1 1 w*'%^^tw*^»'Sm THE GARBAGE HOG FEEDING BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA WALLACE SULLIVAN EARL AAAHARG E. H. HUGHES CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE • THE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA • BERKELEY This Circu/ar is the result of a 3-year management study of successful garbage hog feeding estab- lishments in southern California. It explains and gives suggestions on the points of good management that can make the above equation work satisfactorily. These are the points covered: li^^r Laying out the feeding lot so that a minimum of time and motion is used in performing the necessary chores. A±:JiS^ The elements of good breeding management— keeping the breed- ing and feeding herds in balance with the amount of feed avail- able. Lowering the mortality rate in farrowing. Keeping costs in line by balancing labor and feed with the size of the herd— cutting corners where possible. Maintaining accurate records that will point out management errors and show where the money is going. This is NOT a book on animal husbandry. Better details on hog raising will be found in Extension Circular 15, Pork Production in California— Hughes and Heitman. Revised 1949. UMe of Contents PACE Garbage Going to Waste, or "Waist" 4 Better Arrangements Are Needed 4 The Basic Needs 5 What It Takes to Get Into Business 6 The Sow Is the Breeding Unit 7 The One-Litter System 8 The Two-Litter System 8 What Counts— The Pigs Raised 9 Pictorial Presentation of Feeding Plant 10-11 Chart of an Efficient Layout Center Foldout Keep Losses Down 12 Labor Input 13 Record Keeping 13 Figures to Go By 14 Suggested Inventory Form 18 The Authors: Wallace Sullivan is Associate Agriculturist (Farm Management) and Asso- ciate on the Giannini Foundation, Berkeley. Earl Maharg is Farm Advisor, Los Angeles County. E. H. Hughes is Professor of Animal Husbandry and Animal Husbandman in the Experiment Station, Davis. [3] Garbage Going to Waste or to "Waist #/ During the last 83 years, the number of hogs on farms in California has remained relatively constant at somewhere around % of a millon. About 40 per cent of these pigs are now fed on garbage feeding es- tablishments. During this same period the human population of the state has grown tremen- dously and is now estimated to be about 10.5 million. It is also estimated that from 1 to 1% pounds per day of usable garbage (i.e., scraps of food) per person are thrown into garbage cans or go down the drain from private homes, restaurants, hotels, institutions, food factories and armed services camps. It has been pretty well proven that 1 ton of garbage will produce approxi- mately 50 pounds of pork. Thus it is easy to see that millions of pounds of valuable hog feed are produced daily in California and that only a small percentage is being utilized. In many cities no effort is made to utilize residen- tial garbage. Instead of going to waste, this valuable hog feed could be used to put a larger "waist" of solid, edible pork on the hogs. The California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service made a count of gar- bage feeding establishments in both 1947 and 1948 and found that the number of such establishments increased from 355 to 417 during the year. They estimate that about 40 per cent of all slaughter hogs raised in the state are now garbage fed. The 1947 survey showed that most of the feeding lots were located near the two large centers of population, Los Angeles and San Francisco. The later survey showed an increase in the establishments located near smaller towns and cities. The Arrangement "Just Grew'' The arrangement between garbage dis- posal authorities and the hog feeders "just grew"; garbage disposal was the primary job, and hog feeding was inci- dental. But hog feeders are realizing more and more the feeding value of table scraps and edible waste material from homes, food plants and large institutions. There is a definite opportunity in converting what would be a total loss into a useful and profitable product. The Topsy-like growth of the industry has, however, resulted in certain factors that tend to retard rapid expansion— fac- tors that could be resolved by better laws and a better understanding between the hog feeders and the state and local regu- lating authorities. Better Arrangements Are Needed The r'equirements of public health and sanitation regulations are not always well defined, so many hog feeders are uncer- tain as to the security of their locations. New zoning ordinances, or nuisance com- plaints of old or new neighbors may cause them to move to new locations. Moving is expensive. This lack of security in ten- ure encourages temporary and inade- quate construction of sanitary facilities. Greater stability in regulations would encourage good construction that would satisfy sanitary and health regulations. Feeders are not always certain that their garbage hauling contract (a vital factor in the business) will be renewed [4] when it expires. The development of model ordinances regulating the collec- tion and disposal of garbage, that could be used throughout the state would tend to greater stability and understanding. Much could be gained for all parties concerned by conferring together on im- proved methods of garbage collection and disposal, and clarification of what constitutes a nuisance in regard to gar- bage feeding. During the period 1945-1948, the Agricultural Extension Service and Ex- periment Station of the University of California, cooperating with the Califor- nia Hog Feeders Association of Los An- geles and the Los Angeles County Farm Bureau, made a study of management practices on several large garbage feed- ing establishments in southern California. On these lots were 3,132 brood sows (years) that farrowed 42,274 pigs that produced 5.5 million pounds of pork. The remainder of this circular presents the findings covering inputs of feed, labor, material and capital, costs and production of pork as determined from the study. The results and recommenda- tions given here will apply generally to all parts of the state. The Basic Needs Must Be Considered There are certain over-all factors of location and nuisance control that must be considered in any garbage feeding establishment. What about location? Obviously, it is necessary to locate a feeding lot as close as possible to an adequate supply of gar- bage. This usually means within a rea- sonable hauling distance of a city or town, yet far enough from the center of population to avoid the possibility of being declared a nuisance and being forced to move. Moving is expensive, since very little of the equipment can be taken or salvaged. In choosing a location, a balance must be struck between : 1. Hauling costs. 2. Proximity to population centers. 3. Land costs. Since new methods of controlling flies and odors are now being used, and more are certain to be developed, perhaps the nuisance factor will tend to diminish in the future. In any location, however, the feeder should take particular care to control flies and odors, and to keep abreast of local developments as well as possible. Mutual friendship with the local health and sani- tation authorities is recommended. The garbage contract should be given careful consideration, as a dependable supply of feed is extremely important. If the feeder does the collecting he may be paid a fee for such work. If the municipality makes the collec- tions and delivers to a collecting depot, the most suitable plan seems to be a slid- ing scale payment schedule. This scale works both ways : when the price of hogs about equals the cost of production, no charge is made by the municipality; as the price of hogs goes above this point, an increase in the price of garbage is made with each increase of $1.00 per hundredweight in the price of hogs. If the price of hogs goes below the cost of production, the municipality pays for having the garbage hauled away from the collecting point. It is well to have the garbage contract cover other specific points such as : 1. Whether the nonedible refuse shall be separated from the edible, and who is responsible for the separa- tion. [5] 2. Where the title to the garbage changes hands. 3. The terms by which the contract may be cancelled. The help of an attorney in drawing up the contract would be useful. Size of feeding unit is important. In de- termining the size of the feeding unit, three items of cost should be considered in the order of their importance. Feed is the most important item; hired labor is second, and capital investment in land, equipment and improvements, third. Thus the number of hogs to be fed would be determined primarily by the garbage contract, or the tons of garbage available during the year. These studies indicate that 35 tons per brood sow, per year, would be a safe figure to use in making a preliminary estimate. The num- ber of hogs fed would be adjusted by experience. The quantity of garbage re- quired will vary widely, depending on the grade and quality obtainable. From the standpoint of labor utiliza- tion, assuming that most of the labor is hired, a 100-sow unit would be the mini- mum size for reasonable efficiency. This would require one full-time herdsman, supplemented with extra help as needed. The hauling of garbage would be con- tracted, or a truck driver would be hired by the hour or by the load. The capital investment per sow unit would decrease as the number of sows increased; certain items such as rolling stock, water supply, housing and storage, and cleaning equipment remain almost constant, or would increase only slightly for 100 sows rather than 50 sows. So here again, it appears that a 100-sow unit would be about the minimum size for reasonable efficiency. What a Takes To Get Into Business A 100-sow unit would require a gar- bage contract that would yield 3,500 tons of garbage per year, or about 9.5 tons per day. In addition, the hog feeder must ac- quire land, buildings and fences, certain equipment, feed and supplies, a water system and, of course, stock. A fairly graphic idea of the various facilities needed can be obtained by study of the pictorial representation of typical effi- cient garbage feeding establishments shown on pages 10 and 11 in this circular. An idea of the costs involved is as follows : Investment and Costs. A 100-sow unit would probably require a minimum of 2 acres of land. Improvements would in- clude the following: 1. Cement feeding floors and drive- ways, with adequate slope and drain- age facilities. 2. A watering system to provide drink- ing fountains for the stock and hydrants for washing down the feed- ing floors. 3. About 35 individual farrowing pens with feeding floors and small exer- cise yards in the back. 4. About 12 feeding pens with feeding floors, shelter sheds and exercise yards. 5. A loading chute and loading plat- form for finished hogs. 6. Fencing, consisting mainly of mov- able panels and gates. 7. Housing for hired help and a build- ing or buildings for storage of feed, equipment, supplies, rolling stock- possibly office space. 8. A small tractor with loading scoop and spray rig attachment. Table 1 represents a fair estimate of the cost of land, improvements, equip- ment, etc., based on 1948 prices, for a 100-sow unit. [6] TABLE 1. Estimated Investment. Item Original Cost Avg. Invest. Int. Chg. 5 % Deprc. Dollars per sow per year Land — 2 acres Bldgs. and fences $ 1,000 16,000 4,000 400 10,000 $ 10.00 80.00 1 20.001 4.00 50.00 1 $ .50 4.00 1.00 .20 2.50 $ 16.00 4.00 5.00 25.00 Equipment* Feed and supplies Well-water system Subtotal 31,400 164.00 8.20 Stock— average all ages 21,770 217.70 10.89 Total 53,170 381.70 19.09 25.00 * Does not include garbage hauling truck, t One-half original cost. The Layout Must Be Efficient The most successful feeding lots are laid out for "production line" operation. The idea is to keep related units together and to provide a more or less continuous flow of animals toward the ultimate goal, the loading out platform. To this end, breeding pens, farrowing pens, dry s6w pens and feeding pens are laid out so The first objective of the feeder is to obtain good, healthy feeder pigs with which to convert garbage into pork. This may be done by the purchase of feeder pigs, but most commercial men have found it unsatisfactory to depend on the uncertain market for feeder pigs. Then too, there is a danger of the intro- duction of swine diseases and the diffi- culty of getting the pigs adjusted from grain to garbage feed. So while the maintenance of a breed- ing herd increases the number of unpro- that the young pigs pass from one to the other with a minimum of waste motion as they progress toward maturity. In like manner, the feeding facilities are laid out and constructed so that dis- tribution of the food and clean-up chores may be done on a straight line operation. Here again the reader is referred to the pictorial presentation of efficient es- tablishments studies in southern Cali- fornia. The Sow is the Breeding Unit ductive hogs that must be fed, it is still probably the best way to procure the larg- est number of salable pigs at the lowest cost. Table 2 on page 8 shows the distrib- ution of animals by age and class as they would probably average out during the year. The first 4 classes make up the breed- ing herd. A fairly well-managed herd should not have over 30 per cent of the total swine units in the breeding herd. As this percentage goes down, efficiency 7] TABLE 2. Distribution of Animals on Typical 100-Sow Unit. Class Number Swine unit* Total swine units Per cent of total Sows Boars Gilts Pigs — unweaned 100 5 10 173 1.0 1.0 1.0 .1 100.0 5.0 10.0 17.3 22.92 1.15 2.28 3.97 Subtotal — breeding herd 288 260 250 .4 .8 132.3 104.0 200.0 30.32 23.84 45.84 Feeders — under 100# . . Feeders — over 100# Total 798 436.3 100.00 * Calculated feed requirements, based on unit of 1.0 for a mature hog. Source: Los Angeles County Enterprise Studies — 1946-48 calculated. goes up and costs per pound of finished pork go down. Inefficiency is usually due to : 1. Keeping more boars than is neces- sary. 2. Keeping sows that do not produce regularly because they are shy breeders, lose their pigs through abortion or diseases, or produce weak, unhealthy pigs. There Are Two Farrowing Systems As pointed out, one of the all-impor- tant factors in reducing costs is to keep only sows that farrow and raise to a wean- ing age, regularly, large litters of healthy pigs. Either of two farrowing systems may be used ; the one-litter system or the two-litter system.* The One-Litter System. In the one-litter system only the gilts (young, immature, unbred sows) are bred. The sow then goes into the fattening pens with her litter and is marketed as a fat hog. The advantages of this system are that there is very little if any dockage (reduc- * For more detailed information on the breed- ing and raising of pigs, control of diseases, etc., the reader may refer to Extension Circular 15, Pork Production in California, E. H. Hughes and Hubert Heitman, Jr., Revised 1949. tion in price due to unmarketable quali- ties) on the sow when sold, and that the length of time of keeping a sow for each litter is shortened. This reduces the cost of maintaining the breeding herd. The Two-Litter System is more com- monly used. In this system the sows in the breeding herd are expected to farrow two litters of pigs each year. Therefore only those sows that are proven to be good breeders and good mothers are kept in the breeding herd. In order to get two litters per year the herdsman must make sure that each sow is bred during the first or second heat period after the pigs are weaned. It is easy to see the importance of this in re- ducing costs; a sow that is neither being fed for slaughter nor producing more pigs is "dead weight." Obviously, sows farrowing twice a year will produce twice as many pigs as sows farrowing once a year— other factors re- maining constant. In other words, 100 sows bred twice a year can be made to produce as many pigs as 200 sows bred once a year. Thus having two litters per sow, per year, will enable the operator to cut down the size of the breeding herd— greatly reducing the cost per pig at weaning time. i» The payoff, of course, is the total num- ber of pigs raised to maturity or sent to market. The returns from these must pay the bills for those that are lost, main- tain the breeding herd, and provide a living for the owner. This is important when we examine figures that show the average number of pigs saved from the average number that are farrowed on typical feeding establishments.^ A study of the figures compiled from 7 records in the swine enterprise study in southern California, covering over 3,000 brood sows and over 5,600 litters showed that the sows averaged 1.8 far- rowings per year, with an average of 7.5 pigs per litter. But of the average of 7.5 pigs farrowed in each litter, an average of 3.5 died and only 4 lived to a market- able age. Of the average of 13.5 pigs far- rowed by each sow during a year (under the two-litter system) only 7.3 pigs ever lived to reach a marketable age. But What Counts is the Number of Pigs Raised The average loss therefore was over 45 per cent— nearly half. And this is under reasonably good management practices. Losses Affect the Profits Based on calculations shown in table 5 (page 17) it is estimated that the total costs per sow year amount to $269.22. The cost of the breeding herd is about 30 per cent of the total. And 30 per cent of $269.22 is $80.77-the cost per sow year for one brood sow. With an average production of 7.3 pigs per year for each brood sow, the cost per pig at weaning age would be about $11 per head. If 10 pigs, instead of 7.3 had been raised, the cost per pig at weaning age would have been about $8 per head. It is evident that the cost per pig at weaning age decreases rapidly when the number of pigs saved per litter is raised. This is a typical water fountain device used on a garbage feeding establishment. Water is kept available for all animals, at all times. Note the shade shed in the background, designed to cover parts of 2 pens. See pictorial section in center foldout. [9 IHere is a well laid out garbage feeding establishment where "straight line operation" is tht • rule. Closer views of some of the construction and operational details are shown below. 2 The garbage is hauled from its source in a Here the garbage is spread out on the feed- • dump trucks and unloaded onto feeding 0« ing floors, ready to be worked over by the floors in a continuous operation^ hogs. The gates will act as fences. PRODUCTION LINE LAYOUT CUTS WAS 4 # Waste material is hauled to another dump truck for final disposal. Much of this '• waste material can be used for fertilizer by orchardists in some parts of the state. kS Here are 6 steps of garbage feediiig, carried out in a "straight line" operation on a well laid out establishment. Planning such as this helps to keep down costs and produce pork at favorable prices. See chart on foldout sheet in center. ^'t'''M 4. The gates are opened, closing off sections ^ When the hogs have cleaned out the edi- of the feeding floors and allowing the hogs 3* ble material, a tractor "loader" picks up ready access to the garbage in their areas. the remaining material and moves it away. TE MOTION • • • HOLDS DOWN COSTS Stt Keep Losses Down to a Minimum By Good Breeding Management. As- suming that a feeder has a contract that will yield 3,500 tons of garbage per year, and that this yield is distributed evenly throughout the year, his next problem is to have an even supply of feeder pigs throughout the period. A 100-sow breeding herd that would average 1.8 litters per year would pro- duce 180 litters per year— 3.5 farrowings per week, or 15 to 18 per month. For this average, a minimum of 5 boars should be kept. Individual breeding pens should be kept so that the sow can be turned in with the boar as soon as she comes into the first heat after the pigs are weaned. The bred sow should then be turned into the dry sow pens, the first of which is called a "catch" pen, in which a boar is kept. The sows should be kept in this "catch" pen for 3 or 4 weeks, so that in case they did not get with pig in the breeding pen, the "skip" boar will settle them on the second heat period. From the time they show signs of being with pig, the sows should have their gar- bage feed supplemented with a pound of grain per head, per day, and alfalfa hay provided in a rack. (See below.) A day or two before farrowing, the sows should be moved into an individual, clean, disinfected, farrowing pen. The sow and her pigs are then kept in this pen for 8 or 9 weeks. At the end of this time the pigs should be vaccinated for cholera (the male pigs having been castrated), and all put into feeding pens with others of the same age and weight. Usually 75 to 100 of the light feeders are kept in the same pen ; as they increase in weight they are sorted. The cripples and weak ones are put into a hospital pen and given special treatment. The number per pen is reduced as the pigs get larger so that when finished, at about 225 pounds, there are about 40 or 50 to a pen. Feeder hogs are usually fed nothing but garbage, unless there is some special reason for other feed. By Supplemental Feeds. In the search for some way to reduce the very heavy death losses in young pigs, feeding ex- periments were conducted in Los Angeles County. It was thought that the sow, dur- ing the time of gestation and nursing of the pigs, was not getting enough energy from garbage alone to produce strong, healthy pigs. The sows experimented with were fed 1 pound of supplemental (grain) feed per day, for a period of 100 days, over- lapping the gestation and nursing pe- riods. The results showed that the sows fed the supplementary diet of grain raised one more pig per litter to weaning age (about a 25 per cent increase) than sows kept on a straight garbage diet. The pigs from sows fed supplementary feed were more vigorous and averaged from 1 to 2 pounds heavier at weaning age. The additional cost of the supplemental feed was more than offset by: 1. A reduction in the amount of gar- bage fed. 2. An increase of 25 per cent in the number of pigs raised to weaning age. The results of the experiment also indi- cate that by supplemental feeding 75 sows could be made to produce as many pigs as 100 sows would produce on a straight garbage diet. Or putting it another way, 100 sows would produce 25 per cent more pigs, considerably reducing the cost per pig at weaning age. [12 Here is a Well Laid Out Garbage Feeding Station FROM SOURCE LEGEND The solid line in color shows the route of the garbage trucks bringing feed from the collect- ing point and distributing it along the feeding The broken line in color shows the route of the cleanup loaders as they pick up refuse and take it to the final disposal area. The solid black line shows the circular route made by brood sows — from breeding pen, to skip boar, to dry sow pens, to farrowing pens, back to breeding pens and around again. The broken black line shows the route of the feeder pigs from the time of weaning until fattened and ready for shipment to market. NOTE: In the one-litter system of farrowing, the brood sows are fattened and sold along with their litter, so the circular route shown here is broken. Watch the Labor Input The management study showed a large variation in the number of man hours per sow year needed to operate efficiently. The 7 records kept ranged from a high of 73.7 man hours per sow year, to a low of 38.6, with the average being 54.5. One of the most important factors in reducing the number of man hours per sow is to keep in the herd the maximum number of sows that a man, employed full time, can take care of adequately. If a full-time employee cares for 75 sows when he could care for 100 in the same time, the labor cost per hundredweight of pork would be considerably reduced by having the larger number of sows. Another important factor is the layout of the feeding yard (see pictorial presen- tation). The general plan of driveways, feeding floors, farrowing and feeding pens, water system, movable panels and gates are all important details in saving time and labor. Keep Adequate Records The hog feeder should be asking him- self two questions constantly : how much profit is this enterprise making? and how can the profit be increased? The second question can not be answered until the answer to the first is known. Neither ques- tion can be answered unless records are kept that furnish adequate information. This means keeping more records than those of cash receipts and expenditures— they tell only part of the story. Records of the physical input of feeds, materials, capital, man hours of labor— records of output and facts affecting it are also essen- tial. Individual sow production records should be kept so that poor producers may be eliminated. Closeup of the feeding floors with pigs feed- ing. Note graduation in sizes of the feeders, from small (in the near pen) to finished pigs in the background. An annual balancing of input with out- put, and comparison with previous years, will point out the strong and weak points in management practices. For a suggested form to use in making a monthly hog inventory, and keeping an account of farrowings, death losses and changes in hog numbers during the month, see page 18. This inventory form, if properly filled out, will give the operator an accurate figure for the number of animals he should have in each class at the end of Feed Inputs. Table 3 shows the amount of feed used per brood sow year, as re- ported in the management study in the 7 Los Angeles County enterprises. All but one reported feeding alfalfa hay as part of the diet. All reported some grain or concentrated feed. Based on calculations made during the study, a ton of garbage with a small amount of grain supplement, for sows and unweaned pigs, will produce about 50 pounds of pork. This includes feed that was given to pigs that died, and to sterile breeding stock. This emphasizes again the importance of large litters, with as few losses from death as possible, to reduce the cost per pound of finished pork. Analysis of Garbage. Table 4 presents the average analyses of a large number of samples of garbage, many made by the California Experiment Station. Since the feeding quality of garbage varies from place to place, and from year to year, it is difficult to get a true sample of garbage. Even so, some of the points illustrated in table 4 are noteworthy. The analysis of dried refuse, or clean- up, from the feeding floors does not vary greatly from dried garbage. This mate- any given period. If this number does not check with a physical count made at that time, something is wrong. If the physical count shows more animals than should be there, the error is probably in the count, or in bad record keeping dur- ing the period. If there are fewer animals than there should be, the error may be one of record keeping, or a result of dis- honesty—perhaps pilferage. In any event, the written record gives the operator a basis on which to make inquiry and seek out the trouble. Some Figures to Go By rial, except for the bones, is usually spread out on adjacent concrete floors to dry, then used as fertilizer. At the bottom of the table are digest- ible nutrients found in dried garbage. This garbage was from the city of Los Angeles and was estimated to be 20 per cent from hotels and 80 per cent from residential areas. The material was brought to the University of California where it was analyzed and used for a di- gestion trial on a pig. A word of caution is in order on the Closeup of a hinge used on gates that must swing out over a foot or more of garbage. Note hinge is adjustable to let gate up or down, as needed for clearance. TABLE 3. Feed Inputs. Record number Garbage (tons) Grains (lbs.) AUalfa (lbs.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22.00 25.93 29.00 36.00 35.00 22.20 28.63 1010 1209 1156 226 90 386 1393 307 101 149 146 146 380 Average 28.4 781 176 use of this table : it indicates that the total digestible nutrients in dried garbage are similar to those in barley. Previous ex- periments conducted by the Experiment Station indicate that the value of dried garbage as hog feed is far below that of barley. Apparently during the drying process some of the nutrients were in- jured, and were not indicated in the di- gestion experiment. Analysis of Costs. Table 5 may be used as a rough guide in measuring efficiency in operations, or by persons who may be considering going into the garbage feeding business. It combines table 1 (showing production), table 2 (showing investments) , and some additional figures that give a fairly complete picture of where the expense money goes in a typical 100-sow feeding unit. The figures above the line show the ex- pected output of the herd. The figures below the double line show the average costs during 1948, in southern Califor- nia, for getting into business and main- taining a herd for a year. Some of the expenses in table 5 are estimated as follows: cost of garbage is Left: The cleanup vehicle has a spray rig attached on the rear, for use in disinfecting farrowing pens. Cleanup tools are kept together and in a handy place. Right: Discharge end of the filter ditch that takes the run-ofF water from the feeding floors. The water is filtered through gravel, comes out clear and free from odor, and drains into a nearby stream. TABLE 4. Analysis of Garbage As a Feed. Kind Dry matter Crude protein Fat Fiber NFE Ash Fresh Garbage Municipal* Hotel, restaurant, hospital, etc Military Dried Garbage Municipal Dried Ref use t Municipal Digestible nutrients in dried garbage Municipal 31.50 23.81 30.13 89.4 91.72 53.66 4.98 4.26 6.47 16.90 17.17 8.64 4.82 5.95 8.99 19.70 18.49 17.10 2.15 0.68 0.61 11.54 16.60 5.68 16.06 13.97 12.41 38.23 34.89 24.24 3.50 1.45 1.65 10.88 12.79 * A mixture of hotel, restaurant, hospital and residential garbage. t Taken from feeding floors, including refused garbage, feces, urine, some metal; bones removed before sampling. figured at $2 per ton, and hauling at $1.50-total $3.50 delivered at the feed- ing plant; all labor is charged at the rate of $1 per hour ; the annual interest charge is based on 5 per cent of one-half of the original cost of the improvements, and the full cost of the land, feed supplies and hogs. Depreciation charge is made on the improvements and facilities based on the length of their useful lives. The profit formula is: Yield (pounds of pork produced) x Price per pound - Costs = Profit (or Loss) Actually, the net profit will depend on both controllable and uncontrollable fac- tors. The price paid for hogs, the cost of feeds and materials and the wage scale for hired help are probably not controlla- ble by the operator. They are changing constantly and many risks are involved. However, yield may be controlled to a certain extent, and costs can be kept at a minimum by good management prac- tices, as explained in the foregoing pages. All other things being equal, good man- agement practices will result in more profit and avoid the danger of losses. TABLE 5— on page 17 combines the estimated investment figures and esti- mated costs for one year and may be used to arrive at an estimated figure for the cost of pork per hundredweight on a hypothetical 100-sow garbage feeding establishment. As stated, these figures are estimates and are based on prices as they prevailed in one part of the state, during one year. They also assume that good management practices, as outlined in this circular, have been observed. [16] Production estimates for 100 brood sows Avg. during year Added during year Transfrd. to next group Death losses No. available for sale Lbs. available for sale Boars 5 100 173 260 250 10 2 40 1,260 819 738 40 819 778 40 .2 5.0 441.0 41.0 39.0 1.8 35.0 699.0 720 Sows fl.8 litters) . . . 12,250 Pigs— unweaned (7.0 per litter) . Feeders— weaning age to 100#. Feeders— 100# to 225# Gilts 6-12 mo. (replacements) . . 157,275 Total 798 2,899 1,637 526.2 735.8 170,245 Net production, less 2 boars bought— 500 p OUnds , 169,745 Pounds required Costs per ton or cwt. Costs per sow year Costs per cwt. Quantities and costs Per sow year Per cwt. Garbage (3.500 tons Dervear) 70,000 270 4,124 16 $3.50 3.00 $122.50 8.10 $ 7.21 Grain (27.000^^ per year) .48 Pasture Other Total feed $130.60 $ 7.69 Total labor (6,000 hours) 60 3.54 $1.00 60.00 3.54 Sub-total labor and feed $190.60 $11.23 Other cash costs General expense (5% labor an Taxes and insurance d feed) 9.53 25.00 .56 Veterinary and sanitation 1.47 Miscellaneous Total cash costs $ 34.53 $ 2.03 Subtotal cash operating cost 5 $225.13 $13.26 Investment New costs Av. Invest. 5%Intrst. Deprec. Dollars per sow Land (2 acres) $ 1,000 16,000 4,000 400 10,000 $ 10.00 80.00t 20.00t 4.00 50.00t $ .50 4.00 1.00 .20 2.50 $16.00 4.00 5.00 Buildings and fences Equipment Feed and supplies Well and water system Stock— average all ages 21,770 217.70 10.89 Total invest, and annual cost . 53,170 381.70 19.09 25.00 Total depreciation costs 25.00 1.47 Subtotal 250.13 14.73 19.09 1.13 Total all costs $269.22 $15.86 ■ t Average investment is one-half of original cost. Ranch No.. BLANK FEEDING COMPANY Monthly Hog Inventory Date Period beginning and ending. Kind of hogs Beginning inventory Bought Sold Died Trans- ferred Ending inventory 1 . Brood sows 2. Gilts— over 6 mos. 3. Young gilts 4. Breeding boors 5. Young boars 6. Pigs— unweoned 7. Feeders— under lOOff 8. Feeders— over lOOif 9. Cull sows, etc. Total No. sows farrowed No. pigs How to count: 1 . All sows that have had pigs. 2. Gilts of breeding age that have not had pigs. 3. Young gilts that have been selected for breeding herd, or for sale as breeding stock. 4. Boars that are in service. 5. Young boars that are to be used in herd, or ore for sale. 6. Pigs that are with sow. 7. All pigs weaned, up to 100 pounds. 8. All hogs over 100 pounds. 9. All hogs culled from breeding herd, sows, boors, stags. The figures for beginning inventory may be taken from a physical count of the animals, or from the "Ending Inventory" column of the preceding report period. Enter figures for number bought during the period, in various classes. Do the same for the number sold and the number that died. In the "Transferred" column, enter a minus (-) figure for the number taken out of any class, and a plus (+) figure for those transferred into the class. Total the lines across and write figures in "ending Inventory" column. These figures should check with a physical count made at the end of the period. ri8i Cooperative Extension work in Agriculture and Home Economics, College of Agriculture, University of California, and United States Department of Agriculture cooperating. Distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress of May 8, and June 30, 1914. J. Earl Coke, Director, California Agricultural Extension Service, 15/«-4,'50(B8978)WP 4^ \nays to solve a problem ... Farm Advisors located in 49 California counties and in these towns: Alturas Hanford Riverside Auburn Hayward Sacramento Bakersfield Hollister Salinas Colusa Kelseyville San Bernardino Cowell Los Angeles San Diego Eureka Madera San Jose El Centre Morysville Son Luis Obispo Fairfield Merced San Rafael Fresno Modesto Santa Ana Grass Valley Napa Santa Barbara Half Moon Bay Orland Santa Cruz Oroville Santa Rosa Placerville Sonora V Quincy Stockton \ Red Bluff Susanville V^ Redding Ukiah Ventura Visalia / \ \ Weaverville \ V V/oodland , \ \ Yreka ^ V \ Yuba City CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA • BERKELEY