Modern Game Breeding and Hunting Club News 
 
 
coop for 600 hens. This with the feed for other birds and 
animals is not charged to cost of raising pheasants. 
   Sale of chicken eggs and poultry is credited to pheasant 
production. 
 
 
   Cost of Game Farm for 1931, $8,766.75. 
Permanent improvements ............... 
Food for other birds and animals ......... 
 
      Not charged to raising pheasants ..... 
S a la r ie s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 
Food for old pheasants, young pheasants, and 
   ch ick en s  ............. ...... ...... 
M aintenance ..... ........ 
Light, heat and other expenses  .............. 
 
 
Eggs and poultry sold  ................... 
 
 
Cost of raising  600  pullets  ............. 
 
 
$1,865.97 
    86.55 
 
.$1,952.52 
.$2,730.62 
2,928.96 
   253.67 
S900.98 
 
$6,814.23 
S606.80 
 
$6,207.43 
   450.00 
 
 
                                            $5,757.43 
   We raised 7,723 birds at a cost of $5,757.43, about 72c 
each. 
                  Respectfully yours, 
                                    Win. Whitney. 
   Those who raise birds will have no difficulty in find- 
ing the seventy-two cent pheasants. Would that we all 
could have a farm given to us, tax free, and with all 
pens, equipment and improvements sufficient to raise 
eight thousand birds a year, plus several hundred 
chickens at a cost of nothing at all! 
    The "cost" of the game farm for 1931 is down at 
$8766.75 and "permanent improvements" of $1865.97 
are not charged to pheasants either. 
   The cost of raising six hundred pullets is deducted 
from the expenses and yet these birds are raised for 
broodies for hatching the pheasants. It is undoubtedly 
safe to say that the feed for the five hundred old 
broodies, during the year cost at least one thousand dol- 
lars a year. The cost of raising the six hundred pullets 
for the following year is entered as four hundred and 
fifty dollars, which is seventy-five cents each, therefore 
experience has told us that this would be up to about 
four months old. The feed for these additional six hun- 
dred pullets for the other eight months would amount to 
seven or eight hundred dollars. Deducting this poultry 
feed expense of about eighteen hundred dollars from the 
twenty-nine hundred twenty-eight dollars total feed ex- 
penses, would leave a balance on which to feed seventy- 
seven hundred pheasants of eleven hundred dollars or 
less than fifteen cents per bird. 
   The permanent improvement item of $1865 is not 
charged to raising pheasants and nowhere do we find 
any charge for the property. The superintendent, it 
seems, has other duties so only one-third of his salary is 
charged to pheasants. In other words there is no invest- 
ment at all charged up for coops, pens, incubators, set- 
ting hens, or anything of the nature of a charge for the 
interest on the money invested. 
   There are twelve hundred pheasant breeders accord- 
ing to -Mr. Cook's letter, that are all mated up five to 
one in separate pens, and no charge is apparently made 
for carrying them from the year previous, nor is the cost 
of eggs from all these twelve hundred breeders figured 
as a cost in raising pheasants. 
   Food for "old pheasants, young pheasants and 
chickens" is figured at $2928.96, but if this takes care of 
the feed bill for five hundred Rhode Island Red hens, 
and six hundred Rhode Island Red pullets from a few 
 
 
months old to the following year, and twelve hundred 
pheasant breeders for a whole year, as well as food for 
the raising of 7723 young pheasants up to twelve weeks 
old, it is truly remarkable how birds thrive out in Utah 
with very little food or else the feed must be bought or 
raised at give-away prices. 
   Four hundred and fifty dollars is the figure of cost 
for raising six hundred Red pullets, to what age the re- 
port does not state, but they must be carried over at 
considerable expense for breeding uses the next year. 
The cost of raising these six hundred pullets is not an 
expense, according to the report-but it a credit! 
   We are glad to publish these facts to answer the 
queries that have arisen about this matter of seventy- 
two cent pheasants. It is obvious that this cost includes 
only a small part of the expenses and whether or not the 
balance of the cost is charged up to pheasants or not, 
nevertheless it is there. It would not seem at all reason- 
able to suppose that Utah could raise pheasants any 
cheaper than any other efficient breeder or state. In giv- 
ing out information that it is being done for seventy-two 
cents per bird at twelve weeks old, the facts of the mat- 
ter are greatly overlooked and the sportsmen of that 
state who take any such figure as the total cost are very 
obviously not getting the entire information. 
 
 
    Fancies and Facts In Utah 
    While we have made no effort to arrive at 
a fair figure of cost per bird for pheasants 
raised at the State Game Farm in Utah, 
nevertheless we present the figures used in 
arriving at a seventy-two cent "cost" per 
pheasant, as given out by the Department of 
Fish and Game and by the Game Farm 
Superintendent. 
   Why these figures are made in this way is 
beyond us. What advantage there is to claim 
to raise pheasants for seventy-two cents also 
goes over our head, for any breeder or any- 
one who raises birds knows that it is perfectly 
impossible for anyone to turn twelve-weeks- 
old birds into the field in any sort of healthy 
condition for less than double this price. The 
figures themselves show so obviously that 
over one-half of the cost is not figured that 
even those not experienced can see the 
futility of the report. 
   As A. G. Gordon, Editor of "Atlantic 
Sportsman," wrote recently in regard to the 
game farm operation of another state, "No 
doubt the defense of this cost will be-it 
should not carry any cost for overhead or 
depreciation. Any business man in the United 
States will certainly know that each depart- 
ment of business must carry its share of over- 
head, or else his business will perish." He 
continues, "Believing the cost of producing 
Quail by the           Department of Conser- 
vation is excessive and that a waste of public 
funds is being incurred by a retention of the 
spoils system in operation of a game farm, 
the "Atlantic Sportsman" has, at its own ex- 
pense, obtained an audit of the department's 
records." 
   The audit conducted by Mr. Gordon re- 
vealed that it cost this particular state over 
$9.60 for every quail produced on the State 
Game Farm for the last fiscal year. 
                              -The Editor. 
 
 
7