Backyard Poultry Resources

WHICH BIRD SHALL I RAISE?
Genetic Options for Pastured Poultry Producers:
Meat-type Chickens and Turkeys
By
Skip Polson and Anne Fanatico
December 2002
Introduction
Most pastured poultry producers in North America use the same Cornish-
and-White-Rock-cross broiler genetics that are used by the conventional
poultry industry. These are the standard meat birds used by the industry,
and essentially all broilers produced commercially in North America are
Cornish crosses.
This has been true since meat became a primary focus for chicken
genetics in the 1940s and confinement-rearing became the standard
form of production for the US poultry industry. A 1950s contest called The
Chicken of Tomorrow encouraged the development of meatier birds.
Cornish crosses became the birds-of-choice at that time. Since then they
have been continuously genetically refined by the conventional poultry
industry for rapid growth, efficient feed conversion, broad-breastedness,
limited feathering (for ease of plucking), and other traits considered
appropriate for rearing very large numbers of birds in confinement
conditions.
However, most pastured poultry producers today use the Cornish crosses
because they are readily available, not because they are ideally suited to
rearing on pasture. Many of the characteristics which make the Cornish
cross broiler strains good for industrial confinement production models are
not well-suited for alternative production systems. Many pastured poultry
producers perceive the Cornish crosses to have weak legs, excessive rates
of heart attacks, a high incidence of congestive heart failure (ascites),
poor foraging ability, poor heat tolerance, and other liabilities when raised
on pasture. While most producers value their rapid growth rate, others
find it unnaturally fast. In most pasture-based production systems, Cornish
crosses usually produce a four-pound carcass by eight weeks of age.
Keeping the birds longer than eight weeks and allowing them to get
larger can contribute to even greater leg problems.

2
Many pastured poultry producers would like to raise birds which are better
suited to range production than the Cornish crosses. Therefore, the
purpose of this report is to identify the genetic options available to
producers who do not want to use the conventional confinement
production model.
This report was compiled for Heifer Project International’s North America
Program. Partial financial assistance for the preparation of this report was
provided through a grant to Heifer Project International from the USDA’s
Southern Region Sustainable Agriculture, Research and Education (SARE)
program (project number LS 99-105).
The Conventional Industry Dominates the Scene
Many pastured poultry producers would like to raise birds which are better
suited to range production than the Cornish crosses, but their alternatives
at this time are extremely limited. There are several different strains of
Cornish crosses but there is very little difference in them. No other type of
chicken which is widely available in North America produces as much
meat as economically as the Cornish crosses. This economic fact makes it
very difficult for producers to consider other breeds even though there is
abundant variety in the poultry world (color photos and descriptions of
many poultry breeds can be seen at:
www.feathersite.com/Poultry/BRKPoultryPage.html#Chickens).
The primary breeding companies for broilers in the USA are Aviagen
(which includes the formerly separate companies of Arbor-Acres, Ross
Breeders, and Nicholas Turkeys), Cobb-Vantress (which now includes
Avian Farms and is owned by Tyson Foods), Hubbard Farms, Peterson
Farms, and Shaver Poultry. Most of these companies are multi-national
enterprises and they dominate the world market for conventional broiler
production as shown in the Table below.
These companies work constantly to produce genetic improvements in
their breeding stock. They typically use a system of four-way crossing to
produce the parents of the birds which are raised as broilers. They select
and develop certain strains to use as their male line with emphasis on
growth performance and body conformation, while at the same time
developing different female lines with emphasis on reproductive
performance. This cross-breeding system protects each company’s
genetic research investment, because the genetics of the original
grandparents cannot be reproduced from their offspring.

3
World broiler production is estimated to be 32-42 billion birds per year.
Estimated market shares for the different broiler breeder companies:
(SOURCE: WATT Poultry USA)
Company Percent
Aviagen 35-45
Cobb 30-40
Hubbard 10-20
Hybro 5-10
Other 10-20
Most of the primary breeding companies produce more than one strain of
Cornish cross. They try to meet the needs of their customers by producing
a heavier breasted bird for producers focused on white meat, a thriftier
bird which has a slightly better feed conversion ratio, or a heavier strain for
the roaster market. Some also offer slower and faster growing strains of
Cornish cross birds. The slower growing strains may be of interest to
pastured poultry producers because they may have fewer heart and leg
problems.
The different strains of birds which the breeding companies offer are
described at their web sites. Some of these sites also include technical
manuals and guides for raising their birds.
Aviagen http://www.aviagen.com/
Arbor Acres http://www.aaf.com/ (includes downloadable
management guides)
Ross Breeders http://www.rossbreeders.com/ (includes technical
manuals)
Nicholas Turkeys http://www.nicholas-turkey.com/
Cobb-Vantress http://www.cobb-vantress.com/
Peterson Farms http://www.petersonfarms.com/ (site under
construction)
Shaver Poultry http://www.shaverpoultry.com/ (site under
construction)
The breeding companies sell crossbred parent stock to the vertically-
integrated poultry producers, independent hatcheries, and others who
produce the hatching eggs which will ultimately become the broilers we
eat. Most independent hatcheries do not keep their own flocks to

4
produce hatching eggs. Instead they buy their hatching eggs from a few
very large suppliers (such as the Keith Smith company in Arkansas
[http://www.keith-smith.com/] or CWT Farms in Georgia
[http://www.cwtfarms.com/]). Therefore, the chicks available from
hatcheries throughout North America are mostly all the same strains, and
they are the same strains being used by the vast majority of the
conventional industrial producers.
Producer Preferences
Even though the differences in the Cornish cross strains are small, some
pastured poultry producers do have preferences. Over the years they
may perceive that one strain performs better for them than other strains.
These differences may be such things as fewer leg problems, slightly faster
(or slower) growth, or lower mortality. Therefore, while most pastured
poultry producers do not know exactly which strains they are raising from
batch to batch, a few producers always try to purchase a particular strain
of chick.
Yet even those producers who express a preference for one strain over
others may have had their opinions unduly influenced by factors which
are not related to the genetics of the birds they have raised. For
example, the age of the breeder flock influences the size of the hatching
eggs and the chicks which result. Young breeder flocks produce small
hatching eggs and smaller chicks than mature flocks. Older flocks
nearing the end of their productive lives also produce chicks with greater
inconsistencies in their size and vigor than a flock at the prime of its life.
Therefore, some producer preferences may not be objectively justifiable.
The Importance of Access
Because the performance differences between modern Cornish cross
strains are so small, most pastured poultry producers use other criteria
when deciding which birds to raise and where to get their day-old chicks.
Through their own personal experience they have concluded that a
hatchery’s customer service and location are usually more important than
the precise strain of broiler chick available. They have learned that they
should get the birds from the most reliable hatchery that can get the
chicks to their farm with the least shipping stress. Usually this means the
hatchery which has the shortest delivery time. Death losses and slower
rates of growth resulting from shipping stress are often more significant
than the performance differences between strains. The importance of

5
shipping stress is also confirmed by the behavior of the major conventional
industrial producers. They use their own employees and vehicles to deliver
chicks directly to their contract growers; they try to control the shipping
conditions which their chicks must endure as much as possible, and
minimize their shipping stress. This is an argument for having more (rather
than fewer) hatcheries, and having them located as near as possible to
the producers who will raise the chicks.
Here are the websites of several hatcheries. These are not given as
recommendations, but simply as examples of what independent
hatcheries have to offer and how they present themselves. A more
complete listing of hatcheries throughout the USA can be found at
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/npip/ and at
http://www.poultryconnection.com/hatchery.html.
Samples of Hatchery Websites:
http://www.belthatchery.com/ Phone: 559-264-2090
http://www.esteshatchery.com/ Phone: 800-345-1420
http://www.mcmurrayhatchery.com/ Phone: 800-456-3280
http://www.moyerschicks.com/ Phone: 215-536-3155
http://www.mthealthy.com/index.html Phone: 800-451-5603
http://www.privetthatchery.com/ Phone: 877-774-8388
http://www.townlinehatchery.com/chicks.html Phone: 616-772-6514
Shipping constraints beyond the control of the hatcheries themselves can
be an important factor, as well. During the early and mid-1900s, the
practice of sending day-old poultry by mail from hatcheries to customers
all over the USA became very popular and commonplace. In recent
years, however, the number of airlines willing to carry day-old poultry as US
mail has declined, even to the point that the chicks-by-mail service
appeared to be in jeopardy. Then in 2001 and 2002, the US Postal Service
and several airlines modified their mail-carrying contracts and the
regulations governing the shipment of live animals through the mail. These
new arrangements have apparently stabilized the situation and the
chicks-by-mail service continues. The latest information on the postal
regulations governing the shipping of live animals as mail can be found by
visiting the web site of the US Postal Service (http://www.usps.com ) or
http://www.birdshippers.org.

6
Other Decision Factors
Some pastured poultry producers also make decisions about which chicks
to raise based on other non-strain factors. For example, some producers
choose to raise all females because that eliminates the problem of
cockerels harassing the pullets as they mature, thus resulting in a more
tranquil flock, and presumably better feed conversion. Or they will raise
all males because their customers want large birds, and they want greater
uniformity in their product.
Uniformity is tremendously important for the conventional poultry industry.
Birds are managed as a unit instead of individuals, and birds which are not
nearly identical to the others are problems. For example, pullets are
brought into lay at the same time, so they all need to achieve the
appropriate body weight at the same time. For broilers, much of the
conventional industry’s processing equipment is automated and odd-
sized birds may not be processed well because they are not the size the
equipment is designed to handle. Variations in carcass size can also
cause the automated equipment to break down.
Most pastured poultry producers do not seek this much uniformity,
however, because their market does not require it. Using straight run
chicks gives a range of carcass sizes at butchering time because the
cockerels grow faster. Most pastured poultry producers are glad to have
some variance in size because some of their customers prefer smaller birds
and some prefer larger birds. Some will even choose to produce Cornish
Game Hens (which are the same Cornish cross birds, just ones which are
butchered younger and smaller), while other producers have customers
who want very large roasters and are wiling to pay a premium price for
them. Uniformity certainly can become more important, however, as
producers move beyond on-farm processing and direct marketing. A
spread-out harvest which is advantageous on a small scale may become
a distinct problem at larger scales of production.
Some customers prefer colored birds (red or black) over white-feathered
ones. This kind of preference also influences producer decisions about
which birds to raise.
Beyond Cornish Crosses
North American producers of range poultry who want options other than
those offered by the conventional Cornish crosses do not have very much
to choose from at present. Their options may be increasing, however.

7
For several years now, Timothy Shell and his family in Virginia have been
raising parent stock on pasture to produce offspring which are healthier
and hardier than typical chicks from confined breeders. They call their
chicks “Pastured Peepers.” The Shells have also been working to develop
a line of broilers, called CornDel (a combination of Cornish cross and
Delaware), which is better suited for pasture-rearing than the
conventional Cornish crosses. These slightly slower-growing birds should
reach four-pound carcass weights in nine weeks. For more information,
contact:
Tim Shell
407 Mt. Solon Rd.
Mt. Solon, VA 22843-9718
540-885-4965
tshell@firstva.com
------------
Others are also working to make medium-growing genetics more widely
available in North America. Henry Noll offers a Silver Cross that grows to
five pounds live weight in nine weeks.
Noll's Poultry Farm
Kleinfeltersville, PA 17039
Phone: 717-949-3560
Fax: 717-949-3722
------------
And Joe Cebe, Sr. offers a Cebe Red and Cebe Black meat variety that
grows to five pounds live weight in nine to 10 weeks.
Cebe Farms
P. O. Box 1404
Ramona, CA 92065
Phone: 760-789-8221
------------

8
Matt John of Shady Lane Poultry Farm, Inc. is currently developing a new
hatchery and plans to introduce several alternative broiler lines over the
next several years.
Shady Lane Poultry Farm, Inc.
520 Agawam Road
Winchester, KY 40391
Phone: 859-737-2636
------------
Some genetic options exist in other countries. In France, in particular,
there are lines that are considered more suitable for their range
production systems. These lines have been developed for the past 30
years for pasture rearing, and they deserve side-by-side comparison trials
here in the USA.
These distinctive lines are used primarily by producers who are raising birds
to be marketed under the quality labeling program known in France as
Label Rouge (Red Label). Food products carrying the Label Rouge are
highly valued by French consumers.
The Label Rouge program focuses on high-quality products, mainly meat,
with poultry as the flagship product. It emphasizes quality attributes such
as taste and food safety, and free-range production practices. The
average consumer can note a positive difference in taste between Label
Rouge poultry and conventional poultry—in fact, regular taste-testing is a
certification requirement to prove that these products are “vividly
distinguishable” from conventional poultry.
The main reason for the superior taste is considered to be the use of slow-
growing birds harvested close to sexual maturity instead of the fast-
growing birds used in the conventional industry. The meat is flavorful and
firm, but not tough.
Slow-growing birds are key in Label Rouge production—birds grow to five
pounds live weight in 12 weeks. In comparison, the fast-growing broilers
(Cornish cross) of the conventional industry reach five pounds in six to
seven weeks. The slow growth allows the organs, muscle, and bones to
grow in harmony The carcass is generally more elongated and has a
smaller breast and larger legs than conventional carcasses. In addition,
slower-growing breeds are more suited to outdoor production than the
standard Cornish crosses.

9
The use of slow-growing genetics and the low-density Label Rouge
production system also offers distinct health advantages—ascites, leg
problems, and sudden death are minimal, and birds have good immunity.
Mortality for conventional broilers in France is 6% during a six-week grow-
out; it is half that for Label Rouge production (3%) even during a much
longer grow-out (12 weeks).
In Europe the slow-growing genetics are mainly supplied by the poultry
breeding companies SASSO (www.sasso.fr) and Hubbard-ISA
(www.hubbard-isa.com). They do not sell the actual broiler chicks, but
rather the parents; however, many pastured poultry producers have
hatching capability. SASSO’s typical Label Rouge cross is T44N male x
SA51 female. (Using a different male—the T44NI—results in white under
feathers in the offspring.) A typical Hubbard-ISA cross is S77N male x JA57
female. Broilers from both of these crosses will have red feathers, yellow
shanks, thin skin, and a naked neck. Other parents are available for
broilers with white feathers and skin, black feathers, barred, non-naked
neck, or for faster growth. These color combinations are possible because
the female parents are red in color, but this color is recessive. Therefore,
depending on the male used, you can choose the color of the feathers
(red or black), skin (yellow or white), shanks (yellow or white), and naked
neck or not. The ability to choose these characteristics is important to
French poultry farmers because their customers have personal
preferences about these things.
At the time of this writing, SASSO and Hubbard-ISA genetics of this type
are not available in the USA. However, a U.S. company called Rainbow
Breeding Company is developing similar genetics and offers Free Range
(FR) Broiler parents. FR Broiler offspring (day-old chicks) are also available.
Male chicks are regularly available; female chicks are available only
occasionally since they are used more in breeding; females grow at 85%
the rate of the males.
Rainbow Breeding Company
c/o Richard Udale
P. O. Box 911
Gentry, AR 72734
479-685-6349 cell
Email: cowboy_richard@yahoo.com Or, contact Danny Eiland at 205-
389-3466 (dceiland@hiwaay.net).
------------

10
Redbro is a Hubbard-ISA Shaver product that is currently available in the
USA via a Canadian company that imports parents from France. It grows
out in 9-10 weeks. Jerry Srednicki at a Connecticut hatchery ships day-old
chicks.
Yankee Chicks, Inc/Hall Brothers Hatchery
P. O. Box 1026
Norwich, CT 06360
Phone: 860-886-2421
860-889-6351 fax
860-608-1389 cell
Contact: Jerry Srednicki
------------
Importing live birds and hatching eggs from other countries is not a simple
task, but those who are interested in pursuing this approach can learn
more by visiting the web site of the National Poultry Improvement Plan:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/npip/
------------
There is also some interest in using standard American heirloom chicken
breeds for gourmet poultry production. In general, however, heirloom
breeds have not yet been selected for commercial production and the
carcass will be very small at 12 weeks. For more information about the
American heirloom breeds, contact:
American Livestock Breeds Conservancy (ALBC)
P. O. Box 477
Pittsboro, NC 27312
(919) 542-5704 FAX (919) 545-0022
www.albc-usa.org
------------
Turkeys are native to the Americas and there are several slow-growing
breeds available. These are naturally-mating turkeys and do not require
artificial insemination. Some have geographical ties to the regions in
which they were developed (e.g., the Bourbon Red is from Kentucky and

11
the Narragansett is from Massachusetts). Mike Walters Hatchery offers
eight heirloom turkey breeds, some of which have been selected for
commercial production. Contact Mike Walters at
Walters Hatchery
Rt. 3, Box 1490
Stilwell, OK 74960
Phone: 918-778-3535
Email: turkeylink@intellex.com
http://www.historicalturkeys.com
------------
Developing more poultry breeds with geographical ties could be an
opportunity for small North American poultry breeders.
For more information on poultry genetics, contact: Anne Fanatico
(annef@ncat.org)
Anne Fanatico
Poultry Program Specialist
National Center for Appropriate Technology
P. O. Box 3657
Fayetteville, AR 72702
Phone: (479)442-9824
(479) 442-9842 fax
www.attra.ncat.org
Disk: Skip…0211
File: Stock Report - 030131

The Economic Feasibility of Producing Pasture Poultry for Limited Resource Farmers in
Southeastern North Carolina
1
Kelli N. Ennis, 2
Kenrett Y. Jefferson-Moore, and 3
Jarvetta S. Bynum
1
Former Graduate Research Assistant in the Department of Agribusinss, Applied Economics and
Agriscience Education
North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro, North Carolina
Phone: (336) 334 – 7943. Fax: (336) 334 – 7793 Email: kellennis@hotmail.com
2
Assistant Professor in the Department of Agribusiness, Applied Economics and Agriscience
Education
Phone: (336) 334 – 7943. Fax: (336) 334 – 7793 Email: jykenret@ncat.edu
3
Research Associate in the Department of Agribusinss, Applied Economics and Agriscience
Education
Phone: (336) 334 – 7943. Fax: (336) 334 – 7793 Email: jsbynum@ncat.edu
Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the Southern Agricultural Economics Association
Annual Meeting, Dallas, Texas, February 2 – 6, 2008
Copyright 2008 by Kelli N. Ennis, Kenrett Y. Jefferson-Moore, and Jarvetta S. Bynum. All rights
reserved. Readers may make verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by
any means, provided that this copyright notice appears on all such copies.

The Economic Feasibility of Producing Pasture Poultry for Limited Resource Farmers in
Southeastern North Carolina
Keywords: Alternative Enterprises, Agricultural Prosperity, Pasture Poultry Production, Limited
Resource Farming
Introduction
The tobacco industry has been a prominent industry for the state of North Carolina and a
lucrative enterprise for many farmers in the state. However, due to the tobacco buyout, many
farmers, especially limited resource farmers (LRFs), are finding it extremely hard to maintain
their farm operations and support their families. Moreover, as farm sizes are increasing while the
number of farms decreasing, LRFs are also having a difficult time competing with the larger
farms. Factors such as these along with the vulnerability and sensitivity of the agricultural sector
have contributed tremendously to the economic conditions of LRFs. Therefore, LRFs have been
forced to find other enterprises to help supplement for the losses that they have incurred from
previous and current enterprises. It is more evident than ever that traditional cash crops and
livestock productions are no longer sufficient in providing satisfactory economic conditions for
farmers in North Carolina. As a result, it is necessary that farmers find a way to diversify their
farm operations in an attempt to improve their incomes.
In the past two decades, the United States food industry has introduced an array of new
food products in response to changes in consumer demographics, lifestyles, and in their
awareness about diet, health, and nutrition (Gallo, 1996: Kinsey and Senauer, 1997; Senauer,
Asp, and Kinsey, 1992). Likewise, because consumer demand is such a powerful force in the
food industry, farmers must address the many different issues that concern consumers when
purchasing food products. The overall success of farmers will solely depend on their ability to
produce a quality product efficiently while at the same time, addressing market demands.
2

In an effort to advance the economic conditions of LRFs in the southeastern region of
North Carolina, it is imperative for farmers to find profitable and supplemental enterprises that
require little land and capital but provide higher revenues. These enterprises include new and
improved varieties of traditional cash crops and other nontraditional enterprises such as fruits,
vegetables, herbs and spices, ornamentals, and specialty animals. These enterprises are thought
to be good prospects for diversification of production agriculture due to their relatively low
capital and high returns.
The Southeastern Region of North Carolina
The geographical region selected for this study began from a statewide initiative in North
Carolina in an effort to generate economic growth, in particular, to spark job creation through
entrepreneurship. The overall intent of the initiative was to develop strategies of adjustment for
the recent economic devastation in the furniture, textile, and tobacco industries triggered by
globalization and the outsourcing of jobs. In spite of statewide programs promoting
entrepreneurship as a means of economic growth, there was a population of existing and aspiring
rural entrepreneurs (primarily farm-based) within the state that had not been reached in terms of
the various resources available. Through the development of the North Carolina Rural Center,
incorporated 1987, based in Raleigh, North Carolina, the state has initiated outreach efforts
extending resources for rural communities. The primary responsibility of the Rural Center is to
assist the 85 rural counties in economic development programs. The Rural Center defines a
rural county as having a population density of less than 200 persons per square mile.
The southeastern economic development region of North Carolina includes Bladen,
Brunswick, Columbus, Cumberland, Hoke, New Hanover, Pender, Richmond, Robeson,
Sampson, and Scotland counties. Several community colleges, universities, and community-
3

based organizations have formed alliances in combating issues of globalization and the
outsourcing of jobs by instituting entrepreneurship as a catalyst to business growth and job
creation. The Rural Center reported that small businesses consist of the majority of all
businesses in rural North Carolina and are a major contributor to jobs and wages, business and
job growth, and are critical to rural community life. However, small businesses are subject to
constant transformations; for instance, from 1990 to 2000, rural North Carolina gained over 100
thousand jobs due to gains and losses in the workforce through business expansions and closures,
respectively. In 2005, the mean unemployment rate for the state of North Carolina was 5.2%.
During the same time period, the unemployment rate for the southeastern region of the state
ranged from 3.9% to 9.9%. Also, median household incomes for the region were between
$28,803 and $39,379 in 2005 compared to the median household income of $40,863 for the state
(N.C. Rural Center, 2007).
A survey administered by Heifer International in an effort to profile producers of pasture
poultry in Little Rock, Arkansas was conducted in 2002. Results from these surveys assist in
profiling producers in southeastern North Carolina due to the similarities of the two geographical
locations. Survey results showed that producers are open to the proposal of starting and/or
expanding their poultry operations, however, the high cost are of much concern to producers.
Seventy three percent of producers who were surveyed have on-farm non-inspected processing
operations due to high processing cost. Sixty-two percent are dissatisfied with current processing
labor requirements and sixty four percent are dissatisfied with government regulations. Along
with the high costs associated with processing, this is due to the ambiguity of the regulations and
how confining the regulations can be. However, without these regulations, producers are
confined to only having 1000 birds for sale per farm per year. In the long run, this can hurt
4

producers needing to sell above and beyond this limit in order to maintain their farm operations
and support their families.
Pasture Poultry Production as an Alternative
Pasture poultry production has the potential to provide momentum to alternative
agricultural enterprises and to increase net farm income. It is a diverse venture that falls under
specialty animals and an enterprise such as this could be both cost-effective and advantageous
for LRF’s, giving them the edge that they need to recover their farm operations and their
incomes. For instance, pasture poultry has gained statewide recognition in Kentucky and has
become very popular among consumers in the state. A case study of LRFs/family farms
producing pasture poultry in Kentucky was conducted in 2003. The farms profiled process some
of the highest quality poultry in the United States and has discovered a niche market for pasture
poultry. Strong demand for this specialty poultry product allows the case farm to sell their birds
at higher prices. In some instances, the producers can get as much per pound for their home-
raised poultry as the major supermarkets receive for a whole two to three pound bird.
Additionally, the marketing of these specialty products earn a profit of close to $3 per bird. This
includes the expenses of the extra marketing that is involved with marketing the pasture poultry
products. Production is growing on a large scale in Kentucky and the LRFs profiled simply are
not meeting the current demand from both restaurants and individual consumers. These results
support the idea that pastured raised poultry as a supplemental enterprise is a good opportunity
for the small farmer. Although producing pasture poultry will not support an entire farming
operation, it is an enterprise that would definitely make a difference for many LRFs.
This study intends to provide the financial feasibility of two production systems of
pasture poultry (pen production and day-range production) in southeastern North Carolina. The
5

southeastern region will serve as a superior location for such a product due to the regions high
poverty rates and limited resource farms (LRF). By determining the economic feasibility of the
two production systems, this will aid farmers in production practices and investment alternatives
when making decisions of supplemental income for the farm. If the two production systems are
found economically feasible for pasture poultry in the southeastern region of North Carolina,
then the production of such alternatives could serve as an additional alternative for LRFs in the
region. Therefore, the purpose of the study is to determine the economic feasibility of pasture
poultry production as an alternative enterprise on limited resource farms in southeastern North
Carolina. The objectives are as follow: (1) to evaluate the profitability of pen production and
day-range production with custom processing of pasture poultry as limited resource enterprises
in southeastern North Carolina and (2) to determine the effects of financial leverage and cost of
capital on the financial feasibility of pen production and day-range production of pasture poultry
in southeastern North Carolina.
Conceptual Framework
Pasture Poultry Production Systems
The two poultry production systems that will be used in this research study are the
pasture pen operation and the net range (or day range) operation. The pasture pen operation
involves small batches of birds which are kept in floorless pens and are moved to fresh pasture
daily. The net range operation involves a poultry house that is surrounded by movable net
fencing. The netting is moved every few days and the house may be moved as well to allow the
birds to consume fresh pasture. Requirements that producers of both production systems have to
6

consider includes climate, soil and land, water (septic system or municipal water), building and
facility, equipment and machinery, and management and labor.
Appropriate climate temperatures are required for a successful production season. If the
climate is too hot or too cold, then outdoor production could be limited which could ultimately
affect the entire operation. Soil pH, moisture, fertility, and acreage are some factors to be
considered as these factors are a very vital portion of both production systems. The flow rate,
volume, and location are important when determining water quality. The higher the water
quality, the higher a producer’s output would be. Specifically for range operations, in terms of
housing, this is often minimal for this operation due to the fact that existing resources can be
used for this operation. Other building and facility requirements include a place for cold storage
and poultry products. Heaters, pasture pens, feed storage, feeders, and waterers are the most
important aspects needed for equipment and machinery. Due to the nature of these operations,
not a lot of processing equipment is needed. Marketing equipment may be needed, such as a
refrigerated truck or trailer to transport dressed birds to market. In addition, equipment should be
scaled according to individual producers operation.
Planning and organization are important necessities to the management and labor
functions. Considerable knowledge and diverse skills are needed for both production systems.
Both operations can be labor intensive, especially with processing, and require many hours of
management. Since many poultry producers have diversified farms, it is important that the
poultry enterprise complements rather than conflicts with the labor peaks of other farm
enterprises (Heifer International, 2002)
7

Net Present Value (NPV) Method
Net present value method of analysis is used to determine the profitability of an
investment. For the purpose of this study, it will be used to determine which two production
systems (pen and net range) would be viable operations. The Net Present Value (NPV) method is
used to project the long term costs and benefits of the investment and it is the present value of an
investment’s cash inflows minus the present value of its outflows (Degregori, et al., 2000). The
use of the NPV method in analyzing investments has been well documented. It is defined as the
sum of the present values of the annual cash flows minus the initial investment. The annual cash
flows are the net benefits (revenues minus costs) generated from the investment during the life of
the investment. These cash flows are discounted or adjusted by incorporating the uncertainty and
time value of money. The goal of the NPV equation is to determine the value created from the
initial investment. In this study, the NPV model will serve the purpose of presenting the NPV
values for both pasture production systems when the cost of capital is different in three separate
scenarios. The formula to calculate the NPV is as follows:
( )[ ] CiPNPV
n
n −−= ∑ 1
where:
NPV = net present value,
Pi = net cash flow in year n,
i = discount rate (where i = 1, 2,…,n),
C = initial cost of the investment, and
n = the number of time periods.
8

The NPV method has four key elements to evaluating an investment. The time value of
money, where NPV recognizes the concept that a dollar earned today is worth more than a dollar
earned five years from now. Secondly, the cash flows, where NPV calculates a project’s
expected cash flows and include the unique risks of obtaining those cash flows. Using NPV helps
eliminate accounting inconsistencies, since the cash flows represent the benefits of the project
and not just the profits. Thirdly, the NPV method evaluates risk by incorporating the risks
associated with a project via the expected cash flows and/or discount rate. Lastly, NPV provides
flexibility and depth, since the NPV equation can adjust for inflation and can be used with other
analytical tools. The criterion for deciding whether an investment is acceptable using NPV is
based on the following:
1. If the NPV is greater than zero, then it is considered an acceptable investment.
2. If the NPV is equal to zero, then the investor may be indifferent.
3. If the NPV is less than zero, then it is considered as an unacceptable investment.
Financial Feasibility
Financial feasibility is a method used to determine an enterprise’s financial possibilities.
It is the process of determining whether an investment is financially viable and should be
conducted after an investment analysis (Degregori, et al., 2000). During the feasibility analysis, a
negative value in any year suggests that the cash outflow exceeds cash inflow. This suggests an
infeasible investment, which means that in that year, the investment would not be able to carry
itself. Moreover, a deficit in even one year would mean that the investment is unprofitable even
if the investment was predetermined to be profitable. These are the decision criterion for
accepting or rejecting an investment based on a financial feasibility analysis. To calculate the
9

financial feasibility of an investment, there are several components needed. These components
are the tax rate, discount rate, down payment, loan term, loan type, and the loan interest rate.
When all of these components are known, then leverage ratios are used to determine the financial
feasibility of an investment.
Leverage ratios are measured by total debt to total equity and when they are greater than
one, more loans are required for the cost of debt. When the leverage ratio is 0.0, it implies that
the investment will be made through existing assets. When the leverage ratio is 1.0, then half of
the investment will require debt capital and owners’ equity is required for the other half. When
the leverage ratio is 2.0, then two-thirds of the investment will require debt capital and one-third
will require owners’ equity. When the leverage ratio is 3.0, then three-fourths of the investment
requires debt capital and one-fourth requires owners’ equity.
There are capital requirements that must be considered when investing in an enterprise
such as pasture poultry. These requirements are known as the cost of capital. The cost of capital
is defined as the rate at which future income cash flows are discounted. It is calculated by adding
together the cost of debt and the cost of equity. It is also referred to as the cutoff, hurdle, target,
or minimum rate of return that must be achieved for an investment to be deemed as minimally
acceptable. In other words, if the cost of capital is estimated to be 12%, then investments
yielding 12% or more are considered to be feasible (or acceptable) investments.
Data and Methods
The financial data in this study is based on enterprise budgets for both production
systems. Assumptions are based on the farm operating at full production capacity. The enterprise
budgets are used as general guidelines to illustrate what would be required to invest in either one
10

of the aforementioned production systems. Base case scenarios for each operation are used to
develop the three scenarios that are to be used for each production system. Each scenario will be
evaluated at a different cost of capital level (10%, 7.5%, and 5%). For the base case scenarios,
there is no cost of capital because there is no debt or equity used to finance the investment. Using
various costs of capitals assist in illustrating the affects on net present value and show how cost
of capital affects the financial feasibility of each operation.
Enterprise Budgets
The original enterprise budgets are based on a 4 pen case and show how much capital
would be needed to invest in these operations. However, to illustrate the results of what would
happen if a producer enlarged the pasture poultry operation, the budgets expand to show an 8-
pen and 12-pen operation. The values for 8 pens were derived by multiplying the figures for 4
pens by 2. The values for 12 pens were derived by multiplying the figures for 4 pens by 3. Table
1 shows the enterprise budget for the pasture pen operation.
The pasture pen operation is a seasonal production process occurring only in the spring,
summer, and fall. Four batches are produced each year and each batch contains three weeks and
twelve hundred birds are placed each year. Each bird consumes about 15 pounds of feed and
there is a ten percent death loss. Seven point five percent of the birds are loss to processing and
seven percent are kept for home consumption. Birds have a dressed weight of 4.5 pounds each
(without giblets) and the price received is $2.00 per pound. There are a total of 999 birds for sale
each year and they are directly marketed to customers and contain no labels.
The net range operation is a seasonal production process also. As opposed to four batches
of birds being produced each year, there are six batches produced for this operation. Each batch
11

contains one thousand birds which are housed between four houses. Six thousand birds are
placed each year and the growout period is eight weeks. Each bird eats about fifteen pounds of
feed and ten percent of the birds are loss due to death and two percent due to processing.
The dressed weight for each bird is 4.5 pounds (without giblets) and is priced at $2.00 per
pound. Five thousand and ninety two birds are sold each year with eighty four percent of the
birds being sold whole and the remaining sixteen percent are sold cut up. Birds are marketed
directly from the plant and the producer is not responsible for the transportation of the birds. The
values for 8 pens were derived by multiplying the figures for 4 pens by 2 and the values for 12
pens were derived by multiplying the figures for 4 pens by 3. This illustrates the expansion of
the pasture pen production system for producers who may have more farm land and resources to
invest with compared to producers who may only be able to invest in the four pen operation.
Table 2 shows the enterprise budget for this production system.
Results
Scenarios
Three scenarios were developed for both pasture poultry production systems. As
mentioned before, each scenario illustrated the effects on NPV when the cost of capital was at a
different percentage. In scenario 1, for both production systems, the cost of capital is 10%. In
scenarios 2 and 3, the costs of capital are 7.5% and 5%, respectively, for both production
systems. As the cost of capital increases, the investments become less profitable. Therefore, as
the cost of capital decreases, investments become more profitable. Each scenario shows a time
period of 20 years and takes into account the useful life of any assets used. Taxes were also
regarded at a 12% tax accrual rate. A present value discount factor, which was established
12

Table 1: Pasture Pen Enterprise Budget – (Base Year, 2007)
4 Pens 8 Pens 12 Pens
Income
Sell 999 Birds $8,991.00 $17,982.00 $26,973.00
Expenses
Fixed
Brooder House $ 320.00 $ 640.00 $ 960.00
Processing Equipment 320.00 640.00 960.00
Processing Building 157.86 315.70 473.58
Pens 160.00 320.00 480.00
Composter 50.00 100.00 150.00
Brooder Waterer/Feeder 10.00 20.00 30.00
Brooder 17.86 35.72 53.58
Dolly (to move pens) 20.00 40.00 60.00
Total Fixed Expenses 1,055.72 2,111.44 3,167.16
Variable
Chicks $ 684.00 $ 1,368.00 $ 2,052.00
Bags and Staples 79.92 159.84 239.76
Wood Chips 150.00 300.00 450.00
Utilities 20.00 40.00 60.00
Feed 2,520.00 5,040.00 7,560.00
Marketing 400.00 800.00 1,200.00
Labor Production 1,584.00 3,168.00 4,752.00
Labor Processing 1,152.00 2,304.00 3,456.00
Liability Insurance 250.00 500.00 750.00
Pasture rent per acre 30.00 60.00 90.00
Miscellaneous 400.00 800.00 1,200.00
Total Variable Expenses 7,269.92 14,539.87 21,809.76
Total Expenses 8,325.64 18,762.72 28,144.08
Net Income 665.36 1,330.72 1,996.08
Cost per bird (Breakeven) 8.33 16.66 24.99
Net income per bird 0.67 1.34 2.01
Source: National Center for Appropriate Technology and Kerr Center for Sustainable
Agriculture, 2002. Note: Assumptions are that price and cost have not varied
over the past five years.
13

Table 2: Net Range Enterprise Budget – (Base Year, 2007)
4 Pens 8 Pens 12 Pens
Income
Sell 5,292 birds $ 47,628.00 $95,256.00 $142,884.00
Expenses
Fixed
House $ 213.33 $ 426.66 $ 639.99
Composter 50.00 100.00 150.00
Brooder Waterer/Feeder 10.00 20.00 30.00
Brooder 77.86 155.72 233.58
Bulk Feed Storage 92.86 185.72 278.58
Fencing 136.00 272.00 408.00
Fence Charger 18.75 37.50 56.25
Battery 32.50 65.00 97.50
Total Fixed Expenses 631.30 1,262.60 1,893.90
Variable
Chicks $ 3,420.00 $ 6,840.00 $ 10,260.00
Wood Chips 1,152.00 2,304.00 3,456.00
Utilities 1,152.00 2,304.00 3,456.00
Feed 12,600.00 25,200.00 37,800.00
Marketing 400.00 800.00 1,200.00
Transportation 384.00 768.00 1,152.00
Labor (production) 4,032.00 8,064.00 12,096.00
Cleanout Cost 00.00 00.00 00.00
Tractor/loader rental 60.00 120.00 180.00
Manure Spreader 55.44 110.88 166.32
Custom Processing 16,200.00 32,400.00 48,600.00
Liability Insurance 500.00 1,000.00 1,500.00
Transportation crate rental 810.00 1,620.00 2,430.00
Miscellaneous 400.00 800.00 1,200.00
Total Variable Expenses 41,165.44 82,330.88 123,496.32
Total Expenses 42,428.04 84,856.08 127,284.12
Net Income 12,277.44 24,554.88 36,832.32
Cost per bird (Breakeven) 7.76 15.52 23.28
Net Income per Bird 2.32 4.64 6.96
Source: National Center for Appropriate Technology and Kerr Center for Sustainable
Agriculture, 2002. Note: Assumptions are that price and cost have not varied
14

by the cost of capital, was used to determine the present value of cash flows for each year for
each scenario.
Once the total present value of cash flows is determined, then the NPV was calculated
for each scenario. For the pen operation, the assumptions are that the initial investment would
cost $19,734.92 and leverage ratios are incorporated at levels 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0. Assumptions for
the net range operation are that the initial investment would cost $41,076.74 and leverage ratios
are incorporated at levels 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0. The loan term for both investments is for a total of
five years.
Results of Scenario Simulations
Table 2 presents the results for the pasture pen operation. The costs of capital (10%,
7.5%, and 5%) for each scenario are shown and the results for NPV are as expected. As cost of
capital decreases from scenario one to scenario three, there is an increase in net present value
although the values are negative. For the pasture pen production system, when cost of capital is
10%, NPV is $(33,098.95). When cost of capital is 7.5% and 5%, the NPVs’ are $(31,841.04)
and $(30,144.05), respectively. These values indicate that investing $19,734.92 in the pasture
pen operation today cost more than the future benefits of investing in the pasture pen operation.
Investing $19,734.92 in this operation will yield $(33,098.95), $(31,841.04), and $(30,144.05),
which are negative, in 20 years at the respected cost of capital percentages. Also for this
operation, for all three scenarios, leverage ratio results were negative. As the leverage ratio
increased, the financial feasibility of the operation decreased resulting in negative values or
deficits for each year of the operation. Since net present value is negative, this indicates that the
investment is unacceptable. Moreover, the table shows that as the cost of capital for the
investment increases, the less profitable the investment becomes.
15

Table 3: Net Present Value and Financial Feasibility for Pasture Pen Operation - (Base
Year, 2007)
Cost of Capital (10%) (7.5%) (5%)
Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Scenario #3
NPV $(33,098.95) $(31,841.04) $(30,144.05)
Leverage Ratios
1.0 Reject Reject Reject
Source: Author’s calculations. Note: Assumptions are that price and cost have not varied
The leverage ratios for the pasture pen operation show that the investment should be
rejected because it is not financially feasible. This is due to there being a deficit in at least one or
all of the years for the loan term which is assumed to be five years. The negative values or
deficits indicate that cash outflows exceeded cash inflows for that year. The deficits specify that
in that year, the investment would not be able to carry itself which makes the total investment
unprofitable. These results imply the pasture pen operation is unacceptable and it is not
financially feasible.
Table 4 lists the results for the net present value and financial feasibility analysis for the
net range operation. The NPV results are as expected for each scenario at the respective costs of
capital levels (10%, 7.5%, and 5%). For this operation, when cost of capital is 10%, NPV is
$(33,068.10). When the cost of capital is 7.5% and 5%, the NPVs are $(24,007.44) and
$(10,932.80), respectively. Under the net range operation, in scenario 1, the values for leverage
16

ratio 1.0 were negative. This indicates that this operation is not financially feasible at this
leverage ratio when cost of capital is 10%. However, in scenario 1, values were positive showing
a surplus for each year of the operation at leverage ratios 2.0 and 3.0. This shows that the net
range operation is financially feasible at these leverage ratio levels. Scenarios 2 and 3 also had
positive values for leverage ratios 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 which implied that the pasture pen operation
is a financially feasible investment at all leverage ratio levels and when the cost of capital is
7.5% and 5%.
Table 4: Net Present Value and Financial Feasibility for Net Range Operation - (Base Year,
2007)
Cost of Capital (10%) (7.5%) (5%)
Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Scenario #3
NPV $(33,068.10) $(24,007.44) $(10,932.80)
Leverage Ratios
1.0 Reject Accept Accept
2.0 Accept Accept Accept
3.0 Accept Accept Accept
Source: Author’s calculations. Note: Assumptions are that price and cost have not varied
As the cost of capital decreases from scenario one to scenario three, net present value
increases even though the results are negative. This indicates that the investment is unacceptable
due to the net present values being negative. As the cost of capital for the investment increases,
the investment becomes less profitable. Under leverage ratio 1.0 for scenario 1, the investment
should be rejected because it is not financially feasible when cost of capital is 10%. This
17

signifies a deficit or negative values in either one or all five of the years of the loan. However for
leverage ratios 2.0 and 3.0 under scenario 1, the investment for this operation can be accepted
because it is financially feasible when the cost of capital is 10%. In other words, there are not
any deficits in any year of the operation making the investment profitable. In scenarios 2 and 3,
the investment can be accepted at each leverage ratio (1.0, 2.0, and 3.0), because it is financially
feasible when the cost of capital is 7.5% and 5%.
The overall results show that both operations have negative net present values. Since the
NVP values are less than zero for both operations, this suggests that today’s costs are more than
the sums of the future benefits of investing in either one of these pasture poultry production
systems based on the assumptions presented in this study. Moreover, the pasture pen operation
showed results of rejection at all leverage ratio levels and at all cost of capital percentages. This
implies that the pasture pen operation is not financially feasible and not a profitable operation for
a producer to invest in. The net range operation is not acceptable, but it is the financially feasible
investment compared to the pasture pen operation. It requires more resources and is more labor
intensive, but the analysis illustrates that making the investment in this operation will provide
better financial means and that it is the more viable operation for a producer to invest in
providing they meet the necessary financial requirements based on the assumptions made in this
research study.
Conclusion
The economic and financial feasibility analysis indicates that the pasture pen production
system is not an economically or financially feasible investment for pasture poultry producers.
The net present value model suggests that an investment in this system would be considered
unacceptable because net present values are negative, or less than zero. This was the case for all
18

three scenarios when cost of capital was 10%, 7.5%, and 5% at leverage ratios 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0.
Based on the cost of the initial investment for the pasture pen operation, at leverage ratios 1.0,
2.0, and 3.0, an investment in this system should be rejected because there are one or more years
that the operation would not be able to carry itself. In other words, the investment is deemed
unprofitable. These results are based on the assumption that producer’s are in the financial
condition that is identical to the scenarios that have been described in this study.
On the other hand, results for the net range operation support the idea of investing in a
pasture poultry production system due to its financial feasibility. The net present value model for
this production system suggests that investing in this production system would be considered
unacceptable and this is due to the net present values for this operation resulting in negative
values as well. Still, the net range operation is considered to be financially feasible when cost of
capital is 7.5% and 5% at leverage ratios 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0. While cost of capital was 10%, the
operation was not financially feasible at a leverage ratio of 1.0, but it was considered financially
feasible at leverage ratios 2.0 and 3.0 when cost of capital was 10%. As stated previously for the
pasture pen operation, the results for the net range operation are based on the assumption that
producers are in the financial condition that is identical to the scenarios that were illustrated in
this study.
In conclusion, the current situation for health foods and the current economic situation of
the small farm sector may influence an increase in pasture poultry production in the southeastern
region of North Carolina. Due to the high unemployment and poverty
levels, pasture poultry production could provide a financially sound alternative enterprise for
producers in the region. Not only can it provide producers with an alternative or supplemental
enterprise for their farm operation(s), but it can also provide consumers with an affordable
19

healthy food alternative. On the other hand, costs of capital must be considered. The costs of
capital for this research study were chosen arbitrarily. Producers may require a much higher rate
of return than the cost of capital projected and be less willing to engage in the proposed
enterprise. This is due to the fact that small farmers (or LRF’s) do not have the resources (land
and/or capital) to take risks. However, more research must be done to determine the economic
advantages of producing pasture poultry in this region. If producers are looking for a niche
market to take part in, then producing pasture poultry may be an important economic alternative
or supplemental enterprise of the food product industry that can benefit both producer and
consumer.
Furthermore, building or finding a market for pasture poultry in the southeastern region
of North Carolina is a major economic factor that must be considered if pasture poultry
production is to be a profitable and financially feasible enterprise. Despite the possibility of high
net returns, market access is definitely a prerequisite for the success of LRF’s in the region.
Nevertheless, producers will be faced with the demanding task of having to determine which
production system is the better system for their farm operation and financial circumstance(s). As
a result of the initial cost associated with the pasture pen and net range operations, producers will
have to be aware of how much they are willing to invest in either operation. They will also have
to consider their opportunity cost of investing in the production system that will be the most
beneficial to them. Moreover, they will be faced with the issue of developing a product that is
consistent in quality, and they must be able to maintain a dependable supply of the product to
consumers.
20

References
Barry, Peter J., Paul Ellinger, John A. Hopkin, and C.B. Baker (2000), Financial
Management in Agriculture, Prentice Hall.
Caudill, Tess and Emily Branstetter. “Free Range Poultry for Kentucky Farmers.” Marketing
Matters. [Online]. Available at http://www.kyagr.com/mkt_promo/MarketingMatters.
Accessed – August 18, 2006.
Degregori, Thomas R., Ralph W. Battles, and Robert C. Thompson. (2000). Fundamentals of
Agribusiness Finance. San Antonio, TX: Blackwell Publishing.
Gallo, A.E. “The Food Marketing System in 1995.” AIB 731, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
December 1996.
Heifer International. (2002, October). Growing Your Range Poultry Business: An
Entrepreneurs Toolbox. Contributors: Anne Fantico, David Redhage, Nancy Grudens
Schuck, Wayne Knoblauch, and Judy Joanna Green. [Online]. Available at
http://www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/poultrytoolbox.pdf. Accessed January 8, 2006.
Kinsey, J. and B. Senauer. (1997). Food marketing in an electronic age: implications for
agriculture. Choices. Second Quarter: 32 – 35.
The North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center. “The Importance
of Small Business in Rural North Carolina.” [Online]. Available at
http://www.ncruralcenter.org/forum2004/SmallBusinessFactSheet.pdf,
Accessed on December 8, 2007.
Senauer, B., E. Asp, and J. Kinsey. (1992). Food Trends and the Changing Consumer. St.
Paul, MN: Eagan Press.
21

Introduction
A
llowing poultry access to the outdoors
provides challenges not encountered
in indoor production. The roof and
walls of a confinement house protect both
the equipment and the chickens. With the
chickens and equipment outdoors, there will
be new problems from weather, predators,
interaction with other livestock, and sheer
distance. The equipment for an indoor flock
doesn’t need to be strong enough for goats
to jump on, for example.
Working on a small scale also calls for dif-
ferent management decisions than modern
large-scale operation. You probably won’t
be adding a pair of diesel backup gen-
erators or drilling new wells just for your
pastured chickens, though this is common
enough in conventional broiler farms. Some
of the equipment used by the big boys is
great for small-scale operations, and some
isn’t. This publication helps you figure out
which is which.
Each issue (water, feed, fencing, roosts, and
nest boxes) has a variety of solutions. Some-
times equally good solutions are almost
opposite in approach, such as setting up a
pressurized water system vs. having your
chickens drink from a brook. I will try to be
clear about which considerations steer you
towards one or the other, and which ideas
I have actually tried, and which I’ve only
heard about.
Some of the larger manufacturers offer
equipment not detailed in this publication.
Those considering a larger operation might
find the following sites useful. Check out:
Big Dutchman
http://bigdutchmanusa.com/
products/alternative.html
SKA
www.ska.it/uk/index.html
Gillis Agricultural Systems
www.gillisag.com
Waterers
The issue of waterers is far more important
than people realize. A poorly conceived
watering system will stunt or kill your birds
while at the same time consuming an enor-
mous amount of labor. On hot days, a fail-
ure in the water supply will start killing
broilers almost at once. A reliable source of
water is absolutely essential.
General Issues
The water needs to be drinkable to begin
with, and needs to stay that way once it’s
poured into the vessel that the chickens
drink from. This can present problems on
both ends.
Cleanliness
The chickens themselves are part of the
problem. They poop in the water and
scratch litter into it when given the opportu-
nity. Don’t give them the opportunity. Pro-
vide some kind of guard to prevent them
•
•
•
Thelaborofwateringpoultrybycarryingwaterin
bucketsistremendousandnottobeconsideredin
any up-to-date poultry plant. Watering must be
accomplished by some artificial piping system or
from spring-fed brooks.
-- Milo Hastings, The Dollar Hen, 1909, p. 62.
Introduction..................... 1
Waterers............................. 1
General Issues ................. 1
Types of Watering
Systems.............................. 5
Sources for Piped-
Water Systems................. 7
Types of Waterers........... 8
How Many Waterers?..10
Feeders ............................10
Issues With Feeders
on Range ......................... 11
Kinds of Feeders........... 13
How Many Feeders?....16
Fencing ............................16
Predator Issues.............. 19
Roosts...............................20
Nest Boxes ......................22
Types of Nest Box.........22
Collecting the Eggs .....24
A Publication of ATTRA - National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service • 1-800-346-9140 • www.attra.ncat.org
ATTRA—National Sustainable
Agriculture Information Service
is managed by the National Cen-
ter for Appropriate Technology
(NCAT) and is funded under a
grant from the United States
Department of Agriculture’s
Rural Business-Cooperative Ser-
vice. Visit the NCAT Web site
(www.ncat.org/agri.
html) for more informa-
tion on our sustainable
agriculture projects. ��
ATTRA
Contents
By Robert Plamondon
For technical
questions, contact
Anne Fanatico, NCAT
Agriculture Specialist
©2006 NCAT
Poultry: Equipment for
Alternative Production
This publication describes some of the basic equipment needed for small-scale chicken flocks, espe-
cially flocks on range. Major topics are addressed in detail, including watering and feeding equipment,
fencing considerations, and roosting and nesting boxes. References and resources are embedded in
the narrative.

ATTRA Poultry: Equipment for Alternative Production
from getting where they shouldn’t be.
Many commercial waterers provide this by
design. Bell waterers, vacuum founts, and
many other designs have a narrow water
bowl and a large, roost-proof central dome.
But with other models you may have to roll
your own.
Because a chicken’s crop doesn’t have a
valve at the top, if they have to bend down
to drink, some of their crop’s contents will
run into the water. Yuck! Keep the water-
ers high enough that the water is above
crop level. (In poultry publications, this is
rather misleadingly called “as high as the
chickens’ backs.”)
Source Water Quality
It’s popular these days to say that you should
never give livestock water that you wouldn’t
drink yourself. I don’t go that far, since I
won’t drink from streams myself, but don’t
mind if my livestock do. But, at a minimum,
your water should be as uncontaminated as
springs or creeks ever are.
Obviously, some contaminants are worse
than others. The chickens don’t care if the
water supply has sand or newts in it, but
arsenic or high bacteria levels are another
story. It wouldn’t hurt to get your water
tested, wherever it comes from. It might
be instructive to make two tests; one filled
at the water source and one filled from a
waterer. If the waterer is loaded with bacte-
ria and the source is clean, you’ll know you
have some work to do with the waterers and
distribution system!
Many farmers have reported improved
results with low levels of disinfectants in the
drinking water (such as using chlorinated
city water), presumably because the resid-
ual chlorine kills bacteria in the waterers
and prevents transmission from one chicken
to another. Adding chemicals to the water
sounds like too much work to me, but it
drives home the point that waterers can be
reservoirs of infection if you’re not careful.
Puddles and Wet Spots
Chickens do not appreciate clean water and
will drink from manure-soaked puddles if it
saves them a single step. Thus, one aspect
of providing clean drinking water for your
chickens is to prevent puddles where pos-
sible. Often, these puddles are caused by
spillage from the waterers themselves. They
provide a nasty disease vector, since water-
ers get a lot of traffic and are the ideal spot
to exchange pathogens. Also, most patho-
gens prefer damp environments to dry ones.
So take that spillage seriously.
This installation from the 1930s uses a simple wire-
covered platform to prevent wet spots.
This is much less of a problem for daily-
move pens or any method which involves
moving the waterers frequently (unless the
leakage is really large), because the waterer
moves and the wet spot dries out before
the pathogens really get established. It’s
an enormous problem inside permanently
sited houses. With permanent installations,
it’s a good idea to think about some kind of
drainage system, especially if you can come
up with one that can handle the total failure
of an automatic watering system and pre-
vent the house from flooding.
Many such systems basically involve hav-
ing some kind of porch or alcove outside
the chicken house proper, with a wire floor.
Spilled water thus falls harmlessly outside.
Another system is to have a pit with a drain
inside the house. Litter can clog the drain
in the latter case. Keeping litter out can be
C
hickens do
not appre-
ciate clean
water and will
drink from manure-
soaked puddles if it
saves them a single
step.

ATTRAwww.attra.ncat.org
tricky, though keeping the area higher than
the litter (and providing access ramps for
broilers, who don’t hop well) can work.
Freezing
Winter is a nasty time for the water supply.
People keep telling me that chickens will eat
snow, and I suppose that’s true, if you hap-
pen to have snow. But can they eat enough
snow to be highly productive? I doubt it.
There are two basic approaches to dealing
with freezing. One is to have a system that
can freeze solid, but will work again when it
thaws. The other is to prevent freezing.
Freezable Water Systems
I have seen plastic pans split from freezing,
but not galvanized ones. A simple freezable
watering system consists of two sets of gal-
vanized pans or (for full-sized birds) buck-
ets. You take warm water out to the chick-
ens in one set, and bring the other set back
home with you, allowing whatever ice is at
the bottom to thaw before it’s time to water
the chickens again. This is simple, reliable,
and far too much work! But it’s the tradi-
tional “if all else fails” backup system.
Freezing is a nuisance for all types of auto-
matic waterers, but it is especially hard on
low-pressure waterers with valve assemblies
that are at least partly plastic. These tend to
split if they freeze solid, resulting in a flood
when they thaw. Bell waterers, nipple water-
ers, and cup waterers generally fall into
this category.
Waterers with all-metal valve assemblies
tend to survive freeze/thaw cycles without
any ill effects.
PVC piping tends to split when frozen. I
have had excellent results with ordinary
garden hose, which never seems to fail from
mere freezing. I believe the elasticity of the
hose absorbs the swelling in the system as
it freezes, preventing damage to other com-
ponents. I have much less experience with
poly irrigation tubing. So far, the tubing has
always survived, as have plastic T-fittings,
but plastic ball valves split in hard freezes.
Freezable systems work best in areas where
daytime temperatures are generally above
freezing, so the system will thaw and start
working sometime during the day with-
out any attention from the farmer. This is
my situation. But freezable systems are
useful in any climate, as a way of
preventing equipment damage if the
system freezes up in spite of your best
freeze-proofing methods.
Freeze-Proof Systems
To prevent freezing altogether, you need
some combination of water flow, insulation,
or heat. One method is to put your water-
ers in a house that never drops below freez-
ing inside, and supply it from buried pipes.
Or you can use heating tape to prevent the
system from freezing, even in a cold house.
If you can’t use outdoor piping, a reservoir
inside a warm house could provide water.
It is not very difficult to build chicken
houses that never fall below freezing, pro-
vided that they have an insulated roof and
controlled ventilation. Normal stocking den-
sities will ensure that the hens themselves
provide most or all of the needed heat, and
the deep-litter system will generate more
through composting. However, this works
best with relatively large flocks; it’s much
easier to get this effect with five hundred
chickens than with fifty. With small flocks,
the problem is that a house large enough
for the farmer to work in comfortably is too
large for the flock to heat. In this case, using
electricity to heat the water pipes rather
than the house will be most efficient.
I have used two kinds of heat for watering
systems: heating tape and bucket heaters.
Heating tape (available at any hardware or
plumbing supply store) is an electric cable
that runs off AC power and is designed
to keep pipes from freezing. Make sure
you buy an outdoor-rated product, even if
you are using it indoors, because chicken
houses are a harsh environment, and follow
the instructions. In some cases, such as Lit-
tle Giant bowl waterers, the warmed pipes
will heat the valve portion of the waterer
and prevent the system from freezing at this
critical point.
F
reezable sys-
tems work
best in areas
where daytime tem-
peratures are gener-
ally above freezing,
so the system will
thaw and start work-
ing sometime during
the day without any
attention from the
farmer.

Bucket heaters (and their smaller cousins,
birdbath heaters) are immersion heaters
that go right into the water. These aren’t
suited to any kind of poultry waterer that
I know of, but they work fine on big pan
waterers like the Little Giant Everfull Bowl
waterer, which is just a galvanized pan with
a float valve. Bucket heaters need to be
grounded to prevent stray voltages that will
keep the chickens from drinking. This is
no place to use the old extension cord with
the missing ground pin! (More about stray
voltages later.)
These are available from pet supply stores.
Personally, I think that the 1,000-watt
heaters are ludicrously overpowered, and
even the 200-watt units are questionable.
Yes, they have a thermostat to turn them
off before the water gets too hot, but if you
have multiple waterers, the big heaters
will overload your wiring. I think a 50-watt
birdbath heater is more appropriate if the
power is connected all the time. Higher
wattages only make sense if you supply
power intermittently.
I don’t approve of using light bulbs under
waterers—too scary.
Overhead heat lamps will keep just about
any waterer from freezing, and may not be
too expensive if you put them on a ther-
mostatic switch and keep the waterers in a
place that isn’t freezing cold all winter.
By the way, chickens don’t like drinking
ice-cold water, so taking the chill off will
improve production.
You’ll notice that all the above assumes that
you have AC power available. What if you
don’t? Other than the possibility of using
kerosene or propane space heaters, I don’t
know of anything very useful. Temporary
freezing can be prevented to some extent
with insulation.
Continuously flowing water can also prevent
freezing. If you have lots of low-cost water,
this is an option. The simplest version is of
course a brook that runs through an area
the chickens have access to.
The alternative to all this is to keep chick-
ens only during the warmer months. This
is practical with pastured broilers, but not
with hens, because hens must generally
be overwintered.
Too-Hot Water
If your water is too hot in the summertime,
it will prevent the chickens from drinking
all they need to keep cool. This will hurt
production and may even lead to deaths.
I know of two effective methods to keep
water cool. One is to shade the areas con-
taining the waterers, so no matter how hot
the water was when it entered the shaded
area, it will have time to cool down to
air temperature by the time it reaches
the chickens.
This works even better if the waterers hold
a lot of water, because when the valve opens
and lets in a little bit of water to top things
off, it is diluted by the large volume of air-
temperature water already there.
When I dump the water from my hen water-
ers on a sunny day, the incoming water is
often scalding hot, while the water I just
dumped was only lukewarm.
The second method is to have the water
flowing continuously, at a high enough rate
that the feeder hoses can’t act as a solar
water heater. In hot climates, this might
pay off big, because the chickens will drink
more water if it’s cool.
I’ve been told that garden hose sometimes
splits when used in a hot climate. This
A birdbath heater, such
as this unit from K&H
Manufacturing (www.
khmfg.com, 719-591-
6950), is a simple way of
keeping water drinkable
in buckets and pans.

hasn’t happened to me – but I don’t live in
a hot climate.
Stray Voltage
I have already mentioned stray voltage in
the context of bucket heaters. They can also
plague an automatic watering system for no
apparent reason (though it will be related
somehow to AC power or electric fencing).
You should suspect stray voltage whenever
your chickens aren’t thriving and there’s no
apparent reason for it. Try watering them
with waterers that are filled by hand and
are nowhere near electric fencing or any-
thing metal. If the chickens start to drink
from these and avoid your regular water-
ers, there’s a problem—maybe a mechanical
problem, maybe stray voltage.
I once had stray voltage because I used an
extension cord with a missing ground pin
to hook up a bucket heater. The chickens
would dip their beaks in the water, squawk,
and avoid the waterer from then on.
Adding a ground fault circuit interrupter
(GFCI) did nothing; they don’t trip until
there’s a lot more stray current than was
present at the waterer. Fixing the ground
circuit worked. The best way to fix the
ground circuit turned out to be using intact
cords and to place a ground rod near the
waterer. To create a portable ground, I put
a metal outlet box on top of a convenient
length of galvanized electrical conduit,
which I stick into the earth near my bucket
heaters. This has worked very well for me.
Types of Watering Systems
Several general types of watering systems
may be available. The following discus-
sion addresses comparative advantages and
shortcomings of the various systems.
Brooks
A brook can be the ideal watering system
if you happen to have one in a convenient
place. A brook is simple, free, zero-main-
tenance, self-filling, and self-cleaning.
The water is generally cool, and, given a
few trees or shrubs, it provides a very
comfortable environment for chickens, who
are nowhere near as fond of sunlight and
wide-open spaces as you might think.
Brooks have disadvantages, though. They
aren’t always available, are immovable,
are useless for penned birds, and may be
too challenging for broilers, who can be
too clumsy to manage even shallow stream
banks. They also are prone to flood and
tend to serve as predator highways.
If you can deal with these issues, having
stream-watered poultry can be extremely
satisfying. I used this method for a while,
until the coyotes became bolder. But it was
great while it lasted.
Buckets
Watering from buckets has its place. Its
place is in the past.
True, watering from buckets has its advan-
tages. It’s simple, stone-age technology
with minimal equipment costs and no fine
points to learn. But it’s unbelievably labor-
intensive. Not only is lugging water around
in buckets the worst possible use of lim-
ited time and energy, it forces you to keep
a ludicrously demanding schedule. If your
chickens run out of water for even a brief
period on hot days, they will be stunted or
killed—and it’s not that much better on cool
days. You must always return to the chick-
ens before they run out of water, just so you
can pour them another drink. On hot days,
you may have to water the chickens three or
four times a day, which makes poultry keep-
ing even worse than dairying at tying you to
a rigid schedule.
Buckets are okay as a fallback system
when everything else has failed, but that’s
about it.
Water from Pipes
Piped water is the most important labor-sav-
ing device for your poultry operation. The
chickens never run out of water on hot days;
you get to have a life. It’s a good deal. In
addition to eliminating buckets from your
life and letting you plan your own schedule,
W
ater-
ing from
buck-
ets has its place. Its
place is in the past.
Piped water is the
most important
labor-saving device
for your poultry
operation.

pipe water allows you to run cleanout hoses
and sprinklers should you desire.
The disadvantages of piped water systems
are that they cost money and can require
considerable maintenance, especially if
there’s a problem with the installation (such
as a low-flow feed well or a brook with lots
of sediment in the water). Long lengths of
hose freeze easily in cold weather and can
heat the water very hot in warm weather.
Garden Hose
I have at least a thousand feet of garden
hose supplying water to my hens.
Mostly I buy cheap garden hose on sale
(some of it is surprisingly good and has
lasted ten years; even the worst stuff is good
for five). At roughly 15 cents a foot, a thou-
sand feet of hose costs $150, which isn’t too
bad, in my opinion. Use only metal Y-adap-
tors, shut-off valve, and nozzles, because
the plastic ones don’t survive freezing or
rough handling.
Poly Tubing
Poly tubing is a black-walled plastic pipe
that’s used for all kinds of agricultural
uses. The half-inch tubing is often sold in
the garden section as the feeder pipe for
drip irrigation systems (the branch lines use
smaller, highly flexible quarter-inch drip
irrigation tubing). Poly tubing is cheaper
than garden hose, but it isn’t very flexible
or convenient to work with. I have a length
of three-quarter-inch tubing running about
1,500 feet to the top of our broiler hill. For
long feeder pipes like this, poly tubing is
a big win because it’s cheap. I bought the
tubing in 300-foot lengths. We connected
the lengths with plastic barb or T-fittings,
available anyplace that sells the tubing and
at most hardware stores. At every coupling
between two sections (we used plastic barb
fittings), use hose clamps to prevent the sec-
tions from separating or leaking. Use hot
water to soften the tubing before forcing
it over a barb fitting. Dishwashing liquid
makes a good lubricant.
Because of our mild climate, we just put it
on top of the ground. Where it crossed in
front of gates, we used lengths of garden
hose, which we figure will survive vehicle
traffic better.
I like garden hose best because everything
about it is easy. Also, I know from expe-
rience that it survives freeze/thaw cycles
(such as they are in Western Oregon)
very well.
Drip Irrigation Tubing
Quarter-inch I.D. drip irrigation tubing is
okay for some applications. The tubing itself
is inexpensive, flexible, and very strong. It
can withstand almost any pressure, though
this hardly matters because the fittings
available for it are weak. It’s nice for con-
necting up hanging waterers and other
applications where garden hose is too stiff
and bulky.
Pressure Regulators
Low-pressure waterers require pressure reg-
ulators. Some of them don’t work at house-
hold water pressures, while others break.
The poultry equipment manufacturer GQF,
out of Savannah, Georgia, sells low-cost reg-
ulators through its online catalog. These are
essentially propane regulators with appro-
priate fittings. Our pressure regulators have
never lasted long, but our low-pressure sys-
tems use brook water and freeze from time
to time, which may be hard on them. (www.
gqfmfg.com 912-236-0651).
Intermediate Cisterns
One way to get low-pressure water is to
have a bucket, cistern, or stock tank at
the right elevation compared to the water-
ers. This supply container is fitted with a
float valve connected to the piped water sys-
tem. You get the same low-pressure water
you would from any bucket-fed system, but
the float valve and piped water keep
the bucket topped off at all times, which
eliminates labor.
This also provides a reserve water
supply. I like using square four-gallon
I
like garden hose
best because
everything
about it is easy.

buckets because it’s easy to attach a stan-
dard stock-tank float valve to one. A gar-
den hose supplies water to the float valve.
A length of drip irrigation tubing or garden
hose connects the waterers to the bottom of
the bucket.
Cistern Systems
A cistern system is what I call a piped-water
system with a central reservoir that you fill
with something other than a pump. Unlike
an intermediate cistern, which is kept full
with water from a pipe, a cistern system has
to have water carried to it. On our broiler
hill, for example, the water system relied on
a stock tank filled from a tank in the back of
our pickup truck. A pipe from the bottom of
the stock tank went to our broiler houses.
The stock tank was at the top of a hill, so the
water flowed down the pipes to the broiler
houses by gravity; we didn’t need a pump.
On flat ground, or on ground where the cis-
tern is on lower ground than the houses, a
pump would be necessary.
The advantage of a cistern system is that
you don’t have to carry water around in
buckets, and the chickens can be at any dis-
tance from the ultimate water source. Some-
times you just can’t run water pipes, such
as when the chickens are on a piece of land
with no water and no access to any.
The disadvantage is that you still have to
carry water around (though probably in the
back of a truck). In some ways, it combines
the disadvantages of the bucket system
with those of a piped-water system. When
we used this cistern system, I was particu-
larly irked by the time lag between noticing
that the broilers needed water and getting
it to them. I had to get back to the shop,
empty the pickup, put the water tank in it,
fill the tank from the brook (which took a
long time), and drive back to the broiler hill
before the chickens saw a drop of water.
And God help us if the pickup didn’t start!
If you’re already using a system of stock
tanks for your four-footed livestock, a cis-
tern system for your poultry will fit into
your existing workflow, and no harm done.
Otherwise, consider it only if you can’t get
piped water from here to there.
Water Sources for Piped-Water
Systems
Water for piped systems can come from sev-
eral general sources. The following discus-
sion focuses on the advantages and disad-
vantages of these sources.
Brooks and Streams
My chickens use water pumped from a
brook. Because I have AC power handy, I
use an AC-powered jet pump.
Brook water tends to carry a lot of sedi-
ment, which is hard on both the pump and
the waterers. If you can, pump from a quiet
backwater. A fine screen around the foot
valve helps, if it doesn’t clog or restrict the
flow too much. (I once used a string glove
as a quick-and-dirty foot-valve screen. It
worked great.)
To keep sediment out
of the waterers, I use
a Rusco sediment
filter instead of the
usual cartridge filter.
The Rusco strainer is
designed specifically
for sediment and has
a flush-out valve so
you can get rid of the
crud without taking
it apart. And it has
a permanent plastic-
screen strainer; you
never need to buy a new filter cartridge.
(See www.rusco.com or 800-345-1033. Any
pump/irrigation shop ought to have these
in stock.)
My jet pump is an
inexpensive all-in-
one jet pump with a
power switch, pres-
sure switch, gage,
and pressure tank
from Harbor Freight
Tools (Look for “3/4
HP, 1-in. Cast Iron
A Rusco strainer
prevents crud from
reaching the waterers.
The flush-out valve at
the bottom ejects the
accumulated sediment
without disassembling
the strainer.
I use two of these
inexpensive, ready-to-
use jet pumps from
Harbor Freight Tools.

Shallow Well Pump.” at www.harborfreight.
com, 805-388-3000). These pumps seem
to be permanently on sale for about $100.
Add a foot valve and some piping, and you
have a complete pumping system. I have
used three of these pumps and I like them,
though obviously they can’t use the highest-
quality components. They’re so inexpensive
that I keep meaning to buy one as a spare,
though I never have.
When I pump from a more remote loca-
tion, where AC power is not available, I use
a 12V RV diaphragm pump with a built-
in pressure switch – FloJet makes several
models for under $100. (I bought mine from
J.C. Whitney, www.jcwhitney.com, 800-603-
4383). Shurflo makes similar pumps that
are supposed to be at least as good.
You don’t need a pressure tank with these
if you use them with garden hose, which
provides enough elasticity to keep the
pump from short-cycling. I tried using one
with just PVC tubing, which wasn’t elastic
enough. The pump short-cycled like mad,
running for a fraction of a second, pausing
for a few seconds, then running again. This
is annoying and hard on the pump. When
I added fifty feet of garden hose, it would
run when water was being used, and shut
off and stay off when it wasn’t.
Diaphragm pumps are very simple and
easy to work with. I ran mine from an over-
the-hill car battery, and it would run the
pump for weeks before discharging. This is
because chickens don’t drink all that much,
so the pump doesn’t use much electricity.
Well Water and City Water
City water can be used as-is. (If you have
strong anti-chlorine views, you probably
have a carbon filter inline with the water
supply anyway). If your well water is good
enough for you, it’s good enough for the
chickens—but it might have too many par-
ticulates for the valves in the waterers to
work reliably. In that case, use a Rusco
strainer, as described above.
Types of Waterers
Non-Automatic Waterers
(buckets, pans, vacuum founts)
Use these for
emergency or sup-
plemental watering
only. I particularly
dislike vacuum
founts. A bucket
or a galvanized
feed pan has many
uses, while a vac-
uum fount doesn’t.
Continuous-
Flow Troughs
In many ways, the continuous-flow trough
is the ideal waterer. By having water flow-
ing through it constantly, the trough is
self-cleaning. The water stays cool in sum-
mer and doesn’t freeze in winter. It has no
moving parts except the valve on the water
spigot. Once installed, it can run for years
without attention.
It takes a lot of water to do this, of course,
and the concept is best-suited to permanent
installations such as laying houses. Contin-
uous troughs can be a pain if you have to
adjust the height all the time, as you would
for broilers, and getting rid of the waste-
water can be a nuisance. Continuous-flow
troughs were very common in confinement
houses fifty years ago.
Float-Valve Waterers
Float-valve waterers use the same nine-
teenth-century technology as the fill valve
on a toilet. These waterers operate at any
pressure, are very difficult to clog with
algae or sediment, and are freeze-proof if
they have metal valve assemblies.
As you would expect from a product with all
these advantages, float-valve poultry water-
ers are hard to find! GQF sells float-valve
troughs in 18-inch and 36-inch lengths,
and you can also buy just the float-valve
part for use with your own trough or pan.
(www.gqfmfg.com, 912-236-0651). Brower
This 12V FloJet pump
is designed to provide
water in an RV, but I’ve
found them useful for
all kinds of on-pasture
water needs.
I don’t like vacuum founts,
though they’re okay as
backup waterers.

and Kuhl also
have float-valve
trough waterers.
(Brower: www.
browerequip.com,
800-553-1791.
K u h l : w w w.
kuhlcorp.com,
908-782-5696.)
Although it’s
not a particularly good poultry waterer, I
use Little Giant “Everfull Bowl Automatic
Waterer,” which is a fancy name for a three-
gallon galvanized feed pan with a float
valve. These are available in feed and pet
supply stores everywhere. They’re rugged
and reliable. However, they have no guard
to keep the chickens off them, and the water
tends to be very dirty because of this.
I use them because they’re available at my
local feed store, so I can always get one in a
hurry, and because my sheep and goats can
drink from them, too. Also, these waterers
are practically the only ones big enough to
hold a bucket heater.
Bowl Waterers (Little Giant)
These are my favorite waterers for use
indoors or with pasture pens. Unlike most
of the float-valve waterers discussed so far,
these can be lowered almost to floor level
so little chicks can use them, and they
are more compact and adjustable than
float-valve waterers. You can buy them in
any feed store. Though the water bowl is
plastic, the working parts are brass, and
these waterers can freeze solid without
damage (at least, they can if you use flexible
hose to hook them up with). Like float-valve
waterers, these work equally well at
any pressure.
The mechanism is not as crud-resistant as a
float valve, and the waterer includes a fine
brass screen to protect the valve. If this
clogs, the waterer stops working. You need
better water quality for this kind of waterer
than with float-valve waterers.
These waterers have been around for more
than fifty years. The old ones are identical
to the new ones. Sometimes you can get a
good deal on old ones.
I normally screw these waterers onto a foot-
long length of half-inch galvanized pipe.
The weight of the pipe helps them to hang
straight. At the top of the pipe I put a barb
fitting for whatever kind of hose or tubing
I’m using to hook it up. You can also get
brackets for attaching these waterers to
the wall.
Always use two pairs of pliers when adust-
ing the two nuts that control the water level
in the bowl. They will work loose if you
don’t. Similarly, you should screw the bowl
tightly onto the stem, or it will eventually
fall off, flooding the whole area.
Bell Waterers
Bell waterers are all-plastic hanging water-
ers, similar in concept to the bowl waterer.
Because they are all-plastic, they may not
withstand household water pressures and
can crack if frozen solid.
Bell waterers are very popular, though.
They are big and provide a lot more drink-
ing space than most other waterers. They
can be used with chicks and full-sized
birds. They’re inexpensive. They tend to
come with handy mounting kits that make it
easy to do a professional job when hanging
them from the roof joists.
They work very well if you filter the water,
protect them from freezing, and keep the
pressure within specification (which varies
according to manufacturer, but five pounds
per square inch is common).
A float-valve trough from
Brower. (The hose fitting at
the end isn’t visible, but it’s
there.)
Little Giant bowl
waterer.
The Little Giant Everfull
Bowl tends to get fouled
by the chickens poop-
ing in it, but is rugged,
reliable, and available
everywhere.
A homemade slotted pan
cover, like the one from
the 1930s shown above,
would keep the chick-
ens from perching on the
waterer.
A Plasson bell waterer

Many different manufacturers make bell
waterers: Plasson, Kuhl, and others.
Nipple Waterers
Nipple waterers are standard now in the
confinement industry. They are very sim-
ple, with a stainless steel trigger stick-
ing straight down from the bottom of the
waterer. When a chicken pecks at the trig-
ger, a drop of water rolls down and into the
chicken’s mouth.
Because they have no bowl, there’s noth-
ing to clean. The trigger is self-cleaning
because it’s washed by the water rolling
down it.
Installing nipple waterers is easy; there
are kits for gluing adapters to PVC
pipe. Many installations use a weird
kind of PVC pipe with a square cross-
section; others use ordinary half-inch
PVC pipe.
Nipple waterers must be set at the cor-
rect height—high enough for the chickens
to peck upwards at them. They are also
finicky about water pressure and are not
freeze-proof.
I don’t like nipple waterers for small-farm
work. The payoff is not enough to outweigh
persnickity height requirements and pres-
sure adjustments.
Nipple waterers leak sometimes, especially
if your water quality isn’t perfect. You need
more filtering to prevent this. Like other
waterers, it’s best to use nipple waterers
in an environment where wetness under
the water doesn’t translate to wet litter or
wet chickens.
FarmTek has a line
of nipple waterers
and accessories.
(www.farmtek.com,
800-327-6835).
Cup Waterers
GQF has a good line of low-pressure water-
ing cups. Cup waterers have tiny bowls
that hold only a couple of tablespoons of
water. Instead of a float valve, they have
a yellow trigger arm that lets water in
when the chickens peck at it. It takes the
chickens zero time to figure out how to use
these waterers.
I like these better than nipple waterers,
though I wouldn’t use them where litter
might get into them, because I wouldn’t want
to be cleaning them all the time. These are
great waterers for brooder or hospital cages.
(www.gqfmfg.com, 912-234-9978.)
How Many Waterers?
Hav i ng enough
waterers is crucial.
It’s best to have
more than you need,
because they fail
sometimes. Every
group of chickens
should have a mini-
mum of two water-
ers. When using the
traditional “pasture
pen with a bucket of
water on top,” there
should be two buck-
ets as well as two waterers. Also, if the
chickens ever run out of water, you can limit
the mob scene when the water returns by
having space for all the chickens to drink
at once.
(Hint: if the water runs out, put out some
pans of water temporarily to reduce fighting.)
The following table gives the amount
of waterer space recommended for hens
and broilers:
Feeders
When I collect eggs, I start by scattering a
bucketful of whole wheat on the pasture for
Number of Chickens Per Waterer
Type 8-foot Troughs Bell or Bowl Cups or Nipples
Layers 200 25 8
Broilers 200 60 9
Waterer recommendations from North & Bell’s Commercial Chicken Production
Manual.
B
irds natu-
rally tilt
their heads
up to drink, so nip-
ple drinkers have a
behavioral
advantage.
Nipple waterer
Cup waterer

the hens. The same pasture has four huge
range feeders that hold six hundred pounds
of feed each. Why use feeders at all if you
can just scatter feed on the ground? Why
scatter feed on the ground when you have
these nice feeders?
Feeders aren’t necessary for feeds with a
large particle size, that won’t dissolve in
moderate wetness, and when you have a
place that’s not too wet or filthy where you
can scatter the feed.
But, realistically, scattering feed on the
ground is best left for whole or coarsely
cracked grain fed in small enough amounts
that the chickens eat it quickly. That way, all
the grain is actually eaten by the chickens.
If you feed too much, wild birds and rodents
will get a lot of it, or it may spoil. Feeders
keep the feed clean, dry, and unspoiled.
Scattering scratch feed helps make the hens
friendlier, and they come running out for
the treat, giving you a good look at them.
This is especially useful at egg-collect-
ing time, since the hens who were loitering
around the nests get out of your way. Also,
it helps identify sick hens who can’t work up
any enthusiasm for a treat, and stay in the
chicken house instead.
Issues With Feeders on Range
Weather
Obviously, outdoor feeders are subjected
to more weather than indoor feeders, and
this can lead to trouble. In fact, the feeders
don’t actually have to be outdoors to have
these problems—many pasture pens and
range houses let in enough weather for the
same issues to apply:
Feed with a small particle size can
blow away in a strong wind.
Wet feed will ferment and mold.
Frozen or snow-covered feed is
unavailable to the chickens.
Chickens don’t like walking on
snow, and may refuse to go outside
unless you shovel the snow or cover
•
•
•
•
it with straw or some other familiar
footing.
Hot sun, heavy rain, and strong
winds will keep the chickens
indoors.
It surprises people that chickens aren’t big
fans of sunshine in hot weather, but it’s
true. In warm sunny weather, they will do
most of their foraging and feeding early in
the morning and late in the afternoon. With
hens, this twice-a-day feeding is okay, and
all your feeders can be outside. Broilers,
though, need to eat more often than this.
Accessibility
Snow, ice, and mud may make it difficult
to bring feed to the outdoor feeders. I live
in Western Oregon, which has a very mild
climate, but once in a while we have snow
on the ground for a week or two. This hap-
pened to us a couple of years ago. Our hen-
houses were scattered all over the farm, and
the labor required to pull feed from house
to house in a child’s toboggan was inde-
scribable. Outdoor feeding has its place,
but its place wasn’t then and there!
Similarly, our two-wheel-drive pickup is con-
venient for moving feed in the dry months,
but we can’t take it onto the pasture during
the wet season. Outdoor feeding may have
to be seasonal, or you may need to keep the
chickens closer to home during the winter to
shorten travel distances.
Wastage
Feed is easily wasted from shallow feeders
or from deep feeders that are overfilled.
Chickens will scatter feed in all directions,
but won’t eat the dropped feed unless it’s
relatively clean. If the feed is in large par-
ticles (pellets, whole grains), more feed will
be picked up off the ground.
The rule of thumb is to keep the feed pan at
the level of the chickens’ backs, and to fill
the feed pans no more than one-third full.
The latter rule is hard to follow with a lot
of equipment, which is sized for chicks, not
full-sized birds. More about that later.
•
T
he rule of
thumb is to
keep the feed
pan at the level of
the chickens’ backs,
and to fill the feed
pans no more than
one-third full.

Backyard Poultry Resources

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (14)

Similar to Backyard Poultry Resources

Similar to Backyard Poultry Resources (20)

More from Joseph Giambrone

More from Joseph Giambrone (10)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Backyard Poultry Resources