On a farm in Pennsylvania it was observed that the installation of a 

 mechanical feeder resulted in the saving of 9 minutes daily per 1,000 layers 

 as compared to hand feeding.f However, in a pen of 800 layers, this move 

 was barely profitable when costs of installation and operation were also 

 considered. On the same farm, when a feed carrier was installed, almost 

 6 minutes daily per 1,000 layers were saved as compared to hand feeding. 

 However, estimated time savings for a 10-year period were insufficient to 

 offset costs in a 24 X 110 foot house. t 



The introduction of costs of installation and operation in comparison 

 to time savings is a necessary step toward appraisal of data such as that 

 in Table 14. Accordingly, there are presented in Table 16 estimates of the 

 annual costs of feeding 1,000 and 3,000 layers under three methods. These 

 involve categories 1, 3, and 4, i.e., feed carried to pens and hoppers by 

 hand; feed brought to pens by carrier with hoppers filled by hand; and, 

 automatic feeding. Data used in making cost estimates are only approx- 

 imate, and for purposes of illustrating an analytical method. Labor cost 

 estimates are projections of systems 4, 6, and 11 from Table 14. 



Basic to any attachment of value to time savings is the supposition 

 that any time saved will be put to productive use or reflected in a reduction 

 in costs of hired labor. Examining the estimates in Table 16 within this 

 framework, it is apparent that the "cost" of chore feeding per 1,000 layers 

 is similar with all options. Hence, mechanization of the feeding operation 

 might not be the best use to make of added capital. However, at the 3,000- 

 bird level, net advantages appear with the mechanization, and added capital 

 appears warranted. 



There is a further consideration into which the preceding appraisal 

 does not delve. If the time saved can be put to productive use in enlarging 

 an enterprise, or in adding other enterprises, then mechanization might be 

 considered with the smaller number of birds as well as with the larger 

 number. 



Time Savings in Replacement Rearing. 



That there has probably been an increase in efficiency in rearing re- 

 placement stock is suggested by comparing results from two studies. In 

 1929 it was found that 78 hours of chore work were required per 100 pullets 

 raised.* Number raised per farm surveyed was less than 1,700. In 1949 

 it was estimated that rearing a new laying flock and including the time 

 required to house pullets and cockerels took about 140 man hours per 

 1.000 chicks started. t Here, pullets ranged per farm averaged in excess 

 of 3,500. 



Some factors in the increased labor efficiency, aside from increased 

 unit size, have been the shift from colony to continuous brooder houses, 

 the adoption of automatic or central heating in the brooding period, and 

 the utilization of automatic waterers. Emphasis on the preceding, as well 

 as on the adoption of automatic feeders, has probably been more marked 

 in meat-production enterprises than in raising laying flock replacements. 



t Bressler, G. 0., op. cit., pp. 21, 50. 



X Ibid., pp. 16, 50. 



* Woodworth, H. C, and F. D. Reed, Economic Study of New Hampshire Poultry 

 Farms, N. H. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 265, p. 16, May, 1932. 



t Perry, E. C, Chore Practices on New Hampshire Commercial Poultry Farms, 

 //. Pullet Replacements. N. H. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 79, pp. 3 and 13. April, 1949. 



29 



