $
50 wk 1.395 1.371 1.386 1.5089 1.508
55 wk 1.297 1.280 1.276 1.350 1.354
60 wk 1.233 1.216 1.206 1.257 1.253
65 wk 1.197 1.181 1.165 1.205 1.192
Projected
70 wk 1.186 1.171 1.150 1.181 1.158
75 wk 1.185 1.172 1.148 1.171 1.138
TABLE 8. Live body weight (kg) by feeding program at
various transfer (laying house) ages and the relative
differences (%) among programs
Feeding Program
+8% STD -8% -16% -24%
Live weight, (kg)
22 wk 2.48 2.33 2.11 1.89 1.75
24 wk 2.84 2.58 2.37 2.13 1.97
26 wk 3.09 2.85 2.61 2.33 2.18
Relative differences in live weight from STD, (%)
22 wk +6.0 --- -9.4 -18.9
24.9
24 wk +9.2 --- -8.1 -17.4
23.6
26 wk +7.8 --- -8.4 -18.2
23.5
Adjusted bird density1
Potential -7% --- +7% +14% +21%
Adjusted base
bird density,
Ft2/pullet 1.812 1.750 1.628 1.505 1.382
ATC/P
at 5% prod. 5.745 5.834 5.901 5.958 6.005
Adjusted
ATC/P 5.830 5.834 5.809 5.765 5.705
1 Potential adjustment in bird density relative to STD with
a margin of safety to maintain an equivalent bio-mass at
various transfer ages.
**
FIGURE 1. Average total (ATC/P), fixed (AFC/P) and variable
(AVC1&2/P) costs of a pullet survivor on a standard rearing
program, at base prices.
0 6
rr 5
O)
4
F-
-J
D 3
CL
O 2
o I 1T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1 5 10 15
AGE, (WEEKS)
ATC/P
AFC/P
AVC2/P
AVC1/P
0 25 30
FIGURE 2. Average cumulative feed cost for various pullet feeding
programs.
2.8,-
2.8 +8%
STD
S2.4- -8%
> /-16%
r 2.0-
0 1.2-
CO -1$ 5% PRODUCTION
S-0.8-
- 0.4-
C1 5 10 15 20 25 30
AGE, (WEEKS)
FIGURE 3. Sensitivity of the average total cost of a pullet to
changes in component costs at 20, 25, and 30 wk of age for the
STD feeding program (CHK=chick, PFD=pullet feed, PPAY=grower pay,
PMRT=pullet mortality, DENSITY=pullet housing density).
7.2
OCr 6.8
0
68 DI
S6.4
I-
U 25 WK
.... 6.0-
cn
r 5.6 DI
-J
0
O
O 5.2
20 WK
4.8
D
4.4
-20% BASE +20%
PRICE SITUATIONS
FIGURE 4. Effect of a 20% change in component costs on average
total cost per pullet survivor at 5% production.
6.4-+20
+20
6.3 +20
o +20'
- 6.2
) 6.1 +20'
C)
LU 6.0 B/
Ji -E -24%
-1J6%
S 5.9 51
-8%
C/ 5.8 STD
+21
S 5.7 -+8 HO
OHO
o 5.6-
5.5 -
24 25 26 27 28
AGE AT 5% PRODUCTION, (WEEKS)
FIGURE 5. Average total cost of a dozen hatching eggs (ATC/E) for
the STD and -24% feeding programs, with age.
*
1.25
Ui 1.23
z
S1.21-
N
1.19
OC -
i -STD
1.17 -
-a
0 0
1.15 -
-24%
1.13 -' *
60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78
AGE, (WEEKS)
FIGURE 6. Effect of changes in pullet housing density on average
total cost per pullet (ATC/P) at 5% production.
6.02
-24%
S 598 -16%
> 5.94
Z -8%
O) 5.90
I-
-J
._j 5.86 / [,
5.86TD
_) +8%
5.82
C/)
CC /-8%
4 5.78
.J
0 -16%
S 5.74 +8%
AD
-24%
5.70 -
24 25 26 27 28
AGE AT 5% PRODUCTION, (WK)
FIGURE 7. Effect of adjusted pullet housing density on average
total cost of a dozen hatching eggs (ATC/E) on the -24% feeding
program, with age.
1.25
1.23 -
uj
S 1.21-
N
0 1.19
03
Dr 1.17 -
O 115 -
1.17-
1.13 -
60 62
64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78
AGE, (WK)
|
RSS
HIDE
