INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to elaborate the model of farm- environment interactions developed in Chapter Two, to describe the relationships which exist in the context of the layer industry, and to examine the way in which these relationships influence the adoption of new technology. This process involves identifying the organisations and institutions that most strongly influence decision-making on the farm, especially decision-making about the adoption of new technology. These relationships, however, are never stable and so an integral part of the analysis in this chapter is to detail the changes that have occurred in relationships between farms in the layer industry and the organisations in their environment. The analysis shows how the relative influence of different organisations has changed; some links becoming weaker and others becoming stronger.
The chapter is largely empirical. In most cases data obtained from individual farms has been aggregated to give an industry perspective. The chapter begins with an outline of the technology which is used in the industry and the alternative housing methods that are available. It then discusses the economics of production with particular reference to the major on-farm financial constraints associated with changing costs and returns. Finally the influence of a number of types of organisation is examined in detail.
THE TECHNOLOGY
Three main types of housing have been used for layers: open range, deep litter and cages. While all forms of housing are still used commercially, there has been a pronounced shift to the more intensive systems.
Until the early 1950's, most commercial laying hens were kept in paddocks with suitable shedding provided (Brann 1952). Shelter sheds were often 'ad hoc' constructions made out of cheap building materials such as fibro or corrugated iron and they contained nesting boxes and perches (Plate 3.1). There was wide variation in housing design; some
H o u s e s p l a c e d o n h e a d l a n d of a c i t r u s p r o p e r t y .
Figure 3.1: Range Rearing
Source; Smith (1955). Reproduced with kind permission from the NSW Department of Agriculture.
60.
farmers for example preferred sturdily built sheds while others preferred moveable arcs and light structures (Kentwell 1960).
By the mid-1950's however, following the American example, range rearing was increasingly replaced by the more intensive deep litter system. This system involved housing birds in long enclosed runs on an eight to ten centimetre layer of absorbent material, often sawdust, and allowing the droppings to accumulate to a maximum depth of about 25cm (Smith 1954). As with paddock rearing the birds were usually kept in large flocks in order to reduce both labour and the capital outlay of the buildings. Deep litter farms were fairly common until the mid-1960's, after which they were replaced increasingly by cages.
Cages, which had been used by breeders for some decades, only began to be used for commercial laying flocks in the late 1940's
(Gulliford 1954). By comparison with cages in use today, the early units were small, unsophisticated and cumbersome (Plates 3.2, 3.3). Using a calculation based on a description by Hart (1952) each bird was housed in an area of 1742cm2, which is about four times that now commonly used.
Most of the first cages were designed to house single birds. This arrangement performed the dual function of preventing cannibalism and enabling farmers to easily identify and cull unproductive birds. Later, the introduction of debeaking, another American Innovation, largely prevented bullying (Wilkins 1956), and two birds were able to be kept to a cage thus reducing capital outlay. Gulliford (1954)
A battery of twelve laying cages. L a y i n g c a g e s used by Mr. J o h n G. H a r d y , D e e W h y , s h o w i n g feed t r o u g h , floor, droppings tray a n d w a t e r i n g nipple. P l a t e 3 . 2 , 3 . 3 : liar J y l a y e r c a g e s S o u r c e ; G u l l i f o r d ( 1 9 5 4 ) R e p r o d u c e d w i t h k i n d p e r m i s s i o n from the N S W l)(;partm(;iit o i A g r i c u l t u r e .
62.
recommended that if two birds were to be kept to a cage one should be a leghorn and the other a leghorn crossed with a heavy breed. Each bird would then lay a different coloured egg and production per bird could be recorded. The recording of eggs from each hen, although labour intensive, was considered to be one of the advantages of the cage system over more extensive systems as it enabled unproductive birds to be culled efficiently (Hart 1952). A further advantage of cages was that the birds were virtually free of intestinal worms
(Gulliford 1954).
During the early 1950's, cages caused considerable interest and controversy. Despite this, Gulliford (1954) did not think that cages were likely to displace large deep litter systems because of the higher capital outlay and the number of eggs which had cracked or weaker shells. Cages however, did begin to gradually replace less intensive systems; by the late 1950's, deep litter sheds were beginning to be converted to cage units and small cage units were constructed (Plate 3.4). Not only did cages become more common, the size of the cage units also increased. By the early 1960's, the long- line skillion had become the most common type of shed for cage farms. The skillion then gave way to the sawtooth, which, with its wider frame was able to accommodate larger numbers of birds in a compact housing system (Anon 1963a, BAE 1971).
In the sawtooth or skillion sheds cages were raised about a metre off the ground. Since the 1970's, an alternative, the high rise shed has been adopted. Designs vary but the basic principle is that cages
P O U L T R Y N O T E S . J u l y . 1954.