Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).

Yes  ☐¨No  x☒ 

The aggregate market value, as reported by The NASDAQ Global Select Market, of the registrant’s Common Stock, $0.01 par value, held by non-affiliates at December 1, 2012,November 29, 2014, which was the date of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, was $681,609,188$1,267,795,422

As of August 1, 2013, 21,698,399July 17, 2015,  43,697,844 shares of the registrant’s Common Stock, $0.01 par value, and 2,400,0004,800,000 shares of the registrant’s Class A Common Stock, $0.01 par value, werewere outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

The information called for by Part III of this Form 10-K is incorporated herein by reference from the registrant’s Definitive Proxy Statement which will be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A not later than 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this report.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I

PART I

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This report contains numerous forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) relating to our shell egg business, including estimated production data, expected operating schedules, expected capital costs and other operating data, including anticipated results of operations and financial condition.  Such forward-looking statements are identified by the use of words such as “believes,” “intends,” “expects,” “hopes,” “may,” “should,” “plans,” “projected,” “contemplates,” “anticipates” or similar words.  Actual production, operating schedules, results of operations and other projections and estimates could differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements.  The forward-looking statements are based on management’s current intent, belief, expectations, estimates and projections regarding our company and our industry.  These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties, assumptions and other factors that are difficult to predict and might be beyond our control.  The factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements include, among others, (i) the risk factors set forth in Item 1A and elsewhere in this report as well as those included in other reports we file from time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) (including our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Current Reports on Form 8-K), (ii) the risks and hazards inherent in the shell egg business (including disease, such as avian influenza, pests, weather conditions and potential for recall), (iii) changes in the demand for and market prices of shell eggs and feed costs, (iv) risks, changes or obligations that could result from our future acquisition of new flocks or businesses, and (v) adverse results in pending litigation matters.  Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements because, while we believe the assumptions on which the forward-looking statements are based are reasonable, there can be no assurance these forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate.  Further, the forward-lookingforward‑looking statements included herein are only made as of the respective dates thereof, or if no date is stated, as of the date hereof.  Except as otherwise required by law, we disclaim any intent or obligation to update publicly these forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

ITEM 1.  BUSINESS

Our Business

Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (“we,” “us,” “our,” or the “Company”) is the largest producer and marketer of shell eggs in the United States. In fiscal 2013,2015, we sold approximately 948.51,063.1 million dozen shell eggs, which we believe represented approximately 21%23% of domestic shell egg consumption. Our total flock of approximately 31.033.7 million layers and 7.58.4 million pullets and breeders is the largest in the U.S.  Layers are mature female chickens, pullets are young female chickens usually under 2018 weeks of age, and breeders are male orand female chickens used to produce fertile eggs to be hatched for egg production flocks.

We operate in a single segment. Our primary business is the production, grading, packaging, marketing and distribution of shell eggs. We sell most of our shell eggs in the southwestern, southeastern, mid-western and mid-Atlantic regions of the U.S. We market our shell eggs through our extensive distribution network to a diverse group of customers, including national and regional grocery store chains, club stores, foodservice distributors and egg product manufacturers.consumers.  Some of our sales are completed through co-pack agreements – a common practice in the industry whereby production and processing of certain products is outsourced to another producer.  The strength of our position is evidenced by the fact that we have the largest market share in the grocery segment for shell eggs, and we sell shell eggs to a majority of the largest food retailers in the United States.U.S.

We are also one of the largest producers and marketers of value-added specialty shell eggs in the U.S. Specialty shell eggs include nutritionally enhanced, cage free, organic and organic eggs andbrown eggs. They have been a significant segment of the market in recent years.  In fiscal 20132015, specialty shell eggs and 2012,co-pack specialty shell eggs represented approximately 24%27.2% and 2.8% of our shell egg dollar sales, respectively, and accounted for approximately 16%19.8% and 2.0%, respectively, of our total shell egg dozen volumes. In fiscal 2014, specialty shell eggs and co-pack specialty shell eggs represented 24.3% and 3.8% of our shell egg dollar sales, respectively, and accounted for approximately 17.2% and 2.7%, respectively, of our total shell egg dozen volumes.  Retail prices for specialty eggs are less cyclical than non-specialty shell egg prices and are generally higher due to consumer willingness to pay for the perceived increased benefits from those products. We market our specialty shell eggs under the following brands:Egg-Land’s Best™Best®,Land O’ Lake®Lakes®, Farmhouse®, and4-Grain®.We.  We are a member of the Egg-Land’s Best, Inc. (“EB”) cooperative. In April 2012, EB formed Eggland’s Best, LLC (“EBLLC”) by contributing the assets of EB. Subsequent to the formation of EBLLC, EB sold tocooperative and produce, market and distribute Egg-Land’s Best® and Land O’Lakes, Inc. (“LOL”) a 50% interest in EBLLC. Going forward the specialtyO’ Lakes®  branded eggs, of EB and LOL will be marketed through EBLLC. We havealong with our associated joint ventures, under  exclusive license agreements to market and distributeEgg-Land’s Best™ specialty shell eggs in major metropolitan areas, including New York City, andfor a number of states in the southeast, south central, and southwest.southwest U.S. as well as the New York City area.    We market cage free eggs under our trademarkedFarmhouse®brand and distribute those shell eggsthem across the southeast and southwest regions of the U.S.  We market organic, all natural, cage-free, vegetarian, and omega-3 eggs under our4-Grain® brand. We also produce,

market, and distribute private label specialty shell eggs to several customers.

We are also a leader in industry consolidation. Since 1989, we have completed seventeeneighteen acquisitions ranging in size from 600,000 layers to 7.5 million layers.  Despite a market that has been characterized by increasing consolidation, the shell egg production industry remains highly fragmented. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 54At December 31, 2014, 59 producers, owning at least one million layers, ownowned approximately 94%93% of total industry layers and the ten largest producers ownowned approximately 51%47% of total industry layers. We believe industry consolidation will continue and we plan to capitalize on opportunities as they arise.

During fiscal year 2013, we completed the acquisitions of the commercial egg assets of Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation and Maxim Production Co., Inc. See Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Industry Background

Based on historical consumption trends, demand for shell eggs increases in line with overall population growth, averaging an increasegrowth of about 1% per year. However, in each of the most recent three years, demand for shell eggs has grown approximately 2% per year.  According to U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), annual per capita U.S. consumption in the U.S. has varied between 246248 and 258263 eggs, since 2000. In calendar year 2012,2014, per capita U.S. consumption in the U.S. was estimated to be 249263 eggs, or approximately five eggs per person per week. Per capita consumption is determined by dividing the total supply of eggs for the shell egg industry by the entire population in the U.S. (i.e. all eggs supplied domestically by the shell egg industry are consumed).  

Prices for Shell Eggs

Shell egg prices are a critical component of profitability in the industry. We believe the majority of shell eggs sold in the United StatesU.S. in the retail and foodservice channels are sold at prices related to the Urner Barry wholesale quotation for shell eggs. We sell the majority of our non-specialty shell eggs at prices related to the Urner Barry Spot Egg Market Quotations for the southeast region of the country, or formulas related to our costs of production which include the cost of corn and soybean meal.  For fiscal 2013,2015, wholesale large shell egg prices in the southeast region, as quoted by Urner Barry, averaged $1.35$1.53 per dozen compared to an average of $1.17$1.28 per dozen for fiscal years 20092011 to 2012.2014.  According to a USDA report as of JulyJune 1, 2013,2015, the number of layers in the U.S. flock is up 1.8%was down 10.6% compared to JulyJune 1, 2012,2014.  This decrease is due to the outbreak of avian influenza in the upper Midwestern U.S. beginning in April of 2015 and theis not expected to be indicative of future flock size.  The number of chicks hatched from January through June of 2013 is2015 was up 4.2%0.4% compared to the same period in 2012, which could lead2014.  As a result of the reduced flock size, egg prices have moved significantly higher in recent months and are expected to lower egg prices.remain high until the national laying hen flock can be replenished.

Feed Costs for Shell Egg Production

Feed is a primary cost component in the production of shell eggs and represents over half of industry farm level production costs. Most shell egg producers, including us, are vertically integrated,integrated; manufacturing the majority of the feed they require themselves.for their operations. Although feed ingredients, primarily corn and soybean meal, are available from a number of sources, prices for ingredients can fluctuate and can be affected by weather and by various supply and demand factors. Our feed prices for fiscal 20132015 were 15% higher11% lower than fiscal 2014.    Favorable weather conditions and improved yields for the previous year. Drought2014 crop increased available supplies for both corn and soybean meal which decreased prices and favorably impacted our results for fiscal year 2015.  Wet conditions in the majorMidwestern U.S. could have an adverse effect on the 2015 crop growing areasand we expect the outlook for feed prices to remain volatile.  However, we expect supplies of the U.S. in the summer of 2012 significantly reduced yields for theboth corn and soybean crops in the 2012-2013 crop year creating tight supplies and record prices. Improved weather and higher expected crop yields for the 2013-2014 crop year should improve the supply situation and provide some price relief for our primary feed ingredients, although the outlook is for feed costsmeal to remain volatile.be adequate.

Growth Strategy and Acquisitions

For many years, we have pursued a growth strategy focused on the acquisition of existing shell egg production and processing facilities, as well as the construction of new and more efficient facilities.  Since the beginning of fiscal 1989, we have completed seventeeneighteen acquisitions. In addition, we have built nine newnumerous “in-line” shell egg production and processing facilities and twoas well as pullet growing facilities which added 9.9 million layers and 2.3 million growing pullets to our capacity.  Each of the new shell egg production facilitiesfacility generally provides for the processing of approximately 400 cases of shell eggs or 12,000 dozen eggs per hour. The capacity increases in capacity have been accompanied by the retirement of older and less efficient facilities.  The “in-line” facilities result in theprovide gathering, grading and packaging of shell eggs by less labor-intensive, more efficient, mechanical means. As a result of the foregoing, we continue to decrease our reliance on shell eggs produced by contract producers.

As a result of our strategy, our total flock, including pullets, layers and breeders, increased from approximately 33.533.0 million at May 30, 200929, 2010 to approximately 38.542.1 million as of June 1, 2013. Also, theMay 30, 2015.  The dozens of shell eggs sold has increased from approximately 777.9805.4 million in fiscal 20092010 to approximately 948.51,063.1 million for the fiscal year ending June 1, 2013.2015.  Net sales amounted to $928.8$910.1 million in fiscal 20092010 compared to net sales of $1,288.1$1,576.1 million in fiscal 2013.2015.  

We continue to pursue opportunities for the acquisition ofto acquire companies engaged in the production and sale of shell eggs.  We will continue to evaluate and selectively pursue acquisitions that will expand our shell egg production capabilities in existing markets and broaden our geographic reach. We have extensive experience identifying, valuing, executing, and integrating acquisitions and we intend to leverage that experience in the evaluation and execution of future acquisitions. We will seek to acquire regional shell egg businesses that havewith significant market share and long-standing customer relationships. We believe enhancing our national presence will help us further strengthen our relationships with existing customers, many of whom have operations across the U.S.

Through exclusive license agreements with EBLLC in several key territories and our trademarkedFarmhouse® and 4Grain®brands, we are one of the leading producers and marketers of value-added specialty shell eggs. We also produce, market, and distribute private label specialty shell eggs to several customers. Since selling prices of specialty shell eggs are generally not as volatile as generic shell egg prices, we believe growing our specialty eggs business will enhance the stability of our margins. We expect the price of specialty eggs will remain at a premium to regular shell eggs, and intend to grow our specialty shell egg business.

Federal antitrust laws require regulatory approval of acquisitions that exceed certain threshold levels of significance, and we are subject to federal and state laws prohibiting anti-competitive conduct.   We believe our sales of shell eggs during the last fiscal year represented approximately 21%23% of domestic shell egg sales, making us the largest producer and distributor of shell eggs in the U.S. However, because the shell egg production and distribution industry is so fragmented, we believe that there are many acquisition opportunities available to us that would not be restricted pursuant to antitrust laws.

Through exclusive license agreements with EB in several key territories and our trademarked Farmhouse® and 4Grain® brands, we are one of the leading producers and marketers of value-added specialty shell eggs. We also produce, market, and distribute private label specialty shell eggs to several customers. Since selling prices of specialty shell eggs are generally less volatile than non-specialty shell egg prices, we believe growing our specialty eggs business will enhance the stability of our margins.  We expect the price of specialty eggs to remain at a premium to regular shell eggs, and intend to grow our specialty shell egg business.

The construction of new, more efficient production and processing facilities is an integral part of our growth strategy.  Any such construction will require compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations, including the receipt of permits that could cause schedule delays, although we have not experienced any significant delays in the past.

Shell Eggs

Production.Our operations are fully integrated. We hatch chicks, grow and maintain flocks of pullets, layers, and breeders, manufacture feed, and produce, process, package, and distribute shell eggs.  We produce approximately 74%75% of our total shell eggs sold, with 93%94% of such production coming from company-owned facilities, and the other 7%6% coming from contract producers.  Under a typical arrangement with a contract producer, we own the flock, furnish all feed and critical supplies, own the shell eggs produced and assume market risks. The contract producers own and operate their facilities and are paid a fee based on production with incentives for performance. Approximately 26%We purchase approximately 25% of ourthe total shell eggs sold are purchasedwe sell from outside producers.

The commercial production of shell eggs requires a source of baby chicks for laying flock replacement. We produce approximately 95%the majority of our chicks in our own hatcheries and obtain the balance from commercial sources. We own breeder and hatchery facilities producing 18.5 million pullet chicks per year in a computer-controlled environment. These pullets are distributed to 4243 state-of-the-art laying operations around the southwestern, southeastern, mid-western and mid-Atlantic regions of the U.S. The facilities produce an average of 1.92.2 million dozen shell eggs per day and process theday. The shell eggs through gradingare processed, graded and packagingpackaged predominantly without handling by human hands. We have spent a cumulative total of $118.6$215.3 million over the past five years upgradingto expand and upgrade our facilities with the most advanced equipment and technology available in our industry. We believe our constant attention to production efficiencies and focus on automation throughout the supply chain enables us to be a low cost supplier in all the markets in which we compete.

Feed cost represents the largest element of our farm egg production cost, ranging from 62% to 69% of total farm production cost in the last five fiscal years. Although feed ingredients are available from a number of sources, we have little, if any, control over the prices of the ingredients we purchase, which are affected by weather and by various supply and demand factors.  For example, the severe drought in the summer of 2012 and resulting damage to the national corn and soybean crop resulted in high and volatile feed costs.  Increases in feed costs which are not accompaniedunaccompanied by increases in the selling price of eggs can have a material adverse effect on our operations.  However, higher feed costs can encourage shell egg producers to reduce production, resulting in higher egg prices.  Alternatively, low feed costs can encourage industry overproduction, possibly resulting in lower egg prices.

After the eggs are produced, they are graded and packaged.  Substantially all of our farms have modern “in-line” facilities to mechanically gather, grade and package the eggs produced.  The increased use of in-line facilities has generated significant cost savings compared to the cost of eggs produced from non-in-line facilities.  In addition to greater efficiency, the in-line facilities produce a higher percentage of USDA Grade A eggs, which sell at higher prices.  Eggs produced on farms owned by contractors are brought to our processing plants where they areto be graded and packaged. Since shell eggs are perishable, we maintain very low shell egg inventories, usually consisting of approximately four days of production.

Our egg

Egg production activities are subject to risks inherent in the agriculture industry, such as weather conditions and disease factors.disease.  These risks are outside our control and could have a material adverse effect on our operations.  Also, theThe marketability of our shell eggs is subject to risks such as possible changes in food consumption opinionspreferences and practices reflecting perceived health concerns.

We operate in a cyclical industry with total demand that is generally steady and a product that is generally price-inelastic.  Thus, small increases in production or decreases in demand can have a large adverse effect on prices and vice-versa.  However, economic conditions in the egg industry are expected to exhibit less cyclicality in the future.  The industry is concentrating into fewer but stronger hands, which should help lessen the extreme cyclicality of the past.

Marketing.Of the 948.51,063.1 million dozen shell eggs sold by us in the fiscal year ended June 1, 2013,2015, our flocks produced 704.4798.8 million.

We sell our shell eggs to a diverse group of customers, including national and local grocery store chains, club stores, foodservice distributors, and egg product manufacturers.consumers. We utilize electronic ordering and invoicing systems that enable us to manage inventory for certain of our customers. Our top ten customers accounted for an aggregate of 67.9%, 68.5%, and 65.8% of net sales dollars in fiscal 2013, 66.3%  of net sales dollars for fiscal 2012,2015, 2014, and 65.4% of net sales in fiscal 2011.2013, respectively. Two affiliated customers, Wal-Mart Stores and Sam’s Club, on a combined basis, accounted for 30.0%25.7%, 31.3%28.2%, and 32.6%30.0% of net sales dollars during fiscal 2015, 2014, and 2013, 2012, and 2011 respectively.

The majority of eggs sold are merchandisedsold based on athe daily or short-term basis.needs of our customers.  Most sales to established accounts are on open account with terms ranging from seven to 30 days.  Although we have established long-term relationships with many of our customers, theymany of them are free to acquire shell eggs from other sources.

The shell eggs we sell are either delivered to our customers’ warehouse or retail stores either withby our own fleet or contracted refrigerated delivery trucks, or are picked up by our customers at our processing facilities.

We sell our shell eggs at prices generally related to independently quoted wholesale market prices or at formulas related to our costs of production. Wholesale prices are subject to wide fluctuations.  The prices of our shell eggs reflect fluctuations in the quoted market and changes in corn and soybean meal prices, and the results of our shell egg operations are materially affected by changes in market quotations and feed costs.  Egg prices reflect a number of economic conditions, such as the supply of eggs and the demand level, which, in turn, are influenced by a number of factors we cannot control.  No representation can be made as to the future level of prices.

According to USDA reports, for the past five years, U.S. annual per capita consumption has grown from 249 eggs in 2009 to  263 eggs in 2014.  Each of the U.S. varied between 248 and 250 eggs. Per capita consumption is determined by takingmost recent three years has seen an increase of approximately 2% over the total supply of eggs for the shell egg industry divided by the entire population in the U.S. (i.e. all eggs supplied domestically by the shell egg industry are consumed). While weprevious year.  We believe fast food restaurant consumption, high protein diet trends, reduced egg cholesterol levels, and industry advertising campaigns may result in the sustainability of current per capita egg consumption levels, however no assurance can be given that per capita consumption will not decline in the future.

We sell the majority of our shell eggs across the southwestern, southeastern, mid-western and mid-Atlantic regions of the U.S. We are a major factor in egg marketing in a majority of these states.  Many states in our market area are egg deficit regions. Egg deficit regions which are areas where production of fresh shell eggs is less than total consumption.  Competition from other producers in specific market areas is generally based on price, service, and quality of product.  Strong competition exists in each of our markets.

Seasonality.Shell eggs are perishable. Consequently, we maintain very low shell egg inventories, usually consisting of approximately four days of production. Retail sales of shell eggs are greatest during the fall and winter months and lowest during the summer months.  Prices for shell eggs fluctuate in response to seasonal demand factors and a natural increase in egg production during the spring and early summer. We generally experience lower sales and net income in our fourth and first fiscal quarters ending in May and August, respectively. During the past ten fiscal years, fourthree of our first quarters resulted in net operating losses, and during this same period, threetwo of our fourth quarters resulted in net operating losses.

Specialty Eggs.We also produce specialty eggs such asEgg-Land’s BestäBest®, Land O’ Lakes®, 4Grain®, andFarmhouse® branded eggs.  Specialty eggs are intended to meet the demands of consumers who are sensitive to environmental, health and/or animal welfare issues.  Specialty shell eggs continue to beare becoming a more significant segment of the shell egg market.  For fiscal 2013,2015, specialty eggs accounted for 23.7%27.2% of our shell egg dollar sales and 16.4%19.8% of our shell egg dozens sold, as compared to 24.0%24.3% of shell egg dollar sales and 16.3%17.2% of shell egg dozens sold in fiscal 2012.Egg-Land’s Bestä2014.  Additionally, specialty eggs are patented eggs that are believed by its developers, based on scientific studies, to cause no increasesold through our co-pack arrangements accounted for an additional 2.8% of shell egg dollar sales and 2.0% of shell egg dozens sold in serum cholesterol when eaten as partfiscal 2015, compared with 3.8% of a low fat diet.shell egg dollar sales and 2.7% of shell egg dozens sold in fiscal 2014.  We produce and processEgg-Land’s BestBest® äbranded eggs under license from EBLLCEB at our facilities under EBLLCEB guidelines.  The product is marketed to our established base of customers at premium prices compared to non-specialty shell eggs.Egg-Land’s BestBest®ä branded eggs accounted for approximately 14.3%15.5% of our shell egg dollar sales in fiscal 2013,2015, compared to 15.2%14.4% in fiscal 2012.2014. Based on dozens sold,Egg-Land’s BestBest®ä branded eggs accounted for 9.8%11.4% of dozens sold for fiscal 2013,2015, compared to 10.3%10.1% in fiscal 2012.2014.  Land O’ Lakes® branded eggs are all-natural eggs produced by hens that are fed a whole grain diet, with no animal fat, and no animal by-products.Farmhouse® brand eggs are produced at our facilities by cage free hens that are not caged, and are provided with a diet of natural grains.all grain, vegetarian feed.  Our4Grain®brand consists of both caged and cage free eggs.  Our hens are fed a diet of four all natural grains, no animal by-products, and all vegetarian feed. As in our other flocks, these hens are provided with drinking water free of chemical additives.Farmhouse®, Land O’ Lakes®, 4Grain® and other non-Egg-Land’s Best^TMBest® specialty eggs accounted for 9.3%11.7% of our shell egg dollar sales in fiscal 2013,2015, compared to 8.7%9.9% in fiscal 2012,2014, and 6.6%8.4% of dozens sold for fiscal 2013,2015, compared to 6.0%7.1% for fiscal 2012.

2014.

Egg Products.  Egg products are shell eggs broken and sold in liquid, frozen, or dried form. In fiscal 20132015 and 20122014 egg products represented approximately 3% of our net sales.  We sell egg products primarily into the institutional and food service sectors in the U.S.  Our egg products are sold through our consolidated subsidiaies American Egg Products, LLC located in Blackshear, Georgia and Texas Egg Products, LLC located in Waelder, Texas.  Prices for egg products are directly related to Urner Barry quoted price levels.

Competition.The production, processing, and distribution of shell eggs is an intensely competitive business, which traditionally has attracted large numbers of producers.  Shell egg competition is generally based on price, service, and quality of production.product quality. 

The U.S. shell egg industry remains highly fragmented but is characterized by a growing concentration of producers.In 2012, 542014, 59 producers with one million or more layers owned 94%93% of the 288305 million total U.S. layers, compared to 2000, when 63 producers with one million or more layers owned 79% of the 273 million total layers, and 1990, when 56 producers with one million or more layers owned 64% of the 232 million total layers. We believe a continuation of the concentration trend will result in reduced cyclicality of shell egg prices, but no assurance can be given in that regard. A continuation of this trend could also create greater competition among fewer producers.

Patents and Trade Names.We own the trade namestrademarks Farmhouse®, Rio Grande®, Sunups®, Sunny Meadow®and4Grain®. We do not own any patents or proprietary technologies. We produce and marketEgg-Land's Best^TMBest®and Land O’ Lakes® branded eggs under license agreements with EBLLC.EB.  We believe these trade namestrademarks and license agreements are important to our business.  We do not know of any infringing uses that would materially affect the use of these trade names,trademarks, and we actively defend and enforce them.

Government Regulation.Our facilities and operations are subject to regulation by various federal, state, and local agencies, including, but not limited to, the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), USDA, Environmental Protection Agency, Occupational Safety and Health Administration and corresponding state agencies. The applicable regulations relate to grading, quality control, labeling, sanitary control and waste disposal. Our shell egg facilities are subject to periodic USDA and FDA inspections. Our feed production facilities are subject to FDA regulation and inspections. In addition, we maintain our own inspection program to ensure compliance with our own standards and customer specifications. We are not aware of any major capital expenditures necessary to comply with such statutes and regulations; however, there can be no assurance that we will not be required to incur significant costs for compliance with such statutes and regulations in the future.

On July 7, 2011, the Humane Society of the United States (“HSUS”) and United Egg Producers (“UEP”) reached an agreement to work together toward the enactment of comprehensive federal legislation for all of the approximately 280 million hens involved in U.S. egg production. The two groups jointly asked Congress for federal legislation, which would require egg producers to increase the space per hen in a tiered phase in, with the amount of space hens are given increasing, in intervals, over the next 15 to 18 years. Currently, the majority of hens are each provided 67 square inches of space, with roughly 50 million receiving 48 square inches. The proposed phase-in would culminate with hens nationwide being provided a minimum of 124-144 square inches of space, along with certain other improvements noted in the July 7, 2011 agreement. We cannot predict the likelihood that this legislation will become law; however, if this federal legislation is passed we could incur significant costs to conform our operations to meet the requirements of this proposed legislation. We do not have a current estimate of what these costs will be if this legislation is passed.

Environmental Regulation.Our operations and facilities are subject to various federal, state, and local environmental, health and safety laws and regulations governing, among other things, the generation, storage, handling, use, transportation, disposal, and remediation of hazardous materials. Under these laws and regulations, we are required to obtain permits from governmental authorities, including, but not limited to, wastewater discharge permits. We have made, and will continue to make, capital and other expenditures relating to compliance with existing environmental, health and safety laws and regulations and permits. We are not currently aware of any major capital expenditures necessary to comply with such laws and regulations; however, because environmental, health and safety laws and regulations are becoming increasingly more stringent, including those relating to animal wastes and wastewater discharges, there can be no assurance that we will not be required to incur significant costs for compliance with such laws and regulations in the future.

Employees.As of June 1, 2013,May 30, 2015, we had approximately 2,4792,872 employees, 1,951 of whom 2,190 worked in egg production, processing and marketing, 149 of whom were engaged175 worked in feed mill operations and 379 of whom422 were administrative employees, including our executive officers.  Approximately 3.6%4.3% of our personnel are part-time.  None of our employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement.  We consider our relations with employees to be good.

Our Corporate Information

We were founded in 1957 in Jackson, Mississippi.  We were incorporated in Delaware in 1969. Our principal executive office is located at 3320 Woodrow Wilson Avenue, Jackson, Mississippi 39209. The telephone number of our principal executive office is (601) 948-6813. We maintain a website atwww.calmainefoods.com where general information about our business is available. The information contained in our website is not a part of this document. Our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, our Current Reports on Form 8-K, Forms 3, 4 and 45 ownership reports, and all amendments to those reports are available, free of charge, through our website as soon as reasonably practicable after they are filed with the SEC. Information concerning corporate governance matters is also available on our website.

Our Common Stock is listed on The NASDAQ Global Select Market (“NASDAQ”) under the symbol “CALM.”On May 31, 2013,29, 2015, the last sale price of our Common Stock on NASDAQ was $44.74$56.69 per share.Our fiscal year 20132015 ended June 1, 2013,May 30, 2015, and the first three fiscal quarters of fiscal 20132015 ended September 1, 2012, December 1, 2012,August 30, 2014, November 29, 2014, and March 2, 2013.February 28, 2015.  All references herein to a fiscal year means our fiscal year and all references to a year mean a calendar year.

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

Our business and results of operations are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond our control.  The following is a description of the known factors that may materially affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.  They should be considered carefully, in addition to the information set forth elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including under Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” in making any investment decisions with respect to our securities.  Additional risks or uncertainties that are not currently known to us, that we currently deem to be immaterial or that could apply to any company could also materially adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Market prices of wholesale shell eggs are volatile and decreases in these prices can adversely impact our results of operations.

Our operating results are significantly affected by wholesale shell egg market prices, which fluctuate widely and are outside of our control.  As a result, our prior performance should not be presumed to be an accurate indication of future performance. Small increases in production, or small decreases in demand, can have a large adverse effect on shell egg prices. Shell egg prices trended upward from calendar 2002 until late 2003 and early 2004 when they rose to historical highs.  In the early fall of calendar 2004, the demand trend related to the increased popularity of high protein diets faded dramatically and prices fell.  During the time of increased demand, the egg industry geared up to produce more eggs, resulting in an oversupply of eggs.  Since calendar 2006, supplies appear to behave been more closely balanced with demand and egg prices again reached record levels in 2007 and 2008.  Egg prices have generallyhad subsequently retreated from those record price levels due to increases in industry supply.supply before reaching new highs in 2014.  In 2015, egg prices rose again due in part to a decrease in supply caused by the avian influenza outbreak in the upper Midwestern United States beginning in April 2015. There can be no assurance that shell egg prices will remain at or near current levels or that the supply of and demand for shell eggs will remain levelbalanced in the future

Retail sales of shell eggs are greatest during the fall and winter months and lowest in the summer months. Prices for shell eggs fluctuate in response to seasonal factors and a natural increase in shell egg production during the spring and early summer. Shell egg prices tend to increase with the start of the school year and are highest prior to holiday periods, particularly Thanksgiving, Christmas and Easter. Consequently, we generally experience lower sales and net income in our first and fourth fiscal quarters ending in August and May, respectively. As a result of these seasonal and quarterly fluctuations, comparisons of our sales and operating results between different quarters within a single fiscal year are not necessarily meaningful comparisons.

A decline in consumer demand for shell eggs can negatively impact our business.

We believe fast food restaurant consumption, reports from the medical community regarding the health benefits of shell eggs, reduced shell egg cholesterol levels, high protein diet trends and industry advertising campaigns have all contributed to shell egg demand. However, there can be no assurance that the demand for shell eggs will not decline in the future. Adverse publicity relating to health concerns and changes in the perception of the nutritional value of shell eggs, as well as movement away from high protein diets, could adversely affect demand for shell eggs, which would have a material adverse effect on our future results of operations and financial condition.

Feed costs are volatile and increases in these costs can adversely impact our results of operations.

Feed cost represents the largest element of our shell egg (farm) production cost, ranging from 62% to 69% of total farm production cost in the last five fiscal years. Although feed ingredients are available from a number of sources, we have little, if any, control over the prices of the ingredients we purchase, which are affected by weather, various supply and demand factors, transportation and storage costs, and agricultural and energy policies in the U.S. and internationally.  For example, the severe drought in the summer of 2012 and resulting damage to the national corn cropand soybean crops resulted in high and volatile feed costs.  Increases in feed costs unaccompanied by increases in the selling price of eggs can have a material adverse effect on the results of our operations.  Alternatively, low feed costs can encourage industry overproduction, possibly resulting in lower egg prices.

Due to the cyclical nature of our business, our financial results fluctuate from year to year and between different quarters within a single fiscal year may fluctuate.year.

The shell egg industry has traditionally been subject to periods of high profitability followed by periods of significant loss. In the past, during periods of high profitability, shell egg producers have tended to increase the number of layers in production with a resulting increase in the supply of shell eggs, which generally has caused a drop in shell egg prices until supply and demand return to balance. As a result, our financial results from year to year may vary significantly.  Additionally, as a result of seasonal fluctuations, our financial results may fluctuate significantly between different quarters within a single fiscal year.

We purchase approximately 26%25% of the shell eggs we sell from outside producers and our ability to obtain such eggs at prices and in quantities acceptable to us could fluctuate.

We produce approximately 74%75% of the total number of shell eggs sold by us and purchase the remaining amount from outside producers. As the wholesale price for shell eggs increases, our cost to acquire shell eggs from outside producers increases. There can be no assurance that we will be able to continue to acquire shell eggs from outside producers in sufficient quantities and satisfactory prices, and our inability to do so may have a material adverse effect on our business and profitability.

Our acquisition growth strategy subjects us to various risks.

We plan to continue to pursue a growth strategy, which includes acquisitions of other companies engaged in the production and sale of shell eggs. For example,In fiscal year 2014 we completed the purchase of our joint venture partner’s 50% interest in Delta Egg Farm, LLC and in fiscal year 2013 we completed the acquisitions ofacquired the commercial egg assets of Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation and Maxim Production Co., Inc.  Acquisitions require capital resources and can divert management’s attention from our existing business. Acquisitions also entail an inherent risk that we could become subject to contingent or other liabilities, including liabilities arising from events or conduct prior to our acquisition of a business that were unknown to us at the time of acquisition. We could incur significantly greater expenditures in integrating an acquired business than we anticipated at the time of its purchase. We cannot assure you that we:

No assurance can be given that companies acquired by us in the future will contribute positively to our results of operations or financial condition. In addition, federal antitrust laws require regulatory approval of acquisitions that exceed certain threshold levels of significance.

The consideration we pay in connection with any acquisition also affects our financial results. If we pay cash, we could be required to use a portion of our available cash to consummate the acquisition. To the extent we issue shares of our Common Stock, existing stockholders may be diluted. In addition, acquisitions may result in the incurrence of debt.

Our largest customers have historically accounted for a significant portion of our net sales volume. Accordingly, our business may be adversely affected by the loss of, or reduced purchases by, one or more of our large customers.

For the fiscal years 2015, 2014, and 2013, 2012, and 2011, two affiliated customers, Wal-Mart Stores and Sam’s Clubs, on a combined basis, accounted for 30.0%25.7%,  31.3%28.2%, and 32.6%30.0% of our net sales dollars, respectively.  For fiscal years 2013, 2012,2015, 2014, and 2011,2013, our top ten customers accounted for 65.8%67.9%,  66.3%68.5%, and 65.4%65.8% of net sales dollars, respectively. Although we have established long-term relationships with most of our customers, who continue to purchase from us based on our ability to service their needs, they are free to acquire shell eggs from other sources.If, for any reason, one or more of our larger customers were to purchase significantly less of our shell eggs in the future or terminate their purchases from us, and we are not able to sell our shell eggs to new customers at comparable levels, it would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Failure to comply with applicable governmental regulations, including environmental regulations, could harm our operating results, financial condition, and reputation.  Further, we may incur significant costs to comply with any such regulations.

We are subject to federal, state and local regulations relating to grading, quality control, labeling, sanitary control, and waste disposal. As a fully-integrated shell egg producer, our shell egg facilities are subject to USDA and FDA regulation, as well as regulation by various state and local health and agricultural agencies. Our shell egg processing facilities are subject to periodic USDA and FDA inspections. All of our shell egg and feed mill facilities are subject to FDA regulation and inspections.

Our operations and facilities are also subject to various federal, state and local environmental, health, and safety laws and regulations governing, among other things, the generation, storage, handling, use, transportation, disposal, and remediation of hazardous materials. Under these laws and regulations, we are also required to obtain permits from governmental authorities, including, but not limited to pollution/wastewater discharge permits.

If we fail to comply with an applicable law or regulation, or fail to obtain necessary permits, we could be subject to significant fines and penalties or other sanctions, our reputation could be harmed, and our operating results and financial condition could be materially adversely affected. In addition, because these laws and regulations are becoming increasingly more stringent, there can be no assurance that we will not be required to incur significant costs for compliance with such laws and regulations in the future.

Shell eggs and shell egg products are susceptible to microbial contamination, and we may be required to or voluntarily recall contaminated products.

Shell eggs and shell egg products are vulnerable to contamination by pathogens such as Salmonella.  Shipment of contaminated products, even if inadvertent, could result in a violation of law and may lead to increased risk of exposure to product liability claims, product recalls and increased scrutiny by federal and state regulatory agencies.  In addition, products purchased from other producers could contain contaminants that may be inadvertently redistributed by us.  As such, we may decide or be required to recall a product if we or regulators believe it poses a potential health risk.  In fiscal 2011, there were two separate occasions where we voluntarily recalled shell eggs that we purchased from other producers. None of the recalled eggs were produced at Cal-Maine facilities. We do not maintain insurance to cover recall losses. Recall costs in fiscal 2011 were not material, but there is no guarantee future costs will not be.  Any product recall could result in a loss of consumer confidence in our products, adversely affect our reputation with existing and potential customers and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Agricultural risks, including outbreaks of avian disease, could harm our business.

Our shell egg production activities are subject to a variety of agricultural risks. Unusual or extreme weather conditions, disease and pests can materially and adversely affect the quality and quantity of shell eggs we produce and distribute.  The Company maintains controls and procedures to reduce the risk of exposing our flocks to harmful diseases.  Despite our best efforts, outbreaks of avian disease can still occur and may adversely impact the health of our flocks.  In addition, anAn outbreak of avian disease could have a material adverse impact on our financial results by increasing government restrictions on the sale and distribution of our products.  Negative publicity from an outbreak within our industry can negatively impact customer perception, even if the outbreak does not directly impact our flocks.  If a substantial portion of our production facilities are affected by any of these factors in any given quarter or year, our business, financial condition, and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

Beginning in April of 2015, our industry has experienced a significant avian influenza outbreak, primarily in the upper Midwestern United States.  At the time of this filing, based on several published industry estimates, we believe that approximately 13% of the national flock of laying hens has been affected.  The affected laying hens have either been destroyed by the disease or euthanized.  The effect this outbreak has had on our industry is discussed throughout this filing.  There have been no positive tests for avian influenza at any of our locations, and we are significantly increasing the biosecurity measures at all of our facilities, however we cannot be certain that our flocks will not be affected.

Our business is highly competitive.

The production and sale of fresh shell eggs, which have accounted for virtually all of our net sales in recent years, is intensely competitive. We compete with a large number of competitors that may prove to be more successful than we are in marketing and selling shell eggs. We cannot provide assurance that we will be able to compete successfully with any or all of these companies. In addition, increased competition could result in price reductions, greater cyclicality, reduced margins and loss of market share, which would negatively affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

Pressure from animal rights groups regarding the treatment of animals may subject us to additional costs to conform our practices to comply with developing standards or subject us to marketing costs to defend challenges to our current practices and protect our image with our customers.

We and many of our customers are facing pressure from animal rights groups, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, and the Humane Society of the United States, or HSUS, to require that all companies that supply food products operate their business in a manner that treats animals in conformity with certain standards developed or approved by these animal rights groups. As a result, we are reviewing and changing our operating procedures with respect to our flocks of hens to address these concerns. The treatment standards typically require among other things, that we provide minimum cage space for our hens, and modify beak trimming and forced molting practices (the actamong other requirements, but some of putting chickens into a regeneration cycle). Thesethese groups have made legislative efforts to ban any form of caged housing in various states.  California’s Proposition 2 and Assembly Bill 1437 was effective January 1, 2015, and did increase the cost of production in that State.  Changing our procedures and infrastructure to conform to these types of laws or customer demand for these types of guidelines has resulted and will continue to result in additional costs to our internal production of shell eggs, including cost increases from housing and feeding the increased flock population resulting from the modification of moltinghusbandry practices, and the cost for us to purchase shell eggs from our outside suppliers. While some of the increased costs have been passed on to our customers, we cannot provide assurance that we can continue to pass on these costs, or additional costs we will face, in the future.

On July 7, 2011, the HSUS and UEP reached an agreement to work together toward the enactment of comprehensive federal legislation for all of the approximately 280 million hens involved in U.S. egg production. The two groups jointly asked Congress for federal legislation, which would require egg producers to increase the space per hen in a tiered phase in, with the amount of space hens are given increasing, in intervals, over the next 15 to 18 years. Currently, the majority of hens are each provided 67 square inches of space, with roughly 50 million receiving 48 square inches. The proposed phase-in would culminate with hens nationwide being provided a minimum of 124-144 square inches of space, along with certain other improvements noted in the July 7, 2011 agreement. We cannot predict the likelihood that this legislation will become law; however, if this federal legislation is passed we could incur significant costs to conform our operations to meet the requirements of this proposed legislation. We do not have a current estimate of what these costs will be if this legislation is passed.

We are dependent on our management team, and the loss of any key member of this team may adversely affect the implementation of our business plan in a timely manner.

Our success depends largely upon the continued service of our senior management team. The loss or interruption of service of one or more of our key executive officers could adversely affect our ability to manage our operations effectively and/or pursue our growth strategy. We have not entered into any employment or non-compete agreements with any of our executive officers nor do we carry any significant key-man life insurance coverage on any such persons.

We are controlled by a principal stockholder.

Fred R. Adams, Jr., our Founder and Chairman Emeritus, and his spouse own 28.6%28.0% of the outstanding shares of our Common Stock, which has one vote per share.  In addition, Mr. Adams owns 74.8%and his spouse own 74.7% and his son-in-law, Adolphus B. Baker, our President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, owns 25.2%and his spouse own 25.3% of the outstanding shares of our Class A Common Stock, which has ten votes per share. Mr. Baker and his spouse also own 1.9%1.7% of the outstanding shares of our Common Stock. As a result, currentlyas of July 1, 2015, Mr. Adams and his spouse possess 52.9%possessed 52.5%, and Messrs. Adams and Baker and their spouses collectively possess 67.0%possessed  66.5%, of the total voting power represented by the outstanding shares of our Common Stock and Class A Common Stock. These stockholdings include shares of our Common Stock accumulated under our employee stock ownership plan for the respective accounts of Messrs. Adams and Baker.Baker and Mr. Baker’s spouse.

The Adams family intends to retain ownership of a sufficient amount of Common Stock and Class A Common Stock to assure its continued ownership of over 50% of the combined voting power of our outstanding shares of capital stock. Such ownership will make an unsolicited acquisition of usthe Company more difficult and discourage certain types of transactions involving a change of control of our company,Company, including transactions in which the holders of Common Stock might otherwise receive a premium for their shares over then current market prices. In addition, certain provisions of our Certificate of Incorporation require that our Class A Common Stock be issued only to Fred R. Adams, Jr. and members of his immediate family, and if shares of our Class A Common Stock, by operation of law or otherwise, are deemed not to be owned by Mr. Adams or a member of his immediate family, the voting power of any such shares shall be automatically reduced to one vote per share. The Adams family’s controlling ownership of our capital stock may adversely affect the market price of our Common Stock.

Based on Mr. Adams’ beneficial ownership of our outstanding capital stock, we are a “controlled company,” as defined in Rule 5615(c)(1) of the NASDAQ’s listing standards. Accordingly, we are exempt from certain requirements of NASDAQ’s corporate governance listing standards, including the requirement to maintain a majority of independent directors on our board of directors and the requirements regarding the determination of compensation of executive officers and the nomination of directors by independent directors.

Current and any future litigation could expose us to significant liabilities and adversely affect our business reputation.

We and certain of our subsidiaries are involved in various legal proceedings.  Litigation is inherently unpredictable, and although we believe we have meaningful defenses in these matters, we may incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flow and financial condition.  For example, on July 23, 2013 we announced that we have reached an agreement in principle to settle certain antitrust claims pending against us. For a discussion of legal proceedings including the settlement, see Item 3 below.  Such lawsuits are expensive to defend, divert management’s attention, and may result in significant judgments or settlements.  Legal proceedings may expose us to negative publicity, which could adversely affect our business reputation and customer preference for our products and brands.

Impairment in the carrying value of goodwill or other assets could negatively affect our results of operations or net worth.

Goodwill represents the excess of the cost of business acquisitions over the fair value of the identifiable net assets acquired.Goodwill is reviewed at least annually for impairment by assessing qualitative factors to determine whether the existence of events or circumstances leads to a determination that it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount.As of June 1, 2013,May 30, 2015, we had $24.4$29.2 million of goodwill.  While we believe the current carrying value of this goodwill is not impaired, any future goodwill impairment charges could materially adversely affect our results of operations in any particular period or our net worth.

The loss of any registered trademark or other intellectual property could enable other companies to compete more effectively with us.

We utilize intellectual property in our business.  For example, we own the trade namestrademarks Farmhouse®,Rio Grande®,Sunups®,Sunny Meadow® and4Grain®.  We also produce and marketEgg-Land’s Best™Best® and Land O’ Lakes®Lakes® under license agreements with EBLLC.EB.  We have invested a significant amount of money in establishing and promoting our trademarked brands.  The loss or expiration of any intellectual property could enable other companies to compete more effectively with us by allowing our competitors to make and sell products substantially similar to those we offer.  This could negatively impact our ability to produce and sell the associated products, thereby adversely affecting our operations.

Extreme weather, natural disasters or other events beyond our control could negatively impact our business.

Fire, bioterrorism, pandemic, extreme weather or natural disasters, including droughts, floods, excessive cold or heat, hurricanes or other storms, could impair the health or growth of our flocks, production or availability of feed ingredients, or interfere with our operations due to power outages, fuel shortages, damage to our production and processing facilities or disruption of transportation channels, among other things. Any of these factors could have a material adverse effect on our financial results.

Failure of our information technology systems or software, or a security breach of those systems, could adversely affect our day-to-day operations and decision making processes and have an adverse effect on our performance.

The efficient operation of our business depends on our information technology systems. We rely on our information technology systems to effectively manage our business data, communications, logistics, accounting and other business processes. If we do not allocate and effectively manage the resources necessary to build and sustain an appropriate technology environment, our business or financial results could be negatively impacted. In addition, our information technology systems may be vulnerable to damage or interruption from circumstances beyond our control, including systems failures, viruses, security breaches or cyber incidents such as intentional cyber-attacks aimed at theft of sensitive data or inadvertent cyber-security compromises. A security breach of such information could result in damage to our reputation, and could negatively impact our relations with our customers or employees. Any such damage or interruption could have a material adverse effect on our business.

ITEM 1B.  UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

None.

ITEM 2.  PROPERTIES

We operate farms, processing plants, hatcheries, feed mills, warehouses, offices and other properties located in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Utah. TheAs of July 1, 2015, the facilities currently includeincluded three breeding facilities, two hatcheries, fourtwo wholesale distribution centers, 2021 feed mills, 4043 shell egg production facilities, 27 pullet growing facilities, and 3840 processing and packing facilities.  We own significant interests in two companies that own egg products facilities, which are consolidated in our financial statements. Most of our operations are conducted from properties we own.

As of June 1, 2013,May 30, 2015, we owned approximately 22,80525,461 acres of land in various locations throughout our geographic market area. We have the ability to hatch 21.2 million pullet chicks annually, grow 19.324.9 million pullets annually, house 36.339.5 million laying hens, and control the production of 35.237.9 million layers, with the remainder controlled by contract growers. We own mills that can produce 696744 tons of feed per hour, and processing facilities capable of processing 13,46013,860 cases of shell eggs per hour (with each case containing 30 dozen shell eggs).

Over the past five fiscal years, our capital expenditures, excluding acquisitions of shell egg production and processing facilities from others, have totaled an aggregate amount of approximately $118.6$215.3 million.

ITEM 3.  LEGALLEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Chicken Litter Litigation

Cal-Maine Farms, Inc. is presently a defendant in two personal injury cases in the Circuit Court of Washington County, Arkansas. Those cases are styled, McWhorter vs. Alpharma, Inc., et al., and Carroll, et al. vs. Alpharma, Inc., et al. Cal-Maine Farms, Inc. was named as a defendant in the McWhorter case on February 3, 2004. It was named as a defendant in the Carroll case on May 2, 2005. Co-defendants in both cases include other integrated poultry companies such as Tyson Foods, Inc., Cargill, Incorporated, George’s Farms, Inc., Peterson Farms, Inc., Simmons Foods, Inc., and Simmons Poultry Farms, Inc. The manufacturers of an additive for broiler feed are also included as defendants. Those defendants are Alpharma, Inc. and Alpharma Animal Health, Co.

Both cases allege that the plaintiffs have suffered medical problems resulting from living near land upon which “litter” from the defendants’ flocks was spread as fertilizer. The McWhorter case focuses on mold and fungi allegedly created by the application of litter. The Carroll case also alleges injury from mold and fungi, but focuses primarily on the broiler feed ingredient as the cause of the alleged medical injuries.

Each of these cases has now been largely resolved by settlements immaterial to the Company, and management believes the risk of material loss to the Company from resolution of the remaining matters in these cases is remote.  

State of Oklahoma Watershed Pollution Litigation

On June 18, 2005, the State of Oklahoma filed suit, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, against Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. and Cal-Maine Farms, Inc. as well as Tyson Foods, Inc. and affiliates, Cobb-Vantress, Inc., Cargill, Inc. and its affiliate, George’s, Inc. and its affiliate, Peterson Farms, Inc. and Simmons Foods, Inc. Cal-Maine Farms, Inc. was dismissed from the case in September 2009. The State of Oklahoma claims that through the disposal of chicken litter the defendants have polluted the Illinois River Watershed. This watershed provides water to eastern Oklahoma. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages, but the claim for monetary damages has been dismissed by the court. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. discontinued operations in the watershed. Accordingly, we do not anticipate that Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. will be materially affected by the request for injunctive relief unless the court orders substantial affirmative remediation. Since the litigation began, Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. purchased 100% of the membership interests of Benton County Foods, LLC, which is an ongoing commercial shell egg operation within the Illinois River Watershed. Benton County Foods, LLC is not a defendant in the litigation.

The trial in the case began in September 2009 and concluded in February 2010. The case was tried to the court without a jury and the court has not yet issued its ruling. Management believes the risk of material loss related to this matter to be remote.

Egg Antitrust Litigation

Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United States shell egg industry.  In some of these cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated.  In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on behalf of a putative class.  In the remaining cases, the named plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products indirectly from one or more of the defendants - that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously purchased from defendants or other parties – and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the named plaintiffs in each group.

 There are now seven non-class suits pending. Six of the non-class suits are pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The other non-class suit is pending in District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas. The plaintiffs in two other non-class suits originally filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania voluntarily dismissed their suits without prejudice. The plaintiffs in two other non-class suits originally filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania voluntarily dismissed their suits without prejudice.

The Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action. The direct purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The court grantedOn November 25, 2014, after approving the defendants’ motion to dismissparties’ settlement of the case, the Court entered final judgment dismissing all claims against the Company with prejudice and dismissing the Company from this direct purchaser class plaintiffs’ claims for damages outsideaction.  On January 23, 2015, direct action plaintiffs Kraft Foods Global, Inc., General Mills, Inc., Nestle USA, Inc., and The Kellogg Company filed a motion either to exclude themselves from the four-year statute of limitations but did so without prejudice tosettlement between the plaintiffs’ right to seek leave to further amend their complaint if they, in good faith, believe they can address the deficiencies noted by the court.  The direct purchasers filed an amended complaint,purchaser plaintiffs and the Company filed a renewed motionor to dismissenlarge their time to opt-out of the claims in the new complaint that are barred by the four-year statute of limitations. The court has granted final approval to two settlements in these cases. In one settlement the settling party will not pay any money to the putative class. Instead, the settling defendant, while denying all liability and while remaining a defendant in certain non-class cases, will provide cooperation in the form of documents and witness interviews to the direct class plaintiffs’ attorneys. In the other settlement, the settling defendant will pay a total of $25 million and would provide other consideration in the form of documents, witness interviews, and declarations. This settling defendant denied all liability in its agreement withbetween the direct purchaser class plaintiffs and stated publicly that it settled merely to avoid the costCompany and uncertainty of continued litigation.modify the final judgment entered on November 25, 2014.  On February 13, 2015, the Company filed its response in opposition.  On July 1, 2015, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on this motion.  The Court has not ruled on this motion.

On July 23, 2013, we announced that we have reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter. See “Proposed Settlement of the Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action” below

The Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action.  The indirect purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The court granted with prejudice the defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss damages claims arising outside the limitations period applicable to most causes of action.  Discovery is ongoingOn April 20-21, 2015, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.  The Court has not ruled on that motion.  On July 2, 2015, the Company filed and joined several motions for summary judgment that sought either dismissal of the entire case or, in thisthe alternative, dismissal of portions of the case.  On July 2, 2015, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of certain affirmative defenses based on statutory immunities from federal and state antitrust laws.  Briefing on the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment will continue over the next two months, and the Court has not indicated when it will rule on these motions.

The Non-Class Cases. Six of the cases in which plaintiffs do not seek to certify a class have been consolidated with the putative class actions into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation,  No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The court granted with prejudice the defendants’ motion to dismiss the direct plaintiffs’ claims for damages outside the four-year statute of limitations but did so without prejudice to the plaintiffs’ right to seek leave to further amend their complaint if they, in good faith, believe they can address the deficiencies noted by the court. The direct plaintiffs have filed further amended complaints, and the Company has filed a renewed motion to dismiss the claims in the new complaint that are barred by the four-year statute of limitations. Discovery is ongoing in this case.

 On January 27, 2012, the Company filed its answer and affirmative defenses in the non-class case pending in Kansas state court styled as Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., et al., v. United Egg Producers, et al., No. 10-CV-2171, and the Company joined other defendants in the Kansas case in moving to dismiss allplaintiffs’ claims for damages arising outsidebefore September 24, 2004.  The parties have completed nearly all fact discovery related to these cases.  On July 2, 2015, the three-year statuteCompany filed and joined several motions for summary judgment that sought either dismissal of limitations period and all of the claims for damages arising from purchasesin all of eggs and egg products outside the state of Kansas. The court took under advisement the limitations motion, pending a ruling in another case that will determine whether the limitations periodthese cases or, in the Kansas case will be three or five years. The court reservedalternative, dismissal of portions of these cases.  On July 2, 2015, the non-class plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of certain affirmative defenses based on statutory immunities from federal antitrust law.  Briefing on the motion to dismiss claimsparties’ respective motions for damages arising from purchases of eggssummary judgment will continue over the next two months, and egg products outside the state of Kansas until discovery reveals which sales occurred within Kansas. In reserving judgment, the court stated that only sales within Kansas would be relevant to any calculation of alleged damages. Discovery is ongoing in this case.Court has not indicated when it will rule on these motions.

Allegations in Each Case. In all of the antitrust cases described above, the plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain other large domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the domestic supply of eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price of eggs to artificially high levels.  In each case, plaintiffs allege that all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of eggs byby: (a) agreeing to limit production; (b) manipulating egg exportsexports; and (b)(c) implementing industry-wide animal welfare guidelines that reduced the number of hens and eggs.

 Both groups ofThe named plaintiffs in the remaining indirect purchaser putative class actionsaction seek treble damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and all other putative class members in the United States.  Both groups of namedAlthough plaintiffs in the putative class actions allege a class period starting on January 1, 2000 and running “through the present.present,” The direct purchaser putative classthe Court ruled that the plaintiffs cannot recover damages allegedly incurred outside the state-specific statute of limitations period applicable to most causes of action case alleges two separate sub-classes – one for direct purchasersasserted, with the precise damages period

determined on a state-by-state and one for direct purchasers of egg products. The direct purchaser putative class action case seeks relief under the Sherman Act.claim-by-claim basis.  The indirect purchaser putative class action case seeks injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and damages under thecertain statutes and the common-law of various states and the District of Columbia.states.

 SevenFive of the original six non-class cases remain pending.pending against the Company.  In fivefour of the remaining non-class cases, the plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act.  In one of the other remaining non-class cases,case, the plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and the Ohio antitrust act (known as the Valentine Act). In the other remaining non-class case, the plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act.

The Pennsylvania court has entered a series of orders related to case management, discovery, class certification, and scheduling.  The Pennsylvania court has not set a trial date for any of the Company’s remaining consolidated cases. The Kansas state court has entered a schedule for discoverycases (non-class and dispositive motions. The Kansas state court case is set for trial starting June 16, 2014.indirect purchaser cases).

Proposed Settlement of the Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action. On July 23, 2013, the Company announced that it has reached an agreement in principle to settle all direct purchaser class claims against the Company in the above described direct purchaser putative class action. Pursuant to the agreement in principle, which is subject to finalization by the parties and court approval, the Company would be obligated to pay $28 million to fully and finally resolve these claims. The other terms and conditions of the proposed settlement are not expected to have a material impact to the Company’s results of operations. The Company recorded a pre-tax charge in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2013 of approximately $28 million, which amounts to $17 million, $0.71 per basic share, after tax with respect to the proposed settlement.

This settlement does not affect the indirect purchaser putative class action and does not necessarily resolve the seven non-class cases still pending.  The Company intends to continue to defend thesethe remaining cases as vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company believes are meritorious and provable.  While management believes that the likelihood of a material adverse outcome in the overall egg antitrust litigation has been significantly reduced assumingas a result of the court approves the proposed settlement,settlements described above, there is still a reasonable possibility of a material adverse outcome in the remaining egg antitrust litigation.  At the present time, however, it is not possible to estimate the amount of monetary exposure, if any, to the Company because of these cases.  Accordingly, adjustments, if any, which might result from the resolution of these remaining legal matters, have not been reflected in the financial statements.

Florida Civil Investigative Demand

On November 4, 2008, the Company received an antitrust civil investigative demand from the Attorney General of the State of Florida. The demand seeks production of documents and responses to interrogatories relating to the production and sale of eggs and egg products. The Company is cooperating with this investigation and has, on three occasions, entered into a tollingan agreement with the State of Florida to extend any applicabletolling the statute of limitations for one year fromapplicable to any supposed claims the date of the agreement.State is investigating. No allegations of wrongdoing have been made against the Company in this matter.

Environmental Information Request

In July 2011, the Company received an information request (“Request”) from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) pursuant to Section 308 of the Clean Water Act (“Act”). The Request stated that the information was sought by the EPA to investigate compliance with the Act and requested information pertaining to facilities involved in animal feeding operations, which are owned or operated by the Company or its affiliates.  On October 19, 2011, theThe Company timely responded to the Request by providing information on each of the subject facilities.  The EPA subsequently sent a notice of noncompliance (“Notice”)to the Company dated March 29, 2012 to the Company which involved allegations of potential non-compliance with the Request and/or the Act. The Notice related only to the Company’s Edwards, Mississippi facility only.facility. The Company timely responded topreviously announced a settlement with the Notice on May 2, 2012. The EPA and the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (“MDEQ”) provided certain preliminary findingsrelated to the Company alleging potential violationsnotice, and a Consent Decree memorializing the settlement was entered on June 30, 2015 in the United States of America and State of Mississippi, by and through the Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-00278-HTW-LRA, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Northern Division. The terms and conditions of the Act and/or the Mississippi Air and Water Pollution Control Law concerning unpermitted discharges of pollutantssettlement related only to water of the United States and/or Mississippi and violations of certain conditions established under the Company’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the Edwards, Mississippi facility. The Company is cooperating with the EPAfacility and MDEQ in their investigations and,are not expected to facilitate settlement negotiations regarding the alleged violations, has entered into an amended tolling agreement for the period commencing January 1, 2013 and ending September 30, 2013, which would not be included in computing the running of any statute of limitations applicable to any action brought by the United States and/or Mississippi. Although management believes there is at leasthave a reasonable possibility of loss in this matter, we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss duematerial impact to the stageCompany’s results of operations. Management believes the matter and complexityrisk of material loss related to non-settled matters relating to the issues involved.2011 notice to be remote.

IRS Voluntary Compliance

The Company has filed an IRS Voluntary Compliance filing to correct salary deferral contribution discrepancies which were found during the 2012 audit. The Company is responsible for contributing makeup contributions and earnings to the Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. Savings and Retirement Plan. The total amount calculated to correct the contribution problem was $1.4 million as of December 31, 2012. As part of the Voluntary Compliance correction, the Company has already contributed $609,000 to the Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. Savings and Retirement Plan as makeup contributions and lost earnings. At issue is approximately $823,000, plus earnings on that amount from December 31, 2012 until a final correction is approved. The Internal Revenue Service could waive all or part of the additional makeup contribution and lost earnings as part of the Voluntary Compliance Program filing correction. The additional amount required to be contributed is being negotiated with the Internal Revenue Service as part of the Internal Revenue Service review of the correction filing.

Miscellaneous

In addition to the above, the Company is involved in various other claims and litigation incidental to its business. Although the outcome of these matters cannot be determined with certainty, management, upon the advice of counsel, is of the opinion that the final outcome should not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations or financial position.

At this time, it is not possible for us to predict the ultimate outcome of the matters set forth above.

ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

Not applicable.

PART II.

ITEM 5.  MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND

ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

Our Common Stock is traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol “CALM”.  The last reported sale price for our Common Stock on August 1, 2013July 16, 2015 was $49.15$53.66 per share. The following table sets forth the high and low daily sale prices and dividends per share for each of the four quarters of fiscal 20122014 and fiscal 2013.2015, as adjusted to reflect the effect of the 2-for-1 stock split effected in October 2014.

There is no public trading market for the Class A Common Stock, all the outstanding shares of which are owned by Fred R. Adams, Jr., our Founder and Chairman Emeritus, (74.8%and his spouse (74.7%), and his son-in-law Adolphus Baker, our President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board (25.2%and his spouse (25.3%).

Stockholders

At July 19, 2012,16, 2015, there were approximately 228307 record holders of our Common Stock and approximately 11,82527,678 beneficial owners whose shares were held by nominees or broker dealers.

Dividends

Cal-Maine has a dividendsdividend policy adopted by its Board of Directors.  Pursuant to the policy, Cal-Maine pays a dividend to shareholders of its Common Stock and Class A Common Stock on a quarterly basis for each quarter for which the Company reports net income attributable to Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. computed in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in an amount equal to one-third (1/3) of such quarterly income. Dividends are paid to shareholders of record as of the 60th day following the last day of such quarter, except for the fourth fiscal quarter.  For the fourth quarter, the Company will pay dividends to shareholders of record on the 70th65th day after the quarter end. Dividends are payable on the 15th day following the record date. Following a quarter for which the Company does not report net income attributable to Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., the Company will not pay a dividend for a subsequent profitable quarter until the Company is profitable on a cumulative basis computed from the date of the last quarter for which a dividend was paid.  The Company’s loan agreements provide that unless otherwise approved by its lenders, the Company must limit dividends paid in any quarter to not exceed an amount equal to one-third of the previous quarter’s consolidated net income, which dividends are allowed to be paid if there are no events of default.

We reported a net loss attributable to Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

In connection with our acquisitionNo sales of Maxim Production Co., Inc., on November 15, 2012, we issued 114 shares of Common Stock as part of the purchase price of the acquisition pursuant to the exemption fromsecurities without registration under the Securities Act of 1933 in Section 4(a)(2) of such Act, based primarily on the limited number (i.e. one) and sophistication of the seller. For information about the acquisition, see Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements included in this report.occurred during our fiscal year ended May 30, 2015.

Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans

For additional information, see Note 11 to Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

ITEM 6.  SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

*    Results for fiscal 2014 include the results of operations (subsequent to acquisition) of our joint venture partner’s 50% interest in Delta Egg Farm, LLC, which was consolidated with our operations as of March 1, 2014.  Prior to March 1, 2014, our equity in earnings in Delta Egg Farm, LLC are included in Equity in income of affiliates.

+   Results for fiscal 2013 include the results of operations (subsequent to acquisition) of the commercial egg assets acquired from Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, which waswere consolidated with our operations as of August 10, 2012, and the commercial egg assets from Maxim Production Co,Co., Inc., which waswere consolidated with our operations as of November 15, 2012.

* Results for fiscal 2009 include the results of operations (subsequent to acquiasition) of Zephyr Egg, LLC, which was consolidated with our operations as of June 27, 2008, and Tampa Farms, LLC, which was consolidated with our operations as of December 11, 2008.

ITEM 7.  MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

RISK FACTORS; FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

For information relating to important risks and uncertainties that could materially adversely affect our business, securities, financial condition or operating results, reference is made to the disclosure set forth under Item 1A above under the caption “Risk Factors.” In addition, because the following discussion includes numerous forward-looking statements relating to us, our results of operations, financial condition and business, reference is made to the information set forth in the section of Part I immediately preceding Item 1 above under the caption “Forward-Looking Statements.”

OVERVIEW

Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (“we,” “us,” “our,” or the “Company”) is primarily engaged in the production, grading, packaging, marketing and distribution of fresh shell eggs. Our fiscal year end is the Saturday nearest to May 31 which was May 30, 2015, May 31, 2014 (52 weeks), and June 1, 2013 (52 weeks), June 2, 2012 (53 weeks), and May 28, 2011 (52 weeks) for the most recent three fiscal years.

Our operations are fully integrated.  We hatch chicks, grow and maintain flocks of pullets (young female chickens, under 2018 weeks of age), layers (mature female chickens) and breeders (male orand female birds used to produce fertile eggs to be hatched for egg production flocks), manufacture feed, and produce, process and distribute shell eggs. We are the largest producer and marketer of shell eggs in the U.S.  We market the majority of our shell eggs in the southwestern, southeastern, mid-western,  and mid-Atlantic regions of the U.S.  We market our shell eggs through our extensive distribution network to a diverse group of customers, including national and regional grocery store chains, club stores, foodservice distributors, and egg product manufacturers.consumers.

Our operating results are directly tied to egg prices, which are highly volatile and subject to wide fluctuations, and are outside of our control. For example, the annual average Urner-Barry Southeastern Regional Large Egg Market Price per dozen eggs, for our fiscal 2005-2015 ranged from a low of $0.72 during 2005 to a high of $1.53 during fiscal 2015.  The shell egg industry has traditionally been subject to periods of high profitability followed by periods of significant loss. In the past, during periods of high profitability, shell egg producers tended to increase the number of layers in production with a resulting increase in the supply of shell eggs, which generally caused a drop in shell egg prices until supply and demand returned to balance.  As a result, our financial results from year to year may vary significantly.   Shorter term, retail sales of shell eggs historically have been greatest during the fall and winter months and lowest during the summer months.  Our need for working capital generally is highest in the last and first fiscal quarters ending in May and August, respectively, when egg prices are normally at seasonal lows.   Prices for shell eggs fluctuate in response to seasonal factors and a natural increase in shell egg production during the spring and early summer.  Shell egg prices tend to increase with the start of the school year and are highest prior to holiday periods, particularly Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter.  Consequently, we generally experience lower sales and net income in our first and fourth fiscal quarters ending in August and May, respectively. Because of the seasonal and quarterly fluctuations, comparisons of our sales and operating results between different quarters within a single fiscal year are not necessarily meaningful comparisons.

Beginning in April of 2015, our industry has experienced a significant avian influenza outbreak, primarily in the upper Midwestern U.S.  At the time of this filing, based on several published industry estimates, we believe that approximately 13% of the national flock of laying hens has been affected.  The affected laying hens have either been destroyed by the disease or euthanized.  As a result, egg prices have increased significantly. The average Thursday prices for the large market (i.e. generic shell eggs) in the southeastern region for the months of April, May and June 2015 were $1.48, $1.56, and $2.46, respectively.  While the warmer summer months seem to have reduced further transmission of avian influenza, we expect egg prices to remain high until the national laying hen flock can be replenished. There have been no positive tests for avian influenza at any of our locations, and we are significantly increasing the biosecurity measures at all of our facilities, however we cannot be certain that our flocks will not be affected.

Additionally, there continues to be uncertainty in the industry surrounding the implementation of California’s Proposition 2 and Assembly Bill 1437, which relate to egg production standards, including minimum cage space, for eggs sold in that state.   This legislation was effective January 1, 2015. During January 2015, egg prices increased sharply and subsequently moderated.  Currently, egg prices in California reflect a premium to other regions that is higher than historical levels.  It is anticipated that future California prices will be higher than other regions of the country to reflect the higher cost of production related to the California standards. These new rules could impact future sales in California, and could also affect national egg production and supply, thereby increasing or decreasing prices throughout the country.  For fiscal 2013,2015, less than 3% of our total egg sales were California sales.  We continue to monitor the effects of this legislation and how it could impact our business.

For fiscal 2015, we produced approximately 74%75% of the total number of shell eggs sold by us, with approximately 7%6% of such shell egg production being provided by contract producers. Contract producers utilize their facilities in the production ofto produce shell eggs byfrom layers owned by us. We own the shell eggs produced under these arrangements. For fiscal 2013,2015, approximately 26%25% of the total number of shell eggs sold by us was purchased from outside producers for resale.

Our cost of production is materially affected by feed costs.costs, which are highly volatile and subject to wide fluctuation.  For fiscal 2013,2015, feed costs averaged about 69%62% of our total farm egg production cost.  Changes in market prices for corn and soybean meal, the primary ingredients in the feed we use, result in changes in our cost of goods sold.   For our last five fiscal years, average feed cost per dozen sold ranged from a low of $0.39 in fiscal 2011 to a high of $0.54 in fiscal 2013.  The cost of our primary feed ingredients, which are commodities, are subject to factors over which we have little or no control such as volatile price changes caused by weather, size of harvest, transportation and storage costs, demand and the agricultural and energy policies of the U.S. and foreign governments.  DroughtFavorable weather conditions in the major crop growing areas of the U.S. in the summer of 2012 significantly reducedand improved yields for the 2014 crop increased supplies of both corn and soybean crops inmeal for fiscal year 2015; however, we expect the 2012-2013 crop year creating tight suppliesoutlook for feed prices to remain volatile.

During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2015, the Company entered into the Red River Valley Egg Farm, LLC (“Red River”) joint venture with Rose Acre Farms, Inc.  The joint venture will build and record prices. Improved weather and higher expected crop yieldsoperate a state of the art shell egg production complex near Bogata, Red River County, Texas.  The plans for the 2013-2014 crop year should improvecomplex provide capacity for approximately 1.8 million cage-free laying hens.  Construction of the supply situationcomplex has commenced, and provide some price relief for our primary feed ingredients, although the outlook is for feedinitial flocks are expected to be placed in November 2015.  We did not incur material costs to remain volatileassociated with the joint venture in fiscal 2015.

The acquisition of our joint venture partner’s 50% interest in Delta Egg Farm, LLC (“Delta Egg”) and the purchases of the commercial egg assets of Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation and Maxim Production Co., Inc. as described in Note 2 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are referred to below as the “Acquisitions”.  Our fiscal 2015, 2014 and 2013 financial results include the resultsoperations of Delta Egg beginning March 1, 2014, Maxim beginning November 15, 2012, and Pilgrim’s Pride beginning August 10, 20122012.  Prior to March 1, 2014, our 50% interest in the earnings of Delta Egg was included in equity in earnings of affiliates under the equity method of accounting.

We effected a 2-for-1 stock split for shares of our common stock and Maxim beginning November 15, 2012.Class A common stock in October 2014, and all per share amounts in this report have been adjusted as necessary to reflect the split.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

The following table sets forth, for the fiscal years indicated, certain items from our consolidated statements of income expressed as a percentage of net sales.

Executive Overview of Results – May 30, 2015, May 31, 2014, and June 1, 2013 June 2, 2012, and May 28, 2011

Our operating results are significantly affected by wholesale shell egg market prices and feed costs, which can fluctuate widely and are outside of our control.  The majority of our shell eggs are sold at prices related to the Urner Barry Spot Egg Market Quotations for the southeastern regionand southcentral regions of the country, or formulas related to our costs of production which include the cost of corn and soybean meal.  The following table shows our net income, net average shell egg selling price, feed cost per dozen produced, and the average Urner Barry wholesale large shell egg prices in the southeast region, for each of our three most recent fiscal years.

The shell egg industry has traditionally been subject to periods of high profitability followed by periods of significant loss. The periods of high profitability reflecthave often reflected increased consumer demand relative to supply while the periods of significant loss reflecthave often reflected excess supply for the then prevailing consumer demand.  Historically, demand for shell eggs increases in line with overall population growth. As reflected above, our operating results correspondfluctuate with changes in the spot egg market quote.quote and feed costs.   The net average shell egg selling price is the blended price for all sizes and grades of shell eggs, including non-graded shell egg sales, breaking stock and undergrades.  In fiscal 2003and 2004, shell egg demand increased at higher than normal trend rates due to the increased popularity of high protein diets. This demand imbalance caused shell egg prices to increase. In late fiscal 2004, the popularity of these high protein diets began to diminish, but our egg production had been increased to meet the earlier higher demand levels. Lower egg prices followed, and we experienced net losses in fiscal 2005 and 2006. Beginning in the latter part of fiscal 2006, egg supplies became more aligned with demand. Since that time, the supply-demand balance generally tightened. In fiscal 2011, our net average selling price increased slightly over the previous fiscal year, but due to higher feed costs our net income decreased. For fiscal 2012, our net average selling price increased and feed costs increased significantly from the prior year. In fiscal year 2013, feed costs continued to increaseincreased significantly and our average net selling price increased compared to the prior year.  In fiscal 2014 and 2015, our average net selling price continued to increase, reflecting strong demand for shell eggs across our markets, and feed costs decreased each year over the previous year.  Net income decreasedfor fiscal 2015 increased significantly compared to the prior year, primarily due to the receipt ofan increase in dozens sold and selling prices and a special patronage dividenddecrease in fiscal 2012 related to a joint venture between EB and Land O’ Lakes, Inc. and legal settlement expenses in fiscal 2013 related to antitrust litigation (see Notes 3, 14, and 20 in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements).feed costs.

Fiscal Year Ended June 1, 2013May 30, 2015 Compared to Fiscal Year Ended June 2, 2012May 31, 2014

NET SALES

In fiscal 2013,2015, approximately 96%97% of our net sales consisted of shell egg sales,eggs and approximately 3% was for sales of egg products, with the 1% balance consisting of sales of incidental feed and feed ingredients.Netproducts.  Net sales for the fiscal year ended June 1, 2013May 30, 2015 were $1,288.1$1,576.1 million, an increase of $175$135.2 million, or 15.7%9.4%, from net sales of $1,113.1$1,440.9 million for fiscal 2012.2014.  In fiscal 20132015 total dozens of eggs sold increased and egg selling prices increased as compared to fiscal 2012.2014. In fiscal 20132015 total dozens of shell eggs sold were 948.51,063.1 million, an increase of 64.249.4 million dozen, or 7.3%4.9%, compared to 884.31,013.7 million sold in fiscal 2012.2014. Our average selling price of shell eggs increased from $1.205$1.362 per dozen for fiscal 20122014 to $1.301$1.429 per dozen for fiscal 2013,2015, an increase of $0.096$0.067 per dozen, or 8.0%. Our net average shell egg selling price is the blended price4.9%, reflecting strong demand for all sizes and grades of shell eggs including non-graded shellacross our markets and a higher percentage of specialty egg sales, breaking stock and undergrades.sales.  Our operating results are significantly affected by wholesale shell egg market prices, which are outside of our control. Small changes in production or demand levels can have a large effect on shell egg prices.

On a comparable basis, excluding the Acquisitions, net sales for fiscal 2013 were $1,187.1, an increase

The table below represents an analysis of our non-specialty and specialty, as well as co-pack specialty, shell egg sales.  Following the table is a discussion of the information presented in the table.

Our non-specialtyNon-specialty shell eggs include all shell egg sales not specifically identified as specialty or co-pack specialty shell egg sales.   The non-specialty shell egg market is characterized generally by an inelasticity of demand, and small increases in production or decreases in demand can have a large adverse effect on prices and vice-versa.  In fiscal 2013,2015, non-specialty shell eggs represented approximately 75.9%69.2% of our shell egg dollar sales, compared to 75.6%71.3% for fiscal 2012.2014.   Sales of non-specialty shell eggs accounted for approximately 83.6%78.1% of our total shell egg dozen volumes in fiscal 2013,2015, compared to 83.7%80.1% in fiscal 2012.2014.

For the thirteen-week period ended June 1, 2013,May 30, 2015, non-specialty shell eggs represented approximately 74.9%68.5% of our shell egg dollar sales, compared to 73.9%70.4% for the fourteen-weekthirteen-week period ended June 2, 2012.May 31, 2014.   For the thirteen-week period ended June 1, 2013,May 30, 2015, non-specialty shell eggs accounted for approximately 83.6%77.1% of the total shell egg dozen volume, compared to 83.5%78.4% for the fourteen-weekthirteen-week period ended June 2, 2012.May 31, 2014.

Specialty eggs, which include nutritionally enhanced, cage free, organic and organicbrown eggs, continued to make up a significantlarger portion of our total shell egg sales dollars and dozens in fiscal 2013.2015.  For fiscal 2013,2015, specialty eggs accounted for 23.7%27.2% of shell egg dollar sales, compared to 24.0%24.3% in fiscal 2012,2014, and 16.4%19.8% of shell egg dozens sold in fiscal 2013,2015, compared to 16.3%17.2% in fiscal 2012. Due to larger increases in the selling price2014.  Additionally, for fiscal 2015, specialty eggs sold through co-pack arrangements accounted for 2.8% of non-specialty eggsshell egg dollar sales, compared to specialty eggs, specialty3.8% in fiscal 2014, and 2.0% of shell egg sales as a percent of total dollar sales decreased while dozens sold increased in fiscal 20132015, compared to 2.7% in fiscal 2012.Specialty2014.  Specialty egg retail prices are less cyclical than non-specialty shell egg prices and are generally higher due to consumer willingness to pay for the increased benefits from these products.

For the thirteen-week period ended June 1, 2013,May 30,  2015, specialty shell eggs and specialty shell eggs sold through co-pack arrangements represented approximately 24.5%28.2% and 2.6%, of our shell egg dollar sales, compared to 25.8%25.2% and 3.9% for the fourteen-weekthirteen-week period ended June 2, 2012.May 31, 2014, respectively.   For the thirteen-week period ended June 1, 2013,May 30, 2015, specialty shell eggs and specialty shell eggs sold through co-pack arrangements accounted for approximately 16.4%21.0% and 1.9% of the total shell egg dozen volume, compared to 16.5%18.7% and 2.9%  for the thirteen-week period ended June 2, 2012.May 31, 2014, respectively.

The shell egg sales classified as “Other” represent sales of hard cooked eggs, hatching eggs, and baby chicks,and/or other egg products, which are included with our shell egg operations.

Egg products are shell eggs that are broken and sold in liquid, frozen, or dried form.    For fiscal 2013 our egg product sales were $35.3 million, an increase of $2.4 million, or 7.3%, compared to $32.9 million for fiscal 2012. Our volume of egg products sold for fiscal 2013 was 52.0 million pounds, a decrease of 3.2 million pounds, or 5.8%, compared to 55.2 million pounds for fiscal 2012. This decrease is due to a reduced supply of eggs for breaking. In fiscal 2013, the price per pound of egg products sold was $0.679 compared to $0.596 for fiscal 2012, an increase of 13.9 %. Prices received for our egg products increased in the most recent fiscal year due to a favorable change in the mix of products sold.

Our egg products are sold through our

consolidated subsidiaries American Egg Products, LLC (“AEP”) and Texas Egg Products, LLC (“TEP”).    For fiscal 2013,2015 our egg product sales for AEP were $15.5$45.4 million, an increase of $3.6 million, or 8.6%, compared to $15.9$41.8 million for fiscal 2012, a decrease of 2.5%. For AEP the2014.  Our volume of egg products sold for fiscal 20132015 was 24.5 million pounds, a decrease of 3.5 million pounds, or 12.5%, compared to 28.0 million pounds for fiscal 2012. The egg product sales for TEP in fiscal 2013 were $19.8 million, compared to $17.0 million for fiscal 2012, an increase of $2.8 million, or 16.5%. For TEP the volume of egg products sold for fiscal 2013 was 27.651.0 million pounds, an increase of 400,0002.1 million pounds, or 1.5%4.3%, compared to 27.248.9 million pounds for fiscal 2012.2014.   The increases in sales volume and market prices in the current fiscal year were due to increased industry demand for egg products, driven by the quick serve restaurant industry as well as export sales.  In fiscal 2015, the price per pound of egg products sold was $0.891 compared to $0.855 for fiscal 2014, an increase of 4.2%.

COST OF SALES

Cost of sales consists of costs directly related to production,producing, processing and packing shell eggs, purchases of shell eggs from outside producers, processing and packing of liquid and frozen egg products and other non-egg costs.  Farm production costs are those costs incurred at the egg production facility, including feed, facility, hen amortization, and other related farm production costs.

The following table presents the key variables affecting our cost of sales: