Optimizing the Economic Return of Pasture-Raised Slow-growth and Conventional Broilers

Study Demographics:

• Year 1: 50 Cornish flocks (4,726 birds), 15 slow growth flocks (1,485 birds). Slow growth breeds consisted of Royal Grey Broiler, Freedom Rangers, Kosher Kings, and Meyer’s Red Broiler.
• Year 2: 47 Cornish flocks (4,487 birds), 11 slow growth flocks (1,344 birds). Slow growth breeds consisted of Royal Grey Broilers, Royal Red Broilers, Red Broilers, Freedom Ranger Broilers, and Red Jackies.

While our intention with this project was to have a 50/50 split between slow growth and conventional broiler farmers, this proved more difficult to achieve than anticipated. First, while a good number of the project farms had tried raising slow-growth broilers as an experiment, they realized that for one reason or another, they didn’t want to continue with this variety. Some of these reasons include: not being able to get the market price they needed to be profitable; fewer pounds of meat produced by the same number of slow growth chickens as compared to the Cornish crosses; and the fact that fewer birds can be raised over the course of the growing season if slow growth birds are used. At the start of the study, there were some farmers that had historically only raised slow growth broilers who moved to raising Cornish crosses because of the significant increase in feed prices in 2022; Cornish were just more efficient to raise. Once the project started, we did not see farmers move away from slow growth from year 1 to year 2, but we did see the breed of slow growth chicken change as farmers selected those that better helped them meet their goals.

The hatcheries that were part of this study included the following, with the first table illustrating the number of flocks originating from hatcheries offering Cornish cross chickens and the second showing the hatcheries involved in the study that offered slow growth broilers. 

Project farms were not necessarily hatchery loyal. If they had a poor performing batch of chicks, they would switch hatcheries to either switch genetics or order from a hatchery that was closer to reduce the stress on the chicks during shipment. Likewise, if they didn’t like how the birds tolerated their production system once on pasture, they would switch as well. Another factor that strongly influenced hatchery use was chick availability; in the years of the study (2022-2024), there were chick shortages and farmers who didn’t place their orders by late winter were usually not able to get chicks from their hatchery of choice. The bias towards Moyer for Cornish cross chicks is because there was a WNY distributor who ordered in chicks for regional farmers to pick up, reducing the purchase price and shipping stress, which was attractive to many of our producers.

There were fewer hatcheries represented for slow growth broilers, both because we had fewer slow growth flocks on the project and because there are a limited number of hatcheries that offer slow-growth broiler chicks. While many hatcheries offer males of egg-type chicks to raise out for meat, these were not considered as part of the study; only slower growing meat-type chickens were. Within this classification of chickens, there was a bias toward Freedom Ranger Hatchery in part because of name recognition.

Vaccinations of Chicks:

The vaccinations available for chicks were hatchery dependent, though most offered at least Marek’s and Coccidia. Marek’s disease is a viral cancer of chickens that causes leg failure due to sciatic nerve enlargement, ocular damage, and internal tumors, among other symptoms. The affected percentage of the flock will range between 1% - 50% depending on the virulence of the strain. While typically an ailment of laying hens, exposed broilers that have not been vaccinated at the hatchery as chicks can end up with symptoms as early as 6 weeks of age (Pendleton, 2023). We did not find apparent evidence of Marek’s in our project flocks. We did not ask participants if they had Marek’s in their other poultry, which provide a reservoir of Marek’s, so it’s uncertain if the vaccine was helpful for those affected farms.

Coccidiosis is a parasitic infection that is picked up from the environment and can affect chickens as young as 3 weeks of age. By 12 weeks of age, the birds have generally developed an immunotolerance to the parasite. Affected broilers end up with lower rates of gain and may die from intestinal damage in severe infections. Vaccination at the hatchery is one way to manage the disease and feeding a coccidiostat in the feed (known as medicated feed) is another. However, these cannot be fed simultaneously or they negate each other (Lorenzoni, 2023). The flocks that are most at risk are those which live extended lives in brooders or are not moved frequently. The parasite thrives in warm, wet conditions.

In our project flocks, one flock had a coccidia infection at 4 weeks of age resulting in the loss of about 20% of the flock. They were not vaccinated for coccidia and were not fed a coccidiostat. One other flock on the project reported feeding a coccidiostat to vaccinated birds, which presented a learning opportunity.

Sometimes these vaccines come standard as part of hatchery’s shipment protocol, and other times they need to be opted into. Selecting vaccines that protect against known challenges on the farm are going to be the most cost-effective strategy. That said, if there is uncertainty if a premise has had these challenges in the past, getting the vaccines can provide insurance against losing a portion of a broiler flock moving forward.

The table below shows the percentage and (number of total flocks) where chicks were given vaccines for Marek's and coccidiosis in year 1 and year 2. 

Supplement Use:

Preventative measures to improve resilience and performance of broilers under stressful conditions included providing feed additives such as apple cider vinegar and vitamins/minerals/electrolytes in the water. Apple cider vinegar provided at a rate of about 1-2 tablespoons per gallon continuously acts as a gut acidifier, improving performance and increasing immune strength (Jahantigh et al., 2020) (Adeleye et al., 2021). It performs best when provided regularly vs for a short period. Vitamins/minerals/electrolytes, on the other hand, can be placed in the water for a few days prior to and following stress events (shipping, movement onto pasture, heat stress, or cold stress) to improve the immune response to these events, decreasing the severity of production depressions resulting from them. We did not have enough complete data sets from producers using vitamins/minerals/electrolytes consistently to compare those who used them to those who did not. The table below shows the percentage and number of flocks using apple cider vinegar and supplements of vitamins, minerals, and/or electrolytes. 

Use of Grit:

Grit is widely recommended by small poultry producers because it is said to aid in the grinding of feed in the gizzard, making production more efficient. However, the research isn’t as straightforward. Studies indicate a variety of effects, including none (Svihus et al, 2017), a positive effect on weight gain and feed conversion (Bras, 2017), and no effect on performance, but an effect on gut length and gizzard weight (Garipoglu, et al., 2006).

In our study, 29% (18/63) of first year flocks and 29% (16/55) of second year flocks were provided with grit. While the use rate for this supplement was high, we couldn’t compare gizzard size or conclude if grit was helpful for rate of gain because of the variations in breed, age of birds harvested, type of grit used, the length of time the grit was offered for, and when the grit was offered. These data are only comparable through replicate studies in more of a lab-type setting. However, feeding grit free choice is not a harmful practice, based on literature.

Feeding Schemes: 

Generally, feed protein percentages did not follow outlined production standards. This is an area where feeding management can be dialed in to not leave production on the table while also saving spending money on a higher-than-useful protein percent that will not be utilized by the bird for bodily functions or muscle development.

The highest percentage of protein used in our project flocks was 28%, while the lowest used was 16%. The average protein percentage used was just around 20%, but the range by producer varied widely. Some producers opted to feed a 28% protein feed all the way through the flock rearing period, some chose a 17.5% protein concentration all the way through, and still others changed protein percentages without a regard to the age of the bird but instead based on what feed was available. These are all problematic in different ways.

Broilers require specific protein percentages to ensure performance to their genetic standard and generally follow the pattern of needing higher protein when they’re just hatched, which slowly decreases as they age. The chart below shows the percentages of protein needed by age for Cornish cross broilers. Keep in mind that the protein needs for slow-growth broilers are going to be lower because of their lower genetic rate of gain and overall size potential. Being that protein is very expensive, feeding to the standard helps to save money.

This snip of a chart is from Poultry Nutrition, 3rd edition. It outlines the crude protein needs for Cornish cross chicks from 0-18 days, 19-30 days, 31-41 days, and over 42 days.

This table is from Commercial Poultry Nutrition: 3rd Edition.

Mortality:

Limiting mortalities is the most important way to improve profitability from the production perspective. For each bird that is lost, the indirect costs of raising that bird have to be absorbed by the flock members that make it to processing. Significant losses later in the growing cycle will impact the profitability per bird processed much more than chicks lost in the brooder. Our project revealed that the losses in raising pastured poultry far exceed those that are outlined by commercial production guides.

Commercial production guides for Cornish cross list that a 5% mortality rate is too high for conventional production systems (Vencomatic, 2022) and that the target should be no more than 2% (Champrix, 2025). Ideally, mortality in the first week should be less than 1% (Cobb Broiler Management Guide). In our project, median mortality rates were right around 10% for both breeds. What we found startling, however, was the percentage of individual flocks with mortality numbers higher than 10% (42% - 57.4% of flocks) and higher than 25% (0% - 23% of flocks). There was no obvious difference between the mortality rates by year for Cornish cross and slow growth broilers. The chart below outlines the average mortality losses for the two varieties of broilers by year. It shares this information in more detail in addition to mean, median, and the range of mortality rates that our project flocks experienced.

The causes of mortality in year one were highly varied across both classifications of broilers. The top three highest mortality causes were brooder mortality/shipping stress (20/63 flocks), predation (6/63 flocks), and cardiorespiratory failure from temperature fluctuations (5/63 flocks). In year two, we saw the highest mortality causes from brooder mortality/shipping stress (15/56), predation (9/56), and cardiorespiratory failure from temperature fluctuations (6/56). The same farmer didn’t generally have the same single cause of mortality from year 1 to year 2 due to fixing the root cause in year 1. It should also be noted that farmers had widely variable death rates when comparing flocks across the two years on the project, and just because they had good mortality numbers one year didn’t mean that they were good the next year and vice versa.

Generally, very high death loss occurs when something happens outside of the farmer’s control during grow-out, showing where the weakness is in their system. For many farmers, the springs of 2022 and 2024 were cold and wet, resulting in cardiorespiratory failure in some flocks that were either forced to stay in the brooder for too long, resulting in depressed immune systems from increased stress levels, or were put onto pasture too early, leading to chilling from constantly cold and damp ground. We did not find a strong correlation between time of year for flock placement and how well the flocks performed. Managing death losses from weather comes back to creating a resilient system where indoor space is allocated for the flocks to be raised inside if cold weather persists, since we know chickens are sensitive to cold, wet environments. This management may also look like pushing flock dates forward so that chickens can be raised in the more temperate weather of summer and early fall.

Cold or heat stress during transport can affect the performance of chicks once they’re in the brooder, with most of the death losses occurring during the first three days and up to a week. This is a difficult loss potential to manage, especially in shipped chicks. Moving flock dates forward to reduce the risk of shipping chicks in the cold and changing the hatchery used to be closer to reduce the number of days chicks spend in transport can improve early brooder livability. Outside of shipping, other brooder deaths were caused by overcrowded conditions, improper heat sources, and exposure to cold and/or damp drafts. It’s straightforward to manage around these issues by increasing the number of heat sources for the number of chicks and oversizing the brooder for the number of chicks reared per flock.

Production Data:

We used the data collected by our producers to determine production parameters for Cornish cross and slow growth broiler chickens raised on pasture. We removed outliers prior to analyzing the data. Those flocks of data that were removed include:

• Flocks were excluded if mortality exceeded 10% over the full grow-out period or 15% when the majority of losses occurred during the brooder phase. This distinction was made because birds that die later in the production cycle have consumed more feed, which disproportionately skews production and efficiency metrics. As a result, higher mortality early in the cycle is more acceptable for comparative analyses of production efficiency. A 10% mortality threshold is commonly accepted for chickens raised in pasture-based systems, though this is higher than the commercial industry standard of approximately 5% over the life of the flock. We acknowledge that this higher threshold may slightly bias results; however, applying a 5% cutoff would have yielded an insufficiently representative dataset, as 66.7%–80.9% of participating flocks experienced mortality exceeding 5%.
• Farms that fed excess supplemental foods (food waste) as part of the diet were not used in the averages, since alternative feeds skew the consumption of pelleted feed and impact rates of gain.
• Farms sharing that they restricted feed outside of a typical restriction of a 12 hours on, 12 hours off pattern did not have their data used in the averages. Purposeful restriction of feed outside of a scheme that full feeds for 12 hours at a time can cause stunting in the flock, as they’re not able to meet their genetic potential for growth.
• If feed consumption or conversion was outside of the standard deviation of production values for the breed, it was not used. Data that were way outside of the average were generally caused by incomplete data collection. In one case, it was caused by feed with insufficient protein levels.
• The data from flocks that were raised for longer than 16 weeks were not used. This was only seen for one of our slow growth flocks. Because of the rapid maturity of broiler chickens, chickens older than this are sexually mature and instead of increasing in weight, their weight will decrease as they focus their efforts less on feeding and more on fighting and mating.

Overall Performance Metrics:

Performance metrics were taken for each of the flocks multiple times. Cornish cross broilers were weighed the day of processing and one week prior to processing. Slow growth broilers were weighed at the day of processing, one week prior, and two weeks prior. Feed weigh backs, which helped us to calculate the amount of feed consumed during the production period, were taken at the time of each weigh date. The data was recorded this way so that when farmers were reviewing their production data, they could see if processing sooner or later would help them reach their efficiency goals. So, when interpreting the data, the averages shared in the charts for live production data are 3.5 days prior to the actual processing date for Cornish Crosses and 7 days prior to the actual processing date for slow growth broilers.

In straight run flocks, five average males and five females were selected at the first weigh date and were banded so that they could be followed through processing. In all female or all male flocks, ten average birds were selected of the same sex. We did not separate all male flocks and all female flocks from the straight run flocks when the following tables were created. We did have one female flock and a handful of male only flocks. Knowing this, the live weights shown are slightly heavier and feed conversions are slightly better than they would be if there were only straight run flocks on the project.

We did not see a significant change in the age of the Cornish crosses from year 1 to year 2, indicating that farmers tended to raise them to a certain age, rather than weight. That said, we do know some individual farmers processed based on weight in year 2 when they had previously processed based on age in year 1. It was noted that the birds in year 2 consumed more feed per bird, were less efficient, and had a lower live weight in year 1. This could have been from a variety of factors, including those impacted by individual farm management differences due to uncontrollable factors during the growing season year over year.

The two charts below show average age, feed consumption, live weights, and feed conversion ratios for Cornish cross and slow growth broilers from year 1 and year 2.

Slow growth broilers were raised longer than their Cornish counterparts, generally to around 10-12 weeks of age instead of 7.5-9 weeks. This additional time for growth is necessary because these breeds are slower at accumulating fleshing and body size than the Cornish crosses. Feed conversion was worse for the slow-growth flocks, which matches what we find in the published literature for commercially raised flocks, even though the average live-weight per bird was similar at their processing dates.

A key trend highlighted in commercial broiler production management guides is that production efficiency declines as birds age. Broilers grow most rapidly early in the production cycle as they build muscle and bone, with growth rates slowing as they mature. As a result, there is a “sweet spot” for processing broilers: when birds reach a desirable market weight while requiring the least amount of feed per pound of gain.

In this study, Cornish cross birds exhibited a more pronounced growth curve in year 1 than in year 2; however, flocks were generally not raised long enough in either year to observe a significant decline in efficiency toward the end of the production cycle. Slow growth birds showed a similar pattern in year 1, but this trend was reversed in year 2, with greater variation in feed conversion by age. This increased variability reflects the use of different breeds in year 2 compared to year 1. Because farmers chose when to process their slow-growth flocks, birds with different genetics were harvested at different end points, altering the well-documented efficiency trends typically observed in commercial production guides. In contrast, Cornish cross birds have a much narrower genetic pool, resulting in trendlines that more closely align with published commercial data. These patterns are reflected in the tables below, which present growth efficiency (pounds of feed per pound of live gain) by age.

Below are four tables showing scatter plots depicting the relationship between age and feed conversion efficiency noted in pounds of feed consumed per pound of gain observed. The first two are for year 1 and year 2 Cornish cross flocks, respectively, and the last two are for slow growth flocks in year 1 and year 2.

General opportunities that we identified for improving efficiency for our producers included the following:

• Raising all male birds can improve the overall efficiency and pounds gained for a flock. According to 2022 commercial management guides for Cornish crosses, males have the potential to have live weights that are 1.37 - 1.75 pounds more over females raised to 8 weeks of age. These commercial management guides also show a better feed conversion for males by around one twentieth to one tenth of a point (Cobb, 2022) (Ross, 2022).
• Managing broilers to a target weight rather than a specific age allows farmers to optimize flock efficiency while meeting desired average bird weights. Characteristics of the growing season (temperature, daylight hours, humidity, precipitation) have a significant impact on how well broilers perform. Colder, wetter conditions stunt growth, as do hot and humid conditions. In the first, the birds cannot consume enough calories to keep warm and grow efficiently. In the second, the volume of feed consumption is reduced as the birds seek out more water, thereby reducing growth. In some situations, producers on our study encountered very cold and wet conditions, prohibiting them from moving birds from the brooder to out on pasture in a timely manner, stunting growth from overcrowding in some scenarios. In others, it got very hot and humid immediately following a prolonged stretch of cold/wet, which resulted in high rates of cardiorespiratory failure in some flocks. Separately, the longer days of late spring and summer meant that there were more hours for the birds to consume feed, thereby increasing the calories consumed to put into growth.
• Making the decision to cut losses on stunted flocks was one that wasn’t made lightly by our producers, but was necessary for profitability in some cases. Observationally, we noticed that birds that had suffered significant hardship early in grow-out never caught up to peers that didn’t have the same experience. These included brooder stress, disease, and weather-related health challenges. We recommended that farmers move those troubled flocks to processing earlier in an effort to not put more feed into birds that weren’t converting it efficiently and to give them the space to raise another flock.

Charging appropriately for slow growth vs Cornish cross chickens is important and should be based on their cost of production. Slow growth birds have smaller carcasses in general, so it takes more birds to produce the same number of pounds of chicken annually. They also take more time to raise than Cornish crosses, so fewer birds can be raised in a pasture system of the same scale. They are also less efficient than the Cornish crosses.

Processing Metrics:

The birds selected by producers for weighing in each trial flock were processed individually. Carcass weights, as well as the weights of individual parts and pieces, were recorded to calculate carcass yield as a percentage of live weight and part yields as a percentage of whole carcass weight. Participating farmers could choose to keep birds as whole carcasses or to part them out. For birds that were further processed, farmers determined which cuts to produce and whether or not to retain edible offal.

The charts below show the average age of chickens at processing as well as their live weights, processed weights, and feed conversions. The first chart's data is for Cornish Crosses while the second is for slow growth broilers

The chart below shows the percentage of carcass yield from live weight when Cornish Cross and slow growth broilers were processed.

Slow growth broiler average age at processing was just about 4 weeks more than the processing age for the Cornish crosses. Cornish crosses dressed out at an average of 6.8% better than the slow growth chickens and yielded average weights at just over 5 pounds while the slow growth chickens were about a pound lighter at the time of processing. When comparing live and processed feed conversion ratios, Cornish crosses performed better.

When the carcasses were parted out, we found that Cornish cross chickens yielded parts percentages that were between 64%-74% of the whole carcass while slow growth parts yielded between 70% - 90% of the whole carcass. The range of numbers for each of the two varieties is a result of how each producer processed their chickens – those who kept more bone-in, skin-on cuts saw a larger yield of parts per chicken. Cornish cross chickens had more meat on their carcasses when comparing carcasses processed into like cuts (boneless skinless breasts, thighs, drumsticks, and whole wings). As a whole percentage of the carcass, slow growth chickens had a larger proportion of leg meat than Cornish cross chickens.

The chart below illustrates parted out carcass data for Cornish cross and slow growth broilers, combining all flocks from years 1 and 2 for each variety.

Some producers opted to keep necks, feet, livers, hearts, gizzards, and fat pads from their birds. If producers kept all of these parts (minus the fat pad, because this varies based on too wide of a variety of factors), they were able to capture an additional 10% of the live weight of their bird to sell.

There are some challenges with keeping these other parts, though. First, a market should be identified. Some producers on our project had excellent markets for these parts, while others did not. If they didn't the parts set in the freezer until the producer either sold them at a steep discount or threw them away. The second question that should be answered is if the extra time to harvest these parts is worth the return on the time investment. Some parts, like gizzards and feet, take a greater time input to process because they require peeling. Hearts require a time investment to remove the pericardial sac and the livers need to have the gall bladders removed. Necks are generally the easiest part to keep.

In the table below, data for other parts, including average weights and the percent yield from live, are shared for both Cornish cross and slow growth broilers. Flocks from years 1 and 2 are combined for each variety.

One important consideration when interpreting the yield table above is that some parts were calculated using a relatively small number of birds. As a result, these averages may be less representative of true population means than if they were based on larger sample sizes, due to natural variation among individual birds and flocks.

Financial Data Results and Discussion

The financial portion of this project focused on documenting costs, identifying cost benchmarks, and determining if changes made by producers in year 1 of the project improved year 2 profitability. Data were collected on all costs that went into the broiler enterprise via sectioned binders. Each farm had their data individually analyzed and given back to them at the end of year 1. This allowed them to see how their business performed, including making comparisons to statewide benchmarks, which were created from the averages of the individual enterprise analyses. Producers benchmarked their improvement in profitability in year 2 against their profitability figures from year 1. 

Expenses were grouped into three main categories: direct, indirect, and non-cash. Direct costs were classified as those directly tied to production of an animal unit, and included items such as chicks, feed, and bedding. Indirect costs, also considered overhead costs, included depreciable equipment like brooding equipment, chicken tractors, and processing equipment, as well as insurance and farmers’ market fees. Milage was recorded as was labor. While these indirect and other non-cash costs aren’t typically realized by farms when calculating costs of production because they typically don’t directly impact the checkbook during the growing season, they’re an important part of determining if the enterprise was profitable or not.   

The goal of the benchmarking process, for both individual farmers and the cohorts, was to establish reliable financial reference points that allow farms to compare performance year after year and identify parts of their operation where costs may be higher than what they’d like them to be. In this analysis, the units were documented on a “per broiler processed” basis. This approach gave the most consistent and practical metric as it accounted for issues like chick mortality and processing constraints that other benchmarks, such as “per chick started” or “per pound processed" would have been heavily skewed by.

General Farm Demographics:

Recordkeeping practices varied, with 33% using paper notebooks, 60% using digital spreadsheets, and 18% using accounting software such as Quicken or QuickBooks. More than a quarter of farms reported using multiple methods, and a small number noted receiving support from professional accountants to complete their enterprise analyses.

Chicken was sold to a variety of customers through an equally varied array of outlets, with the majority of farms selling through multiple market channels. In the first year, 55% of farms reported that they sold to their community, friends, and/or family members. Sales via CSA, on-premise farm stores, and off-site retail stores each contributed to 16% percent of the sales outlets.

The project included farmers with a wide range of experience managing broilers, including farms that just began raising broilers as the project began, and others that had been raising broilers for over 32 years prior. The distribution can be seen in the chart below. However, the median years of experience reported was only 4. Most farms noted that they had been keeping at least some form of records for the entire time that they had been raising broilers. For the few that had not started out keeping records at the time they started raising chickens, they started keeping records by year 3. 

When asked why they were participating in this research, farmers gave different answers, and often multiple answers. Only about 30 percent directly stated that they were participating to better understand their own costs of production and improve profitability. Another 30 percent reported the desire to learn more about various elements of broiler production, including processing, record keeping, and the potential to share what they’ve learned with others. Many of the farms had altruistic goals in mind, hoping that their involvement could help others, the poultry industry, and/or science as a whole.

Expenses  

When considering direct costs alone, the average broiler took $20 in direct expenses to raise and process. However, with non-cash costs included, such as labor and depreciation of equipment, total inputs rose to $35 per broiler. This means that farmers on the project saw an overall loss of $13 per broiler raised. Excluding labor, this becomes a modest profit of $1.26 per broiler processed. These figures highlight the importance of understanding all costs, but especially non-cash costs, as they can easily be the deciding factor for net profitability. 

The largest single expense in raising pastured chicken is feed, which accounted for nearly 22% of total costs. It was found that per broiler, feed costs averaged $6.00 each, chick costs were $2.70 each, marketing costs were $2.74 each, and processing costs were $8.76 each. There was no statistical difference when we compared costs for farms processing chickens on-farm to those sending their birds out for processing when all time, equipment, packaging, and mileage categories surrounding processing were accounted for. 

Pricing 

In year 1, farms sold an average of 75 percent of broilers as whole birds and 25 percent as parts. Pricing data suggests that farmers who sold a mix of whole birds and parted out birds had higher pricing on their whole birds. In year 1, farms selling only whole birds had a median whole-bird price of $4 per pound, compared to $5.25 per pound for farms selling both whole birds and parts. However, this difference was not statistically significant, meaning it could have occurred by chance. By year 2, the gap widened, with median whole-bird prices rising to $4.25 per pound for whole-only farms and $5.63 per pound for farms selling both whole birds and parts. This difference was statistically significant, indicating a more reliable association between diversified product offerings and higher whole-bird sale prices. These results suggest that pricing parts helps producers to better understand the value of their whole birds and raising their prices of whole carcasses. However, additional data would be necessary to confidently confirm this pattern. 

Average whole-bird prices across the project were $5 per pound, but prices ranged widely from $2.50 to $11 per pound. Observationally, farms charging higher prices tended to report greater profitability, as well as lower storage (freezer) needs and reduced marketing costs. While this can suggest that price-setting plays a significant role in financial outcomes, other factors such as how well a farm has developed a market for their product are likely play a greater role in lowering these common non-cash expenses.

While 69% of farms operated a profitable broiler enterprise when unpaid labor was excluded, only 26% remained profitable once non-cash labor was included, valued at a minimum wage of $15 per hour.

There was no statistically significant difference in earnings based on processing methods (on-site versus off-site), even though farmers processing on their own were generally more profitable (32%) than those with off-site processing (18%), showing the variability in the data. Ultimately, the labor inputs needed to take birds to and from the processor plus the costs of processing equal the depreciation on processing equipment, labor, and direct inputs (ice, packing bags, propane) needed to process chickens on the farm. Individual farms should consider their distance to a processor and their pricing as they make the decision of if processing on-farm is a worthwhile venture for them.

Price breakdowns (seen in the table below) between Cornish cross and slow growth broilers did not show statistically significant pricing differences within or between years. This is discouraging because of the documented increased production inputs involved with raising slow growth broilers (longer flock cycle, smaller processed weight, higher amount of feed per pound of chicken produced). 

In the first year, median whole-bird prices were higher for slow growth broilers ($5.25) than Cornish Cross broilers ($4.63), while Cornish Cross birds tended to see higher prices for breasts ($11.00) than slow growth ($8.00). The median price for wings was the same across both types ($6.75), while slow growth birds generally saw higher prices for thighs ($10.99) than Cornish Cross ($8.75). Drumsticks also followed this trend, with slow growth thighs ($9.99) selling higher than Cornish Cross thighs ($8.50). Across all categories, the price data was more robust for Cornish Cross broilers due to larger sample sizes. 

The second year’s price values dealt with even smaller sample sizes due to more incomplete data being turned in for analysis. However, notable differences for year 2 include: the same median whole price for both broiler types ($4.50); an increase in slow growth median breast price ($10.00) while Cornish Cross breast remained the same ($11.00); and an increase in median wing prices, with Cornish Cross ($8.50) being sold for more than slow growth ($7.49). Drums and thighs had no confident comparative values for year 2, with slow growth prices for each relying on two flocks for their data. 

Other parts, such as carcasses, hearts, livers, necks, and feet had similarly little data. From year 1 to year 2, the median prices of each changed as follows: carcasses from $3.99 to $3.00, hearts from $7.00 to $12.99, livers from $9.50 to $13.99, necks from $4.99 to $3.99, and feet remaining at $3.99 both years. However, the small numbers of flocks reporting data included in these averages mean that we cannot make confident comparisons year over year; they are only snapshots of what our producers are charging.

The table below shows the breakdown of farmer pricing for whole birds and parts for both Cornish cross and slow growth broilers in year 1 and year 2. The letter "n" indicates the number of flocks used to make up the calculation.

Profitability

Over the course of the project, 81% of participating farms improved their profitability from year 1 to year 2. This improvement was largely attributed to better management driven by closer financial scrutiny and more defined goal setting following their year 1 experience on the project. Farmers identified specific areas to change at the end of the year according to their farm business strategy and goals, including tighter cost control through reduced waste; adjustments to flock size to better match labor capacity or achieve better economies of scale; and more efficient mileage management, such as scheduling regular feed deliveries vs picking up a bag of feed here and there from the mill. Many farmers also focused on improving labor efficiency, refining marketing strategies, and, in some cases, simply raising prices. Together, these changes suggest that profitability gains were less about dramatic shifts and more about incremental improvements, often informed by a more thorough understanding of their financial data.

If they’re not making a profit with broilers, farmers have a few options. One is to reduce expenses, which can be difficult given high feed and overhead costs. Some of these costs, such as mileage and equipment, can be somewhat compensated for if broilers are just one part of a larger operation, but standalone broiler producers will be facing an uphill battle. Another option is to increase income per bird, which can be done by increasing prices, reducing losses, or in some cases just reconsidering how many broilers are saved for home use when their costs are lumped into the farm business’s enterprise costs. Lastly, given that broilers are not a great standalone enterprise, the best option for some farmers may simply be to stop raising broilers and invest in other operations.

Opportunities for Improvement:

The most common issue we saw over the course of this project was that many farmers kept sparse or incomplete records that made it difficult to come to any confident and statistically-sound conclusions. Farmers noted, understandably, that record keeping is not always a top priority, and that it can be extremely difficult to accurately account for all of the different expenses that count towards their broiler enterprise. However, many farmers reported that taking more complete and accurate records was one of the changes they wanted to make during the project.

When asked what improvements and changes they planned to make at the end of year 1 to be more profitable in year 2 and at the end of year 2 for their broiler enterprise moving forward, farmers gave a wide variety of answers. This is because each operation experiences and approaches raising chickens differently, providing a range of areas for improvement. A significant plurality of farmers chose improving their record keeping as one of, if not the only, changes they planned to make, with many describing a desire to record expenses more regularly and improve how they organized their financial data. Record keeping was by far the most commonly cited category of goal, having over twice as many farmers report it compared to the next most common category, which were goals that involved optimizing throughput. Many also had changes related to chicken tractors: planning to start using them rather than their current set-up, fix aspects of existing ones, and/or add additional ones. Some singular goals mentioned include reducing mortality, expanding freezer storage capacity, improving on-farm processing facilities to become NYS 5A compliant, and finding a new feed distributor for higher quality feed. At the start of both years, only a few farmers cited an interest in downsizing, with none openly indicating an intent to completely stop raising broilers.

Interestingly, market aggregation and collective purchasing, which are ways to decrease costs and improve access to markets, were not identified by the producers as ways that they could increase profitability from year 1 to year 2, so they were not explored with educators during the course of this project. Instead, the goals were very much individually focused and not focused on improving profitability for broiler producers across the region.

The pie charts below show the breakdown of changes made at the end of year 1 and year 2 to improve profitability of farmers' broiler enterprises.

Literature Cited:

Adeleye, O. et al. (2021). Apple cider vinegar administration on carcass characteristics and meat quality of broiler chickens. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 53(530).

Bras, R. (2016). Insoluble granite-grit allows broiler chicks to have better growth performance and gut health. R. Bras. Zootec. 45 (11).

Champrix Animal Nutrition. (2025). Mortality in Broilers and Laying Hens. From https://champrix.com/articles/mortality-in-broilers-and-laying-hens

Cobb-Vantress. (2022). Cobb 500 Broiler Performance & Nutrition Supplement. Pages 3-5. https://www.cobbgenetics.com/assets/Cobb-Files/2022-Cobb500-Broiler-Performance-Nutrition-Supplement.pdf

Cobb. (2021). Cobb Broiler Management Guide. From https://www.cobbgenetics.com/assets/Cobb-Files/Broiler-Guide_English-2021-min.pdf

Garipoglu, A. V., Erener, G., and Ocak, N. (2006) Voluntary intake of insoluble granite grit offered in free choice by broilers: its effect on their digestive tract traits and performance. Asian-Australian Journal of Animal Sciences. 4(549-553).

Jahantigh, M., Kalantari, H., Davari, S., and Daadati, D. (2020). Effects of dietary vinegar on performance, immune response, and small intestine histomorphology in 1- to 28-day broiler chickens. Vet Med Sci. 7(3):766–772

Leeson, S. and Summers, J.D. (2008). Commercial Poultry Nutrition: 3^rd Edition. Nottingham University Press.

Lorenzoni, G. (2023). Avian Coccidiosis. Penn State Extension. From https://extension.psu.edu/avian-coccidiosis

Pendleton, E. (2023). Marek’s Disease in Chickens. Penn State Extension. From https://extension.psu.edu/mareks-disease-in-chickens

Ross. (2022). Ross 308 and Ross 308 FF Performance Objectives. Pages 3-5. https://aviagen.com/assets/Tech_Center/Ross_Broiler/RossxRoss308-BroilerPerformanceObjectives2022-EN.pdf

Sivus, B., et al. (2017). Performance and digestive function of broiler chickens given grit in the diet. Nutrition and Metabolism. 58 (660).

Vencomatic Group. (2022). Broiler Mortality: 7 contributing factors and how to reduce it. From https://www.vencomaticgroup.com/blog/broiler-mortality-contributing-factors-and-how-to-reduce-it