UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA SERIES ON CALIFORNIA CROPS AND PRICES ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY EDWIN C. VOORHIES AND A. B. KOUGHAN BULLETIN 461 November, 1928 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRINTING OFFICE BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 1928 CONTENTS PAGE Foreword 3 Acknowledgments 3 Summary 3 Development of the beef cattle industry 7 Geographic distribution of the cattle population 11 Trends in cattle raising 15 Numbers of cattle in the United States 15 Cattle population of California 20 Cycles in cattle production 20 Changes in the proportion of beef and dairy stock 23 Increasing productivity of cattle 24 Calf crop 25 Purebred beef cattle 29 Number of purebreds 29 Location of purebred breeders in California 30 The importance of the beef industry 30 Feeding conditions in California 33 The range types of California 33 Feed costs 41 Slaughter of cattle 42 Number and trend in the United States 42 Grading and stamping beef 45 Number slaughtered in California 46 Consumption of beef in the United States and foreign countries 63 Prices and purchasing power of beef cattle 67 Annual inventory values of the United States Department of Agriculture... 67 Farm prices of beef cattle in the United States and California 72 Quotations of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics 75 Prices of purebreds 83 Meat prices 84 Cold storage of beef, United States 87 Movements of cattle 92 Market receipts at public stockyards 92 Stocker and feeder shipments, United States 93 Cattle shipments, California 94 Foreign trade in beef and beef cattle 104 The share of the Pacific Coast in foreign trade 104 Live-cattle exports and imports 106 Exports of beef 112 Imports of beef and veal 112 The international trade in beef and beef products 113 The foreign situation in cattle and beef 114 Cattle hides 124 Prices 125 Imports and exports 126 Disease 128 ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY EDWIN C. VOORHIESi and A. B. KOUGHAN2 FOREWORD This bulletin represents the results of a study undertaken at the request of various beef cattle interests of California. The primary object has been to analyze the chief statistical data relating to the beef cattle industry. Those interested in specific topics relating to the industry are asked to consult the table of contents (p. 2). For those who wish to quickly obtain the conclusions set forth in the body of the publication, the summarjr found in the first few pages will be helpful. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Especial thanks are given to the officers and members of the California Cattlemen's Association and the Western Cattle Marketing Association for their cooperation in the collection of much of the basic data appearing in this publication. Valuable suggestions and im- portant contributions have been made by W. E. Schneider, United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, and Professor Arthur W. Sampson, Forestry Division of the College of Agriculture, University of California. The Cattle Protection Ser- vice of the California State Department of Agriculture, and the Animal Husbandry Division of the College of Agriculture, University of California, have also aided materially. Mention should be made of the statistical calculations made by Linton T. Kirby and George H. Garner, students in the College of Agriculture of the University of California. SUMMARY California cannot be detached from the other western states in any consideration of the beef cattle industry. In addition, a view of the national and world situations must be obtained in order to understand present domestic conditions and to formulate future policies. The total number of cattle and calves in the United States has declined 23.8 per cent (trend data) during the eight years, January 1, 1 Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics and Associate Agricultural Economist in the Experiment Station. 2 Technical Assistant in Agricultural Economics. 4 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 1920-January 1, 1928. On the latter date estimates indicated fewer cattle on farms and ranges than at any other time since the beginning of the century with the exception of January 1, 1912. Both 1912 and 1928 represent low points in cattle-production cycles. In the eleven western states the decrease (22.8 per cent) has been approximately the same as that for the nation. Unlike the trend in the United States and in the other western states, the cattle population of California has changed but slightly during the past eight years, a decrease of approximately 1 per cent having taken place (trend values). Low points in numbers were reached in 1925 and 1926, an actual increase being recorded since the latter date. Considering only beef stock, decreases in the United States and the western states have been greater than for all cattle. Cows over a year old kept for milk purposes have actually increased. While this same movement has taken place in California during 1926 and 1927, there was also an actual increase in the number of animals " other than milk cows." Although California must depend upon outside sources for an appreciable amount of its cattle supplies, offerings originating within the state during the grass season are at times more than ample to supply the demand for slaughter. Seasonal offerings are naturally dependent on the weather and the six months beginning in April are those of comparatively heavy supplies from within the state. The larger local supplies, particularly during June, July, and August, have the effect of lowering the market during these months. The removal of the surplus from the market during the grass cattle season appears to be one method by which an improvement can be brought about in the market for California beef cattle. This objective can be accomplished partially by supplemental feeding and by extend- ing the marketing period over more time or by the development of markets outside the state. Supplies of cattle were light and values were high in the period prior to the outbreak of the European War. With an increase in supplies, cattle values showed a steady decline until the low point was reached in both the nation and state in 1923. From then until 1926, there was a steady increase in the average value of cattle sold. Considerable acceleration in values. was shown during the latter part of 1927 and the first ten months of 1928. During the past few years there has been a widening of the spread between the market values of the better grades of slaughter animals on the one hand, and the less desirable on the other. This situation BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 5 has created an increased interest among cattlemen in the marketing of their stock in a well-finished condition, and during the last few years the finishing of cattle, particularly with such feeds as cotton- seed cake, has apparently gained ground in California. The number of feeder cattle shipped into California since 1922 has increased more rapidly than that of slaughter cattle. This movement for the market- ing of cattle in a well-finished condition should relieve some of the competition that has existed on the markets between the unfinished beef stock, often of poor quality, and the cull stock from dairy herds. This would bring about a more favorable situation for both classes of producers. The widening of the margin between good and poor cattle is but a reflection of the consumer demand for the better cuts of beef. Since the War, consumers throughout the nation have been willing to pay relatively more for the better cuts and relatively less for the poorer cuts as compared with the period before the War. Educational work directed toward a more effective use of the cheaper cuts of beef might stimulate profits in beef production. At the present time there is an apparent lessened supply of cattle throughout the world. There does not seem to be any likelihood of beef being imported into this country in important quantities, since an embargo exists against Argentine beef. A few small shipments of live cattle f rom, Canadajiave entered the country. Shipments of live cattle and fresh beef from Canada to the United States were mater- ially increased during 1927. Indications point to an increase in the importations of feeder cattle from Mexico in the near future. From the present outlook abroad, conditions do not warrant an expansion of the cattle industry beyond which the supplies would be forced to seek an outlet abroad. While indications point to some curtailment of supplies in certain other countries, it is entirely prob- able that the world outside of the United States will be in a position to replace these. Furthermore, world prices at present (September, 1928) have not shown as great a tendency to rise as have those in the United States. With the improvement in cattle prices and the relatively low production of 1927, it seems highly probable that the industry is now at the low point of the present production cycle in the United States. Prevailing conditions are similar to those in 1913. These cycles in the past have extended over a period of fourteen to sixteen years. The previous low point in numbers of cattle in the United States was in 1912. b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION The high and low points in numbers of cattle in California have not corresponded with those in the United States. The low point in numbers in California occurred in 1926, or two years earlier than in the country as a whole, the previous low point having been in 1914. From now on it is expected that the trend of production in both the state and nation will be gradually upward for several years to come. The small numbers of cattle in the country coupled with the relatively high prices which have prevailed for several months past are expected to provide a strong incentive for cattlemen to re-stock farms and ranges and to increase their herds. However, the expan- sion of the beef cattle population during the next two or three years may be slow, because stock cattle are high in price and many of the ranges which have been cleared of cattle have been largely occupied by sheep. Cattlemen should attempt to avoid the vicious production cycles which have occurred in the past and they should proceed to increase herds conservatively. While from the long-time viewpoint the cattle situation appears favorable, the California cattlemen, on account of the seasonal demand, should make such increases as can be marketed when the demand is relatively great, as during the late fall and winter months. The population of the nation and state is increasing. At the present time the nation is practically self-sufficient in its beef supply and there is not room for as proportionately great expansion in the industry as there has been at times in the past. History indicates that as countries grow older and the urban population increases, the per-capita consumption of meat decreases. The established cattleman in California with suitable production facilities ought to be in an especially favorable position to increase his production slightly. It is not sound for novices to enter the business at the high prices now prevailing. During periods of remunerative prices there is always the tempetation to overstock. On account of the serious depression through which the industry has passed since the War the cattlemen should be urged to put their businesses on a sound financial footing. It is highly probable that cattle prices will remain on fairly high levels until 1930 or 1931, and if history repeats itself, prices will then go lower. BuL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY United States. — Cattle were first brought to the new world by the Spanish in the sixteenth century and by the settlers on the eastern shores of the present United States in the seventeenth. The movement of cattle from the more thickly settled to the sparsely inhabited sec- tions of the country began in early colonial days. Stock raising in every one of the colonies was primarily a frontier activity, and in colonial times this frontier had moved from the coast, until in the middle of the seventeenth century it was at the head of river naviga- tion, or the "fall" line. 3 This frontier at the time of the Revolution included the back country of New England, the Mohawk Valley in New York, the Monongahela Valley of Pennsylvania, the Shenandoah Valley and the Piedmont region of Virginia and the Carolinas. After the Revolution, migration of cattle to the Ohio Valley took place on a large scale with a resulting shift in the center of beef pro- duction. With the building of canals and railroads cattle moved west- ward until in 1840 the center of the cattle population was about fifty miles north of Charleston, West Virginia. In the period before the Civil War, cattle began to move in large numbers into Texas and the states west of the Mississippi (table 1, p. 8), including California, although large numbers were already in the latter state before the American occupation in 1848. By 1860 the center of beef production had moved to a point in western Kentucky. The development of the range cattle industry on the Great Plains from 1870-1885 forms an important epoch in the cattle history of the nation (table 2, p. 8). By 1880 the Dakotas and the mountain and intermountain states were but sparsely stocked with cattle, but by 1894 nearly all of the western territory was occupied and stocked close to its capacity. In 1900 the center of beef production had moved westward to a point in eastern Kansas. Since 1900 the mountain and Pacific states have tended to increase the relative number of all cattle within their borders, while the other sections of the country have either kept the same relative positions or have experienced relative declines. This is more noticeable when an attempt is made to differentiate between dairy cattle and all other cattle. By 1920 the center of beef production had shifted to a point in western Kansas. 3 Clemen, R. A. The American livestock and meat industry. 872 p., 36 fig. The Eonald Press Co., New York, 1923. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 1 Cattle on Farms — Number of all Cattle, United States, 1850-1925 (Thousands, i.e., 000 omitted.) Division and state 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1925 17,779 25,620 23,821 39,676 57,649 67,719 61,804 66,653 60,760 Geographic divisions: North Atlantic states North central states South Atlantic states South central states 4,712 4,373 4,180 4,163 350 5,204 7,249 3,951 7,724 1,491 4,946 8,355 2,939 6,520 1,061 37 10 11 71 58 5 39 32 47 120 631 5,797 15,834 3,952 9,716 4,377 428 191 521 791 348 136 133 217 198 598 815 5,462 24,601 3,890 14,500 9,195 1,443 219 934 1,167 1,632 928 278 211 255 521 1,608 6,340 30,621 4,432 17,871 8,456 968 364 687 1,433 992 743 344 385 395 700 1,445 5,569 27,467 4,839 14,664 9,265 943 454 767 1,128 1,082 825 412 450 402 725 2,077 5,190 31,071 4,703 14,658 11,031 1,269 715 875 1,757 1,300 822 506 356 573 851 2,008 4,428 28,861 4,135 12,646 10,690 1,322 606 783 1,436 33 89 1,267 1,069 Utah 13 34 5 28 154 1,180 504 419 582 42 263 784 1,918 Note. — Data for 1925 and 1920 relate to January 1; for 1910, to April 15; and for earlier years, to June 1 • Figures for censuses prior to 1900 were nominally exclusive of calves. Sources of data: 1850-1920. Dept. Commerce, Bur. Census. Cattle on farms— number of all cattle. Fourteenth Census. U. S. 5: 572. 1922. 1925— Dept. Commerce Bur. Census, Livestock on farms, Dept. Commerce, Bur. Census. United States Census of Agriculture: Summary Statistics by States, 1925: 28-37. 1927. TABLE 2 Percentage Distribution of all Cattle on Farms, United States, 1850-1925 Division and state 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1925 North Atlantic states 26.50 24.60 23.51 23.42 1.97 20.31 28.29 15.42 30.15 5.82 20.76 35.07 12.34 27.37 4.45 0.16 04 0.05 30 24 02 .16 0.13 0.20 50 2.65 14.61 39.91 9.96 24.49 11.03 1 08 0.48 1.31 1.99 0.88 34 34 55 50 1.51 2.05 9.47 42.67 6.75 25.15 15.95 2.50 38 1.62 2.02 2.83 1.61 48 0.37 0.44 0.90 2.79 9.36 45.22 6.54 26.39 12.49 1.28 0.54 1.01 2.12 1.46 1.10 0.51 57 0.58 1.03 2 13 9.01 44.44 7.83 23.73 14.99 1.53 0.73 1 24 1.83 1.75 1.33 67 0.73 0.65 1.17 3.36 7.79 46.61 7.06 21.99 16.55 1.90 1.07 1.31 2.64 1.95 1 23 0.76 0.53 0.86 1.28 3.01 7.29 47.50 South Atlantic states 6.81 20.81 17.59 2.18 1.00 1.29 2.36 0.19 0.35 2.09 1.76 Utah 0.07 13 02 11 0.60 4.61 83 0.69 0.96 0.24 1.48 1.29 3.16 Source of data: Computations by authors based upon table 1. BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 9 During the past eight years, 1920-1928, all cattle and calves have decreased. This decrease has been general over the entire nation (table 5, p. 17). From the very beginning of the cattle industry there has been a tendency for it to push westward. Within the past few years this has been the result of a lesser number of beef cattle in the east rather than of an actual increase in the west. With the settlement of the west and the industrial development of the Pacific section of the country it is doubtful whether this western movement can continue. California. — Cattle ranching, the first industry in California, was founded by the Franciscan padres, who brought approximately 200 cattle into the state in 1769 when the mission at San Diego was founded. Cattle raising was fostered at all of the missions and the animals ran unmolested except for the round-ups. The sun-dried hides furnished the leather for clothing and harness, sewing, rope- making and shoes, while the fat went into the making of soap or candles. Meat was a commodity of little or no exchange value out- side of the immediate needs of each community. The government and private individuals owned some cattle, but so few as not greatly to affect the aggregate. In 1778 the mission books show that there were 500 cattle in California, while in 1800 there were 74,000. In 1834, the number of cattle under mission control reached 423,000. 4 This number was perhaps less than that for the previous decade. Between 1820 and 1830 certain authors 5 state that the number of mature cattle possessed by the missions was well above one million. With the secularization of the missions a general slaughter of the cattle for hides took place. The census of 1850 showed returns for slightly over 250,000 cattle. By far the larger number (approximately 80 per cent) of these were reported from the coast counties of Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, and Monterey. From an examination of the incomplete records available it is evident that the period 1850- 1860 was one of phenomenal growth in the cattle industry of Cali- fornia, the greater part of which seems to have occurred during the five years 1855-1860. Cattle began to enter southern California from Texas during the former year. In 1860, the census showed cattle to be fairly well distributed over the state (tables 10 and 11, p. 22), the south coast and the Sacramento 4 Dept. of the Interior. Report on the productions of agriculture. Report on cattle, sheep and swine supplementary to enumeration of livestock on farms in 1880. pp. 74-76. 1883. s Soule, Frank, and John H. Gibon. The annals of San Francisco. 824 p. D. Appleton and Co., New York. 1855. 10 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Valley areas each containing approximately 25 per cent of all the cattle in the state. Southern California, the San Joaquin Valley, and the north coast section followed, each with about 15 per cent of all cattle reported. The mountain section reported only 3 per cent of the cattle in 1860. Estimates point to 1862 as being one of the peak years in the cattle population of California, with 3,000,000 head ranging in the state. In 1864, a severe drought reduced or destroyed great numbers of cattle. The permanent settlement of the state gave prominence to farming, and the pastoral life, which occupied large tracts for cattle and sheep, with a sparsely settled country and comparatively limited production, began to pass away. The census returns for 1870 gave evidence of a great decrease in the total number of cattle, although both the San Joaquin Valley and mountain counties became relatively far more important (table 10, p. 22). Attention should be directed toward errors in using mere numbers of animals in making comparisons (see p. 24). This is perhaps more clearly brought out by comparisons of grass-fed cattle in 1855 and 1880 on California pastures made by the late Henry Miller of the firm of Miller and Lux. 6 Changes have been made in both the method and time of taking the census, which also accounts for a considerable percentage of errors. During the past fifty years there has been no definite or pro- nounced shifting of cattle within the state. Generally speaking, the north and south coast sections and the Sacramento Valley have de- creased in relative importance while the San Joaquin Valley and southern California have gained (table 11, p. 22). A considerable part of the increase in the two latter areas has come about through G Estimated weight of grass-fed cattle in 1855 and in 1880 on California pastures : Age Net weight 1855 pounds Net weight 1880 pounds 250-400 350^00 400-450 450-500 400-500 550-600 600-650 750-800 From Dept. of the Interior Report on cattle, sheep and swine supplementary to enumeration of livestock on farms in 1880. U. S. Dept. Interior, Report on the productions of agriculture, pp. 74-76. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 1883. BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 11 the large accessions made to the dairy-cow population in both of these areas. A very large factor in the reduced numbers of cattle in the north coast section of the state, is that sheep have replaced cattle. Many of the north coast ranges are far better adapted to sheep pro- duction than to cattle production. Originally this was a sheep terri- tory, but the coyotes drove the sheepmen out. More recently the Biological Survey has cleaned up the coyotes and the swing is back to sheep. The relative fluctuations in the mountain counties have been larger than in other sections, but there has not been a pronounced tendency for either an increase or a decrease in relative importance. All Cattle and Calves, Including Milk Cows and Heifers, United States, January 1. 1928 fv. Fig. 1. — In considering the beef supply of the United States, the entire cattle population should be taken into account. The Mississippi Valley states, together with the North Atlantic and New England states, contain a dense cattle popula- tion. When compared with figure 2 it will be seen that the cattle population of the northeastern section of the nation is primarily used for milk production. 1 dot = 20,000 cattle. (Data from table 1, p. 8.) GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE CATTLE POPULATION United States. — On January 1, 1928, the north central states claimed over 46 per cent of the total number of cattle in the United States (fig. 1). While differentiation between cattle used for milk 12 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION purposes and beef is especially difficult to make in this area, estimates indicate that this same area contained over 52 per cent of the milk cows of the country. On the addition of the north Atlantic states to this area the percentage of total cattle is raised to over 54 and that of milk cows to nearly 65. Population exerts an influence on this distribution, on account of the economic advantages of producing market milk in proximity to centers of human population (figs. 1 and 2). All Cattle and Calves, not Including Milk Cows and Heifers, United States, January 1, 1928 IT^r-s f Xr—r:- r — . 7 — r~ | i . i . •'^(y i"7" " "y "7"-"1 - ._j — .■••• i •; -—V — I ^ Yi ^4zt , J •"■. .• r" ■ i • • i • ^^s^M^X £4 hrta Fig. 2. — The states west of the Mississippi River contain the larger number of cattle other than milk cows. Compare with figure 1. The states east of the Mississippi contain relatively few cattle used primarily for beef purposes, when compared with the western area. Points on the broken line have the same freight rates for cattle to the San Francisco and Los Angeles markets, on one hand, and to the Kansas City and Omaha markets on the other. 1 dot = 20,000 cattle. (Data calculated by authors from U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets 5(2) : 39— 40. 1928. The number of milk cows and heifers in each state was subtracted from the total number of cattle.) Numerically the south central states are second in importance in the cattle population (fig. 3). In this area by far the greater number of cattle is found in the two states of Texas and Oklahoma. Scattered over the eleven western states is approximately one-sixth of the cattle population of the country. The number of milk cows in this section is increasing rapidly, and on January 1, 1928 it contained approximately 9 per cent of the total milk cows in the nation. BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 13 Number of Cattle in the United States by Geographic Divisions M////ot7 Head | January 1920 ^ January /?28 fe h ■P ■3 ^ fe H Nortri At/anitc\ Nor Cen fh fret Sou try A1/on1/c Sou 1/7 Cenlra/ \Western JO 20 Af /ept. Agr., Sacramento, Calif.) BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 15 California. — The San Joaquin Valley contains approximately one- third of the cattle of the state (fig. 4). While cattle production is of first importance in the northern and eastern mountain counties they contain only about 10 per cent of the total number of cattle in the state. On account of the movement of cattle during the year the cattle population of these counties necessarily varies. Almost equal numbers are found in the southern part of California, south coast counties, Sacramento Valley, and north coast counties. TABLE 4 Percentage of Farms in California Eeporting Beef Cattle and Cows Milked, 1925 Subdivision Per cent of farms reporting beef cattle Per cent of farms reporting cows milked 10 .8 14 11 2 18.4 8 1 5.2 49.4 48 1 63.5 43 2 Sacramento Valley counties ... San Joaquin Valley counties.... Southern California counties.. Mountain counties 53.0 55.9 31 .9 72.7 Source of data: Computations by authors on basis of 1925 Farm Census. \ TREND IN CATTLE RAISING Numbers of Cattle in the United States. — Until comparatively recent times cattle of the beef and dairy breeds were not clearly differ- entiated, and thousands of the former are still used as milk cows. Furthermore, census data in the past have distinguished between "dairy cattle" or "milk cows" and "other cattle." Just how much dependence can be placed on "other cattle" as a measure of beef cattle is not known. 7 "Other cattle" includes that portion of the dairy population not actually producing milk at the time the census figures were collected. Hence dairy bulls, dry cows, young heifers, and steers, of dairy blood would be included in the list of "other cattle," while under the term "milk cows" were included many cows of beef breeding. Further complications arise from the fact that the dates of the census enumeration are not the same for each census year. In addition, the beef animal of today is far more highly developed 7 Wentworth, Edward W. The changes in the center of beef production. Armour and Co's Monthly Letter to Animal Husbandmen. 2 pp. Nov. 1, 1921. 16 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION than formerly (p. 24). It is, therefore, not strictly accurate to make comparisons of numbers of ''other cattle" over a period of years as has often been done. Even though the basic figures of cattle population were dependable in themselves, they are inadequate for the purpose of determining the trend of production. They are only annual inventory figures, and these without any allowances for changes in turnover when there has been a great change are very apt to lead to erroneous conclusions. Total Number of Cattle, 1900-1928, and Number, of Cattle Other than Milk Cows, 1920-1928, United States Millions of Cotf/e At/ Cattle y. \ , N Cattle other thonMIMCows «2 -" **■*> V \ '>.^ X CIL_ Yig. 5. — The statement is commonly made that the production cycle of cattle in the United States is from 14 to 16 years in length. From revised cattle- populations statistics it will be noted in the above figure that there is only one production cycle. The period between the peak years, 1904-1918, is 14 years. Undoubtedly 1928 will be found to be a low point, and if this is the case the period between the low points 1912-1928 is 16 years. From 1928 onward for a few years probabilities are that the cattle population will increase. Compare with cycles of value (fig. 20, p. 68). It should be noted that the number of cattle other than milk cows has decreased more rapidly since 1920 than the total number of cattle. Revised data ha#e been furnished to the authors by the U. S. Dept. Agr. They are believed to be substantially accurate, but publication is not yet authorized. (Data from table 5 and from calculations made by authors.) While the census data are valuable in showing changes of a most general nature, it is difficult if not impossible to obtain from them information relative to trends and cycles of the cattle population. Estimates of the year to year changes based upon census data have been made by the United States Department of Agriculture 8 (table 5). s Roberts, John. Food animals and meat consumption in the United States. U. S. Dept. Agr. Cir. 241: 1-22. 1926. Later revision of data sent to author from John Roberts, Oct. 14, 1927. BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 17 TABLE 5 Estimated Number of all Cattle and Calves on Farms and Ranges, United States, January 1, 1920-1928 (Thousands, i.e., 000 omitted.) Division and state United States ... North Atlantic North central... South Atlantic South central ... Western Montana Idaho Wyoming .... Colorado New Mexico Arizona Utah Nevada Washington. Oregon California 1920 68,871 5,190 31,111 4,978 15,426 12,166 1,370 715 950 1,757 1,700 1,150 556 456 613 891 2,008 1921 67,184 5,079 29,976 4,907 15,419 11,803 1,269 675 859 1,683 1,800 1,135 535 436 583 828 2,000 1922 67,264 5,054 29,836 4,744 15,546 12,084 1,380 685 898 1,680 1,900 1,090 525 445 587 846 2,048 1923 66,156 4,923 29,991 4,615 14,938 11,689 1,360 685 881 1,614 1,500 1,138 550 460 587 834 2,080 1924 64,507 4,709 30,128 4,432 13,820 11,418 1,360 705 825 1,540 1,350 1,116 540 440 586 814 2,142 1925 61,996 4,475 29,207 4,217 13,266 10,831 1,340 650 795 1,465 1,290 1,069 507 419 582 796 1,918 1926 59,122 4,396 28,260 3,895 12,368 10,203 1,280 624 787 1,377 1,213 863 482 385 558 716 1,918 1927 56,872 4,363 26,490 3,746 12,432 9,835 1,152 605 771 1,418 1,189 705 472 350 530 687 1,956 1928 55,696 4,471 25,738 3,801 12,275 9,411 1,117 588 764 1,317 1,070 546 472 343 519 680 1,995 Sources of data: 1920-1924, U. S. Dept. Agr. All cattle and calves, U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets 3: 38. 1926. 1925-1927, U. S. Dept. Agr. All cattle and calves. U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets 4: 42. 1927. 1928, ibid 5: 39. 1928. TABLE 6 Percentage Distribution of all Cattle and Calves on Farms and Ranges, United States, 1920-1928 Division and state 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 North Atlantic states. North central states... South Atlantic states South central states... Western states Montana Idaho Wyoming Colorado New Mexico Arizona Utah Nevada Washington Oregon California 7.54 45.17 7.23 22.40 17.66 1.99 1 04 1.38 2 55 2.47 1.67 81 66 0.89 1.29 2.92 7.56 44.62 7.30 22.95 17.57 1 89 1 00 1 28 2 51 2.68 169 0.80 0.66 0.87 1 23 2.98 7.51 44.36 7 05 23.11 17.97 2 05 1.02 1.34 2 50 2.82 1.62 0.78 66 0.87 1 26 3.04 7.44 45.33 6.98 22.58 17.67 2.06 1.04 1.33 2 44 2 27 1.72 0.83 70 0.89 1 26 3.14 7.30 46.71 6.87 21.42 17.70 2 11 1 09 1 28 2.39 2 09 1 73 0.84 0.68 0.91 1 26 3 32 7.22 47.11 6.80 21.40 17.47 2.16 1 05 1 28 2.36 2 08 1.72 0.82 0.68 0.94 1.28 3.09 7.44 47.79 6 60 20.92 17.25 2.16 1 06 1.33 2.33 2.05 1.46 82 0.65 0.94 1.21 3.24 7.68 46.57 6.59 21.86 17.30 2 03 1 06 1.36 2.49 2 09 1 24 0.83 62 93 1 21 3.44 8.04 46.20 6.83 22.03 16.90 2.01 1.06 1 37 2.36 1.92 0.98 85 62 0.93 1.22 3.58 Source of data: Computations by authors based upon table 5. 18 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Recently the Bureau of Agricultural Economics has tentatively revised all previous yearly estimates. These data are plotted in figure 5. While the exact data have not yet been made public, the trend as depicted is probably more accurate than that which can be obtained from available statistics. The plotted data represent "all cattle," as difficulties are encountered in endeavoring to separate beef and dairy animals. TABLE 7 Estimated Number of Cattle and Calves on Farms and Ranges, Minus the Estimated Number of Cows and Heifers Over One Year Kept for Milk Purposes, United States, 1920-1928 (Thousands, i.e., 000 omitted.) Division and state United States North Atlantic states... North central states South Atlantic states- South central states Western states Montana Idaho Wyoming Colorado New Mexico Arizona Utah Nevada Washington Oregon California 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 43,026 1,203 18,185 2,880 10,612 10,146 1,192 569 885 1,511 1,630 1,106 469 439 315 651 1,379 41,621 1,188 17,072 2,820 10,765 9,776 1,088 526 791 1,443 1,724 1,099 449 418 280 590 1,368 41,453 1,222 16,697 2,656 10,884 9,994 1,195 526 828 1,430 1,819 1,048 434 425 281 610 1,398 39,946 1,059 16,629 2,516 10,247 9,495 1,168 520 806 1,364 1,422 1,093 454 439 266 586 1,377 38,115 958 16,555 2,347 9,142 9,113 1,151 525 748 1,281 1,277 1,069 437 417 261 551 1,396 35,320 810 15,226 2,180 8,621 8,483 1,117 452 715 1,193 1,215 1,022 399 394 242 527 1,207 33,011 833 14,430 1,933 7,968 7,847 1,053 423 703 1,106 1,136 823 373 359 228 458 1,185 31,006 868 12,933 1,801 7,943 7,461 936 397 687 1,130 1,111 660 362 324 202 429 1,223 29,573 910 12,182 1,790 7,669 7,022 908 375 677 1,025 991 502 357 317 194 420 1,256 Sources of data: Computations by authors based upon the following: 1920-1924, U. S. Dept. Agr. All cattle and calves, U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets 3: 38. 1926. 1925-1927, U. S. Dept. Agr. All cattle and calves, U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets 4: 42. 1927, 1928, ibid. 5: 39-40. 1928. From the evidence presented, the actual numbers of all cattle on hand increased at a rapid and regular rate from the close of the Civil War until 1894. The rate of growth was apparently equal to that of the human population. Since the latter date the human population has grown far more rapidly than that of cattle (fig. 7). That these data are clearly not an index of output can be seen with reference to the increased productivity of American cattle herds (p. 24). In considering output attention should also be given to exports (p. 106). Although a strict differentiation into beef and dairy cattle is impossible, such estimates as have been made point to the greater relative and actual increase of cattle kept for dairy purposes as com- pared with those set apart for beef. While it is probable that for a few years during the war the latter exceeded the former, the reverse BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 19 situation has been in effect during the past five years. There can be but little doubt that since 1920 the number of strictly beef animals has declined while those kept for dairy purposes have increased slightly. TABLE 8 Percentage of the Estimated Number of Cattle and Calves on Farms and Banges Minus the Estimated Number of Cows and Heifers Over One Year Kept for Milk Purposes, United States, 1920-1928 Division and state North Atlantic states North central states ... South Atlantic states South central states ... Western states Montana Idaho Wyoming Colorado New Mexico Arizona Utah Nevada Washington Oregon California 1920 2.80 42.27 6.69 24.66 23.58 2.77 1.32 2.06 3.51 3.79 2.57 1.09 1.02 0.73 1.51 3.21 1921 1922 2.95 40.28 6.41 26.26 24.11 2.88 1.27 2 00 3.45 4.39 2.53 1 05 1.03 0.68 1.47 3.37 1923 1924 2.51 43.43 6.16 23.99 23.91 3.02 1.38 1.96 3.36 3 35 2.80 1.15 1.09 0.68 1.45 3.66 1925 2.29 43.11 6.17 24.41 24.02 3.16 1.28 2.02 3.38 3.44 2.89 1.13 1 12 0.69 1.49 3.42 1926 2.52 43.71 5.86 24.14 23.77 3.19 1.28 2.13 3.35 3.44 2.49 1.13 1.09 69 1.39 3.59 1927 2.80 41.71 5.81 25.62 24.06 3.02 1.28 2.22 3.64 3.58 2.13 1 .17 1 05 0.65 1.38 3.94 1928 3 08 41.19 6 05 25.93 23.75 3.07 1 27 2.29 3.47 3.35 1.70 1 21 1.07 0.66 1.42 4.24 Source of data: Computations by authors based upon table 7. Total Number of Cattle, 1910-1928, and Number of Cattle Other Than Milk Cows. 1920-1928, California Mil '/ions of Cattle Z.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 l.Z 1.0 f rAlf 7ott le ^ x^ S* 5"~" ^ ^ N <* Other Cottle than Mi tk Cow J \ • MM . ^ 1 I 1 1 r~ r 1 1910 1915 1920 1925 Fig. 6. — From the present evidence the movements in the cattle population of California do not correspond with those in the United States. The cattle popula- tion in California has shown less tendency to decrease than that in the nation. During 1926 and 1927 an actual increase is recorded. Since 1920, the cattle other than milk cows have decreased more rapidly than all cattle. (Data from table 9.) 20 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Cattle Population of California. — Comparable data for the num- ber of cattle in California previous to 1910 are not available. Census data would indicate that the cattle industry of the state has more than held its relative place in the industry of the country as a whole during the past seventy-five years. Since 1910 the number of all cattle in the state has been remarkably stationary with the exception of the three years 1917, 1918, and 1924 (fig. 6). A considerable drop occurred during the latter year, owing no doubt to the prevalence of the foot and mouth disease. With the increase in the number of milk cows in the state there has unquestionably been a reduction in the number of animals kept for strictly beef purposes. Since 1920 estimates of milk cows have been made. The number of cattle other than milk cows shows a dis- tinct decline since the latter date (tables 7 and 8). While data over such brief periods of time do not take account of cyclical movements, nevertheless they give an opportunity to stockmen and others to observe current changes. Data on the consumption of beef (p. 63) and dairy products 9 would partially confirm the belief that cattle of the dairy breeds have been becoming proportionately more numerous than those of the beef breeds. The question relative to the quality of beef produced is naturally raised in connection with this movement (see p. 45). Data are available giving evidence of the poor quality of beef from dairy cattle as compared with that from animals of the beef breeds. Cycles in Cattle Production. — Conclusions relative to the trend of the cattle population are drawn erroneously at times, owing to the failure to take into account cyclical movements, which we know have been fairly definite in the past. Revised data on the cattle popula- tion since 1900 (fig. 5) show only one well-defined cycle, although from a study of the cycles in purchasing power of cattle (fig. 20) and from a study of cattle receipts on the Chicago market, cycles in numbers of animals have existed for a long period of time. From all of the available evidence the cattle cycle seems to cover a period of from 14 to 16 years. With improved methods of management and feeding and the consequent placing of cattle on the market at an earlier age, this period may in the future be shortened. From 1900 to 1904, there was a distinct upward movement in cattle population. This latter date agrees closely with that for the low point in values. From 1904 to 1912 a downward movement in 9 Voorhies, Edwin C. Economic aspects of the dairy industry. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 437: 64-72. 1927. BuL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OP THE BEEP CATTLE INDUSTRY 21 E numbers is perceptible, which was followed by a rise reaching a high point in 1918. Since the latter date there has been a distinct down- ward trend. If it were possible to eliminate all but strictly beef animals these movements would be even more pronounced. The high point in values did not occur until 1915 (fig. 20). Comparatively high inventories of cattle for five years, 1918-1922, forced values to low points, the low point apparently having been reached on January 1, 1925. Since the latter date valuations have been going up while numbers have been moving in the opposite direction. At present the trend in cattle numbers has started to rise, and if history repeats itself this upward trend should continue for a few years. (Compare with data relative to cycles in the purchasing power of beef cattle, p. 67, and fig. 20, p. 68). TABLE 9 Number of all Cattle in California, January 1, 1910-1928; Milk Cows and Other Cattle, January 1, 1920-1928 (Thousands, i.e., 000 omitted.) All All Dairy Other Year cattle Year cattle cattle cattle 1910 2,077 1920 2,008 515 1,493 1911 2,025 1921 2,000 530 1,470 1912 2,030 1922 2,048 550 1,498 1913 1,965 1923 2,080 580 1,500 1914 1,940 1924 2,142 595 1,547 1915 2,037 1925 1,918 579 1,339 1916 2,098 1926 1,918 596 1,322 1917 2,156 1927 1,956 596 1,360 1918 2,171 1928 1,995 602 1,393 1919 2 083 Source of data: 1910-1927 given to authors by E. E. Kaufman, State Statistician, State Dept. of Agriculture, Sacramento, Calif., Oct. 11, 1927. 1928, U. S. Dept. of Agr. Crops and Markets 5: 39^0. 1928. Information for California is not available on numbers of cattle for a sufficiently long period of time to draw conclusions with refer- ence to cycles in cattle population in the state. The number of cattle in the state is small compared with the total in the nation and indica- tions are that during the past few years it has not followed the num- ber in the nation very closely. Prevention of Cyclical Movements. — Efforts to avoid the vicious influences of cycles in economic life have long occupied the attention of economists, statesmen, and others. In many of the agricultural industries control over production is difficult to accomplish on account of the large number of individual producers and on account of the dependence of agricultural production on the forces of nature. Some 22 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION of the extreme movements in the cattle industry in the past might have been averted if producers had been informed of conditions in the industry and if they had acted accordingly. High prices tend to bring on increases in herds while low prices act in the opposite direc- tion. If by the use of widespread and accurate statistical information, cattlemen could learn to exercise the utmost caution in either increas- ing or decreasing herds, favorable results would accrue. At the present time with favorable prices comes the danger of over-enthusiasm for increases in herds. The line of growth of the dairy cow popula- tion of the country is indicative of the manner in which the cattle population might increase or decrease without bringing on extremes in production. It is true that high labor requirements have had a share in keeping dairy cattle numbers in line with the human popula- tion. Furthermore, many milk cows may be used for either beef or milk. TABLE 10 Percentage Distribution op all Cattle in California, 1860-1925 Section 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1925 13.27 25.57 26.79 15 15 15.93 3.29 16.30 19.98 20.86 24.35 9.05 9.45 18.92 20 65 16 18 23.20 7.03 14.03 15 75 23.61 14.84 22.92 11.69 11.18 14.88 16.07 13.68 28.66 12.68 13.90 10.30 17.91 13.22 35.65 14.09 8.83 11.19 16 19 15.17 34.03 14 05 9.38 12 17 14.55 14 44 San Joaquin Valley 32.68 15 99 Mountain 10.17 Source of data: Computations by authors based upon census returns. Percentage Distribution of TABLE 11 Other Cattle"* in California, 1860-1925 Section 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1925 11 71 26.13 25.96 14.75 18.30 3 15 11 97 18.22 19.63 29.04 10.73 10.43 13 13 18.09 15 51 29.30 6.75 17.22 13.18 22 51 14 41 25.64 11.71 12.55 11.33 14.85 13.49 32.15 12.05 15.96 8.26 17.71 13 02 37.28 13.91 9.82 8.81 16.27 16.11 33.88 13.62 11.31 10 17 14.32 15.93 San Joaquin Valley Southern California Mountain 32.22 14 29 13 07 * Other cattle = total cattle minus dairy cows. Source of data: Computations^by authorsbased upon census returns. Those contemplating the building of a cattle enterprise and those already in the business should realize that if the same cyclical move- ments continue in the future as have existed in the past it will be absolutely necessary for cattlemen during the favorable price years to accumulate a sufficient surplus to carry over the lean years which BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 23 will perhaps come. This fact should be impressed on the consumer, who is oftentimes led to believe that the producer of livestock is piling up great wealth when wholesale prices take a perceptible advance. At this time every effort should be utilized to place the cattle business on a sound basis. During favorable years the cattleman should see to it that his fences are put in good repair, his corrals and chutes are properly constructed and in good repair, his water adequately de- veloped, and generally speaking, all of his equipment requiring cash outlay is in Al condition. Changes in the Proportion of Beef and Dairy Stock. — Accompany- ing the decrease in all cattle and calves over the past eight years has been an actual increase in the numbers of milk cows and of heifers being retained for milk cows. On January 1, 1920, the ratio of the combined number of milk cows and heifers to the total cattle in the country was 37.6 per cent and seven years later it was 45.0 per cent. In the eleven western states corresponding data were 16.6 per cent and 23.9 per cent, and for California they were 31.3 per cent and 37.5 per cent. The data in tables 5 and 7 bring out the contrasting trends in beef production and in dairy production in the United States, the western states, and in California. While it is not possible to make a definite segregation between the numbers of beef and dairy types of cattle, the steady increase in milk stock as against the decreases in total cattle and calves indicate that stock used exclusively for beef purposes has decreased in the eleven western states in the past eight years (table 7). In addition to milk cows and dairy heifers over one year old, there are a large number of dairy heifer and bull calves kept on farms. Thus the total number of animals being kept incident to milk produc- tion exceeds the number represented by cows and heifers over one year old. More than one-third of the cattle and calves slaughtered in the western states originate on dairy farms and from milk stock on general farms, but a large number of these are slaughtered on farms and locally. 10 While it is true that many of these animals are of beef and not dairy stock, the dairy improvement campaign con- ducted by the Agricultural Extension Divisions in the eleven western states has undoubtedly served in making for a larger percentage of dairy blood in the animals being utilized for milk production. 11 io Scott, G. A. Cattle in the seventeen western range states. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. mimeographed report issued from Salt Lake City Office, May 24, 1927. ii Voorhies, Edwin C. Economic aspects of the dairy industry. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 437: 1-192. 1927. 24 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION The diminishing supplies of strictly beef-type animals against the increasing supplies of slaughter stock from dairy herds, would seem to suggest that beef-cattle producers should be given an opportunity of disposing of well-finished beef at a higher premium over common beef than formerly. The situation raises problems in connection with the retailing of meat which are being partially solved (p. 45). Per-Capita Cattle Population (Including Calves), and Per-Capita Slaughter op Cattle and of Calves, United States, 1900-1927 J9/J A/umber of Coft/e pe r C opitc no 70 60 f 'tv- - Cop /to Cor f/f Poo J.'at on SO ^^ ^ -Pe r-Cc ip/fe J/o jqh '(?/- C ■>fCc yftle ■«=> =f= — . , .— — o P 9r-i "a pi 'to S/aug hie/ A — 1 of Co/ves /92S 1927 Fig. 7. — During the period 1900-1927, the number of cattle (including calves) per capita in the United States decreased approximately 18 per cent, while the per-capita slaughter of cattle decreased 10 per cent and the number of calves slaughtered per capita increased by almost 30 per cent. Compare with the per- capita consumption of beef and veal (fig. 19). (Data calculated by authors.) Increasing Productivity of Cattle. — Comparisons between num- bers of livestock are not always reliable indices for comparisons of product output. Such comparisons leave out of account the efficiency of the animals concerned. Improved methods of breeding and liver stock management have unquestionably had a share in increasing the productivity of the beef herds of this country. The discrepancy between increases in numbers and actual production has been pointed out in a recent study of the dairy industry. 12 Although many factors 12 Voorhies, Edwin C. Economic aspects of the dairy industry. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 437: 1-192. figs. 1-44. 1927. BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE. INDUSTRY 25 complicate the local situation in California, indications point to an increased output per animal in this state. The number of cattle per capita in the United States dropped from 0.718 head in 1900 to 0.589 head in 1927, a decrease of 0.129 head per capita, or 18.06 per cent (fig. 7). These values are calculated from the trend 13 of the per-capita cattle population. Comparisons between actual data for the two years in question show a decrease of over 37 per cent. The strictly beef cattle population has decreased rather rapidly, although the number of cows used for milk purposes has actually increased during this period. 14 The per-capita cattle slaughter has during the same period dropped from 0.142 to 0.127 head 15 per person, or 10.5 per cent, while calf slaughter has actually increased from 0.057 to 0.074 head per capita, 10 or 30.1 per cent. This again indicates a decrease in the per-capita consumption of beef, which in 1900 was 67.8 pounds, while in 1927 it was 58.0 pounds. This decrease, 11.7 per cent (trend values), which is less than the reduction in total cattle slaughter, can be accounted for in part by the increased efficiency of the animals. Lighter Weights. — Since 1893, at Chicago, there has been a distinct trend toward lighter weights for cattle. This movement has been relatively greater than in the case of any other class of livestock, being reflected in the weight of cattle slaughtered on the Pacific Coast, as will be seen from table 13. Calf Crop. — Wentworth and Clemen 17 state there has been a de- cided improvement in the number of births per thousand cattle in the United States since 1907 (table 12). The question of the number of births per thousand cattle is important in many sections of Cali- fornia and little information is available on this point in this state. 18 13 Equation of the line of trend of the per-capita beef cattle population in the United States 1900-1927 is y — 0.6534 — 0.0046a;, origin July 1, 1914. i* Voorhies, Edwin C. Economic aspects of the dairy industry. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 437: 14-15. 1927. 15 Equation of the line of trend of the per-capita slaughter of cattle in the United States, 1900-1927, is y = 0.1341 — 0.0005a;, origin July 1, 1914. is Equation of the line of trend of the per-capita slaughter of calves in the United States, 1900-1927, is y = 0.06548 + 0.0006a;, origin July 1, 1914. i" Wentworth, Edward N., and Rudolf A. Clemen. Increasing productivity of American livestock herds. Armour's Livestock Bureau. Monthly Letter to Animal Husbandman 8(2): 1-4. 1927. is Hart, G. H., and H. R. Guilbert. Factors influencing percentage calf crop in range herds. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 458:1-42. figs. 1-3. 1928. 26 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION In studies conducted by governmental and state agencies wide variations in the cost of producing beef have been traced to a number of factors, the most important of which has been the per cent of calf crop. 19 The claim has been made by those familiar with the economic phases of beef cattle management that the percentage calf crop should reach 80. In the studies made thus far indications are that the average calf crop in the western states studied runs below 70 per cent. TABLE 12 Estimated Number of Births per Thousand Cattle, United States, 1907-1926 Year Number Year Number Year Number Year Number 1907 253 1912 273 1917 364 1922 287 1908 268 1913 295 1918 361 1923 328 1909 267 1914 307 1919 334 1924 350 1910 303 1915 325 1920 304 1925 324 1911 275 1916 329 1921 302 1926 374 Source of data: Wentworth, Edward N., and Rudolf A.Clemen. Increasing productivity of Amer- ican livestock herds. Armour's Livestock Bureau. Monthly Letter to Animal Husbandmen 8 (2) : 1-4. 1927. Some few returns on the percentage calf crop indicate that wide vari- ations exist here as elsewhere. While certain factors of management such as an insufficient number of bulls, cows in poor conditions, etc., have an important influence on the calf crop, there appear to be other equally important factors which have not been studied thoroughly. It has been found 20 that certain large areas in Nevada report larger calf crops than other parts of the state. Investigations 21 made in is Brennen, C. A., and Grant H. Smith, Jr. Preliminary report on a study of cattle production costs in Nevada. Nevada Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. Ill: 1-14. 1928. 20 Hilts, Walter H. A study of the 1924 calf crop in Nevada. Nevada Agr. Exp. Sta. Cir. 57: 1-10. 1925. 2i Klemmedson, G. S. An economic study of the costs and methods of range cattle production on forty-one ranches in Colorado in 1922. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bud. Agr. Ecoh., U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Animallndustry, and Colorado Agr. Exp. Sta. cooperating. Preliminary mimeographed report. Washington, D. C. April 1, 1924. Parr, V. V., and G. S. Klemmedson. An economic study of the costs and methods of range-cattle production in the northeastern range area of Texas, 1920, 1921, 1922. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. and U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Animal Industry. Preliminary mimeographed report. Washington, D. C. April 1, 1924. Parr, V. V., and G. S. Klemmedson. An economic study of the costs and methods of range cattle production in north central Texas. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. and U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Animal Industry. Preliminary mimeo- graphed report, Washington, D. C. May 1, 1925. BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 27 other parts of the west have also pointed to considerable variation within the area studied. The type of forage and to an appreciable extent the degree of over-grazing as well as other managerial activites are chiefly responsible for the regional variation in calf production. The percentage calf crop is so vital to the economic success or failure of the beef industry in this state that it should be studied carefully, although such work would have to be pursued over a long period of time to be of value. California cattlemen would benefit from whatever cooperation they might choose to give the College of Agriculture of the University of California in carrying on such investigations. TABLE 13 Average Weight of all Cattle Slaughtered on the Pacific Coast (Calves Excluded) Year Weight in pounds Year Weight in pounds 1 2 3 4 1899 1,054 1920 1,003 1904 1,037 1921 1,057 1909 1,043 1922 986 1914 1,024 1923 996 1919 979 1924 957 1921 1,013 1925 976 1923 1,024 1926 985 Sources of data: The data for 1899, 1904, 1909, 1914, 1919, 1921, 1923 (columns 1 and 2) are from the census bureau, while the remaining data (columns 3 and 4) are from: Bur. Agr. Econ. Review o Jlivestock market for week ending Dec. 31, 1926 (mimeographed). Bur. Agr. Econ., San Francisco office. Seasonal Variation in Birth Rate, United States. — Cattle births are apparently more uniform throughout the year than either those of sheep or swine. Roberts 22 in a recent study of the seasonal distri- bution of cattle births reports that over 70 per cent of the calves are born during the first six months of the year, April claiming the largest number. An above-normal number of calves are born in March, April and May; September and October also are above normal although to a lesser degree. On many ranches the importance of procuring animals of uniform age and quality should be stressed. Often there is a wide variation in the age of calves on a single ranch. 22 Roberts, John. Food animals and meat consumption. Cir. 241: 7. 1924. U. S. Dept. Agr. 28 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Location of Purebred Beef Cattle Breeders, California, 1927 O Aberdeen A nous x Sftorf/jorn * ffed Po/Zed • Hereford Fig. 8. — The larger number of breeders of purebred beef cattle are located in the northern third of the state. While there are a considerable number in other sections, the feeding rather than the breeding of cattle becomes more im- portant in moving southward. (Data secured from Division of Animal Husbandry, University Farm, Davis, Calif.) BuL. 461 J ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 29 PUREBRED BEEF CATTLE X umber of Purebreds. — An enumeration of purebred cattle in 1920 indicated that approximately 3 per cent of all the beef cattle were purebred, almost the same proportion as for dairy cattle. In numbers, Shorthorns and Herefords were the leading beef breeds, representing more than four-fifths of all the pure-bred beef cattle reported — Shorthorns, 45.0 per cent ; Herefords 38.1 per cent ; Aber- deen Angus 10.2 per cent. TABLE 14 Registrations of Purebred Hereford, Aberdeen Angus, and Shorthorn Cattle in California Year Hereford Aberdeen Angus Short- horn 1911 478 493 531 755 911 1,186 1,405 1,850 1,937 2,050 2,000 2,168 2,080 1,792 1,588 1,777 17 1912 1913 18 7 17 37 37 39 3 73 54 50 65 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1,129 895 841 1925 1926 116 917 937 Source of data: Hereford, R. J. Kinzer, Secretary, American Hereford Cattle Breeders Association. Aberdeen Angus, W. H. Tomhave, Secretary, American Aberdeen Angus Breeders Association. Short- horn, P. K. Groves, Secretary, American Shorthorn Breeders Association. California contained approximately 1.24 per cent of the purebred beef animals in the country — 1.28 per cent of the Shorthorns, 1.29 per cent of the Herefords, and 1.09 per cent of Aberdeen Angus cattle. A relatively larger number of both Shorthorns and Herefords in proportion to the total purebreds were enumerated in California than in the nation. Accurate data on purebred animals recorded from California over a long period of years are not available. Data from both the Ameri- can Aberdeen Angus Association and the American Hereford Cattle Breeders Association give evidence of a greatly increased number of registrations during the post-war period. It is of interest to note that 30 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION registrations of Heref ords continued to increase even after the depres- sion had set in. Shorthorn data are available since 1922 only. In the United States the trend in the registration of purebreds was downward from 1913 to 1926 (inclusive). Location of Purebred Breeders in California. — The Animal Hus- bandry Division of the University of California has compiled a list of the breeders of purebred beef animals. The largest number is found in the northern third of the state, with a considerable concen- tration in Sacramento, Yolo, and Solano counties, the University Farm at Davis being the hub (fig. 8). The coast counties north of Mendo- cino and Lake counties, the Sacramento Valley north of Glenn and Butte, and the Sierra section north of El Dorado County, are rela- tively most important for breeding. Few feeders are shipped into this section, the number increasing toward the south (see p. 37). Breeders of purebred Shorthorns are most numerous, followed by those of Herefords and Aberdeen Angus. This grouping corresponds to the numbers of purebred animals recorded by the 1920 census in both the United States and California. TABLE 15 Number of Breeders of Purebred Beef Cattle in California, by Sections, 1927 Section Aberdeen Angus Here- ford Red Polled Short- horn 1 2 3 2 3 1 5 21 15 13 6 7 1 7 1 2 1 23 20 Sacramento Valley San Joaquin Valley Southern California 59 21 20 31 12 67 12 174 Source of data: Division of Animal Husbandry, College of Agriculture, University of California. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE BEEF INDUSTRY United States. — According to the agricultural census of 1925 beef cattle were reported on approximately one-third (32.36 per cent) of the farms of the United States. It would be more accurate to give the data for farms with cattle but such information is not available. In 1924 cows were milked on 78.3 per cent of the farms. Cattle raising thus occupies an important place in the agriculture of this country. Bul. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 31 In the middle western and mountain states, the number of cattle is high in comparison with the human population. On the basis of "other cattle" figures are high compared with population in Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, and the mountain states. California has a comparatively small number of either "total cattle" or "other cattle" per human inhabitant. TABLE 16 Estimated Gross Value of Farm Products, United States, 1919-1926 (Millions of dollars, i.e., 000,000 omitted.) Crops Animal products 4 Total crops not fed and animal products 5 Cattle raised 6 Per cent cattle raised is Year Gross 2 Not fed to live- stock 3 Of total animal products 7 Of total products 8 1919 16,561 9,402 8,275 17,677 1,578 19.07 8.93 1920 11,578 7,102 7,709 14,811 1,194 15.49 8 06 1921 7,759 4,679 5,589 10,268 786 14.06 7.65 1922 9,430 5,560 5,651 11,211 975 17.25 8.70 1923 10,401 6,111 6,271 12,382 924 14.73 7.46 1924 10,770 6,317 5,902 12,219 892 15.11 7.30 1925 10,170 6,387 6,647 13,034 919 13.83 7.05 1926 9,266 5,685 7,300 12,985 1,081 14.81 8 32 1927 Sources of data: Cols. 2, 3, 4, 5, U. S. Dept. Agr., Estimated gross value of farm production. U. S. Dept. Agr., Crops and Markets 4: 251, 1927. Col. 6, U. S. Dept. Agr. Farm production, U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook, 1923: 1143-1144. 1924. U. S. Dept. Agr. Estimated gross value of farm production. U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets, 1: 84. 1924; ibid, 3: 226, 1926; ibid, 4: 251, 1927. Cols. 7 and 8, computations by authors; col. 7 = col. 6 divided by col. 4; col. 8 = col. 6 divided by col. 5. Beef cattle are kept on a larger percentage of farms in the west north central and mountain states than in any of the other sections of the country, while the number of farms in the three Pacific Coast states reporting beef cattle is relatively small. In both the mountain and Pacific Coast states the number of beef cows and steers per farm is large compared with the other sections of the country. Whether there has been a definite tendency toward larger or smaller units in the beef industry cannot be stated accurately. A tendency toward larger units in the dairy industry in California has recently been noted. 23 On the basis of aggregate value, "cattle raised" ranked eighth among farm products of the United States in 1926, being exceeded by the value of dairy products, corn, cotton, swine raised, hay and 23 Voorhies, Edwin C. Economic aspects of the dairy industry. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 437: 1-192. 1927. 32 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION forage, vegetables (including potatoes), and poultry products. The crops not fed to livestock had an estimated farm value of $5,685,- 000,000 while animal products aggregated $7,300,000,000 (table 16). Three major divisions comprised the animal-products group: (1) dairy products, accounting for 40.3 per cent of the animal products' total; (2) animals raised, 42.0 per cent; (3) poultry products, 16.2 per cent. Wool, together with minor products, made up the remain- ing 1.5 per cent. Of the animals raised ($2,672,000,000) swine made up 53.8 per cent of the total, cattle 34.4, sheep 6.6, horses and mules 5.0, and miscellaneous 0.2 per cent. It should be noted that under "cattle raised" would be included those produced for dairy purposes, a large number of which ultimately reach the block. There has not been a definite trend in the place which cattle rais- ing has occupied in the agriculture of the United States or in its position among the animal products. However, it would appear from table 16 that the depression in 1920 and 1921 was felt more severely in cattle raising than in agriculture in general or in the other animal industries. If in the data in table 16 dairy cattle could be separated from beef cattle, the latter would occupy a place of lesser importance. California. — Annual estimates of the value of production of cattle, hogs, and sheep are now being made by the Division of Crope and Livestock Estimates. These estimates 24 for California, representing the gross farm value of livestock sold off farms and ranges during 1927, are as follows: Cattle and calves $26,419,000 Sheep, lambs, and wool $21,395,000 Hogs $15,264,000 The value of cattle and calves produced was exceeded by the value of butterfat produced and by the value of poultry products. Com- pared with specific crops produced, the former value was exceeded only by hay, grapes, and oranges. The 1925 agricultural census reports beef cattle on 10.84 per cent of the farms of the state and cows milked on 48.11 per cent. While cattle raising is of direct importance to perhaps a smaller percentage of farmers in California than in most other sections, farming is more highly specialized in this state. In the number of "beef cattle per farm keeping beef cows" in 1925, California ranked fourth among the states, while in the number of "steers per farm keeping beef cows" third place was taken. 24 California Cooperative Crop Keporting- Service. Estimated value of the production of California livestock— 1927. California Crop Keport 1927: 55. 1928. BuL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 33 In comparison with other types of agriculture, beef raising is more important in the mountain group of counties than in any other loca- tion. In the percentage of farms keeping beef cattle this section was followed in order of importance by the Sacramento Valley, north coast, south coast, San Joaquin, and southern California sections (table 4, p. 15). It would appear that beef raising is more important in those sections of the state possessing a relatively sparse human population. This is not the case with the dairy-cattle population, which occupies an important place in intensively cultivated sections of the state possessing a relatively large human population. FEEDING CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA 25 The Range Types of California. — The cattle ranges of California are widely diversified with respect to types of forage and grazing capacity, and in their use as breeding grounds and finishing areas, on account of differences in elevation, climate, and soil. Broadly con- sidered, the range types occur in horizontal life zones or belts of vegetation. One or two of these zones are chiefly suitable for forag- ing in winter; others can best be used only for a few weeks in the summer ; and a small part of the lower zones can be used throughout the year if necessary. Four life zones are recognized, namely, Lower Sonoran, Upper Sonoran, Transition, and Boreal. The Lower Sonoran, or least elevated life zone, is the largest in extent, comprising about 36.5 per cent of the area of the state, and is characterized by such limited annual rainfall as to be classed as desert or semi-desert. In contrast, the highest, or Boreal Zone, comprises the smallest acreage, or about 4.5 per cent of the total area. It receives a large amount of rainfall, but because of low temperature and short growing season the plants have somewhat the appearance of desert vegetation. The Upper Sonoran Zone includes approximately 33.0 per cent of the land area, and the Transition Zone about 26.0 per cent (fig. 9). The Lower Sonoran Zone is composed of two somewhat distinct areas, known as the Colorado and Mohave Deserts, and the Great Valley of California. This zone occurs from sea level to 5,000 feet in elevation. The Colorado and Mohave deserts are characterized by low humidity, annual rainfall not in excess of 5 inches, high summer 25 At a conference of those interested in the beef industry, it was requested that a discussion of range types be included in this bulletin. In accordance with this request, Arthur W. Sampson, Associate Professor of Forestry and Plant Ecologist in the Experiment Station, University of California, has prepared the section included in pages 33 to 40. 34 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION temperature, low winter temperature, and drying winds. The vege- tation is rather low of stature, widely spaced, and its forage species are succulent and highly palatable only during the short, active grow- ing season (fig. 10). There is a goodly proportion of the green-leaved evergreens and of fleshy-stemmed plants, of practically no food value for stock. A few annual grasses and a lesser number of perennial grass species occur in somewhat protected places. Occasionally cheno- pods and salt bushes are found in sufficient abundance to afford valuable cattle browse feed. Arborescent species are confined to stream beds and low-lying moist areas, where they serve the all- important purpose of shelter for live-stock during inclement weather. The grazing capacity is the lowest of any zone, requiring from 60 to 100 acres or even more to support a cow for a year. There is much waste range. The valley Sonoran, of the same range in elevation as the desert, includes most of the Great Valley of California, and is largely grass- land. The rainfall is heavier than in the desert and the vegetation is more succulent and much better suited for cattle production. The tree growth is confined to moist areas and is composed chiefly of poplar and willow, the latter of which furnishes some browse feed. Large alkali flats are encountered here and there, upon which the well-known salt grass, salt bushes, and other such plants replace the grasses that do not endure salinity. Upon these areas cattle can exist and make a fair growth if fed some protein concentrate like cotton- seed cake. The Upper Sonoran Zone comprises the lower foothill belt of grassland and a slightly elevated chaparral belt of mixed species, between elevations of 1000 and 5000 feet. The grasses are chiefly annuals, notably wild oats, fescues, and bromes, intermixed with various highly palatable species of true clovers, alfilaria, and burr clover. Of the grasslike plants, different kinds of sedges and rushes occur in varying abundance. Among the more common brush or chaparral plants are found several species of buckbrush, manzanita, mahogany, and chamise. These often form so dense a stand as to prevent cattle from working their way into the areas to gather what little undergrowth of grasses there may be. The chaparral cover is generally regarded as the fire type for the reason that on areas frequently burned the chaparral vegetation seems to reappear in- definitely. This zone is valuable chiefly for winter and spring grazing. The grassland and open woodland areas are well suited for the grazing of cattle, whereas the browse types are utilized best by sheep and goats. BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 35 Range Types of California According to Life Zones Legend : ■■■ BOREAL mm TRANSITION WMA UPPER 50N0RAN ] LOWER SONORAN (After Dr. Jos. Grinnell.) Fig. 9. — The Boreal Zone comprises about 4.5 per cent of the total area, the Transition Zone 26.0 per cent, the Upper Sonoran Zone 33.0 per cent, and the Lower Sonoran Zone about 36.5 per cent of the state. 36 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION The Transition Zone lies between elevations of approximately 2000 and 7000 feet and includes the forest belt of which western yellow pine, incense cedar, Douglas fir, white fir, sugar pine, and redwood are typical. This zone is of two rather distinct vegetative types — (1) the Arid Transition characterized by western yelloAV pine and associated species, and (2) the Humid Transition characterized by redwood. In the Arid Transition the average annual rainfall is about 30 inches. Because of the open stand of the timber, this type supports a somewhat luxuriant understory of grasses, herbs, and shrubs, of which annual and perennial fescue grasses, needle grasses, brome grasses, clovers, and other legumes are common. Of the many shrubs, huckleberry, serviceberry, mountain mahogany, deerbrush, and other buckbrushes are conspicuous. The growing season, approxi- mately from May to November, permits grazing from late spring until the coming of the autumn rains. The Humid Transition, which com- prises the coastal redwood area, has a deep, rich soil. Because of the luxuriance of the forest growth, however, this type does not support as many livestock as the more arid pine cover, except for the glades and open parks, which are of very high grazing capacity. The transition zone as a whole contributes abundantly to the forage crop ; and although the vegetation becomes somewhat dry late in the summer it remains fairly palatable and cattle hold their flesh reasonably well. For prime beef, however, the animals must be marketed before the seed crop reaches maturity. The most successful practice for beef production is to graze the forage in this zone as long as it is succulent, and then remove the animals to a more elevated zone. The Boreal Zone occurs from about 7,000 feet above sea level to the highest mountain crests. The annual rainfall is about 45 inches. The growing season and the best season for grazing is approximately from June to October. This zone may be recognized by such com- mercially valuable trees as red fir, western white pine, lodgepole pine, mountain hemlock, and white bark pine ; by such shrubs as mountain elder, mountain mahogany, thimbleberry, wild cherry, snowberry, and mountain elder; and by forage grasses like the bromes, fescue grasses, blue grasses, pine grasses, melic grasses, and alpine timothy. Because of the heavy timber growth at intermediate elevations, the grazing capacity is variable and not especially high. The range is well watered however, so that the forage may be fully utilized. The more elevated part of this zone comprises the cool, late summer ranges from which cattle may be marketed as beef of high quality in September and October. This area often supports many BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 37 plants poisonous to cattle, of which tall larkspur causes the heaviest losses. These losses can usually be controlled, either by grubbing out dense patches of larkspur or fencing them against the animals. The rather limited area which lies above 10,000 feet in elevation is largely treeless — above timber line. The temperature is low and frosts may occur almost nightly during the growing period. The vegetation as a whole is of diminutive stature. Typical plants are the trisetum grasses, fescue grasses, alpine timothy, buttercup, various sedges, and dwarf shrubs. This area is of little value for livestock grazing. The period of greatest usefulness is in August. Profile Showing the Life Zones and Characteristic Plants Found at Various Altitudes on the Eange Types in California I GRA55E.3 and OTHER HERBS ANNUALS ooo - Soap plant Lupine Various f succulent/ herbs 11000 SHRUBS Sumac 10000 Much Chaparral .Service berru Creosote bush Buck brush Thimble berry 9000 - Salt bush Manzanita Mt.Mohoq.amf f Mt Elder Sage brush Chamise Deer brush J Snow berry 8000 - Smoke bush Buck thorn Wild plum f Goose berry Sumac Manzanita 7000 Coyote bush Sage brush ** Hazel V"" - 6000 TREE5 y^ Westerr^yellow piNe Red fir 5000 Incense cedar Mt. hemlock None Oaks ^^Sugar pine Lodge pole pine 4000 Digger pine , r^White fir White bark pine Western white pine Redwood 3000 ^-^-^ROWING Big tree 5EASON £000 Wintered early spr ino, * f October-June April 15-November &RAZ1N& June -October 10OO -Winten^""' Winterand Spring 1 Some near long May -November ySmuch waste lancl June -October LOWER SONORAN UPPER SONORAN TRANSITION (Courtesy of Prof. BOREAL W. Sampson.) the Fig. 10. — This figure, together with figure 9, shows the relationship between types of vegetation, altitude, and location of the range types in California. Breeding and Finishing Grounds. — The difference in the condi- tions favoring growth tends to segregate the cattle industry into, somewhat specialized fields in different localities, such as (1) merely importing, fattening, and finishing fairly mature cattle; (2) import- ing young cattle, growing them out, and finishing them for beef ; and (3) breeding, growing, and finishing cattle and also importing many cattle from neighboring states. 38 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Sales of Cottonseed Meal, July 1, 1926-June 30, 1927, and Location of Cotton Oil Mills &* *"■ X! ^n *'" ^V* _ ft, • . .. 1 dot = SO tons * Loco Hon ofCoiton-o// Mi if Fig. 11. — Since the advent of the cotton industry in California and Arizona, large amounts of cottonseed meal have been used for the finishing of cattle. Most 'of the meal is sold in the lower two-thirds of the state and in Nevada. The location of the cotton oil mills in California is shown, since a large tonnage of cake is sold locally in the vicinity of each of these mills. (Data supplied to authors by private concerns selling approximately 75 per cent of the meal disposed of within the state.) BuL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 39 The whole of Imperial County and parts of Riverside and San Diego counties are highly specialized in that all of the pasture forage as well as that produced under irrigation is used for finishing the animals, practically all of which are imported from neighboring states. A new crop of animals is purchased, finished, and sold each year and the feeding is done during the more favorable winter and spring periods. The counties on the coast from San Diego to Del Norte, east includ- ing Modoc County, and southward as far as Mono County, are used as breeding and finishing grounds with some importation of cattle, especially in years of abundant forage production. In the more northerly counties and those on the eastern border of the state, the National Forests contribute abundantly to the summer foraging requirements. The valley counties, beginning with the narrow strip in Shasta County, southward to Kern and Tulare counties, are known as an importing, growing out, and finishing region for beef. The intensive feeding period is done in winter and spring. Not uncommonly the best beef is that which gets the use of the succulent spring forage. Range Improvement by Reseeding. — Because of long intensive usage of the pastures many areas have been rather seriously depleted. To increase the grazing capacity and re-establish the choicest forage plants, and to maintain the productivity year after year requires definite, persistent, and rational management. Although compara- tively low forage production is found in those life zones which receive limited rainfall, overgrazing and use of the forage when very young and poorly rooted are responsible for much of the low grazing capacity. The Sonoran life zones, or foothill and valley (winter) ranges, which are well adapted for the growth of 'Svinter annuals" — plants like alfilaria, burr clover, and wild oats, are of low productivity partly at least because of too early grazing. Generally these areas are pas- tured more or less heavily in the autumn shortly after growth begins, a practice unfavorable to the maintenance of a high grazing capacity if continued year after year. The plan of deferring or of discontinu- ing grazing sufficiently early in the spring to permit of seed develop- ment has given good promise of effective reseeding. The extent of the application of this reseeding plan is determined largely by (1) the possibilities of reserving range in the spring for the animals that are to be moved from that portion of the pasture which is in need of reseeding, or (2) where pasturage is limited, by producing supple- mental roughage for the animals in order to reserve a portion of 40 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION the area for reseeding. If the area to be reserved from late spring grazing is pastured up to about March 15, there is practically no loss of forage; at the same time a fairly large seed crop of the more desirable plants is produced by June when the forage approaches maturity. The additional feed that comes from the seed produced soon increases appreciably the grazing capacity of the lands, thereby more than offsetting any disadvantage in providing the necessary spring protection. After one part of the pasture is reseeded, protec- tion in the following spring period should be applied to another part and the grazing rotation continued indefinitely. The deferred grazing plan applies also to the high mountain ranges ; but here a portion of the summer grazing area, say one-fourth, is protected from livestock until the seed crop has ripened. After that the protected area should be grazed moderately to get the use of the forage and to trample the seed crop into the ground to insure maximum germination the following year. In applying deferred and rotation grazing some fencing must be done to confine the animals. Not only is the cost involved usually more that offset in three or four years by more and better forage, but also the partition fences make possible segregation of the animals according to age classes and sexes, which in itself makes for bigger gains and surer profits. Cattle-Feeding Areas. — While accurate data showing expansion in cattle-feeding areas of the state are lacking, there seems to be but little doubt that there has been a considerable increase in the feeding of concentrates during the past few years. This has been especially the case with the development of the cotton industry in the southwest, making available considerable amounts of cottonseed meal and cake. Through the courtesies tendered by one of the larger distributors of cottonseed cake in California and various cotton oil mills in the state, the authors have been able to trace the sales of cottonseed cake to cattlemen. Such sales represent over 75 per cent of the total made in the state. The main areas for such feeding are (1) San Joaquin Valley, (2) Imperial Valley, (3) areas in the San Francisco Bay and Los Angeles regions (fig. 11, p. 38). Shipments of cottonseed cake have been made on a considerable scale to points in Nevada which supply the California markets with cattle. It is not possible to procure data relative to the amounts of alfalfa and concentrates other than cottonseed cake fed to cattle. Cattle on Feed for Market, Western States. — The United States Department of Agriculture reports estimates of the number of cattle BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 41 on feed in various sections of the country for different times of the year. On January 1, 1928, the western states including Texas showed a decrease of 18.6 per cent in the number of cattle on feed as com- pared with the previous year. California cattle on feed on January 1, 1928 totaled 45,000 or a decrease of 30.7 per cent from 65,000, the number on feed on January 1, 1927. Table 17 gives the estimated numbers of cattle on feed in the western states on January 1, 1927, and 1928. TABLE 17 Cattle on Feed for Market in the Western States, January 1, 1927 and 1928 State January 1, 1928 January 1, 1927 Montana 38,000 14,000 140,000 27,000 20,000 25,000 7,000 15,000 45,000 50,000 43,000 17,000 Colorado Utah Nevada Idaho Washington Oregon 150,000 40,000 28,000 28,000 8,000 23,000 65,000 Texas 50,000 Total 381,000 452,000 Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Agr. Econ., Regional Livestock Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. Feed Costs. — While the larger number of animals raised for strictly beef purposes in California are fed upon natural grasses, comparisons between the prices of feeds and beef may prove to be of interest and value to the producer. Furthermore, the purchasing power of beef in terms of feeds is of perhaps more interest than the purchasing power of beef in terms of all commodities. Alfalfa-Beef Price Ratio. — Since 1914, there has been a wide vari- ation in the quantity of alfalfa hay required to purchase one hundred pounds of beef. From 1914 until 1918, there was a marked increase in the value of beef cattle as compared with that of alfalfa hay. From the latter year to 1927 a definite trend in the relationship of the two commodities is not discernible. Comparisons of Beef-Cattle and Concentrate Prices. — The relation- ship between beef cattle and barley prices over the past eighteen years has been irregular. No definite trend is discernible. Prices paid for cottonseed meal are not available over a sufficiently long and continu- ous period to give definite information on the trend of the relationship between the price of this feed and the price of beef cattle. 42 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Grazing Fees on the National Forests. — Varying fees are charged for grazing in the national forests of the state. Table 18 contains a list of the fees charged from 1917 to 1927 and for 1931 for year-long grazing. For some years a study has been in progress which has as its ultimate aim a more equable distribution of grazing fees. The new fees will go into effect gradually, starting in 1928 and reaching full operation in 1931. 26 TABLE 18 Year-Long Grazing Fees for Cattle on the California National Forests, 1917, 1918, 1919-1927, and Monthly Fees, 1931* (Cents per animal.) National forest 1917 yearly 1918 yearly 1919-1927 yearly 1931 monthly Angeles California 75 75 75 90 90 75 75 75 90 90 120 120 120 140 140 19 18 19 El Dorado 19 Inyo, Main Forest 18 17 70 75 100 18 15 80 75 90 80 75 90 120 120 140 19 18 19 17 85 85 140 120f 120 140 19 19 80 90 80 90 19 19 15 75 90 75 90 120 140 18 19 15 90 90 70 90 90 70 140 140 100 19 Tahoe 19 18 15 * Prior to 1928 the monthly rate was computed by dividing the annual rate by 10 for periods of four months or longer; for shorter periods one-ninth was used. In 1931 and thereafter the method to be used is that of multiplying the monthly rate by the length of the period stock are to be grazed. t 1926-1927. Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr., Forest Service, Calif. District. SLAUGHTER OF CATTLE Number and Trend in the United States. — The number of animals annually slaughtered under United States inspection, together with the estimated total number killed (including those on farms) is shown in table 19. The cattle and calf "curves of slaughter" (fig. 7) show 26 Nelson, J. W. New grazing fees for California forests. Western Cattle Markets and News 1 (Special Number) : 9, 29, 30. Dec. 1927. BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 43 considerable regularity. The low point in cattle marketing, 1912- 1915, was coincident with an increase in the slaughter of sheep and lambs. The war conditions promoted cattle feeding for meat pro- duction and this situation was followed by a decrease at the end of the period. From 1921 to 1926 inclusive a gradual increase in the number of cattle slaughtered occurred accompanying a decrease in the TABLE 19 Number of Animals Slaughtered Annually Under Federal Inspection and Estimated Total Number Slaughtered (Including Farm) in United States, 1907-1927 (Thousands, i.e., 000 omitted.) Cattle Calves Sheep and lambs Swine Year Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Inspected total Inspected total Inspected total Inspected total 1907 7,633 13,287 2,024 6,211 10,252 13,360 32,885 54,709 1908 7,279 12,852 1,958 6,048 10,305 12,526 38,643 61,615 1909 7,714 13,611 2,189 6,516 11,343 14,725 31,395 53,220 1910 7,808 13,541 2,238 6,553 11,408 14,797 26,014 47,076 1911 7,619 12,958 2,184 6,265 14,020 18,057 34,133 56,646 1912 7,253 11,979 2,278 6,348 14,979 19,247 33,053 55,564 1913 6,978 11,478 1,902 5,285 14,406 18,520 34,199 57,046 1914 6,757 11,005 1,697 4,661 14,229 18,290 32,532 55,501 1915 7,153 10,822 1,819 4,640 12,212 15,756 38,381 62,017 1916 8,310 12,027 2,367 5,774 11,941 15,408 43,084 67,613 1917 10,350 13,724 3,143 7,031 9,345 12,149 33,910 56,901 1918 11,829 15,750 3,456 7,514 10,320 13,359 41,214 64,796 1919 10,091 14,838 3,969 8,445 12,691 16,317 41,812 65,190 1920 8,609 13,885 4,058 8,455 10,982 14,180 38,019 61,900 1921 7,608 12,271 3,808 7,771 13,005 16,710 38,982 62,957 1922 8,678 13,148 4,182 8,363 10,929 14,112 43,114 68,106 1923 9,163 13,883 4,500 8,824 11,529 14,862 53,334 79,843 1924 9,593 14,400 4,935 9,466 11,991 15,441 52,873 79,631 1925 9,853 14,706 5,353 10,099 12,001 15,454 43,043 68,294 1926 10,180 14,971 5,153 9,542 12,961 16,689 40,636 65,779 1927 9,520 14,000 4,876 9,030 12,883 16,589 43,633 69,250 Sources of data: 1907-1927, Roberts, John. Meat production, consumption, and foreign trade in the United States, calendar years 1907-1927. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. An. Ind. mimeographed circular 9 p. 1928. number of cattle in the country. Slaughter of mature cattle is now on the decrease. During 1927 a decided decrease occurred and the first seven months of 1928 give indications of a decrease of over 10 per cent, compared with the similar period of 1927. This clearly brings out the fallacy of using the cattle population as a direct index of production. Furthermore, the composition of the cattle population (steers, cows, bulls, etc.) would have a marked influence on the actual output. Wentworth and Clemen 27 suggest that the rise in the number 27 Wentworth, Edward N., and Rudolf A. Clemen. Livestock population and slaughter ratios. Armour 's Livestock Bur. Monthly Letter to Animal Husband- men, 7(4): 3. 1926. 44 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION of cattle slaughtered from 1921 through 1926, together with the con- current decrease in the beef-cattle population, came about through the greater production of young cattle. Comparisons between the census data of 1920 and those of 1925 indicate that fewer animals other than breeding stock had been kept in herds despite the increased slaughter. The increase in the number of calves slaughtered has been relatively greater than that for any other class of livestock (table 19). The peak in the numbers of calves slaughtered was reached in 1925. Indications point to a decrease of about 3 per cent in 1928 compared with 1927. Cattle are slaughtered rather uniformly throughout the year, although the high months are in the fall, October and November usually being the peak months (see p. 87, "Cold Storage Holdings of Beef"). With calves, the case is reversed, the largest slaughter occurring in April and May. Sex Classification of Cattle Slaughtered in the United States. — Data based upon reports representing nearly 75 per cent of the total cattle slaughtered under Federal inspection show that less than 50 per cent are steers. Data are not available for a sufficiently long period to indicate whether there has been a definite trend for an increase or a decrease in the percentage. The data indicate that steers are slaughtered in relatively larger numbers during the six months, March to August, inclusive, while cows are more numerous during the remaining months of the year. A large percentage of the animals slaughtered must be of dairy origin. This may be brought out by the large percentage of cows slaughtered and by the fact that fewer cows are slaughtered when milk production is relatively high. 28 TABLE 20 Percentage of Cattle Slaughtered as Steers in the United States, 1922-1928 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Avg. 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 59.30 52.36 55.01 50.38 51.78 52.97 50.47 55.81 47.80 51.10 43.37 51.39 50.11 46.31 51.89 45.90 44.39 43.63 47.31 49.57 44.67 41.79 37.65 36.13 38.79 36.94 43.71 34.64 34.17 33.90 38.04 35.38 46.05 41.93 40.20 38.87 44.53 39.04 46.91 45.16 45.44 41.92 45.04 39.09 51.02 46.21 47.37 45.91 49.55 45.92 54.25 47.62 48.23 47.77 50.15 49.26 49.64 52.47 55.03 53.18 50.39 52.60 55.79 56.62 56.79 53.52 57.21 54.54 58.70 56.13 52.27 51.39 51.65 52.12 46.88 47.01 Sources of data: Monthly reports from U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets. 28 Voorhies, Edwin C. Economic aspects of the dairy industry. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 437: 47. 1927. BuL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 45 Distribution of Market Grades. — Results of an investigation car- ried on by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics in 1920 29 showed the estimated quantity of each grade of cattle marketed during that year to be as follows : Cattle (Steers) Per cent of total marketed Choice and prime 4.5 Good 22.0 Medium 53.0 Common 17.0 Canners 3.5 100.0 These figures would be subject to change from year to year, owing to fluctuations in market demand and conditions of production. Grading and Stamping Beef. — The Division of Livestock, Meats and Wool of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics has been attempt- ing to grade and stamp beef carcasses in order to supply evidence of the true grade in such manner that it will be easily distinguished by everyone, including the individual consumer. 30 The service, which has embraced prime and choice beef, consists of stamping the carcasses with a roller stamp which is run the full length so that every cut bears the evidence of official grading. The service is available at a number of points in the country. It is not universal as yet. TABLE 21 Cattle Slaughtered in California, 1921-1927 Bulls and Year Cows Steers Calves stags Total 1921 242,545 330,763 224,654 7,944 805,906 1922 239,409 384,786 317,564 10,001 951,760 1923 291,020 392,637 364,475 9,916 1,058,048 1924 320,909 350,528 367,477 10,504 1,049,418 1925 380,909 317,640 385,931 11,967 1,096,447 1926 383,124 369,059 437,098 12,918 1,202,199 1927 373,108 378,608 432,972 14,114 1,198,802 Sources of data: California State Dept. Agr. Slaughtering in different counties. Cattle Protection Service. Mimeographed summary reports are issued annually. 29 Roberts, John. Food animals and meat consumption in the United States U. S. Dept. Agr. Cir. 241: 1-23. 1926. 30 An excellent account of this work, which was inaugurated on May 2, 1927 will be found in National Livestock and Meat Board. Grading and stamping prime and choice beef carcasses. National Livestock and Meat Board Bui 1- 1-15. Chicago, 111. 1927. 46 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Number Slaughtered in California. — The total number of animals slaughtered for beef increased from 1921 through 1926 (fig. 12). During approximately the same period the total number of cattle in the state declined slightly. The demand for beef for slaughter within the state seems to have been, maintained during 1927 when the second largest number of cattle (a slightly larger slaughter Total Slaughter of Cattle (Exclusive of Calves) in California, 1921-1927 Thousand Head 1921 1922 1923 1924- Fig. 12. — Both the total slaughter and the slaughter of cattle originating in California have increased since 1921. The total slaughter shows but little seasonal variation. California cattle give evidence of a distinct seasonal variation, since they appear on the market in the greatest numbers during the late spring and summer. (Data from table 22 and similar data not published.) occurred during 1926) since 1921 were slaughtered at the highest prices obtained since the latter year. Slaughter of mature animals during the first six months of 1928 was 4 per cent less than that during the similar period for 1927, while calf slaughter decreased by 2 per cent during the same period. Classification of Cattle Slaughtered in California. — During the years 1921-1926 the increase in the number of cows slaughtered was relatively greater than that for steers. More than 50 per cent of the mature cattle slaughtered during 1925 and 1926 were cows. Some of this increase undoubtedly represented reductions in beef herds. With the increasing human population and the apparent increased BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 47 consumption of dairy products it might appear that an increasingly large number of cows slaughtered would be of dairy origin. However, if improvement in the butterfat production of cows is continued, the number of cows required to supply the dairy products demanded need not be increased greatly. An increase in the butterfat production of the dairy cows of the state ought to aid the producer of beef cattle Total Slaughter of Calves in California, 1921-1927 Thousand Head 1921 1922 1925 1926 192T 1928 1929 Fig. 13. — The slaughter of calves in California has increased more rapidly than the slaughter of mature cattle since 1921. There has been a tendency for a somewhat larger slaughter during the five or six months beginning in July. The larger number of calves originating in California are usually slaughtered earlier in the year, the high months being those of the late spring and summer. The slaughter of dairy calves originating in the state unquestionably has its influence. (Data from table 23 and similar data not published.) since fewer cows of dairy origin would be required to supply the need for dairy products. During 1927, the number of steers again exceeded the number of cows slaughtered. One contributing factor making for this change was the rise in price of beef cattle during the latter part of the year. During the first six months of 1928 the number of cows slaughtered increased by 13.1 per cent compared with the similar period for 1927, while the number of steers slaughtered decreased by 18.8 per cent. 48 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION NOSOTllUJNffl- < CO N ION ^tMCM^i-tOS^Ht-. -<*< Ol >fl T)l OS O O 01 CM n a> 00 © ->* OS I-H Q CM 1-1 ^H CO CM OS CM CM ^1 -* CO CO N N N O W CO N Cs as co cm CM ^H i-H •<$< CM © "5 <* Ttl H 00 1-H US O T-H CM CM UO •**< UO i-l CO fc cm" CM 00 - ^ O ■<*< CO O i-l 00 OS OO OS CM CM V r-H 03 OS -^ CO 0. O 00 CO — CM CM lO t^ CO ^ 02 CM CO CM CM CM UO 00 H IC CO O tH ,_, O co O m n n hi co OS CO t^ CM CM OS CM CM 3 CM CM ■* O ■* l« • 00 CO -^ i-a co" b-T U0 lO oj r^ CO co co co CO "0 CM Tt< CO t- K) * Ol CM 3 OS >-5 CM CM CO CO 00 _ c a> >o Tji >> r^ -CH a O co r-~ c3 CM ■^ 00 CM O 3 ~ 1-H oT ^h" US CO __, T»< CC t— t~- 00 oc 00 CO tj< r^ ^h a CO cn lO CO lO X 10 10 ■»*< ^H CO "5 CM >0 00 lO O "0 00 t^ ^f -r* 52 10 CM OO •<*< ~H ifl t~- •* CM 03 •^ CO b- 00 CM CO CO ■* 00 s CO CM CM OS -h HT * * CM b- ■* as co OS CM t^ CO 10 00 J2 OJ CO ■— 00 c- b- c-~ >* t^ CM OS 00 O CM t-- CM •* l>. 0* .-( Ph t^ -* lO OO ^ ^ M US ■^H *4 00 ■* cC CM Ut 05 OS N tO 03 us us to H 00 ^ 02 -<* CO ■* t^ CM 10 oc 00 i-H CM O0 Tf t^ 00 CO US * " H 00 m 00 as 1-H -^ us t- cC * US lO M -* iH t-~ r^ oc CO O CO *c" 00 t-- O0 CO CM C OS © OS 02 ^ CO ^H t^ CO C~- "1 ""I "*". °" as u; O N ih O OS OS O CO CM 0" co* ©" t*T n UO CM* O" ^J* ^j" .-H US - OS Tfl uo CM CO CM CM rf 00 CO O0 00 N CO »fl ■**< a> CO t^ . °\ **. O 0_ l-H OS OO t-- O M ■* 0" t^ OS* i-H t*T co" 0" ~" -H O CM CO CO •* -H ~s us t>- co r- O -H US 1- t^ CO l-» -^ CC ■* o> ra >* 00 CO ■* CO O IN t* lO HOO N as co co T* US t^. as CM CO OS CO N ■* N OS co o- CO 00 CO ■>* 00 OC ".OS* . US* CD* ^7 00 as 00 10 CM .-H "* CO a "3 '5 oj -tt O O Pi e «( c c 8 b X 5 •S 5 C c N < g C O & X i T S 1 09 e c 0j I- c to rt P 's PS -a c cd O .2 -° .2 8 -g 03 -2 £ 2 § Pm S oj to is a . s2 73 S aj *o ^ 05 X 1 OJ •J ^ I I I -o 3 S ■« a "oj oj OH § •j . a ^ o ^ (0 J ^ 8 a-- t. aj .- o w > 02 OJ OJ 1 I 02 J BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 49 I i-- ,_! ■*& TO CO TO — s o 1 « t- OO »-l -^ M CN H ■^ o ■* o CO 0> CO H CN i-h IO CO cu Q CO ■>* CO o CO CO ^ O O CO CO CO Oi eo o) to w > o 00 r- -h io o -h OO CO CO 1/5 t^. CO OO CO ■* o >o io £ CO 1/5 CD* -h* CO CO CO CO -H .-H CO CO IO » ■* * m oo CO .O -H ^H CO © CO <-c CO CO t>- Oi CD O lO~ -'" N X CD CO CO r^ OO O! N O OO CO H O O CD 1^ IO OO © Oi a t~ Oi CO CO N IO N 1-1 won CO CO IO CO ■* U0 ^ t^ Oi CO £ CO r^ OO CO CO ■«*< O io T* 00 CD ■* «< co co a> CO CO CO OO r- oo IO 00 CO j^> IO r^ t~- CO 1— CO O t-- CO rt * CD S 1-9 H CN CO CO CO a> CD ct> CO N 00 IO IO CO IO t>. I-. IO t^ c CO 00 CO <-H > o> CO CN * CD 03 H IO CO s CO CO CO CO oo CO ,-1 O *H IO CO IO i— 1 IO IO O CO <«J co" CO CO CO t-' ■* (O N OO N H CO O 1^ O CO O CO CO t^ o ■^ T-H IO CO (N H 09 * «3 r-t CO ^H lO S -H IO CD CO CO OO o -*< io O CT> CO CO 00 CO CO CO T* Oi CO CO ■«* CO Oi 00 CO * IO Ol h co" o" co" • CO CO o M ^ Ol t)I Ol cN oo rt ra co Oi CO CO a c3 o OO CO r-c CO N N © ^H ■* co oo •-S *■"' .-< .-( •«* CD O CO CO lOCOOOOCOCOOOCOCN ■* co r~ 13 NNWHI- MOtO^W OO IO CO t>- O OO OO N 1(5 CO « W O) b- r-< t~ CO ~H *-< - o »- * N CN coco-* oo « n O) co O) N N OS CO o" CO CO CO CO IO CO Oi -H CO ■<»< r^ .-( CO "* nn-HifliosoNoio O) N CD »o CM CO CO O 0O N H (ij w * O N OO M M OO CM U5 O N a N »-l y-l CO CO ^h N * N N CN OO OO CO ~ IO (N OO . CO CO cDcoor-^cneoco-HcO"- < O CD CD CO *0O»MWcMC9N»W i« N IN o>cot)T o i~-T CO <-< rf< CO CD CO CO C "3 6 < 5 s c 1 t : < i 1 •is i-s cj T3 C - - - J -S ~ « rizon olora laho. ^onta evad ew M regor exas.. tah 11 2 O c3 fc« 5 HOG " t ) £ 7- : z 7 c ) E- 1 1= $ - c 1 <1 oj w o ^ S 1 B or) !S -r; '3 cii ^ r > > a a 3 > * ■Si 5 -2 ^ 03 ft "2 >> a a « O D* ^^ a o3 m o « co 5 s 1 >wi Fig. 17. — During the last four months of the year both markets drew heavily on cattle from Utah, Arizona, Idaho, and Nevada, and at times from Wyoming, Texas, New Mexico, and southern Oregon. Shipments from the northeastern counties of the state were frequent during this period. (Data and original maps furnished by the Western Cattle Marketing Association.) [58. Origin of Cattle Slaughtered on the Los Angeles and San Francisco Markets During Certain Weeks of September, October, November, and December, 1927 Fig. 18. — Poultry is largely substituted for beef during the holiday season at both San Francisco and Los Angeles. Note that there was apparently but little slaughter during the week which ended December 31, compared with either the previous week or that which ended December 17 or December 10. (Data and original maps furnished by the Western Cattle Marketing Association.) [60] Origin of Cattle Slaughtered at San Francisco and Los Angeles During the Weeks Ending December 10, 17, 24, and 31, 1927. /2-/0-27K Z2-/7-; ia-24-27 62 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION From May until August (fig. 16) both markets relied largely on the supplies of cattle originating within the state, with occasional shipments from Arizona. During these four months, the San Joaquin and Sacramento valleys, the middle coast section, and Imperial Valley made contributions to the supplies. The north coast section showed considerable activity during August and September. 100 Per-Capita Consumption of Beef and Veal, United States, 1900-1927 Poancfis /D* / \ ^ N \ i. ^»= 5 =— iN N s s / v — \ \ s s > -^ ** Beef Vi T c / SO 60 40 20 J900 J903 J9IO /9/J 1920 J 925 Fig. 19. — Beef has declined in per-capita consumption since 1900, while veal has increased. The percentage decline (trend values) for beef plus veal has been 8.58 per cent and for beef 11.67 per cent, while the per-capita consumption of veal has increased 36.84 per cent. (Data from table 27.) Toward the latter part of September supplies gradually were drawn from wider areas and during the last four months of the year Utah, Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, and at times southern Oregon, Wyoming, Texas, and New Mexico shipped supplies to the two markets studied (fig. 17). Within the state, supplies originated in widely separated areas, although it is interesting to note that the north central and northeastern counties contributed considerably to the movement. BuL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 63 One interesting 1 and important phase of the results is someAvhat clearly brought out by studying the maps for the weeks ending December 10, 17, 24, and 31, 1927 (fig. 18). Unofficial and rather widespread beliefs have prevailed to the effect that there is need for considerable shipments of beef at the Christmas holiday season. From a study of the figures it is evident that shipments both during the week before and after Christmas declined. (It may be that beef destined for the Christmas trade arrived during the first part of December). A check on the actual data also showed this to be true. At this season the supplies of beef required are light owing to the shipments of poultry to the large markets. CONSUMPTION OF BEEF IN THE UNITED STATES AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES United States. — Data on the annual consumption of meats are available since 1900 (table 27). Contrary to the popular belief, there has been but little change in the total per-capita consumption of all meats during the past twenty-seven years. Information on meat con- sumption for various strata of American society might show distinct trends, were the necessary data available. There has been a distinct decline in the per-capita consumption of beef since the beginning of the century, although conclusions drawn from a comparison of isolated years or even from a series of years are oftentimes erroneous unless the corresponding phase of the production cycle is considered. From 1900 to 1907 there was an upward tendency in the apparent consump- tion of beef, during which period the cattle cycle was in the expansion phase. This was followed by a distinct downward trend in consump- tion (fig. 19), which was accompanied by a downward movement in the cattle cycle. From 1915 to 1918 there was an actual increase in consumption, at which time the cattle cycle was in its expansion phase. The expansion was also reflected in the large exports. The three years 1918, 1919, and 1920 showed but little change in consumption. After a drop in 1921 the per-capita consumption began to move up- ward and this movement continued until 1926. Since 1922 cattle production has tended downward; the increased consumption being the result of heavy slaughter which in turn was caused by low prices. The total slaughter of cattle and salves since 1922 has exceeded the number of calves born. This heavy slaughter did not affect market supplies noticeably until the middle of 1927. The increased price during the last four months of the year tended to cause a downward 64 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION movement in consumption during 1927. Indications point to a greatly decreased per-capita consumption of beef in 1928. The authors esti- mate that the lowest point since 1900 will be reached. Unlike beef consumption, that of veal has been tending distinctly upward since 1900. Since 1900, beef, mutton, and lamb have apparently been occupy- ing places of lesser importance in the meat diet of the American people, while pork and veal have been increasing in importance. In 1927, beef and veal accounted for 46.9 per cent of the total consump- tion of meat, followed by pork with 49.2 and mutton and lamb with 4.0 per cent. TABLE 27 Annual Per-Capita Consumption of Meat and Lard in the United States, 1900-1927 Year 1900. 1901. 1902. 1903. 1904 1905. 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 Beef pounds 67 8 69.0 68.5 76.0 73 6 73.0 72.6 77.5 71.5 75.4 71.1 67.7 61.1 60.6 58.4 54.5 56.0 59.5 63 61.6 63.1 56.9 60.4 61.3 61.5 62.1 63.4 58.0 Veal pounds 3 5 6.8 6.4 6.3 5 1 4.6 4.3 5.3 6.5 7.4 7.7 7.6 7.0 7.3 7.7 8.2 8.7 8.2 7.4 Lamb and mutton pounds 6 8 6.9 7.0 7.2 6.8 6.5 6.5 6.4 6.3 6.6 8.1 7.5 7.4 6.3 6.1 4.6 4.7 5.8 5.5 5.9 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.5 5.4 Pork, not including lard pounds 64.7 63.0 57 8 59.3 62.8 58.8 59.7 64.4 66.1 60.1 57.1 64.5 618 63.0 62.3 59.5 60.1 49.3 54.8 54.8 60.5 63.5 66.1 74.7 74.7 67.6 65.7 68.5 Total meat* pounds 142.8 142.8 137.7 147.2 148.3 143.7 144.2 155.1 150.3 149.8 142.2 147.1 138.1 136.2 132.7 124.8 127.7 120.1 130.1 130.0 136.8 133.3 138.8 149.0 149.6 143.6 142.8 139.3 Lard pounds 13.2 12.9 11.7 11.8 12.4 10. 11. 13. 13. 11. 11. 11. 11. 11. 12. 12.9 13.6 11.7 13.3 12.3 13.3 11.3 14.2 15.3 15.4 13.2 13 5 13.8 Total meats and lard pounds 156.0 155.7 149.4 159.0 160.7 153.7 155.4 168.6 163.5 161.3 153.6 158.4 149.3 147.6 144.9 137.7 141.3 131.8 143.4 142.3 150.1 144.6 153.0 164.3 165.0 156.8 156.3 153.1 * Includes a relatively very small quantity of goat meat which is not given separately. Source of data: Roberts, John. Meat production, consumption, and foreign trade in the United States, calendar years 1900-1927. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Animal Industry mimeographed circular. 9. p. 1928. BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 65 Regional consumption of Beef and Veal. — Estimates (table 28) indicate that the per-capita consumption of beef and veal is greater in urban than in rural areas. Rural areas, on the other hand, have a larger consumption of pork and poultry. The variation in beef and veal consumption is less in the urban areas of the country. TABLE 28 Estimated Per-Capita Meat Consumption by Eegions, 1919 (Pounds per capita.) Total Beef Veal Mutton Pork URBAN 129.9 154.0 163.2 142.4 158.9 166.6 64 75.6 77.5 55.1 66.1 76.2 13.5 11.6 11.7 5.7 4.4 16.3 10.9 7.3 6.9 5.4 8.7 13.6 61.5 North central, east North central, west 69.3 67.2 76.3 79.7 Western 11.2 Average 155.8 68.3 11.8 9.3 66.3 RURAL 150.8 171 1 180.7 153.7 158.5 171.3 47.1 48.3 57.4 28.5 28.6 64.7 10.7 7.2 6.3 3.2 1.7 9.3 7.6 5.8 3.8 4.4 6.9 15.8 85.5 North central, east North central, west South Atlantic 109.9 113.1 117.6 121.3 Western 81.5 Average 163.2 41 6 5.4 6.5 109.7 TOTAL POPULATION North Atlantic North central, east ... North central, west.. South Atlantic South central Western Average.. 150.1 167.3 174.9 150.9 158.6 169.0 159.7 59.6 12 8 10.0 62.7 9.5 6.6 64.1 8.1 4.8 35.2 3.8 4.7 36.3 2.3 7.3 70 .3 12.7 14.7 54 8.4 7.8 67.7 88.5 97.8 107.1 112.8 71.3 8 'J. Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr. Sectional meat consumption in the United States. U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook 1920: 828. 1921. The per-capita consumption of beef is larger in the western states than in any other section of the country, while it is low in the southern states (table 28). Veal consumption is subject to greater sectional variation than beef, the north Atlantic and the western states ranking high, with the southern states low. Estimates made by W. E. Schneider of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricul- tural Economics, confirm information with reference to the high con- sumption of beef and veal on the Pacific Coast (table 29). 66 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Estimates indicate that approximately 55 per cent of the beef and veal are consumed in the states east of the Mississippi and north of the Ohio River and in the state of Maryland. 31 In these states live 52 per cent of the nation's population. Not only do different sections vary in the amount of meat con- sumed but there are variations of considerably magnitude within each section. 32 TABLE 29 Estimated Per-Capita Consumption of Meat on the Pacific Coast, 1926 Class Pounds Beef 72.1 Veal 8 7 25 Pork 60 Lard 10.0 Total 175.8 Source of data: W. E. Schneider, U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ., San Francisco, Calif. TABLE 30 Estimated Per-Capita Consumption of Beef and Veal in Certain Countries, Pre-War,* and Annual, 1921-1927 (Pounds) Year United States Canada Argen- tina United King- dom Den- mark Bel- gium France Ger- many Australia (New South Wales) New Zealand Pre-war 1921. . 74.0 63.9 67.7 69.1 69.7 70.8 71 6 65.4 60.9 71.0 72 9 70.6 70.2 70.2 70 1 68.8 254.9 195.0 293.3 320.8 300.7 264.7 245.7 260.7 61.3 57.2 62.9 63.8 63.4 66.2 65.5 64.0 44.5 41.6 33.8 41.8 46.6 49.9 45.2 45.2 49.2 46.4 47.4 47.0 49.3 49.7 48.9 45.9 40.6 30.7 31.9 23.7 34.3 39.1 39.7 40 2 152 3 94.0 112.6 123.0 126.1 125.3 1922 57.7 1923 [ 147.1** 1924 1925 1926 1927 . * Average for five years 1909-1913 wherever available. ** Average for ten-year period ending with 1926. Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Agr. Econ. Estimated per-capita consumption of beef, mutton and pork in specified countries. Foreign Crops and Markets 17 (6) : 218-220. 1928. 3i McFall, Robert James. The world's meat. 624 p., 35 diag. D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1925. 32 Gardner, Kelsey B., and Lawrence A. Adams, ences in the purchase and consumption of meat. 1443: 1-64. 1926. Consumer habits and prefer - U. S. Dept. Agr. Dept. Bui. BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 67 The distribution of beef consumption as calculated by the United States Department of xlgriculture is in general confirmed by data used by the United States Department of Labor in calculating the cost of living in different sections. 33 Consumption in Other Countries. — Contrary to the generally prevalent opinion, beef and veal per-capita consumption gradually increased in several of the more important beef -consuming countries from 1921 to 1926, with the exception of France, in which it appears to have decreased slightly in 1926. Data on consumption in Great Britain and Canada indicate that in both countries the per-capita consumption is higher than during the pre-war years. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the United States Department of Agri- culture reports that there has been an increase in beef and pork per-capita consumption in most countries during the past few years at the expense of mutton and lamb. The per-capita consumption of beef and veal is greater in Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States than in other countries. It is to be noted that with the possible exception of the latter all are surplus cattle areas and com- paratively young countries. PRICES AND PURCHASING POWER OF BEEF CATTLE Annual Inventory Values of the United States Department of Agriculture. — Since 1867 yearly estimates on the valuation of live- stock have been made on January first by the United States Depart- ment of Agriculture. While studies with reference to the trends and cycles in cattle values should be helpful to the cattleman in preparing for future operations, such statistical information as may be obtained does not enable one to see the future in an absolute manner. The data relative to cycles of cattle values simply indicate what has hap- pened in the past. In these inventory studies January first values have been expressed in terms of purchasing power (table 31). Warren and Pearson 34 show that the peaks in the January first valuations (expressed in purchasing power) of cattle other than dairy cows in the United States have occurred in 1885, 1899, and 1915, while the low points have been 1891, 1906, and 1925. These data have been checked by the authors (table 31). The cycles of purchasing power have been fairly regular, the peaks being fourteen to sixteen years apart. The variation in the length of time between the low points 34 Warren, G. F., and F. A. Pearson. Purchasing power of beef cattle, 1880- 1927. New York State College Agr., Farm Economics 2(44) : 659. 1927. 68 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION and high points has been from six to ten years. These high points have not been maintained for long periods of time (fig. 20). The cycle is not mere magic, the explanation lying partially in the fact that good profits often result in over-production, while low prices result in under-production. At the present time appearances point to an upward trend in the cycle. Purchasing Power of Cattle Other Than Milk Cows, United States and California, January 1, 1869-1928 (Purchasing power is measured in terms of the average purchasing power of the dollar in 1910-1914.) Purchasing Po*er 1870 1875 1880 1885 1890 1895 1900 1905 1910 1915 J9SO 1925 Fig. 20. — The purchasing power of cattle other than milk cows on January 1 of each year in the United States and in California shows a rather definite cyclical movement. While the peaks and depressions of the cycles for the nation and state do not absolutely correspond, there is a high degree of correlation between the two. The cycles are characterized by a rather short period of high values and a comparatively long period of low values. On January 1, 1928, inventory values were on the rise. If the future can be interpreted from the past, values should be comparatively high for the next two or three years. On account of improve- ments in cattle breeding, feeding, and management, it is somewhat dangerous to make definite predictions. In the past, high inventory values have been reached in the United States in 1884, 1899, and 1915. Low values are somewhat more obscure but have occurred in 1891, 1905, and 1925. (Data from table 31 ) 33 U. S. Dept. Labor. Retail prices, 1890-1925. U. S. Dept. Labor, Bur. Labor Statis., Bui. 418: 4. 1926. BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEP CATTLE INDUSTRY 69 TABLE 31 Actual and Relative Values, and Relative Purchasing Power of Cattle Other Than Dairy Cattle, United States and California, January 1, 1867-1928 All- commodity i ndex Jan. of year in col. 1 United States California Year Actual value (Dollars per head) Relative value Relative Purchasing power Actual value (Dollars per head) Relative value Relative Purchasing power / 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1867 151 141 135 15.79 15 06 18.73 66.74 63.65 79.16 44.2 45 1 58.6 1868 1869 27.86 105.13 77.9 1870 125 18.67 78.91 63.1 26.22 98.94 79.2 1871 119 20.78 87.83 73.8 26.92 101.58 85.4 1872 122 18.12 76.58 62.8 23.80 89.81 73.6 1873 121 18.06 76.33 63.1 22.71 85.70 70.8 1874 117 17.55 74.18 63.4 19.52 73.66 63 1875 112 16.91 71.47 63 8 18.92 71 40 63.8 1876 104 17.00 71.85 69.1 20.08 75.77 72.9 1877 97 15.99 67.58 69.7 16.52 62.34 64.3 1878 89 16.72 70.67 79.4 17.23 65.02 73.1 1879 85 15.38 65.00 76.5 18.91 71.36 84 1880 94 16.57 70.03 74 5 18.47 69.70 74.1 1881 93 17.33 73.25 78.8 20.35 76.79 82.6 1882 95 18.89 79.84 84 21.77 80.26 84 5 1883 93 21.81 92.18 99.1 27.48 103.70 111.5 1884 87 23.52 99.41 114.3 29.15 110.00 126 4 1885 82 23.25 98.27 119 8 30.38 114.64 139.8 1886 81 21.17 89.48 110.5 28.66 108.15 133.5 1887 81 19.79 83.64 103.3 20.64 77.89 962 1888 83 17.79 75.19 90.6 20.50 77.36 93.2 1889 83 17.05 72.06 86.8 19.37 73.03 88.1 1890 80 15.63 66 06 82 6 16.80 63.40 79.1 1891 82 • 14.76 62.38 76 1 17.73 66.91 81.6 1892 77 15.16 64.07 83.2 17.39 65.62 85.2 1893 83 15.24 64.41 77.6 17.12 64 60 77.8 1894 83 14.66 61.96 74.7 16 17 61.02 73.5 1895 69 14.06 59.43 86.1 15.28 57.66 83.6 1896 70 15.86 67.03 95.8 15.82 59.70 85.3 1897 68 16 65 70.37 103.5 16.93 63.83 94 1898 70 20.92 88.42 126.3 18.91 71.36 101.9 1899 71 22.79 96.32 135.7 18 01 67.96 95.7 1900 83 24.73 104 52 125.9 24.57 92.72 111 7 1901 81 19.93 84.23 104 22.25 83.96 103 7 1902 83 18 76 79.29 95.5 23.48 88.60 106.7 1903 91 18.45 77.98 85.7 24 51 92.43 101.6 1904 87 16 32 68.98 79.3 21.98 82.94 95.3 1905 88 15.15 64.03 72 8 19.29 72.79 82.7 1£06 89 15.85 66.99 75.3 17.52 66 11 74 .3 1907 93 17 10 72.27 77.7 18.00 67.92 73 1908 91 16.89 71.39 78 5 19.00 71 70 78 8 1909 94 17.49 73.92 78.6 17 50 66 04 70.3 1910 104 19.07 80.60 77.5 20.10 75.85 72.9 1911 96 20.54 86.81 90.4 23.50 88.68 92 4 1912 96 21 20 89.60 93.3 26 70 100 75 104.9 1913 102 26.36 114 41 112.2 29.20 110 19 108.0 1914 100 31.13 131 57 131.6 33.00 124 53 124 5 1915 100 33.38 141 08 141.1 39.30 148.30 148.3 1916 115 33.53 141.72 123.2 36.30 136.98 119.1 70 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 31 — (Continued) All- commodity index Jan. of year in col. 1 United States California Year Actual value (Dollars per head) Relative value Relative Purchasing power Actual value (Dollars per head) Relative value Relative Purchasing power 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1917 156 35.88 151.65 97.2 38.30 144.53 92.6 1918 188 40.88 172.78 91.9 42.10 158.87 84.5 1919 202 44.22 186.90 92.5 48.20 181.89 90.0 1920 237 43.21 182.63 77.1 51.90 195.85 82.6 1921 173 31.36 132.54 76.6 44.50 167.92 97.1 1922 141 23.80 100.59 71.3 34.30 129.43 91.8 1923 159 25.67 108.50 68.2 34.40 129.81 81.6 1924 154 24.44 103.30 67.1 33.35 125.85 81.7 1925 163 23.94 101.18 62.1 30.55 115.28 70.7 1926 159 27.43 115.93 72.9 35.16 132.68 83.4 1927 150 29.87 126.25 84.2 37.00 139.62 93.1 1928 149 38.95 164.62 110.5 42.08 158.79 106.6 Sources of data: Col. 2. Bureau of Labor Statistics, All-Commodity Index for January of each year. Base 1910-1914 = 100. Col. 3, 1867-1923, U. S. Dept. Agr. Cattle: farm price per head. U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook 1922: 820. 1923. 1924-25, Kaufman, E. E. California crop report 1926. California State Dept. Agr., Spec. Pub. 74: 45. 1927. 1926-28, Kaufman, E. E. Summary of California annual livestock report— 1928. U. S. Dept. Agr. and California State Dept. Agr. mimeographed report issued Feb. 3, 1928. Col. 4. Relatives of data in col. 3. 1910-1914 = 123. 66 = 100. Col. 5. Col. 4 divided by Col. 2. Col. 6. 1869-1925. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Prices of farm products received by producers 4 ; Mountain and Pacific states. U. S. Dept. Agr. Statistical Bui. 17: 149. 1927. 1926-1928, Kaufman, E. E. Summary of California annual livestock report— 1928. U. S. Dept. Agr. and California State Dept. Agr. mimeographed report issued Feb. 3, 1928. Col. 7. Relatives of data in Col. 6. 1910-1914 = $26.50 = 100. Col. 8. Col. 7 divided by Col. 2. While it is true that the cycles in beef-cattle valuations have been fairly regular, improved methods and more widespread knowledge of actual conditions may logically shorten the periods which have been prevalent in the past. Data for California valuations check those for the United States closely. High points in the value of cattle other than dairy cattle were reached in 1885, 1900, and 1916, while low points were found in 1877, 1894, 1909, and 1925. The slight differences between the data for the nation and the state occur mainly in connection with the low points. It should be noted that the troughs are comparatively broad, the selection of a specific year being more a matter of personal opinion than exact scientific measurement. If history is repeated the trend may be upward for the next three or four years. This means that if the general price level falls beef cattle will fall less rapidly in price or the price may even rise, and if the general price level rises beef cattle prices will probably rise more rapidly. BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 71 Farm Prices and Purchasing Power op Beef Cattle, United States and California, 1910-1927 (Purchasing power is measured in terms of the average purchasing power of the dollar in 1910-1914.) Purchas/na Power 120 // s 100 s «» ^/ / / \ \ \ \ \ V \ Put c/?o, siny Power, t/n/t&d J fole s eo s * v\ ;«'""* h >. ^ > - ^- / / / 60 Pi /re/) os/r ioPc wer t Co// for* '/C 40 20 19/0 J9/J 1720 1925 fJO.oo Wei Qhicd Average /V/ce />er /QO/>ovndi J 9/0 1916 19 2 O 7925 Fig. 21. — High prices do not necessarily mean high purchasing power. During the period 1915-1919, prices were rising and purchasing power was actually fall- ing. Since 1923 both prices and purchasing power have been rising. In all probability purchasing power for the next two or three years will be comparatively hi g n « (Data from table 34.) 72 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION The prevention of cycles in the cattle industry has been a subject of interest among cattlemen. The authors believe that if cattlemen would realize that one of the important factors is the contraction and expansion of herds they might partially prevent these periods of depression and prosperity. According to the data available the cycles are particularly severe in the cattle industry. In comparing cattle-value cycles with those of other classes of livestock, it will be found that the longer it takes to change the number of animals, the more violently prices swing out of adjustment. While it is improbable that minor fluctuations can be removed, the major swings, with more accurate data available in the future, may be smoothed somewhat. TABLE 32 Estimated Price Received by Producers for Beef Cattle in the United States, 1910-1928 (Per 100 pounds live weight.) Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Weighted average* 1910 4 54 4 54 4.87 5.31 5.23 5.04 4.84 4.64 4.65 4.64 4.48 4.45 4.76 1911 4.58 4.57 4.66 4.67 4.59 4.43 4.28 4.39 4.43 4.32 4.36 4.37 4.46 1912 4.46 4.61 4.75 5.15 5.36 5.23 5.44 5.38 5.35 5.36 7.05 6.89 5.49 1913 5.40 5.55 5.88 6.08 6.01 6.02 5.98 5.91 5.92 6.05 5.99 5.96 5.91 1914 6.04 6.16 6.28 6.29 6.33 6.32 6.38 6.47 6.38 6.23 6.02 6.01 6.24 1915 5.99 5.93 5.92 5.96 6.13 6.20 6.07 6.18 6.06 6.04 5.85 5.75 6.01 1916 5.85 5.99 6.37 6.66 6.73 6.91 6.78 6.51 6.55 6.37 6.44 6.56 6.48 1917 6.85 7.36 7.91 8.57 8.70 8.65 8.30 8.17 8.40 8.35 8.21 8.24 8.17 1918 8.33 8.55 8.85 9.73 10.38 10.40 10.07 9.71 9.63 9.33 9.14 9.28 9.47 1919 9.65 10.02 10.34 10.81 10.84 10.20 9.96 9.82 9.02 8.65 8.65 8.63 9.63 1920 8.99 8.98 9.08 9.20 8.97 9.32 8.93 8.56 8.29 7.77 7.15 6.36 8.39 1921 6.32 6.02 6.36 6.08 5.98 5.65 5.40 5.39 4.98 4.81 4.69 4.62 5.45 1922 4.75 5.07 5 46 5.53 5.70 5.84 5.76 5.51 5.44 5.48 5.29 5.28 5.43 1923 5 51 5.55 5.62 5.78 5.77 5.82 5.72 5.60 5.70 5 48 5.23 5.26 5.57 1924 5.38 5.47 5.63 5.82 5.94 5.79 5.65 5.67 5.53 5.52 5.43 5.35 5.59 1925 5.63 5.69 6.18 6.55 6.48 6.46 6.55 6.58 6.27 6.29 6.14 6.18 6.26 1926 6.31 6.42 6.65 6.66 6.57 6.56 6.46 6.29 6.48 6.43 6.32 6.42 6.45 1927 6.45 6.60 6.82 7.13 7.17 7.08 7.13 7.21 7.42 7.55 8.00 8.32 7.29 1928 8.48 8.72 8.81 8.92 9.09 9.10 9.19 9.51 9.96 9.63 Feb. 6, Mar. 7, Apr. 7, * Weighted average computed by authors with following weights — Jan. May 8, June 8, July 8, Aug. 9, Sept. 10, Oct. 10, Nov. 11, Dec. 8. Sources of data: 1910-1926. U. S. Dept. Agr. Cattle, Beef: estimated price per 100 pounds, U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook: 1926: 1046. 1927. 1927-1928. Monthly issues U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets. Farm Prices of Beef Cattle in the United States and California. — The value per head of beef cattle varies with condition, quality, age, size, and weight, and is consequently highly variable even in a single state. 33 The price would apply in some localities to well- 3 5 Sarle, Charles F. Reliability and adequacy of farm price data. U. Dept. Agr. Dept. Bui. 1480: 1-65. 1927. 8. BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 73 finished cattle, while in some dairy regions the cattle sold for beef are mostly worn-out dairy cattle. The data in table 34 and figure 21 should be used only in a general way as they are perhaps only a rough approximation of the actual situation. Generally speaking, prices have been at higher levels in California than in the nation. Since the low point during the winter of 1921-1922 prices in both the nation and state have tended upward. TABLE 33 Estimated Price Keceived by Producers for Beef Cattle in California, 1910-1928 (Per 100 pounds live weight.) Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Weighted average* 1910 5 30 5.30 5 80 5.70 5 20 6.00 6.00 5 00 6.00 6 00 5 00 6 00 5.63 1911 6 20 5 80 5 90 6 10 6.50 5.40 5.20 4.90 6.50 5.20 5 20 5.20 5.65 1912 5 20 5.40 6.00 6 40 5.70 5 50 5 50 5.90 5.50 5.60 5.70 6.30 5.72 1913 6.30 6 50 6 70 6 50 6.60 6.60 6.30 6.70 6.40 6.50 6.80 6 50 6.53 1914 6.70 6.90 6.80 6.80 6.60 6.60 6.50 6.40 6.60 6.50 6.40 6.60 6 60 1915 6.40 6.40 6.30 6 40 6 00 6.00 6 10 6 10 5.90 5.80 5.90 6.00 6 09 1916 6 00 6 10 6.30 6 80 6 40 6.40 6.40 620 610 6.00 6.10 6.70 6 23 1917 7.20 7.50 8.10 8.50 8.40 7.90 8.30 7.70 8.30 8.00 8.20 7.90 8 02 1918 8.30 8.80 9.30 9.80 10 10 9.50 9.40 9 20 9.00 9.10 9 10 9 50 929 1919 10.00 10.90 10.90 10.80 11.05 9 70 9.70 9 . 30 9.00 9.00 8.90 9.40 9.85 1920 10.10 10.70 10.45 10.20 9.90 8.70 8.80 8.80 8.30 8.30 8.30 8.30 9.16 1921 8.30 8.10 7 50 7.20 6.70 6.50 6.00 5.90 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 6.43 1922 5.80 6.20 6.70 6.90 7.00 6.50 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.30 6.40 6.39 1923 7.10 6 60 6.40 6.30 6 10 6.00 5.70 6.00 5.90 6.10 6.10 6.10 6.16 9124 6.60 7.00 7.50 7.10 6.90 6.50 6.20 6.00 6 00 5.90 5.80 6.40 6.46 1925 6.30 6.80 6.70 7.20 7.10 7.50 6.90 6.50 6.70 6.50 6.60 6.80 6.82 1926 7.40 7.30 7.30 7.30 7.20 6.50 6.50 6.60 6.70 6.90 6.70 7.00 6.91 1927 7.20 7.50 7.40 7.50 7.30 7.20 6.90 7.30 7.30 7.70 7.60 8.70 7.53 1928 9.80 9.50 9.80 9.50 9.20 9.10 9.00 9 30 10.30 10.20 * Weighted average computed by authors with the following weights— Jan. 7, Feb. 6, Mar. 7, Apr. 8, May 9, June 10, July 11, Aug. 10, Sept. 9, Oct. 8, Nov. 7, Dec. 8. Sources of data: 1910-1925, U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Prices of farm products received by producers; 4, Mountain and Pacific states. U. S. Dept. Agr. Stat. Bui. 17: 144. 1927. 1926-1928, U. S. Dept. Agr., Crops and Markets. It is extremely difficult to gauge accurately the purchasing power of beef cattle in terms of all commodities. The base period (1910- 1914) which is used in the rough approximation made in this pub- lication was a period of rising prices for beef cattle in both the state and nation, but this was not the case with all commodities. Further- more, the prices received during the base period 1910-1914 were high in California compared with those of the nation, which makes the present purchasing power appear low for this state. With this and other inaccuracies in mind, a comparison has been made between beef 74 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION prices and those for commodities in general. Although general whole- sale prices rose rapidly during the war period, beginning in 1916 beef prices began to lag. This was especially noticeable in California where the general level of beef prices was relatively low. TABLE 34 Belative Prices (Beceived by Producers) and Belative Purchasing Power of Beef Cattle, United States and California, 1910-1928 All- commodity index United States California Year Relative price Relative purchasing power Relative price Relative purchasing power 1 1910 1911 1912 1913 . . 2 102.7 94.7 100.9 101.8 99.9 102.6 129.0 180.3 197.7 210 1 230.2 149.6 151 5 156.5 152.4 162.0 154.0 149.0 149.0 149.0 149.0 151.0 153.0 151.0 152.0 153.0 155.0 3 88.6 83.1 102.2 110.1 116.2 111.9 120.7 152 1 176.4 179.3 156.2 101.5 101.1 103.7 104.1 116.6 120.1 135.8 157.9 162.3 164.0 166.0 169.2 169.4 171.1 177.0 185.4 4 86.3 87.8 101.3 108.2 116.3 109.1 93.6 84.4 89.2 85.3 67.9 67.8 66.7 66.3 68.3 72.0 78.0 91.1 106.0 108.9 110 1 109.9 110.6 112.2 122.6 115.7 119.6 5 93.4 93.8 94.9 108.4 109.5 101.1 103.4 133.1 154.2 163.5 152.0 106.7 106.0 102.2 107.2 113.2 114.7 125.0 162.6 157.7 162.6 157.7 152.7 151.0 149.4 154.3 170.9 6 91.0 99.0 94.1 106.5 1914 109.6 1915 98.5 1916 80.1 1917 73.8 1918 78.0 1919 77.8 1920 66.0 1921 71.3 1922 70.0 1923 65.3 1924 70.3 1925 69.9 1926 74.5 1927 83.9 1928 — January 109.1 105.8 109.1 104.4 99.8 100.0 July 98.3 100.8 September 110.3 Sources of data: Col. 2, Bur. Labor Statistics, All-commodity index, 1910-14 = 100. Col. 3, table 32, 1910-14 = 100. Col. 4, col. 3 divided by col. 2. Col. 5, table 33. 1910-14 = 100. Col. 6, col. 5 divided by col. 2. Since the depression year of 1920 there has been a fairly close general agreement between the purchasing power of beef cattle in the United States and in this state. Compared with prices of commodities in general there has been a decided improvement in beef-cattle prices, especially during the latter part of 1927. The BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 75 purchasing power during 1927, however, did not give an indication of being high. Compared with commodities in general it would appear that the price was roughly normal during the latter part of the year. The first ten months of 1928 give indications that the purchasing power for the year will be over 100 per cent. With the compara- tively lean years which the industry has experienced since 1920, many stockmen have undoubtedly primed expenses severely. Prices appear to them to have been high in 1927, and herein lies a danger that cattlemen may increase their herds too rapidly. While indica- tions point to a comparatively favorable situation during the next few years, cattlemen have it within their power to prolong the situation provided new additions to herds are made slowly. A study of the average wholesale prices received for beef cattle at Chicago since 1910 evidences the same general trend as farm prices. Until 1917 the agreement between the two series of general farm prices in the United States and Chicago prices was striking. Since the latter date the farm series has been relatively lower although during the past two years there has been a tendency for a closer agreement. Throughout this discussion unit prices are used. These together with purchasing power do not give a true picture of the industry, because volume of production is left out of account. Owing to the wide range of prices for the lower grades, an average means little or nothing. It is of interest to note that a series of data showing the average prices of cutters and canners on the Chicago market since 1910 indicates that the prices for this type of stuff have been relatively lower since 1918 than for any of the higher grades of animals. Quotations of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. — The Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the United States Department of Agri- culture publishes daily quotations on the various grades of livestock and upon the weights within these grades. A range of price is quoted, and in calculations in this bulletin the arithmetic mean of the high and low quotations of the range is used unless a notation is made to the contrary. This type of work is open to the criticism that the cattle within the grade may change in quality from day to day, from month to month, and from season to season. Since there is difficulty in quoting upon a uniform product, calculations should be viewed as a general approximation of what really happens. Several grades are quoted on each of the larger markets. 36 On the Pacific Coast the quotations for the higher grades and larger steers are usually lacking. 36 Gibbons, C. E. Market classes and grades of livestock. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bui. 1360: 1-47. 1926. 76 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION «*" «< ,2 #— »r itt'' ... / *•• k .„. h r^- <0 V *> ^^ , — "■ ,.• u *N "J. 1- HU: S ..'1 M K> £ < § 1 4 Z"^? s- — , v, •• \ 1 > t3 aifd « 1 5 « s CH O ►» t> O 5_, ,— i* en 2 oo "C s «1 s 2 0> eS 2 c3 c3 s nd San Fi hin the g at San Fr there app N 05 -4-i CO •r 1 tt 03 rt h m m r- D & 02 O fe o -fl ° ^ rH •h ■ o So cr^.2 0.1 An ex£ n the which nd the orrelat OS 1 O ^ © s a o o &JD fl «3 ^ £ <1 1 << rt c3 > «.s » S hi cdhl^ BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 77 Since the latter part of 1922 the quotation on " medium steers 1100 pounds down" has been most consistently published, although slight changes in this classification have been made. San Francisco and Los Angeles prices have steadily increased since 1922, the most pro- nounced improvement coming about in 1927 (fig. 22). Comparisons between prices on the San Francisco and the Los Angeles markets with those on the Chicago market are difficult to make. It is probable that the Chicago price is for a higher grade of animal. The spread between the high and low price at Chicago is such that it is doubtful whether the mean of these extremes can be used in any other way than to indicate very general trends. There is a greater correlation between the "low" of the Chicago quotation and the "high" of the San Francisco and Los Angeles than between the average price quotations in the two localities (fig. 22). Cattle and the dressed products as well are bought at Chicago and other large midwestern and eastern markets more nearly on the basis of grade than is the case on the Pacific Coast, particularly until very recently. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics through Mr. C. V. Whalin, its representative, states, "There are two important factors that operate to cause a relatively narrow spread between the low and high ends of the price quotations on medium grade steers on Pacific Coast markets as compared with Chicago. These are (1) a much wider spread in the market value of beef by grade and by class in eastern territory than on the Pacific Coast — a spread that is logically reflected by hoof prices, and (2) a greater disposition on the part of the trade in the midwest and east to buy cattle more nearly on the judged merit of individual lots than is the case in the far west. In other words, there is less tendency to regard a steer as a steer, a cow as a cow, either on foot or in the carcass, at the more eastern market centers than in western areas." 37 This fine distinction between values within grades plus varying preferences for one weight selection over another accounts for price spreads of as much as $3.00 or more per hundredweight between the minimum and maximum quotations on a given grade of beef steers on the Chicago market. Comparison of Beef and Veal Prices. — Since 1920, the margin between prices for veal and beef have generally been far greater than before the war (fig. 23). The tendency for this margin to widen has played a part in the increasing number of calves which have been 37 Letter from C. V. Whalin, in charge, Marketing Livestock, Meats, and Wool Division of the U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ., to Edwin C. Voorhies, January 26, 1928. 78 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION — 1 * < < ""* » ;~ * < i. -S > < S ' is ► * 1 *» 1 < 2 § "*». b ^ -* — 1 x — ^2j -JP- _JU 5^ > •sis s * 1 * ti / 4 > < ^^ 1 1 M ^ ^ p CT jr 1 ^3? 8° 05 }-t o> o & S ^3 k So Oj ^ bfi 03 • Th * ctf oS OO 53 'oS P! O) •' H > 0) OJ r-l cd !>-» 0) !»N1 rt rf « Pi «H.S CO $H ft fH O o ^ k >i Pi as k >*• £ a **• co ^ h CO & . 3 as "^ EH „, I ^ a> ~ 7= ►>. t bJD'H ^ s *•< ■d* > Pi «H as o BuL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 79 marketed. Prices for veal calves in California have consistently shown a higher purchasing power than those for beef animals since 1919. There is no foundation for believing that the veal price will continue to draw away from the beef price. With an increase in dairying it is highly probable that there will be an increase in the number of veal calves marketed. Seasonal Variation in Prices of "Beef Steers, 1100 Pounds Down, Medium Grade, at Chicago," San Francisco, and Los Angeles, 1922-1927 Average month = 100. Indices of Seaoonal Variation "^^^\ : >an Franc ISCO \ \ \ \ Chicago PA / r , N — ^ l\ ,-.«"-*" rf*5>- ^-^'^.^ Los Ana ?/es 2" Apr May 'July ™9 Sept. Fig. 24. — The data used are the low of the range of quotations. A high degree of correlation exists between the seasonal variation at San Francisco and Los Angeles. From this chart indications are that quotations at Chicago for medium steers are relatively higher from May to June, at which time there is often a small surplus on the California market. The period of time on which the data are based is far too short for the formulation of definite conclusions. (Data from table 37.) Seasonal Variation in Beef Cattle Prices. — Variations in quotation grades and the lack of a comparable series of prices over a sufficiently long period of time make it extremely difficult to analyze the seasonal variations in the wholesale prices of beef animals. The average (arithmetic mean) of the quotations for "medium steers 1100 pounds down," has been used for San Francisco and Los Angeles in table 37. Slight changes have been made in the classification by grade, but the data in tables 35 and 36 are such that they cover the same general classification throughout. While these data are available since 1922, quotations at times have not represented the range of quality within the class itself. This is particularly true during the summer season, at which time there are perhaps relatively more poor animals on the San Francisco and Los Angeles markets than at other times during the year. 80 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 35 Average Monthly Prices of Medium and Common Grade Steers at San Francisco, 1922-1928 (Dollars per hundred pounds live weight.) Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Medium 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 7.20 7.97 7.19 8.13 8.00 10.95 8.13 7.38 8.00 11.00 8.08 7.74 8.30 8.28 10.94 6.75 7.97 8.63 7.97 8.50 10.37 6.75 7.41 7.81 8.00 9.96 6.50 7.00 8.08 7.43 7.84 9.95 6.50 7.00 7.14 7.25 7.97 10.17 6.50 7.00 7.04 7.45 8.10 10.81 6.50 7.00 7.38 7.60 8.59 11.24 7.25 6.75 7.00 7.50 7.63 8.63 11.12 7.25 6.75 7.00 7.41 7.78 9.21 7.25 7.18 7.00 7.61 8.00 9.97 Common 1922 6.35 6.38 6.38 6.34 1923 6.40 6.18 6.00 5.60 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.69 5.75 1924 6.22 6.13 6 13 6.13 6.00 6 00 5 75 5.75 5.75 5 75 5.50 5.55 1925 5 94 6.13 6.49 7.22 7.33 7.13 6 31 6.02 6.19 6 25 6.25 6 25 1926 6.50 6.75 6.75 6.56 6.50 6.33 6.25 6.35 6.50 6.63 6.65 6.75 1927 6.75 6.75 6.91 7.13 7.00 6.75 6.75 6.83 7.44 7.68 7.94 7.75 1928 8.55 9.00 9.00 8.77 8.58 8.58 8.79 9.31 9.74 9.69 Note.— Quotations are arithmetic averages of the Monday quotations published during each month. Quotations— Sept. 1922-Oct. 1923 on "Medium and Common Beef Steers;" Nov. 1923-June 1927 on "Medium and Common Beef Steers, 1,100 pounds down;" July 1927 on "Medium and Common Beef Steers, 800 pounds up." Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Daily livestock market summary. Mimeographed daily report, published by the San Francisco Office, Bur. Agr. Econ. TABLE 36 Average Monthly Prices or Medium and Common Grade Steers at Los Angeles, 1922-1928 (Dollars per hundred pounds live weight.) Year Jan. Feb Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. | Nov. Dec Medium "1922 7.25 7.25 7.28 7.22 1923 7.16 6.69 7.07- 7.28 6.70 6.73 6.82 6.88 7.07 6.83 7 26 7.53 1924 7.66 7.71 7.94 7.88 7.09 6.92 7.11 6.85 7.31 7.43 7.10 6.98 1925 6.13 7.01 7.71 8.30 7.94 7.56 7.28 7.38 7.74 7.82 7.89: 8 13 -. 1926 .8.60 8.63 8.15 7.95 7.60 7.39 7.31 7.43 7.39 7.63 7.73 8.17 1927 .8.14 8 06 8.31 8.23 8.23 811 7.89 8.51 8.68 8.86 9.28 10.06 - 1928 11 25 11.58 11.25 10 51 10 27 10 25 10 78 11.46 11.68 11.65 Common 1922 1923 5.95 5.69 5.94 6.25 5.86 5.97 " 1924 ' 6.33 6.47 660 6.69 5.83 5.70 1925 5.47 5.33 6.00 6.66 6.25 6.01 1926 7.04 7.07 6.61 6.50 6.22 6.02 1927 6.69 6.53 6.84 7.15 6.98 6.84 1928 . 9.95 9.73 9.41 8.75 8.67 8.78 6.07 5.38 5.53 5.97 6.75 9.15 6.13 5.41 5.50 6.13 7.44 9.76 6.38 6.22 5.46 6.04 6.08 7.45 6.38 600 5.58 5.75 6.29 7.61 9.81 6.35 6.19 5.32 5.85 6.33 7.90 5 35 6 13 5 25 6.25 Note. — Quotations are arithmetic averages of the Monday quotations published during each month. Quotations— Sept. 1922-Oct. 1923 on "Medium and Common Beef Steers;" Nov. 1923-June 1927 on "Medium and Common Beef Steers, 1,100 pounds down;" July 1927 on "Medium and Common Beef Steers, 800 pounds up." Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Daily livestock market summary. Mimeographed daily report, published by the Los Angeles Office, Bur. Agr. Econ. BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 81 While the seasonal variation is calculated on the basis of five years only, the data for the two cities check fairly closely and a comparison with the actual prices indicates that the indices of seasonal variation as calculated are approximately correct. The five months beginning in December have been above normal at both cities. In San Francisco, May also shows an above-normal index. June, July, and August show lower indices than other months of the year. This sag is caused in part by differences in the quality of cattle. This situation is an illus- tration of the difficulties involved in analyzing changes in the prices of products not highly uniform in character. A study of the prices of "medium-grade steers 1100 pounds down" at Chicago does not reveal a well-defined seasonal variation. A close examination of the data reveals the fact that the range between the high and low of the Chicago quotations for mediums is such that the arithmetic mean can hardly be termed an average price. In order that data for the Pacific Coast and Chicago may be made more nearly comparable, seasonal variation for San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Chicago have been calculated on the basis of the low of the quotation range for "medium steers 1100 pounds down" (cols. 3, 5, .and 6, table 37). TABLE 37 Indices of Seasonal Variation in Prices of Medium and Common Grade Steers at San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Chicago, 1922-1927 Medium grade Common grade Month San Francisco Los Angeles Chicago San Fran- cisco Los Angeles Average quotations Low of quotations Average quotations Low of quotations Low of quotations Chicago 1 2 101.6 103.6 103.0 103.4 101.3 96.3 96.3 96 3 98.3 99.1 99 1 101.7 3 103.6 103.5 103.3 104 1 102.2 96.4 96 3 96 1 96.9 98.5 93 3 100 8 4 101.9 102.0 104.9 103.8 99 96.3 95 96 1 99 4 99.2 99.8 102.6 5 103.9 101.8 104 5 107.3 99 1 95.4 93 8 96 97 97.8 99.5 103.7 6 104.3 102.7 105 1 104 5 106 1 99.9 101.0 91 6 94 1 96 3 94 2 100 3 7 103 3 103.1 103.0 102.2 100 8 98 1 96 7 96 6 98,7 99.0 98.9 99.6 8 101.7 99.1 103.3 107.8 101.0 98.5 97.1 97.8 98.6 98.4 98.9 97.8 9 99 1 February March., April May June July August September. ..:.... October" November December 99.4 106.4 .109.5 112.2 107.5 102 94 1 92.3 92.7 89.4 95 4 Cols. 2, 4, 7, 8, and 9, based upon average of high and low quotations for medium steers. Cols. 3, 5, 6 based upon low of quotations for medium steers. Sources of data: Computations by authors based upon daily quotations published in the U. S. Dept. Agr. Daily Livestock Market Summary. Bur. Agr. Econ. offices at San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Chicago. The median link relative method has been used in computing the seasonal variation. The average monthly index = 100. 82 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION The data for San Francisco and Los Angeles check rather closely with the indices calculated on the average quotation (cols. 2 and 4, table 37). Table 37 shows rather clearly that the break at Chicago in the medium grade has come later than on the Los Angeles and San Fran- cisco markets. With the limited data on hand it would appear that steers of this type destined for eastern markets would fare better in price if shipped before the fall months. Data are so limited that a hard and fast rule should not be drawn. TABLE 38 Belative Prices and Purchasing Power of Beef Cattle at Chicago', 1910-1927 Native beef steers, all weights Beef steers, 1200-1500 pounds Canners and cutters Stockers and feeders Fat cows and heifers Year Rela- tive Relative Pur- chasing Rela- tive Relative Pur- chasing Rela- tive Relative Pur- chasing Rela- tive Relative Pur- chasing Rela- tive Relative Pur- chasing price power price power price power price power price power / 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1910 89.8 87.4 90.6 88.2 85.2 83.0 81.7 79.6 85.7 83.4 1911 84 5 89.2 84.9 89.7 78.3 82.7 80.0 84.5 81.0 85.5 1912 102.4 101.5 106 5 105.6 93.4 92.6 96.0 95.1 97.8 96.9 1913 109.0 107.1 105.8 103.9 116.8 114.7 118.7 116.6 113.6 111.6 1914 114.3 114 4 112.2 112 3 126.4 126.5 123.7 123.8 122.0 122.1 1915 111 125.5 108.2 97.3 110.9 125.5 108.1 97.3 116.8 131.9 113.8 102.2 113.6 125.7 110.7 1916 121.2 94.0 97.4 1917 153.2 85.0 159.1 88.2 171.7 95.2 141.4 78.4 153.6 85.2 1918 193.5 97.9 196.4 99.3 199.2 100.8 172.6 87.3 176.9 89.5 1919 204 8 97.5 205.3 97.7 177.2 84.3 182.7 87.0 186.2 88.6 1920 175.7 76.3 181.9 79.1 138.7 60.3 150.7 65.5 159.2 69.2 1921 108.3 72.4 106.5 71.2 79.7 53.3 108.6 72.6 100 6 67.2 1922 118.9 78.5 120.4 79.5 86.5 57.1 112.0 73.9 106.1 70.0 1923 126.2 80.6 126.1 80.6 85.2 54.4 110.3 70 5 110.8 70.8 1924 126.8 83.2 123.6 81.1 82.4 54 1 106.9 70.1 106.1 69.6 1925 139.4 87.1 138.2 86.4 92.0 57.5 114 5 71.6 117.3 73.3. 1926 128.1 83.2 123.6 80 3 115 4 74.9 124.6 80.9 125.7 81.6 1927 154.6 103.8 160.3 107.6 138.7 93.1 146.3 98.2 147 1 98.7 Source of data : Actual prices upon which relatives in cols. 2,4,6, and 8 are calculated are from Chicago Daily Drovers Journal. The yearly prices are not weighted. Drovers Journal Yearbook of Figures 1927: 1-109. 1928. Base 1910-1914 = 100. Cols. 3, 5, 7, 9, 11— relatives in cols. 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 divided by all- commodity index. Base 1910-1914 = 100. Studies made by Hopkins 38 on the seasonal variation in the prices of 1200 to 1500 pound steers revealed a low point in general in Feb- ruary followed by rapidly rising prices until August and September, after which a downward movement sets in until February. The move- ment is explained by the number and the quality of the cattle marketed. According to the same author, prices of feeder cattle reach ss Hopkins, John A., Jr. An economic study of the cattle feeding enterprise in Iowa. Iowa Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 242: 1-46. 1927. BUL.461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 83 a low point in the late fall and winter months at Chicago, which is explained by the heavy runs of range cattle during this season and the low prices prevailing in the whole cattle market. The seasonal high point in feeder prices is usually reached in May on the Chicago market. This variation is confirmed by studies made by the authors in the seasonal variation of the prices of common steers at Chicago since 1922. Wildest Prices at Chicago. — On account of the availability of long series of data on wholesale prices of livestock at Chicago (table 38) it has been possible to make general comparisons between grades of cattle appearing on that market. These prices do not represent prices paid to producers; it is highly probable that the latter would not be so favorable as these wholesale prices. Evidence on this point can be obtained from table 34 (p. 74). The New York State College of Agriculture 39 has pointed out that the spread between the retail price and the farm price has increased greatly since the pre-war period 1910-1914, which would indicate a somewhat higher relative wholesale price when compared with the relative farm price. Table 38 shows distinctly that there has been an increasing spread between the wholesale prices of the better and poorer grades of cattle at Chicago. For example, the purchasing power of canners and cutters during 1927 was 93.1, while that of beef steers weighing between 1200 and 1500 pounds was 107.6. The retail prices of the choicer cuts are reflected in the wholesale prices of the better grades of cattle (tables 38 and 42). Prices of Purebreds. — The United States Department of Agricul- ture has endeavored to obtain from a large and representative number of breeders sale prices (both at auction and private treaty) of pure- bred beef animals in the United States. Reports on the sales of 2,914 Aberdeen Angus, 17,935 Hereford, 495 Red Polled and 9,126 Short- horn cattle in 1927 gave results as shown in table 39. In general, prices for beef cattle were materially higher in 1927 than in the three preceding years, but not so high as they were in 1923. The 1927 report showed that 60 per cent of the purebred beef cattle sales in 1927 were made in the north central states, 21 per cent in the southern state, 16 per cent in the mountain and Pacific states and 3 per cent in the north Atlantic states. Prices of purebred Shorthorn cattle sold at public auction in the United States have been tabulated by J. H. Knox of the Illinois 39 Warren, G. F., and F. A. Pearson. Cost of distributing food. New York State Col. Agr. Farm Economics 2(50) : 830-836. 1928. 84 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Agricultural Experiment Station. 40 An analysis of these prices gives indications that they lag from 1 to 2 years after the price of the common farm cattle. The lag in the prices of purebred Shorthorn bulls seems to be even greater. This condition is caused by the fact that prices of purebred beef animals are the results of the demand for beef steers. Hence prices for purebreds generally rise and fall later than those for steers. From this study it would appear that changes in the prices of purebred Shorthorns are more violent than the price changes of common beef cattle. The prices of purebreds are bid proportionately higher than the price of common beef cattle when the latter is rising as farmers are encouraged to improve their herds. Conversely, the drop in prices during periods of overproduc- tion will be greater as the farmer demand will then cease. TABLE 39 Comparative Percentages of Sax.es of the Combined Purebred Beef-Cattle Breeds, United States, 1923-1927, by Price Banges Year Below $50 $50-8250 1250 and above 1923 16.4 77.9 5.7 1924 21.7 76.2 2.1 1925 25.2 73.1 1.7 1926 11.9 86.6 1.5 1927 6 6 89.5 3.9 Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr. Prices of purebred cattle, hogs, and sheep. U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets 4: 140-141. 1927; 1927 data from U. S. Dept. Agr. Prices of purebred beef cattle, mimeo- graphed report, April 4, 1928. MEAT PRICES It has been pointed out that beef cattle prices until the latter part of 1927 have been relatively low since 1915 if prices are referred to a 1910-1915 base and compared with the prices of all commodities. It will be of interest to analyze wholesale and retail meat prices in order to see if the relatively low prices for live animals have been reflected in relatively low wholesale and retain meat prices. Since data are available for other classes of meat than beef, comparisons may shed some light on the demand for various meats. 40 Ulrey, O. Prices of pure-bred Shorthorn cattle and common beef cattle. New York Agr. Exp. Sta. Farm Economics 2(43) : 651-654. 1927. BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 85 ^^g>2^S5SSSSS! O CO CO CO CO CO CO CO c O CO CO c^ % Q ' ; 5. 5 p ~ 50 S- E« tototototototototo*-*-*-H-*-> IS, tCn>*«-C0t0i-»OcO00~40sen p S> CO tO H- 9 1 1. £1 BOOOOOOO: C 30000000000000000 O ^ O otototototototo: ► -^-H-^tOtOtOH-H-^t 0" 9 P p &. to 1— c. 3 *- to : c c» 00 s Cl k CO to ►- O CJ 3> 4>. O ► - 00 O CO IT. P o B"< p « 3 >-• CD co 1 a- ?. <» M 5 tr tt Og CD OP O CD O M P >0~lOsCnCnCnOsos: X ^ to CO c OtOh-*tO^J00^4tOOcOOOOOO 3D P2 O O B O OS CO ► -"tOCncn^IOOcDCXiCOC Ji O to OS ^r •c i° cl 1 TO ^MmOiCC^hm: >■ -«OOfcOC»K-COOCOtOcOH--vltnC000503 •-1 5' re BOOOOOOO: C otototototototo: t 300000000000000000 Ol—H-l— >t—H-l—tOtOtOl— '•-'I— 'I-'h-ih-Oi— ' 5 5" z;p »lMOMM(0»CO: C 5CnCnCni(iW^O>-0 01MNIWI (O CO 9 O co BcOCncoto*-00: ► - H- CO H -cicocorocntoii'if.acncnMCow CD £. * $ < "c« •b B. W c* a- S" » i 1 D. a- 2: • »~jcnoscncnosos: >< i-Mt0t0^-H-^0>^lCT>C0OOOOcO^J00 **£ f«.OScctO-~10seoco: >■ -ocr>oo20ooi*k^-a>^-c750^ioo50oto « OCnCn>*»-i-'*-: c j:COCT>>*»-p-»^-Cn(»k05CnOcotOOiOcOi^O 5" ° S 3 ^ B" O O -> < 30000000: « BO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ff p cT^ i otototototototo: t OCOtOtOtOtOtOCOCOCOtOH-'^-> » )-> I— 0' cn CO c* ► S».CO>-«000>->>— : H iOvlOHCBCOW^MOiCeCnOC s's p 3 H CD ft. EL ° « 3 at Oi O) r - ~J O to : « » 00 H- t Ot04^00i*».COOOtOCnC0^105COO *• S M ^ 8 2. ft CB ji rf». to to t to to to : 1 !».OOC7itOtOCn05000C^>-'COOOOOOO f ' 3 to co >*»■ ► - *>. O -a : C O C« CO h -CT,*-^_t00002>*»-00 ■d 2, 1— r* < 5M tn " ► ' M cn s : t *- O Ol CC Z CD SI _ F 3 c 30000000; c .ococococotototo: t 300000000000000 Jd 5' Ir 1 p 1 < Bcoosoo>*-cno: t »«0)0i6lCliOl0«J^*C001Cni(k »£ ' to CO h - W O 01 > --JOOCOlf-tOO C to p tr ft) P t < » (W CD ° CO CD ft. J1O1-00OOSO1: ^J^100C73^4^ICOcOOOOOOtOh— OO a* ?r Jl co to 00 ► - co ►— *- .; c ^Cni— 'COO>-'~JCnO>l— >h-'COO> - tJ « 5- < B^H-H-toco*-^; « D«OOOCOh--vIC»COOOtOOOcOO 0' cc 5" CD •"0 BOOOOOOO: t 30000000000000000 O ►U e w g 2. e C ^iCi^oioobifr-w: » ^i^^i^HMbb)»i6biM6b'o»*3 es" CD 23 p p XUCOSl^^OlU: ► -*^OicOOl(>MMCOO)Cnvl - CO A CD O TO •e- * 3 2 S CD R*l T 5* s*cO(*».os-^cn>J».to: < .ooocotooocoOcc: < /j*>-(*>-*>.H-H-OCnOC003t0OCOO00^J g s 3> O O ► ■'ffiOlMCCMWMM^OOOHCC JO O CD os O* ^OO^HfflbOOOM: c OSOlvlM-lNKOM^COO^CnOOl^ O ft. W 5" CD §-** ^ O nop 00000: 300000000000000 7 CD O i-» h- h- — h- ha 1— ■ -■ to to -«i— totococototOH-i— hi S 3" — CC^I^JCnCOC04-.: C ^1 Cn 2COHNQMO«>Cai^ -n h -J p .O-^lOtOOO^l^ICO: 3 OO O 0O>*»Cn^jCnCni*».t0C0 *»• CO * 1 TO 5 ? to H £. CD m- P O TO -■ O 3 ^jos^^coh-i— >to: 31^ICOOM^1MCO 3 9 U e Cv< a> >*»■ CO en Cn : O Oi K- CO O h- -vl _n os h- ^- CO O O T3 4^(OV>O0tt--<^tt^\ ■— CO O O CO H- ^4 » co 00 to C 3 5' tr 1 ^? p 3 O O O O O e => JjJ CD O co co CO co to to ►— H~ EL* — ^1 to CO 00 X. ^; m O H- 3S to >*»• OS O tO » CD p pr- CD EL e» * OOOO OOOO: OOO 000 7 tr 5 to to to to Cn to *- O j3 co to co : ^ 00 a ^i ^1 *■ Cn Cl Cn O CD co I in O C» Ci tn CO -«J CO : Cn Oi if» CD II B- S •d CD to to to to to to to to : tO tO H- O -^ 4- CO tO ^•0-4 ^1 Os tn to O O tis> os h- en Cn 9 i B l*^ 00 to O CO *» CO : to ►- a> ai x en o> s •d 3. JO ^ en ce 00 OO^-O: co to en CO O CO OS - : z — — : j: to O g HrJ W o a p tr 1 5 B o O > ^ Fa !2j M a to ^ t-J OS Kj II § H N O O ► Vw' a ~ a > S3 O 86 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Wholesale Prices at Chicago and New York. — Series of data on wholesale prices of meat are available, unfortunately, for only a limited number of localities. None of the places listed are on the Pacific Coast, but over long periods of time prices for commodities, such as meat, which are produced in many sections of the country and which can be transported easily, do not move very far out of line in the different localities. Table 40 indicates clearly that carcass prices at Chicago and native side prices at New York have been relatively low — whether these are compared with the prices of general commodities or with the prices of other meats. It is unfortunate that the data in table 40 had to be compared to a 1913 base. Earlier data are not completely available. In the case of the two series above mentioned the relative prices would still be relatively low if the base 1910-1914 had been used. It is also of importance to note that from 1917 to 1927 the wholesale prices of beef were relatively lower than those for lamb, pork, and veal. Only since the latter part of 1927 have the relative prices of wholesale beef approached those of other meats. TABLE 41 Index Numbers Showing Trend in the Retail Cost of Food in the United States, 1890-1927 (Average for year 1913 = 100.) Year Index number Year Index number Year Index number Year Index number 1890 69.6 70.6 69 3 71 67.8 66.5 64.9 65.4 67 1 67.7 68.7 1901 1902 71 5 75 4 75.0 76.0 76 4 78.7 82 84 3 88.7 93.0 92.0 1912 97.6 100 102.4 101.3 113.7 146.4 168.3 185.9 203.4 153.3 141 6 1923 146.2 1891 1913 1924 145.9 1892 1903 1904 1914 1925 157.4 1893 1915 1916 1926 1927 160.6 1894 1905 155.4 1895 1906 1917 1928— January 155.1 1896 1907 1918 February March 151.6 1897 1908 1919 151.4 1898 1909 1920 April May 152.1 1899 1910 1921 153.8 1900 1911 1922 June 152.6 July 152.8 Sources of data: 1890-1925, U. S. Dept. Labor, Retail Prices. 1890-1925, Bur. Labor Stat. Bui. 418: 6. 1926, ibid. Bui. 445: 6. 1927. 1927, U. S. Dept. Labor, Bur. Labor Statistics. Indexes of retail prices of food in the United States. Monthly Labor Review 27 (1) : 151. 1928. Retail Prices in the United States and California. — Compared with the relative retail prices of other meats those for the various cuts of beef have been low both (until the latter part of 1927) in the United States (table 42) and on the San Francisco (table 43) and Los BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 87 Angeles (table 44) markets. It is unfortunate that data are not avail- able for the period before 1913, since there is no especial reason for believing that 1913 was a normal year other than the fact that it was the year before the outbreak of the European War. If any one or all of the four years 1913-1916 had been taken as a base, however, the same general conclusions might have been drawn. With the out- break of the war and since that time retail prices of the various cuts of beef in the country have failed to reach the relative position which other classes of meat have attained. Statements are often heard that meat is high in price as compared with the pre-war period. For beef this has not been true. From 1922 until 1927 sirloin stead has kept about the same relative level as the general prices of retail foods (table 41). Available data on other cuts of meat serve to indicate that until 1927 retail prices for these cuts were relatively lower than the retail prices of other foods. The lower valued cuts of beef have been especially low in prices (see chuck roast and plate beef in table 42). With the prosperity which the nation has enjoyed during the past four years some explanation can be offered for the greater de- mand for the higher prices cuts of beef. Considerable improvement is to be noted in the retail prices of the beef cuts listed since 1922 (tables 42, 43, 44). One of the important factors contributing to low beef prices has been the propaganda urging consumers to eat less meat or to make substitutions for it. Some of the statements made in this connection have been gross misrepresentations. Another very important factor has been the relatively weak demand for the low-priced cuts (table 42). The producer of beef should take cognizance of this and aim to produce as high-grade beef as possible. COLD STORAGE OF BEEF United States. — Compared with the total production of beef, stor- age holdings are small. There is a well-defined seasonal variation. Stocks usually begin to accumulate during the fall of the year when larger supplies arrive on the markets (fig. 25). The peak in holdings is generally reached about January first, From January until the late summer or early fall beef is gradually withdrawn from the coolers. It is of interest to note the large volume of beef which was stored during the latter war years together with the rapid reduction of holdings during 1920. 88 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION L m © in p CO « s W Eh © O M Ph g © Eh © Eh C O CI m ^ iO o o cr. <* o CO t^ oo CI OM 00 CO CO o o CM CO CD C-l t^ O ■«*< N to O) to n m »-c 9 OS t-h CO r^ as o oo co CO co r^ J r^r^r-r^i^t^i^r^ « O) o CO oo 00 CO CO t— fH t-~ t~~ © o CO CO 00 OlOONNNN-N s — 1 _ O CO oo N H HJ Ol (O lO CO OCONNNNSCD Pi IN W (N M ■* * W CO CO CO CO CO cocococococococo 0) ig8 S.E'C Ph~ a o o t~ N N N i-H "5 CO ■* -* •* "0 >* lONBNlOMNlO -r. cd as oo 1-1 *" ' _, r^ CM *-, *-, ""H fH i-I CI e*r«~-~*-<*-<'-'-< a o3 w OS CO ~H ■* CM as hhh io oo oo IQ CO CO <# ONOlONNN^ B * r^ (O Ol X r^ lOi— i»-iOO-h^hcO Ph CI CM CM CM CO H/ UJ K) ^ ■«/ -fl tJH lO »o (B §.S'C PH*" a o oo OO ■«*< OS » N r- N Tl< co co o CO OOCMOSCOOSCDOCO o ,_l as co rt o o as o »o oi o oi m ^ ■>* CO o 'O O N O as ^ co n oo ^H t^ r~ CO cMcot^oas-HCMas S3 1^ r^ t^rJ* M N t- Tj< ■* M -H 00 t^ CO _H CMOlOCMOCOt^CO Ph-^ a c to 0O H in ^h h co r- ■^ CD •.*< loasocoosooinr^ o a Ol O lO O0 © © CO lO "+l •<*< t^ oo NHl*(OT)ltO(ON I* o Ph o © co t~ as o co co as o -*< 00 CO IQ wnwiow^oon °E _ CI O N rt C. CM CM Tf CO O CO ~ OHOlOtlHlO^S Ph IN CM N CO co ■*■<*< CO CO co co CO <** Ph^ a O ~ O O 00 CM OS CM CM 00 CO WHIOWOI^OIOI 01 aj o3 O CO -H oo to en as tj NN'tlcONOINN o Q O O CM r-- co io -h c c O -H c IN-^HiTliHiiOiOiO O) CO »-H O0 t- CO CM CO CO 0C a- cm do ec ^NlONOSNlOrt Ph Ph SS CI IN N Ifl O O 00 ■*< CM N N H H r. C) co co lONNNMJOOOOl Ph*" a o «* co as co CO OO OO »f5 r- CO o c CO^HOOCDCO'— ICOiCCO e3 O O CO o tOOOMNMtOOlC OOOOOO-HCOCOCMO © © c< CO CO CO CO CM CN co co TtiliOtOCtDtOSCO M 3 8 o t» •h w* a- O O IN N N M 00 CO lON^NOOHOtOOl -d NCO>OlOlO(0»S» O Ph H H N CM CM CM CM — CM CM CM CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM 1 o g.S'fi Ph-^ a c e ■^ t* 1C5 »h »h r^ o ->*i ■* >C i« OHNNNNNMW IC^SNOICOIOO o o © © »< C - «* ■>*< ■<* .C 3 g 00 ■* ^h cm a- NWMrtfflN»«ioiOHOMnmHi«iiD Ph N N N IN COCOCOCMCMCMCMCMC'- COCOCOCOCOCOCOCO 03 igj OtX30t^OO»CT»<— i«00N!OtO(O*H*wlDNlOai OlOW'jIlONHtOCO o o o o es (ONNlO^iomiC intONNNNOOCOOl ■d i 3 0) 6 CO CO O »« O OS0110>*MlOOONI8Ht001HttmilO» o C Neow^OKBooo^NeOMinesoooooiaiOHB K Ph NNNNNnWMmMWMWMMnMMM*** 33 aj.S'C Ph-^ a OOHK)O*Nrt0C«»Ol00»N00*ll0«IOeN oo a "o g -*O5t^e<5«co5t>-t^o0'«H<»- cocococoTtiooasco-H'Tft^ h u m no m r— *— OOHMOONOIOIO- N^rtl'JtllOtOC-O CO Ph NNOlNWW^^MtOMM********** .O ©e>JOOOSt>.^OSCOt>-CNCOCNCOOO©©©©COCO"5 a ocor-aseMTttcot-~aocO'*»-CDr^»HC©©OST*»OeN00tfaCM»-l 9 003)ON»*!D0)«ffl®N0CI(Sa)NS»»iHMiH J Ph MNNMMMMmnwwfsnwnMn'f^^ > b 03 9 ►< •^ u " "" >> * >> 1-3 fe S *< CD CC t^ 1 s a a- cr a cr OS CT OC a- CT W T3 Ph * hh -5 ^- a 00 _Q 02 t> Ph » I- 8 Ph 03 HJ o co a "S '§ T3 c ■ K O > O „ OJ BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 89 £ © o * 2 tH g n <1 CO « i-( pt| © r-\ u * ft 3 | co a s w ~ pq & § -1 Q ^ H &, &h t» w ,FH « S « 2 e£ ^ g.5"E P3~ a o ~- ~ r^ 31 OOOO^Hr~ooascOcOcDr^oor^r^t^r~r^t^r^i^ CO a CO W _^, H _ T H_ c , e < l _i__ l _i»H_«,H, H _ l _i, H "*, ,H *"* g s NHitOMOSHNHIINlOHIOHNMNON^HlOH u Oh NNNCNN'<*i^U5'*^i'**^*'*^^«O^T|i'1i* T3 Ph^ a OtOOHOlCONMNOlCOHNHINNHlWOnHllO OO-H-HC0C00005t^r— COt^03-H00503a3CT>05C»05 "co s w n o © 00 O ■<*< O <-H — tOOOO-«J«--t~©I^ ■£j ^CMT'*t'»-H©OiCOOiOO WMMWH l 'CiOl'JlClClOlO!0(00»0-*}fliO to a S-- E omoc5-<ioioooa300Hl Ph (H cciTttcoccmooiooio-^cc-^ioinicosoioooor^ot^ CO 03 O g.B"B PS^ a OHiai«3NO00!0l0nOtDHM!OC6N01C<)HOO OOC»0)OiOHiH'INNNNMN»u5»lO'OlCIHliO i-H .-* i— I— H.-H.— I-H,— 1^-<.-<>— I.-H — -Ci-Hl-Hl-Hl-HlT-li-li— 1 M 3 O3iOt^^HOC0OI^CDC000t^»OOCNIt^->*rti^-HiocMi---^oco-HOoot^ i o a OOOOJOMHiHIMnn^HlHl^tOtOtOOOlOlO Ph-' a CD O ooocot^tooot^»-Ht^c«5t^cDTjiooo5a>t^(Ma>»o»-HO E ^T^^OCMOOOJ^HOOOOOOOiOCTSOCOCO^eOCOCOOO Ph NNNNNNNCONNIN«C<5NnWMMe<)WMM c3 oj (^OOOOOOOOr^OO HI "w ^H^H^H^H,-|,H^Hrt.-— <.-H.-l.-Hi-l.-li— l>-H-H a 3 e00500U5tD-HOOOO'*OeNO'!*<00^^5D<»»-l>Ol^ o M - E Ph g.S'B Ph-^ a OOO05CN>n0Ot^.<0t^.^O-^ (h OOOOCCO-HCNOOai^H-HIMiO^COt^-r^t^t^t^ m Ph c^cMCMCMCMcotoeoeocr>CMroMcocococoeococceoco i>2S Ph^ a ooor^<»cccot^ooooco<£>oo>>*r^oco-««ocM-H ,5 rt^rt-i«rtrtN-HN(NNNNCMINNININNPIIN OlM-HCCONMNNCOW^t-OOMOiHIlOHIOlMO HI u J Ph > e3 b 03 03 3 J >" 3 •" " "E >> ^ >> §g^ ajs §"9 hp [iH S ■< S •-» *-» n^iooNcooio-'MnHiiotbh a 3 3 > a a 3 3 3 -- 3 r 3 3 3 > a d 2 I -s 2 a a e>« 1— ' co 05 . oj od p a o t; m §§ g M -H fc —' . > Ph 2 . t-i -O oj o . co" "J (N •gai o -d GO* T •- cm .. CM 00 M ^ ~ P3 •- ^ to •• ^s |§ | _ - 7! rt 3 «> Si « cd *3 tJ 2 -S "S ■is ^ o — OJ <" 2 -d fie .2 i- 8 a en «-i _ »^ o 03 • W "£ "» "3 Ph 1'hS • w * III a 5 a P3 ^ „j Q • ° I M -o « S QQ £ _| '> LJ co Q. Ph 2^3 S T 1 cm M i-3 1 a « t m - M >l .. 2 > o 5 --«! £ a cm ^ T3 S hJ *, .. 5 -a' ° S so g g • 9 M- o « a si r2P3 S 90 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION DD W a w o rh o * r-H < II m CO o I— 1 i-l OS H g 03 H2 Eh te s ~HH <1 CD ~* s r-i H a • ~ h! o d pq fo 3 < o r/3 o ft w u u OS DQ o M (U o ^s fe 5 w o «3 g.S"C Ph"- a 001N>*r(IOOiOOlHOONHiONci)n010i') OOT(lN00!OiOil«)»tOtDtD*< in co co n « n N in © O Oi © CO CO© — ©C005©ceOOCM©-*t<0!CM-** O — t^ CO •"*! CO CO O CO O^TjliONtNCN^ io*Mn**-*iocococo ©OCO©T*COTt<©lOCOCMC01^-iO-«»i<»o->*<-'*OcD©COcO- OilOCO -HT*0->!t<>OC000005t^CO'c* OS CT5 05 05 05 OS •9 P5 '2 . h a 111 i j p 2 ft M oj o3 « Q S3 CM > 2 aj -< - 2 n — o .. . X! • *""' (H 73 - S -S 2 "S ° s • o 1 Se «2 2 r 2 E CM > — « - £ t> 3 ^ a -a 3 .a a o PQ Cd L * ! -2 S -D — 3 4) «3 - — Ph ft«o g CS n — k m o 3 P 3 8 § ■S -2 il 2 - a S 7 2 '3 o S - "S *2 Oi co (-i 3 a 4) O O .. C3 Q, 3 «j 02 'S ,8 «* k .9 02 . O C — -Q a PQ r-1 BuL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OP THE BEEP CATTLE INDUSTRY 91 It is apparent that the cold storage of beef has the effect of evening out supplies for consumption and in all probability has some effect on prices. The coolers begin to receive beef in the fall when prices at Chicago are relatively low and supplies large. As the prices of fresh beef approach the seasonal high beef is removed from the coolers, and supplies reach the low point about August or September first. Stocks of Frozen Beef in Cold-Storage Warehouses and Meat-Packing Establishments, and Beef in Cure and Process of Cure, United States, 1917-1927 Mil/ions of Pounds 300 i9ir 1919 1924 1925 1987 Fig. 25. — With the larger receipts coming on the market during the last three or four months of the year a surplus of beef accumulates. This is placed in storage until a peak is reached about the first of each year. Lighter supplies of cattle in the spring of the year cause beef to be removed from storage, a low point in frozen stocks being reached in late summer or early fall. The beef in cure and process of cure does not give evidence of a well-defined seasonal variation. (Data from U. S. Dept. Agr. Beef — frozen stocks in cold storage warehouses. Yearbook of Agriculture 1926: 1060. 1927. Current data from U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets.) Data since 1917 for cured beef and that in the process of cure fail to show large seasonal variations (fig. 25). In general, the movement of beef in the process of cure corresponds to that of stocks in storage, although the seasonal movement is not so pronounced in the former as in the latter case. 92 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 45 Monthly Cattle and Calf Keceipts at all Public Stockyards and Percentage Monthly Receipts, 1915-1928 MONTHLY RECEIPTS (Thousands, i.e. 000 omitted) Year Jan. 1,029 Feb. 768 Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total 1915 1,017 987 1,111 1,113 1,039 1,246 1,531 1,818 1,724 1,170 14,553 1916 1,202 1,055 1,201 1,151 1,385 1,319 1,154 1,584 1,779 2,409 1,977 1,460 17,676 1917 1,696 1,302 1,330 1,539 1,961 1,759 1,729 1,814 2,357 3,054 2,626 1,899 23,066 1918 1,727 1,498 1,713 2,046 1,863 1,815 2,128 2,024 2,826 2,865 2,648 2,142 25,295 1919 2,119 1,453 1,517 1,767 1,836 1,588 2,016 2,039 2,396 3,008 2,702 2,182 24,623 1920 1,881 1,480 1,663 1,557 1,778 1,879 1,671 1,962 2,294 2,209 2,428 1,395 22,197 1921 1,644 1,190 1,566 1,494 1,542 1,580 1,343 1,867 1,906 2,310 1,928 1,417 19,787 1922 1,628 1,417 1,622 1,470 1,878 1,759 1,709 2,149 2,397 2,936 2,427 1,825 23,217 1923 1,877 1,427 1,502 1,670 1,900 1,629 1,903 2,214 2,295 2,802 2,182 1,810 23,211 1924 1,888 1,457 1,556 1,751 1,890 1,673 1,798 1,934 2,566 2,736 2,363 2,083 23,695 1925 1,869 1,530 1,860 1,826 1,737 1,746 1,970 2,245 2,157 2,789 2,282 2,056 24,067 1926 1,840 1,551 1,811 1,711 1,894 1,871 1,820 1,997 2,397 2,674 2,460 1,846 23,872 1927 1,832 1,555 1,743 1,674 1,955 1,732 1,547 2,075 1,988 2,635 2,346 1,691 22,762 1928 1,771 1,516 1,465 1,685 1,798 1,558 1,650 1,828 Percentage Monthly Receipts Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 1915 7.07 5.28 6.99 6.78 7.63 7.65 7.14 8.56 10.52 12.49 11.85 8.04 1916 6.80 5.97 6.79 6.51 7.84 7.46 6.53 8.96 10.06 13.63 11.18 8.26 1917 7.35 5.64 5.77 6.67 8 50 7.63 7.50 7.86 10.22 13.24 11.38 8.23 1918 6.83 5.92 6.77 8.09 7.37 7.18 8.41 8.00 11.17 11.33 10.47 8.47 1919 8.61 5.90 6.16 7.18 7.46 6.45 8.19 8.28 9.73 12.22 10.97 8.86 1920 8.47 6.67 7.49 7.01 8.01 8.47 7.53 8.84 10.33 9.95 10.94 6.28 1921 8.31 6.01 7.91 7.55 7.79 7.99 6.79 9.44 9.63 11.67 9.74 7.16 1922 7.01 6.10 6.99 6.33 8.09 7.58 7.36 9.26 10.32 12.64 10.45 7.86 1923 8.09 6.15 6 47 7.19 8.19 7.02 8.20 9.54 9.89 12.07 9.40 7.80 1924 7.97 6.15 6.57 7.39 7.98 7.06 7.59 8.16 10.83 11.55 9.97 8.79 1925 7.77 6 36 7.73 7.59 7.22 7.25 8.19 9.33 8.96 11.59 9.48 8.54 1926 7.71 6.50 7.59 7.17 7.93 7.84 7.62 8.37 10.04 11.20 10.30 7.73 1927 8.05 6.83 7.66 7.35 8.59 7.61 6.80 9.12 8.73 11.58 10.31 7.43 Sources of data: Monthly receipts 1915-1926, U. S. Dept. Agr. Receipts of cattle and calves at public stockyards. Yearbook 1926: 1042. 1927. 1927-1928. U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets. Percentage monthly receipts computed by authors. MOVEMENTS OF CATTLE Market Receipts at Public Stockyards. — Receipts at the public stockyards of the country at which records of receipts have been kept over a considerable period of years give indications of distinct seasonal movement (table 45). While such data may give some indication of total supplies, interpretations might be misleading unless considered in conjunction with stocker and feeder shipments (table 46). Gen- erally speaking, the four months — August to November inclusive — are BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 93 the months of above-normal receipts. A large portion of these receipts are stocker and feeder cattle, as indicated by the heavy shipments during this same period. California producers will be interested in receipts during the months April to July (table 45), on account of the surplus which at times is available in this state during years of superior natural feed. TABLE 46 Cattle and Calves: Stocker and Feeder Shipments from Public Stockyards and Percentage Monthly Shipments, United States, 1916-1928 SHIPMENTS (Thousands, i. e., 000 omitted) Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total 1916 221 197 250 262 289 264 171 330 464 682 461 256 3,847 1917 260 213 249 306 401 353 262 330 588 768 729 344 4,803 1918 222 214 319 385 491 393 274 418 604 704 623 366 5,013 1919 364 264 277 391 442 272 236 397 611 839 723 470 5,286 1920 349 240 241 244 323 272 218 314 488 580 553 280 4,102 1921 205 166 236 238 214 209 122 355 395 622 497 245 3,504 1922 233 243 282 235 359 259 223 469 630 864 710 357 4,864 1923 281 210 199 233 300 234 223 480 631 785 624 353 4,553 1924 243 170 174 239 275 201 169 306 580 763 549 309 3,978 1925 207 176 230 271 216 154 243 360 427 717 489 333 3,823 1926 225 177 184 202 218 169 198 252 522 694 570 301 3,712 1927 205 175 200 204 284 170 138 269 407 675 615 319 3,613 1928 233 194 173 254 236 183 196 336 Percentage Monthly Shipments Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 1916 5.74 5.12 6.50 6.81 7.51 6.86 4.45 8.58 12 06 17 73 11.98 6.65 1917 5 41 4 43 5.18 6.37 8.35 7 35 5 45 6.87 12.24 15.99 15.18 7.16 1918 4 43 4.27 6.36 7.68 9.79 7.84 5.47 8 34 12 05 14.04 12.43 7.30 1919 6 89 4.99 5 24 7.40 8.36 5 15 4.46 7 51 11 56 15.87 13.68 8.89 1620 8.51 5 85 5.88 5.95 7.87 6.63 5 31 7.65 11.90 14 14 13.48 6.83 1S21 5 85 4 73 6 74 6.79 6.11 5 96 3.48 10.13 11 27 17.75 14.18 7.00 1922 4.79 5 00 5.80 4 83 7.38 5.32 4 58 9.64 12.95 17.76 14.60 7.34 1923 6 17 4 61 4 37 5 12 6.59 5 14 4 90 10 54 13 86 17.24 13 71 7.75 1924 6 11 4 27 4 37 6 01 6.91 5 05 4 25 7.69 14 58 19.18 13.80 7.77 1925 5 41 4.60 6 02 7.03 5.65 4.03 6.36 9.42 11 17 18.75 12.79 8.71 1926 6.06 4.77 4.96 5 44 5.87 4.55 5 33 6 79 14.06 18.70 15 36 8 11 1927 5.67 4.84 5 54 5.65 7.86 4 71 3.82 7.45 11.26 18.68 17.02 8.83 Sources of data: Shipments, 1916-1926. U. S. Dept. Agr. Stocker and feeder shipments. Yearbook 1926: 1043. 1927. Percentage monthly shipments computed by authors. Stocker and Feeder Shipments, United States. — A considerable part of the receipts on the cattle markets of the country consist of stocker and feeder cattle which are reshipped from the market to farms and feed lots. This movement is highly seasonal, the fall months being above normal (table 46). The seasonal movement may 94 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION be of interest to the California cattleman who at times may be inter- ested in removing the surplus from the market during the grass- cattle season. Shipments in the country at large are relatively light during the spring and summer months until August. During the latter month there is a most pronounced upward turn in the volume of offerings which reach their peak in October. There has been a gradual decrease in the number of shipments since 1922, which has been caused in general by the weak demand for cattle. The conditions surrounding the corn crop have an important influence on the demand for feeder cattle, as the larger number are fed in the eleven corn-belt states. The United States Department of Agriculture reports at intervals of three months the number of animals on feed in this section. On January 1, 1928, the number of cattle on feed was 6 per cent below that of January 1, 1927. The April 1, 1928 estimate showed a reduction of 4 per cent as compared with the same date a year previous. Shipments out of Counties, California. — The Cattle Protection Service of the California State Department of Agriculture reports monthly on the number of cows, steers, calves, bulls, and stags shipped out of the various counties of the state. These data should give, over a series of years, a rough approximation of the surplus produced in the various sections of the state during different months of the year. It should be borne in mind that these data in many cases include animals which are not in market condition but which nevertheless must be moved on account of feed conditions, etc. Over a long series of years this information may prove to be of considerable value in anticipating movements from the various sections of the state. Steers form the largest class of animals shipped out of the differ- ent counties both because females are used in larger numbers for replacements and because a large percentage of cows used for beef are slaughtered in the producing sections of the state. On account of the dependence on grass, the movement is highly seasonal; during five months — May to September — approximately 60 per cent (1923 — 59.4 per cent ; 1924—62.3 per cent ; 1925—58.8 per cent ; 1926—63.7 per cent; 1927 — 60.3 per cent) of the steers are moved out of the various counties of the state. The month of April is highly variable on account of earliness or lateness of the season. Numbers shipped out during the remaining months of the year are relatively small. A fairly close correlation has existed between the seasonal move- ments of cows and those of steers out of the various counties of the state. The six months of April to September, inclusive, for the years BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 95 studied (1923-1927) show the largest numbers of cows shipped out of the counties (1923—66.1 per cent; 1924—57.9 per cent (foot-and- mouth disease) ; 1925—66.8 per cent; 1926—60.7 per cent; 1927—65.6 per cent). February is conspicuously low in this regard. Data are not available over a sufficiently long period of time to show any definite trend, but during the few years studied the number of cows shipped from the counties has increased more rapidly than the num- ber of steers. This situation has resulted to some extent in the depletion of beef herds. Large numbers of calves are slaughtered in certain of the dairy counties for shipment to the larger centers of population — conse- quently these would be shown under slaughter data and not under animals shipped out. On account of the large number of calves of dairy origin, the time of calving has an influence on the time of year at which calves are shipped. The larger number of cows calve in the spring of the year, as shown by the seasonal production in the state. 41 Approximately 50 per cent of the calves were sent out of the counties during March, April, May, and June (1923 — 49.30 per cent; 1924— 50.99 per cent ; 1925—48.62 per cent ; 1926—56.36 per cent ; 1927— 42.1 per cent) . From the peak month in the spring a gradual decrease takes place until the low point is reached in September. A slight increase in the shipments for October and November clearly shows the effort of fall calving. This is shown in some small degree by the seasonal production in the state. Shipments of All Cattle into California. — Several classifications are made of cattle shipped into the state and each should be kept clearly in mind by the reader. An attempt will be made to discuss each classification separately. Data with reference to the number of all cattle shipped into the state are available since 1922 (fig. 26). These shipments include not only cattle destined for immediate slaughter but also feeders, dairy cattle, breeding stock, etc. Regardless of this fact, all cattle coming into the state add to the potential beef supply. While a drop in the number imported occurred in 1923, data since then show an increase. This might have been expected considering the rapid growth of the human population and the stationary position held by the cattle population in California. The seasonal movement in the shipments of cattle is most pro- nounced, occurring with a high degree of regularity. The peak month 4i Voorhies, Edwin C. Economic aspects of the dairy industry. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 437: 1-192. 1927. 96 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION of the year is November, and imports then decline until July, the low month of the year. A rapid increase occurs from August to the peak month. Generally speaking, shipments are heavy during the fall and winter and light during the spring and summer. Cattle Shipped into California, 1922-1927 Total Cars 1922 1923 192 3* J I P I s" 4— 1 1 p T O Arizona Canada Colorado. O p o o "n" b 3 p O (g' o 3' C 3 •-1 !_, Iffc MM t9H *4. © 44. m» 4* » M H M OO S3 vj © 31 to 4»- -j >— M Oi vl O M -I to to © to vl to 00 © >-» to Cn -O 4- SC M h- o I-* t-» tO o Cn to O OO M v| H SC to p— I S3 Cn S3 m M » tO CO » S3 CO o - Cn cn vi -1 ■o en v| 44, © CO 44. © ,_, 4». — 4—4-4 tO .o CD 00 4- tO X O W v| O) — as Cn r" OS — © CO 4- O CO as S\ as cn SO 44. 44- CO , 4- oo os co en co -j S3 X CD vl CO "2 M to h- h- co m © cn vl CD CO l—i tO CO 44. 44. M to lO © tO CO vl 00 4- 4»- i-» w S3 Cn — I in to 4- .o ►- 44. o Cn _I< CO en - M CD O i— 1-4 4— CO CSS co as i— 44. o 4— Ot -4 © to © to CO 4* Cn J> Cn as to © 44. Xj as co OS 4_ © o h- CO S3 as co ^i oo co © in to © CD £ to o so co l _ L X H o to vi as co co 4— S3 S3 CO JO VI VJ 00 44. oo en CD -o CO vi co co p © © 00 Cn 4— en co to v! X> I— CO OS © r «H CO 44. 4-4 co j> P to to as cd vj 44. 4— © © cc vl to CO S3 — Cn 4— 4— © X o r ^ 4- to CO rt> Ol h-i to — ' co as co en en co cr vl to © 44 to o oo s » oo to r g 4>. tO p © OS tO CO CD +4. vl ^o JO oo vi en S3 © CD © 4-i © 99 VI CO e © > © CO "O co Cn O0 to ►— co -4 S3 tO o 4- © CO 44. vj to en t* as vi 44. CO g VI en p << 44. tO 44. CO CO 4-1 Cn 00 to co en co to 4— 00 oo vl e-i V, d> C © © vi to to 00 to © to •"* CO Oi O Cn M CO 4* 4- 00 © co i-h co o> t-- r~e» o •«*< O) M n m (O M O CO «- < »o ■«*< rH CM t*< HCa n m to to » : oo •* co CM •"* •* •* lO H N ■«f rH CO : O0 rH 2 fc ' QD rH © ■«tl CM O 00 O0 > »Oifl<)INN»^HIN •«*< OO O rH CO rH rH CO CM O0 ~3 CM CM CM Hs oo" 9 CO 00 rH CO rH ITS CT> CO •* CO rH co 3 OO CO 00 CM CM t~ CO CM OS ■«*< £ •-S CM >1 C3 * N OO *C CO CO CO OS CO rH «C CD rH s CM » M ifl "O CO (~~ 00 rH rH r>< rH t~- IC rH CO H IN N N rH OO 03 ft CM •^ t^- < J5 iHtDOnNHOONiONlfl t> 00 CO M U3 'fl «J M ^ (O rt tJ< M ira •<*< a rH CO t^ o s OO CM rH ^< rH OO O O CT> t- rH O rH t^ xi -HH CO «0 rH CO CO CM -^ CM co m CM CM t^ rH h 00 CM «NO)HNHOOO)OONM t^- OS e3 lO "5 lO CO M M N ■* CM CO OJ ■-5 *"* 3 , r^-rHcMOOCMOt^-CD-<*i< — oc rH t^ OOnOlCnWNOONNNK M co ■* rHCOCT>rHCOO>-«*C CO rH CO ■«J<-^COCOCDCOOCDCDrHOa2 >r. CD CO CO CMrHCMt^OCOCOr- ICMlO-^rH CC CO CO CM NNtiWIXIOlOOOH Tfl t^ OO CT> IO rH rH CM O rH t^ COCMCOCM-«tl>OOr^rHOt~» oc uo »o «5 1000(00 ^ ^H rH rH rH rH CD rH CO TjtrHCMOCOrHCMUOO'-HlCrH «OM^NNn*o>HioN OiNMCO'JIlfllOtOtO CM Tf a> co Tfl >c t^ CO CO rH CO OS CO CO rHCOOCMCMCMI^-cDlCOO'*! OOOCDCMt^rHOOrHCOCMO cc CO -H CO Co o CT> CO rH rH OO CD CO n^NtooiHCSHoo^ioio t-» CT> COOOO«5COrHCMrHCM OOrH a> oo cm 1C IO H N Ol O0 * M CM CO CO o> CO rH tH >> >-. 13 ,- 3 C ♦ t O M (2 03 6 u o o 02 o o c c N c X i o o A 0} T rf a «9 o T3 > a; o £ a C t 5 t- C a C C fc a OB 1 bi (3 s o > ; 03 c3 a efl O i 3 G o o -0 rH « ft ll to £ C r So ,t! >h ^ 0) H BlJL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 99 Feeder Cattle Shipped into California. — Although over 80 per cent of the cattle slaughtered in California have their immediate origin within the state, a considerable number of these have been bred outside the state, as is shown by the movements of feeder cattle into California. While the shipments of slaughter cattle have shown no definite trend, feeder-cattle shipments have tended to increase Movement of Feeder Cattle into California, 1922-1927 1 car = 37 head. Cars 3&oo 3200 2600 2400 2000 1600 1300 eoo 400 360 320 2B0 Z Ci P ST 2 * ffi ™ - -• S" S » » < a" 52 5 H o y> 5" o p Hi P : o 3 p a if o 5' 2 o p o a to •*■ CO ^J * rfk M M CO »MMl|k»J^lMOl to co »IDMMO)»l|kM CO ^J InH^OSCOOOOCOCn oo ^J CO pi -a >->■ OS to Ml rfs. -J tiki Or CO o OS to K- bOMM^^HlOH CO OS JJOi^CnMMMifr o ~>00h-*COCOi*».COCn en CO W©COOS©4».>->OS h- o »-» >*>■ to CO M CO tO CO »*»• to tO tO 00 >*>- CO to CO OS CO S til o * OO *> to to OS - Ol M O M W H o Cn -»co~acocnost**-to to lOOSOSCnCOl— 'OO— 1 £ ~J M^a^jOh->^acoco «-h P 00 Cn l_l p to 1* ifk 4*. "aj to CO to K- O0 rt> l— O 1— g to p CO CO o ~J CO >*~ ,_l _i > OS _! H* i_» O t) OS o> i-» to to Cn os oo Ji » o CO to OS p Cn OS oo to to OS CO •< oo H 0O 00 CO H s - _ M _ M &H e CO £ OO >— 00 CO ^1 CO 3 0> to aoicnoiuooooM •vl CO £CnONOitoa> co to os c^ CO OS to CO oo to «< h- — Cn Cn ^ co to _ ► © * CO a CO Cn OO to era Ol OS © CO m 0> •o £ OS 00 O o to to Cn en 2 to h _ t o IO to CO < •VI J-J ~J to a ►&. a --J ^1 104 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Freight Rates. — With the surplus cattle population and the long distances from markets in the mountain states, transportation costs are of vital importance. For a large portion of this area at the present time freight rates to the Pacific Coast are lower than those to the middle-western markets. The dividing line of equal freight rates to San Francisco and Los Angeles on one hand and to Kansas City and Omaha on the other is shown in figure 2, page 12. While the California producer has a distinct advantage in his own market, the distance to middle western markets is such that considerable expense is involved in sending any seasonal surplus to them. FOREIGN TRADE IN BEEF AND BEEF CATTLE The Share of the Pacific Coast in Foreign Trade. — The Pacific Coast is of little significance in the beef export trade. Puget Sound has exported a larger aggregate tonnage of beef than any of the other western ports, although movements from all of the customs districts have been erratic. „ TABLE 51 Exports of Beef from the Customs Districts of the Pacific Coast, 1910-1927* (Thousand pounds, i.e., 000 omitted.) Fiscal years San Francisco Southern California** Oregon Wash- ington 1910 1911 291 178 1,122 245 98 574 183 590 205 75 316 607 265 157 170 148 261 148 113 3 3 27 85 588 273 1912 405 1913 295 1914 102 1915 6 9 8 17 13 39 123 5 6 82 58 186 86 124 101 1916 186 1917 1,618 1918 646 Calendar years 1918 64 1919 200 1920 1,248 1921 190 1922 88 1923 178 1924 41 1925 45 1926 36 1927 123 * Excluding Alaska. ** Includes San Diego and Los Angeles Districts. Sources of data: 1910-1926, U. S. Dept. Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the U. S. 1910-1926. 1927 information to authors from Dept. Commerce. Note.— U. S. Dept. of Commerce quotes beef, fresh; veal, fresh; beef and veal, pickled and cured; and beef, canned. The above are the summations of the four classifications for each district. BuL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 105 Excess Imports and Exports of Cattle (Converted to Beef Equivalents), United States, 1904-1927 Excess Imports Excess Exports 1904r 1905 1906 1907 764 689 753 603 447 254 137 1908 1909 1910 1911 115 1912. 7 1913 1914 1915 W9 461 147 1916 ■ 56 1917 42 ■ 145 372 270 1918 1919 1920 1921 192Z 70 " 4 1923 91 1924 55 ■ 19Z5 / 1926 74 ■ 1927 1928 68 ■ 700 600 SCO 400 300 200 100 O 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Aft/Z/ons of founds '•■ Fig. 28.— Since 1912, with the exception of 1922, the United States has im- ported a larger number of cattle than have been exported. ' Many of these animals have been feeder cattle imported from Canada and Mexico. It is likely that excess of imports will continue. (Data from table 52.) 106 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION San Francisco has been the largest export district for California (table 52), but of late there has been some slight tendency for the southern California district to claim a larger share. The two dis- tricts show decided differences in the products shipped out, San Fran- cisco exports being largely canned goods, while Los Angeles exports consist mainly of fresh beef. The latter exports are for the navy trade, practically none being sent to foreign markets for consumption, while the former represent eastern canned goods, since meat canning is not carried on to an appreciable extent on the Pacific Coast. The Puget Sound offerings have been largely in fresh beef. Unfortunately, import statistics through Pacific Coast customs districts have been combined under the designation " Meats" and an analysis of these data does not give results which can be used in this publication. Live-Cattle Exports. — Exports of live cattle from the United States have always been predominantly for slaughter. From the close of the Civil War until 1904 exports increased in volume, the peak of shipments being reached in the latter year with exports of 593,409 head (table 53). Approximately 65 per cent of these exports went to the United Kingdom. From 1906 on, there was a rapid decline, until at the beginning of the World War exports had vir- tually ceased. Live-animal exports were rapidly replaced by chilled and frozen beef shipped chiefly from Argentina and Australasia. Since the War there have been considerable shipments into Mexico, Cuba, and the West Indies. Exports of dairy-bred animals into Can- ada and purebred beef animals into South America, together with shipments into Mexico for purposes of restocking, have formed an appreciable item in the relatively small exports of recent years. Live-Cattle Imports. — With the exception of purebred stock brought chiefly from Great Britain for breeding purposes, it has been imprac- ticable to import live cattle except from Canada and Mexico. Until 1915 the bulk of these animals, predominantly stockers and feeders, were received from the latter country. Over 80 per cent of the imports of live cattle since the close of the World War, however, originated in Canada. (See p. 118.) With the restocking of Mexican ranches an increase in live-cattle exports from the south may be expected. BUL.461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 107 United States Balance of Trade in Cattle and Beef, 1904-1927 Excess Imports Excess Exports 700 600 300 WO 300 ZOO 100 O 100 BOO 300 400 300 600 700 M////ons of Pounds Fig. 29. — In the above figure cattle are converted to beef equivalents. From 1906 to 1912 there was a rapid decline in exports followed by a period of increas- ing imports. Exports exceeded imports temporarily during the World War. Since 1920 the United States has tended to import rather than export beef. (Data from table 53.) 108 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 52 General Imports and Domestic Exports of Live Cattle, United States, 1885-1927 (Head of cattle; thousands, i.e., 000 omitted.) Fiscal General Domestic Fiscal General Domestic Fiscal General Domestic year imports exports year imports exports year imports exports 1885 105 136 1900 181 397 1915 538 5 1886 78 119 1901 146 459 1916 439 21 1887 87 106 1902 96 393 1917 375 13 1888 64 140 1903 66 402 1918 294 18 1889 62 206 1904 16 593 1919 440 42 1890 31 395 1905 28 568 1920 575 83 1891 12 375 1906 29 584 1921 330 146 1892 2 395 1907 32 423 1922 152 155 1893 3 287 1908 92 349 1923 252 61 1894 2 359 1909 139 208 1924 155 33 1895 150 . 332 1910 196 139 1925 136 106 1896 218 372 1911 183 150 1926 215 36 1897 329 392 1912 318 106 1927 267 21 1898 292 439 1913 422 25 1899 200 389 1914 868 18 Sources of data: 1885-1925, U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Statistics of cattle, calves, beef, veal, hides and skins. U. S. Dept. Agr. Stat. Bui. 20: 106, 107. 1927. 1926-1927, U. S. Dept. Commerce, Monthly Summary of Foreign Commerce of the United States, Pt. 2: 118, 130. 1927. BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 109 TABLE 53 United States Balance of Trade in Cattle and Beef, 1900-1927 (Thousand pounds, i.e., 000 omitted.) Excess of cattle Excess of cattle and beef Year Imports Exports Imports Exports 1900 172,657 221,166 197,853 216,471 350,010 330,442 339,929 242,037 174,936 71,977 10,071 21,444 606,579 1901 681,653 1902 615,482 1903 601,146 1904 764,714 1905 689,415 1906 753,492 1907 602,733 1908 447,039 1909 254,414 1910 136,774 1911 114,681 1912 55,978 144,602 316,009 240,244 191,639 162,135 124,197 179,170 217,030 82,800 7,380 1913 108,771 461,271 147,205 1914 1915 1916 57,601 1917 145,411 1918 371,947 1919 269,891 1920 42,355 69,574 1921 1922 1,350 4,137 1923 91,350 55,350 14,200 80,550 79,620 91,350 55,350 1924 1925 909 1926 74,279 67,775 1927 Note.— Imports of live cattle are converted into terms of beef they represent as follows: 1900-1914, 375 pounds per head; 1915-1927, 450 pounds per head. Exports of live cattle are converted into terms of beef they represent as follows: 1900-1914, 600 pounds per head; 1915-1927, 450 pounds per head. Sources of data: 1900-1924, U. S. Tariff Commission. The cattle industries of the United States and Canada, 1-51. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C, 1925. 1925-1927, computations by authors from current statistics in Department of Commerce, Monthly Reports of Foreign Commerce of the United States. 110 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION of "3 s § d 5 2* H M U o ft 2 2 & PQ "3 In O Xt a 3 948 381 1,023 4,229 180,137 184,491 71,102 15,217 25,452 23,339 38,462 50,182 32,378 36,694 19,356 18.104 15,870 20.106 42,574 03 O Ot— CM t-h ~H © CM : tM <£>' th ■* eOHft^O'-HcioOO | CO H N H CM »-H 0) a 3 : CM O I~» r»< i-H CO«OCT>OCOOCO ' -*< OO O O 'OOOO ilDlDNHNOlOM jXHOlOiO^NN : ^H CM -H Ih CD Xi S O! O i-H03 Oi»'*MO'*OON'* oco coN^oinaiicooio CMiO CM>0-<**-hi0C0C0O05> fl 03 5 3 fl 0> OJ Ph OO OO CO OO CO NU5»HtB»ocNooo •■# »- © © © ©©cM--i»0©cM©<-i Ih S 3 M N N N M cOTt<©CD©t-HlOc005 © © Oi OO <— 1 -H05CT21002COOCOO Ol OO H O ■* H H •* H N m" n ^h cm CM ^H c3 11 "3 C CD O OJ Ph OOCOOOOOCR COOOCOlOlOiOOiCOO r- c OO O O CO NOOONNNSO'* CO © •<»< »0 >-H *— c©-<*- CO t^ t^ ^h rt CO CM S 3 1000CO--H rtHOOHMHWDW N OO OO Ol CO CMCOCM*O©©COCMO0 N CD CD N ■* tDN^OHiONnif Ol O CN m" CM eq rt rt rt w -H n m >-h 03 is [t, c3 c OJ CD Ph ■^OCOOCn OONO^OOOlOONiflTll OO CO O © "5 OOONN'fNOOinNN OO OO B M H COO-*-HCO»-lCMOi0500 .-H CO OO lOOONOOlCNlOCDlOOO 525 1 m 00 » 00 o-^oocninotnr-i^o CM © -H CO CO i-H(MOOCOCMOt^Tt<(MOO 01 M Ol r|( N Oi »-h •«*< «tfl CO OO «3 © 03 O- m 10 a> 02 © ^HNcoctnoiHMN T-Hr-H CM i-HCOCOCM^H^H »_(rHCO 3 PS £ • 3 . bfi i fl fl OJ u oa V 1 2 S SB 3 CO 2 4 3 10 a CO 0) a 00 s 1 fl JS cc a C7: S -M & S CO 1 CM ce CM CT CM cn -3 t3 ■* a 8 1 1> 1 •°S3gh° tJ S • flj 2 o S -° 3 <-< 2 ^3 o • • - c a ^3«> s .2 cf .2 d "» fl) o >2 § - c3 ^" £ ,• 2 * £ « CO o» T3 M 2 Q £3 go) ^- 2 U N S rt *> * 1 2 Q « C "S '"" iS « M g S t v .s ft^ §^ 1 5 ■§ * a a a 3 en C3 CD > a tx CD -3 oa T3 „ jj G 03 ta Si CD ^ ^a (-. CD ci C 3 O CD 3 £ CD a 03 M f ) 03 U Z a •-a "3 Q fl* 03 a CO cvi c CD u O 0) a OO CI "0 ~J -X 3 3 2 — CM a 09 -ti c L 4 eg d 03 3 c3 CD CO | O \M n ||! CD CD w -^ H O 3 O 05 00 2 « BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 111 M * a to ° W o ^ o CD n § » in r^ ■»*< ITS ^ _ -H OO 3s T US CO •«* R en m a 1- CO ■ O iQ 1^ U0 p CO CO IO t-- 00 <4 t^ CO o a CM -H o Ob Ol on, CO CO cm a> co Ol CM CM tv. en sti co Ol Ol ** CI CO CO IO *^ Tf< |-» M _ ■* as o> r^. ■^ en CO CO Ol rrj m >n OS 8 'u < feg oo OS CM ■-" CO >o - - 1 - • Jj (»• •* i-H CM ^ Ol o CO O O o o o o CI CO m ~r eo 1 CO O 00 rf, o» -- CO '.O Ol m in en CO o H p -H kO CI ~. ro CO oo Is. Ol rjn ■n os CO CM I- CO co CM CC ~r BO 83 ^ CO CO on Ol _, ^ M ^ co ^ (M Ol U0 s a 9 o O Cl, « o ^H CM d o o O d O d d d ■•" H_ O o d o d o d d o d 1- Q r~- m eo o» e -t OS r- Ol Tt< OS U0 CO CO o H CO CO Ol CO Ol " o OS CO ^_ M O] T* oo ■* ^, eo on IO Ol on pH oJ 3 0) fl 00 ■"*< CM o or^ TJ< -* f^ Oh g o O CM - o d d <= d o o d o - - d d d £fe IO O ■"*! _ OS on or CO _ >o en f. H m m 21 Ol >n OS CM in Ol or. on CO 1-^ ** T}< T* ^* CO «* CO Ol CO CO -ct< <# Ol fcfl •* Os o t . rt * ^^ e OS CM CB tti ^ ~e CO r- on CO en t- — ' — 1 oo oo >— l —< ^H " o r~ Ol .o CO m -f r-Tj _ cn CM CM m t- ojio h5y ^ _ ^ CO 6 K 5 a CM g _< t-» CO ci CO CO Ol en ■"*< ^| -f CO _l CO CO on Ol CO uo CO oi CO &H Q& CM CM m Cn p _ Ol lC ^ in en on CO _ OS ,in t^ O r~ m m o CO CO a> o n" CO o Ol on m Ol CO CO SB os «5 - ^ ^ c3 S3 a *•■ O CM CO U3 o CO t^ CO CM CO O O OS m <* m 00 Ph§ CM lO CO en O PH o o o o O CM co CO o o o 00 Hoc l>. »« C3S _ CO O) CC CO CM ^ Ol r ^ r~ Ol en 00 OS OS Tt< r^ en -OS CO US •>• »Ji 3S O: r^ SB CO -* ■<*< CO CO Ol Ol o >-H rt """ Ol CM OJ Ol Ol Ol CM Sjfl 1ft oo m on CO lO Ol o ■* ^ o ^ h. 02 en o Ol -^ 5*8 I s " CO oo CO t~ co - H "■< ■^f &Hg CO 00 ^H _ _l r^ I-- on en oo ' H rt rt Ol Ol Ol co is ■«*< ce f ^ s crs _ CO CO CM on OS CO CO *H — 00 t~ O »o m gq 02 SB CO 00 »- CO CO U0 »o io eo CO CO («■ r - oo t^ l>- oo «3 a ^ _, — s 00 o ■«*< OB t^ o CO (M O o O CM ■* Ol O) Tj. CO o d O o O o pH _H — —I — . — c ** ** "^ P CO f^ CO r-. «r r ^ 00 o CO 00 CM t^ i- ■f CO o-. O: Ol ■rt« ^ CO CO l>. in co t~ to CO CM CO CO 1 t- Sfl Ph g •« r- ^ _ f. — ^^ i-o-S o CO CM CO o to CO «~ ' 00 a ^^ O o t- oo CO * § 2 H OT3 U3 _ _ Ol ■rt< m Ol ■a m o Ol Ol en CO S fe CO CO >o s ■o r-- a oo m S s a crs CO CO - r^ OO 1- r- -r Ol o CO IO — a 03 g "5 iO IO CO ■^ ■«*< m t» CO U0 o CO I- r- CO co »■ SSfl ^g OD Ol 03 „ on § 1 CO 03 c3 a c3 o co CM 0O CM CO co 'JO d t^ «0 d t^ oo CO CO m -r o o m oo co co , t- — i ^ r^ -h 1*. oi Ol 00 Nfe O CO CO 3 r- Ol CO OS -f CO * Ol ■* Ol CO CM CO 1- f H ^•° •^< T^ ) -> C^ O .o ce r^ oo <* oo m CO 1-^ "3 "2 e 2 S c 3 OS OS - -. ex S) V OS ca -- 09 -- oa 36 SB OS OS £ d s 1 i I ° S a 0) 01 -3 Q 3 fl 03 fl OS Mi ■S ■a ^ E 3 e§ c Tl C 03 '^ sO cd r- 03 •• 8 21 -J . v> s3 ^ m > s ^ /■. — - CO OS cp J CSO 112 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Exports of Beef. — Owing to the numerous products of beef cattle, such as canned, cured, and fresh beef, oleo oil, oleo stock, oleomar- garine, tallow, and stearin, which are often placed in various classi- fications, it is desirable to use comparable data for series of either imports or exports. In tables 54 and 55 beef and veal include (1) fresh beef, (2) fresh veal, (3) pickled and cured beef and veal, and (4) canned beef. The first shipments of frozen beef sent to England did not meet with popular approval and only with the advent of refrigeration facilities on steamers did this trade begin to assume large propor- tions. During the last quarter of the nineteenth century the beef exports from the United States increased rapidly. A peak was reached in 1901 when the exports of beef and veal reached a total of 461,296,000 pounds. From 1901 until the outbreak of the War this trade dwindled until during the fiscal years 1913 and 1914 the average amounted to only 36,500,000 pounds. During this period the proportion of fresh beef and veal declined. Over 90 per cent of the exports went to the United Kingdom, a market which was readily supplied by the rapidly expanding surplus of South America and Australasia. During the War, American exports of fresh and pre- pared beef again became of importance in the European supply. A new record of 521,844,000 pounds of beef exports was set during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1918. Fresh beef again assumed a rela- tively more important place in exports. European demand broke abruptly in 1919 and 1920 and since 1921 exports have been small. These exports have been sent largely to Newfoundland, Labrador, and to the remainder of North America (exclusive of Canada). The smaller and somewhat specialized trade in canned, pickled, and other cured beef has been better maintained than that in fresh beef. Imports of Beef and Veal. — On account of the comparatively limited segregation of beef4mports it is impossible to accurately gauge anything but the imports of fresh beef and veal. Prior to 1912 im- ports into the United States were insignificant. Increased production in South America and more or less temporary shortages in the United States made for large imports during 1913, 1914, and 1915 (see table 54), Argentine, Uruguay, Australia, and Canada supplying the bulk of the imports. After the War, imports again increased, but they have not assumed large proportions. An increase of 30 per cent over the corresponding 1927 period is shown in the total imports of beef and veal into the United States for the period January-May, 1928. The heavy increase is due entirely to the result of increased imports BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 113 from New Zealand, encouraged by the unusually favorable market for beef prevailing in the United States during the past year. Since 1918 Canada has been the source of over 50 per cent of the imports. Disease conditions in some of the larger exporting countries have been such that importations from them to this country have been prohibited. Exports and Imports of Beef Fats. — Exports of beef fats, i.e., tallow and its derivatives, oleo oil and oleo stearin, have been more important from the standpoint of both quantity and value since the war. Shipments of these products declined steadily during the period 1910-1919. During 1919, a marked increase in exports took place and since then beef fats have averaged about 135,000,000 pounds a year with a mean value of $15,000,000. The Balance of Trade in Cattle and Beef. — In attempting to make calculations of total imports and exports (table 53) the authors have used the methods employed by the United States Tariff Commission. No account is taken in these calculations of animal fats, and in addition, the lack of segregation of certain imports, undoubtedly makes for errors. Prior to 1907 the United States practically dominated the export trade in beef and cattle (figs. 28 and 29). During the next five years these exports virtually disappeared and from 1913 to 1915 inclusive, a balance appeared in favor of imports. Under the stimulus of war-time prices and overseas demand, the pro- duction and export of beef and cattle increased sharply. With the cessation of foreign demand and a realignment of prices came an import balance in 1920 and 1921. During 1922 imports and exports were almost evenly balanced. Since 1923 there has been a slight excess of imports. With a more complete segregation of imports the import balance in table 53 would be slightly larger. THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN BEEF AND BEEF PRODUCTS The types of beef and beef products originating in different coun- tries and the demands for them are somewhat dissimilar. Under the term beef and beef products is included, in addition to fresh, chilled, and frozen meat, such by-products as oleo oil and tallow. A segrega- tion such as has been used in the discussion of imports and exports of the United States is difficult if not impossible to use in the discussion of the international trade. Argentina is the dominant factor in the world trade in beef and beef products, furnishing between 50 and 65 per cent of all such 114 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION exports. Uruguay ranks next to Argentina, contributing about 10 per cent of the total exports. Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, the Netherlands, and the United States make considerable contributions to the export trade. On the import side, the demands of Great Britain absorb over 60 per cent of the surplus of the world, while Germany and France combined take an additional 20 per cent. Outside of the countries of western Europe, Japan and Cuba are the only important importing nations. Imports into the former country have increased rapidly. In 1926 these amounted to 74,694,000 pounds against an average of 9,002,000 for the period 1911-1913. Generally speaking, the world trade in beef and its products was approximately 50 per cent larger in 1925 and 1926 than it was during the three years 1911-1913. TABLE 56 Estimated Number of Cattle in the World, 1909-1913 and 1921-1925 (Thousands) Division Average number Per cent increase or 1909-1913 1921-1925 decrease 76,000 80,000 133,000 27,000 210,000 14,000 541,000 86,000 102,000 132,000 46,000 245,000 17,000 628,000 +13.2 South America +27.5 Europe - 0.8 Africa +70.4 +16.7 Oceania +21.4 The World +16.1 Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. The world situation in cattle and beef. Foreign Crops and Markets 15 (7) : 219. 1927. THE FOREIGN SITUATION IN CATTLE AND BEEF Estimates made of the average number of cattle in the world during 1921-1925 total 628,000,000, an increase of 16.1 per cent over the average for the pre-war years 1909-1913. Numbers increased most rapidly in Africa (70.4 per cent increase), South America (27.5 per cent increase), and Oceania (21.4 per cent increase). Numbers in Asia kept pace with the general increase. Cattle in North America, Central America, and the West Indies increased about 13 per cent. Europe actually reported a loss, which amounted to less than 1 per cent. It is highly probable, however, that the cattle population of Europe on January 1, 1928, was equal to that recorded in the pre- BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 115 war years. Indications (table 57) point to a reduction in numbers in 1926 compared with 1924. Relatively low prices prevailed on world markets during 1926, and from the evidence on hand the world supply of beef and veal was apparently smaller in 1927 than in 1926. The direction of cattle and beef price movements in all of the world's important markets has been upward generally since the middle of 1927, with the trend particularly marked since January, 1928. With the prohibition of imports from many of the surplus-produc- ing countries of the world on account of the disease situation, and with the ability of this country to apparently supply its own demands, conditions abroad may at first appear to have but little influence on the cattle industry in the United States. However, the world situation does have an influence on Canada, and the stronger the European market the less likelihood there is of imports into the United States. This may be the case in the future with Mexico also. An increase or decrease in offerings from Argentina, economic conditions in Europe, etc., exert influences which are felt in some measure in this country. Brief statements with reference to various continental areas and to the more important countries in those sections should prove to be of interest and of value to the cattlemen. North and Central America and West Indies. — While the 1921- 1925 data point to an increase of some 13 per cent in numbers of cattle over the pre-war period, 1909-1914, there has been somewhat of a decrease during the past three years. Decreases in the United States have been offset to some extent by increases in Mexico and Cuba. The Canadian cattle population has decreased less than that of the United States since 1921. The economic status of the cattle industry in Canada is of primary interest to the cattlemen of the United States. Indirectly, however, conditions in the Argentine meat trade with Great Britain influence the amount of Canadian beef seeking an American market. While the Canadian cattle population is small compared with that of the United States, the northern country has a surplus of beef. There has been some decrease in the number of cattle since 1921, but this decrease has not been so great as that in the United States. On the other hand, the number of cattle in Canada during the post-war years has been approximately 50 per cent greater than in the pre-war years. The total exports of cattle (exclusive of calves) have been slightly larger since the war than during the pre-war years. The number entering the United States dropped materially until 1925. No distinct trend is shown in the exports of calves, although an unward movement 116 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION was apparent during the four years 1922-1926. Compared with pre- war years, exports of fresh beef from Canada since the war have been large. The cattle industry received considerable stimulus during the war, and while supplies have decreased somewhat, the surplus has been far greater during the past few years than it was in the pre-war period. TABLE 57 Number of Cattle Country Belgium Czechoslovakia^ Denmark Esthonia Finland* France Germany Gr. Britain and N. Ireland Hungary Irish Free State Latvia* Lithuania Luxemburg*! Norway Roumania*t Soviet Russiaf (Europe and Asia) Spain Yugoslavia*t Europe totals Canada Costa Rica*t United States Mexico*t Jamaica* North and Central Am- erican totals Chile*t British Guiana*f South America Formosa India: British Provinces* Dutch East Indies: Java and Madura* Other Provinces* Siam* Asia totals Algeria* Basutoland* Belgian Congo* Gold Coast* Egypt Number of head (in thousands) 1913 1,849 4,596|| 2.254J 478|| 1,606|| 15,338 18,474 7,726 2,1501 4,134 912 918 102|| 1,134 60,3002 2,879 59,852 6,656 333| 55,833 116 62,605 2,084 81 138 112,000 3,243 4 712^ 2,360 118,453 437 500 50 637 1919 1,286 4,377§ 2,188 420§ 1,825 12,789 16,524 8,242 2,148§ 4,249 768§ 865§ 89 l,050i 4,730§ 3,397 4,8343 55,751 10,085 70,261 2,163§ 170 80,516 2,163 79 113 117,559§ 3,016 780 2,542 124,010 1,093 58P 500 76 505 1924 1,628 2,667 502 1,865 13,749 17,326 7,794 1,887 4,268 911 1,285 1,114 5,399 55,900 3,435 3,870 58,431 9,461 426 64,507 2,363 112 102 100 117,250 3,253 877 2,972 124,452 794 603 510 84 1926 1,712 4,691 2,840 599 1,871 14,282 17,195 8,115 1,839 3,947 916 1,396 101 1,200 4.798 63,000 3,436 3,768 59,348 8,751 433 59,148 5,585 133 68,441 1,918 135 92 119,492 3,493 850 3,872 127,769 892 631 480 85 722 1927 1,739 2,912 634 14,941 17,983 8,176 1,805 955 1,209 4,992 9,172 57,521 849 Increase (+) or decrease (— ) in 1926 compared with 1913 - 7.4 + 2.1 + 26.0 + 25 + 16 - 6 - 6 + 5 - 14 - 4 + + 45 - 1 + 5 + 4.5 + 37.6 + 30.0 + 3.0 + 14.7 + 9.3 - 8.0 + 66.7 - 33.3 + 6.7 + 7.7 + 19 4 + 64.1 + 7.9 - 19.5 + 44 4 - 4 + 70.0 + 13.3 1919 33.1 7.2 29.8 42.6 2. 12 4 - 1 - 14 - 7. + 19. + 54. + 13. + 14. + I + 1.1 - 22.1 + 6.5 - 9.2 - 18.1 +158.2 - 21.8 - 15 - 11.0 + 70.9 - 18.6 + 1.5 + 15.8 + 9.0 + 52.3 + 3.1 - 18.4 + 8.6 - 4.0 + 11.8 + 43.0 1924 + 5.2 + 6.5 + 19 3 + .3 + 3.9 - .8 + 4.1 - 2.5 - 7.5 + .5 + 8.6 + 7.7 - 11 1 + 12.7 - 2.6 + 1.6 - 3.2 + 1.6 - 7.2 +136.4 + 18.7 + 32.4 - 8.0 + 1.9 + 7.4 - 3 1 + 30.3 + 2.7 12.3 4.6 5 9 1.2 4.8 BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 117 TABLE 57— (Continued) Country Kenya*t (of natives) (of Europeans). French Morocco* Nigeria*! Uganda* South West Africa Prot." South Rhodesia* Tanganyika* Tunis* Union of South Africa*. . Africa totals Australia: New South Wales* Other states and northern territory* New Zealand Oceania totals . General totals.. Number of head (in thousands) 1913 1919 675 « 739 206 695 2,700 217 5,7971 13,761 2,823 2,0201 13,504 268,175 2,372§ 138 1,322 2,394§ 575 450§ 1,331 3,1473 254 ' 6,852 » 16,626 3,281 9,618 3,035 15,934 292,837 1924 3,000 190 1,683 2,751 1,227 550 1,921 3,800 400 9,315 21,576 3,251 10,419 3,563 17,233 295,772 1926 1927 200 217 955 864 342 572 102 472 308 9,738 23,299 2,876 10,343 3,452 16,671 295,528 2,189 3,242 Increase (+) or decrease (—) in 1926 compared with 1913 +189. + 81.6 +179.0 +202 3 + 65.6 + 41.9 + 68.0 + 69.3 + 19 + 70 + 23.5 + 10.2 1919 - 12 3 + 7.5 + 13.7 4.6 - 11 5 - 0.7 - 3.1 - 3.3 - 01 Notes. — * For those countries marked thus 1925 and 1923 were taken instead of 1926 and 1924. t The countries marked thus are not included in the totals— t 1909, § 1920, || 1910, 1 1911, « 1918, 2 1921, s 1916, "1915. Sources of data: International Institute of Agriculture, Number of cattle. International Review of Agriculture 1927 (3): 68. 1927. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Cattle and beef. Foreign Crops and Markets 15 (7) : 219-221. 1927. TABLE 58 Cattle in Canada, 1910-1927 (Thousands) Year Total cattle Milk cows Other cattle Year Total cattle Milk cows Other cattle 1910 7,115 2,854 4,261 1919 10,085 3,548 6,537 1911 6,526 2,595 3,931 1920 9,572 3,505 6,068 1912 6,432 2,604 3,827 1921 10,207 3,738 6,469 1913 6,656 2,740 3,916 1922 9,720 3,746 5,974 1914 6,037 2,673 3,364 1923 9,246 3,737 5,509 1915 6,066 2,667 3,399 1924 9,461 3,727 5,734 1916 6,594 2,833 3,761 1925 9,307 3,830 5,477 1917 7,921 3,202 4,719 1926 8,751 1918 10,046 3,539 6,507 1927 9,172 Sources of data: 1910-1916, Dominion Bur. of Statistics. Canada Yearbook 1918: 41. 1919. 1917-1922, ibid. 1922-23: 263. 1924. 1923-1925, U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Cattle and beef. Foreign Crops and Markets 15 (7) : 222, 239. 1927. 1926-1927, U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Cattle and beef. Foreign Crops and Markets 17 (6) : 209, 1928. 118 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Large sections of Mexico, especially the interior plateaus and southern mountain valleys, possess climatic and other conditions that are favorable to the raising of livestock. The United States is the principal market for Mexican cattle, which are primarily stockers and feeders. From 1906 to 1914 there was a steady increase in the number sent to the United States, over 625,000 head being sent during the latter year. Exports to the United States fell rapidly during and after the world war period. On account of the disturbed state of the country the cattle population of Mexico was at a low point in 1920. TABLE 59 Exports of Cattle and Calves from Canada, 1913-1927 Cattle Calves Year Total To Great Britain To United States Total To Great Britain To United States 1913 193,714 147,945 193,352 106,278 150,044 203,481 467,642 240,660 174,552 212,772 160,771 183,242 204,378 176,343 216,209 9,878 189,383 145,722 179,016 104,227 148,077 200,666 453,606 236,642 135,257 189,760 96,873 97,847 86,748 92,962 204,336 22,581 31,974 55,903 60,343 47,123 36,703 78,848 74,519 57,695 27,955 24,219 35,359 62,814 65,625 79,065 22,486 1914 31,939 1915 1,752 55,860 1916 60,310 1917 47,014 1918 36,594 1919 159 320 33,053 18,475 57,672 79,435 110,868 79,985 8,263 78,703 1920 74,428 1921 57,623 1922 27,720 1923 24,074 1924 35,178 1925 62,313 1926 65,313 1927 78,668 Sources of data: 1913-1924, U. S. Tariff Commission. The cattle industries of the United States and Canada. Spec. Pub. p. 14. 1925. 1925-1926, U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Agr. Econ. Cattle and beef, Foreign Crops and Markets 15 (7) : 235, 1927. 1927, U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Cattle and beef. Foreign Crops and|Markets_17 (6) : 226, 1928. Considerable shipments have been made from the United States into Mexico since 1919 for the purpose of restocking Mexican ranches. In 1921, over 138,000 head were shipped. During the eight years, 1919- 1927, total importations into Mexico have been far larger than expor- tations. If census data and estimates of the Mexican cattle population are correct, it is highly probable that restocking is about complete as compared with pre-war years. In 1926, for the first time since 1920, Mexican imports into the United States exceeded exports of this country to Mexico. BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 119 TABLE CO Exports of Fresh Beef from Canada, 1910-1927 (Thousand pounds, i.e., 000 omitted.) Fiscal year To To To ended Total Great United all other Mar. 31 exports Britain States countries 1910 1,318 828 49 442 1911 974 482 2 490 1912 949 274 6 669 1913 1,571 783 19 769 1914 13,133 191 12,638 305 1915 18,828 1,330 17,037 461 1916 47,223 13,912 9,433 24,077 1917 45,546 15,179 10,040 20,327 1918 86,565 32,768 12,673 41,124 1919 125,803 91,645 32,966 1,192 1920 103,900 28,731 34,418 40,751 1921 51,999 8,884 35,838 7,277 Calendar years 1922 26,340 6,232 18,584 1,525 1923 22,772 6,232 13,087 3,452 1924 23,207 6,364 9,808 7,034 1925 34,628 10,423 10,105 14,099 1926 27,234 3,517 16,242 7,475 1927 56,742 581 51,473 4,688 Sources of data: 1910-1921, U. S. Tariff Commission. The cattle industries of the United States and Canada, Spec. Pub. p. 14, 1925. 1922-1926, U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Cattle and beef. Foreign Crops and Markets 15 (7) : 235, 1927. 1927, U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Cattle and beef. Foreign Crops and Markets 17 (6) : 226, 1928. TABLE 61 Number of Cattle in Mexico Year Number head 1902 5,142,457 1920 2,163,000 1923 2,363,427 2,187,867 5,584,892 1924 1926 Sources of data: 1902, 1920, U. S. Tariff Commission, Cattle and beef in the United States. Tariff Information Series 30: 54; 1922. 1923, 1924, 1926: U. S. Dept. Commerce. Mexican livestock census. Foodstuffs 'Round the World. Foreign Notes on Meats, Fats, Oils and Livestock (mimeographed). Jan. 20, 1928. 120 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 62 Trade in Live Cattle Between the United States and Mexico, 1910-1927 Fiscal year General imports into the United States from Mexico Domestic exports from the United States to Mexico Calendar year General imports into the United States from Mexico Domestic exports from the United States to Mexico 1910 188,141 177,981 315,227 391,477 625,253 346,004 197,788 183,827 105,470 5,149 6,513 9,457 8,358 7,230 829 3,990 4,324 7,777 1919 90,541 58,926 13,874 30,127 23,923 1911.. . 1920 27,758 1912 1921 138,239 1913 1922 71,173 1914 1923 26,525 1915 1924 11,367 24,169 54,079 54,785 1916 1925 73,245 1917 .. 1926 17,458 1918 1927 Sources of data: Imports 1910-1924 and exports 1910-1923, U. S. Tariff Commission. The cattle indus- tries of the United States and Canada. Spec. Pub. 1S25. Imports 1925-1926 and exports 1924-1926, U. S. Dept. Commerce. Commerce and Navigation of the United States 1924, 1925, 1926. South America. — South America has the largest cattle surplus in the world. Between 1909-1914 and 1921-1925 the cattle population increased approximately 27.5 per cent. The increases have been general over South America, especially in Argentina and Colombia. Accurate current data on the cattle industry in Argentina are somewhat difficult to obtain. The present number 43 of cattle is esti- mated at 30,000,000. The census for. December 31, 1922, gave the number as 37,065,000, an increase of almost 50 per cent over the pre- war period. Argentina is by far the largest exporter of beef, particularly of fresh beef. This position has been reached during the last twenty-five years, partly as a result of the decreasing American beef and cattle surplus and partly because of changes in management which have greatly increased its beef surplus. Exports of frozen and chilled beef have shown a definite and distinct trend since the beginning of the present century. While exports were stimulated during the war they did not reach a peak until 1924 and 1925. During the latter two years exports of frozen and chilled beef exceeded those of the war period by over 50 per cent. Recent information gives indications of a smaller slaughter during 1927 than in the peak years 1924 and 1925. If estimates of the cattle population made during 1927 are correct, the surplus from the Argen- tine should be lower. While exports do not enter the United States 43 U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. The world situation in cattle and beef. Foreign crops and Markets 15 (7) :217. 1927. BuL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEP CATTLE INDUSTRY 121 on account of quarantine regulations, Argentine exports enter the English and continental markets, thereby having an effect on Canadian exports. TABLE 63 Exports of Beef from Argentina, 1900-1927 (Thousand tons, i.e., 000 omitted.) Frozen and chilled Total Jerked Year To United Kingdom To United States . To other countries Canned 1900 27 48 60 67 90 141 150 145 196 231 278 332 362 391 27 49 77 90 108 168 170 152 199 232 280 345 378 404 18 27 25 14 13 28 5 12 7 13 10 13 8 4 2 1901 2 17 23 18 28 19 8 4 1 2 13 16 9 1 1902 2 1903 4 1904 3 1905 3 1906 1 1907 2 1908 2 1909 7 1910 13 1911 17 1912 20 1913 4 14 1914 340 65 2 407 3 14 1915 330 44 26 400 35 1916 395 10 67 471 1 49 1917 313 2 121 435 8 111 1918 306 1 239 546 3 211 1919 323 2 117 442 9 137 1920 386 7 66 459 3 15 1921 391 1 39 430 3 18 1922 430 1 22 454 7 40 1923 503 1 82 586 5 75 1924 563 2 243 808 17 90 1925 510 574 608 228 150 167 738 725 777 15 10 9 77 1926 1 2 1927 Sources of data: 1900-1924, Arner, G. B. L. The cattle situation in Argentina, U. S. Dept. Agr. mimeo- graphed report, pp. 50-52; 1924. 1925-1927, U. S. Dept. Agr. Exports of beef from Argentina. Foreign Crops and Markets 17 (6) : 237; 1928. To a considerable degree, the extent and rapidity with which beef production may expand appears to depend primarily on the markets of western Europe. With the passing of the world depression in the cattle industry it is probable that continued expansion will occur, as no other country in the world has a comparable area so admirably adapted to the best forage crops and corn combined with a year-long grazing system. From the standpoint of numbers of cattle, Brazil ranks next to Argentina. The Brazilian movement of beef did not attain importance 122 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION until the world-war period. Since the war exports of beef have been somewhat erratic, showing no pronounced trend. Live-cattle exports, on the other hand, are large, amounting in some years to over one million head. Brazil has great potential possibilities for the develop- ment of the cattle industry and will undoubtedly be a factor which must be reckoned with in the future. Uruguay is the only other South American country that has as yet exported frozen or chilled beef in large quantities, although Brazil and Paraguay have sent out rather small amounts. While the number of cattle has apparently not increased greatly since the war, 44 the exports of beef and beef products during 1925 and 1926 were three times greater than the average of the pre-war years, 1911-1913. Europe. — While European production of beef is greater than that of any other equal area of the world, it is the one great area of deficiency in beef and beef products. On account of the war devasta- tions, estimated average yearly totals of cattle were almost 1 per cent lower during 1921-1925 than for the five-year period 1909-1914. While France, Germany, Belgium, and Jugoslavia showed decreases, most of the other European nations either maintained status quo or gained in cattle population. Every indication points to an increase in the number of cattle since the close of the war so that at present (1928) numbers are apparently on a level with the pre-war figures. In 1927, the cattle population of France had almost reached the pre-war average for 1909-1913. France is consuming much more chilled and frozen beef than before the war, imports in 1927 aggre- gating 121,000,000 pounds compared with 5,098,000 in 1913. The 1926 figures, however, are considerably below those of 1925 or 1924. This decrease may be expected to continue with the increase in the cattle population. Imports of fresh, chilled, and frozen beef into Germany during the five years 1923-1927, have been many times larger than those in 1913. The increase between 1923 and 1925 was almost 150 per cent. From 1925 to 1927 imports of beef products were almost stationary but larger numbers of live cattle entered the country. This increase in imports into Germany might have been expected owing to the depletion of the cattle population during the war. Efforts have been made to bring the livestock population back to pre-war numbers. It will be noted (able 64) that the number of cattle in 1927 was almost equal to the number in 1913, while the number of swine exceeded that of the pre-war year. 44 Number of cattle in Uruguay, 1908, 8,193,000; 1924, 8,432,000. BUL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 123 With the tendency for the German livestock population to increase and with an apparently steady consumption, there does not seem to be any reason for greatly increased importations into Germany. The trade in meat products in Russia has been comparatively unimportant; the large population does not permit an extensive export trade, nor under normal conditions is an import trade required to augment domestic production, since the country supplies its own requirements. Data with reference to the cattle population point to a considerable increase (approximately 30 per cent) in 1925 compared with 1909-1913. TABLE 64 Head of Livestock in Germany, December 1, 1913, 1926, 1927 (Present boundaries; thousands, i.e., 000 omitted.) Horses.. Cattle.... Sheep... Swine.... Goats ... Poultry 1913 1926 3,807 3,873 18,474 17,221 4,988 4,080 22,533 19,424 3,164 3,484 71,907 75,705 1927 3,805 17,983 3,813 22,880 3,218 79,078 Sources of data: Landbrugraadet, Den tyske Kreaturtaelling pr. 1. December 1927. Landbrugsraadets Meddelelser 1928: 112. Copenhagen, Denmark, 1928. While the United Kingdom is the dominant nation in the import trade in beef and beef products, supplies produced at home have an effect on the volume of imports. Home production since the war has been slightly less than that for the pre-war years, although the cattle population is approximately the same. Imports of fresh, chilled, and frozen beef during the three years 1923-1925 were well above those for 1913, although those for 1926 and 1927 were considerably below the 1913 level. Africa. — While the cattle population of Africa is relatively small, a 70 per cent gain in numbers is estimated to have occurred between 1909-1913 and 1921-1925. With the exception of Algeria and Egypt, gains seem to have been general over the entire continent. The largest numerical increases have occurred in the Union of South Africa, which now has a cattle population of approximately ten million. The industry experienced an abnormal expansion during the war period and a consequent depression during the readjustment immediately afterwards. Exceptionally large increases in cattle have occurred in Kenya Colony, Rhodesia, Tanganyika Territory, and Madagascar. 124 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Conditions seem favorable to build in the future a cattle industry in Africa which will indirectly compete with that of the United States. Asia. — While the continent of Asia contains almost 40 per cent of the cattle of the world, the trade is relatively unimportant owing to religious customs, etc., prevailing over a large part of Asia. It is of some interest to note that Japan has greatly increased its demand for beef since the war. The number of cattle in the Philippine Islands has more than doubled since the period 1909-1913. Oceania. — The number of cattle in Australia and New Zealand is relatively small when compared with world totals but it is of especial importance on account of the large surplus available for export. Exports of beef from Australia fluctuate considerably from year to year. From available data on hand exports during the fiscal year 1925-1926 were approximately equal to those for the calendar year 1913 ; 1926-27 exports showed a sharp decline compared with the previous years, decreasing by 47.6 per cent. The number of cattle in 1927 (11,880,000) showed an increase over that in the pre-war period 1909-1913 of approximately 3 per cent. Since the war Aus- tralian exports have been more widely distributed than previously, seeking other outlets than the British market. The number of cattle in New Zealand has increased over 60 per cent since the pre-war years, 1909-1913. This augmentation of popu- lation has come about largely through additions to dairy herds. The exports of frozen and chilled beef have increased even more than the increase in cattle population. CATTLE HIDES Hides have always been one of the most valuable by-products of the cattle industry, and with the advent of the modern packing-house, the tannery has grown up as a separate enterprise. The tanning industry is one of the few great enterprises dependent upon the meat- packing business which has not to any considerable degree become an integral part of it. Clemen 45 states that the greatest percentage returns to the packer come from by-products of the steer (table 65), which are followed by those from sheep. The percentage of return for the hide of the steer makes up some 8.6 per cent of the value of the animal. 45 Clemen, Eudolf A. By-products in the packing industry. 410 pp., 50 fig. University of Chicago Press, 1927. BUL. 461 j ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 125 Hides are separated into two classes at the market, packer hides and country hides. Packer hides are characterized as having been taken off uniformly, cured and stored under standard conditions and available in lots of several thousand of a grade. Country hides are removed according to the ideas of the skinner, usually imperfectly stored and cured, show frequent cuts and gashes, and are available in a variety of grades made up of small numbers. In addition to these general classes, there are a number of further subdivisions. TABLE 65 Percentage Money Beturns from Meat and By-products of Various Farm Animals Percentage returns from Animal Meat By-products Hide or pelt Steer 87.3 92.8 96.6 81.4 4.1 7.2 3 4 4 1 8 6 Calf Hog Sheep 14 5 Source of data: Clemen, Rudolf A. By-products in the packing industry. 4^0 pp. >f Chicago Press, Chicago. 1927. Jig. University Prices. — Comparable prices of hides in California over a long period of years are not available. While it is difficult to state definitely what grade of Chicago packer hides would be exactly comparable w T ith Pacific Coast packer hides, it is estimated that 75 to 85 per cent of the latter are comparable with those from Colorado steers. Prices for Colorado hides are available over a long period. Since 1923 it has been possible to obtain the average monthly selling price of hides at San Francisco. From 1893 to the outbreak of the war the trend of cattle hide prices was upward. Before the outbreak of the European War, hide and leather prices began to rise rapidly. With the stimulation caused by the war, prices remained relatively high, although purchasing power receded during the years 1916-19198. With the deflation in 1920 hide prices fell rapidly. The restriction of European buying power and the decrease in military demand made America the best outlet for hides. Prices fell in 1921 to lower levels than during any year since 1908. Values from 1920 to 1926 were exceptionally low compared with values of commodities in general. The value of Colo- rado steer hides in 1926 showed a purchasing power of slightly over 50 per cent of the pre-war purchasing power. During the spring of 1927 hides began to show a very definite upward trend. 126 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Clemen 46 states that there is a distinct seasonal variation in hide prices which reflects adjustments on the basis of quality. From December to April prices in Chicago decline ; the quality improves and prices move upward from April to November. Whether or not prices in California follow this seasonality cannot be definitely stated owing to the lack of comparable data. TABLE 66 Imports and Exports of Cattle Hides, United States, 1900- ( Thousand pounds, i.e., 000 omitted.) 1927 Year Year ending June 30 Imports Exports ending Imports Exports June 30 1900 163,865 7,486 1915 334,341 21,136 1901 129.175 11,162 1916 434,178 13,284 K02 148,628 9,373 1917 386,600 7,365 1903 131,640 12,860 1918 267,499 7,024 1904 85,370 32,728 Dec. 31 1905 113,177 10,269 1918 221,051 2,338 1906 156,155 10,753 1919 407,282 16,996 1907 134,671 15,397 1920 275,324 11,485 1908 98,353 14,650 1921 180,186 20,693 1909 192,252 12,859 1922 324,476 18,854 1910 318,004 14,635 1923 291,969 23,853 1911 150,128 44,594 1924 185,615 79,706 1912 251,013 17,445 1925 166,793 49,916 1913 268,042 17,972 1926 150,452 51,773 1914 279,963 12,525 1927 237,234 37,552 Note. — In addition to the above large numbers of "pieces" are imported and exported — 5,142,660 pieces being imported and 836,555 "pieces" being exported in 1927. Calf skin imports in 1927 were 44,070,322 pounds and 6,973,216 "pieces." Exports were 15,096,478 pounds and 1,229,118 "pieces." Sources of data: 1900-1918, U. S. Dept. Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1901-1919. 1918-1927, U. S. Dept. Commerce. Monthly Summary of Foreign Commerce of the United States, June issues. Since 1900 conditions in the hide business have been more unfavor- able than in the beef business. The percentage relationship between the value of the hide and the value of beef has been declining, although there have been two favorable periods in 1902-1908 and 1914-1917. Since the spring of 1927 there has been a marked improvement in this relationship. The purchasing power during 1927 was still low. There is a lack of correspondence between hide supply and demand which results in sharp variations in prices. Imports and Exports. — The United States has been a heavy im- porter of hides since the latter part of the nineteenth century. Since 1900, imports have never been less than 85 million pounds and have gone as high as 434 million pounds. 4< J Clemen, Kudolf A. By-products in the packing industry. 410 pp., 50 fig. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1927. BuL. 461] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY 127 The removal of the hide tariff in 1909 tended to stimulate imports. The war in 1914 further stimulated business, trade disturbances in Europe making the United States the best outlet for surplus supplies. During recent years the supply of cattle hides in the United States has averaged between sixteen and one-half and seventeen millions, of which approximately three-quarters are produced from the slaughter of domestic cattle, the remainder being imported annually. TABLE 67 Average Monthly Prices of Packer Hides — Colorado Steers — Chicago, 1916-1928 (Cured basis, per 100 pounds) Aver- Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. age 1916 $19.00 $19.68 $19.75 $20.62 $22.44 $23.69 $23.52 $22.88 $23.27 $26.31 $29.88 $31.40 $23.53 1917 31 00 30 50 29.50 29.69 30 50 31.07 31.31 30.81 26.95 28.62 29.56 28.12 29.80 1918 25.50 24.25 21.10 24.37 27.75 29.55 30.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 26.00 26 00 26.29 1919 25.00 25 00 20.70 27.50 34.60 39.12 46.87 48 00 39.62 38.75 37.70 33.63 34.71 1920 32 75 32.62 30 00 30.56 32.25 32.50 26.50 24 50 22.12 19.60 14.75 14 00 26.01 1921 12 85 11 00 8.87 7.95 11 25 12 50 12 35 12 50 12.50 13.25 14.25 15.00 12 02 1922 15 00 14.44 11.81 11.55 12.81 14 33 15.80 17 50 18.45 19.75 20 00 18 30 15.81 1923 16.87 17.00 17.00 17.00 16.62 13.95 12.12 12.25 11 50 11.50 10.62 10 50 13.91 1924 11.88 14 00 12 15 10 88 10.70 11.00 11.75 13.40 13.75 14.25 15.18 14 88 12.82 1925 15.00 14 63 13.50 13 50 13.30 12.81 14 12 14.80 15.00 14.90 14.12 13.87 14.13 1926 13.75 11.75 11.50 10.63 12.10 11.88 12.60 13.31 13.63 14.70 13.63 13.80 12.77 1927 14.20 13.13 13.00 14.25 15.94 17.50 19.35 18.63 20.75 21.30 22.65 23.75 17.87 1928 25.38 23.20 22.75 24.69 23.20 21.50 23.12 22.05 22.00 Source of data: 1916-1928, data contained in letter from C. V. Whalin, Marketing Livestock, Meats and Wool Division of Bur. Agr. Econ. to W. E. Schneider, Bur. Agr. Econ., San Francisco. TABLE 68 Relative Prices and Purchasing Power of Packer Hides- Chicago, 1910-1927 -Colorado Steers, Year Relative price Purchasing power Year Relative price Purchasing power 1910 1911 1912 85.8 86.1 101 5 83.4 90.9 100.6 1919 1920 1921 221.8 166 2 76.8 105.5 69.6 51.6 1913 110.3 108.3 1922 101.0 66.7 1914- 116.3 116 4 1923 88.9 56.8 1915 130 3 127.0 1924 81.9 53.8 1916 1917 1918 150 4 190.4 168.0 116.5 105.6 84.9 1925 1926 1927 90.3 81.6 114.2 55.9 53.0 76.1 Sources of data: Original data upon which relatives are based have been taken from the following: 1910-1925, U. S. Dept. Agr. Statistics of cattle, calves, beef, veal, hides and skins. U. S. Dept. Agr. Stat. Bui. 20:311. 1927. 1916-1927, table 67, p. 195. Relative prices on 1910-1914 base = 100 = $15.65. Calculations 1910-1925, U. S. Dept. Agr. Statistics of cattle, calves, beef, veal, hides and skins. U. S. Dept. Agr. Stat. Bui. 20: 311. 1927. 1616-1917, table 67, p. 195. Relative prices on 1910-1914 base = 100 = $15. 65. Calcula- tions by authors. Purchasing power based upon U. S. Bur. Labor Statistics All-commodity Index 1910-1914 = 100. 128 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Canada, Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay supply this country with a large proportion of its hide imports, supplemented by China and Australia. Of the hides imported, approximately one-third are dry hides and two-thirds wet-salted or pickled and green. Tanners prefer the wet or green hides to those that have been dried because of the ease of tanning and lack of the breaks which are found in dry hides which have been shipped long distances. TABLE 69 Average Selling Prices op Hides at San Francisco (Cents per pound.) 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 Month Steers Cows Steers Cows Steers Cows Steers Cows Steers Cows Steers Cows 13H 14 13 13 HH 10H 9H m 10 sy 2 8 10H 11 10 10 10H 8H m m 8 6M 6H m m 10 9 ii 12 13 13H 13 13 7% m TA 7 m 9 10 11 11 11 11 UK 12 12M ii5* ny 2 12H 14 im 14 13M 13H 12M 12M 11 11 11 11 12 13H 135* 12 12 uy 2 ioh 10H ioh 10 10^ 11 ny 2 12M 12H 13M 13 12U UK w 2 w 2 9 95* 11 11 12M 12 12H 12 11^ 12}* 13M HH HM 12H 15 17 18 20 19M 20 22 24 12M 105* 105* HH 14H 17 18 20 19H 20 20H 21H 20H 19^ 20 19 July 10.8 9.1 11.1 9.0 13.0 11.8 11.77 11.0 17.02 16.35 Source of data: W. E. Schneider, U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Agr. Econ., San Francisco, Calif. DISEASE Estimates made by the Bureau of Animal Industry of the United States Department of Agriculture and the California State Depart- ment of Agriculture indicate that the percentage of tuberculosis in cattle in California is high. This particularly refers to dairy cattle, although the disease is not entirely confined to dairy herds. In two of the important beef-cattle counties of the state, Lassen and Modoc, the percentage of infection is low. These counties were the first to become modified accredited areas. The Texas fever tick has been eradicated from California and is now confined to the southern states. Reports of anthrax and blackleg within the state during the three years 1926-1928 have been compara- tively few and have not been confined to any definite area of the state.