UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA SERIES ON CALIFORNIA CROPS AND PRICES SWINE EDWIN C. VOORHIES AND MARTIN H. BLANK BULLETIN 523 April, 1932 CONTRIBUTION FROM THE GIANNINI FOUNDATION OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRINTING OFFICE BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA CONTENTS Foreword, 3. Summary, 3. Development of the swine industry, 7. United States, 7. California, 14. Recent trends in swine raising, 21. Numbers of swine in the United States, 21. Hog numbers in California, 25. Prevention of cyclical movements, 26. Trends in production methods — classes of swine, 30. 1 Trends in production methods — feeding, 36. Increasing productivity of swine, 38. Purebred swine, 40. Numbers of purebreds, 40. Location of purebred breeders in California, 41. Slaughter of swine, 41. Number and trend in the United States, 41. Centers of slaughter, 47. Sex of hogs slaughtered in the United States, 47. Total slaughter in California, 49. Number and trend of swine slaught- ered in San Francisco Bay and Los Angeles districts, 49. Seasonal variation in classes of swine sold in California, 50. Pork and lard consumption, 52. United States, 52. Regional consumption, 57. California, 58. Consumption in other countries, 59. Prices and purchasing power of swine and pork products, 61. Prices of hogs in the United States, 61. Prices of hogs in California, 64. Relations between prices in Califor- nia and prices in other areas, 73. Factors influencing hog prices, 79. Prices of pork products, 86. Relations between hog prices and prices of other animal husbandry products, 98. Prices of purebreds, 101. Feed costs, 102. Corn-hog ratio, 102. Barley-hog ratio, 104. Alfalfa, 107. Garbage, 107. Other feeds, 108. Storage holdings, 109. Domestic trade in products of the swine industry, 110. Shipments of pork and lard into California, 110. Shipments of live hogs into California, 111. Shipments of hogs out of California, 114. Total shipments of hogs and pork into California, 115. Market receipts, United States, 115. Seasonal variation in shipments of hogs into California, 117. Hog markets, 117. Freight rates, 119. Foreign trade in hogs and hog products, 119. Exports of hog products, 120. Imports of hog products, 124. Exports and imports of live hogs, 126. World situation in hogs and hog products, 126. Canada, 127. Denmark, 128. The Netherlands, 129. United Kingdom, 130. Irish Free State, 131. Germany, 131. Poland, 132. France and Belgium, 132. Other countries, 132. Sources of current information on the swine industry, 133. Acknowledgments, 135. SWINE 1 EDWIN C. V00RHIES2 and MARTIN H. BLANKS FOREWORD This bulletin represents the results of a study undertaken at the request of various swine interests of California. The primary object has been to summarize and interpret the statistical data relating to the swine industry. Emphasis has been placed on long-time trends and tendencies, since the year-to-year outlook for swine is presented regularly in the Agricultural Outlook for California, which is pub- lished shortly after the first of each year by the California Agricul- tural Extension Service. Care has been taken to give in considerable detail the sources of the data included in the various tables. On pages 133 and 134 will be found a compilation of the more important publications from which much of the current material has been obtained. SUMMARY Of the pork and lard consumed in California in recent years, 60 to 70 per cent comes from other states in the form of cured pork products and live hogs. Prices of hogs in California are considerably higher than they would be if production were great enough to supply all the pork and pork products consumed within the state. However, conditions outside the state profoundly affect the prices received by California producers. X umbers of swine in California have always been small in com- parison with those of the nation, never constituting more than 1.8 per cent (1870) of the total number in the country. The enumerations of 1925 and 1930 showed percentages 0.9 and 1.2 per cent respectively. Fluctuations in numbers have been relatively more violent than in the nation and have not always paralleled general movements in numbers. A peak in numbers of swine in California was reached about 1920. Since then there seems to have been a decline. This was probably brought about by several factors, among them being (1) the i Paper No. 27, The Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics. 2 Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Economist in the Experiment Station and Agricultural Economist on the Giannini Foundation. 3 Assistant in Agricultural Economics on the Giannini Foundation, resigned June 30, 1931. 4 University of California — Experiment Station constantly lessening amount of dairy by-products available, (2) the abrupt fluctuations in the relation between barley prices and hog prices, (3) the greater interest in and perhaps the greater returns from the production of other classes of animals during most of this period. Hog production will continue to be an important side-line enter- prise on many farms in California, and under some special conditions it may well be the principal enterprise, but in view of the generally more favorable conditions for raising hogs in other areas, especially in the Corn Belt, it is doubtful if it would be profitable for the farmers of the state to increase hog production enough to supply all the pork and pork products consumed in the state. Many of the animals formerly produced in this state were poorly bred and fed and considerable prejudice developed among those who buy hogs for slaughter against animals produced locally. The Cali- fornia Farm Bureau Marketing Association, through its long and successful experience in conducting" hog auction sales in the San Joaquin Valley, has brought home to thousands of farmers the value of producing high-quality animals. There is still an opportunity for producers to add to their incomes by growing the type of hogs which command a premium on the market. Although the state raises large amounts of barley, a fattener ranking close to corn in efficiency, there is perhaps no state which produces swine on a greater variety of by-products and waste prod- ucts. A large proportion of the hogs produced, especially in the southern part, are fattened upon garbage. Where garbage feeding is surrounded with proper precautions it seems an excellent and economical method of disposing of the edible garbage from urban areas. Losses from such diseases as hog cholera and tuberculosis are far smaller than formerly. Losses are still high, however, and hog pro- ducers might increase their returns by following practices which will serve to keep disease and parasites in check. For the entire period since records first became available, there lias been a distinct upward trend throughout the country in the slaughter of hogs as compared with the number of hogs raised. This has come about through improved breeding, feeding, and management on the part of swine raisers. Economically, this has been to the decided advantage of the producer. While this trend may continue, the likelihood is that in the future it will not be as pronounced as in the past. The consumption of pork in the United States is now greater than the consumption of beef, poultry, or lamb. Prior to the War the consumption of beef was greater than the consumption of pork. Over Bul. 523 j Swine 5 a long period of time it is probable that the consumption of pork will continue to be greater than the consumption of other meats. The per-capita consumption of pork and pork products in the Pacific Coast areas has not been as large as in other areas of the country. In California, beef and lamb especially are consumed in place of pork. This is due, in part, to the fact that prices of pork and pork products are relatively higher than the prices of other meats in the Pacific Coast markets. Over a long period of years, the demand for light hogs has in- creased throughout the country. Undoubtedly one of the causes of this has been the relatively lower lard prices as compared with prices of the remainder of the hog carcass. The demand for light hogs in California markets is relatively greater than in the more important markets of the country. This is fortunate for California hog producers because in California feeds for swine are rather limited on many farms, and lighter animals ordinarily require less feed per pound of gain than heavier animals. There has been and perhaps will continue to be a market for feeder swine. The demand comes chiefly from (1) farmers with sur- plus feed, (2) those with waste products or garbage, (3) exporters desirous of shipping to the Hawaiian Islands. For the half century prior to 1910 the long-time trend in hog prices was upward, but since that date there has been no appreciable upward tendency. Prices in this state are higher than the average throughout the country, but fluctuate in the same cycles. The factors which influ- ence prices in the nation influence those in California markets. The most important of these price-influencing factors are (1) the supply of hogs on the market and the immediate prospective supplies, (2) the amount of hog products in storage, (3) the general price level both in the United States and abroad, (4) general business conditions, (5) the prices of alternative products, (6) supplies of and demand for pork products abroad. These factors illustrate clearly the neces- sity for the California producer to acquaint himself with conditions in the entire industry. Few of the factors influencing prices can be changed by California producers individually or collectively, on account of the minor place which the industry in this state occupies. Changes in swine numbers in the country are far more abrupt than those in other classes of livestock, with the possible exception of poultry. This causes more frequent up and down movements in numbers and hence far more frequent movements in prices. The production cycle and the accompanying price cycle for swine is approximately five years in length. This is supposed to be about the 6 University of California — Experiment Station time it takes to recover from an overexpansion of production and tc> stock up again after a subsequent underproduction. The relation between the price of corn and the price of hogs is one of the most important factors affecting hog production in most states. In California more barley than corn is used to feed hogs. Although the relation between the price of barley and the price of hogs is similar to the price relation above mentioned, the barley-hog price relation seems to be subject to more violent fluctuations. The price of California barley depends to a considerable extent on the foreign demand for brewing purposes, which often tends to make barley too expensive to compete with corn in the production of pork. Foreign markets for lard and cured pork products have acted to a considerable extent as ' shock absorbers' for heavy supplies. In years of heavy production and low prices, exports usually have been large. The trend of exports has been downward since 1919 as a result of increased production in importing countries and increased competition from other exporting countries, notably Denmark. Lard has been the exception to the general trend in exports but the increase has been accompanied by lower prices. The increasing competition of cheap vegetable oils with lard, which has been in evidence abroad as well as in the United States, has been an important factor in the lower lard prices in foreign markets. Considering the long-time outlook producers may expect foreign outlets to contract rather than expand. Seasonal differences in hog prices are not large but are sufficient to make it worth while for more producers to plan to market their hogs in the season when prices ordinarily are highest. Prices are ordinarily higher during the four months beginning in July, the highest months being August and September, and are ordinarily lower during the three winter months of December, Jan- uary, and February. These seasonal differences are not peculiar to California, for they are similar to the differences in the Middle West. Climate is one of the factors giving California producers an advan- tage over those in many other regions, because it is not difficult to select the farrowing time and the subsequent time of placing slaughter hogs on the market. Farmers in California, who produce swine as one of the main enterprises, can adjust their production advantageously by following the current information as to the outlook for hog production and prices. They can avoid to some extent, periods of heavy supplies and low prices and take advantage of periods of high prices. However, where hog production tends to be only a side-line enterprise for utilizing feeds that otherwise would be wasted, it is often more important that the number of hogs be adjusted to the supply of feeds. Bul. 523] Swine 7 Several fairly reliable indicators of prospective supplies are avail- able to the producer. One of those which has been used by many is the semi-annual pig survey of the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics. The attempt has been made in this publication to point out the manner in which other indicators have been and are being used. A summary of conditions in the indus- try is published each year in the Agricultural Outlook for California by the Agricultural Extension Service of the University of California. DEVELOPMENT OF THE SWINE INDUSTRY United States. — The early settlers brought hogs to this country to supply their necessary meat. Pork soon became an article of trade and a source of income. It is highly probable that a quantity of pork in excess of domestic requirements was produced early in the history of the country. The first available data that afford a measure of this excess are the export statistics of 1790 which show that approximately 6,000,000 pounds of pork and pork products were exported. Along with other agricultural industries hog raising has moved westward, but with this difference — beef cattle and sheep have moved at a more rapid rate than either hogs or dairy cattle. The two former classes of livestock are well adapted for utilizing the feed of the semi- arid Great Plains and Rocky Mountain sections of the country. Swine, on the other hand, utilize large amounts of concentrated feeds and are raised in -sections largely devoted to grain. Dairy cattle in the past have been close to the centers of population on account of the necessity of producing market milk close at hand. After the War of 1812 swine raising developed most rapidly in the earliest settled corn-growing regions west of the Allegheny Mountains. In 1860 over 75 per cent of the hogs were still in the sections east of the Mississippi — approximately 25 per cent being in the east north central states, a second 25 per cent in the east south central states, and a third 25 per cent along the eastern seaboard, largely in the south Atlantic states (tables 1 and 2). During the period 1860-1890 the western part of the Corn Belt (west north central states), with the greatly increased farming population and rapidly expanding acreage of corn, gained in relative numbers at the expense of both the east south central and south Atlantic sections of the country. The older section of the Corn Belt east of the Mississippi maintained its relative position. Since 1890 tendencies have been toward an increasing concentration in the west north central states and during the past few years (since One c/o/ epcsaAs 20,000 Fig". 1. — Distribution of swine in the United States, 1930. Either from the standpoint of numbers, number per square mile, or numbers per human inhabitant, the Corn Belt of the United States stands out as the swine section of the country. Throughout the eleven western states, numbers are small, especially so in Cali- fornia in proportion to the population. (Data from U. S. Dept. Com. Bur. of the Census. Fifteenth Census U. S. Agriculture. Separates for states. 1931. Each dot represents 20,000 swine on farms April 1, 1930, which were born prior to January 1, 1930.) ■ Over JO jnr/r>e />e E22 20-29.99 B^ /O - Z9.99 MM S- 9.99 CH O- 4.99 Fig. 2. — Density of swine numbers in the United States, 1930. The Middle West contains by far the larger number of swine per square mile. Actual numbers and number per square mile are low in the western section of the country. (Data have been computed by authors from the number of swine on farms April 1, 1930, which were born prior to January 1, 1930. Data on swine from U. S. Dept. Com. Bur. of the Census. Fifteenth Census U. S. Agriculture. Separates for states. 1931.) Bul. 523] Swine 1925, see tables 11 and 12) it has been estimated that over 50 per cent of the nation's hog population was found in this area (fig'. 1). The increase in dairying- in this area may have had an influence on the concentration of swine numbers. The influence of corn can also be seen in the distribution of the hog population. By far the greatest density per square mile will be found in the middle western corn and dairy states (fig - . 2). TABLE 1 Number of Swine on Farms, United States, 1860-1930* (Thousands, i.e., 000 omitted) Division and state 1860 June 1 1870 June 1 1880 June 1 1890 June 1 1900 June 1 1910 April 15 1920 Jan. 1 1925 Jan. 1 50,854 1930* Jan. 1 1930* April United States 33,513 25,135 49,773 57,427 62,868 58,186 59,346 32,804 56,295 Geographic divisions: New England 326 2,178 8,560 3,554 7,193 7,959 3,178 21 544 456 241 1,528 7,235 4,077 3,860 5,201 2,382 29 582 445 362 2,159 13,591 14,528 5,720 6,790 5,422 105 1,096 868 408 2,346 14,995 22,629 5,082 6,545 4,354 175 893 594 362 1,960 16,047 24,427 5,563 6,645 6,402 400 1,061 598 397 1,791 14,461 21,282 5,964 5,439 7,022 641 , 1,190 767 384 1,931 14,183 21,715 6,536 6,207 5,758 1,193 1,441 909 193 1,050 11,774 24,600 4,176 3,453 3,451 1,311 845 431 153 673 6,847 15,854 2,727 2,393 2,746 758 652 428 228 Middle Atlantic 1,007 East North Central 12,986 West North Central 27,650 South Atlantic 4,393 East South Central 3,608 West South Central 4,148 Mountain 1,217 Pacific 1,059 California 648 * The number of swine on farms January 1, 1930, is not strictly comparable with either the data for 1920 or 1925, since the January 1, 1930, data relate to the number of swine on farms April 1, 1930, which were born before January 1, 1930. The April 1, 1930, data include all swine of all ages on farms. Sources of data: 1860-1920: U. S. Dept. Com. Bur. of the Census. Fourteenth Census U. S. 5:598. 1922. 1925: U. S. Dept. Com. Bur. of the Census. Livestock on farms. U. S. Census of Agriculture. Summary statistics by states, p. 28, 29, 37. 1928. 1930: U. S. Dept. Com. Bur. of the Census. Fifteenth Census U. S. Agriculture. Separates for states. Statistics by counties. First series. 1931. TABLE 2 Percentage Distribution of Swine on Farms, United States, 1860-1930 Division and state 1860 June 1 1870 June 1 1880 June 1 1890 June 1900 June 1 1910 April 15 1920 Jan. 1 1925 Jan. 1 1930 Jan. 1 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.5 6.5 6.1 4.3 4.1 3.1 3.1 3.3 2.1 2.0 25.5 28.8 27.3 26.1 25.5 24.9 23.9 23.2 20.9 10.6 16.2 29.2 39.4 38.9 36 6 36.6 48.4 48.3 21.5 15 4 11.5 8.9 8.9 10.3 11.0 8.2 8.3 23.8 20.7 13.6 11.4 10.6 9.4 10.5 6.8 .7.3 9.5 9.5 10.9 7.6 10.2 12.1 9.7 6.8 8.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 1.1 2.0 2.6 2.3 1.6 2.3 2.2 1.6 1.7 2.1 2.4 1.7 2.0 1.4 1.8 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.5 0.9 1.3 1930 April 1 Geographic divisions: New England Middle Atlantic East North Central West North Central South Atlantic East South Central West South Central Mountain Pacific California 0.4 1.8 23.1 49.1 7.8 6.4 7.4 2.1 1.9 Source of data: Computation by authors on basis of table 1. 10 University of California — Experiment Station On April 1, 1930, the seven west north central states claimed over 49 per cent of the swine in the United States (table 2). With the addition of the east north central states to this area the percentage was 72. The corn acreage and the number of hogs are closely correlated. The eleven western states claimed approximately 4 per cent of the total number of swine in the country in 1930 and together with the north Atlantic states constitute the deficiency areas for swine (fig. 3). H Orer /.O j wine /oer /r>/?ti&//er/>/ B23 o.s-/.o EJ azs-as IZIllejj Mor> 0.2S " •» Fig. 3. — Swine per capita, 1930. The greatest surplus of swine is found in the north central states. In comparison with the human population numbers of swine are large in some of the western states and this no doubt accounts for the shipments from several of the other western states into California. (Data on human population from U. S. Dept. Com. Bur. of the Census. Fifteenth Census IT. S. 1:15. 1931. Data on swine, number on farms April 1, 1930, born prior to January 1, 1930, from IT. S. Dept. Com. Bur. of the Census. Fifteenth Census IT. S. Agriculture. Separates for states. 1931.) California with approximately 5 per cent of the human population of the United States had slightly over 1 per cent of the swine numbers of the country. According to the Agricultural Census of 1925, swine were reported on 3,618,624 farms, or 56.8 per cent of the total number in the United States. The corresponding percentages for 1920 and 1910 were 75.2 and 68.4 respectively. These figures point to a greater specialization of the swine population on the farms of the country from 1920 to 1925. The number of swine per farm in 1925 was 14.1 as compared with 12.2 and 13.4 in 1920 and 1910 respectively. It should be noted that pork Bul. 523] Swine 11 needs of the country have been supplied by fewer swine (page 38), indicating' that the hog today is far more efficient than formerly. The swine industry is relatively less important in the Pacific Coast states than it is in any other section of the country (tables 1, 2, and 3). The data reported on swine numbers in 1930 and numbers of farms reporting swine are not strictly comparable with those of former years. The number of swine was recorded as of April 1, 1930 (table 1). The total number reported was divided into three parts: (1) Pigs born between January 1 and April 1, 1930, and the number of farms reporting; (2) sows and gilts farrowing between January 1 and June 1, 1930, and farms reporting; (3) other swine (than those in 2) born before January 1, 1930, and farms reporting. The addition of numbers of swine under items 2 and 3 enumerates the number of swine on farms April 1, 1930, which were born before January 1, 1930. The farms reporting under items 2, 3, and 4 enumerated in table 3 were not necessarily the same farms. The percentage of farms report- ing swine (columns 5, 6, and 7 of table 3) shows clearly that the western states are far below the average for the nation. So far as number of swine per farm reporting is concerned the average for the western states appears to be nearly the same as for that of the nation. California gives evidence of a large number of swine on those farms reporting. This high average number is partially accounted for by the relatively large number of garbage feeding establishments in the state. For the years 1924 to 1930 inclusive estimates were made of the farm value, gross income (table 4), and cash income from farm pro- duction. During these seven years the swine industry accounted for an average of 13.5 per cent of the gross income from farm production in the United States and for an average of 26.3 per cent of the gross income from livestock and livestock products. During the years for which data are enumerated there is no evidence of a trend in the gross income relations of hogs with either animal products or all agricultural products. Comparisons of the total value of swine with that of certain classes of livestock (excluding poultry) in the United States can be made from 1867 to 1932. Taking into consideration this long-time period there has been a distinct increase in the value of swine in comparison with that of all other classes of livestock. Only the value of milk cows has given evidence of a similar steady growth. Table 5 shows these comparisons from 1920 to 1932 inclusive, during which period there is no evidence of a particular trend. The fluctuations in value from year to year are considerable. 12 University of California — Experiment Station m M O oj O42 «8 £ B o „s > >- > t_i 3 C g&.-B o «Pi-i feo as Hj S3 • ~ c o» 042^ O »-< -5 „^H c3 £ C O _ > t- > 1-t 3 O 5iJ o ^ B a>:3 2-- n © » iflOOifllONOlNWrtW ooo5Coor^coTt co co CO !>■ t~- CO NtONOONMHHlO r-( CO C» »-l O O B 2 - C3 3 : 'f3 S O O S O 5^JJ § 43 ^ w 3 s * 2 <£ « © • - ci © o °« © ° +i t) (J "I vj vi wj au - ■J s ££i co cc:3 co « a b c< a a s as- « fl S v ©* '"'«.© § s s -42 « S J o 0) '.1 pi s * £*8 . o Ji«sr 00* o B CO B cp o J3 B s^P a >> &8B2 "S «- c3 C ■^ -Q o u B pq e o U a-^o^ 3 3 OJ-S B 03 B-^ 'o b S |tj O^ °co ^3 q ft ° 5 a B in J* OJ — a CO m-5 _r yj > 3 * 2 § * 42 3 03 B C"g « s a 5? JJJ-f .£ cm CO )-. ft o o«« g S S a, o B fir^ 2 — •ssa 3^ ij o § o^ '-3 > ft- a-o ^'S oaa^ «g 1»2§ "5-3 00 %> ^> ^ .11 .42 42 O co " co oo -013 o3 Bll. 523] Swine 13 TABLE 4 Gross Income* from Farm Production by Groups of Commodities, United States. 1924-1930 Year Livestock i :'?.'. Crops and livestock crops and livestock Per cent swine are of Total crops and Livestock and livestock Millio ns of dollars, i e., 000,000 omitted livestock products 1924 6.170 5,167 11,337 1.324 11 7 25 6 1925 6,147 5.820 11,968 1,666 13 9 23 6 1926 6,012 11,480 1,758 15 3 29.2 1927 5,817 5,799 11,616 1,508 13 26 1928 5.675 6,066 11.741 1.474 12.6 24 3 1929 6.295 11.983 1.-562 13 24 8 1930+ 4,032 5,370 9,402 1.376 14 6 25 6 * Gross income relates to cash income plus *he value of the products consumed in the farm household on the farm where tne commodities were produced. f Preliminary data. Source of data: W. F. Callander, Chairman, Crop Reporting Board, Bur. Agr. Econ., Washington, D. C" TABLE 5 Total Farm Value of Certain Classes* of Liyestock and Value of Swine, United States and California. January 1. 1920-1932 United States California Swine, in per cent of all livestock All livestock - :ne All livestock Swine Year United Thousands of dollars, i.e., 000 omitted states California 1920 8.108.569 1,203.052 213.477 15. -544 14 8 7 3 1921 6.043.190 803,544 183,766 13 3 6 1 1922 4.74- 633,313 147 -.- 9.080 13 3 1 1 1923 5.052.431 851,838 1.54.586 9,162 16.9 5 9 1924 i,73f •-" 685,574 157.254 6,240 14 5 4 1925 4.670.532 733.220 143.661 5,160 15 7 3 6 1926 4,982.493 815.412 156.991 6,833 16 4 4 4 1927 5.081.770 953.495 162.01: - Til a i 5 4 -• 5,590.982 813,639 179,951 9.112 14 6 5 1 1929 6.114.876 760.695 199.;-- 8,190 12 4 4 1 1930 5.994.970 744.308 183.873 7,089 12 4 3 9 1931 4.450.708 617,668 149,697 6,230 13 9 4 I 1932 3,115,748 365,133 96,353 4.255 11 4 4 4 * Classes included are (1) horses and colts, (2.) mules and mule colts, (3") all cattle and calves, 4 sheep and la:;. .-■?, including pigs. Sources of data: United States: U. S. Dept. Agr. Livestock numbers and values, Januarv 1, 1920-1932. Crops and Markets 9:42. 1932. California: 1920-1929. Calculations by authors based upon numbers and values of various classes of livestock as published in Crops and Markets 9:43-55. 1932. 1930-1932. Crops and Markets 9:43-54. 1932. 14 University of California — Experiment Station From the standpoint of meat production the swine industry occupies the most important position in the meat industry of the country. In 1931, out of an estimated national meat production of 16,777 million pounds, over 53 per cent, or 8,907 million pounds, was pork, exclusive of lard. (See discussion on consumption, p. 52). California. — Before the American occupation, swine production occupied a minor place in the extensively managed agriculture of California. Hittell 4 states that the missionaries raised a few swine for the purpose of procuring lard. Soule and Gibbon 5 estimate that the number of swine in 1831 was less than 1,000, although it was stated TABLE 6 Number of Swine on Farms, California, 1860-1930* (Thousands, i.e., 000 omitted) Section 1860 June 1 1870 June 1880 June 1 1890 June 1 1900 June 1 1910 April 15 1920 Jan. 1 1925 Jan. 1 1930* Jan. 1 1930* April 1 455 445 868 594 596 767 909 431 428 648 North coast 87 48 229 81 3 7 83 47 185 104 13 13 122 141 248 207 126 24 87 94 189 132 74 18 101 73 174 170 48 30 92 83 176 232 154 30 107 98 206 304 165 29 54 38 117 104 98 20 32 58 101 86 136 15 50 87 Sacramento Valley 151 San Joaquin Valley 136 Southern California 201 Mountain 23 * The number of swine on farms January 1, 1930, is not strictly comparable with either the data for 1920 or 1925, since the January 1, 1930, data relate to the number of swine on farms April 1, 1930, which were born before January 1, 1930. The April 1, 1930, data include all swine of all ages on farms. Source of data: Computations by authors based upon U. S. Dept. Com. Bur. of the Census. Fifteenth Census U.S. Agriculture. California. Statistics by counties. First series. 1931. that the number had been greater at a previous date. The United States Census of 1850 reported only 2,776 swine in the state, but this was probably incomplete. During the first decade after California's admission to the Union the influx of settlers and the subsequent demand for pork products, together with a lack of rapid transportation facilities, caused a rapid growth of the swine industry. In 1860 the number of swine in the state was reported to be 456,396 (table 1). Over one-half of these were in the Sacramento Valley (tables 6 and 7). During the next two decades southern California, the south coast, and the San Joaquin Valley became more important in swine numbers. Evidence indicates 4 Hittell, Theodore H. History of California, 1: 282, 283; 2: 207, 484. Pacific Press Publishing House and Occidental Publishing House, San Francisco. 1885. s Soule, Frank, and John H. Gibbon. The annals of San Francisco, p. 63. D. Appleton and Co., New York. 1855. Bul. 523] Swine 15 that during the latter part of the 1880 's there were over 1,000,000 swine within the state 's borders. Shortly afterward numbers declined rapidly and an upward movement was not evident until just before the World War. Estimates place the number in 1918 at over 1,000,000. The 1920 Census reported over 900,000 head, while both the 1925 Agricultural Census and the 1930 Census (number, January 1) enumerate less than one-half of the 1920 number. Since 1880 the coast sections have lost in relative importance while southern California has made relative gains. The first-named sections formerly depended, in no small measure, on dairy by-products for swine feed. The coast sections have become relatively less important TABLE 7 Percentage Distribution of Swine in California, 1860-1930 Section 1860 June 1 1870 June 1 1880 June 1 1890 June 1 1900 June 1910 April 15 1920 Jan. 1 1925 Jan. 1 1930* Jan. 1 19.1 18.7 14.1 14.6 16.9 11.9 11.8 12.5 7.6 10.5 10.5 16.2 15.8 12.3 10.9 10.8 8.8 13.7 50.2 41.6 28.6 31.8 29.1 23.0 22.6 27.3 23.6 17.8 23.6 23.8 22.2 28.6 30.3 33.4 24.0 20.1 0.6 2.8 14.5 12.5 8.2 20.1 18.2 22.8 31.7 1.8 2.8 2.8 3.1 4.9 3.8 3.2 4.6 3.3 1930* April North coast South coast Sacramento Valley.. San Joaquin Valley. Southern California Mountain 7.7 13.4 23.3 21.1 31.0 3.5 Source of data: Computations by authors based upon table 6. in the dairying' of the state, although during the past forty years the actual number of dairy cattle has not changed materially. There has been an increasing' demand in the central and southern coast counties for market milk and cream to supply the rapidly growing urban centers. Furthermore, in the north coast section there has been a greater utilization of skim milk in the form of dry milk, etc. In southern California, dairy by-products on the farm have practically disappeared, but with the large increases in human population immense amounts of garbage have become available. Wastes from various food industries have enabled large concentration feeding points to be established in southern California and hence the relative increase in swine numbers. The Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys have retained their relative places of importance in the industry and are the areas of greatest density of swine in the state (fig. 4). On April 1, 1930, (census data) approximately 44 per cent of the swine were found in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys, numbers being almost equally divided between the two (table 7 and fig. 5). In the counties of southern California 31 per cent were found, and 21 per cent were scattered through the coast counties from Del Norte 16 University of California — Experiment Station to San Luis Obispo. The mountain counties have a relatively small swine population, with less than 4 per cent of the state total. It is of interest to note that the ranking county in swine numbers is San Bernardino in southern California, largely because of the Oyer 3 otv/rre /oer \3?is<7/-e /rt/'/e 6-7.99 4-5.99 2-3.99 0-/99 Fig. 4. — Swine per square mile, California, 1930. The greatest density of swine per square mile is in the valleys of the Sacramento and the San Joaquin, especially in the former area. The barley acreage of the state undoubtedly has an influence upon this distribution. (Data have been computed by authors from the number of swine on farms April 1, 1930, which were born prior to January 1, 1930. Data on swine from U. S. Dept. Com. Bur. of the Census. Fifteenth Census U. S. Agriculture. Separates for states. 1931.) garbage-feeding operations of one ranch in this county. Garbage feeding is responsible for the concentration of the industry in certain other counties of the state. Bul. 523] Swine 17 According to the 1925 Agricultural Census swine were kept on 15.1 per cent of the farms of the state, a very small percentage com- pared with other states and areas. The corresponding percentages • • • • • • • • • • / • • • • • • • ■ • /) • / ( 1 • 1 • * -1 * \A I • •••• One - oi^ a 1 5*- s (-1 53 •Oc c3oi . OJ ifl O) W « f 00 ft c •- •-» _T OS © C ga <3 £ CO *ags§ CO 0> CO "5 "0 CO r^. "o o^ C -co © u C o>-3 ■ B-^S Ph-^ 5 c 00 M N h io » M O 3 Tj< lC -^ OS CO ^ CO rt N N H N rt CM ^ 03 © ©o C t-co - ea X ifl 1(1 T(l ^ N CM bfi c^ a •«* o tea © eo t~- 0' © fl . 1 a £ S » *B OS »0 »-l i— 1 CM CO © c o*^ © 5 e2_ PL, ■fig -&£ co2~<2 «s CO ^h »-< i* CM CN 00 cb O co e . N H M * H H eo .c 5 a r -' *= C cs C-c^ bC 5 4h O u re n —< C3 O N M * N IN N CM a ^2 C ™ 03 . r>- >o — < o GQ C-C.'-s .-: GO O 00 OS O CO CO 03 ^ CO CD O CD « 2 > «- ©2 - -h" -T CM t» fc o*- 1 C - co C Cos re o°B~<2 M© -^ i-H i-H OO ~H O CO «* CM CN 00 CO 00 r- -3 03 — CO t^ CO O CN CO — CD 03 S OO UO i-l CO CO CO t^ H ijl N CO Ifl « CO ~o b £* >* O0 O OS OS ON »o i-l i-l CM CO CO CO "3 c .2 o ^ £ A"£ > > s a-r 03. > &5 CD CO 4i •" O o o g S- £ .£ ° ° a s © £ ^ 8c O > ^2 £ oo 00 _r C C° r r co c c2 CO 33(- 03 00 m a 02 c c c<; o-fl ■r. c c c oi • «.- c3 C © 03 O 03 C3 05 >, O TJ £ S- c i c " B 2 « © TO '■5 C OO 03 .-. © C "3 c PI m 5 P •tj'O be c II CO as*"a c a 22 >> ^r4 C © © 32 £ CD l-H i-H ^ cc° lis N ■~| 00 C OQ C © c 1 •-; g 03 C © >, O « ht C 0) T1 ©re jrj-Q PQ > Ct3 „ © E T3 C C §T3 C o3.S - > bfl co fe-K C > coT3 O • ^j a © C M si S Si-° - oi £ S-9 § © ® a 2 a .■B 3 n a II C M 1- * c a c © OQ 03 00 bc.5^3 -O o i C = - 1 c ^ S c 0150 .— (H CO «« 22 £ OQ C 1 co © ~3 S £ »- 7 37 c PS* O* . C J3 ro ID s- c 03 — fslg >> c ^ ^2 10 Bj C3 - C-S CD 6 >. >. -0 s, C.S © co C £ bfi •PO r CS "7 c c > 1 N« 2 ft g — a a ft _2 c ft -a <* u £ c "3 c O C £rc CO CM "1 to £ oaa-§ 133 § & -H* "^ oo->>>>£ 03 • i> .X>^2 O T3 pS ^ c ■J. "3 rJ >>-* c T3T5 03 20 University of California — Experiment Station Gross income from farm production in California by groups of commodities is estimated by the United States Department of Agricul- ture Bureau of Agricultural Economics (table 8). In California from 2.0 to 2.7 per cent of the gross income from total crops and livestock, during the years 1924 to 1930, originated in swine production. This compares with a range of 11.7 to 15.3 per cent for the nation. For the same years swine production furnished from 7.2 to 9.0 of the total gross income from livestock production as compared with a similar range of 24.3 to 29.2 per cent for the nation. TABLE 10 Farm Value* of Livestock Production, California, 1924-1930 (Thousands of dollars, i.e., 000 omitted) Year Swine Milk Cattle and calves Sheep, lambs, and wool Eggs and chickens Other livestock products t 1924 10,756 66,675 24,090 15,856 37,832 1,900 1925 12,590 74,070 26,222 22,074 47,059 1,657 1926 17,874 66,906 31,787 20,993 46,497 1,934 1927 16,453 75,020 32,077 21,478 43,749 1,574 1928 15,808 81,158 39,885 25,730 45,948 1,702 1929 13,764 94,516 42,290 25,402 53,813 1,507 1930* 11,750 83,173 32,590 17,657 47,501 1,408 * The evaluation of the total outturn of a given commodity, irrespective of use, whether sold, con- sumed by the farm family, or consumed in the production of further farm products on the farm where grown. t Horses, mules, mohair, honey, and beeswax. X Preliminary data. Sources of data: 1924-1927: U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Farm value, gross income, and cash income from farm production. Part III. p. 20. August, 1930. Washington, D. C. (Mimeo.) 1928: U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Farm value, gross income, and cash income from farm production. Part III. p. 9. November, 1930. Washington, D. C. (Mimeo.) 1929-1930: U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Farm value, gross income, and cash income from farm production. Part HI. p. 9. October, 1931. Washington, D. C. (Mimeo.) The farm value of the various livestock productions is also reported by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the United States Depart- ment of Agriculture (table 10). The value of hogs produced was less than that from any other major animal industry in the state during all five of the years for which data are available. The period for which data are available is far too short to detect a trend in the relation between production of the swine industry and those of other animal industries of the state. Swine represent between 4 and 5 per cent of the total value of livestock in the state (exclusive of poultry, see table 5), a small percentage when compared with that in the nation. During the past seventy years the trend in this percentage relation has been down- Bul.523] Swine 21 ward — opposite to that in the nation. This relation is shown for the period 1920-1932 in table 5. During: these thirteen years this percent- age has decreased, indicating' that in comparison with the other animal industries, that of swine has lagged in importance. RECENT TRENDS IN SWINE RAISING Numbers of Swine in the United States. — Census data are useful in showing changes of a general nature, but it is difficult if not impossible to obtain from them information relative to trends and cycles of swine numbers. Even though the basic figures of swine num- bers were dependable in themselves, they are inadequate for the pur- pose of determining the trend of production. They are only inventory figures, and these without any allowances for changes in turnover may lead to erroneous conclusions. The discrepancy between data on numbers and production has already been brought out in studies on the sheep industry. 6 Since 1920, estimates of year-to-year changes have been made by the United States Department of Agriculture (table 11). These estimates are based on the enumerations of the Census and on other information available to the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics, but they should not be regarded as absolute. Revisions are made in these numbers yearly. These also are inventory figures, but they are annual, while the census data have been decennial. Recently the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics tentatively revised estimates of yearly swine numbers for 1867-1932. The general trend in swine numbers since 1900 has been upward. Figure 6 shows clearly that this increase has been irregular. The idea of cycles in the minds of many persons seems to be that of a regularly occurring up-and-down movement in numbers or in production. "In general scientific use the word cycle denotes a recurrence of different phases of plus and minus departures, which are often susceptible of exact measurement. It has no necessary relation to a definite time interval." 7 Cycles in the swine population since 1900 have not occurred with any great degree of regularity. Increases and decreases in the swine population can be brought about so rapidly that carefully worked-out cyclical movements are apt to be erroneous. Table 11 shows the year-to-year 6 Yoorhies, Edwin C, and W. E. Schneider. Economic aspects of the sheep industry. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 473:1-173. 1929. 7 Mitchell, Wesley C. Business cycles, p. 377. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., New York. 1927. 22 University of California — Experiment Station f* tt <; £ < 1-3 ^ ■fi H H S ■8 DQ a o o o o ^ m. w 0) 3 M 3 DC h tJ d O C t-h ,— i t— I O0 N M ") ® M H N CO »0 !D »- 1 Ol N N us,-i »-<" «N © >* 00* i-T rH US CO -h US 00 n o to oo * t^ o o co CT> ^H i— I OO tO CM US <-T O M O) iO CO 00 >^> IN Tt< O O W N N » ifl N ^ IN ■* O tO i-* i-H 00 O rt rt O) IN O 00 lO O) w to 03 N 00 CM CM lO CM O lO 112 rt IN or CM -* CO — < O CM C2 C5 O K <# O) DO CT> CM US O OO N m m OOOCMCM'OOOCOCM t^koOr^ooscoioco Nf)NNNTtlMO)iC tO to N M tO N N t» H O) N •* Tf CO US CO US US i— I OS US US CM US 00 OS'-ICDCMUSO-H^ CO 00 ■* O 01 » I- CO 'O CO O0 00 CM CM OS i-H CO US US O (NCMtOOOtOHNN __ 00 CM CO_ '(I N tO rt H M T-l US OO US OO H N _< -3 IS O cp ID CJ " tj C +2 0) j ^ ^ ja ja 1^1 I ll £ W £ tf3 efi S tf <1 £ fc M P A OJ » i— i go a to pq o u O < H o ^ w £l fc a l> a C/J g a ■rj a» H p M pq a ti bD H C W T3 fi a O . ««l Eh £ fc W QQ O bC 05 S «! Ah ^J a cu 03 Q ed QQ Tl b P Si a a ca -a CM O T-l t- •<*< CM US H lO N O rH CM CM »-i H^IOO^OtONO NONNWNHH CM US 1-1 NNHKJOtJINh CNOCMr-COCN'-i'H CO CO US US © US OS IN rt 6 N •* Cti -H "* o to 00 os •>*< CM CM OS t-^ CO i CM T(l01NtONMO)H NNOINCONHH N IN Tjl N CM CM OS t> CO rn (M (VJ «"S be w o a 05 -5 CV £ * *C0G d d § * .^ PS -g ^ £ ^ .n .4 t CD £ tH © ° cd "— ' ^fl CO % as o> c3 go d _ ft -. d fc So d d 03 Ph«4-I -e 03 > S OS T3 -S 1|S85 a S => -a w fl '■£^co OS T3 T3 ® fe flgTS £ S = rS W fits-- o > fe « '^CO rt fios OS 0) 2 ° S S 3 « fi"5 J'l •« o lfliHNrtHTf05(D»NtO(OONO>NT(lc<5'HC»iHlfi«|0>NNc<5N01lO(ON co^coo^o^-*icoc^©ooc©i-^co©©coio©coco©©co'**i>oeo©MU5(N Moe»pjioiOHii5»N.^h.oi-oo^ooo^NMo:Na«o«'""" " Ot>- ©©f — TjM(MTt<>OlOCO©COH CO -l N P5 I COOO»OlOCN10000«OOSOO©-HlOe^icof^«'* «#■ . OSlOlOTf* • I t- OS CO ^H ( C4MO)0)!OiO(Nl(5rt»io^O) O 4) -is is £o Ha ST Ol010i050iOiOJ010iO>CJO>05 0iOiOiCiC)010iOi Bul. 523] Swine 25 changes in the numbers of hogs as compared with the numbers of cattle and sheep. An examination of the movements in numbers is, however, worthy of study. A low point in numbers was reached in 1902, followed by an increase for the next six years. A decline occurred during the period January 1, 1908, to January 1, 1910. From 1910 until 1923 there occurred an up-and-down movement which tended to make for larger numbers. A decline then set in, which reached a low point on January 1, 1926. For the next two years a rapid rise occurred (table 11). During the three years January 1, 1928, to January 1, 1931, a lessening of numbers is indicated, and during 1931 a sharp rise. From the data available it would appear that the length of the cycle from peak to peak or from trough to trough is generally from three to nine years with an average of five years. A study of the estimates made by the United States Depart- ment of Agriculture 8 indicates that the up-and-down movements were formerly of longer duration than at present, Hog Numbers in California. — Comparable yearly data for the number of hogs in California previous to 1920 are not available, although estimates of yearly swine numbers have been published. 9 The basis upon which these latter estimates were made is not known. There is, however, a fairly close correspondence between these data for 1910 and 1920 and the census data (table 1), for the same years. The former indicate that from 1910 through 1918 there was a some- what irregular rise until 1918 when it was estimated that there were over one million swine in the state. A decline then set in which con- tinued until 1926. During the latter year and 1927 numbers increased. They decreased during the next three years and showed a sharp rise in 1931 (fig. 7). Data are far too meager and uncertain for comparisons to be made between movements in the nation and in California. Throughout the history of the industry in this state one of the striking features is the abrupt change in numbers occurring from year to year. The ease with which one can enter and retire from active participation in the business is undoubtedly one of the factors respon- ble for this. The number of animals per litter plays a most important role in this connection. s U. S. Dept. Agr. Hogs : numbers and value per head in the United States. Yearbook 1931: 843. 1931. 9 California State Board Agr. Swine. Report of State Statistician. 1913: 43. 1914. California State Board Agr. Swine. Report of State Statistician. 1919:54. 1920. 26 University of California — Experiment Station California contains slightly over one one-hundredth of the hogs in the United States and claims between one twentieth and one twenty- fifth of the human population; the state does not produce the pork necessary to feed its owm population. This fact does not necessarily point to the need for increasing swine numbers in the state. Other factors must be taken into consideration. The comparative advantages of other areas and California in many particulars are of vital im- portance. Caution should be exercised in expanding the hog popula- tion of the state. Such expansion should be restricted to areas well suited to the production of swine. IOOO 900 800 700 600 10 500 o z £-400 D o j5 300 200 1 00 yc/y a/a a/a a/a 0£*i oj£ L_ *■**■ ^ >* t cTrencf \ \ ^ fC T* J ^ ^ A V^ ■^^ ^J V- ■*^, *-** VJ r- \ • 1 1 1 1 1 1 i Per ■CO/L ■>// S 0> 0) 0) Fig. 9. — Number of swine per capita, and number of swine slaughtered per capita. During the first three decades of the present century the number of swine per capita decreased rapidly. Owing to the increased efficiency the number raised and slaughtered per capita has changed but little. (Data calcu- lated by authors on the basis of population data furnished by the U. S. Dept. Com. Bur. of the Census. Swine numbers from U. S. Dept. Agr. Hogs: numbers and value per head in the United States. Yearbook of Agriculture 1931:843. 1931. Swine slaughter from table 25. Eecent revisions in estimates in swine numbers for the years beginning in 1920 will not influence the trend in swine per capita as depicted above.) Figure 9 gives an indication of the manner in which slaughter per capita has been maintained while hog numbers per capita have been decreasing. However, the trend towards increased numbers per litter and towards earlier maturity cannot be continued indefinitely. Bul. 523] Swine 47 Hence, it is highly probable that the trend of swine per capita will gradually flatten out and become parallel with the trend in per-capita slaughter. Centers of Slaughter. — Of the total slaughter under federal inspec- tion (over 60 public stockyards), the five markets — Chicago, Kansas City, South St. Paul, Omaha, and St. Louis — accounted for 34 per cent during the five-year period, 1926-1930. Slaughter is far less concentrated than is the case with sheep. A smaller proportion of the total hogs slaughtered in the United States is handled under federal inspection than of either sheep or cattle. Out of a total killing in 1930 estimated at 70,390,000 head, 44,266,000 or 63 per cent, were slaughtered under federal inspection. In the same year 79 per cent of the sheep, 67 per cent of the cattle, and 54 per cent of the calves butchered were federally inspected. California has a relatively small place in the swine slaughter of the United States. In 1899 this state accounted for 0.65 per cent of the hogs killed for market in the country. 32 By 1919 the percentage had risen to 1.1 per cent, and during the five years 1921, 1923, 1925, 1927, and 1929, the state accounted for an increasing per cent of the slaughter in slaughtering establishments (1921, 1.55 per cent; 1923, 2.08; 1925, 2.04; 1927, 2.15; 1929, 2.57). Compared with human population, the hog slaughter is small. Sex of Hogs Slaughtered in the United States. — Since July, 1922, the United States Department of Agriculture has been collecting information on the number of (1) barrows, (2) sows, and (3) stags and boars slaughtered. Although the government figures (table 26) are based upon reports covering only about 75 per cent of the live- stock slaughtered under federal inspection, they are considered suffi- ciently representative to serve as an index of the sex classification of the total of hogs slaughtered under federal inspection. Table 26 shows that during the four months, July to October, the hog producer tends to throw a large number of sows on the market. This heavy marketing of sows starts after the spring pigs have been weaned and a sufficient time thereafter has elapsed to allow the sows to be fattened. In the United States the largest part of the total pig crop is made up of spring pigs. As a rule the number of barrows slaughtered during December exceeds the number of sows slaughtered and this relation continues until April or May. 32 U. S. Census data. Biennial Census of Manufactures, 1921, 1923, 1925, 1927. 48 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 26 Sex Classification of Swine Slaughtered in the Total Eecorded Slaughter of Hogs in the United States, 1922-1931 (All data in percentages) Year Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Sows 1922 46.58 58.40 56.66 62.99 62.42 60.74 61.15 54.99 61.59 53.58 52.54 50.02 51 20 1923 48.42 47.40 48.49 50.16 53.75 52.42 1924 48.55 46.13 47.71 49.31 50.94 54 41 58.84 61.30 60.44 59.42 53.22 51.34 52.34 1925 51 81 48.79 48.11 50.29 51.34 54 71 60.31 60.92 61.00 58.02 51.05 48.48 52.73 1926 45.29 45.27 47.14 48.13 50 24 55.67 63.31 63.88 60 26 54.62 49.24 45.21 51.58 1927 43.29 44.18 44.09 46.39 48.99 52.39 59.03 62 21 61.18 54.38 50.67 46.55 50.31 1928 46.34 45.64 46.05 47.78 51.02 54.85 61.98 63.33 60.18 55.91 53.47 49.32 51.38 1929 47.15 46.53 48.04 49.75 50 70 52.72 60.57 60.12 57.48 53.65 51.54 49.75 51.76 1930 47.27 46.04 47.01 50.00 51.46 55.88 60.48 64.12 59.36 52.89 49.95 46 91 51.77 1931 44.20 44.19 44.75 47.34 51.19 55 84 62 42 65.20 56.93 50.68 46.45 45.59 49.60 Barrows 1922 40.90 42.56 36.31 36.81 38 62 37.94 44.36 37.59 45.33 46.80 49.43 48.16 1923 50.92 51.95 52.78 50 72 49.08 45.51 45 90 1924 50.79 53.29 51.50 49.73 48 26 44 99 40.38 37.99 38.83 39.89 46.14 48.11 46.96 1925 47.78 50.76 51 15 48.66 47.82 44.53 38.98 38.31 38.40 41.37 48.43 51.07 46.65 1926 54.32 54.24 52.32 51.08 48.90 43.52 35.87 35.37 38.84 44.73 50.31 54.31 47.78 1927 56 31 55.38 55.47 52.96 50 43 46.87 40.19 36.99 38.04 44.90 48.78 52.99 49.10 1928 53 11 53.97 53.45 51.55 48.32 44.21 37.24 35.84 39.11 43.49 46.08 50.33 48.04 1929 52.48 53.08 51.41 49.37 48.51 46.60 38.79 39.30 42.02 45.81 47.90 49.77 47.68 1930 52.21 53.54 52.37 49.13 47.85 43.43 38.83 35.33 40.13 46.47 49.55 52.70 47.65 1931 55.45 55.38 54.72 52.10 48.25 43 52 36.85 34.11 42.52 48.82 53.12 54.11 49.91 Stags and boars 1922 0.70 0.78 0.70 0.77 0.64 0.91 0.65 0.82 1.07 0.66 0.55 0.64 1923 0.66 0.65 0.64 0.79 0.76 0.74 0.73 1924 0.66 58 0.79 0.96 0.80 0.60 0.78 0.71 0.73 0.69 0.64 0.55 0.70 1925 0.41 45 0.74 1.05 84 0.76 0.71 0.77 0.60 0.61 0.52 0.45 0.62 1926 0.39 0.49 0.54 0.79 0.86 0.81 0.82 0.75 0.90 0.65 0.45 0.48 64 1927 0.40 44 0.44 65 0.58 0.74 78 0.80 0.78 0.72 0.55 0.46 0.59 1928 0.55 0.39 50 0.67 0.66 0.94 0.78 0.83 0.71 0.60 0.45 0.35 0.58 1929 0.37 39 55 0.88 0.79 0.68 64 0.58 0.50 0.54 0.56 0.48 0.56 1930 52 42 62 87 0.69 69 0.69 0.55 0.51 0.64 0.50 0.39 0.58 1931 0.35 43 53 0.56 0.56 0.64 0.73 0.69 55 0.50 43 30 0.49 Sources of data: 1922-1925: U. S. Dept. Agr. Livestock slaughter statistics. U. S. Dept, Agr. Yearbook 1925:1187. 1926. 1926 1931 and current data in: U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets, monthly issues. Bul. 523] Swine 49 Wentworth and Clemen 33 point out that the present data cannot be used as an index of breeding activity. With additional data separating the sows into gilts and old sows, valuable information on the important matter of breeding activity will be obtained. Total Slaughter in California. — Calculations have been made on the total slaughter of swine in the state from 1924 through 1931 (table 27). More complete information on the trend in slaughter can be obtained from a perusal of tables 28 and 29, on account of the longer series of data available. Table 27 indicates that the Los TABLE 27 Estimated Total Slaughter and Per Cent Distribution of Slaughter, California, 1924-1931 Total slaughter, in thousands Per cent slaughtered Year Los Angeles district* San Francisco Bay district* State inspected! Unaccounted for 1924 1,373 44 37 10 9 1925 1,117 42 37 12 9 1926 1,054 43 37 11 9 1927 1,180 46 34 11 9 1928 1,585 44 30 17 9 1929 1,856 40 27 24 9 1930 1,863 40 24 27 9 1931 2,005 41 24 26 9 * Federally inspected. t Mostly or entirely outside of San Francisco and Los Angeles districts. Source of data: Calculated by authors on the following basis: Total data in tables 28 and 29 were added to the totals of state-inspected slaughter, furnished by W. E. Schneider, U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ., San Francisco, California. Ten per cent of each yearly total thus obtained was added in order to account for slaughter for which no record is available. The authors are indebted to W. E. Schneider for the estimates for which no reports are available. Angeles district slaughters from 40 to 46 per cent of the total required. The San Francisco Bay area accounts for approximately 25 per cent of the slaughter. There has been a slight downward tendency in the relative percentages for the Bay area. Number and Trend of Swine Slaughtered in San Francisco Bay and Los Angeles Districts.— Data on the slaughter of swine at San Francisco and Los Angeles are available since 1921. The kill in the San Francisco Bay region increased from 160,646 head in 1915 to 485,360 in 1923. Although there has been an increase since the latter 33 Wentworth, Edward N., and E'udolf A. Clemen. Sex classes in livestock slaughter. Armour's Livestock Bureau. Monthly Letter to Animal Husbandmen 9(5):l-8. 1928. 50 University of California — Experiment Station date, the totals for yearly slaughter have shown considerable fluctua- tion. Los Angeles has shown a marked increase in slaughter numbers since 1915. In 1915 the kill was 220,711. Data for 1920 were slightly higher, 238,618. The increase in slaughter has been somewhat irregular, but in 1930 the total was more than three times as great as it had been in 1920. Up to the present no statistical data on births in California have been computed. Hughes and Feldmiller 34 state that two litters a year are produced by most growers. Since supplies in California and hence price are partially determined by the supplies in the entire nation, the seasonal variation in the birth rate in the nation is just as important to the grower of swine in this state as it is to the grower in Nebraska (the source of the largest number of hogs shipped into California). Complete slaughter data for the past ten years indicate consider- able seasonal variation. Slaughter figures for Los Angeles clearly show that the five months, November to March, are above average, while the five months, June to October, are below the average with July as the low point (table 30). Data for San Francisco are similar with the exception that variations between the high and low months of the year are more pronounced there than at Los Angeles. Since the state is largely dependent upon outside shipments to supply the demand, it is probable that consumption of pork in this state corre- sponds in a very general way with slaughter. If this is true, the seasonal variation would tend to show that consumption is highly seasonal on account of temperature. During the colder parts of the year people consume larger amounts of pork than during the warmer seasons. Seasonal Variation in Classes of Swine Sold in California. — Data are not available on the sex classes of hogs slaughtered in California. Complete data on the classes of swine sold at the California Farm Bureau Marketing Association auctions were available to the authors for 1928-29, 1929-30, and 1930-31 (table 20). From an examination of the monthly records of these three years, February, March, and August were above a monthly average during these years in the sales of packing sows while November and December were below. Feeder pigs were sold in larger than average numbers during February, March, and April of each year, while from June through December monthly sales were below the average. The tendency during the three years has been to offer butcher hogs in larger numbers in the four months, February to May inclu- 34 Hughes, E. H., and L. W. Feldmiller. Pork production in California. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Cir. 15:4. 1928. Bul. 523] Swine 51 TABLE 28 Slaughter of Swine at Los Angeles, 1921-1931 (Thousands, i.e., 000 omitted) Month 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 January February March April May June July August September October November December 16 15 28 26 25 26 22 24 23 26 30 34 38 34 36 33 36 32 31 29 30 35 44 46 52 44 53 46 45 51 44 50 46 52 58 62 67 59 53 29 51 46 50 39 44 56 50 59 59 46 38 38 39 38 31 29 32 35 42 47 40 37 41 39 34 33 30 32 36 38 43 47 48 42 47 42 43 45 38 41 40 43 51 62 65 68 77 63 53 49 43 46 44 60 65 64 74 60 62 60 58 56 50 54 54 66 68 70 74 64 60 60 61 56 52 56 55 63 61 73 74 67 65 62 63 62 52 57 68 77 76 93 Total 305 425 602 603 472 451 543 697 733 736 817 Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ., Los Angeles, California. TABLE 29 Slaughter of Swine in San Francisco Bay District, 1921-1931 (Thousands, i.e., 000 omitted) Month January February... March April May June July August September. October November December Total... 1921 31 34 29 25 27 22 23 27 23 26 33 53 355 1922 427 1923 485 1924 503 1925 414 1926 386 1927 398 1928 480 1929 499 1930 451 Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ., San Francisco, California. TABLE 30 Seasonal Variation in Slaughter of Swine, Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay Districts Month Los Angeles San Francisco Month Los Angeles San Francisco 121 104 110 100 99 94 130 112 94 86 83 86 82 88 86 96 105 115 87 92 March September 88 April October 100 May November 106 June December 136 Source of data: Calculations by authors on basis of tables 28 and 29. 52 University of California — Experiment Station sive, and during the months of August and September (see page 85 on seasonal variation in price). These data are too limited for the drawing of conclusions. With the continued publication of sales records by the California Farm Bureau Marketing Association, these records will form valuable source material. PO UNDS ioor~— | PORK E3 LARO if E3 EZ3 „ illll-ll n mi Jl 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r II IN MINI II Mill 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 lllll III 1 1 llllllill 13 14 15 16 '21 "22 '23 '24 '25 '26 '27 '28 '29 '30 '31 '32 Fig. 10. — Annual per-capita consumption of pork and lard in the United States, 1910-1930. Per-capita consumption since the World War has been on a slightly higher level than before, the consumption of pork varying between 65 and 75 pounds and that of lard between 12 and 15 pounds annually. During the World War domestic consumption was reduced somewhat because of the large quantities of pork and lard exported. Per-capita consumption is governed largely by the amount produced per capita, although it is also influenced to some extent by the volume of exports of these products from this country. (Data from table 31.) PORK AND LARD CONSUMPTION United States. — Data on the estimated annual consumption of meats are available since 1900 (table 31). Estimates of the output of meat from federally-inspected slaughter plants can be relied upon. On account of the difficulties surrounding the estimation of the uninspected slaughter (page 42) total consumption data are apt to contain a considerable percentage of error. A revision of these data will be made by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics after the necessary information is obtained from the 1930 census material. During the past thirty-one years the per-capita consumption of all BUL. 523] Swine meats has decreased only slightly 35 (6.05 per cent). Including- lard in the totals the decline was less 36 (3.94 per cent). The per-capita consumption of meat is apparently in the neighborhood of from 130 to 140 pounds a year. Total meat consumption (table 31) was at its TABLE 31 Annual Per-Capita Consumption of Dressed Meats and Lard in the United States, 1930-1931* Year Pork, not includ- ing lard Lard Beef Veal Lamb and mutton Totalt meat Total meats and lard 1900 pounds 64.7 pounds 13 2 pounds 67.8 pounds 3 5 pounds 6.8 pounds 142 8 pounds 156.0 1901 63 12 9 69.0 3 9 6 9 142.8 155.7 1902 57 8 11.7 68.5 4 4 7.0 137.7 149.4 1903 59 3 11 8 76 4.7 7.2 147.2 159.0 1904 62 8 12 4 73.6 5.1 6.8 148.3 160.7 1905 58.8 10 73 5 4 6 5 143.7 153.7 1906 59 7 11 2 72 6 5 4 6 5 144 2 155.4 1907 64 4 13 5 77.5 6.7 6.4 155 1 1686 1908 66.1 135 71.5 6.4 6 3 150 3 163.8 1909 60.1 11 5 75.4 6 9 6 6 149 2 160.7 1910 57 1 11 4 71 1 6.8 6 4 141.6 153 1911 64.5 11 3 67.7 6.4 7.8 146.5 157.8 1912 61.8 11.2 61.1 6.3 8.1 137.4 148.6 1913 63 11 4 60 6 5 1 7.5 136 3 147.7 1914 62 3 12.2 58 5 4 6 7.4 133.0 145.2 1915 59.5 12.9 54 5 4 3 6 3 124.8 137.7 1916 60.1 13 6 56 5 3 6.1 127.7 141.3 1917 49.3 11.7 59 5 6.5 4.6 120 1 131 8 1918 54 8 13 3 63.0 7.4 4.7 130.1 143.4 1919 54 8 12.3 61.6 7.7 5.8 130.0 142.3 1920 60 5 13 3 63 1 7.6 5 5 136 8 150.1 1921 63.5 11 3 56.9 7 5 9 133 3 144.6 1922 66.1 14.2 60.4 7.3 5 138.8 153.0 1923 74.7 15 3 61.4 7.7 5.2 149 164.3 1924 74.7 15.4 61.6 8.2 5.2 149.7 165.1 1925 67.6 13.2 62.2 8.7 5.2 143.7 156.9 1926 65.7 13 5 63.6 8.2 5 5 143.0 156 5 1927 68.5 13 8 58.4 7.4 5 4 139 7 153.5 1928 73.9 14.7 51.7 6.8 5.6 138.0 152.7 1929 72.8 14.3 51 4 6.8 5.8 136.8 151.1 1930 68 2 13.8 50.1 6.8 6.6 131.7 145.5 1931 69.6 14 4 49.6 6.9 7.1 133 2 147.6 * The data given in this table are subject to revision. t Includes a relatively very small quantity of goat meat which is not given separately. Sources of data: 1900-1928: Roberts, John. Meat production, consumption, and foreign trade in the United States, calendar years 1900-1928. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Anim. Indus. Mimeographed Circular, p. 1-9. 1929. 1929-1931: U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Statistics of meat production, consumption, and foreign trade of the United States. Preliminary report, March, 1932. (Mimeo.) 35 Equation of the line of trend of the per-capita consumption of all meats (exclusive of lard) in the United States, 1900-1930 is y = 139.65 - 0.290 x, origin July 1, 1915. 36 Equation of the line of trend of the per-capita consumption of all meats (inclusive of lard) in the United States, 1900-1930 is y = 152.42 - 0.204 x, origin July 1. 1915. 54 University of California — Experiment Station peak in 1907, and dropped to a low point in 1917 during the meatless days of the World War. Consumption then rose until 1924, when it began to fall once more and continued to do so through 1930. An examination of figure 11 and table 31 leads to the conclusion that there is a cyclical movement in meat consumption. so ft 75 J jo i ^ so o eef sB t i • / -♦* j i V % \ v. / « V ,♦**• \- /, ^— +s \ > V -/3o > } A .»-* V \ \ *-*n _-w^__ . ^ TiTTTT TTTTTTTTTTTT^TTI ] j_l 8*l9Xlt&SSg£*QS3S*3***i|i)t)t(ttt **9*5**5**5553*5?5************* e \ 1-. J /\ > V*o * • • - V / \ J fe^ C i 9 . 1 \ • •» • ,~ \ « V* \ / \y \ # S.<7 rr?Jb & AA 44 // 3/7' / . >in rrm-^i r ; i i i i i - i i TT~r~r~i TTTTT N <*> 0> HH* ■.*!.*******. 5555*"*** «>l J) c^J iQ C\J ^| ey JO K to O) ^ 'M *1 «\| 2£ 5 555^515 Fig. 11. — Per-capita consumption of meat, United States, 1900-1930. During the decade 1921-1930 pork occupied a far more important place in the diet of the American people than in the two previous decades. This is the place which was occupied by beef during the first decade of the present century. Veal consumption has increased over the first third of the century. The general trend of lamb and mutton consumption was downward until 1922. Since the latter year the trend has been upward. (Data from table 31.) Bul. 523] Swine 55 Of this per-capita meat consumption, pork since 1920 has con- tributed between 60 and 75 pounds (fig. 10). Since 1911 pork has been the principal meat consumed by the American people. In addition to pork, there is an estimated per-capita consumption of lard of from 11 to 15 pounds annually. Long-time trends of consumption of any meat are difficult to determine. Conclusions drawn from a comparison of isolated years or even from a series of years are often erroneous unless the corresponding phase of the production cycle is considered. Went- worth and Clemen 37 have made a long-time estimate of the per-capita consumption of pork and lard by decades since 1830-1839. A slight tendency toward decreases in pork and lard consumption can be discerned, but on account of errors of estimation a, positive statement on this point would be venturesome. Since 1900 there has been a trend toward increased per-capita consumption of both pork and lard, the former increasing by approxi- mately 16.45 per cent, the latter by almost 22.49 per cent, 38 The increase in pork consumption has occurred since 1917. From 1900 to 1916 (inclusive) there was but little change in the per-capita con- sumption of pork. During the three years 1917-1919 consumption was at lower levels than at any other time during this period. In 1920 an upward trend began which culminated in 1924. Since the latter date there was a minor depression in 1925 and 1926 followed by a rise in 1927 and 1928 and a decline in 1929 and 1930 (fig. 10). The per-capita consumption of lard showed no distinct trend from 1900 to 1912. Since the latter date it has been upward. Since 1900 pork has been occupying a place of greater importance in the meat diet of the American people (fig. 11). Aside from veal consumption, which has increased, beef, mutton, and lamb consump- tion have been decreasing. Percentage changes in the consumption of meats from 1900 to 1930 are as follows : All meat (exclusive of lard) - 6.05 per cent- Beef -26.82 per cent Veal +72.42 per cent Beef plus veal -21.03 percent Lamb and mutton -25.45 per cent Pork +16.45 percent Lard +22.49 percent Pork plus lard +17.46 per cent All meat (including lard) - 3.94 per cent 37 Wentworth, Edward N., and R. A. Clemen. Long trend meat consumption. Armour's Livestock Bureau. Monthly Letter to Animal Husbandmen 7(4) :1. 1926. 38 Equation of the line of trend of the per-capita consumption of pork (exclusive of lard) in the United States, 1900-1930 is y- 63.229 + 0.320 x; for lard i/ = 12.768 + 0.086 x, both origins July 1, 1915. 56 University of California — Experiment Station In 1931, the national consumption of meat is estimated to have been 16,530,000,000 pounds (133.2 pounds per capita). Of this, 8,636,000,000 pounds was pork, exclusive of lard (52.2 per cent) 7,016,000,000 beef and veal (42.5 per cent) and 878,000,000 lamb and mutton (5.3 per cent). In studies of the food supply of the United States, Pearl 39 esti- mated that of all the primary and secondary foodstuffs available for human food, pork and lard together with the edible offal from hogs contributed (average of seven fiscal years 1911-12 to 1917-18) 10.47 per cent of the protein, 42.92 per cent of the fat, 0.02 per cent of the carbohydrates, and 17.99 per cent of the total energy (in calories). Pork and its products furnished the largest amount of fat of any of the foodstuffs, ranked next to wheat in the amount of energy provided, and was exceeded by wheat, dairy products, and beef in providing protein. Estimates (Pearl) of foodstuffs consumed in the United States indicate that in the six years 1911-12 to 1916-17, 10.74 per cent of the protein, 39.57 per cent of the fat, 0.02 per cent of the carbohydrates, and 15.74 per cent of the total energy were contained in pork and lard. It was toward the end of this period that a drop occurred. Pearl estimates that during 1917-18 the protein, fat, carbohydrates, and energy provided by pork and lard consumed in the United States was 10.01 per cent, 37.33 per cent, 0.02 per cent, and 15.05 per cent, respectively. The changes in the per-capita consumption of various meats in the United States naturally raises a question as to the trend of future consumption of meat. It seems logical to expect that as the population of a country becomes greater those foods which can be most economically produced will be more largely consumed. The amounts of food produced by livestock from an acre of land are ordinarily far smaller than in the case of most products available for direct use as human food. There is, however, a twofold justification for the use of land for livestock farming. First, livestock products add variety to the diet, and this is conducive to human vitality and efficiency. Second, many products of the land are not directly usable as human food, but when fed to farm animals they are converted into highly valuable nutritive substances. Cooper and Spillman 40 point out that an acre of land devoted to the support of either dairy 3 9 Pearl, Bavmond. The nation's food. 274 p. W. B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, 1920. 40 Cooper, Morton ()., and W. J. Spillman. Human food from an acre of Staple farm products. U. 8. Dept. Agr. Farmers Bui. 877:1-10. 1917. Bul. 523] Swine 57 cattle or swine produces more human food than is the case with any other class of livestock. The hog is undoubtedly a most efficient domestic animal in converting grain into meat. Even hogs can be kept with relatively smaller amounts of grain than is now the case. Gains in economy of grain utilized for this purpose can be made by marketing hogs at lower weights than is customary (see page 77). There is also an opportunity to substitute such material as garbage, skim milk, whey, defective fruits, vegetables, and grains for part of the grain ration. With an increase in the intensity of American agriculture it seems reasonable to expect that the present trends in per-capita consumption will continue — beef and lamb (plus mutton) downward — dairy prod- ucts and pork upward. Other conditions may and undoubtedly will interfere with these tendencies, but over long periods of time it seems reasonable to expect them to continue. Attention is directed to the demand for small cuts of lean young animals (p. 30). If the lard- type of hog of the Corn Belt fails to furnish these, changes undoubt- edly will come about in pork production. Regional Consumption. — From estimates made by both the United States Department of Labor 41 and the United States Department of Agriculture (table 32) it is evident that there is considerable variation by sections in the consumption of pork. The relative variation is less in the case of pork than with mutton and lamb, beef, or veal. The per-capita consumption of pork is larger in the southern states than in any other section of the United States. In the north central states it is somewhat above the average while both the western and northern Atlantic states — deficiency areas in pork production — fall far below the country's average. The Commercial Research Department of Swift and Company 42 in 1922 estimated that approximately 50 per cent of the hogs were raised west of the Mississippi, while about 68 per cent of the pork was consumed east of it. The problem of transportation in the swine business is important — especially to California. Consumer preference studies on meats also help to substantiate the statements made with reference to consumption by sections. 43 One 4i U. S. Dept. Labor, Bur. Lab. Statis. Ketail prices 1890 to 1925. U. S. Bur. Labor Statis. Bul. 418:4. 1926. 42 Swift and Company: Commercial Research Dept. Studies in livestock marketing. 'The geography of meat production and consumption. 4 p. January, 1922. 43 Gardner, Kelsey B., and Laurence A. Adams. Consumer habits and prefer- ences in the purchase and consumption of meat. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bul. 1443:1-64. 1926. 58 University of California — Experiment Station of the main reasons for the high per-capita consumption of pork in the southern states is the favor in which pork is held by the colored population. In San Francisco pork ranked behind beef, lamb, and veal from the point of view of preference. TABLE 32 Estimated Per-Capita Meat Consumption by Eegions, 1919 Subdivision Total Pork Beef Veal Mutton, lamb Urban North Atlantic pounds 149.9 163.8 163.2 142 4 158.9 166.6 pounds 61.5 69.3 67.2 76.3 79.7 605 pounds 64.0 75.6 77.5 55.1 66.1 76.2 pounds 13.5 11.6 11.7 5.7 4.4 16.3 pounds 10.9 East North Central 7.3 West North Central 6.9 South Atlantic 5.4 South Central 8.7 Western 13.6 Average Rural North Atlantic 155.8 150,8 171.1 180.7 153.7 158.5 171.3 66.3 85.5 109.9 113.1 117.6 121.3 81.5 68.3 47.1 48.3 57.4 28.5 28.6 64.7 11.8 10.7 7.2 6.3 3 2 1.7 9 3 9.3 7.6 East North Central 5.8 West North Central 3.8 South Atlantic South Central 4.4 6.9 Western 15.8 Average Total population North Atlantic 163.2 150. 1 167.3 174.9 150.9 158.6 169.0 109 7 67.7 88.5 97.8 107.1 112.8 71.3 41.6 59.6 62.7 64.1 35.2 36.3 70.3 5 4 12 8 9.5 8.1 3.8 2.3 12.7 6.5 10.0 East North Central 6.6 West North Central 4 8 South Atlantic 4 7 South Central 7.3 Western 14 7 Average 159.7 89.6 54.0 8.4 7.8 Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr. Sectional meat consumption in the United States. U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook 1920:828. 1921. The estimated per-capita consumption of pork in rural sections is approximately two-thirds greater than that in urban sections. This is not apparently the case in either the north Atlantic or the western states where per-capita consumption in the country exceeds that in cities by about one-third. California. — Data on California consumption of pork and lard are not available. Estimates made by the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics in 1919 indicated that the per-capita consumption of both is less than in the nation. Schneider 44 on the basis of the year 1926 made an estimate of per- 44 Schneider, W. E., Marketing Specialist, Bur. Agr. Econ., San Francisco, California. The data in table 33 has not been published heretofore. Bul. 523 Swine 59 capita pork and lard consumption on the Pacific Coast (table 33). His estimates tend to confirm the fact that there is a relatively low consumption of both pork and lard on the Pacific Coast, although the consumption of other meats is high. TABLE 33 Estimated Per-Capita Consumption of Meat in the United States, 1925-1927, and on the Pacific Coast, 1926 United States average Pacific Coast Class 1925 1926 1927 average 1926 Pork pounds 67.6 13.2 62.1 8.7 5.2 pounds 65.7 13.5 63.4 8.2 5.5 pounds 68.5 13.8 58.0 7.4 5.4 pounds 60.0 Lard 10.0 Beef 72.1 Veal 8.7 Mutton and lamb 25.0 Total 156.8 156.3 153.1 175.8 Sources of data: United States: Roberts, John. Meat production, consumption, and foreign trade in the United States, calendar years 1900-1928. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Anim. Indus. Mimeographed Circular, p. 1-9. 1929. Pacific Coast average furnished by W. E. Schneider, U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ., San Francisco, Calif. The slaughter of swine at Los Angeles and in the San Francisco Bay district has already been discussed (page 49). It is of consider- able interest to note that if consumption closely follows slaughter the consumption of pork declines as that of lamb increases and vice versa. Generally speaking, pork consumption is high during the winter months and low during the summer months, while indications point to the reverse being true for lamb. 45 On account of the high estimated per-capita consumption of lamb in California it is highly probable that there is a more or less definite relation existent between these two meats. Consumption in Other Countries. — Practically all important pork producing and importing countries (in the past few years) have increased their rate of per-capita consumption of pork products including lard, although in some cases the consumption rate is not yet back to the pre-war level. The United States and Canada stand out as the leading pork-consuming nations (table 34). 45 Voorhies, Edwin C, and W. E. Schneider. Economic aspects of the sheep industry. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 473:1-173. 1929. 60 University of California — Experiment Station K 5 a M Oi « to t— V. c-» 0> 3-5 qNNOOwOJOONQOWOOW a. 1 1 c* 9 M 6 9 a- Cs 6 K> > , P43 * c 2! © -■ -. - a co © 8 &2 ** 't, a PL, bO £.S,8 •-S a It © 2 a<^ tf S n 2 a a©2 *i- a iO!M»OOONOiOCOO»01l i*»0(»nnooi^ rt«0!000)rHOOCllMNO-HaOiC£iMN«Nl» COiniO!D!OiOtO'HMm-<«ONCOCOsOMt>MI O ~* >8 .g ^61©" •S = "aB .§ -us ©* o >> £ « 03^) a, ©*a£ © ->-> >>— US "^lO CO T3 mtJm © © © rt |> 03 -3 1! "9- a _ o ■J © ^© *-c 03- C a '-• aco a © oo © oi © M— i M-3 bfl e3 £ « a 03 > a£ «£ oj m * m * O a "8 a 1 © © m © m 2 U © ilj © 03 TSJ5" TlJS s* 03tf §£ T3_: oq . 00 . «^ o o o oQOO O O 64 University of California — Experiment Station In table 36 it may be noted that hog values (purchasing power on a 1926 base) since 1910 have been extremely low, with the exception of 1918 and 1926. This so happens because 1926 was a year of excellent prices and when used as a base makes prices in other years appear low in comparison. However, if the pre-war years 1910-1914 are used as a base instead of 1926 (table 36), swine values with the exception of certain recent years, such as 1925 and 1926, have been low. The generally low purchasing power of hogs is not surprising when it is realized that the basic feeds used in production are corn and other cereals. These have been relatively low in price for a number of years. The corn-hog and the barley-hog price ratios (tables 64 and 65, fig. 24) depict the value relations between hogs and barley or corn, but they do not indicate purchasing power of either hogs or feed in terms of all commodities. On account of long series of data on prices of livestock at Chicago, it is possible not only to analyze the general trend in hog prices, but it has been possible to make general comparisons between classes of hogs appearing on that market (table 37). These prices do not represent prices paid to producers, and it is highly probable that the latter would not be so favorable. The New York State College of Agriculture 48 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 whole- sale price when compared with the relative farm price (table 36). However, the relatives of general average hog prices have been low when compared with the relatives of general commodity prices, con- firming the statements made with reference to producers' prices. Table 37 brings out rather clearly one of the changes which has been occurring in the demand for hogs. Lighter hogs are commanding a relatively higher price than during the pre-war years. Unquestion- ably one of the reasons for this change has been the relatively low price of lard. Prices of Hogs in California. — Monthly prices to producers in all sections of the state have been collected and averaged monthly by the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics. These data are found in table 38 and are graphically shown in figure 12. These data are of particular interest to producers and students of the industry in showing the general trend of prices in California. They also afford the opportunities for comparisons between trends in the United States and California. 4* Warren, G. F., and F. A. Pearson. Cost of distributing food. Now York State Col. Agr. Farm Economics 2(50) :830-836. 1928. Bul. 523] Swine 65 While the data on farm prices and values listed in tables 35 and 38 make possible a comparison of month-to-month changes and give both a national and state picture of prices, the prices obtained at the California Farm Bureau Marketing Association auction sales have attracted widespread attention among farmers in all sections of the TABLE 37 Average and Relative Prices* of Hogs at Chicago, 1910-1931 Year General average hog prices Heavy hogs Light hogs Pigs Average Relative Average Relative Average Relative Average Relative 1910 $8.90 112 $8.90 113 $8.90 111 $8.80 121 1911 6.70 84 6.65 84 6.70 84 6.05 83 1912 7.55 95 7.55 96 7.50 94 6.40 88 1913 8.35 105 8.20 104 8.45 106 7.35 101 1914 8.30 104 8.20 104 8.35 105 7.60 105 1915 7.10 89 7.00 89 7.20 90 6.60 91 1916 9.60 121 9.65* 122 9.45 118 8 35 115 1917 15.10 190 15.20 192 14.90 187 14.40 199 1918 17.45 219 17.50 221 17.60 220 15.75 217 1919 17.85 224 17.70 224 18.00 226 1600 221 1920 14.15 178 13.85 175 14.50 182 13.10 181 1921 8.65 109 8.35 106 8.95 112 8.70 120 1922 9.20 116 9.05 115 960 120 9.15 126 1923 7.55 95 7.45 94 7.75 97 6.80 94 1924 8.20 103 8.25 104 8.20 103 6.55 90 1925 11.80 148 11.70 148 12.15 152 11.20 155 1926 12.40 156 11.95 151 13.10 164 12.30 170 1927 10.05 126 9.90 125 10.40 130 8.90 123 1928 9.30 117 9.15 116 9.60 120 7.95 110 1929 1930 10 20 9.50 128 119 9.70 9.35 123 118 10.50 9.85 132 123 9.15 8.70 126 120 1931 6.20 78 6.10 77 6.55 82 5.60 77 * Relative prices calculated on a 1910-1914 base, general average hog prices = $7. 96 = 100; heavy hogs = $7.90 = 100; light hogs=$7.98 = 100; pigs = $7.24 = 100. Sources of data: Average prices from Chicago Daily Drovers Journal. Average hog prices by grades. Drovers Journal Year Book of Figures 1928: 51; 1929. Ibid. 1930: 55-56; 1931. 1931 prices were furnished through the courtesy of the Chicago Daily Drovers Journal. state, particularly among producers in the San Joaquin Valley (table 19). With the detailed data available on sales during recent years, an analysis of the prices obtained is possible. In the twelve years through 1930, 5,375 cars of swine have been sold, principally at points in the San Joaquin Valley. Prices received have been those paid to producers, less a small commission. Generally speaking, prices for the various classes sold have been approximately the same as those quoted for similar classes at San Francisco and Los Angeles, minus the freight rate to these points. 66 University of California — Experiment Station 17 \/4 i" ^ * • A t/Yet Y O / r*r K/ M ' y ^ V • Yft r V *P^/ V' J ^ f 1 i ■ ■ , ■ - r ■ - 1 2 2 '2 J 2-* *2.ff '26 '2 7 '2£ '2 3 'JO 'J/ 'J2 /S 'ZO -zi Fig-. 12. — Prices paid producers for swine, United States and California. 1910-1931. Since the War prices paid producers for hogs in California have been consistently above those paid producers in the United States. Owing to the demand during- the War producers in other sections were able to obtain a higher price. (Data from tables 35 and 38.) Fig. 13. — Purchasing power of swine, United States and California, 1910- 1914 = 100. A comparison of figure 12 with the above brings out some of the differences between price and purchasing power. So far as California is con- cerned the purchasing power seems to have been higher since 1920 than previous to that date. The above figure shows a more pronounced up-and-down movement than prices. (Data calculated by authors on the basis of monthly prices in tables 35 and 38 and shown in figure 12.) Bul. 523] Swine 67 Table 40 gives the highest price paid during" each month since November, 1918, for a pen of butcher hogs. The pens contained from 25 to 100 hogs, usually between 90 and 100 hogs. The average weight per hog in these pens has been obtained (complete since May, 1924) and are recorded in table 41. Butcher hogs usually command the highest price when weighing between 180 and 190 pounds. During 1929-30 and 1930-31 the influence of the relatively low price of barley can be seen in raising the weights of these lots. TABLE 38 Monthly Farm Prices of Hogs, California, 1910-193'J (Dollars per 100 pounds live weight) Year Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Aver- age* 1910 7.20 8.20 8.50 9.20 8.70 8.70 8.60 8.40 8.80 8.70 8.40 7.60 8.48 1911 7.70 7.70 7.60 7.70 7.00 6.50 6.40 6.50 6.80 6.50 6.00 5.90 6.83 1912 5.80 6.20 6.20 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.60 6.70 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.48 1913 6.40 6.70 6.90 7.20 7.30 7.00 6.90 7.20 7.50 7.70 8.00 7.80 7.27 1914 7.80 7.80 8.00 8.00 7.90 8.00 8.00 8.20 8.80 7.90 7.10 7.00 7.91 1915 7.00 6.90 6.80 6.90 6.90 7 00 7.00 7.00 6.60 6.10 6.10 5.90 6.66 1916 5.70 6.10 6.90 7.60 7.40 7.30 7.00 7.20 7.40 7.40 7.60 7.90 7.19 1917 8.10 8.80 10.40 12.10 12.50 12.70 12.30 12.70 14.00 14.40 14.20 14.40 12.46 1918 14.20 14.20 14.30 14.60 14.90 14.80 15.00 15.10 15.80 16.20 15.60 14.80 15.05 1919 15.40 14.80 15.00 16.00 16.60 16.40 17.00 17.70 15.60 13.80 13.20 14 00 15.41 1920 13.80 13.75 13.50 14.10 14.10 13.60 14.00 14.10 14.00 14.00 13.10 10.50 13.59 1921 10.20 10 00 10.00 10.00 8.50 8.50 9.20 10.50 10.20 9.40 9.40 8.00 9.54 1922 8.20 9.00 10.40 10.20 10.30 10 20 10.50 11.00 10.30 10.00 10.00 9.40 10.03 1923 9.30 9.00 8.70 8.60 8.40 8.30 8.30 8 30 8.70 8.60 8.60 7.50 8.53 1924 8.00 7.70 7.50 7.50 7.40 7.20 7.00 8.70 9.00 9.50 9.50 9.40 8.30 1925 10.00 10.60 12.20 12.70 12.10 11.40 12.90 13.80 13.70 13.70 13.10 12.70 12.59 1926 12.20 12.70 13.20 13.60 13.00 13.80 14.50 14.40 13.80 13.90 13,50 11.27 13.40 1927 11.80 11.70 12.00 11.90 11.10 10.30 10.00 10.80 11.10 11.10 10.60 9.90 11.03 1928 9.40 8.90 8.70 8.50 9.10 9.10 9.70 10.70 11.70 10.70 10.20 9.00 9.78 1929 9.40 9.30 10.60 10.60 10.60 10.50 10.50 11.20 10.80 10.60 10.10 9.60 10.38 1930 9.60 10.10 10 20 10.10 9.80 10.10 10.00 9.80 10.30 10.20 9.80 9.10 9.95 1931 9.00 8.30 7.90 8.10 7.30 6 40 7.10 7.30 6 60 5.50 5.20 5.00 6.98 1932 4.60 4.40 4.40 4 40 * Weighted average computed by authors with the following weights: Jan., 6; Feb., 7; March, 8; April, 9; May, 8; June, 7; July, 7; Aug., 9; Sept., 12; Oct., 10; Nov., 10; Dec, 7. Sources of data: 1910-1925: U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Monthly farm price of hogs in California. U. S. Dept. Agr. Statis. Bulr 17:145. 1927. 1926-1932: U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets, monthly issues. Often one of the most difficult problems is that of showing the economic advantages of raising superior products. Table 39 is a compilation of the average price received for light-weight hogs during the period from November, 1918, to date. A comparison between this table and table 40 indicates the premium received by the producers of the 'best' pen of hogs during each month the sales have been con- ducted. This difference has ranged from $0.10 per 100 pounds live 68 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 39 Monthly Average Prices Received by Producers for Light-Weight Hogs, California Farm Bureau Marketing Association, 1918-1932 (Dollars per 100 pounds live weight) Year Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Aver- age* 1918 15.10 16.00 15.55 14.05 1919 15.80 15.30 17.00 18.40 17.85 17.60 19.75 19.55 15.35 15.20 16.78 1920 14.75 14.95 15.55 16 05 15.55 15.65 16.80 16.05 15.70 14.60 13.50 11.05 15.05 1921 12.00 10.70 10.85 10 00 8.75 9.35 11.00 11.80 1015 10.05 9.90 8.25 10.21 1922 9.20 9.80 11.70 10.60 10.30 11.20 11.15 11.25 10.35 10.15 10.15 9.25 10.45 1923 9.15 9.10 8.85 8.50 8.35 8.55 8.70 8.85 8.75 8.75 8.35 7.55 8.62 1924 8.10 7.50 7.70 7.00 7.46 7.35 7.50 10.00 10.15 10.50 10.00 9.30 8.71 1925 11.05 11.40 13.55 13.20 12.10 12.90 14.20 14.40 1380 13.65 12.95 12.35 1307 1926 12.55 13.24 13.75 13.75 13.70 15.00 15 20 14.20 14.50 1387 13.10 11.40 13.74 1927 12.20 12.00 12.25 11.10 1010 10.40 11.15 11.75 12.40 11.10 1035 9.20 11.20 1928 9.25 8.75 8.25 9 35 9.60 935 11.55 11.70 11.60 10.25 10.10 8.75 9.99 1929 9.65 10.00 11.35 11.20 10.95 11.55 12.15 12.20 10.75 10.50 9.70 9.45 10.80 1930 10 35 10.60 11.28 10.00 10.65 10.45 10.60 11.00 11.00 10.15 10.00 9.35 10.47 1931 9.00 8.13 7.95 8.00 7.20 7.20 8.05 7.80 6.25 5.62 5.40 4.85 7.00 1932 4.85 4.40 5.10 4 10 * Weighted average computed by authors with the following weights: Jan., 6; Feb., 7; March, 8; April, 9; May, 8; June, 7; July, 7; Aug., 9; Sept., 12; Oct., 10; Nov., 10; Dec, 7. Source of data: Calculations by authors based upon records of the California Fan Bureau Marketing Association. TABLE 40 Monthly High Prices Beceived by Producers for Hogs (Butcher Hogs), California Farm Bureau Marketing Association, 1918-1932 (Dollars per 100 pounds live weight) Year Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Aver- age* 1918 16.15 17.80 14.60 16.30 15.00 11.95 1919 1920 16.70 15.45 15.40 15.75 17.75 16.85 18.90 16.55 18.40 16.45 17.80 16.20 21.00 17.85 21.30 16.40 16.50 16.20 16.70 16.00 17.77 15.85 1921 13.35 11.30 11.35 11.40 10.60 10.30 13.75 12.40 10.75 10.70 10 40 9.00 11.28 1922 10.00 10.80 12.05 11.00 11.10 11.65 12.05 11.70 11.50 11.35 10.55 9.60 11.11 1923 9.40 9 30 9 35 8.70 8.65 8.90 9.00 9.90 9.90 9.00 9.00 7.90 9.08 1924 9.10 7.85 7.95 7.30 8.00 7.85 9.75 10.55 10.60 11.25 10.25 10.20 9.22 1925 12 00 12.40 14.40 13.70 12.85 13.20 15.00 14.80 14 15 14.00 13.25 13.20 13.58 1926 12.70 13.50 14.05 13.80 14 25 15.60 15.75 14 55 15.05 14.75 13.55 12.35 14.16 1927 12 40 12 30 12.40 11.50 10.55 11.05 11.55 12.85 13.15 11.85 10.60 9.50 11.64 1928 9.80 9 05 8 60 10.55 10.15 11.40 11.90 12.50 12.40 11.00 10.50 9.35 10.60 1929 10.10 10.75 11.80 11.55 11.15 11.95 12.35 12.70 11.30 10.65 10.35 10.65 11.28 1930 11.80 11.15 11.55 10.40 11.00 10.80 11.10 11.25 11.55 10.40 10 25 9.60 10.90 1931 10.20 8.25 8 40 8.15 7.40 8.60 8.40 8.10 6.55 6.00 5.70 5.40 7.58 1932 5.10 4.50 5 40 4.65 * Unweighted average. Source of data: Calculations by the authors based upon records of California Farm Bureau Marketing Association. Bul. 523 Swine 69 weight in February, 1932, to $2.75 in July, 1921. Taking the average difference for twelve years the range has been from $0.45 in 1930 to $1.04 in 1921. TABLE 41 Average Weights of Butcher Hogs Selling at Highest Prices, California Farm Bureau Marketing Association Sales, 1923-1932 (Pounds per head at sale) Year Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct, Nov. Dec. Aver- age 1923 171 5 180.5 193.0 178 1790 185.0 179.5 183.0 187.5 180 184.0 187.0 1924 180.0 189.5 180.0 187.0 176.0 187.5 182.0 188.0 1925 187.0 182.5 187.0 188.0 187.4 1926 190.5 187.0 186.0 185.0 188.0 184.0 182 183 178.0 184.0 187.0 184.0 184 9 1927 185.0 183 184.0 189.0 184.5 181.5 182.0 185.0 184.0 182.5 185.0 182.0 184.0 1928 181 182 181.0 185.0 180.0 178.0 181.0 180.0 181.0 180.0 179.0 180 180.7 1929 185 183.0 186.0 183.0 184.0 156.0 185.0 181.0 185.0 186.0 181.0 192 182.3 1930 181.0 168.0 186.0 208.0 191.0 197.0 192.0 188.0 187.0 195 186 191.0 189.2 1931 193.0 193.0 180.0 187.0 212.0 177.0 180.5 186.0 185.0 192.0 188.0 188.0 188.4 1932 186.5 187.0 196.0 191.0 Source of data: Calculations by authors based upon weights of lots selling at highest price at each auction held during the months listed above. The lots contained from 25 to 100 hogs — usually between 90 and 100. For the monthly average weight the median weight of all the high-priced lots was selected. /7 /€ I, r r i» * / ftL&tt weight l*%\ tV / *\ 1 #' x * i- i v hw ^a Aj i/gM /'#*/->\j[ \ 1 \\ #V \ T ^*^JV 0* W \ v n Hj \ 1_ _£ ^d -% *■ v\ \* \ L\r., "■■ ■ \ /S£4 /S25 /926 /S27 /$Z8 /9Z9 /930 /S3t Fig. 14. — Prices of light-light and light-weight swine, California Farm Bureau Marketing Association, 1924-1931. Light-weight swine usually command a higher price than light lights although the differential is generally smaller than that between light weights and medium weights. An examination of the above curves and those in figure 15 shows that in California butcher hogs have the same seasonal trends. (Data from tables 39 and 42.) During: 1928-29, 1929-30, and 1930-31, light-light hogs weighing between 140 and 160 pounds constituted the second largest group among the slaughter animals sold at the auction sales. The average 70 University of California — Experiment Station selling' price together with the weights of the lots sold are given in table 42. Both prices and weights are representative, in every case being for lots and not for individual animals, Comparing prices received for light-lights and light-weight hogs (fig. 14) it will be found that the differential has ranged from $0.15 to $1.00 with an average TABLE 42 Monthly Average Prices and Weights of Light-Light Hogs, California Farm Bureau Marketing Association, 1924-1932 Year Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec Aver- Price, dollars per 100 pounds live weight 1924 7.10 11.38 13.00 6.80 11.95 14.25 6.93 13.85 14.75 9.08 9.50 13.28 13.50 9.80 13.10 13.57 9.28 12.33 12.25 9.00 12.25 11.03 1925 1080 12.20 10.95 12.65 12.90 13.10 12.75 13.10 *12 32 1926 13.88 13.11 1927 11.75 11.75 11.70 10.70 9.65 9.65 10.83 11.55 11.48 10.80 985 8.83 10.71 1928 8.85 8.50 7.83 9.15 9 00 9.00 10.90 11.05 10.17 9.63 9 35 8.10 9.29 1929 9.25 9 70 1080 10.93 10.55 11.05 11.45 11.50 10.43 10.00 9.65 9.10 10.37 1930 10.50 10.20 11.05 995 10.45 10.35 10.20 10.25 10.10 10.00 9.95 9.15 10.18 1931 9.03 8.10 8.05 7.80 6.60 7.05 8.10 7.47 6.18 5.60 5.15 4.65 6.98 1932 4.55 4.15 4.65 3.65 Weight, in pounds 1924 140 139 132 139 141 148 136 143 146 149 147 148 146 144 147 1925 145 144 147 148 ♦145 1926 147 144 140 144 143 142 142 143 144 141 140 141 143 1927 145 140 139 138 140 142 142 143 145 145 141 143 142 1928 142 139 143 144 141 146 144 144 142 141 140 142 142 1929 144 145 145 148 146 149 147 149 148 147 150 147 147 1930 147 146 147 150 147 149 150 149 144 140 130 143 145 1931 147 146 149 149 149 146 152 155 154 154 151 152 150 1932 154 151 151 156 * Figured on the basis of 11 months. Source of data: Calculations by authors on the basis of sale records of the California Farm Bureau Marketing Association. of between $0.40 and $0.50 per 100 pounds. Although this has been in favor of the light-weight hogs, it does not necessarily mean that the latter are always the most profitable to produce. Table 43 shows the average price paid in the auction sales for medium-weight hogs since May, 1924. If these are compared with light weights it will be seen that the latter have commanded a premium of from $0.20 to $1.25 with an average of approximately $0.70 per 100 pounds during the seven years 1925-1931 (fig. 15). With large amounts of cheap barley on hand it is evident that certain Bul, 523] Swine 71 farmers might be justified in producing these heavier animals. Under ordinary circumstances it appears that it would be more advisable to produce the lighter weights. In table 43 is shown the average weight of the pens sold. An examination of these weights does not reveal a tendency toward a seasonal variation. TABLE 43 Monthly Average Prices and Weights of Medium-Weight Hogs, California Farm Bureau Marketing Association, 1924-1932 Year Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Aver- age Price, dollars per 100 pounds live weight 1924 6.85 11.50 6.83 12.00 6 50 13.68 9.05 14.60 8.58 13.50 9.60 13.10 9.30 12.33 8.75 11.75 1925 10.75 10.75 13.30 12.50 12.48 1926 11.90 12.40 13.10 12.70 12.65 13.75 14.10 13.10 13.00 13.00 11.98 10.60 12.69 1327 11.00 11.25 10.90 10.10 9.00 8.95 10.15 10.80 10.80 10.65 9.35 8.13 10.09 1928 8.60 7.95 7.68 8.50 8.80 9.05 11.00 11.10 10.32 9.65 9.40 8.33 9.20 1929 9.15 9.48 10.68 10.85 10.55 10.85 11.85 11.93 10.25 10.05 9.50 9.30 10.37 1930 10.05 10.30 10.50 975 9.80 9.65 9.90 9.68 10.50 9.55 9.30 8.60 9.80 1931 8.80 7.85 7.40 7.30 6.65 6.90 7.35 7.20 5.80 5.15 4.88 4.40 6.64 1932 4.40 4.05 4.55 3.45 Weight, in pounds 1924 241 239 238 239 231 246 241 231 1925 241 239 238 236 233 230 236 233 233 231 235 227 234 1926 231 230 234 231 231 228 235 230 228 237 233 232 231 1927 233 236 229 230 231 231 231 230 230 232 234 235 232 1928 232 228 232 231 230 233 230 232 235 236 232 233 232 1929 231 236 233 233 228 240 238 242 237 236 230 234 235 1930 246 235 237 226 230 238 234 248 233 241 228 234 236 1931 229 232 231 230 227 228 230 224 231 235 232 231 230 1932 240 240 236 240 Source of data: Calculations by authors on the basis of sale records of the California Farm Bureau Marketing Association. Between 11.8 and 18.3 per cent of the sales of the California Farm Bureau Marketing Association during 1928-29, 1929-30, and 1930-31, consisted of feeder pigs (table 20, page 37). These animals since January, 1928, have varied from 35 to 125 pounds with an average weight per pen as shown in table 44. A comparison between the prices received for feeders and light weights show that until the first part of 1930 the latter commanded higher prices (fig. 16). Since the latter date and through July, 1931, the position of the two classes was reversed. With a favorable barley-hog ratio farmers can afford to pay a relatively higher price for feeder hogs. 72 University of California — Experiment Station /924 /S25 /926 /927 /928 /S29 /930 /9J/ Fig. 15. — Prices of light-weight and medium-weight swine, California Farm Bureau Marketing Association, 1924-1931. There is a definite tendency for light- weight swine to command a higher price than medium weights. The graphs show the high prices prevailing in 1926 and the difficulty involved in basing relative prices and purchasing power upon that year. The seasonal character of swine prices can be detected in these curves. (Data from tables 39 and 43.) /928 /929 /9JO /9J/ Fig. 16. — Prices of feeder and light-weight hogs, California Farm Bureau Marketing Association, 1928-1931. Feeder prices depend not only upon the general level of swine prices but on feed prices as well. With a trend toward lower barley prices (fig. 24) the tendency is for feeder prices to increase relative to those for the heavier weights of hogs. "With a drop in swine prices the opposite effect can be observed, e.g., August and September, 1931. (Data from tables 39 and 44.) Bul. 523] Swine Undoubtedly there are farms in this state with considerable amounts of dairy by-products and limited amounts of barley and other fattening- feeds which would be sufficient to bring swine to the feeder stage. With the increased utilization of garbage and the demand both from local farmers and from export buyers interested in shipments to the Hawaiian Islands the market for feeders might be expected to expand. Relations Between Prices in California and Prices in Other Areas. — Prior to 1920 hog prices in the country at large seemed to be rela- tively more favorable compared to the prices received by producers in California than they have since that date (fig. 12). California prices in this comparison have held to higher levels from 1921 to the present. TABLE 44 Monthly Average Prices and Weights of Feeder Hogs, California Farm Bureau Marketing Association, 1928-1932 Year Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Aver- Price, dollars per 100 pounds live weight 1928 8.59 8.35 7.25 7.90 7.75 8.85 9.35 10.00 10.10 8.60 8 25 8.25 8.60 1929 8.60 8.50 10 00 10.10 9.00 10.60 11.25 10.75 10 00 10.10 9.50 9.30 9.81 1930 10 40 10 50 11.10 10.70 11.25 10.73 11.00 11.10 11.55 12 00 10.90 10.80 11.00 1931 10.90 8.57 9.00 8.28 7.23 7.50 8.30 7.57 6.05 5.57 5.00 4.50 7.37 1932 4 35 3.85 4.70 3.75 V height, in poun ds 1928 71 83 91 69 72 83 97 85 86 75 76 89 81 1929 94 82 85 83 91 97 95 98 98 88 90 84 90 1930 87 72 89 93 96 89 93 102 92 94 114 91 93 1931 95 102 104 97 96 101 96 106 110 118 115 116 103 1932 105 104 96 96 Source of data: Calculations by authors on the basis of the weekly reports issued by the California Farm Bureau Marketing Association, Hanford, California. Although there is little direct evidence on the reasons for this, it seems probable that there have been relatively fewer hogs in Cali- fornia since 1921 than there were in the previous decade. At the present time the state is unquestionably dependent to a higher degree on outside supplies than it was previously. Being dependent on outside supplies, differences between pre-war and post-war freight rates, handling charges, etc., would tend to raise the differences in favor of California. Table 36 shows that during the past decade 74 University of California — Experiment Station there has been a remarkable correspondence between hog values (purchasing power) in California and in the nation. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the United States De- partment of Agriculture publishes daily quotations on the various classes of livestock and upon a range of the good to choice grades within each class except in the case of packing sows of from 275 to 500 pounds in which the grade ranges from medium to choice. 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. TABLE 45 Monthly Average Prices in Dollars per 100 Pounds Live Weight for Light- Weight Hogs — Los Angeles, 1922-1932 Year Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Aver- age* 1922 10.84 8.58 10.29 8.45 9.29 8.18 1923 9.40 9.17 9.49 9.48 8.83 8.82 8.60 9.62 9.97 9.05 1924 9.17 7.77 8.37 t 8.35 8.35 9.21 10.96 11.29 11.29 10.70 10.41 9.52 1925 11.38 12.36 14.38 14.10 13.26 13.79 15.17 15.08 14.74 14.06 13.24 13.04 13.72 1926 13.45 14.06 14.69 14.54 14.68 16.06 15.81 15 07 15.70 15.06 13.47 12.96 14.63 1927 13.20 13.42 13.25 12.18 11.08 11.22 11.31 12.68 12.97 12.30 11.22 9.96 12.07 1928 9.92 9.42 9.20 10.17 10.22 10.92 12.28 13 13 12.96 11.46 10.63 9.90 10.85 1929 10.37 11.15 12.06 12.12 11.95 12.02 12.55 12.91 12.07 11.38 10.79 10.23 11.63 1930J 10.89 11.26 11 45 10.65 10.91 10.67 10.82 11.40 11.70 10.78 10.14 9.35 10.84 1931 9.04 8.39 8.30 8.49 7.50 7.47 7.89 7.93 6.80 6.39 5 71 5.10 7.42 1932 5 00 4.54 4 93 4 46 * Unweighted average. t No price owing to foot and mouth disease. In computing yearly average $8.36 was used as the April quotation. X From July 1930 the quotation is the average for light weights 160-180 pounds and light weights 180-200 pounds. Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Daily Livestock Reports issued by the Los Angeles office. Computations of averages by authors. This type of computation is open to the criticism that the hogs within the class may change in quality from day to day, from month to month, and from season to season. The data in tables 45, 46, and 49 are also open to the criticism that the actual class upon which the quotation has been made has changed. (See page 30). These quota- tions do not represent the prices paid producers, although producers apparently could have received them if they had marketed their own products at these markets. On account of the uniformity of classes and grades at the principal livestock markets of the country, it is possible to compare quotations not only between the principal cities in California but between Los Angeles and San Francisco and the largest markets in the Middle Bul. 523] Swine 75 West. The Los Angeles and San Francisco quotations are also of interest to the hog producer in many of the areas of the state more remote from the San Joaquin Valley. TABLE 46 Monthly Average Prices in Dollars per 100 Pounds Live Weight for Light-Weight Hogs — San Francisco, 1922-1932 Year Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Aver- age* 1922 11.42 10.06 11.04 9.50 10.93 8.98 10.14 8.56 1923 9.96 10 06 9.66 9.42 9.20 9.06 9 22 9.45 9.43 1924 8.72 8 35 8.25 8.41 8.56 8.50 916 1071 10.85 11.49 10.75 10.63 9 53 1925 11.52 12.20 14.84 14 32 13.02 13.73 15.11 15.54 14.91 14.38 13.61 13.28 13.87 1926 13.42 14.46 14.54 14.62 14.41 15.43 16.16 15 31 15.41 15.52 14.04 12.75 14.67 1927 13 05 13.25 13.32 12.37 11.13 10.49 11.43 12.35 12.82 12.35 10.96 9.99 11.96 1928 9.81 9.42 9.20 10.12 10.58 10.89 12.36 12.87 12.82 11.20 10.52 9.80 10.80 1929 10 48 11.08 12.24 11.91 11.66 11.93 12.41 12.49 11.39 10.95 10.38 9.91 11.40 1930t 11.06 11 28 11.73 10.77 11.08 11.05 10.96 11.31 11.92 10.79 10.08 9.28 1094 1931 9 31 8.66 8.66 8.51 7.32 7.65 8.29 7.89 6.85 6.21 5.75 5 33 7.54 1932 5.26 4 81 5.33 4.53 * Unweighted average. t From July 1930 the quotation is the average for light weights 160-180 pounds and light weights 180-200 pounds. Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur Agr. Econ. Daily Livestock Reports issued by the San Francisco office. Computations of averages by authors. r /-# I" r < /o \ * £o* Articles A ftr Mi* V r%r V V /AY \ "^T^f \ f A-a V A^ MTV \A / Omoho J ^t f#t\ v v kW "' 1 ■ - ■ . . 1 /9ZZ /9£J /9Z-* /9SS /9S« /9Z7 /920 /9Z9 Fig. 17. — Wholesale prices of light-weight hogs at Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Omaha, 1922-1931. Los Angeles and San Francisco prices show a high degree of uniformity. A high degree of correlation exists between these prices and those at Omaha, Nebraska. The advantage which the California producer has in prices is shown clearly by these curves. (Data from tables 45, 46, and 49.) Los Angeles and San Francisco quotations show a high degree of correlation (fig. 17). There seems to be but little difference between the quotations on the two markets, the yearly average difference for 76 University of California — Experiment Station M os i-i « fi 1—1 on to t3 < fl m 3 o DO & 5 o © W 1— 1 o 03 bq w 4-> p P) < 0) O a V, IT) o rt m +j to C o EH o Q (3 **s o* to w fc H W pq M i-l 0 00 i-H CO 00 CO OJ i« i-H i-H w* CO S.2 <1 s -? •-, * si 3 -2 Z 9 s « a a M Q. -»J > « ® 3 g* 5 o a> > J 2P ft Q 4 WNhh«9(ONMhusw + + NNOIHOONHU} CO CO CO t* CO *# oo »c o oo OJ t* ifl W*'* MNCONn^*^ >o CO + + .-h ,-i ^h o eo to eo + + + co «-i eo eo eo co >o eo co co eo »-i oo + + + + + + H N (i) OO * ^H ^H CO — 1 + + + eo co m oj + CO CO co »o t>- H^e3a^S^3atoO^> Bul. 523] Swine 77 the nine years 1923-1931 being from 1 to 23 cents on light-weight hogs — although these averages are unweighted. The seasonal variation on the two markets is similar. (See page 85). It appears that for the California farmers the two markets offer approximately the same returns. As will be noted in tables 45, 46, and 49 from July, 1930, the average monthly quotation given is in itself an average of two average quotations — light weights from 160 to 180 pounds and light weights from 180 to 200 pounds. Thus far the lighter division of this class has commanded the highest price on the Los Angeles and the San Francisco markets while the heavier division has brought the higher price on both the Chicago and Omaha markets. A study of the price differentials between (1) light lights and light weights, and (2) light weights and medium weights, at both Los Angeles and San Francisco should be of interest to the producer of hogs. With but few exceptions quotations on light-weight hogs have been higher than for the other two classes. Since 1925 differences in the quotations of the three classes of hogs have been considerably less at Los Angeles than at San Francisco (table 47). At both markets the price differential between (1) light lights and light weights seems to be less than between (2) light weights and medium weights. Ordinarily it seems logical from the data on hand for California producers to market animals in the light-weight class. 49 Light-weight animals have consistently brought higher prices in this state and yet there are thousands of hogs annually marketed in this state which weigh over 200 pounds (table 20, page 37). The heavier animals bring less and the grain cost of producing them is higher. Henry and Morrison 50 have summarized the data from over 500 feeding trials with more than 2,200 pigs at many American experiment sta- tions in order to show the economy with which pigs of different weights convert feed into meat (table 48). Farmers, however, who fatten swine to weights above 200 pounds are following sound eco- nomic principles so long as the value of the additional meat produced is greater or equal to the value of the additional grain fed. There are conditions under which it might pay the California producer to feed his -swine- so as to attain mediums instead of light weights. With barley at a low price in comparison with swine this might conceivably be the case. 49 Hughes, E. H., and L. W. Feldmiller. Pork production in California. Cali- fornia Agr. Ext. Cir. 15:40. 1928. so Henry, W. A., and F. B. Morrison. Feeds and Feeding, p. 599. The Henry- Morrison Company, Madison, Wisconsin. 1923. 78 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 48 Relation of Weight of Pigs to Feed Consumed and Rate of Gain* Weight of pigs Actual aver- age weight Number of animals fed Feed per head, daily Feed eaten daily per 100 pounds live weight Average gain, daily Feed for 100 pounds gain pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds 15- 50 38 174 2.2 6.0 0.8 293 50-100 78 417 3.4 4.3 0.8 400 100-150 128 495 4.8 3.8 1.1 437 150-200 174 489 5.9 3.5 1.2 482 200-250 226 300 6.6 2.9 1.3 498 250-300 271 223 7.4 2.7 1.5 511 300-350 320 105 7.5 2.4 1.4 535 * In this table, 6 pounds of skim milk or 12 pounds of whey is rated equal to 1 pound of concentrates. Source of data: Henry, W. A., and F. B. Morrison. Feeds and feeding, p. 599. The Henry-Morrison Company, Madison, Wisconsin. 1923. TABLE 49 Monthly Average Prices in Dollars per 100 Pounds Live Weight for Light- Weight Hogs — Omaha, Nebraska, 1920-1932 Year Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Aver- age* 1920 14.68 14.05 14.77 14.65 14.23 14.52 14.93 14.80 15.95 13.99 11.95 9.30 13.98 1921 9.31 9.22 9.86 8.37 8.14 7.94 9.59 9.48 7.94 7.72 6.75 6.65 8 41 1922 7.65 9.46 10.13 10.11 10.31 10.28 10.26 9.22 928 9.01 7.77 7.84 9.28 1923 8.07 7.86 7.88 7.70 7.14 6.48 6.79 7.57 8.10 7.00 6.50 6 45 7.30 1924 6.64 6.46 6.75 6.79 6.63 6.37 7.48 9.08 9.19 9.37 8.21 8.93 7.66 1925 9.82 10.46 12.99 11.93 11.68 12.07 13.09 12 94 12.43 11.19 11.12 10.84 11.71 1926 12.03 12.61 12.58 12.56 13.40 14.16 13.45 12 82 13.19 12.28 11.37 11.16 12.63 1927 1928 11.61 7.91 11.51 7.78 11.25 7.78 10.52 8.87 9.46 9.10 8.76 9.26 9.76 10.16 1008 11.06 10.79 11.54 10.32 9.17 8.65 8.34 7.93 7.97 10.05 9.08 1929 8.76 9.85 10 80 10.86 1020 10.55 11.09 10.83 9.84 9.13 8.70 8.85 9.96 1930t 9.51 10.19 9.81 9.63 9.62 9.41 8.93 9.95 9.78 9.08 8.12 7.75 9.31 1931 7.64 7.10 7.32 7.20 6.42 6.47 7.08 6.63 5.51 4.89 4.35 3.90 6.21 1932 3.78 3.68 4.02 3.65 * Unweighted average. t From July 1930 the quotation is the average for light weights 160-180 pounds and light weights 180-200 pounds. Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Daily Livestock Reports issued by the Chicago office. Compu- tation of averages by authors. In table 49 will be found the average monthly quotations on light- weight hogs at Omaha, Nebraska. Light-weight quotations are given because of the predominance of this class on the Los Angeles and San Francisco markets. Omaha quotations are used instead of those at Chicago because the largest number of hogs shipped into California originate in Nebraska. Furthermore, a high. degree of correlation exists between light-weight quotations at Omaha and at Chicago. Bul.523] Swine 79 Computations made by the authors on the monthly average quotations of light-weight hogs at Los Angeles and Omaha and at San Francisco and Omaha from September, 1922, to April, 1929, indicate that there is a high degree of association between the two sets of prices. The spread between quotations at Omaha and those at San Fran- cisco or Los Angeles is of interest to the California producer and student of the industry (tables 50 and 51), for it is this spread which usually constitutes the basis of the argument for a larger number of swine in California. An examination of these tables shows that there is a distinct advantage in this connection accruing to the California producer. The largest spread between Omaha and either Los Angeles or San Francisco is in light-light quotations, followed by light weights, while the least spread is in medium weights. The Cali- fornia producer seemingly has a greater advantage in the lighter weights. For light-weight hogs the spread has approximated $1.80 per 100 pounds live weight during the years 1922-1931. There was during the latter part of this period a tendency to lessen this spread. A part of this decrease may result from lowered freight rates (table 72). In all three classes of hogs there is a distinct tendency for a wider margin during the last six months of the year (with the exception of December) than during the first six months. Factors Influencing Hog Prices. — Factors affecting hog prices in the United States affect prices in California. Local prices and quota- tions follow those in the Middle West rather closely. This would naturally be the case when such a large percentage of the pork and pork products consumed originate elsewhere, necessitating shipments into the state throughout the year. On account of the importance of the swine industry in the agri- culture of the nation, a large volume of research has been carried on in the attempt to analyze the industry and to solve some of the prob- lems facing it. By using the factors of supply of hogs, increases in population, changes in the value of money, foreign demand for pork products, the price of substitute products, and general business con- ditions, Haas and Ezekiel 51 were able to account for approximately 88 per cent of the total monthly variations in the price, leaving only 12 per cent unaccounted for. The value of money or the purchasing power of money has often undergone violent changes from month to month and from year to year — as for example, from July, 1929, to February, 1932. The term 51 Haas, G. C, and Mordecai Ezekiel. Factors affecting the price of hogs. U. S. Dept. Agr. Dept. Bui. 1440:1-68. 1926. 80 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 50 Differentials Between Hog Quotations at Los Angeles* and Omaha (Dollars per 100 pounds live weight) Year Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct, Nov. Dec. Aver- age Light-light hogs 1924 2.81 1.65 1.72 1 26 1.56 1.73 2.07 2.40 2.20 2.93 2.20 2.05t 1925 2.18 2.44 1.51 2 34 1.57 1.91 2.08 2.13 2.52 2.92 2.09 2.08 2.15 1926 1.34 1.33 2.05 1.99 1.41 2.06 3.27 3.66 2.14 1.80 2. 10J 1927 1.61 1.90 2.00 1.69 1.61 2.84 2.09 2.99 2.87 2.60 2.87 2.18 2.27 1928 2.24 1.88 1.67 1.69 1.68 2.10 2.75 2.46 1.75 2.62 2.52 2.12 2.12 1929 1.78 1.62 1.54 1 43 1.86 1.69 1.55 2.25 1.84 2.32 2.21 1.39 1.79 1930 1.53 1 35 1.86 1 18 1.43 1 34 1.88 1.67 2.18 2.16 2.21 1.72 1.71 1931 1.36 1.29 1.08 1.28 1.19 1.08 0.99 1.41 1.62 1.86 1.43 1.34 1.33 Ave. 1.56 1.42 1.49 1.30 1.49 1.37 1.47 1.78 1.88 2.11 1.95 1.48 1.61 Light-weight hogs Medium-weight hogs 1922 1.83 2.52 1.45 1923 1.33 1 31 1.61 1.78 1.69 2.34 1.81 2.05 1.87 1.58 1.95 1.73 1.75 1924 2.53 1.31 1.62 1.72 1.98 1 73 1.88 2.10 1.92 2.49 1.48 1 88t 1925 1.56 1.90 1.39 2.17 1.58 1.72 2 08 2.14 2.31 2.87 2.12 2.20 2.01 1926 1.42 1.45 2 11 1.98 1.28 1.90 2.36 2 25 2.51 2.78 2.10 1.80 2.00 1927 1.59 1.91 2.00 1.66 1.62 2.46 1.55 2.60 2.18 1.98 2.57 2 13 2 02 1928 2.01 1.64 1.42 1.30 1.12 1.67 2.12 2.07 1.42 2.29 2.29 1.93 1.77 1929 1 61 1.30 1.26 1.47 1.73 1 58 1.45 2.12 2 21 2.27 2.14 1.35 1.71 1930 1.46 1.07 1.63 1 04 1.27 1 27 1.94 1.40 1.76 1.72 2.03 1.59 1.52 1931 1 40 1.31 0.98 1.28 1.12 0.99 0.97 1.28 1.30 1.55 1.93 1.42 1.29 Ave. 1.49 1.23 1.29 1.26 1.37 1.28 1.45 1.60 1.76 1.85 2.03 1.45 1.51 1922 1.40 2.00 1.19 1923 1.18 1.11 1.27 1.20 1 27 1.72 1.07 1.03 0.50 2.03 1.24$ 1924 1.41 1.36 1.50 1.29 1.43 1.61 1 11 1.62 0.80 135§ 1925 0.98 1.38 0.75 1.83 1 36 1.39 1.73 2.04 2.11 2.63 1.99 2.11 1.69 1926 1 37 1.62 2.46 2.10 1.11 1.79 2.61 2.06 2.21 1.99 1.63 1.37 1.86 1927 1.29 1.69 1.89 1.55 1.48 2.03 1.21 2.49 1.57 1.13 1.84 1.39 1.63 1928 1.60 1.35 1.08 0.91 0.56 0.96 1.28 1.44 0.93 1.78 1.78 1.40 1 26 1929 1.33 0.95 0.81 0.94 1.37 1.32 1.19 2.01 1.97 1.98 2.04 1.05 1.41 1930 1.19 0.81 1.46 0.88 1.09 1.02 1.37 1.15 1.07 1.18 1.62 1.32 1.18 1931 1 20 1.30 0.74 1.01 0.83 0.62 0.59 0.95 0.94 1.12 95 0.94 0.93 Ave. 1 24 1 02 1.00 0.94 1.10 0.99 1.05 1.37 1.33 1.43 1.54 1.10 1.17 * Los Angeles quotations are higher throughout. t Average of 11 months only. X Average of 10 months only. § Average of 9 months only. Source of data: Computations by authors on basis of quotations issued by U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur Agr. Econ. at Omaha and Los Angeles. Bui. 523 Swine 81 TABLE 51 Differentials Between Hog Quotations at San Francisco* and Omaha (Dollars per 100 pounds live weight) Year Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Aver- Light-light hogs 1924 2.60 2.44 1.89 1.86 2.18 2.42 2.03 1.61 1.81 2.25 2.97 2.12 2.18 1925 1.79 1.75 1.57 2.58 1.46 1.60 1.76 2.50 2.90 3.48 2.46 2.47 2.19 1926 1.63 1.70 1.78 2.00 1.08 1.10 2.77 3.88 2.87 1.77 2 06f 1927 1.63 1 73 1.91 1.82 1.67 2.06 2.14 2.88 2 45 2.48 2.35 2.21 2.11 1928 2 07 1.87 1.58 1.62 2.07 1.76 2.53 1.90 1 06 1.77 2.08 1.60 1.83 1929 1.43 1 15 1.16 1.56 1 04 1.40 1.21 1 66 1.80 1 83 1 75 1.17 1 49 1930 1.65 1 26 1.92 1.28 1 55 1.72 2.69 1 52 1 70 1931 1 83 1.72 1 61 1.47 1 56 1.59 1 37 1.47 1 58 Ave. 1 64 1 38 1 54 1.48 1 35 1 56 1 95 1 59 1.68 1 72 1 56 1.32 1.59 Light-weight hogs 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 Ave. 2.20 1.89 1.74 1.85 1.74 1.64 1 23 1.07 1 59 1.30 1.78 1.50 1.85 1.96 2.07 1.42 1 44 1.63 1.34 1.47 1.72 1.62 2.39 2 06 1.85 1.25 1.05 1.04 1.31 1.13 2.06 1.93 1.34 1.01 1.67 1.48 1.44 1.27 0.94 1.22 2 58 2.13 1.66 1.27 1.73 1.63 1.49 1.27 1.17 1.31 2.43 1.68 2.02 2.71 1.67 2.20 1.31 1.94 1.26 1.50 1.88 1.63 2.60 2.49 2.27 1.81 1.70 1.40 1.24 1.45 2.14 1.96 1.66 2.48 2.22 2.03 1.28 1.53 1.76 1 34 1.54 2 03 2.50 2.12 3.19 3.24 2.03 2.03 1 84 1.72 1 37 1.64 1.73 2.03 1.97 2 30 2.11 1.70 2.44 1.59 2.06 1.83 1.03 1.59 1.64 1.42 2.13 1 87 2.16 2.04 1.91 1.72 1.46 1.52 1.40 1.46 Medium-weight hogs 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 Ave. 1.29 1.15 0.69 0.42 1.48 1.38 1 08 1.29 1 58 1.32 1.79 1.01 0.53 094 0.81 1.43 0.58 077 1 46 94 1.18 73 0.24 1.21 1.20 1 24 0.58 1 56 0.17 77 1.22 074 1.29 1.17 1.49 87 34 97 1.10 80 1.56 1.06 070 0.23 1.32 0.80 0.68 1.00 0.72 80 1.98 1.31 0.42 1.06 0.67 1.04 1.30 0.84 1.06 2.02 0.59 0.62 2.08 0.82 1.13 0.85 1 28 0.92 1.02 1.89 0.20 1.68 1.94 2.04 083 1.23 0.83 0.96 1.01 1.90 1.63 0.74 1.81 1.47 1.19 0.49 1 24 1 14 84 1 07 1.68 1.89 0.57 43 02 13 44 00 0.76 1.07 2.54 1.33 1.39 1.37 1.96 1.57 1.39 1.40 1.42 1 01 1.28 1.45 1.04 083 1.70 089 1.43 0.99 0.77 1.10 1.14 1.00 1.57 0.86 1.12 130§ 1.29 1.03 94 1.14 0.96 1.01 * San Francisco quotations are higher throughout, t Average of 10 months only. X Average of 8 months only. § Average of 11 months only. Source of data: Computations by authors on basis of quotations issued by U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. at Omaha and San Francisco. 82 University of California — Experiment Station purchasing power is not altogether satisfactory because the hog raiser purchases relatively few commodities. Since 1869 yearly estimates on the valuation of hogs in both the United States and California have been made on January 1 by the United States Department of Agriculture. These estimates represent inventory values but not sales. While studies with reference to the trends and cycles in these swine values should prove helpful to the hog raiser in preparing for future operations, such statistical infor- mation does not enable one to see the future in an absolute manner. The data relative to cycles of hog values simply indicate what has /JO ■ f\ K ] \\ji ( l'°' C o/ifoff I/O . \ /. » r^ i '/\ AN/ 1 \ /V's fc \ k. M \ / \ ^AjF v tso f • i i i i > 1 V if N t m \ «/ V tSn it*d &fotes' | itv 0. J 1 1 1 1 i i i i ! 1 1 1 1 l l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i i i i i I i ?ae 9 / h o o ► I-l II H £ CO I— 1 EH *4 OS fi a> S| u Hi Pm -3 tH H s to < N g S "■a pq fe < <1 p^ H Eh (6 Ci a) w O f-u en &H +3 o DO CJ .s HH iu w a TT1 3 W Ph £ Ph W £ J3 09 1 > o rt 'C ,Hi-i-h<-<-i<-i 0) o Pu ■^<»0»CTf00 WffliOtOOOONNI^M "C <-i 13 0> OOOONiO«N!0!0 o> "C Pu OOOOOOfflN^OHOO T3 a) S o O a; flj .£ ® sJ-£ »MNOO)W5NNCCM»'HNteN'H^NXSNrt 01N»O»ONtDO)(0lOO'Hrt'<)l'*'*MMM0i00 o> 'C pu ONMciooNffloieooMHTiiiji^^rii^ooo 13 a> £ o O W) 1° s3 it OOr-lCKDOOOOOMNNOaNNNNNO 01 o Pu TtnotDoc^M^osd'niomtocetowoio O t, O £ a 0JNMO*ON»HOOtD<0NNOlSMl0 0COO C» 00 O O O O O NN 0000(M-HIMCCCCCCCOt00005I^OOC<5-H-^4i£)iO(M'^tlt--.05 o 'E Pu NlO'*t^>O00»iO00NrHiOOl'*IN'HMN'O NOOOOO'HOO^HHJjOOOONCDffllOO !! 03 m -13 u Ol^OO'HN-HNNN^'-lONNWtOOCNSOxa 010000OO01'H"O0>OO ■*OM*NMiCN»c<3'*IX)'*NNrH00!O(»'*OiH i Si T3 o bco H 0> JS'C p^ a oe^oxowooNMNoaoc-iifliooioo oooo'OOOooHNrtH'jioiiaw'i'eooi o o 'u Pu coeooot^CT>co(Mt^^>oooooooooOeo>o0't^00t^- 1^^ 2 >H e a cr. CI r M'*>n*NOOCBOrtNC<3T|(lOteN»OlO'H o t- "c3 .^3 .o> 3 50 52 a . 5^ o ^-^a 3 2 - «5s ■■s«"S Mb§ hV fi o5 ° hi U O .:§ « 3 sj S pqnJ'C • a cd SiJ SPQ o3 »-i g 52-° «o S«-2 .2a> s3 a^o) ^ S ^ S"C^ 8a« J3 S3 H O 1 ^ Mja ^: o^ o S3 s3 ^ Chi . o . ->*£>+* a s3 a ®^ 0> Q .P CO g-QQ P Q P i^^; 2 05^05 T) ONOO O 3 O DO Bul. 523] Swine 89 facts can be gleaned from them. The smaller carcass weighing from 90 to 120 pounds has consistently commanded a higher price than the heavier one weighing from 120 to 140 pounds. This in turn has been reflected in the higher prices received for 8-10 pound loins than for those weighing 10-12 pounds, for 10-12 pound hams than for those weighing 12-14 pounds, and for 4-6 pound bacon strips than for the heavier 6-8 or 8-10 pound strips. This same general relation will be found to exist if the wholesale prices on cured pork cuts at Chicago are used. However, the demand for the smaller cuts is apparently greater on the Pacific Coast than in Chicago. This demand for smaller carcasses is not surprising in a state such as California with its rapidly growing urban population. The average city dweller prefers small cuts of meat, bringing about the preference for younger animals and lighter and leaner carcasses. This is the result, in part, of the limitations of the modern kitchen, of the preference for broiled meats rather than roasted meats, and of the disfavor into which boiled meats have fallen. This trend expresses itself in preference for young pork, lamb, baby beef, and broiler poultry. 56 In table 54 a wholesale price for lard in New York was given. In table 56 are shown the wholesale prices at Chicago, the center of the lard industry. Although a series of wholesale prices for either San Francisco or Los Angeles cannot be given, retail prices are listed in tables 58 and 59. Both wholesale and retail prices of lard have been low since 1921. During the years 1917-1919 lard prices rose relatively higher than did either the retail or wholesale prices of commodities because of the demand for fat resulting from the World War. The primary cause for the drop in the relative price of lard has been the competition offered by both domestic and foreign vege- table oils. According to Alsberg and Taylor, "the principal use of lard is as a shortening and cooking fat. In the United States lard compounds are substituted for it in these uses to a considerable degree. ' '" Since lard must be produced along with hams, bacon, and other products, indications point to each individual product having its own conditions of supply and demand. The influence of lard prices on live-carcass prices can readily be seen since Clemen states that 14.5 per cent of the returns from the average 250-pound hog will 56 Voorhies, Edwin C, and W. E. Schneider. Economic aspects of the sheep industry. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 473:51-52. 1929. 57 Alsberg, C. L., and A. E. Taylor. The fats and oils — a general view. viii + 103 p. Stanford University Press, Stanford University. 1928. 90 University of California — Experiment Station be in the form of prime steam lard. 58 In table 55 are shown the estimated amounts of lard and other by-products resulting from the hog slaughter under federal inspection. TABLE 55 Estimated Yield of Animal By-Products From Hog Slaughter Under Federal Inspection, United States, 1923-1930 By-product 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1929 1930 Average weight in pounds per animal slaughtered Lard* Edible hog offal. Pork trimmings. Inedible greasef. 37.2 36.6 33.8 37.3 35.8 35.3 36.5 4.8 4.8 5.6 6.3 6.4 6.8 7 3 10 2 10.2 11.4 12 9 13.2 12.9 14.5 3.1 3.0 2.9 3.1 2 8 2.7 2.7 34 5 7.3 14.9 2.7 Per cent of live weight Lard* Edible hog offal. Pork trimmings.. Inedible greasef.. 16.5 16.5 15.0 15 9 15.4 16.6 15.8 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.7 2.7 3.2 3.2 4.5 4.6 5.1 5.5 5.6 5.4 6.2 1.4 1.4 1.3 13 1.2 1.2 1.2 14.9 3.1 6.4 1.2 Rendered. t Unrendered. Sources of data: 1923: U. S. Dept. Agr. Estimated yield and production of animal by-products from slaughter under federal inspection. Crops and Markets 1: 1924: ibid. 2: 93. 1925: ibid. 3: 90. 1926: ibid. 4:100. 1927: ibid. 5: 87. 1925. 1926. 1927. 1928. 1928: ibid. 6 1929: ibid. 7 1930: ifctd. 8 1924. 1929. 1930. 95. 1931. The price which buyers of live hogs will pay is determined to a considerable extent by what consumers will pay for pork and pork products. The consumer's demand for the dressed cuts of meat is expressed to the retailers by the consumer's willingness to buy a certain amount at a given price. If the consumers take more at that price or are willing to pay more for the same amount, the retailer will conclude that the demand is increasing and order larger amounts from the packers at the same or possibly higher prices. Prices for live hogs in central markets do not change in exact proportion to retail prices since the retailing and wholesaling agencies receive part of the benefits or share part of the reverses, but retail and wholesale prices have tended to correspond rather closely to live-hog prices and therefore any change in the demand from consumers will be reflected at the terminal markets. M Clemen, Rudolf A. By-products in the packing industry. I 'Diversity of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1927. ix + 410 p. The Bul, 523] Swine 91 Consumers vary widely in their consumption habits, and conse- quently substitutions of other products for pork and vice versa will affect the demand and hence the price. This is especially true of the lower income groups of people. If the price of pork rises above the general price level for foods they will substitute other meats, dairy TABLE 56 Actual and Relative Wholesale Prices of Lard at Chicago, 1910-1931 Year Average price per 100 pounds, in dollars Relative price 1910-1914 = 100* All-commodity index 1910-1914 = 100* Purchasing power 1910-1914 = 100* / 2 3 4 1910 12.23 8.86 10 39 10.83 10.24 9.31 13.21 21.73 25.79 28.40 22.25 13.21 13.07 13.90 14.65 17.90 16.91 13.66 13.30 1297 12.02 9.07 116 84 99 103 97 89 126 207 245 270 212 126 124 132 139 170 161 130 127 123 114 86 103 95 101 102 99 102 125 172 192 202 225 143 141 147 143 151 146 139 141 139 126 107 113 1911 89 1912 98 1913 101 1914 98 1915 87 1916 101 1917 121 1918 128 1919 134 1920 94 1921 88 1922 88 1923. .. 90 1924 97 1925. 113 1926 110 1927 93 1928 90 1929 88 1930 91 1931 81 * The period 1910-1914 is used as a base because 1926 was a year of relatively high prices. Sources of data: Col. 1: U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Col. 2: Relatives of items in col. 1. 1910-1914 = $10.51 = 100. Col. 3: All-commodity wholesale price index of U. S. Dept. Labor, 1910-1914 = 100. Col. 4: Items in col. 2 divided by items in col. 3. products, or possibly fruits and vegetables in part. Pork may be classed as a commodity with high 'elasticity of demand. ' A 1 per cent increase in price is accompanied by a decrease of more than 1 per cent in quantity demanded at that price. In studies made by Haas and Ezekiel 59 it was found that hog prices were rather sensitive to movements in fat-steer prices, especially when the latter were low. 59 Haas, C. G., and Mordecai Ezekiel. Factors affecting the price of hogs. IT. S. Dept. Agr. Dept. Bul. 1440:1-68. 1926. 92 University of California — Experiment Station cc w H «* H crj Q w H £ o P o T— 1 H II w CO &H £ I— 1 1-1 © cc o ft CD o l> « Ph eg t-j CD LO «< U 3 PP 5 << T3 Pi pj o < g ^ ft H CD « Ph M u 03 h PI o CD o r/j H Pi o • r-l M CD Pm c3 A CD W M M Ph w > H «4 h-J W W « ^ 3 w o <1 JS2>8 Oh'* 9 ft Ph-^ a e5XOC*CONrtNNOOM®( '^NlflO 'H®rtOON*NMM0005N005D'*OOOOe<5 tf-'ft Ph'-* 3 ft &H C»CDONNNIN00tOlCNl350>NlO N05NiONrttOiJl»»eCCOONNO> MtOOiOOOsroifl^MiOMNCOiHO^N^ ■*0)NMlOC»NNMT( © OS ■<*< rt © O 00<0»iC(0P5 0)iOOl ■ O(oaw®cooeo |C<)i-I^H^H»-Ii-IC<)co^-<)o)'*ai ONO(ON«0>0'*(»SIOOM(OIOM'HNW5 OOOOlOOOO>i«'*') l Tls pq pq g « -S « CD M "* O '13 U3 _h i-H d a a 3 a H 8 .a S "S 8 j» OQ M « W rf S o -a ■ 1. 1 ■S.-S 5 5« c3 45 >-l hlhltcaiTj s s ^ ^ * »- fl a a o o oj a a « ,o pq pq d cs ^ - pq 8 3 § oq 2 22pqpq^ "S *■ ■a -^ £ ^3 (M IN 4) g g eta o 8 8 o o £ £1 is QQoo . C o oo oo ■« ^ +, y-i rl ^ 8 2 M W IB l» J OJ 03 o t> ^ •^ ^ - n "C o o os (h ^ (-, 8 of aJ ft ft -5 V V —, i m e8 .S .a .2 -s -s ►q ££ 3 1 -3 W W « .§« tf Pd£ ££ H^ M ^ M - !_) ,_q ,_i . o o o . . . ■S ^2 JD X3 -m -m -^ ft 68 o3 oj ft ft ft P^ J J 4) 0) «i +a H CS 00 fc ^ W fe t3 h4 fl pq < «1 Eh o H W O o fe ft O Xfl +3 co PI H © o «i tf-5 as- tfsg, J5g8 ooooo^Nwteio^ioiotDfflioNioco HONrHNMOWMNNI OtH-H-H !ON!OlDOOMO>!10»OJO>NCO''5'H»«U5 CNCO(MCN»f5O300t^-^<* < CX300«O-H MMOCOOH5>*«MNiONOlOlNM'i<(N t^i^ooecpo^Hooo-^ooo-^oios oo.0'-(»OTt<03eo !- a a-s- ,3°8 «'*» ft lO^tOiOMMWOJOJNXWO^OOOOOCO' 000>ht(INM»!ONNM01»0100NW MrH^OONlflTJIlO^lOtiJWOOlNNNMCO IN^IO^00'H00Nt)<05CC'*NN^0)(0O lOOOlOOOONOOO-HMM'-lHOOlN OUSOO'-iOOHONNtecOHNNONeON ttortomo)0»wNO'*o)N'*rtPsoH t^.^HiO«0'-HOiOOOOtNiCOOt~-C35COC005CMCN ^^ P P a) 02 -a ,■ L < h h d PQ PQ "3 cs -2 hQ i-3 g H N (J h ' J) Q O * * '5 O OS OS OS o y ~ 8 8 . G C O oo ft ft Si <*> ~* —> «* .2 -S -3 ^ ft ft '3 '3 j§ Ph c3 hQ m . O -£ -° — ft C3 C3 d o i-i >-' tT died o o o " " X3 ^ -5 Bj e3 e3 ^ ^ kS t-3 hQ 03 OS t£ rt 7 •• 13 co o o22 as a> o h 3 X! £> +; ^ *>* oj a3 ft ft ft iQh) • » « .« .,• P Q P P 02 CC P P P* Tti eo -h • N IN M [3 ta ct> en as aS 94 University of California — Experiment Station 0Q II •A iH OS en 1—1 H o> Q © P ft o "j-l Ph > i-i -4-» w o u « Ph 0) hJ f-c cS ^ H to H ■ 0) M w Ph t> H -«j J W Ph Q 55 «* w o < PT-3 Ph'-S a N^eOMOi-HN^iNifl^O' • cc «o co oo < >CO)NN'*NNH*rtrHOONCOOe»MM'HOO M*tOW«50 0i«)lO'*MH<«5lO'0 0)OOOM -3 g* O Ph -^ ft ■ I «•: Ph +» tt 0)lONiHOmONtOM«N>OON'H®>ON ©■<+iid< 0Nt01l«OSNO(N« OMMrtNtClOOlONOtOWINOONH'N OOOOH«5iO*H l *'*H''|i''JH!CrH(Oc>5'*C»0»0'C«ONI MrtNNMNNMNCNNrH I CC ^ CO 00 t- CO ot^O' 'NMNHlNH'XJNfflOONrtOOacO'O^l® iO>OOiO»OOOrtOOrt^MNN(Nrt» 0"*(^CCOOt>-t^CC'-l'-i»flOCCOOeN50if500CfflCD(0t0tDt0>fl NOMQ0©'-ll0NON'0>0( >C»COt-~OiOit^c£>'0»00005aOt— 1^1 0'HINC<3HllOtDN«0)0'H ^H^H^H^-H-H^HeMCNC<«e>jeNieN 05 03 Oi Oi 0> Oi Oi 03 O) OS 05 Oi OS Oj Oj CJ> CO O) i pq 3 3 P5 pq o> ii» 3 O £ 1 .2 go go eo «♦< cd 03 o3 3 3 0) 5 -r DO m PQ pq -: n R u CO CO 03 1 3 cc S3 ■a o3 crt s 03 pq h-1 h-J pq PQ OQ M 03 i- O 03 73 3 03 £ h-1 ►J 00 3 02 02 03 C<1 02 3 3 pq pq -a -d i. 0) JO 0) 0) •<*< OJ eo s a P a) s s £ s o 5 O 0> o C5 O Pm QPP © © rr _3 o o 3 OO oo "S CO cc cc rr* OB OJ 05 IH O i t-i '3 S 0) E9 h-i a o. a <» co h =! r=3 a « S J t 0) O t- u u <^ 03 c4 cS ^ (i >; i; j j j . o o o . . . ■« i: xi ^ -^ v -p a oj o3 o3 a a a « ,_;>_; h; o o> cp Djj^flflfl DD g. g. » W qq CQ P Q QQppp 6i CB CC cB ^ £ ^ OS rj p p «> o> os TJ M O H N N "5 N H N N N N N N O O) O) C) Cfi O) Cft o> Bul. 523 Swine 95 Retail price data are available over a series of years on pork chops, bacon, ham, lard, and other meats (tables 57, 58, and 59). These are given for the United States and for specified cities. Among the latter are Los Angeles and San Francisco. Relative prices are computed upon 1913 as a base, which appears to have been a normal year for pork prices. Prices of the four pork products listed in table 57 rose relatively higher than the average retail cost of food in the United States until 1920. (Compare tables 57 and 60). Since the latter year pork chops, bacon, and ham have continued to be relatively TABLE 60 Index Numbers Showing the Trend in the Ketail Cost of Food in the United States 1913-1931 Year Index number* Year Index number* 1913 100 102 101 114 146 168 186 203 153 142 1923 146 1914 1924 146 1915 1925 157 1916 1926 161 1917 1927 155 1918 1928 154 1919 1929 157 1920 1930 147 1921 1931 121 1922 * 1913 = 100. Sources of data: 1913-1930: U. S. Dept. Labor. Index numbers showing the trend in the retail cost of food in the United States. Mo. Labor Rev. 32(2) :197. 1931. 1931 : U. S. Dept. Labor. Prices, Wholesale and Retail, monthly- issues. higher than the prices of food in general. Lard, however, has been relatively lower (table 57). It will be noted that during the period 1913 to date there have been some changes in the retail demand for the four products listed above; it is unfortunate that retail prices are not available for a larger number of cuts. It is highly probable that the less choice cuts of pork have failed to keep to as high a level of prices as have ham, bacon, and pork chops. The failure of the less choice cuts of beef, e.g., plate beef and chuck roast, to hold to as high levels as the choice cuts, e.g., sirloin steak and rib roast, is worthy of notice (table 57). Prior to 1920 bacon commanded a higher retail price than ham. Beginning in the latter year a higher actual price has been obtainable for ham and the price has held at relatively high levels. The relative 96 University of California — Experiment Station prices of pork chops are closely correlated with those of bacon (table 57). Lard prices began to drop rapidly in 1920 before meat prices showed much of a drop. This was probably due to the actual and potential competition afforded by lard substitutes. Since 1921 lard prices have been relatively much lower than prices obtained for the retail cuts listed. A comparison between the actual prices of the meats listed indi- cates that ham throughout the entire period — 1913-1931 — has com- manded a higher actual retail price per pound than any of the other meats listed. Actual prices for bacon are also high as compared with those of other meats. Compared with many of the more important cuts of beef, pork chops are low in price. Wholesale and retail prices move in the same direction, with slightly smaller changes in the retail prices than in the wholesale, and with a certain degree of lag in retail price movements as com- pared to wholesale price movements. Wentworth and Clemen found that retail prices of pork products gave evidence of a greater vari- ability than those of other cuts of meat. 60 Table 61 brings out clearly the greater variation in retail meat prices together with the greater variability in the prices of pork products. The method of calculating the data in table 61 is illustrated in the following manner. The price of ham in Los Angeles (table 58) in January, 1931, was 60.2 cents per pound, February, 57.8 cents, etc. The mean or the average price for the first six months of 1931 was 55.6 cents. The price in January was 4.6 cents greater, February 2.2 cents greater — June 3.4 cents less. The total of the deviations for the six months is 13.9 cents, making the average deviation for the six months 2.3 cents, The 2.3 cents (average deviation) divided by 55.6 cents (the mean), gives 0.041, or 4.1 per cent (coefficient of variability). Retail prices of the pork products studied are markedly higher in San Francisco and Los Angeles than they are in the United States as a whole. This has been the case particularly with ham and bacon, and no doubt this is one of the underlying reasons for the demand for a lighter hog on the Los Angeles and San Francisco markets. Although data on retail prices for a large number of pork products are not available, tables 58 and 59 indicate that these prices are actually higher in cents per pound than are some of the common cuts of the other meats. These higher prices undoubtedly have some influence on the lower consumption of pork products in California. «o Armour and Company. Livestock and meat prices. Monthly Letter to Animal Husbandmen, 8(8):l-4. 1927. Bul. 523] Swine 97 TABLE 61 Statistical Indexes of Variability* of Livestock, Wholesale Meats, and Ketail Meats, 1919-1927 Commodity Mean price, dollars Average deviation, dollars Coefficient of variability, per cent Livestock, on basis of 100 pounds Heavy steers 11.27 10.79 6.92 13.90 7.76 11.09 10.29 2.11 1.93 1.33 1.71 1.56 2.76 1 90 18.7 Native steers 17.9 Fat cows and heifers 19.2 Aged lambs 12 3 Aged western sheep 20 1 Hogs 24.9 Average 18.5 Wholesale meats, on basis of one pound Native sides 0.165 0.307 239 170 0.259 0.139 0.259 0.183 158 209 0.0229 0.0354 0384 0307 0280 0.0236 0.0473 0.0450 0.0410 0.0347 13.9 No. 2 loins 11.5 No. 2 ribs ; 16.1 No. 2 rounds 18.0 Lamb 11.0 Mutton 17.0 Fresh pork loins 18.3 Short clear sides 24.6 Lard 26 Average 16.6 Retail meats, on basis of one pound Sirloin steak 0.405 0.301 0.355 374 0.363 0.514 0.457 0.225 0.374 0175 0.0159 0.0214 0183 0415 0413 0552 0.0487 0.0325 4.3 Rib roast 5 3 Round steak 6 Leg of lamb 4 9 Pork chops 11.4 Ham 8 Bacon 12.1 Lard 21.7 Average 8.7 * In the calculations in the above table the price series of the United States Depart- ment of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics on retail and wholesale meats were adopted, while the livestock prices were drawn from the Chicago Daily Drovers Journal and the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics. The mean price represents the average monthly price over the period studied. The actual variation of each monthly price from this mean was then calculated. When all of the variations were calculated, they too, were averaged, producing the average deviation. Since the difference in the average or mean prices of the various meats is considerable — and since livestock prices are for one hundred pounds and wholesale and retail prices are for one pound the coefficient of variability has been used for purposes of comparison. This is a percentage which the average deviation forms of the mean. Source of data: Armour and Co. Livestock and meat prices. bandmen8(8):l-4. 1927. Monthly letter to Animal Hus- 98 University of California — Experiment Station A comparison of prices in Los Angeles with those in San Francisco (compare tables 58 and 59) brings out the fact that retail prices are higher in the former city for pork chops and ham, while bacon prices in San Francisco apparently are higher (table 62). The presence of large numbers of people of middle-western origin in Los Angeles has perhaps an influence on the demand for ham and pork chops. Cover 61 states that individual cities have characteristic price histories. TABLE 62 Differentials Between the Retail Prices of Pork Products in the United States and in San Francisco and Los Angeles,* 1913-1931 (Differentials are in cents per pound) Ham, sliced Pork chops Bacon sliced Lard Year San Francisco Los Angeles San Francisco Los Angeles San Francisco Los Angeles San Francisco Los Angeles 1913 4.1 8.4 2.6 4.1 6.7 6.7 2.2 2.2 1914 5.5 8.3 2.8 4.0 7.1 6.6 1.8 19 1915 7.9 8.0 3.2 3.8 6.9 6.6 1.9 2.2 1916 5.0 6.6 0.7 2.4 6.1 5.9 0.8 0.5 1917 4.8 8.1 -0.3 1.0 3.6 5.1 02 -0.5 1918 4.2 9.0 1.5 3.0 4.2 7.0 0.4 0.5 1919 4.7 8.6 2 7 3.9 6.1 8.4 -0.2 -0.8 1920 4.3 10.3 2.9 6.6 9.9 10 5 3.8 2.5 1921 60 12.0 5.3 6.4 13.3 11.5 3.1 1.2 1922 6.6 12.2 5.4 5.6 13 9 11.7 2.1 1.7 1923 6.6 12.5 5.5 6.5 11.3 10.7 1.8 1.9 1924 7.6 13 1 5.5 7.0 12.1 10.0 2.0 1.3 1925 8.5 11.3 6.3 7.7 12.2 8.2 2.0 0.8 1926 9 11.8 5.5 6.2 13.3 9.0 2.9 1.8 1927 9.1 13.4 5.9 6.7 113 8.1 4.0 0.9 1928 8.4 14.2 5.4 6.3 11.5 6.9 4.0 1.4 1929 8.4 13.3 4.7 6.6 12.3 6.7 4.2 1.4 1930 9.3 11.6 3.9 4.2 13.1 6.1 3.8 0.3 1931 10.7 7.2 4.6 3.6 12.0 1.8 3.5 0.4 * All prices are higher in San Francisco and Los Angeles except where noted with the minus sign. Source of data: Calculation by the authors on basis of tables 57, 58, and 59. Relations Between Hog Prices and Prices of Other Animal Hus- bandry Products. — Changes in the price relations between different enterprises and between specific parts of the same industry at times cause definite shifts in an industry. In California, for example, there has been a steady tendency for a relatively larger number of farmers to engage in the production of milk fat for market milk purposes than in the production of milk fat for manufacturing purposes. 62 °i Cover, John II. Consumption of meat and meat products, x + 80 p. Univer- sity of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1930. 62 Voorhies, Edwin C. Dairy products (series on California crops and prices). California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 514:1-188. 1931. Bul. 523] Swine 99 Fig. 20. — Hog-egg price ratio, California, 1911-1931. This curve represents the number of dozens of eggs which 100 pounds of live hog would purchase during the period 1911-1931. During 1911-1930 the average number of dozens was 30.9. There has been a distinct upward trend in the relation between the two sets of prices over the past two decades, hogs becoming relatively more valuable. (Data calculated by authors on the basis of prices paid producers for hogs and eggs. Prices are published in U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets, monthly issues.) f\ A i 'nited Jfo/t ' J ^ts j iW k J \h f\ ti\ W\ M \ Mb V' 1/ r 1 V>| •V '! \\ ft w %A rJ « '» / l -' ! V* V XJ VI A ^ Iff r*i J#\ 1 ' K/^Cc „forr /a A t&? ^ i y w\ t /^// -12 VJ V^ V» Vtf ■// /a '/9 -20 '2/ '22 '2J 2* '25 '26 27 -20 29 Fig. 21.— Hog-beef cattle price ratio, United States and California, 1911-1931. These curves represent the number of pounds of beef cattle on foot which 100 pounds of live hog would purchase in the United States and California during the period 1911-1931. The average for the twenty years, 1911-1930, for the United States was 139 pounds while for California it was 137 pounds. The same general movement in this relation exists in California as in the nation. From 1911 through 1915 hogs were low in price as compared with beef cattle. From 1917 until 1926 (with the exception of 1923) this relation was changed. With the rise in beef cattle values those for swine became relatively low during 1927, 1928, and 1929. During 1930 and 1931 there was an apparent tendency for a return to the pre-war ratio. (Data calculated by authors on the basis of prices paid producers for hogs and beef cattle, United States and California. Prices are published in U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets, monthly issues.) 100 University of California — Experiment Station Again, the increasing prices received by producers for lambs from 1922 to 1928 63 in comparison with those for beef cattle led many livestock men to change from beef cattle to sheep production. w, 'OO £ SO A A A A /[ 1 1 /2 rnt I ° ver-og lOf/ng hi A I 4\ r>li > \ / \t P \k A^ h / w» A r*> fl v\ f A A J\ / ^y v V* Fig. 22. — Hog-lamb price ratio, California, 1911-1931. Over the past two decades there has been an irregular up-and-down movement in the relation between hog and lamb prices. The average number of pounds of lamb which 100 pounds of hog would buy over the twenty years, 1911-1930, was 107.3 pounds. From 1911 through 1923 the general tendency was for lambs to become higher priced when compared with hogs. Since the latter date the general trend has been in the opposite direction, especially since the sharp decline in lamb prices in 1929. (Data calculated by authors on the basis of prices paid producers for hogs and lambs. Prices are published in U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets, monthly issues.) Fig. 23.— Hog-milk fat price ratio, California, 1911-1931. This curve repre- sents the number of pounds of milk fat which 100 pounds of live hog would purchase during the period 1911-1931. The average for the twenty years, 1911-1930 was 22.0. Over these two decades there has not been a definite trend in the relation between the two sets of prices. With the pronounced up-and- down movement in swine prices the up-and-down movement in the above curve will probably continue. (Data calculated by authors on the basis of prices paid producers for hogs and milk fat. Prices are published in U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets, monthly issues.) 63 Voorhies, Edwin C, and W. E. Schneider. Economic aspects of the sheep industry. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 473:1-173. 1929, Bul.523] Swine 101 An attempt has been made in figures 20 to 23 to depict the relations which have existed between hog prices and those of the principal animal husbandry products of the state — milk fat, eggs, lambs, and beef cattle. All price relations are based upon prices received by pro- ducers. All of these relations are characterized by up-and-down move- ments, which seem to have become more pronounced during the last decade than during that ending in 1920. There has been rather a defi- nite tendency for hogs to command an increasing purchasing power over eggs during the past two decades (fig. 20). Except for the four years 1928-1931 the trend has been toward relatively higher prices for hogs than for beef cattle (fig. 21). The hog-lamb price relation (fig. 22) has, since 1924, shown an upward trend in favor of hogs. No pro- nounced trends except for a very few years at a time can be depicted in the hog-milk-fat price relation (fig. 23). From all indications there do not seem to have been changes in the price relations between hogs and other animal products which would account for the diminution of hog numbers in California since 1920. Prices of Purebreds. — Owing to the fact that swine production is a side line with most of the farmers reporting swine in California, considerable interest is attached to the prices paid for purebred swine, both because the number is large in proportion to the total numbers and also because of the comparative ease with which one can start as a breeder of purebred swine. With purebreds it is generally true that changes in price in one section of the country are reflected shortly in other sections. The United States Department of Agriculture has endeavored to obtain sale prices (both at auction and at private treaty) of purebreds from a large and representative number of breeders. Prices advanced along with those of market hogs during the years 1923-1926 (com- pare table 63 with table 37). During the period 1926-1928 prices of purebreds showed but little variation, though a tendency to weaken can be noted in the latter years. In 1929 there was a material weaken- ing in prices, no doubt the result, in part, of the relatively low market prices prevailing in 1928. The 1930 price showed a still further weakening, owing in no small measure to the decline in commodity prices. The 1930 report indicated that 83 per cent of the purebred-hog sales reported occurred in the Corn Belt states, 12 per cent in the south central, 3 per cent in the mountain and Pacific, and 2 per cent in the north Atlantic states. 102 University of California — Experiment Station FEED COSTS Concentrates usually constitute the main item of cost in preparing hogs for market; the middle western states rely on corn, while Cali- fornia places its reliance mainly upon barley. In an enterprise efficiency study conducted in Kings County in 1928, Fluharty and Wilcox 64 found that between 50 and 60 per cent of the cost of TABLE 63 Comparative Percentages of Sales of the Combined Purebred Hog Breeds, by Price Ranges, 1923-1930 Number Under $25 but $150 and Year sold $25 under $150 above per cent per cent per cent 1923 * 33.8 39.8 21.9 19.0 65.6 60.1 77.9 80.6 6 1924 .1 1925 2 1926 41,848 .4 1627 35,437 18.2 81.3 .5 1928 23,835 19.6 80.2 .2 1929 45,941 24.3 75.5 .2 1930 35,133t 30.0 69.9 0.1 * Number sold not given in summaries for 1923-1925. t Of the 35,133 purebred hogs reported sold in 1930, 875 were Berkshire, 3,263 Chester White. 11,277 Duroc Jersey, 5,305 Hampshire, and 14,413 Poland China. Sources of data: 1923-1925: U. S. Dept. Agr. Prices of purebred cattle, hogs, and sheep. Crops and Markets 4:141, 1927; 1926-1929: ibid. 7:131, 1930; 1930: ibid. 8:138-139, 1931. producing a pound of pork could be charged to concentrates. It is not unlikely that this percentage would be greatly different in other parts of the agricultural areas of the state. On account of the influence which the price of corn has on the supply of hogs in the United States it behooves the California producer to follow the ratio between the prices of corn and those of hogs — the corn-hog ratio. Corn-Hog Ratio. — The price of swine in California is directly influenced by the supply in the producing areas of the Corn Belt. An analysis of the corn-hog ratio (fig. 24) and its effect is of vital importance to the hog industry in this state even though the main feed utilized here is barley. Elliott 65 in a detailed study of hog pro- duction and market demand analyzed the influence of the corn-hog «* Fluharty, L. W., and F. E. Wilcox. Enterprise efficiency studies on Cali- fornia farms. California Agr. Ext. Cir. 24:80. 1930. 8« Elliott, F. F. Adjusting hog production to market demands. Illinois Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 293:503-567. 1927. Bul. 523] Swine 103 TABLE 64 Corn-Hog Ratios, United States, 1910-1932 (Number of pounds of corn equal in value to 100 pounds live hog) Aver- Year Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. age 1910 683 672 762 806 745 722 683 655 728 795 846 834 744 1911 857 806 767 678 599 549 526 554 554 521 515 521 621 1912 510 493 482 504 470 454 465 510 566 672 739 790 554 1913 762 778 806 806 711 689 678 622 571 582 588 577 681 1914 605 633 627 610 577 554 566 577 571 560 582 571 586 1915 532 482 470 476 487 487 487 476 515 605 594 566 515 1916 549 588 638 644 638 616 610 594 622 582 566 549 600 1917 554 588 644 577 493 465 414 431 504 566 627 672 545 1918 627 577 566 571 577 560 554 566 605 616 644 633 591 1919 622 633 627 622 605 571 588 571 521 543 515 515 578 1920 521 515 498 470 426 398 437 476 566 728 840 739 551 1921 756 756 801 728 700 616 734 829 784 890 896 851 778 1922 862 924 885 879 840 823 823 767 750 750 717 655 806 1923 622 610 571 549 493 442 420 431 476 493 459 504 506 1924 504 476 482 482 476 454 375 448 431 487 487 392 458 1925 465 470 594 627 560 543 644 638 650 750 801 834 631 1926 885 963 980 980 997 1047 991 823 885 907 969 952 948 1927 958 941 935 890 722 526 521 532 577 650 683 605 712 1928 577 538 487 470 482 476 526 571 655 633 633 582 553 1929 571 571 633 655 650 633 633 599 549 554 588 610 605 1930 638 683 717 655 650 644 610 532 577 599 694 644 638 1931 661 650 672 672 633 594 644 689 706 790 666 610 666 1932 627 610 678 638 Source of data: Computations by the authors based upon the averages of farm prices of corn and hogs in the United States. The original data from: U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets, monthly issues. /z vj v«* vs vs */7 vo '/$ 'zo 'zt 'zz zj 'z*. 'zs 'z« •*? 'za -Z9 -jo vt/ Fig. 24. — Corn-hog ratio, United States; barley-hog ratio, California, 1910- 1931. Although the general trends of the corn-hog and barley-hog ratios are usually the same, there are outstanding differences, e.g., in 1930 and 1931. While the California farmer is most directly concerned with the barley-hog ratio, the price which he receives for hogs is more directly influenced by the corn-hog ratio. (Data from tables 64 and 65.) 104 University of California — Experiment Station ratio on the supply of hogs available. Seasonal production and marketing practices cause the effects of the corn-hog ratio to vary throughout the year and for this reason the year was divided into several periods. In most of the Corn Belt states December and January are the main months for breeding for spring litters, although many sows are bred in November. There is a close relation between the corn-hog ratio in December and the receipts of hogs at Chicago starting the next September and running through the following April. When the price of hogs is high in comparison with the price of corn in December, farmers go into hog production more heavily. The ratio between corn and hog prices prior to the breeding season also influences the number of hogs bred. Presumably if hog production has been profitable for a considerable time, some farmers will be induced to go into the enterprise more heavily. Elliott found that the June-November corn-hog ratio had a greater influence upon receipts at Chicago 12 to 18 months later than did the ratio in December. The effect of the ratio for the three months January- March upon receipts is slight except when hog prices are low in comparison with corn prices. With the use of these three corn-hog ratios during different periods of the year it has been possible to account for a large part of the variation in the receipts of hogs at Chicago. The corn-hog ratio is given by months in table 64. Customarily the ratio is given in bushels but on account of the misunderstanding which might arise the authors have computed the number of pounds of corn (using 56 pounds per bushel) equal in value to 100 pounds of live hog. Figure 24 clearly indicates that there have been constant and at times violent changes in the corn-hog ratio. Table 64 indicates that the peaks in the relation occur at somewhat regular intervals, e.g., 1910, 1913, 1918, 1922, 1926, and in all probability 1931. This is caused largely by the cyclical movement in swine prices. With the exception of 1922, hog values were high in the above-mentioned years. Barley-Hog Ratio. — The fluctuations in the barley-hog ratio are shown in table 65. These same data are plotted in figure 24 in order to bring out certain similarities and differences between the corn-hog and barley-hog ratios. The average number of pounds of barley equal in value to 100 pounds of live hog over the period 1910-1931 in California has been 625.8 pounds. The corresponding average for corn in the United States has been 630.8 pounds. Slightly more corn than barley has Bul. 523] Swine 105 been required over the past two decades to equal in value a given weight of live hog. Comparisons between the efficiencies of the two feeds are difficult if not impossible to make, although in most trials which have been made slightly less corn than barley has been required for gains. 66 If this is the case, probabilities are that the 631 pounds of corn listed above would produce more pork than the 626 pounds of barley. There can be no doubt, however, as to the excellence of barley (in combination with other feeds) as a feed for hogs. 67 It is the main feed used in some of the northern states, Canada, and Denmark. California can and does produce a high grade of hog. A special effort has been made to raise the grade of the product produced in this state by eliminating the improperly fed animal which was at one time sent in considerable numbers to market. Although there is a general tendency for the corn-hog and barley- hog ratios to be correlated, there have been at times rather wide differences. This was especially noticeable in 1930 when the ratio happened to be far more favorable to the California producer relying on barley than to the hog raiser placing his main dependence on corn. An analysis of the fluctuations of the two ratios reveals that the barley-hog ratio has fluctuated to a greater extent than the corn-hog ratio. 68 This fact may be one which has tended to inhibit farmers from going into swine production more heavily, since the price of barley tends to get more out of line with that of hogs than does the price of corn. Hughes 69 believes that in the future more dependence will be placed upon alfalfa hay, which will reduce the importance of the greater fluctuation of the barley-hog price ratio. Like the corn-hog ratio, the barley-hog ratio exhibits an up-and- down movement of considerable regularity. The years of high ratios have been 1910, 1914, 1919, 1922, 1926, and 1930. The low points in the ratio thus far have come at even more regular intervals — 1912, 1916, 1920, 1924, 1928. There does not seem to be a correspondence between the barley-hog ratio and the number of swine in the state. Indirectly, over a period of time, the barley-hog ratio may affect the operations of the state's ee Henry, W. A., and F. B. Morrison. Feeds and feeding, p. 632. The Henry- Morrison Company, Madison, Wisconsin. 1923. 67 Thompson, J. I., and E. C. Voorhies. Hog feeding experiments. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 342:373-396. 1922. 68 Over a period 1910-1927 by months the standard deviation, or the deviation from the arithmetic mean, was 232.8 pounds for the barley-hog ratio and 147.6 pounds for the corn-hog ratio. 69 Letter from E. H. Hughes, Animal Husbandry Division, University of California, to Edwin C. Voorhies, May 27, 1931. 106 University of California — Experiment Station farmers in swine production. At times when the ratio has been par- ticularly favorable towards the feeding of barley to hogs there has been a noticeable increase in the weights of California hogs received at Los Angeles and San Francisco. TABLE 65 Barley-Hog Katios, California, 1910-1932 (Number of pounds of barley equal in value to 100 pounds live hog) Aver- Year Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. age 1910 494 562 567 622 633 685 737 747 782 803 747 702 673 1911 725 711 702 637 502 473 495 488 473 427 360 333 527 1912 324 338 331 347 355 381 428 480 480 466 466 446 403 1913 421 459 510 540 516 442 460 524 545 560 565 551 508 1914 567 604 610 629 689 698 768 895 845 702 609 579 683 1915 542 467 453 494 526 622 686 622 566 514 480 464 536 1916 441 437 502 589 573 556 525 501 468 433 405 379 484 1917 374 391 454 492 469 526 579 554 569 596 577 562 512 1918 541 473 413 410 418 456 529 558 627 671 635 618 529 1919 678 697 692 698 623 539 552 598 499 425 437 467 575 1920 414 393 386 418 423 400 431 477 542 611 616 536 471 1921 612 667 706 774 716 680 736 869 859 778 778 640 735 1922 656 732 768 680 634 699 869 926 853 774 750 601 745 1923 572 592 550 543 517 553 604 623 633 543 543 456 561 1924 533 521 480 450 546 461 343 348 360 383 374 392 433 1925 375 407 591 701 638 651 826 883 901 877 828 824 709 1926 770 938 1,074 1,053 1,076 1,380 1,160 886 1,227 1,259 1,137 984 1,079 1927 1,011 921 900 865 740 582 593 589 666 573 530 511 707 1928 465 436 431 434 491 514 605 723 826 713 644 584 572 1929 557 572 661 678 678 741 731 747 741 727 683 649 680 1930 688 757 803 795 825 932 1,067 1,023 1,009 1,020 1,001 971 908 1931 1,005 905 925 864 674 602 792 815 720 600 480 470 738 1932 433 422 449 469 Source of data: Computations by the authors based upon averages of farm prices of barley and of hogs in Cali- fornia. Original price data for California from: U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Crops and Markets, monthly issues. During the two decades from 1910 until 1930 there has been an upward movement in the ratio. Barley prices have not kept up relatively with those of swine. This same situation has been true in the case of milk fat over the same period of time. 70 With reference to the future of barley prices Braun 71 states — ''Barley prices during the next five years (1931-1935) cannot be expected to average as high as they have during the ten years 1921- 1930, because production in Russia is likely to expand very rapidly until the pre-war level or even a higher level has been reached, pro- 70 Voorhies, Edwin C. Dairy products (series on California crops and prices). California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 514:1-188. 1931. 7i Braun, E. W. Barley (series on California crops and prices). California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 512:5. 1931. Bul. 523] Swine 107 vided government stability is maintained. . . . Should Russia again regain the barley trade with the United Kingdom that it possessed before the War, California barley prices would probably be materially lower because exports from California would probably be less. Should California exports decrease to such an extent that domestic supplies would be more than enough to meet the requirements for barley as feed, it is very probable that the San Francisco price would again go below barley prices in eastern terminal markets of the United States." Fig. 25. — Alfalfa-hay-hog ratio, California, 1915-1931. During the period for which data are available there has not been a definite trend in the relation of alfalfa hay and hog prices. Some students of the industry believe that this price relation will be a more important factor in the determining of plans for swine raisers in the future. (Data calculated by authors on the basis of prices paid producers for swine and alfalfa hay. Prices are published in U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets, monthly issues.) Alfalfa. — The relation between alfalfa and hog prices has been studied by comparing alfalfa-hay prices in the state with those of live hogs. Alfalfa-hay prices reflect those of green alfalfa and alfalfa pasture as accurately as any that can be obtained. During the seven- teen years 1915-1931 there has not been a definite trend in either direction in this relation (fig. 25). There has been a far greater year-to-year fluctuation during the latter part of the period than there was in the first part. This same situation applied to the barley- hog price relation. (See fig. 24.) Garbage. — Judging from inquiries made by the authors a large percentage of the hogs in California are fed on garbage or in plants feeding grain, bread and milk, and other salvage or by-products. In 108 University of California — Experiment Station the southern California counties it is probable that the bulk of the swine raised are so fed. 72 Largely on account of the rather mild climate throughout the year, garbage can be readily fed, provided arrangements can be made for a satisfactory method of disposal by various municipalities. The farmer raiser is not without interest in the garbage feeding of hogs because he is interested in such competi- tion as may occur and in many cases an outlet may be provided for properly immunized feeder hogs, since not all of the garbage feeding plants breed their stock. As to the economic possibilities of garbage utilization, it has been calculated 73 that if the garbage were utilized for swine production in a certain California city, the pork produced would be the equivalent of 1 per cent of the total food consumed. Since garbage varies materially in composition, prices would vary, even if it were purchased on the basis of the nutrients which it con- tains. No trend can be given of the price relation between garbage and hogs, but since the number of hogs so fed over a period of years has increased it would seem reasonable to assume that the business has been a fairly profitable one. The principal difference between garbage and grain-fed hcgs is not in the quality of the meat but in the yield or dressing percentage, which is slightly less in the garbage-fed hogs. Evvard states, "Gar- bage-fed hogs, dressing from 74.2 to 76.8 per cent will run about 3 per cent below grain-fed hogs. Garbage-fed hogs will shrink about 5 per cent in shipping. 74 Other Feeds. — Although California occupies a distinctly minor place in the hog industry of the United States, on account of the wide variety of crops and products there is probably no state in which swine are fed so many and such varied feeds. 75 It is not possible to obtain information on prices of many of these feeds because there are no established markets for such feeds. 72 On February 14, 1930, Dr. L. M. Hurt, County Livestock Inspector, wrote to the authors as follows: "The number of hogs in Los Angeles County during January of this year is very close to 49,275. These are largely kept on 39 garbage feeding ranches. However, we have 11 plants feeding grain, bread and milk, and other salvage or by-products." 73 Report of the College of Agriculture and the Agricultural Experiment Station of the University of California, 1916-17:69. 1917; and 1918-19:79. 1919. 74 Letter from Professor Evvard, Iowa State College, to Edwin C. Voorhies January 29, 1929. 7- r ' Hughes, E. H. Rice and rice by-products as feeds for fattening swine. California Agr. Exp. Sta, Bui. 420:1-24. 1927. Hughes, E. H. The feeding value of raisins and dairy by-products for growing and fattening swine. California Agr. Exp. Sta, Bui. 440:1-12. 1927. Hughes, E. H., and L. W. Feldmiller. Pork production in California, Cali- fornia Agr. Ext. Cir. 15:1-45. 1928. Bul. 523] Swine 109 STORAGE HOLDINGS The storage holdings of pork and pork products are taken into consideration by those who are purchasing hogs for slaughter. If large storage stocks are on hand, they will have to be added to the supplies sent into consumptive channels during the few months following. On the other hand, if storage stocks are low some of the products resulting from the slaughter of the few months following may be used for building up storage stocks to the usual level and 625 * 300\ Ik.Jti iiL »T If ' Fig. 26.— Pork in cold storage, United States, 1920-1931. One of the factors influencing the price of hogs is the amount of pork in storage. A definite seasonal variation can be discerned from the above. Note the low holdings in 1926, a year of high prices. (Data from table 66.) for a period these products will not pass into consumptive channels. For these reasons hog prices tend to be somewhat higher when storage stocks are low and vice versa. The variation in price would be much greater than at present were it not possible to store for later consump- tion the large slaughter taking place beginning in November (page 42). Since California imports the larger part of the pork products consumed within the state boundaries, it can readily be seen that total storage holdings in the United States would have a direct effect on live hog prices in the markets of this state. Although some pork is stored in the Pacific area, the amount is small as compared with that in the areas of surplus. 110 University of California — Experiment Station The holdings of pork usually reach a maximum in the spring or early summer (table 66) ; the reason can readily be seen by an inspec- tion of table 24. Slaughter of hogs is above normal for the five months beginning in November and the additional supplies are placed in storage to be used during the months of below-normal slaughter which usually begin in July. The removals from storage are usually heaviest during the fall months. The low point in holdings is almost always reached during the last two months of the year. Lard holdings are somewhat similar to those for pork, although the high point is usually reached during the summer months, while the low point in holdings almost always occurs around December 1. During 1926, a year of relatively high prices for swine, storage holdings were low. On the other hand 1923 was a year of low swine prices and high storage holdings. Large holdings indicate that the market will not absorb the supplies offered and holdings pile up in storage ; low holdings indicate that the market is absorbing a large part of the pork being produced. DOMESTIC TRADE IN PRODUCTS OF THE SWINE INDUSTRY With a concentration of the swine industry in the Corn Belt states, a large volume of trade in hog products has developed. Trade with California in live hogs and in the cured products of the industry loom large. Shipments of Pork and Lard into California. — Exact data on the shipments of pork and pork products into California over a series of years are not available. Through the kindness and cooperation of several of the packers it has been possible to make calculations on shipments for the year 1928. These data indicate that approximately 61,500,000 pounds of pork products were shipped into the state divided as follows : fresh meat, 1,537,500 pounds or 2.5 per cent of the total; cured meat, 52,275,000 pounds or 85 per cent; and lard, 7,687,500 pounds, or 12.5 per cent. That the year 1928 was a normal one was a view confirmed by students of the industry. It would thus appear that the demand for fresh pork is largely filled by animals slaughtered in the state (but not necessarily originating in Cali- fornia), while the demand for cured meat requires not only the product of slaughter in the state, but also large shipments of cured products. Lard requirements, like those of fresh pork, are more largely supplied within the state. If the average weight of hogs slaughtered in 1927 is taken as a standard, the number of live hogs Bul. 523' Swine 111 equivalent to the cured meat sent in would have totaled 453,875. In addition to the shipments of cured meats there are the canned and bottled products for which no estimates are available. This latter trade has been of growing' importance during the last few years, according to the observations of students of the industry. TABLE 66 Total Pork and Lard in Cold-Storage Warehouses and Meat-Packing Establishments, 1920-1932 (Millions of pounds, i.e., 000,000 omitted) Year Jan. 1 Feb. 1 Mar. 1 Apr. 1 May 1 June 1 July 1 Aug. 1 Sept. 1 Oct. 1 Nov. 1 Dec. 1 Pork 1920 598 777 903 969 961 959 982 933 807 616 473 427 1921 534 670 837 843 802 801 799 728 624 472 360 356 1922 415 485 547 591 594 636 707 683 620 483 395 419 1923 571 689 784 865 940 909 909 866 754 613 506 577 1924 709 801 878 932 908 891 873 811 711 565 408 428 1925 647 779 865 830 814 748 739 670 584 467 393 385 1926 472 556 610 627 604 574 602 643 623 514 406 388 1927 473 589 672 738 770 788 844 841 766 609 467 420 1928 523 656 886 998 961 919 915 819 682 515 433 462 1929 670 838 945 922 924 871 842 814 719 600 491 490 1930 621 687 786 753 712 675 679 651 551 447 357 412 1931 521 721 853 844 868 828 775 715 594 475 380 397 1932 563 674 812 Lard 1920 63 98 112 133 142 152 193 192 171 109 47 37 1921 59 84 118 129 152 182 204 194 150 85 49 42 1922 48 61 61 86 96 124 154 143 120 75 37 33 1923 49 56 59 67 85 85 124 144 116 73 35 35 1924 49 54 69 86 102 128 153 150 125 84 32 36 1925 61 113 152 150 151 138 146 146 115 72 37 34 1926 42 64 76 93 98 107 121 154 151 106 72 47 1927 50 70 77 92 100 112 147 179 167 118 72 46 1928 55 84 121 165 173 186 214 205 178 127 83 67 1929 85 141 174 179 185 183 200 203 180 154 100 69 1930 82 92 112 105 105 115 120 118 89 60 36 32 1931 51 63 75 78 95 103 116 122 96 69 40 35 1932 51 79 93 Sources of data: 1920-1929: U. S. Dept. Agr. Cold-storage holdings. Statis. Bul. 33:21, 24. 1931. 1930-1931 and current'data: in U. S. Dept.JAgr. ^ Crops and Markets, monthly issues., [ Shipments of Live Hogs into California. — During the five years 1926-1930, the average annual number of cars of live hogs shipped into California has been 8,798. With a conservative estimate of 90 hogs to the car, this would amount to an annual average of 791,821 — a number far larger than the average hog population of the state during this period. Since there was a decrease in swine numbers in the state over the decade 1920-1930, the increase in live-hog shipments was to be expected. 112 University of California — Experiment Station While information is neither complete nor strictly accurate with reference to the origin of live hogs shipped (table 68), certain sig- nificant changes with respect to origin have been occurring over the past decade. Indications point to a marked increase in numbers originating in the western states other than California, particularly in Colorado, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming. This movement seems to have come about as a result of a shift in the markets for the hogs of those states rather than as a result of an increase in supplies. There undoubtedly have been several causes operating to bring about this shift. Among them have been (1) the increase in the population TABLE 67 Live Hogs Shipped Into California, 1922-1931 Year Cars Number head Year Cars Number head 1922 5,914 7,908 7,735 7,736 7,127 472,000 711,000 696,000 686,000 646,000 1927 1928 7,286 9,039 9,727 10,810 11,704 655,000 1923 813,000 1924 1929 875,400 1925 1930 972,880 1926 1931 1,053,336 Sources of data: 1922-1929: W. E. Schneider, U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ., San Francisco, California. 1930-1931: George A. Scott, Regional Livestock Statistician, California Cooperative Crop Re- porting Service, Sacramento, California. Data reduced to cars on basis of 90 head per car. of California and (2) the decrease of hog numbers in this state. The hogs in the other western states are raised on a basic diet of alfalfa and dairy by-products plus concentrates such as are utilized in Cali- fornia. By far the larger part of the remainder required originate in the western tier of the Mississippi Valley states — Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, During two of the three years for which statistics are available a, large part of the total shipments originated in Texas. During 1931 several cars of hogs were shipped into the state from southwestern North Dakota through the efforts of cooperative livestock marketing associations in North Dakota and California. Statistics of arrival of live hogs at San Francisco and Los Angeles are not complete over a long period of years, but a comparison between the receipts indicates that California hogs constitute a far larger proportion of the receipts on the former market. During 1926, 1928, 1929, and 1930 California receipts made up from 33 to 51 per cent of the totals at San Francisco. The receipts at the Los Angeles Union Stockyards are typical of receipts on the Los Angeles market, and tor the six years 1925-1930 inclusive California furnished from 6 Bul. 523 Swine 113 to 20 per cent of the total receipts at the yards. On the former market the bulk of the out-of-state offerings originate in Nebraska, Idaho, and Utah, while on the latter market Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Colorado, Idaho, and New Mexico loom large. While shipments to other markets in the state are of importance with respect to numbers, information is not available as to shipments and origin. TABLE 68 Origin of Live Hogs Shipped Into California, 1922, 1926, 1929-1931 N imber of cars State 1922 1926 1929 1930 1931 Arizona 5 7 49 30 26 Colorado* 99 983 1,458 1,252 1,043 Idaho 27 425 566 450 632 44 96 339 52 807 165 1,347 143 2,072 Missouri* 260 Montana 24 2 2 7 5 Nebraska* 1,836 4,649 3,371 4,134 4,958 Nevada 12 14 30 84 35 New Mexico 515 35 245 221 119 Oklahoma 639 153 1,096 1,278 1,122 Oregon 3 11 2 8 2,554 6 175 75 1,161 18 1,303 54 Texas 794 Utah* 46 241 552 384 459 Wyoming 41 123 110 92 Other 17 2 16 47 25 Totals 5,914 7,127 9,727 10,810 11,704 * Shipments include some from markets such as Denver, Ogden, Salt Lake City, Omaha, Sioux City, St. Paul, Kansas City. Carriers do not segregate from those originating at country points. Sources of data: 1922, 1926, 1929: W. E. Schneider, U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ., San Francisco, California. 1930-1931: George A. Scott, Regional Livestock Statistician, California Cooperative Crop Re- porting Service, Sacramento, California. Data reduced to cars on basis of 90 head per car. The Agricultural Department of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce 76 has attempted to obtain information with reference to the origin of hogs shipped into Los Angeles from other western states (including Texas). This information (table 69) has been obtained from the packers in Los Angeles and it is believed to be accurate. An attempt was made to place a value on these animals. Wholesale prices were used in making the computations. Indications are from these data that the total value of live hogs shipped into the state in 1930 approximated $20,430,000. 76 Information furnished through the courtesy of Howard A. Miller, Agricul- tural Department, Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, Los Angeles, California. 114 University of California — Experiment Station Shipments of Hogs Out of California.. — Although California pro- duces a relatively small proportion of the pork and pork products there are nevertheless shipments of feeder and butcher hogs from the mainland to Hawaii. In many sections of the state, supplies of dairy by-products on hand plus limited amounts of concentrates make for advantages in the raising of feeder swine. Hawaii has a large Chinese population which demands large amounts of pork. Considerable amounts are imported and an appreciable number are raised on the Islands. In 1929 it was estimated that 6,400,000 pounds of pork were produced and consumed there. TABLE 69 Los Angeles Hog Purchases from the Western States, Including Texas, 1930 Origin Number of head Value Arizona 4,980 37,904 10,156 331 26,762 169,574 151,233 2,995 $ 104,580 795,984 213,276 6,951 562,002 Texas 3,561,054 Utah 3,175,893 62,895 Total 403,935 $8,482,635 Source of data: Howard A. Miller, Agricultural Department, Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, Los Angeles, California. By-products for hogs are available from certain of the agricultural enterprises of the Islands, and in the vicinity of Honolulu swine have access to the large quantities of garbage made available from the military posts and hotels. Comparatively little imported feed such as barley, corn, or mill feeds are used on account of their high cost. In 1929 the number of hogs imported into Hawaii totaled 6,758 while in 1980 the total was 5,077. In 1931 the number dropped to 3,073. 77 Probabilities are that most of these importations were from California. California producers interested in this trade must realize that there are certain matters of procedure which must be followed — such as double immunization before shipment and quarantine for three weeks at point of disembarkment. Such feeders as have been shipped to Hawaii weigh from 80 to 140 pounds. 78 77 Information furnished by Dr. L. E. Case, Territorial Veterinarian, Com- mission of Agriculture and Forestry, Honolulu, T. H. 78 This information relative to the shipments of feeder hogs to Hawaii has been obtained through the courtesy of F. G. Krauss, Director of Cooperative Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics, Territory of Hawaii. Bul. 523] Swine 115 Total Shipments of Hogs and Pork Into California. — Although it is somewhat hazardous to build up estimates on data which are in turn partially estimated, it is nevertheless of value to approximate in terms of live hogs the pork and pork products in live and dressed form sent over the state's borders. The average number of live hogs shipped in annually during the three years 1928-1930 was 887,000 head. If to these are added the 454,000 shipped as dressed products the total number would approximate 1,341,000 head. Without an estimate on the canned pork sent in it would be safe to assume that during the five years ending in 1930 the products from 1,250,000 hogs from outside the state were necessary annually to supply California's population with pork products. Approximately 1,700,000 hogs were slaughtered during each of the three years 1928-1930. If to this number is added 454,000, the approximate number shipped into the state in the form of pork products, the annual needs of the state will be found to be 2,154,000 hogs. It is highly improbable that the number slaughtered originating within the state has exceeded 800,000. It is conservatively estimated that California depends upon other states for from three-fifths to two-thirds of the pork products consumed. Market Receipts, United States. — The almost constant changes in the supply of hogs, not only from month to month but from year to year, have been among the most important causes of changes in hog prices. 79 The effect of supply on prices in California is rather clearly shown in the seasonal variations in the price and slaughter of hogs at both Los Angeles and San Francisco. In figure 27 there is a noticeable degree of negative correlation between the curve for price and that for receipts (the latter may be taken as an index of slaughter since shipments to Los Angeles and San Francisco are for immediate slaughter). When the supply of live hogs in the country is light, large quantities of storage pork products are placed on the market and a lesser variation in price results. 80 The heavy receipts in the late fall and winter and the small receipts in the early fall and spring in the country as a whole cause considerable changes in price, and these can be accounted for by production practices of the farmers in the Corn Belt where the large surplus producing areas are located. The costs of production both as to feed required to produce a given gain and 79 Haas, G. C, and Mordecai Ezekiel. Factors affecting the price of hogs. U. S. Dept. Agr. Dept. Bul. 1440:1-68. 1926. so Elliott, F. F. Adjusting hog production to market demand. Illinois Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 293:503-546. 1927. 116 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 70 Seasonal Variation in Keceipts, Slaughter, and Producers' Prices of Hogs, United States Month Receipts at public stockyards Inspected slaughter Producers' prices January 139 110 100 90 92 92 84 76 79 99 111 128 139 108 99 88 93 96 86 75 73 92 112 139 97 February 99 101 100 May 98 June 97 July 101 103 108 105 November 97 December 94 Sources of data: Calculations by authors based upon receipts, table 71; inspected slaughter, table 24; producers' prices, table 35. /4C Fig. 27. — Seasonal variation in receipts of swine at public stockyards and in prices paid producers, United States. Seasonal variation in receipts of swine is far greater than that in prices. Other factors such as the larger amounts of pork consumed during the cooler months of the year tend to prevent such a wide variation in seasonal price. (Data from table 70.) Bul. 523] Swine 117 as to breeding operations are much greater in the winter months than in the summer; therefore, farmers breed their pigs so that the major part of the farrowing will occur during the spring or summer. Plans are then made to market them when they are six to nine months old. Variations in market supply from day to day and from week to week result because all farmers do not interpret a given market situ- ation in the same way and because production and financial circum- stances vary. Temporary increases in price may cause some farmers to rush shipments to market to take advantage of the favorable prices but others will tend to hold on longer and feed to heavier weights. Records of receipts on sixty to seventy markets of the country have been kept over a considerable period of years. The monthly record of receipts shows a distinct seasonal movement. Two peaks in shipments can be seen from the information contained in table 71. The first and major peak in shipments occurs during December- January and represents the marketing of the previous spring farrow. A minor and second peak occurs during May and June and this is the result of the marketing of the previous fall farrow. Table 71 also shows that August and September are characteristically low in re- ceipts. These are the months of relatively high prices in the Middle West and in California. Seasonal Variation in Shipments of Hogs Into California. — Infor- mation on the seasonal movements of dressed products and lard into California is not available. For a limited number of years the ship- ments of live hogs into the state indicate that the seasonal movement is similar to that on the larger markets of the country. Owing to a lack of continuous data it is impossible to state whether there has been a change in the seasonal variation in the shipment of hogs into California or not. During the four years (1927-1930) sales of the California Farm Bureau Marketing Association indicate that pro- ducers in the San Joaquin Valley have taken advantage of the higher- than-average prices in July, August, September, and October by auctioning a large number during these months. During the months of lowest prices December and January, sales have been markedly less. Hog Markets. — On the basis of the 1928-1930 average of receipts, the following are the leading hog markets of the United States : 81 (1) Chicago, (2) East St. Louis, (3) Omaha, (4) St. Paul, (5) Sioux City, (6) Kansas City, (7) Pittsburgh, (8) Indianapolis, (9) St. Joseph, (10) Cincinnati. Except for Pittsburgh these markets are close to the supplies of hogs. si Calculations by authors on basis of information released by the U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. of Agr. Econ. 118 University of California — Experiment Station Los Angeles and San Francisco are by far the leading markets of California, although they are small when compared with those mentioned above. TABLE 71 Eeceipts of Hogs at all Public Stockyards, 1915-1931 Year Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total Thousands, i.e., 000 omitted 1915 3,959 3,449 3,199 2,487 2,768 2,874 2,368 2,024 1,966 2,457 3,728 4,934 36,213 1916 5,309 4,233 3,489 2,852 3,332 3,054 2,524 2,634 2,386 3,640 4,873 4,939 43,265 1917 5,084 3,933 3,369 2,961 3,264 2,791 2,563 1,853 1,615 2,676 3,941 3,992 38,042 1918 4,444 4,486 4,424 3,696 3,345 2,979 3,099 2,467 2,376 3,399 4,594 5,554 44,863 1919 5,855 4,412 3,643 3,648 3,831 3,773 2,974 2,095 2,397 3,121 3,740 4,980 44,469 1920 5,262 3,422 3,940 3,024 4,210 3,709 2,811 2,491 2,391 2,789 3,872 4,200 42,121 1921 4,700 4,009 3,386 3,229 3,328 3,579 2,727 2,656 2,655" 3,214 3,687 3,931 41,101 1922 4,278 3,613 3,411 3,067 3,737 3,776 2,980 3,037 3,062 3,682 4,421 5,004 44,068 1923 5,306 4,492 4,927 4,318 4,524 4,204 4,181 3,714 3,607 4,816 5,416 5,825 55,330 1924 6,253 5,335 4,833 4,374 4,321 4,296 4,091 3,197 3,216 3,990 4,904 6,604 55,414 1925 6,105 4,558 3,528 3,247 3,283 3,507 2,798 2,549 2,741 3,390 3,843 4,380 43,929 1926 4,304 3,372 3,579 3,135 3,037 3,143 2,854 2,804 2,819 3,261 3,554 3,910 39,772 1927 4,252 3,308 3,754 3,142 3,613 3,775 3,046 3,042 2,565 3,309 3,666 4,209 41,411 1928 5,306 5,267 4,639 3,483 3,723 3,548 2,924 2,523 2,600 3,666 4,075 4,773 46,527 1929 5,133 4,000 3,436 3,582 3,431 3,275 3,297 2,964 3,089 3,701 3,933 4,256 44,097 1930 4,720 3,781 3,294 3,255 3,293 3,215 2,918 2,617 2,799 3,441 3,439 4,002 40,774 1931 4,652 3,704 3,207 3,067 2,938 2,854 2,511 2,454 2,727 3,462 3,752 4,210 39,538 Percentage monthly receipts 1915 10.9 9.5 8.8 6.7 7.6 7.9 6.5 5.6 5.4 6.8 10.3 13.6 100 1916 12 3 9.8 8.1 6.6 7.7 7.0 5.8 6.1 5 5 8.4 11.3 11.4 100 1917 13.4 10.0 8.8 7.8 8.6 7.3 6 7 4 9 4 2 7.0 10.3 10.5 100 1918 9.9 10.0 9.9 8.2 7.4 6.6 6 9 5.5 5 3 7.6 10.2 12.4 100 1919 13.2 9.9 8.2 8.2 8.6 8.5 6.7 4.7 5.4 7.0 8.4 11.2 100 1920 12.5 8.1 9.3 7.2 10.0 8.8 6.7 5.9 5.7 6 6 9.2 10 100 1921 11.4 9.7 8.2 7.8 8.1 8.7 6.6 6.5 6.5 7.8 9.0 9.6 100 1922 9.7 8.2 7.7 6.9 8.5 8.6 6.8 6 9 6.9 8.3 10 11.3 100 1923 9.6 8.1 8.9 7.8 8 2 7.6 7.5 6.7 6.5 8.7 9.8 10.5 100 1924 11 3 9.6 8.7 7.9 7.8 7.7 7.4 5 8 5.8 7.2 8.8 11.9 100 1925 13.9 10.4 8.0 7.4 7.5 8.0 6.4 5.8 6.2 7.7 8.7 10.0 100 1926 10.8 8.5 9 7.9 7.6 7.9 7.2 7.0 7.1 8.2 8.9 9.8 100 1927 10 3 8.0 9.1 7.6 8.7 9.1 7.3 7.3 6.2 7.3 8.8 10.2 100 1928 114 11.3 10.0 7.5 8.0 7.6 6.3 5.4 5.6 7.9 8.7 10.2 100 1929 11.6 9.1 7.8 8.1 7.8 7.4 7.5 6.7 7.0 8.3 8.9 9.7 100 1930 11.5 9.3 8.1 8.0 8.1 7.9 7.2 6.4 6 9 8.4 8.4 9.8 100 1931 11.8 9 4 8.1 7.8 7.4 72 6 3 6.2 6 9 8.8 9 5 10 6 100 Sources of data: Receipts, 1915-1928: U. S. Dept. Agr. Hogs: receipts at all public stockyards. Yearbook 1928:926. 1929. Current data from U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets, monthly issues. Percentage monthly receipts— calculations by authors. Bul. 523] Swine 119 Freight Rates. — California producers of hogs now enjoy one advan- tage compared with the middle western or mountain states in swine production — namely, an advantage in the costs of shipping hogs to market. This state is on an import basis, and the producer obtains a higher net price for those animals sold in California than does the TABLE 72 Freight Eates* per Car on Hogs from Mid-Western Points to San Francisco and Los Angeles, 1920-1932 To Los Angeles and San Francisco Los Angeles San Francisco From July 1, 1920- June 1, 1922 June 1, 1922- Jan. 1, 1931 March 26, 1932 March 26, 1932 Lincoln, Neb $250.00 249.50 249.50 266.50 $298.50 $197 00 197.00 197.00 213 00 $239.00 $116 50 98 50 99.50 113.50 $129.50 $114 50 Fort Worth, Tex 119 50 Oklahoma City, Okla 116 00 117.50 Chicago, 111 $135 50 * Rates are for standard 36 ft. 6 in. cars, single decks. According to railroad officials stockmen usually load into a single deck car 110 hogs weighing 150 pounds, or 100 hogs weighing 200 pounds, or 85 hogs weighing 250 pounds. Source of data: General Freight Dept., Southern Pacific Company, San Francisco, California. hog raiser in the Middle West. Unlike the lamb producer of the state, the hog raiser is interested in high freight rates between the Middle West and California. The difference in freight rates (table 72) partially shows the reason for hog shipments from points west of the Missouri River rather than east of it. FOREIGN TRADE IN HOGS AND HOG PRODUCTS The export of pork and pork products is a factor affecting prices in the country at large, and, since there is a high degree of correlation between the prices in the Middle West and in California, it should be considered even though this state has little or no share in the export trade. California is an importing state, obtaining about three- fifths of the pork consumed from other parts of the United States, and any change in prices in the central hog markets coming as a result of world conditions will be felt here also. The principal agricultural exports of the United States at the present time are cotton, grains, meats, and tobacco in the order named. Of the meat exports, pork and its products constitute by far the largest amount and make this country the largest exporter of hog products in the world. The trend of pork exports has corre- sponded to the trend of all agricultural products but the export 120 University of California— Experiment Station movement over periods of a few years has shown certain distinctive characteristics. Heavy exports for a few years are followed by lighter exports for a similar time in reasonable consequence of the cycles of swine production. A marked inverse relation has existed between prices of hogs in this country and the exports of pork products (fig. 28). In years when receipts at the principal markets are large resulting in low prices, exports are usually heavy. This brings out the significance of the foreign markets as 'shock absorbers' for price fluctuations in this country. 82 2fi00 >J l" / A A / % \l\ ♦5 Sf^°-" j y \ .5 / i / i i i i v * \ i i v \< \ 1 \l V s /K K s\ KjT S ** V / \ J x - v V y v - .'" V *<,*.'-+ .iiii IIII IIII iiii , , , I iiii iiii IIII ■ i * ' I I ^ Fio 11 O £» co i< «o »o ■<*< ^ ■* ■* « s t- 00 OS O r^ CO CO £ t^ SO * rt CO >rt w n e ifl ■* O CD N h Oi M N 19 1C N Sco co co co o> t~. -h 1< — < c<5 Tf ^H O © 1-1 ** >o O CO «o «o ^ ® N Ol H M M M r- r- co •»*< os N US N f f ■§2 •I Si O CO CO ■*< CO 1< -rji iC »o •«*< 1* CO CO 1* CO >3 © -h CM CO "* Os Os Os Os OS io co i-» oo os OS Os Os Os Os h tN W N N N "S CO f~ 00 OS 1 9 91 3 ^ q a 01 ■) 0/ 03 s 00 3 T3 ►"5 4) *J jfj a P 03 7. XI s a S P 0> 3 A > "c £ a> T3 gg E * s u o o £ a fl t( a S c u« M o o B >, C U< a c £ O U £ 3 >> Q, -C s Q C o ad a 13 £ £ o o | 'c. Q 1 :/: o U & * 1 § •333 122 University of California — Experiment Station per cent of the exports. Germany absorbs about 25 per cent of the exports. The West Indies (principally Cuba), Mexico, the Nether- lands, and Italy are other important consumers of American lard (table 74). About 70 per cent of the bacon, hams, and shoulders are shipped to the United Kingdom, but a considerable part of these are redistributed to the markets of continental Europe (tables 75 and 76). Canada and Newfoundland take 33 per cent of the pickled pork exports, and Cuba and the other West Indies about 25 per cent (table 77). The United Kingdom is the leading foreign market for fresh pork (table 78). As early as 1861 a large part of the hog carcasses packed at Chicago were cut especially for the London and Liverpool markets. With the development of the western Corn Belt in the early seventies the foreign trade in hog products assumed proportions which placed the United States among the leaders as an exporter of these products. Production expanded rapidly and exports continued to increase until the average for the years 1896-1900 amounted to 1,469,000,000 pounds. 83 Prom 1910 until the opening of the World War there was a downward trend and the average for the pre-war period 1910-1914 was 914,000,000 pounds. The decrease was due in part to the competi- tion resulting from increased pork production in the deficiency countries of Europe and in the surplus-producing countries, especially Canada and Denmark. In the immediate post-war period exports increased as a result of the abnormal demands from the countries disrupted by the War and the average of domestic exports for the period 1920-1924 was 1,706,000,000 pounds. Since that period the gradual downward trend has been resumed as a result of increased production in importing countries and of the reappearance in the world markets of pork from Denmark, Canada, the Netherlands, the Irish Free State, Sweden, Esthonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Czecho- slovakia. The average exports for the years 1926-1930 was 1,097,- 000,000 pounds. During the years 1909-1913 the United States contributed 64 per cent of the total world exports of pork and pork products, Denmark 19 per cent, and the Netherlands 9 per cent, but during 1928 comparative figures were 46 per cent, 27 per cent, and 12 per cent respectively. 84 Statistics for the imports of bacon and hams into the United Kingdom, the largest foreign market, show 83 Gries, Caroline G. Foreign trade of the United States. Hogs, pork, and pork products. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Report. Foreign Series No. 44:1-65. November 27, 1929. (M : meo.) 84"VVrenn, J. E. International trade in meats and animal fats. U. S. Dept. Com. Trade Promotion Series 26:1-321. 1925. Bitl. 523 Swine 123 TABLE 74 Exports of Lard from the United States, 1912-13, 1924-25 to 1930-31 (Thousands of pounds, i.e., 000 omitted) Destination 1912-13 1924-25 1925-26 1926-27 1927-28 1928-29 1929-30 1930-31 Belgium 18,762 1,812 160,862 6,106 43,384 168,380 21,178 22,538 4,692 251,983 41,145 50,369 223,011 30,137 14,092 3,748 208,541 13,891 41,479 218,146 18,794 12,718 3,076 174,621 7,642 46,071 222,086 23,162 14,541 2,487 176,771 20,384 35,784 233,564 35,657 14,841 2,381 195,695 29,200 36,992 229,899 46,689 18.700 2,403 180,074 19,865 48,584 240,147 53,628 9,691 Denmark Germany 962 107,317 Italv 6,064 Netherlands United Kingdom.. Other Europe 26,478 256,330 13,485 Total Europe 420,484 623,875 518,691 489,376 519,188 555,697 563,401 420,329 Canada 11,080 46,526 40,935 9,811 86,480 72,569 12,361 77,377 87,016 14,888 79,599 91,949 16,172 78,469 102,569 17,864 84,316 123,037 15,112 79,860 128,787 12,224 Cuba 49,003 Other countries.... 104,091 Total 519,025 792,735 695,445 675,812 716,398 780,914 787,160 585,649 Sources of data: 1912-13, 1924-25 to 1928-29: Compiled from U. S. Dept. Com. Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, annual issues. 1929-30, 1930-31: U. S. Dept. Com. Monthly Summary of Foreign Commerce of the United States, January and June issues. TABLE 75 Exports of Bacon from the United States, 1912-13, 1924-25 to 1930-31 (Thousands of pounds, i.e., 000 omitted) Destination 1912-13 1924-25 1925-26 1926-27 1927-28 1928-29 1929-30 1930-31 9,141 2,097 3,434 11,781 7,639 4,054 138,133 7,992 6,402 3,250 25,972 7,357 7,995 8,775 128,605 13,976 5,673 619 14,043 3,264 6,379 7,050 106,909 12,880 3,415 870 6,818 1,439 2,502 2,422 68,220 12,875 1,787 473 •9,838 8,113 632 3,244 50,127 25,340 2,146 358 5,982 15,106 1,198 2,742 53,364 22,339 4,699 697 8,468 8,289 2,959 2,642 57,443 21,192 374 France Germany 1,151 Italy 764 Netherlands 61 Norway 704 United Kingdom.. Other Europe 23,984 Total Europe 184,271 202,332 156,817 98,561 99,554 103,235 106,389 * Canada 6,868 6,658 3,197 2,902 27,330 3,697 4,780 22,085 2,471 4,584 21,070 3,328 5,173 19,107 3,133 5,769 16,698 3,546 5,617 15,957 3,707 2 335 Cuba 12,398 8,357 Other countries Total 200,994 236,263 186,153 127,543 126,967 129,248 131,670 50,128t * "Other Europe" included in "Other Countries"; total Europe was not possible to calculate from data available. t Does not include 2,284,288 pounds of Cumberland sides (shoulder and side, ham off). Sources of data: 1912-13, 1924-25 to 1928-29: Compiled from U. S. Dept. Com. Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, annual issues. 1929-30, 1930-31: U. S. Dept. Com. Monthly Summary of Foreign Commerce of the United States, June issue. 124 University of California — Experiment Station that in 1913, 45 per cent came from the United States and 40 per cent from Denmark, compared with 13 per cent and 55 per cent respectively in 1928. Lard is the outstanding exception to the decline in the exports of hog products. The average domestic exports of lard and neutral lard during 1926-1930 amounted to 751,200,000 pounds, which was 19 per cent greater than the average of 1896-1900 when 632,054,000 TABLE 76 Exports of Hams and Shoulders from the United States, 1912-13, 1924-25 to 1930-31 (Thousands of pounds, i.e., 000 omitted) Destination 1912-13 1924-25 1925-26 1926-27 1927-28 1928-29 1929-30 1930-31 5,822 316 131 134,017 560 13,400 1,113 2,223 241,150 3,040 3,929 312 747 190,136 1,468 451 107 208 124,391 1,109 660 87 184 104,020 1,575 1,003 53 199 100,959 1,772 2,136 366 14 103,169 785 1,464 Netherlands United Kingdom.. Other Europe 81,259 Total Europe 140,846 260,926 196,592 126,266 106,526 103,986 106,470 * 6,785 6,002 782 1,029 4,101 18,174 15,743 1,098 861 5,412 6,099 10,553 1,012 818 4,941 4,803 6,548 716 655 4,661 6,134 8,167 728 976 5,288 6,309 7,435 695 884 6,087 11,370 6,307 692 1,036 5,707 5,895 Cuba 4,272 505 Panama 868 Other countries 5,404 Total 159,545 292,214 220,015 143,649 127,819 125,396 131,582 99,667f * "Other Europe" included in "Other countries"; total Europe was not possible to calculate from data available. t Does not include 82,007 pounds of Wilshire sides (side with ham and shoulder). Sources of data: 1912-13, 1924-25 to 1928-29: Compiled from U. S. Dept. Com. Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, annual issues. 1929-30, 1930-31: U. S. Dept. Com. Monthly Summary of Foreign Commerce of the United States, June issue. pounds were exported, and an increase of 48 per cent over the 1910- 1914 average, when 509,212,000 pounds were marketed abroad. Although the European hog cannot compete with the corn-fed hog of the United States as a producer of lard, exports are meeting with increasing competition from vegetable fats and oils in European markets. The rapid increase in hog production in recent years in Germany, one of the principal foreign lard markets, has probably been an unfavorable factor affecting the demand for lard in Europe. Imports of Hog Products. — Imports of hog products are negligible, and though the trend has been upward they seldom amount to 2 per cent of the exports and are usually much less. In terms of domestic production imports are usually less than 0.3 per cent. The fiscal year Bul. 523 Swine 125 TABLE 77 Exports of Pickled Pork from the United States, 1912-13, 1924-25 to 1930-31 (Thousands of pounds, i.e., 000 omitted) Destination 1912-13 1924-25 1925-26 1926-27 1927-28 1928-29 1929-30 1930-31 Belgium 458 261 14,620 1,881 218 1,814 3,281 99 291 1,469 2,972 1,138 115 394 3,857 435 71 722 5,184 1,039 213 854 7,608 1,573 383 799 5,094 1,139 ♦ Norway * United Kingdom.. Other Europe 2,945 781 Total Europe 17,220 5,422 5,870 4,801 7,016 10,248 7,415 3,725 Canada 9,437 1,438 5,673 2,626 9,141 8,214 5,392 334 4,206 1,014 3,909 6,459 7,889 240 3,580 972 5,935 4,640 5,800 332 3,532 917 7,760 4,820 7,056 398 3,734 1,055 7,626 4,765 8,596 240 4,530 838 10,550 4,904 11,211 395 4,792 719 9,798 5,503 4,356 Panama t Newfoundland and Labrador... 3,681 544 Cuba 4,862 Other countries 3,950 Total 53,749 26,726 29,126 27,962 31,650 39,906 39,833 21,118 * Included in "Other Europe." t Included in "Other countries." Sources of data: 1912-13, 1924-25 to 1928-29 : Compiled from U. S. Dept. Com. Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, annual issues. 1929-30, 1930-31: U. S. Dept. Com. Monthly Summary of Foreign Commerce of the United States, June issue. TABLE 78 Exports of Fresh Pork from the United States, 1912-13, 1924-25 to 1930-31 (Thousands of pounds, i.e., 000 omitted) Destination 1912-13 1924-25 1925-26 1926-27 1927-28 1928-29 1929-30 1930-31 France 758 214 2,275 19,016 528 37 10,686 937 41 7,128 241 27 761 6,418 214 29 2,183 4,547 303 124 2,289 10,527 1,272 Italy 198 United Kingdom.. Other Europe 8,098 * Total Europe 758 22,033 11,660 7,410 7,420 7,062 14,212 * Canada 580 99 1,021 1,754 2,045 1,771 1,194 2,138 876 590 1,763 1,117 796 1,557 1,287 582 1,732 1,265 1,091 1,618 1,850 410 Cuba 424 Other countries 1,963 Total 2,458 27,603 15,868 10,880 11,060 10,641 18,771 11,093 * "Other Europe" included in "Other countries"; total Europe was not possible to calculate from data available. Sources of data: 1912-13, 1924-25 to 1928-29: Compiled from U. S. Dept. Com. Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, annual issues. 1929-30, 1930-31: U. S. Dept. Com. Monthly Summary of Foreign Commerce of the United States, June issue. 126 University of California — Experiment Station ending June 30, 1927, a period of comparatively high hog prices, marked the peak of imports in recent years when 21,000,348 pounds of pork, made up principally of fresh pork from Canada, were im- ported. Some of the northern border states have a deficiency of pork (fig. 2) and Canadian exports can be shipped to these places because of a favorable freight differential. In view of the fact that the United States produces pork in excess of domestic demand, imports will continue to be small. Exports and Imports of Live Hogs. — Exports of live hogs are usually small, the major part going to Cuba and Mexico. In 1921 exports amounting to 103,192 head were sent out but since it is far easier to dispose of surplus pork production in the form of pork products, the number is ordinarily less. Imports of live hogs are negligible although in recent years the trend has been upward. During the fiscal year 1927, imports of 202,328 head valued at over $4,000,000 were brought mainly from Canada for slaughter purposes. It is only in such periods of high prices that imports of hogs are of any consequence. WORLD SITUATION IN HOGS AND HOG PRODUCTS Estimates 85 made of the average number of hogs in the world for countries having 150,000 head or more during 1921-1925 and 1926- 1930 indicate an increase of from 5 to 6 per cent in the latter period when compared with the former. The estimated average for 1921- 1925 was 256,000,000 head and for 1926-1930 it was 270,000,000. All continents showed an estimated increase except North America. The number decreased in North and Central America about 6 per cent, or 4,500,000 head. In actual numbers Europe (exclusive of Russia) showed the greatest increase, almost 9,000,000, or 14 per cent. South America followed with an increase of 6,600,000, or 23 per cent. Appreciable increases were recorded for the estimated number in Asia and Oceania. Indications since 1931 point to slightly lessened num- bers abroad but increased numbers in the United States during 1931. During the latter year Europe seems to have been at a high point in numbers. This situation was reflected in the decreased exports from the United States in 1931. Throughout the world there are three main types of agriculture in which hog raising is important (fig. 29). The first of these occurs where the growing of corn becomes most profitable on account of ss U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Foreign Crops and Markets 23:1016- 1049. 1931. Bul. 523 Swine 127 the marketing' of the greater portion of the crop through hogs. In the three corn belts of the world, namely, central United States, the La Plata region of South America (including southern Brazil), and the Danube Basin of southeastern Europe the lard-type hogs are abundant. The second type occurs where hogs may economically utilize dairy by-products such as skim milk, buttermilk, and whey. These areas are the northwest central part of the United States, Canada, the Irish Free State, Denmark, the Netherlands, south Sweden, and Latvia, and are important for the production of the lean bacon-type Fig. 29. — Swine in the world, 1928. Swine are concentrated in three principal areas of the world — the middle section of the United States, western Europe, and southeastern Asia. The swine situation in western Europe influences the exports from the United States, which affect prices in the Middle West. These influences in turn are reflected in prices in California. (Data compiled by authors from the International Institute of Agriculture, Eome, Italy, annual reports.) hog. The third type of agriculture involving the raising of hogs is associated with potato growing:, as in Germany and Poland. On account of the importance and influence of the foreign situation on the prices of pork products in the United States, and in turn the reflection of this influence on California prices, a summary of conditions in some of the more important countries follows. Canada. — Although during the last few years the swine numbers have decreased, since the War the general trend has been upward, and the average for the period 1926-1930 of 4,387,000 head was 31 per cent greater than that for the five-year average of 3,350,000 preceding the War. Slaughter data further bring out this trend, 128 University of California — Experiment Station the average for 1926-1930 being 5,695,000 head as compared with a pre-war average of 4,280,000, or an increase of 31 per cent. 86 The Canadian farmer's pork production is of secondary impor- tance, the swine enterprise being complementary to the dairy and small grain enterprises. Nevertheless the product has been stan- dardized to conform with the demands of the world 's largest consumer of exportable food supplies, namely, the United Kingdom, and for this reason Canadian pork products command a premium over those from the United States on the British market. 87 Since 1925 Canadian exports of bacon and hams, the principal pork products exported, have been decreasing, possibly as a result of the increased competition from Danish products. Apparently production has been adjusted to meet the domestic demand. Canada is in a position to increase pork production should world conditions as reflected in prices be favorable because of the production of large quantities of grain that can be marketed as pork if a favorable ratio exists between hog and feed prices. Denmark. — Since the War the trend in hog production has been distinctly upward in Denmark, the average number during 1927-1931 being 4,222,200 or 56 per cent greater than the 1909-1913 average of 2,715,000, and an increase of 82 per cent over the 1921-1925 average of 2,314,000 head. Numbers slaughtered in export plants further indicate the rapid increase in pork production. The average slaughter in export plants for the five-year pre-war period was 2,503,000 head, while that for 1926-1930 was 5,021,000 head, or an increase of almost 101 per cent. The stimuli for this rapid increase have been the favorable market in the United Kingdom, which has been willing to pay a premium for the high-quality Danish pork products, particularly bacon, and the successful breeding and feeding methods that have been worked out by those concerned with the indus- try. The growth of the export trade in bacon with the United King- dom is shown by the comparison of the average British imports from Denmark for the years 1909-1913 of 232,527,000 pounds 88 with so TJ. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Foreign Crops and Markets 23:1016- 1049. 1931. 87 Sorensen, S. Nordamerika's flaeskindustri. [The bacon industry of North America.] Saertryk of Landbrugsraadets Meddelelser. [Special report published by The Agricultural Council.] p. 1-40. Copenhagen, Denmark. 1927. ss 1909-1913 : U. S. Dept. Agr.. Bur. Agr. Econ. Foreign Crops and Markets 19:497. 1929. 1926-1929: U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Hogs and pork. Foreign Series, Hogs and Pork, No. 6:1-23. May 9, 1930. (Mimeo.) 1930-1931: Landbrugsraadet. Englands Indforsel of Smor, JEg, Bacon, og Skinker. [Eng- land's imports of butter, eggs, bacon, and ham.] Landbrugsraadets Meddelelser [The Agricultural Council's Announcements] 1932:47. Copenhagen, Denmark. 1932. Bul.523] Swine 129 that of the five-year period 1927-1931, when 647,182,000 pounds came from Denmark, an increase of 178 per cent. Hogs which do not conform to the British export standard are slaughtered for home consumption or exported to certain countries where a market for them has been developed, as in Czechoslovakia. Since the year 1887, when Germany, Denmark's principal market at that time, prohibited the importation of live and dressed hogs, hog production in Denmark has been devoted entirely to meeting the British standard. Each year a committee of examiners appointed by the cooperative slaughter plants in Denmark meets with the prin- cipal English importers to discuss how well the Danish Wiltshire cut sides and other pork products have met the consumers' requirements and to recommend any changes that may help to satisfy the British trade still better. This has resulted in a product that best suits the demand and that receives a premium over imports from the United States. The trade not only demands firm bacon well streaked with lean but also one of mild cure. The London market is only twenty- four hours from the producing centers of Denmark ; while it takes fourteen days for American pork products to reach British markets, hence it is almost impossible for American bacon to compete w r ith the Danish in mildness of cure. With respect to the British trade prefer- ences, the question often arises as to whether or not it would pay American farmers to breed a type of hog for the export trade thereby meeting the standards set by the Danish and Canadian exporters. However, the foreign demand is small in comparison with the domestic so that the foreign markets act more or less as ' shock absorbers' for domestic price fluctuations. Then too, the corn rations are best suited to the lard type of hog. Present practices, therefore, appear to be justified. A great deal has been said about the advantage accruing to Den- mark because of its geographic location, short haul, and ability to give mild cure, but when one stops to consider the amount of necessary feedstuff's imported for hog feeding and the distance these must be hauled (from the Western Hemisphere), it is probable that the transportation costs of the feedstuff's offset the freight on finished products from the United States. The Netherlands. — Yearly statistics are not available on the number of hogs in the Netherlands during the last ten years. An unofficial estimate of September 1, 1931, gives the hog population as 2,500,000, or an increase of 81 per cent over the pre-war average of 1,305,000. Hog numbers vary with the conditions of the feed market, 130 University of California — Experiment Station and when the hog-feed ratio becomes unfavorable, slaughter proceeds at a rapid rate. The Netherlands is a competitor of the United States both in the lard and bacon trades. Lard exports during 1930 amounted to 39,662,000 pounds, going principally to Belgium, Czechoslovakia, and Germany. France has obtained considerable quantities of lard from the Netherlands in certain years, as in 1927, when one-third of the 75,117,000 pounds exported went there. Its nearness to the United Kingdom has made it possible in the past to export large quantities of fresh pork to British markets, but since the British embargo on Continental fresh pork went into effect in June, 1926, such exports have been largely confined to France, Germany, and Belgium. Increas- ing quantities of bacon and other prepared pork products have been going to the United Kingdom; exports of these to the British markets average 103,084,800 pounds for the five years 1927-1931 as compared with the pre-war average (1909-1913) of 6,694,000 pounds. 89 United Kingdom. — The average number of hogs in the United Kingdom during 1927-1931 was 3,013,000 indicating a slight upward trend compared with the pre-war average. Since an embargo on Continental fresh pork went into effect in 1926 more attention has been paid to supplying the domestic demand for it than previously and some stimulation of production has come about. The raising of hogs is a secondary industry in the United Kingdom and will prob- ably continue to be so. The significance of the United Kingdom in the world pork trade is as an importer, not a producer, and therefore it is well to give consideration to some of the import statistics. Imports, particularly of bacon and lard, have been increasing rapidly since the War. Total imports of pork products including lard averaged 1,428,375,000 pounds during 1927-1930 compared with a 1909-1913 average of 860,297,000 pounds, or an increase of 66 per cent. Bacon constituted 70 per cent of the total imports during 1927-1930, lard 20 per cent, hams 8 per cent, and fresh and frozen pork the remaining 2 per cent. During 1909-1913 the United States contributed about 39 per cent of the bacon imports, Denmark 45 per cent, the Netherlands 2 per cent, and other countries 14 per cent, while during 1927-1930 the figures were 7 per cent, 62 per cent, 10 per cent, and 21 per cent respectively. The United States is still the principal source of foreign lard and supplies about 85 per cent of the « 9 Landbrugsraadet. Holland 's ind- og udf orsel of levende Dry og Kod i 1930. [Holland's imports and exports of animals and meat in 1930.] Landbrugsraadets Meddelelser [The Agricultural Council's Announcements] 1930:142. Copenhagen, Denmark. 1930. Bul. 523J Swine 131 total imports, the same percentage as during 1909-1913. Most of the imported hams also come from the United States, but the American share in this trade has decreased somewhat. Irish Free State. — The significance of the Irish Free State as a factor in the British pork trade has been increased since the embargo on fresh pork from the Continent in 1926. Fresh pork and bacon are the principal exports to the United Kingdom. Hog numbers have been increasing and during 1927-1931 the average was 1,116,000, which is about 7 per cent larger than for 1909-1913. Germany. — Hog producers in Germany have been making con- siderable effort to bring back their production to the pre-war level. Slaughter has been going on at a rapid pace in recent years and has resulted in increased competition for pork from the United States both in Germany and in the United Kingdom. 90 Statistics for December 1, 1931, give hog numbers as 23,800,000, which exceeds the 1909-1913 average of 22,533,000 head. The average for 1928-1932 of 22,022,800 was 40 per cent greater than that for the years 1921- 1925 of 15,770,000. The effects of the attempts to obtain pre-war status in the hog industry have been felt in European markets during several periods when slaughter was heavy there, as in the latter part of 1927 and the first half of 1928. Unfavorable feed conditions in Germany, as well as Europe in general, usually result in heavy kill- ings, thereby increasing the supply of pork products. It is during such periods that American pork supplies must face the heaviest competition in Germany. Since Germany is one of the largest foreign consumers of American lard, changes in production are of particular importance to hog producers in the United States. Imports of pork products during 1927-1931 average 261,139,000 pounds compared with the 1909-1913 average of 227,954,000 pounds, or an increase of 15 per cent. Lard constituted 75 per cent of the total imports, fresh pork 19 per cent, and bacon the major portion of the remaining 6 per cent. Though the United States is still the principal source of foreign lard, Denmark has been supplying an increasing amount with the result that American lard during 1927- 1931 made up 81 per cent of the imports compared with 94 per cent during 1909-1913. Probably one of the largest factors affecting the American lard trade with Germany, in addition to the increased production in Germany and the Danish imports, has been the increas- ing use of lard substitutes, particularly vegetable oils. 30 La.ndbrugsra.adet. Tysklands husdyrbestand. [Germany's livestock.] Land- brugsraadets Meddelelser [The Agricultural Council's Announcements] 1931:308. Copenhagen, Denmark. 1931. 132 University of California — Experiment Station Poland. — Along with Russia, Lithuania, Jugoslavia, and Czecho- slovakia, Poland has sent representatives to the United States to study our American production methods and efforts are being made to develop Polish pork supplies quickly. Recently several large slaughter houses have been built, including two state plants, for exporting ham and bacon to England as well as bacon and pork for Vienna, There has been some growth in marketing organization both at home and in foreign markets for handling Polish products and for standard- izing along the lines required by the consuming areas. 91 An export trade in live hogs, principally with Austria and Czechoslovakia, has been developed, and exports in 1928 amounted to 1,279,000 head. Hogs numbered 6,018,000 head in 1930, which was 9 per cent greater than the average for 1909-1913 and 14 per cent more than the average of 5,287,000 during 1921-1925. France and Belgium. — The trend in hog numbers has been upward in both France and Belgium but the average for the pre-war period 1909-1913 has not been reached in either country. The average for the years 1926-1930 was 1,159,000 for Belgium and 5,942,000 for France, while the averages for the period 1909-1913 were 1,533,000 and 7,529,000 respectively. Both countries are importers of pork products from the United States and increases in domestic production naturally affect the demand for American products, particularly in Belgium. Other Countries. — Russia had been increasing hog production up until 1930 when heavy slaughter of hogs by peasants, as a protest against entering the collective farms, took place. Should Russia again become a source of cheap grain for European countries she may then play a very important part in the trend and variation in hog produc- tion in European countries. In recent years Russia and the Baltic states have been expanding their exports to the United Kingdom and also have made efforts to produce bacon conforming to the consumer demands of the British markets. A definite effort is being made in New Zealand to develop the hog industry to complement the dairy industry. The agricultural press has carried on considerable propaganda with the result that produc- tion has increased rapidly since the War. Conditions are favorable to increased production and New Zealand will probably become a more important factor in the world pork trade in the future. The large production of corn in Argentina offers an opportunity for increased hog numbers. The prevalence of disease in swine herds "i Rostafinski, Jan. Elevage des animaux domestiques en Polognc. [The rearing of domestic, animals in Poland.] 45 p. Warsaw, Poland. 1929. Bul. 523] Swine 133 has been a factor in keeping down production. Factors which are leading" to the development of the industry are : the introduction of better types of hogs, the increase in the vaccination of pigs against hog cholera, the growth of the British market for fresh and frozen pork, and the fact that alfalfa or other legumes which can be fed to hogs are now being planted on worn-out corn and flax land. At present Argentina plays an important indirect part in the world pork situation as a source of cheap feed for European hog breeders, the exports of corn being a large factor in the increased hog production of Europe. SOURCES OF CURRENT INFORMATION ON THE SWINE INDUSTRY It is believed that the widest possible knowledge of conditions will assist the swine industry in future developments along sane and conservative lines. The attempt has been made in this publication to give possible sources of information which will be of interest and use to swine raisers. It is hoped that farmers and students of the industry will endeavor to keep the data up-to-date. No attempt has been made in the following list to give even a partial bibliography of the industry. Only those publications have been listed which are readily obtainable. Crops and Markets, published monthly by the United States De- partment of Agriculture, contains current statistics covering many phases of the swine industry. The information consists chiefly of data on consumption of pork and lard, market receipts of hogs, slaughter, storage of pork and lard, etc., together with price data. Corn-hog ratios are published monthly. From time to time estimates of swine numbers in various states and in the country are made. This publica- tion should be in the hands of everyone interested in the industry. Crops and Markets can be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C, at the subscription rate of 60 cents a year. The Agricultural Situation, issued monthly, contains a concise statistical summary on the receipts of hogs at primary markets, the trend of exports of pork and lard, hog slaughter, and the cold storage situation. A brief summary of the swine situation is published regu- larly. The subscription price is 25 cents a year. Applications should be made to the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. World Hog and Pork Prospects, published monthly by the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics, 134 University of California — Experiment Station contains information on the foreign swine situation. This can be obtained free from the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Washington, D. C. Foreign Crops and Markets, issued weekly by the Foreign Agri- cultural Service of the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics, contains current information on exports from the United States, prices in foreign countries, etc. Two or three issues yearly are devoted almost in their entirety to the swine situation abroad. At other times during the year special articles on developments in foreign countries appear. This publication can be obtained from the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Washington, D. C. Foreign Notes on Meats, Fats, Oils, and Livestock, published weekly by the Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C, contains items on the livestock situation in various sections of the world. Those interested can obtain this publication by applying to the United States Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C. The Agricultural Outlook for California, issued annually by the College of Agriculture of the University of California, contains a brief but fairly complete summarization of both national and local condi- tions surrounding the industry. This publication can be obtained free by applying to the local headquarters of the Agricultural Extension Service or to the College of Agriculture, Berkeley, California. The Daily Livestock Report, issued daily except Saturday and Sunday by the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics at Los Angeles and San Francisco, contains quotations on swine (and other classes of livestock) at Los Angeles, San Francisco, and other markets of importance to the California swine raiser. These daily reports are distributed free by mail upon request to the office of the Bureau in San Francisco. The Weekly Livestock Market Summary contains a resume of the quotations of each week and statistical information on the origin of the various classes of livestock received during the week. This sum- mary is issued at both Los Angeles and San Francisco and may be obtained from the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics offices in these cities. The Semi-Weekly Review of Meat Trade Conditions contains wholesale quotations on fresh and cured meats at San Francisco. This publication is of more use to the wholesaler and retailer of meats and the student of the industry than to the hog raiser. This publication can be obtained free from the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics, San Francisco, California. Bul, 523] Swine 135 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to express their thanks and indebtedness to the following" organizations which have generously contributed from their data and of their time : California Cooperative Crop Reporting Service; Division of Animal Industry, California State Department of Agriculture ; Bureau of Agricultural Economics, United States Department of Agriculture ; Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Com- merce, United States Department of Commerce ; and the Division of Animal Husbandry, University of California. Professor E. II. Hughes, Division of Animal Husbandry, University of California; Mr. W. E. Schneider, Marketing Specialist, Federal-State Livestock Market News Service, San Francisco, California; George A. Scott, Regional Livestock Statistician, California Cooperative Crop Report- ing Service, Sacramento, California; and the farm advisors in several of the California counties have contributed much valuable informa- tion. Special thanks are due Professor II. R. Tolley, Director of the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, for his painstaking review of the original manuscript and for his suggestions for its improvement. Preparation of the bulletin has been greatly facilitated by the generous assistance of the officers and directors of the California Farm Bureau Marketing Association. The books of the Association were made available to the authors. With this assistance it has been possible to analyze many data of vital interest to swine raisers throughout the state. 13»i-6,'32