Under each of the four preceding categories, either bulk or bagged feed 

 may be involved. Subsequent discussions and appraisals will not specify 

 between these. 



Under category (2) above, a number of examples can be observed in 

 Figures 1-4, and some variations of this category are shown in Table 14. 

 There is still another variation of this category used to some extent in the 

 Middle Atlantic region, but very little, if at all, in New England. This in- 

 volves floor-feed boxes filled from feed chutes directly above. A Pennsylvania 

 study reported this arrangement required less time and travel distance than 

 filling conventional feed hoppers.* Floor-feed boxes have not found favor 

 with New Hampshire poultrymen, nor have they been widely tested under 

 local conditions. 



The problem with servicing individual pens by feed chutes seems to 

 be to fill bins and chutes by an efficient method. Time consumed in filling 

 by hand is likely to offset any savings in feeding time in the pens. However, 

 filling these supply lines can be accomplished expeditiously by elevator, 

 conveyor, or bulk delivery unit. 



Another arrangement, which transcends categories (1-3) to some ex- 

 tent, is the use of hoppers of large size. These might effect a saving in labor 

 over smaller hoppers holding but a day's supply. Practical objections to 

 large hoppers include the added attention to prevent clogging of mash, 

 and the idea that it may not be good management to allow birds to pick 

 over a quantity of feed, leaving a residue in the bottom of the hopper which 

 can be refused. | Large hoppers, holding several days' supply, are also 

 not adaptable to limited feeding programs which are in widespread use. 



Debate still continues on the pros and cons of automatic feeders. 

 Many of the opponents contend that hopper feeding affords the feeder the 

 opportunity to observe the birds more closely. It would seem more logical 

 to take advantage of labor-saving equipment and to set aside a portion of 

 the time so saved for unencumbered observation at regular intervals. Up 

 to a point combining various chores results in increased efficiency. For 

 example, many operations combine feeding with egg collection. However, 

 too many operations on a trip into the pens may actually impede efficiency. 



That there are labor-savings inherent in the use of automatic feeders 

 is apparent from Table 14, as well as from other studies. A Cornell study 

 on broiler production yielded the data in Table 15. 4; 



Table 15. Relationship Between Type of Feeders Used and Labor Efficiency 

 in Growing Broilers, New York State, 1951-1952 



* Bressler, G. O., op. cit., pp. 49-50. 



t Klein, G. T., Saving Labor on Poultry Farms, N. H. Ext. Circ. 283, July 1947, p. 8. 

 JBriggs, G. W., Broiler Production in Neiv York State, 1951-52, Cornell Agr. 

 Exp. Sta. A. E. 846, Feb., 1953, Table 15, p. 14. 



28 



