Surplus of Eggs may be Countered by Reducing Production Costs

New Zealand Journal of Agriculture, Volume 81, Issue 4, 16 October 1950, Page 357

Surplus of Eggs may be Countered by Reducing Production Costs

FOR the first time since the war an appreciable surplus of eggs is likely during the next flush season of production in New Zealand. Under conditions of surplus, maintaining prices is often difficult, and if to this aspect is added a rising trend in poultryfood prices, poultry producers’ concern about the outlook for their industry is understandable. In these circumstances lowering the cost of egg production becomes a consideration of major importance. This article by F. C. Bobby, Superintendent, Poultry Industry, Department of Agriculture, Wellington, deals with some aspects of this subject.

THE flush season of 1950 is likely to bring a surplus of eggs in New Zealand other words, the production of more eggs in shell than will go readily into consumption. To what extent this surplus will affect the marketing of eggs, both in shell and as pulp, can only be conjectured at present. A surplus of a product is always likely to affect its price, and there are indications that poultry producers fear an adverse effect on the egg market. The position may not prove as serious as some contend. Much will depend on the efficiency with which marketing is handled in the next few months.

Most poultry, producers will have no control over rising food prices and only limited control, if any, over the price paid for their eggs. However, producers can endeavour to meet the situation by reducing the cost of producing eggs through the only method left to them —increased efficiency. No producer appreciates being told that he is inefficient and, indeed, few take kindly to being told that their efficiency can be increased. Nevertheless, there are inefficiently managed poultry . farms in New Zealand, as in other countries, and on many farms efficiency could be improved appreciably.

Now- is the time for poultry producers to take stock of the management of their farms and to explore every means of lowering the cost of egg production. Efficiency in management covers a wide field, and no producer need be ashamed if so far he has not covered the whole of that field. If he does not do so now, however, he alone will be the loser.

Every aspect of management should be considered with a view to increasing efficiency, from incubating to the handling of adult laying birds. This article reviews some of the more important aspects of management, including foods and feeding, culling of stock, and average egg production; disease control and the marketing of eggs will be the subject of a subsequent article.

Efficiency can be increased markedly by effective control of waste, ranging from infertile eggs and dead-in-shell chicks during the incubation season to the more obvious losses of food caused by sparrows, rats, and mice. A little thought will convince most producers that waste is occurring on their farms and that at least some of it can be reduced. Standard Mashes Still Necessary Producers cannot stop the present rising trend of poultry-food prices. With wheat costing about 10s. per bushel and mash about £TB per ton, feeding a laying bird for a complete year costs 18s. to l&s. Some producers would like to do away with the standard-mash scheme and mix their own mashes again; in particular, those with food-mixing equipment on their farms would welcome such a change. A return to a free market for bran and pollard could mean cheaper mashes for some poultry farmers, but whether the small saving in money would be worth the dangers involved is doubtful. The bran and pollard manufactured in New Zealand are insufficient for feeding to all classes of livestock, and there is no possibility of importing from Australia either bran or pollard to make up this deficiency. These are two incontestable facts. Consequently the poultry industry, through its Dominion conference last March, decided to retain the standardmash scheme known means of controlling the distribution of pollard and bran whereby a marked priority is retained for poultry producers. If bran and pollard were again on a free market, quantities of these meals would be bought for livestock which at present receive neither. The result would be reduced supplies for poultry

producers and the consequent dangers of inequitable distribution. Such conditions existed before the standardmash scheme was introduced and without doubt would recur. That explanation is not new, but some producers still do not appreciate the present circumstances fully and are clamouring for the release of pollard and bran. Maintaining Protein Ratio High food prices and the necessity for a standard-mash scheme limit considerably any direct action by the producer to cut costs of production through the food bill. Using more grains and less mash does reduce costs of feeding laying stock, but not to the extent suggested by some producers. Whatever the feeding method, it is essential that the material be fed efficiently. Laying stock Should receive 15 per cent, of protein in their total ration of grain and mash, so if the amount of grain (which is low in protein) is increased, the proportion of protein in the mash must be increased to maintain the efficiency of the total ration. Meat meal is not readily available in a number of districts and supplies must be conserved as far as practicable. It is suggested that, instead of adding to the ration more meat meal than the usual 10 to 12 per cent., birds be permitted to obtain additional supplies by having this meal before them at all times in open hoppers or troughs. Heavily laying birds with the largest appetites will tend to eat this meal and benefit accordingly; inherently poorer-producing birds, which will not benefit appreciably from extra protein, are not forced to eat valuable protein, as they would be if more protein-rich foods such as meat meal and milk powders were .added to the mash.

Greenfeed and Fish Oil

An adequate quantity of good, succulent greenfeed is essential to laying birds, and particularly to those kept under intensive conditions. Should the quantity or quality of greenfeed fall too low in winter or dry weather, not less than 1 per cent, of a fish oil rich in vitamin A should be included in the mash. Good greenfeed and oil both ensure that the birds receive vitamin A, without which there is a risk of a decline in egg production and a reduced resistance to disease. It is proposed to publish next year the results of an experiment at present being carried out at the Poultry Demonstration Plant, Upper Hutt. Judging by results to date, this experiment when completed will demonstrate beyond all doubt the remarkable value of greenfeed and fish oil for maintaining egg production. Without one or other of these accessory foods the efficiency of the ordinary ration for laying birds is reduced markedly. That means a waste of food, which cannot be tolerated, particularly under present conditions. Poultry farmers who feed dry mash should ensure that the type of hopper in use does not allow the birds to waste the mash. Food is also wasted if it can be eaten by sparrows by day and rats by night. Culling and Average Production Culling stock and raising average egg production in a laying flock are two subjects so-closely allied that they may be discussed under one heading. To many producers the term culling implies going through stock, and more particularly laying birds, at set times during the year. During the intervals the cull bird — uneconomic bird on which money is being lost ignored and permitted to increase the cost of production. No one with experience of poultry farming will deny that continuous culling - throughout the year demands time, patience, and discipline. Nevertheless, efficient management calls for continuous culling of birds at all ages throughout the year and, if carried out conscientiously, will lower the cost of production on a farm. Whether those facts are palatable or not, poultry farmers must be reminded ■of them, because in many cases culling is not efficient. Three reasons alone justify placing such. emphasis on this aspect of management: — A cull eats expensive food but does not give an adequate return. Many such birds do not even give a return greater than the cost of the food they eat. Many culls are unhealthy or diseased and are a potential danger to all other birds with which they come into contact. Culls take up space which in many instances would be occupied by profitable birds. With young stock the extra space available after culling is often of pronounced benefit to the birds which remain. ■ Culling of stock starts with the dayold chicks. How often does an undersized or badly hatched chick grow

into a satisfactory cockerel or pullet? Such chicks do grow slowly and eat food, only to be discarded later for what they will fetch if they have not died in the meantime. A bird which is under-developed or unthrifty at any stage after being hatched rarely shows a profit and often represents a loss. Producers cannot afford to keep such birds, yet they do because stopping during the daily routine of management to catch these birds and dispose of . them requires discipline and patience. The case . for removing diseased birds is even stronger. If there is doubt about whether a bird is diseased or not, the benefit of the doubt should not be given to the bird. It is easy to find producers who do not cull sufficiently and extremely difficult to find one who culls too heavily. In view of the present high cost of production it is recommended that growing stock be culled heavily this year, only healthy and well-grown pullets being allowed to reach the laying houses. Every bird culled after it has reached the laying house represents a heavy loss, as about 201 b. of food is needed to raise a pullet to the laying stage. The continuous culling of laying stock is equally important. A laying bird eats 8 to 91b. of food a month, which at, say, 2d. per pound, represents Is. 4d. to Is. 6d. Under present conditions the poultry farmer must aim at a high average production compatible with the season of the year, and that necessitates efficient use of the high-priced food eaten. Every cull bird or poor producer means food

used uneconomical!;/. All too often

numbers and not quality of stock consciously or unconsciously influence the farmer. Unfortunately, it is difficult to convince some farmers that, say, 800 good layers will yield a better profit than 1000 good and poor birds together. The discarding of 200 birds at an early stage appears at the time to be a heavy loss, but if such birds are retained, average production will be lowered and the food bill increased. Even the poultry farmer with good laying stock will benefit by watching carefully for the poorer birds and removing them without delay. Late-maturing Pullets With the present two-price system a winter and a summer price for eggs—the birds which lay between February and July show the greatest profit. In most flocks a number of birds fail to come into lay within 5 or 6 months of being hatched, even under good management. Whether such birds show a satisfactory profit is doubtful, and they may be complete “passengers” in the economy of the farm. Late-maturing stock may also moult early. If that is not so, there is a danger that they may be retained for breeding. Winter egg production is an inherited breeding character, and obviously birds which mature slowly, under good management are not carrying in their “breeding make-up” that desirable character. Consequently care should be taken to ensure that they do not get into the breeding pen, either by culling them during early winter or at least by marking them with a ring to ensure that they are not retained at the end of the season.