UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA SERIES ON CALIFORNIA CROPS AND PRICES Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry EDWIN C. VOORHIES AND W. E. SCHNEIDER BULLETIN 473 September, 1929 Contribution from the GIANNINI FOUNDATION OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRINTING OFFICE * BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 1929 CONTENTS PAGE Foreword 3 Acknowledgments -- 3 Summary 4 Development of the sheep industry 8 Geographic distribution of the sheep population 14 Recent trends in sheep raising 16 Numbers of sheep in the United States 16 Sheep population of California 18 Relative importance of meat and wool 22 Increasing productivity of sheep 24 Lambing season in California 31 Purebred sheep 34 Location of purebred breeders in California 36 Importance of the sheep industry 36 Slaughter of sheep * 40 Number and trend in the United States 40 Age classification of sheep slaughtered in the United States 43 Number and trend of sheep slaughtered in California , 44 Age classification of sheep slaughtered in California 47 Mutton and lamb consumption 48 Prices and purchasing power of sheep and lambs 56 1. Annual inventory values of the United States Department of Agriculture 56 2. Farm prices of sheep and lambs in the United States and California .... 59 3. Quotations on live lambs at San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Omaha 65 Prices of purebreds 77 Meat prices 79 Storage holdings of mutton and lamb 85 General market movements of sheep 85 Marketing California sheep 92 Spring lamb shipments 92 Methods of marketing live lambs 101 Destinations of live lambs 109 Dressed lamb marketing 112 Sheep shipped into California 117 Requisites for early lamb production 119 Grazing and feeding sheep 121 International trade in mutton and lamb 130 Wool production 132 World wool production 132 Production in the United States 138 California production 139 Consumption of wool 143 Prices and purchasing power of wool 146 Prices to producers for unwashed wool, United States and California 150 Boston quotations on California wool 154 International trade in wool 156 Imports and exports, United States 156 The world trade in wool 159 Trends in production (grand divisions and countries) 160 The tariff 172 ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE SHEEP INDUSTRY* EDWIN C. VOOHIIIESi and W. E. SCHNEIDER FOREWORD This bulletin represents the results of a study undertaken at the request of various sheep interests of California. The primary object has been to analyze the chief statistical data relating to the sheep industry. Those interested in specific topics are asked to consult the table of contents n. 2). For those who wish to obtain quickly the conclusions set forth in the body of the publication, the summary found in the first few pages will be helpful. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Various organizations connected with the livestock, meat, and wool industries assisted in supplying information upon which this bulletin is based. Among them may be included various local and national meal packers, common carriers filtering the state, livestock buyers, local and national wool-trade associations, officers of the various branch offices of the Livestock. .Meats and Wool Division, United States Department of Agriculture, and numerous growers of sheep and iambs. Especial thanks are given to the Secretary of the California Wool Growers Association, YV. P. Wing, and its members, for their coopera- tion in the collection of much of the basic data appearing in this pub- lication. Valuable suggestions and important contributions have been made by Associate Professor Robert F. Miller and Assistant Professor J. P. \ViU. 1. The Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics. Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics and Associate Agricultural Economist in the Experiment station. - Marketing Specialist, Federal-State Livestock Market News Service, San Francisco, ( lalifornia. 4 University of California — Experiment Station California State Department of Agriculture. W. W. Wofford, in charge of the Federal-State Livestock Market News Service at Los Angeles, assisted in compiling seven-year records of the mid-western and eastern movement of live and dressed lambs. 3 Mention should be made of the calculations made by George H. Garner, senior student in the College of Agriculture of the University of California. SUMMARY Lamb or mutton and wool come out of the same production process, 4 and although it is impossible to separate completely the products in any discussion of sheep husbandry, for purposes of convenience por-* tions of the discussion in this publication will necessarily center around (1) lamb and mutton, and (2) wool. California cannot be detached from either the United States or the world in any consideration of the sheep industry. Conditions outside of the state boundaries profoundly affect the two major products of the sheep industry. On the one hand the state is dependent on out- side markets to take its surplus of lambs during the spring of the year, and on the other hand the United States must import almost as much wool from abroad as is produced at home. An appreciable amount of this consists of carpet wools, not produced in the United States. The latter enter free of duty. The number of sheep in the United States has been increasing since January 1, 1922. The percentage increase during the last seven years has been 32.7 per cent (trend value; actual increase 30.4 per cent). On January 1, 1929, estimates indicated more sheep on farms and ranges than at any time in the eighteen preceding years. The industry is still on the upward swing of the production cycle. With production more on a lamb basis than formerly, favorable weather conditions in any one year might result in a marked increase in the lamb crop, and this in turn would bring about heavy marketings. This condition would be further aggravated should producers stop retaining ewe lambs for further expansion and marginal producers begin to liquidate flocks. 3 See: Schneider, W. E., and W. W. Wofford. The California spring lamb industry (mimeo.). Federal-State Market News Service. 1925. 4 "Enterprises that stand in the relationship to each other of using the same raw materials, like the coke and gas enterprises of a gas plant, or of coming part of the way at least out of the same production process, like wool and mutton from sheep, are said to be joint-product enterprises." (Black, J. D. Production economics, p. 205. Henry Holt and Co., New York, 1926.) Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 5 The trends of sheep population in California and the western states have also been upward since 1922. The increase in the state has been greater than in any other section of the country, being 53.9 per cent ind value, actual increase 55.5 per cent) — almost twice as great as that for the nation. The present rate of growth in both the nation and state cannot long continue without unfavorable results. While the human population of the United States increases at the approximate rate of 1 \ -2 per cent a year, that of sheep has forged ahead for the past n years at the rate of 4 per cent a year. Since 1922, California's sheep population has gained approximately 8 per cent yearly. A sub- stantial increment in sheep production will be required over a series of years to keep pace with the growth in human population, even without an increase in the per-capita consumption of mutton and Lamb. The present rate of increase, however, cannot continue without unfavorable effects on the industry. Increases in sheep numbers in the west have undoubtedly taken place largely at the expense of the cattle population. With the marked advance in cattle values during 1927 and 1928 further shifts from cattle to sheep can scarcely be expected. Lamb prices have failed to show the recession which has usually characterized expansion in the past. Beginning with 1923 and includ- Lng 1929, California lamb producers "have enjoyed 7 years of rela- tively high prices. These prices were brought about by several condi- tions, among which the most important are (1) the increased demand for lamb and (2) the improvement in the quality of lamb offered. While it is impossible to determine just when prices will be high or low during a given year, it is true that over a period of years they average higher in the spring than during the other seasons. The majority of the growers in the interior valleys of the state have been able to ship a relatively large proportion of their lambs during this season. The production of spring lambs should be attempted only in favored parts of such sections. Prices and purchasing power for slaughter sheep during the past few years have been relatively lower than for slaughter lambs. There has been a widening of the spread between the market values of sheep and of lambs, with the result that the industry is largely on a ewe and lamb basis in most sections of the country. It is highly probable that this differential in values will continue. Although data on the consumption of lamb and mutton are to a certain extent based on estimates, there can be but little doubt that 6 University of California — Experiment Station there has been over a period of years (1900-1928) a downward trend in the per-capita consumption. In view of the declining per-capita consumption of food stuffs in general the problem of increasing lamb consumption is a difficult one. The production of high-quality lamb, the greater utilization of the forequarter, and intensive extension work by the industry in demonstrating the use of lamb in the diet offer possibilities in raising the level of consumption. This is especially the case in the central and southern sections of the country where the per-capita consumption is very low. The lamb producer of California in the areas of heaviest produc- tion is fortunate in being able to place his product on the markets of the middle west and the Atlantic states at a time of the year when prices are relatively high. Up to the present the larger local supplies during the spring have not induced a decrease in price during that period because the surplus has been shipped east, where the demand for it has been strong. The removal of this surplus must be con- tinued. It would be advantageous if the rate of increase in the pro- duction of spring lambs could be slackened somewhat. Considerable competition develops during certain years between fed lambs, largely from Colorado and Nebraska, and the early lambs of this state. Early lambs originate in large numbers in Arizona, Idaho, Kentucky, the Virginias, Tennessee, and Missouri. The demand for high-quality lambs during the fall and winter months has led to the establishment of both public and private feed- ing yards in this and other states for the purpose of supplying local demand. In addition to securing higher quality, this may also have a favorable effect on regulating the supply of lambs for the market. The furnishing of a regular, even supply of lambs to the markets of the country would assist in stabilizing prices. During the latter part of 1927 beef prices began to rise and con- tinued to do so during 1928 and 1929. The higher prices for beef will undoubtedly react favorably on the prices of lamb. Hog prices have been rising since the latter part of 1928. With an increase in the poultry population of the country the outlcok is for lower poultry prices. Lamb will perhaps have less of an advantage in relation to poultry meat because of this situation. It is not sound for novices to enter the sheep business at the high prices now prevailing, in the expectation that the present favorable level of prices for lambs will continue indefinitely. During periods of remunerative prices there is always the temptation to overstock. Bil. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 7 Sheepmen should be urged to put their businesses on a sound financial footing. It is probable that the purchasing power of sheep may decline during tht next three or four years. Except for a brief period after the war, imports and exports of lamb and mutton have been comparatively negligible. With improve- ments in quality of imports and transportation, together with con- tinued favorable prices in this country, imports of lamb are a possibility. Since the disastrous slump after the war, wool prices held at fairly high levels until the latter part of 1928. Barring unforeseen technical changes in the production of textiles, the long-time outlook for wool appt ars to be favorable. There is but little room for the expansion of the world's wool supply under present conditions. Much of it is produced under hazardous conditions, the weather of any particular year affecting the number of sheep and the production of wool. Temporary variations in production may affect prices in much the same way as high and low yields of wheat affect the prices of that product, hut these conditions do not fundamentally affect shifts in production. It must be remembered, however, that wool prices may be influenced by factors which cannot be measured statistically. Tie' tariff has a decided effect on domestic wool prices. At the present time wool production in the United States supplies about one- half of the domestic needs. It* the tariff remains unchanged, con- tinued favorable prices may be expected for several years. The change in price will eventually depend upon whether world production or consumption increases more rapidly. There was a sharp decline in both domestic and foreign wool prices during the first six months of 1929. The 1928-29 world wool production was considerably (6^5 larger than that of 1927-28. Indi- cations point to a 1929 30 crop of approximately the same size as that of 1928 29. Further material decline in wool prices seems unlikely. Some recovery may take place before the end of 1929. Indications point to a g 1 world demand during the next few months. The pres- ent wool outlook docs not seem to be one to encourage further expan- sion in wool production at the present time. University of California — Experiment Station DEVELOPMENT OF THE SHEEP INDUSTRY United States. — The discoverers and early explorers of North America found no domesticated sheep. Early settlers brought sheep from their respective countries; Spanish sheep were introduced in Mexico, English into Virginia and Massachusetts, and Dutch into New York. While sheep have been bred in this country for more than three hundred years, 5 improved breeds were not introduced until the early part of the nineteenth century, with the exception of isolated cases of partially improved animals. The interruption of commerce during the War for Independence gave a temporary impetus to the keeping of sheep, and the Embargo Act of December, 1807, the Non-Intercourse Act of 1809, and the War of 1812, gave occasion for large advances in sheep raising and woolen manufactures. Until the period 1830-1837, sheep were usually kept as an adjunct to general farming, although increase in the demands of woolen mills for raw material led many farmers to specialize in wool production. The first census figures relative to sheep are those for 1840, which indicate that sheep raising had developed to the greatest degree in Vermont and western New York. For the past hundred years a west- ward movement of sheep has been in progress. Between 1845 and 1855 eastern sheepmen began to give their attention to the production of mutton as well as wool. The change to the mutton type was most rapid near the cities. Dairying replaced sheep raising to a con- siderable degree in the older sections even before the Civil War. At the close of the Civil War the return of cotton and the govern- ment supplies of wool on hand caused a crisis in the sheep industry. In the regions remote from market — the Southwest and Far West — sheep raising continued to be one of the most profitable enterprises. With the opening up of grazing lands in the west after 1870, there was a rapid expansion of the sheep industry into the west south central, the mountain, and the Pacific states. Nearly 52 per cent of the sheep recorded in 1880 were in sections west of the Mississippi. In numbers of sheep the year 1884 marks one of the high points for the United States. 5 Sheep were brought to Jamestown in 1609. (Hayes, John L. Sheep hus- bandry in the United States. Senate Extra Document 25:1-133. 1880.) Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 9 The year 1900 was another high point in the sheep industry of the country. While other sections either remained stationary or receded in sheep numbers, the mountain states made phenomenal gains in the jade previous to 1900. The section east of the Mississippi River and the Pacific Coast states actually declined in sheep population. Ohio, which had held the lead (except for 1880, when California ranked first) was now passed by three western states: Montana, Wyoming, and New Mexico. In 1900, over 55 per cent of the country's Bheep population was in the mountain and Pacific states. Few changes occurred in the distribution of the sheep population of the United States during the period 1900-1910, a decrease taking place in all sections of the country except in the mountain states, where sheep numbers continued to forge ahead until about 1912. The decrease between 1910 and 1920 (table 1) was marked except in the west central section of the country and on the Pacific Coast. The mountain states showed the greatest proportionate loss. The relative distribution of sheep in the country has changed but Little during recent years except in the west south central states Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana). This latter division has increased In numbers while all of the other divisions have either declined or remained stationary. In table 1 will be found the census data for sheep, excluding lambs. These enumerations are not strictly comparable because the time of reporting is not the same for all years used. In compiling this table I860, 1-70. 1S80, 1890, and 1900 refer to June 1; 1910 to April 15; 1920 and 1925 to January 1. It is obvious, for example, that the 1910 data are not comparable to those for 1920 and 1925, for large numbers of sheep undoubtedly were sent to market between January 1 and April 15. The importance of collecting data on the same date in years of census enumeration cannot be too strongly emphasized. Furthermore, on account of the developments within the industry, such as the tendency toward lamb production giving a ewe and lamb basis for the industry, comparisons between data of census years must be used with considerable caution. The data in tables 1 and 2 do, however, give indications of the development of the industry in different sections of the country. California. — Sheep were brought into California by the Spanish in 1770. 6 By 1800, the mission books accounted for 88,000 sheep in the r > Hittell, Theodore H. History of California, 1:333. Pacific Press Publish- ing House and Occidental Publishing House, San Francisco. 1885. 10 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 1 Number, of Sheep (Excluding Lambs) on Farms, 1860-1925 (Thousands, i.e., 000 omitted) Division and state United States Geographic Divisions: New England Middle Atlantic East North Central.. West North Central. South Atlantic East South Central.. West South Central. Mountain Montana Idaho Wyoming Colorado New Mexico Arizona Utah Nevada Pacific Washington Oregon California 1860 22,471' 1,780 4,385 6,912 1,230 2,541 2,435 1,137 830 37 1,184 10 1,088* 1870 28,478 1,450 4,096 11,165 2,474 2,110 2,238 994 821 2 1 6 121 619 1 59 11 3,130 44 318 1880 42,192 362 ,609 ,566 ,097 ,579 ,308 ,089 ,097 279 117 450 ,091 ,939 467 523 231 484 389 368 727 1890 40,876 937 3,196 9,450 2,882 2,445 2,316 4,710 9,520 2,353 358 713 897 2,474 515 1,937 273 5,419 265 1,780 3,373 1900 39,853 563 1,970 6,900 3,156 1,706 1,490 1,839 17,984 4,215 1,965 3,327 1,353 3,334 668 2,553 568 4,244 558 1,961 1,725 1910 39,644 306 1,260 6,535 3,525 1,553 1,514 1,662 19,510 4,960 2,110 4,827 1,306 2,895 917 1,671 825 3,779 295 1,958 1,525 1920 26,108 192 835 3,732 3,370 1,027 1,123 2,204 9,918 1,574 1,910 1,483 969 1,265 763 1,284 671 3,706 472 1,451 1,784 1925 26,410 122 679 3,272 2,616 918 1,019 2,519 11,128 1,668 1,466 1,993 846 1,388 950 1,920 898 4,118 425 1,361 2,332 * Including unenumerated ranch sheep, fornia 1,111,000. Sources of data: 1860, 1870, 1880, 1890, U the U. S. 5:586. 1922. 1900, 1910, U. S. Dept 5: 407. 1913. 1925, Dept. Com., Bur. of the the figure for the United States would be 23,975,000; Cali- S. Dept. Com., Bur. of the Census. Fourteenth census of Com., Bur. of the Census. Thirteenth census of the U. S. Census U. S. Census of Agr. 1925: 28-37. 1927. TABLE 2 Percentage Distribution op Sheifp on Farms, 1860-1925 Division and state 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1925 100.00 7.92 19.51 30.76 5.47 11.31 10.84 5.06 3.86 100.00 5.09 14.38 39.21 8.69 7 41 7.86 3.49 2.88 0007 0.003 0.021 0.42 2.17 0003 21 04 10.99 15 1.12 9.72 100.00 3 23 100.00 2.29 7.82 23.12 7.05 5.98 5.67 11 52 23.29 5 76 0.88 1 74 2 19 6 05 1.26 4 74 67 13.26 0.65 4 36 8 25 100.00 1 41 4.94 17 31 7.92 4 28 3.74 4 61 45 13 10 58 4.93 8.35 3 39 8.37 1.68 6 41 1 43 10.65 1.40 4 92 4.33 100.00 0.77 3.18 16.48 8.89 3.92 3.82 4 19 49.21 12 51 5.32 12 18 3.29 7.30 2 31 4.22 2.08 9 53 0.74 4 94 3.85 100.00 74 3.20 14.29 12 91 3.93 4.30 8.44 37.99 6 03 7.32 5.68 3.71 4 85 2.92 4 92 2 57 14 19 1 81 5.56 6.83 100 00 Geographic divisions: 0.46 8 25 7 6 5 9 16 1 2 9 1 1 17 3 13 55 04 .34 11 47 69 82 66 28 07 59 34 11 24 V, 74 92 24 57 2 57 East North Central 12.39 West North Central 9.91 3 48 3.86 West South Central 9.54 42 14 6.32 5.55 7.55 3 20 3 69 5.26 3.60 Utah 0.16 7.27 Nevada 3.40 Pacific 5 27 04 38 4 84 15 59 Washington 1 61 Oregon 5 15 California 8 83 ' ,1 I i I ' 'I i I I. i ■* . Ol " ■ •- •■" ■ «" Sources of data: Computations by authors based upon tabl Bui* 473 Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 11 state. This number grew rapidly, until in 1834 there were some 321,500 sheep, swine, and goats under the control of the missions. 7 After the secularization of the missions the number steadily diminished until in 1S42 there were only 31,600 sheep, swine, and goats in Cali- fornia. The first census after the admission of the state to the United States gave returns of less than 15,000 sheep, most of which were in Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, Monterey, and Sacramento counties. After the American occupation numbers grew rapidly and in 1852 assessors' data reported 82,867 sheep. 8 Wool production was the primary object of the early California industry. This was developed on a Merino foundation and large bands of three and even four-year-old wethers were kept solely for i he wool dip. TABLE 3 i GNTAGi Distribution of Sheep :x California, 1860-1925 Section 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1925 North CO«S( South coast Sacramento Valley Ban Joaquin Valley Southern California Mountain : 4_> M 50 29 44 9 82 10 47 M 22 38 26 79 17 03 3 03 18.31 9.82 21 24 29 55 18 64 2 44 19 44 5 47 25 12 34.22 12.71 3 04 16 62 3.73 29 18 31 69 8 64 10 13 12 93 7 14 42 82 15 42 9 01 12 68 10.98 3 91 36 70 29 42 6 39 12 60 11 02 4 09 43 15 31.02 3 04 7.68 of data: ( Computations by authors based upon census returns. Between 1850 and 1884, the sheep population of the state expanded rapidly, California in 1880 claiming the largest sheep population in the Union. Following this, a gradual decline took place which con- tinned, with fluctuations, until 1900. In 1860, the census showed the sheep population to be concentrated in the south coasl counties, the S;ieramento Valley, and southern Cali- fornia. The San Joaquin Valley and the north coast section each claimed less than 10 per cent of the total number, while that of the mountain counties was negligible. Shifts were pronounced during the next sixty years (table 3). The Sacramento Valley section has con- tinual to hold an important place. There has been a gradual move- ment toward concentration of sheep in this section and the San Joaquin Valley. " Dept. of the Interior. Report on cattle, sheep and swine supplementary to enumeration of livestock on farms in 1880. U. S. Dept. Interior Report on the Productions of Agriculture, p. 75. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1883. ■ California State Agricultural Society. Number of other livestock. Trans- actions 1859:344-34.1. Sacramento. 1860. 12 University of California — Experiment Station While sheep in both the north coast and mountain counties increased in relative importance prior to 1900, since the latter date there has not been a distinct trend in either section. An important factor in the relative importance of sheep in the north coast section Sheep in the United States, January 1, 1929 Fig. 1. — By far the larger number of sheep are found west of the Mississippi Eiver and in Ohio, Kentucky, and southern Michigan. It should be noted that the centers of sheep and wool production are far from the centers of con- sumption. Both lamb and wool are largely consumed in the north Atlantic states. The line crossing Montana, Idaho, Utah, and Arizona is the li break' ' line for wool shipments. East of the line wool can be shipped to Boston by direct rail cheaper than by rail and water (1928). West of the line the rail and water rate to Boston via Pacific Coast and ports is cheaper than by direct rail. 1 dot — 40,000 sheep. (Data on population from table 4. Data on break line furnished by California Wool Growers Association.) today compared with the period 1880-1900 has been the coyote. Many of the north coast ranges are better adapted to sheep than to cattle production. Originally this was a sheep territory, but the coyotes drove the sheepmen out of business. Cattle came in, occupying many of the ranges. More recently the coyote problem has been abated by the Biological Survey, State Department of Agriculture and various counties cooperating, and the swing is back to sheep. The south coast counties declined in relative importance from 1860 to 1900 and have not played a major role in the industry since 1880. Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 13 The development of alfalfa and dairying has been largely responsible for these shifts. The rapid settlement of southern California during the past twenty years caused the sheep population to decline, and with the exception of Imperial Valley, this section is unimportant. Sheep have been constantly forced back. Today the range industry utilizes c bad lands' — low foothills, wmich are good for nothing but stock raising. This is especially true when these areas can be utilized with the summer mountain range of the national forests. With the turn in the century came a movement to market yearlings, thus disposing of many of the three and four-year-old wethers kept primarily for the growing of wool. This movement materially increased the number of ewes which could be carried on a given area. About 1915, sheepmen began to market lambs in larger numbers, partially eliminating the yearling wethers. The first recorded move- ment of milk lambs from California occurred in 1898. Since 1920 greal impetus has been given to the production of early spring lambs. The industry in this state today is largely on an ewe and lamb basis. Sheep Pes Human- Inhabitant, United States, January 1, 1928 7\ vTy "7 — m \ 9 BlP T ■ f ' v > --.':.■■'■■ 2 ■ m*ss- 7\ { vi \jf { i \ y \ \ l£G£AZO \ \\^s^ \ 1 Over f^Amm/o /ov /ft/toSi^ttA. .''• . \ 1 03-0399 " ' " \- A A*->T\ J O./-0.Z99 " " 'L^-^K 3T ''■• M I £ 9SS f/70» O./ •' " j- "^- \ 'd * "> -U i Fig. 2. — Compared with the human population, sheep are far more important in the western group of states than in other sections of the country. With a large industrial population and a high lamb consumption per capita the north Atlantic and middle Atlantic states have a small sheep population. Compare with figure 1. (Data computed by authors from table 4 and the estimated human population of each state.) 14 University of California — Experiment Station GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE SHEEP POPULATION United States. — On January 1, 1929, the eleven western states claimed over 56 per cent of the sheep in the United States (table 5 and fig. 1). On the addition of Texas to this area the percentage is raised to nearly 67. Population exerts an influence on this distribu- tion (fig. 2), the more sparsely settled sections generally claiming the larger sheep numbers. Density of Sheep Population, United States, 1929 /^^^^^^j~~~~~~~^L^ m ~ 1 |K#J r ^ /■B ^'-' J ■ >y > ' ' ;:•>. -' '"^i,jB Wffiffir^ ^^BB*- ' ^^E6&yyyj0%yfifi&&%fj&E^'~ '"' / 5r\T — t^HJ : ■ ~~7t f \ \ V \ / ^^Nu^\^---~i--- )? BE t t ~ L£G£AZO 1 \ \ Lj^\^ ' ■ Over- ZO sheep /oeJr syt /ir/JJ^d\ 3j\ ^ \j El /Ofo/9.9 " --U— — * ^" \ -q ■■«. ^T EJ JV« ^.^ " " " •' . \ : ■ \ "J ID Vsrc/*r S " \ " ">— ** 3t f* : ^* s . \ Fig. 3. — The greatest density of sheep per square mile occurs in the western states and the Ohio valley. In the South and in New England sheep are unimportant. The center of the industry in the early part of the 19th century was in the latter section. (Data computed by authors from table 4 and from land areas of states.) Numerically the north central states are second in importance in sheep population. Sheep are somewhat generally scattered over this area, the greatest density and the largest numbers being found in Ohio and Michigan (fig. 3). California. — On January 1, 1929, the Sacramento Valley contained approximately 41 per cent of the sheep in the state, and the San Joaquin Valley over 30 per cent (fig. 4). The north coast counties contributed about 12 per cent of the state's total. Although sheep production is of major importance relative to other agricultural enter- prises in the eastern mountain counties, they contain only 8 per cent of the state's sheep (fig. 5). On account of sheep movements across Bui* 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 15 county and state lines (p. 33) during the year, numbers in these and other counties necessarily vary. The south coast counties and southern California are relatively unimportant sheep sections (fig. 6), contain- ing 5 and 4 per cent respectively of the state's total. At times Imperial County in the latter section contains a considerable number <>f sheep and makes important contributions to the early lamb trade table 46). Distribution of Sheep in California, January 1, 11)29 /•• • V • • • • • • ■• ••• • ^y ) L^\* ]• [ • ••- •Vf ^r — SfejJ /dot = 6000 s/?eep ££ y«t»' 9M • «L Fig. 4. — The largest number of sheep is found in the Sacramento Valley. There is considerable concentration in the San Joaquin Valley, the north coast counties, and the northeastern counties of Modoc and Lassen. Large move ments of sheep occur within the state at different times of the year. It will be noted that there is a large number reported from Imperial County, although few sheep are found within Imperial the year round. 1 dot = 6,000 sheep. I to authors from California State Dept. Agr.) 16 University of California — Experiment Station RECENT TRENDS IN SHEEP RAISING Numbers of Sheep in the United States. — Census data are valuable 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 sheep population. Even though the basic figures of sheep population were dependable in themselves, they are inadequate for the TABLE 4 Estimated Number, of Sheeip on Farms and Ranges, United States, January 1, 1920-1929 (Thousands, i.e., 000 omitted) Division and state United States North Atlantic... North Central South Atlantic... South Central Western Montana Idaho Wyoming Colorado New Mexico Arizona Utah Nevada Washington Oregon.... California 1920 40,243 1,341 10,345 1,210 4,453 22,894 2,450 2,356 3,000 1,964 2,250 1,350 2,410 1,340 624 2,250 2,900 1921 38,690 1,219 9,701 1,218 4,673 21,879 2,230 2,121 2,875 2,247 2,205 1,310 2,290 1,160 531 2,160 2,750 1922 36,186 1,124 8,533 1,173 4,582 20,774 2,460 2,016 2,676 1,940 2,085 1,245 2,335 1,125 451 1,966 2,475 1923 36,212 1,067 8,596 1,148 4,393 21,008 2,370 2,046 2,520 2,449 1,877 1,243 2,380 1,190 465 1,868 2,600 1924 36,876 1,045 8,780 1,104 4,729 21,218 2,441 1,946 2,520 2,327 2,007 1,181 2,425 1,060 497 1,924 2,890 1925 38,112 1,063 8,901 1,122 4,903 22,123 2,579 1,960 2,700 2,565 2,100 1,164 2,355 1,100 516 2,039 3,045 1926 39,730 1,096 9,659 1,141 4,952 22,882 2,880 1,880 2,870 2,537 2,050 1,220 2,472 1,175 478 2,120 3,200 1927 41,881 1,058 10,476 1,184 5,605 23,558 3,053 1,974 3,100 1,938 2,250 1,230 2,650 1,198 526 2,247 3,392 1928 44,554 1,112 10,514 1,299 6,265 25,364 3,358 2,110 3,193 2,806 2,362 1,132 2,730 1,234 552 2,359 3.528 1929 47,171 1,079 11,203 1,383 6,784 26,722 3,761 2,216 3,448 2,780 2,362 1,109 2,866 1,259 574 2,501 3.846 Sources of data: 1920-1925, U. S. Dept. Agr. Sheep and lambs: estimated number. U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets 4: 40. 1927. 1926, ibid. 5: 42. 1928. 1927, 1928, 1929, ibid. 6: 41. 1929. purpose of determining the trend of production. They are only inven- tory figures, and these without any allowances for changes in turn- over may lead to erroneous conclusions. Since 1920, estimates of year to year changes have been made by the United States Department of Agriculture (table 4). Recently the Bureau of Agricultural Economics has tentatively revised estimates of yearly sheep population for 1900-1919. "While exact data have not yet been made public, the trend as depicted in figure 7 is probably more accurate than that which can be obtained from data now published. The revised estimates have been compared Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 17 with the estimated number of fleeces shorn. 9 Although minor dis- crepancies exist between the two sets of data, correlation during the past fifteen years has been high. The general trend in sheep numbers since 1900 has been downward (fig. 7). Cycles in the sheep population since 1900 have not occurred with any great degree of regularity. An examination of the move- ments in population is, however, worthy of study. A peak in num- bers was reached in 1902, which was followed by a decline for the TABLE 5 Percentage Distribution of Sheep on Farms and Eanges, United States, January 1, 1920-1929 Division and state North Atlantic North Central South Atlantic S.,uth Central Western iiia Idaho Wyoming Colorado New Mexico Arizona I'tah Nevada Washington Oregon California 1920 3 33 25 71 3.01 11 07 56 89 6 09 5 85 7.45 4.88 5 59 3.35 5 99 3 33 1 55 5 59 7 21 1921 3.15 25 07 3 15 12 08 56 55 5 76 5 48 7 43 5 81 5 70 3 39 :, 02 3 00 1 37 5 58 7 11 1922 3.11 23.58 3 24 12.66 57.41 6.80 5.57 7.40 5.36 5.76 3 44 6 45 3.11 1 25 5 43 6 84 1923 2.95 23.74 3 17 12 13 58.01 6 54 5.65 6.96 6.76 5 18 3.43 6.57 3.29 1 28 5 16 7.18 1924 2.83 23.81 2 99 12.82 57 54 6.62 5.28 6.83 6.31 5 44 3.20 6 58 2.87 1 35 5 22 7.84 1925 2.79 23.35 2.94 12 86 58 05 6.77 5.14 7.08 6.73 5.51 3.05 6.18 2.89 1.35 5 35 7.99 1926 2.76 24.31 2.87 12.46 57 59 7.25 4.73 7.22 6.39 5.16 3.07 6.22 2 96 1.20 5 34 8.05 1927 2.53 25.01 2 83 13.38 56.25 7.29 4 71 7.40 4.63 5.37 2.94 6.33 2.86 1 26 5 37 8.10 1928 2.50 23.60 2.92 14.06 56.93 7.54 4 74 7.17 6.30 5.30 2.54 6.13 2.77 1.24 5.29 7.92 1929 2.29 23 75 2.93 14.38 56.65 7.97 4 70 7.31 5 89 5 01 2.35 6 08 2.67 1.22 5.30 8.15 Source of data: Computations by authors based upon table 4. following three years. During the period 1905-1909 the sheep popu- lation expanded. A downward movement continued from the latter date until 1915, which was followed by a minor rise in 1919, after which a downward trend again set in, culminating in 1922. During the eight years 1922-1928 there has been a decided rise in numbers. From the data available it would appear that the length of the period from depressions to peaks in population or vice versa varies from three to six years (fig. 7). At the present time there has been an upward swing for eight years. If history repeats itself it would seem logical to expect a downward trend in population within the next two vears. 9 Connor, Louis G. Eeview of the tariff on wool, by Mark A. Smith. Nat. Assn. Wool Manfrs. 56(4) :449-463. 1926. Bul. 18 University of California — Experiment Station Prevention of Cyclical Movements. — Sheepmen are as much inter- ested in avoiding the vicious influence of the cycle as are other classes of business men. In all of the animal industries it is difficult to con- trol production on account of the large number of individual pro- ducers and the dependence of production on the forces of nature. Although the effects of the cycle in the sheep industry are not felt for so long a period of time as in the cattle industry, 10 some of the move- ments have had disastrous results. These might have been averted if producers had been informed of conditions in the industry and had acted accordingly. High prices tend to induce increases in flocks, while low prices act in the opposite direction. If these cyclical movements continue it will be absolutely necessary for both sheepmen already established and newcomers in the industry to accumulate a sufficient surplus during favorable price years to carry them over lean years. Sheep Population of California. — Comparable yearly data for the number of sheep in California previous to 1900 are not available. Since the latter date the sheep industry of the state has more than held its relative place in the industry of the country. While the general trend of sheep numbers in the United States has been down- ward (fig. 8) during the past 28 years, the general trend has been upward in this state. An irregular cyclical movement in the sheep population of this state can be discerned (fig. 8). From 1900 to 1905 the sheep population increased, but a decline was recorded for the next three years. An expansion from 1908 to 1910 was followed by a decrease, the low point being reached in 1915. Beginning with 1916 there was a rapid acceleration in numbers for five years, followed by a sharp decrease for the next two years. Since 1922, the sheep popula- tion has been climbing rapidly, and the movement should soon be at the peak of the cycle. It is of interest to note that the length of the irregular cycle in the past has been from seven to eight years. Generally speaking, periods of high purchasing power have been those of low sheep population. However, both purchasing power and population suffered depressions in 1922 and since this date the sheep population and purchasing power have been on the upswing (figs 8 and 16). This can be explained in part by an increase in the demand for lamb. While movements of population and purchasing power within the state do not correspond with those in the nation for 1900- 1909, during the past eighteen or nineteen years the correlation has been remarkably close. !o Voorhies, Edwin C, and A. B. Koughan. Economic aspects of the beef cattle industry. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 461:20-23. 1928, Bui*. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 19 California contains approximately one-twelfth of the sheep in the United States (8.16 per cent). Since 1922, the relative growth of the Bheep population of the state has been far greater than that of the nation. Caution, however, should be exercised in expanding the sheep Relative Importance op Main Sheep Counties, California, January 1, 1929 2 4 _6 8 10 12 Modoc Sonoma Humboldt Butte Lassen Imperial Sutter Yuba Stanislaus Sacramento Madera Placer San Benito Siskiyou Shasta Others Total Fig. .-. — The principal sheep counties of the state are located in northern and central California. It should be noted that the counties which have the largest numbers of sheep arc not always those producing the largest numbers pring lambs for the markets (compare with fig. 26). (Data to authors from George A. Seott, California State Dept. Agr., Sacramento, California.) population in California. With a more favorable outlook for beef cattle there will undoubtedly be a physical as well as an economic limit to the possibilities for safe expansion in both the cattle and sheep industries. Expansion in areas not suited to the production of sheep 20 University of California — Experiment Station should be avoided. Unfavorable climatic conditions, especially with reference to rainfall, might play havoc with the industry in places without sufficient and favorable feed. Newcomers should realize that the possibilities for profitable sheep production will become less as the sheep population of the state increases. Density of Sheep Population, California, 1929 Fig. 6. — The densest sheep population per square mile is in the valley counties of the Sacramento and San Joaquin, with the north coast counties following. Except in Imperial Valley where sheep feeding operations are important, the density of sheep in southern California is low. (Data computed by authors from 1929 estimates of number of sheep in the counties of the state reported to authors by the California State Dept. Agr., and the area of the counties of the state.) Bi-l. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 21 Estimated Number of Breeding Ewes and Indicated Lamb Crop, United States (Did California, — Since 1924 estimates on the number of breeding- ewes over one year old and on the indicated lamb crop of the nation have been made by the United States Bureau of Agricul- tural Economics (tables 6, 7, and 8). These data serve to substan- tiate the statements already made with reference to the expanding phase of the sheep cycle. It should be apparent that the rate of increase in the number of breeding ewes cannot long continue without a decrease in the purchasing power of the increased lamb crop which sni.Ki> Population ox Farms, United States, January 1, 1900-1929 50000 £ 30000 "820000 10000 1 1 1 1 1 1 J f . j i i c 1 1 3 C 1 c ! ; - 3 1 1 c I a- 3 c i 9 c 1 r- i z 5 * T 1 c -1 r 1 C f u ^ r 1 c ft C t ~> c - Q ^ r 1 C c 1 c 3 ii a H C M C n c VI * VI c ft c J c 1 I c ft c J < 1 ( o t U c n c - v> c ft c 9 c J c r> c ft V) ft Fig. 7. — Since 1900, the slieep population of the nation has moved in more ox less irregular cycles. If this cyclical movement continues it is evident that a downward movement in population should set in during the next few years. (Data from the Bur. Agr. Econ. Estimates on total number on farms and elsewhere have been published in: Roberts, John. Food Animals and meat consumption in the United States. U. S. Dept. Agr. Cir. 241:1-24. 1929.) will result. The percentage increase in the number of breeding ewes has been substantially the same in the western sheep states as in the native sheep states (table 6), and the rise in California since 1925 has been almost twice as great as that of the nation. There is need for caution in considering future increases. The lamb crops of the state and nation have shown the same general tendency to expand. Sheepmen of the state are urged to study the reports of the United States Bureau of Agricultural Economics appearing in "Crops and Markets" and current issues of the Market News Service on Livestock, Meats, and Wool issued by the San Francisco and Los Angeles offices, United States Bureau of Agricultural Economics. 22 University of California — Experiment Station Relative Importance of Meat and Wool. — The estimated sales of sheep and lambs for meat in 1899 in the United States provided 52.3 per cent of flock receipts, while sales of wool accounted for the remain- ing 47.7 per cent. Corresponding data for 1909, 1919, and 1924 were 56.4, 43.6; 56.6, 43.4; and 57.5, 42.5 respectively. 11 The growing importance of sheep and lambs as compared with wool can be dis- Sheep Population on Farms, California, 1900-1929 o © o to o © 10 10 «H CO CO CM CM CM CM CM CM CM ooco^ocMOt—ooooo^eoioinco to to o o >* NWNNNNHNN CM CM CM CM CM CM tO CM CO lO to to eo 4000 2000 1000 { r-t CM CO ** o o o o Oi CD CT> tOC^OOCD O rH CM tO tP OOOO rH r-1 r-) rH rH o> o> o> o> o o o cr. c- a> Oi OrH CM tO 5j« lO 10 C- CD o> f-l rH i-l CMCM CMCMCMCMCMCMCM CM Ol O) d> OiO> OOOOOOOO Fig. 8. — California's sheep population has fluctuated less than that of the nation and during the past thirty years there has been a tendency for numbers to increase. The expansion since 1922 has been rapid. Since 1910 the move- ments within the state correspond closely with those in the nation. (Compare with fig. 7.) (Data from E. E. Kaufman, State Statistician, Sacramento, California.) cerned by examining table 9. Although the designations in this table are not the same as those just quoted it may be seen that during the eight years, 1919-1926 inclusive, the value of animals raised showed a pronounced tendency to increase when compared with wool. In 1926 the value of animals raised accounted for 67.6 per cent of the combined values of sheep and wool. The growing importance of meat does not necessarily indicate that there has been a distinct change in the relationship between the unit prices of lamb and wool. During the past 30 years there does not seem to have been a definite trend in this relationship (fig. 9). n Census data. Bul. 473 J Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 23 Exchange Value of Lambs ix Terms of Wool, Uniteid States and California, 1910-1929 *0 Fig. 9. — With both lamb and wool, prices used are those paid to producers. There lias not been a distinct and definite trend in the price relationships of these two products. After the entry of the United States into the War and before the middle of li'^o wool prices were relatively high in comparison with those received for lambs. During the latter part of 1920 and especially in 192 1 and rally in l!*!'!' the price of wool went to low levels. Recovery was ptionally rapid. Prom the latter part of 1925 until 1927 the relationship tended to favor lamb. ( Data computed by authors on the basis of prices for lambs and unwashed wool in California. Breaks in California data are caused by the absence of price data on wool.) ec L lCo//fom /o N <*o * u I .. ,4, .'• '. \j J IfM ' TOT ^ i ! 11 . M Aj^ tf& *«c Kt f " ; *V-- v tfV * V- J M i 1 /9/0 '// '/2 w 1 7-4 Vi 76 77 V6 '/S \2o '2/ '22 ■23 *z4 >zf % 2& ><*r *2& »£3 TABLE 6 Estimated Number of Breeding Ewes and Estimated Lamb Crop, United States, 1925-1929 Breeding ewes 'thousands) Indicated lamb crop (thousands) Division 1925 1926 1927 1928 745 953 3,344 2,536 1,262 1929 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 North Atlantic South Atlantic 711 879 3,043 2,082 1,069 7.784 725 864 3,049 2,208 1,064 7,910 716 893 3,190 2,386 1,168 735 1,037 3,422 2,662 1,339 718 973 2,917 2,082 1,088 647 855 2,815 2,166 1,046 769 1,026 3,239 2,521 1,320 737 1,046 3,216 2,640 1,353 695 1,177 3,341 \ • -• N nth Central 2,732 1,386 South Central Native sheep stai 8,353 8,840 9,195 7,778 7,529 8,875 8,992 9,331 eluding Texas and South Da k 18,199 18,527 19.3.51 20,574 22,048 14,420 16,243 15,278 17,233 16,645 United States 25,983 26,437 27,704 29.414 31,243 22,198 23,772 24,153 26,225 25,976 * The native sheep states are those in which sheep are produced ordinarily in small flocks, on farms of the central, southern and eastern states. Boorees of data: G. A. Scott, Livestock Statistician, I'. S. Dept. Agr. and Calif. State Dept. Agr. 24 University of California — Experiment Station Increasing Productivity of Sheep. — Comparisons between numbers of livestock are not always reliable indices for comparisons of product output. Such comparisons leave out of account the efficiency of the animals concerned. Improved methods of breeding" and livestock management have unquestionably had a share in increasing the pro- TABLE 7 Percentage Lamb Crop, United States, 1925-1929 Division 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 North Atlantic 101.0 110.7 95.9 100.0 101.8 89.2 99.0 92.3 98.1 98.3 107.4 114.9 101.5 105.7 113.0 98.9 109.8 96.2 104.1 107.2 94 6 South Atlantic 113.5 North Central 97.6 West North Central (excluding South Dakota) 102.6 South Central (excluding Texas) 103.5 Native sheep states 99.9 95.2 106.2 101.7 101.5 Western sheep states (including Texas and South Dakota) 79.2 87.7 79.0 83.8 75.5 United States 85.4 89.9 87.3 89.2 83.1 Source of data: Computations by authors based upon table 6. TABLE 8 Estimate© Number of Breeding Ewes and Lamb Crop, California, 1924-1929 (All numbers of sheep and lambs in thousands) 1929 Total sheep, Jan. 1 Ewes, 1 year and over, Jan. 1 Lambs, docked J Number \ Percent Lambs, raised \ Number \ Per cent Proportion of early lambs (per cent) Estimated number of early lambs raised.. 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 2,890 3,045 3,200 3,392 3,528 2,111 2,231 2,280 2,367 2,486 1,900 1,938 2,143 2,130 2,387 90.0 87.0 94.0 90.0 96.0 1,815 1,822 2,052 2,048 2,262 86.0 82.0 90.0 86.5 91.0 68* 70 70 70 72 1,234 1,275 1,436 1,434 1,629 3,846 2,722 2,395 75 1,796 * Docked. Source of data: G. A. Scott, Livestock Statistician, U. S. Dept. Agr. and Calif. State Dept. Agr. ductivity of the sheep flocks of this country. A great deal of the increased efficiency is due to changing over from the Merino breed to cross-breeds of one kind or another. Almost any cross, made on the Kambouillet or Merino, is much more prolific than the parent Merino stock. The discrepancy between increases in numbers and actual production has been pointed out in recent studies in the poul- try, dairy, and beef industries. 12 12 Voorhies, Edwin C The California poultry industry: a statistical study. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 413:1-172. 1926. (Out of print.) Voorhies, Edwin C. Economic aspects of the dairy industry. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 437:1-192. 1927. (Out of print.) Voorhies, Edwin C, and A. B. Kougan. Economic aspects of the beef cattle industry. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 461:1-128. 1928. Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 25 TABLE 9 Estimated Gross Value of Farm Production, United States, 1919-1926 (Values in millions of dollars, i.e., 000,000 omitted) Crops Animal products Total crops not fed and animal products Sheep raised Wool produced Per cent sheep and wool (cols. 6 and 7) are of: Year Gross Not fed to live- stock Total animal products (col. 4) Total products (col. 5) / 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1919 16,561 9,402 8.275 17,677 135 128 3.18 1.49 1920 11,578 7,102 7,709 I 14,811 95 90 2.40 1.25 1921 7,759 4,679 5,589 10,268 68 36 1.86 1 01 1922 9,430 5,560 5,651 11,211 124 69 3.42 1.72 1923 10,401 6,111 6,271 1 12,382 143 87 3.67 1.86 1924 10,770 6,317 5,902 I 12,219 150 89 4.05 ; 1 96 1925 10,170 6,387 6,647 I 13,034 176 95 4.08 2.08 1926 9,266 5,685 7,300 12,985 177 85 3.59 ! 2.02 Sources of data: Cols. 2, 3, 4, 5, U. S. Dept. Agr. Estimated gross value of farm production. U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets 4(7) : 251. 1927. Cols. 6, 7, U. S. Dept. Agr. Farm production. U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook 1923: 1143-1144. 1924. U. S. Dept. Agr. Estimated gross value of farm production. U.S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets 1 (3): 84. 1924; ibid. 3(7) : 226. 1926; ibid. 4(7): 251. 1927. Cols. 8 and 9 computed by authors. Per Capita Sheep Population and Per Capita Slaughter of Sheep, United States, 1900-1928 o.e oj o* CX3 OJZ f900 '02. *0<* '06 'OS VO '/« 'A* '/S V3 y ZO 'ZSL **.+ >*6 \2fl Fig. 10. — Since 1900 there has been a steady decline in the number of sheep per human inhabitant in the United States. There has been only a slight decline in the sheep slaughtered per human inhabitant. (See also fig. 11.) The per capita sheep slaughter will probably increase during the next two years, which will have a tendency to lower prices somewhat. (Data calculated by authors on basis of estimated sheep and lamb population and slaughter together with estimates of the human population furnished by the Bureau of the Census.) 26 University of California — Experiment Station The number of sheep per capita in the United States dropped from 0.569 head in 1900 to 0.301 head in 1928, a decrease of 0.268 head per capita or 47.1 per cent. These values are calculated from the trend 13 of the per-capita sheep population. Comparisons between the actual data for the two years in question show a decrease of 36.1 Sheep Population and the Total Number, Slaughtered, United States, 1900-1928 >ZO O $ Sheep s/ov?/?-? erect fn -the U.S. /aoo'ojz »©* 'oe *oe 'to '/z 7* ve vs *jzo 'az ^4 ^ke '»e Fig. 11. — The total sheep population has shown a downward tendency during the past twenty-eight years. It moves in fairly regular cycles. Since 1922 sheep numbers have been increasing rapidly and indications are that the peak of the cycle is at hand or near. The actual slaughter of sheep has been increas- ing since 1900. This increase has come about largely through the change to a ewe and lamb basis, and through a swing in many sections toward mutton breeds. In addition, improved methods of breeding, feeding, and management have undoubtedly aided in stimulating this increase. Compare with figure 10. (Data on sheep population 1900^1919, inclusive, from U. S. Dept. Agr. unpub- lished data; 1920-1928, from table 4. Data on slaughter from table 17.) per cent. The per-capita sheep slaughter during the same period has dropped from 0.1703 to 0.1382 head per person, or 18.9 per cent. 14 The actual decrease was 8.5 per cent, using only the years 1900 and 1928 for computations. The per-capita consumption data for lamb and mutton covering the same period show a decrease of 28/6 per cent (fig. 10). 15 It might is Equation of the line of trend of the per-capita sheep population in the United States, 1900-1928 is t/ = 0.4354 — 0.0096a, origin July 1, 1914. I* Equation of the line of trend of the per-capita slaughter of sheep in the United States, 1900-1928, is y == 0.1542 — 0.0011a, origin July 1, 1914. is Equation of the line of trend of the per-capita consumption of lamb and mutton in the United States 1900-1928 is y — 6.214 — 0.074a, origin July 1, 1914. BUL. 473 Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 27 be expected that the decrease in the per-capita consumption of lamb and mutton would be greater than the per-capita slaughter of sheep and lambs because of the tendency to market lambs instead of year- linos or older sheep. This would indicate an increase in sheep slaughter when compared with sheep population, but with the lighter weights of the animals slaughtered, a decrease in per-capita consump- tion when compared with per-capita slaughter. Although many fac- tors complicate the local situation in California, indications point to an increased output per animal in this state. TABLE 10 Estimated Number of Births Per Thousand Sheep, United States, 1900-192" Year Number Year Number Year Number 1900 284 1909 316 1918 389 1901 249 1910 296 1919 311 1902 238 1911 368 1920 360 1903 250 1912 371 1921 378 1904 363 1913 428 1922 484 1905 373 1914 432 1923 391 1906 354 1915 427 1924 443 1907 337 1916 395 1925 483 1908 283 1917 403 1926 1927 472 462 Source of data: Computations by authors. The increased efficiency of sheep production in the United States can also be shown in part by comparions between the trends of total population of sheep since 1900 and the trends of slaughter since that date I fig. 11 )." ; The sheep population of the entire country decreased 14. (i per cent (trend value) while the estimated sheep slaughter Increased 25.0 per cent. 17 Data showing the trend toward earlier marketing are not available. However, sine- 1892 data on the average weight of sheep and lambs received at Chicago indicates that there has been a distinct trend toward lighter weights (p. 28). Another important factor in the increased efficiency in sheep production in the United States has been a decided improvement in the number of births per thousand sheep. A change in the mutton breeds has been responsible for a considerable amount of this increase. The data in table 10 have been calculated in the following manner: i ,; Equation of the line of trend of the sheep population in the United States l: -1928 is y = 41,677,310 — 234,560a:, origin July 1, 1914. i" Equation of the line of trend of the slaughter of sheep and lambs in the [Jnited States 1900-1928 is y 15,010,069 + 119, 130.x, origin July 1, 1914. 28 University of California — Experiment Station The sheep slaughtered during a calendar year represent the number of sheep replaced by births plus the sheep liquidated from flocks, compared to the previous year. If the sheep population diminishes from one year to the next, the decrease approximately measures animals slaughtered above the rate of reproduction. If the sheep population expands from one year to the next, the increase plus the sheep slaughtered measures the births of the preceding year. 18 Table 10 shows that there has been a gradual rise in the births of livestock per thousand animals. These data have been calculated on the basis of the latest tentative figures of the United States Department of Agriculture. It is probably true that the greater part of this increase has come about by the adoption of the ewe and lamb basis by the industry. Improvements in management may have been responsible for a part of the rise in birth rate. The same general conclusion has been stated by Armour's Live- stock Bureau, 19 although the data published by them checks only in a general way with that assembled by the authors. Lighter Weights. — Since 1892, there has been at Chicago a distinct trend toward lighter weights for sheep. During the period 1892-1928 the percentage decrease in the average body weight of sheep received was 10.55 (trend values). 20 From 1892 to 1910, inclusive, the average weight of sheep received varied from 81 to 89 pounds. Since the latter date the yearly average weights have been from 76 to 80 pounds. 21 The trend toward lighter weights in California cannot be definitely measured, owing to lack of sufficient data. Undoubtedly the change from a mature mutton to a lamb basis has reduced the average weight considerably. It is stated that prior to 1900, San Francisco killers did not purchase many lambs, preferring aged wethers, yearling wethers, and ewes. Since that time a gradual change has been made until at present mature sheep constitute less than 6 per cent of the total slaughter (table 22). 18 The authors are indebted to Armour's Livestock Bureau for the method used in making these calculations. 19 Armour and Company. Increasing productivity of American livestock herds. Monthly Letter to Animal Husbandmen 8(2):l-4. 1927. 20 Equation of the line of trend of the average weight of sheep and lambs received at Chicago is y = 81.30 — .25 x, origin July 1, 1910. 2iData taken from Chicago Daily Drovers Journal. Average weight of sheep and lambs at Chicago. Drovers Journal Year Book of Figures 1928:70. 1929. Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 29 Trends in the weights of sheep and lambs slaughtered in California during selected years since 1920 are shown in table 11. The total slaughter indicated is not absolute, as the Census Bureau does not release data for a town in which only one slaughterer is located. The total yearly slaughter is greater than is indicated by these figures; it approximates 1,700,000 head (table 21). Beef-Cattle — Lamb Price Ratio, California, 1910-1928 'iii' T^~T 1 — I — I — I — I I9IO '// 'IZ VJ 7<* VS 7« '17 '/a '/9 'ZO '2/ 'ZZ 'Z3 '2-4 'ZS 'Z6 % 37 '26 '29 Fijj. 12. — Tlic graph in the above figure represents the number of pounds of lamb which 100 pounds of beef cattle would purchase. From 1910 to 1914, this averaged over 100 pounds. Since the latter date, beef has been able to purchase less lamb. Beginning in 1926 prices of beef cattle commenced to gain on those for lambs. (Data computed by authors from table 30 and from table 33, p. 73, in: Voorhies, Edwin C, and A. B. Koughan. Economic aspects of the beef cattle industry. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 461:1-128. 1928.) Euh and Lamb Basis of Production. — Most flocks are now operated upon a ewe and lamb basis. Texas still carries about a half million wethers. In some sections of California and among the Indian-owned flocks of the southwest a few wethers are found. There are only a mattered few in other areas. 22 Seasonal Variation in Birth Bate, United States. — Sheep births are apparently less uniform throughout the year than either those of cattle or swine. Roberts 23 in a study of the seasonal distribution of sheep births reports that almost 97 per cent of the lambs are born during the first six months of the year, May claiming the largest number. February, March, and April are also above the average. With the increase in shipments of spring lambs from California 22 Scott, George A. Sheep and lambs in the 13 western range states. Mimeographed report issued by Regional Livestock Office, U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Salt Lake City, Utah. Mar. 5, 1928. 2 3 Roberts, John. Food animals and meat consumption. U. S. Dept. Agr. Dept. Cir. 241:7. 1929. 30 University of California — Experiment Station during the past few years the percentage of births during the last months of the year would undoubtedly be higher than that indicated by Koberts (table 12). Lambing periods in California are discussed on p. 31. Shifts from Cattle to Sheep. — In many areas, particularly in the west, cattle compete with sheep for the use of range lands. The relatively high values of sheep since 1922 and the relatively low values of cattle from 1921 to the latter part of 1927 (fig. 12) have caused some shifting. The total number of cattle in the United States declined from 1920 to 1928 in all subdivisions. 24 The number of dairy cattle in the nation remained fairly uniform, making for an even greater decline in the number of cattle used for strictly beef pur- poses, the decrease in the latter animals being approximately 30 per cent. Since 1922, the number of sheep has increased in all sections of the country, but this rise has been more gradual than the decrease in the number of cattle. Converting both cattle and sheep into ani- mal units, 25 since 1920 there has been a steady decline in the United States and the western states. This downward tendency is even more marked if instead of ' all cattle ' those generally known as ' other cattle ' are used in making computations. The shift during the past few years can be seen from a study of the number of cattle and sheep graz- ing in the national forests. From 1918-1927 inclusive, there was a decrease in the number of cattle grazed amounting to 34.4 per cent, while sheep numbers declined 24.6 per cent. During the five years 1923-1927, the number of sheep grazing in the national forests has remained stationary, while cattle numbers have declined. The situation is entirely different in California. Whether 'all cattle' or * other cattle' is used and together with sheep converted into ' animal units, ' this state has varied but little in the total animal units (cattle and sheep) carried during the past eight years. In fact, since 1925 there has been a slight increase in the number of * animal units' as represented by sheep and cattle. If the number of cattle remains stationary it is highly probable that any expansion in the sheep industry will be on lands not now devoted to either sheep or cattle production. 24 Voorhies, Edwin C, and A. B. Koughan. Economic aspects of the beef cattle industry. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 461:15-24. 1928. 25 'Animal unit' is employed to reduce the different kinds of livestock to one class, insofar as their relation to the consumption of feed is concerned. It is roughly estimated that the amount of forage required to maintain one mature cow one year would be sufficient to maintain for the same period 1 horse, mule or steer, 5 hogs, 7 sheep or goats, or 100' poultry. Colts, calves, pigs, and lambs are estimated to require one-half as much feed as mature animals. Bui* 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 31 Data on the number of sheep and cattle grazed on the national forests of the state (table 54) give indications that in this state sheep numbers have increased since 1910, while cattle numbers have declined. During the past five years the number of cattle grazed has declined far more rapidly than the number of sheep. TABLE 11 slaughter of Sheep and Lambs in Wholesale Slaughtering Plants, California, 1909, 1914, 1919, 1921, 1923, 1925 Number reported Hoof weight Dressed weight Average weight Year Alive Dressed pounds pounds pounds pounds 1909 1,071,998 89,943,570 44,502,000 83 90 41 51 1914 1,427,260 113,296,370 57,499,522 79.38 40.29 1919 1,198,079 92,332,195 45,179,846 77 07 37.71 1921 1,536,02; 119,203,073 58,255,616 77.60 37 93 1923 1,607,538 113,900,463 61,008,644 7085 37.95 1925 1,558,438 120,645,660 59,793,392 77.41 38.37 Source of data: V. S. Dept. Com., Bur. of the Census. TABLE 12 Percentage of Sheep Births During the Year, United States Month P< rccntage Month Percentage 3 5 10 1 20 8 27 .0 28.5 6 8 July 9 4 September 5 5 May 4 Dec-ember 0.6 Source of data: Roberts, John. Food animals and meat consumption. U. S. Dept. Agr. Dept. Cir. 241: 7. 1924. (Note comment in text, p. 49). When sheep are first placed on ranges formerly occupied by cattle they often utilize grasses not previously consumed. The ranges may seem to lose in productivity after a few years because of this and because of the infestation of the pastures with sheep parasites. New- comers should be especially careful not to overestimate the produc- tivity of such ranges. Lambing Season in California. — The lambing season in California usually extends from the middle of October to the first of May (fig. 13), since the methods of handling sheep are diverse in different sec- 32 University of California — Experiment Station Lambing Seasons in California Fig. 13. — The above map is intended to show the approximate months for lambing in various areas of the state. In certain sections within the areas drawn, either on account of climatic conditions or because of methods of management, lambing dates may be at variance with the dates shown above. The approximate time for lambing in the various sections is as follows: I — November, December, January; II — October 10-30, November, December, January, February 1-15; III — February (lambs and ewes go to the mountains about May 1); IV — upper section — January, February 1-20; lower section — January, February, March 1-15; V — March 15-30, April; VI — November, December, January; VII — October 10-31, November, December, January. (Map prepared by authors in consultation with W. P. Wing, Secretary, California Wool Growers Association, San Francisco.) Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 33 tions of the state. Formerly a large percentage of lambs were born in the spring and marketed in the fall, but in recent years the practice of lambing in midwinter has expanded rapidly. In recent years Imperial Valley has furnished winter quarters for thousands of range ewes that are bred for early lambs. These ewes are usually purchased from rangemen in northern California, Arizona, Texas, and Nevada, the majority lambing in November and December. Some of the earliest fat lambs in the state originate in this section. In a limited area extending from Los Angeles to San Diego counties lambs are dropped during the latter part of the year and appear on the Los Angeles and San Diego markets during March, April, and May. In the San Joaquin Valley the lambing season extends from the middle of October to March, the bulk coming in November, December, January, and early February. November, December, and January are the principal lambing months for the Sacramento Valley. In the upper part of the latter area a considerable number of sheep are lambed late in February. The lambs and ewes from this section are usually sent to the mountains about the first of May, the lambs as a rule being marketed during July. The San Joaquin and Sacramento valleys furnish the bulk of the lambs shipped east. From the upper north coast region — Humboldt and Mendocino counties — lambs are sent to local markets during June, July, and the early part of August. In the northeastern counties of Modoc and Lassen a large number of lambs are dropped during April, a few shed lambs appearing during the last fifteen days of March. Many ewes in this section are wintered on the Nevada desert ranges and as summer approaches they are moved to mountain ranges either in Cali- fornia or Nevada. The lambs from these ewes are usually born in Nevada, and may be shipped from California or Nevada border points, depending upon feed conditions. They are marketed on the Pacific Coast or sent east, depending upon prevailing market prices. In the trade they are referred to as 'Nevada lambs' or lambs from 'over the hump.' Because of the wide distribution of lambing areas and accompany- ing climatic differences, together with succulent feed, there is a suc- cession of 'spring lambs.' Thus, during a remarkably short time — usually not to exceed five months — exceptionally heavy crops of lambs are produced. This succession of lambs results in a wide range in weights of dressed lamb carcasses on the market, often varying from 34 University of California — Experiment Station 28 to 40 pounds. These differences cause comment by many retail buyers who do not understand conditions existing in California. Atlantic Coast operators have bid from two to three dollars per hun- dredweight lower on the weighty stock, not accepting it as genuine 'California spring lamb.' From the consumers' standpoint all may be equally well covered and desirable. Lamb-Crop Percentage. 26 — The percentage lamb crop of the native sheep states is considerably higher than that of the western range states (table 7). On account of the vicissitudes of climate, etc., the lamb crop in the western range states is highly variable. Compared with this latter group of states and the United States as a whole, California ranks high (tables 7 and 8). The number of lambs docked, or saved up to July first of each year approximates 88-90 per cent of the ewes on farms and ranges on January first of the corresponding year. PUREBRED SHEEP Number of Purebreds. — The last enumeration of purebred sheep was taken in 1920. At that time approximately 1.3 per cent of the country 's sheep were purebred. Medium and fine-wool breeds were the most important numerically; Shropshire, Rambouillet, Merino, and Hampshire being the leading breeds, and representing approximately three-fourths of all the purebred sheep reported — Shropshires, 26.9 per cent; Rambouillets, 23.1 per cent; Merinos, 12.9 per cent; Hamp- shires, 11.2 per cent. Although California ranked second in the number of sheep, this state was fifth in the number of purebreds, only 1.2 per cent of all sheep being classified as purebred. One of the main reasons for the smaller percentage of purebreds is the large size of the flocks in Cali- fornia (table 15). Fourteen and two-tenths per cent of the purebred Rambouillets in the United States were found within the borders of California. Corresponding percentages for the other more important breeds were : Merino, 8.4 per cent ; Shropshire, 5.0 per cent ; and Hampshire, 2.6 per cent. From the purebred standpoint the Bam- 26 In an interview with the authors on Jan. 17, 1929, W. P. Wing, Secretary of the California Wool Growers Association stated: "F. E. Marshall, Editor of the National Wool Grower, claims that the percentage lamb crop is the most important sheep management problem today. With high costs of operation the man obtaining a lamb crop of from 100 to 130 per cent is the one who will make a profit. One hundred thirty per cent is not impossible under proper management year in and year out. " Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 35 bouillet was most important, 52.6 per cent of the total number being of this breed. Corresponding percentages were : Shropshire, 21.7 ; Merino, 17.4 ; Hampshire, 4.8. Location of Purebred Sheep Breeders, California, 1928 \ y\y Jo J A } c yyfj^Z \ "EM ^\+^a rv L£G£SVO + Shropshire O fRc?/T?jboc////ef A h/ompshire D Other breeds D° Fig. 14. — The majority of breeders of purebred sheep are located in the Sacramento Valley, particularly in Yolo and Solano counties. Although the San Joaquin Valley is an important sheep center, there are few breeders of purebred sheep. (Data secured from Division of Animal Husbandry, University Farm, Davis, Calif.) Accurate data on purebred animals recorded from California over a period of years are not available. Letters from a number of breed- record associations, however, indicate a considerable increase in the number of purebred animals recorded. 36 University of California — Experiment Station Location of Purebred Breeders in California. — The Animal Hus- bandry Division of the University of California has compiled a list of the breeders of many types of sheep. The largest number is found in the Sacramento Valley (table 13) with considerable concentration in Yolo and Solano counties, the University Farm at Davis being the hub (fig. 14). The location of the sheep in the state and the holding of annual ram sales at Davis have been contributing factors to this concentration. TABLE 13 Number of Breeders of Purebred Sheep in California, by Sections, 1928 Section Shrop- shire Ram- bouillet Hamp- shire Other breeds Total 6 4 29 5 2 15 2 7 3 8 3 4 18 2 23 6 2 3 11 75 11 1 1 7 2 6 Total 41 26 36 25 128 Source of data: Division of Animal Husbandry, College of Agriculture, University of California. IMPORTANCE OF THE SHEEP INDUSTRY United States. — According to the farm census of 1925, sheep were reported on 430,738 farms, or 6.76 per cent of the total number in the United States (table 15). The corresponding percentages for 1920 and 1910 were 8.4 and 9.6 respectively. The number of sheep per farm reporting sheep increased from 65 in 1920 to 83 in 1925, the corresponding number for 1910 being 85.9. The western states, includ- ing California, report large numbers of sheep per farm. It can readily be seen that aside from the western states sheep raising is of relatively minor importance in comparison with the main enterprise. With the exception of the years 1920 and 1921, there has been a tendency during the period 1919 to 1926 inclusive, for the products of the sheep industry (animals raised plus wool) to occupy a more important place both with reference to the total of animal products and the total gross value of farm production (table 9). This ten- dency has been more marked with reference to the value of animals raised than with reference to the value of wool produced. In 1926, sheep raised accounted for 2.4 per cent of the value of animal pro- duction in the United States, contrasted with 22.8 per cent for swine Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 37 raised, 14.8 per cent for cattle raised and 7.7 per cent for poultry raised. Total production in the sheep industry in 1926 (animals TABLE 14 Total Value of Certain Classes of Livestock and Value of Sheep,* United States and California, January 1, 1920-29 (Thousands of dollars, i.e., 000 omitted) r nited States California Year All livestock Sheep Per cent col. 2 is of col. 1 All livestock Sheep Per cent col. 5 is of col. 4 J 2 3 4 5 6 1920 8,125,459 420,942 5 18 222,436 31,610 14 21 1921 6,053,027 242,973 4 01 190,216 18,425 9 69 1922 4,757,971 173,693 3.65 152,396 13,118 8 61 1923 5,047,557 272,676 5.40 160,707 21,060 13.10 1924 4,748,964 291,689 6 14 164,109 26,010 15.85 1925 4,675,893 369,612 7.90 146,528 28,140 19.20 1926 5,003,301 417,630 8.35 161,466 34,078 21.11 1927 5,033,321 406,588 8.08 162,664 33,806 20.78 1928 5,512,508 456,687 8.28 181,254 40,050 22.10 1929 5,952,713 500,058 8.40 201,148 41,527 20.64 • Classes included are: (1) horses and colts, (2) mules and mule colts, (3) milk cows — two years old and over, (4) all other cattle, (5) sheep and lambs, (6) swine — including pigs. Source of data: Revised data from U. S. Bur. Agr. Econ. to authors. TABLE 15 Percentage of Total Farms in Certain Subdivisions of the United States. Reporting Sheep and the Xumber of Sheep Per Farm Reporting, 1925 Division or state Total farms Farms reporting sheep Per cent of farms reporting sheep Number of sheep per farm reporting sheep United States 6,371,640 159,489 418,868 1,051,572 1,111,314 1,108,061 1,006,052 1,017,305 233,392 265,587 136,409 430,738 9,157 26,973 143,202 101,398 43,836 45,208 18,950 25,710 16,304 5,708 6.76 5.74 6.44 13.62 9.12 3.96 4.49 1.86 11.01 6.14 4.18 83 17 33 31 40 25 26 177 588 327 533 Source of data: Computations by authors on basis of 1925 Farm Census. raised and wool produced) made up 3.59 per cent of the value of total animal products on farms and slightly over two per cent of the total gross value of farm production. 38 University of California — Experiment Station Comparisons of the total values of sheep with those of certain classes of livestock in the United States (table 14) indicate that there has been a tendency since 1922 for sheep to be relatively more valua- Percentage of Farms with Sheep, California, 1925 4.£G£HO Over/ZOyoor ce/»/ o/* forms- Aeep sheep \from /S - /9.9 />er ces*r from /O -J4.9 " 3 /*>©/*» S- 9.9 []Zew shoes' " Fig. 15. — Sheep were kept on 4.18 per cent of the farms of the state in 1925. In that year they were more important to farmers in the Sacramento Valley, northern and eastern mountain counties, and north coast section than in other sections of the state. Generally speaking, sheep raising in California is more important in the regions of sparse human population. (Data computed by authors on the basis of the 1925 Farm Census.) ble. These same valuations indicate that during 1921 and 1922 defla- tion in the sheep industry was relatively more severe than in the animal industries in general. Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 39 The sheep industry of the United States does not hold a relatively important position in the meat industry of the country. In 1928 out of the estimated national meat production of 16,955 million pounds, only 671 million were mutton and lamb. California. — Annual estimates of the value of production of sheep, cattle, and hogs are made by the Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates. These estimates 27 for California, representing the gross farm value of stock sold off farms and ranges during 1928, are as follows : sheep, lambs, and wool $25,089,000 Cattle and calves 39,690,000 Hogs 15,808,000 TABLE 16 Percentage of Farms in California Reporting Sheep and the Number of Sheep Per Farm Reporting, 1925 Section Total farms Farms reporting sheep Percentage of farms reporting sheep Number of sheep (thousand) Number of sheep per farm reporting 136,409 14,219 20,248 20,922 40,456 37,671 2,892 5,708 1,027 396 2,196 1,421 196 472 4.2 7.2 2.0 10 5 3.5 5 16.3 3,045 335 125 1,314 945 93 234 533 327 315 Sacramento Valley 598 665 473 495 Source of data: Computations by authors on basis of 1925 Farm Census. Comparable estimates covering value of dairy and poultry prod- ucts are not collected by the Division of Crop and Livestock estimates. The value of all butterfat sold in 1928, as compiled by the Bureau of Dairy Control, California State Department of Agriculture, was $88,810,000. The value of chickens raised and eggs produced in 1924 as reported by the Census of Agriculture of 1925 was $44,424,000. The value of sheep and wool produced exceeded that for hogs, the sheep industry ranking fourth among the major animal industries of the state. Compared with others, California ranks high as a sheep and wool-producing state. On January 1, 1926, 1927, and 1928, respectively, this state ranked first in the total valuation of sheep. On January 1, 1929, both Texas and Montana outranked California in total sheep values. Sheep occupy a far more important place (rela- tively) in the animal husbandry of this state than they do in the live- stock industry of the nation (table 14). 27 California Cooperative Crop Reporting Service. Estimated value of the production of California livestock — 1928. California Crop Eeport 1928:64. 1929. 40 University of California — Experiment Station According to the 1925 farm census sheep were kept on 4.18 per cent of the farms in California (table 16). Although this percentage is relatively smaller than that for the nation, average flock size, on the other hand, is larger. In comparison with other types of agriculture, sheep raising is a more important part of the agriculture of the mountain counties than in any other section (fig. 15). In the percentage of farms keep- ing sheep this section was followed in order of importance by the Sacramento Valley, north coast, south coast, San Joaquin, and south- ern California sections. A similar situation was found in a recent study of the beef cattle industry. 28 Sheep raising is more important in those sections of the state possessing a relatively sparse human population. The same is true with beef cattle. SLAUGHTER OF SHEEP Number and Trend in the United States. — The number of animals slaughtered annually under United States inspection, together with the estimated total number killed (including those on farms) is shown in table 17. The number of sheep slaughtered under federal inspec- tion is taken from accurate data. The uninspected slaughter, how- ever, is an estimate, for the basis of which no recent figures are avail- able. The monthly slaughter of sheep under federal inspection together with the percentage monthly slaughter will be found in table 18. From a study of data on sheep population and slaughter it may be seen that it is fallacious to use population data as a direct index of production. Peaks and depressions in the number of sheep slaugh- tered usually follow the high and low points in population. After the expansion in sheep numbers which reached a peak in 1909, the number of animals slaughtered rose rapidly to a record number in 1912. With a rapid decline in population slaughter reached a low point in 1917. During the War a considerable increase in slaughter occurred with a later recession which reached a low point in 1922. Since the latter date there has been a gradual increase in slaughter. With the con- tinued increase in the sheep population of the country, sheep slaugh- ter will undoubtedly be accelerated. During the past seven years the sheep population of the United States has increased at the rate of over 1,500,000 head per year, the largest increases occurring during 1927 and 1928. In recent years 28 Voorhies, Edwin C, and A. B. Koughan. Economic aspects of the beef cattle industry. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 461:33. 1928. Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 41 slaughter has been restricted by the tendency to expand flocks, although during 1928 it was larger than during any year since 1914. When this tendency ceases, greatly increased supplies of sheep and lambs — the equivalent of the yearly increase in flock numbers during TABLE 17 Number op Animals Slaughtered Annually and Estimated Total Number, Slaughtered (Including those on Farms) in the United States, 1900-1928 (Thousands, i.e., 000, omitted) Sheep and lambs Cattle Calves Sw ine Year Inspected Total Inspected Total Inspected Total Inspected Total 1900 6,380 12,015 5,030 10,242 365 3,235 23,990 50,470 1901 7,037 12,358 5,390 11,088 490 3,585 24,960 51,870 1902 8,010 13,038 5,847 11,697 612 3,931 23,535 48,260 1903 8,424 13,683 6,242 12,463 717 4,221 22,961 47,900 1904 8,067 13,126 6,223 12,099 8^05 4,471 24,726 49,987 1905 7,873 12,823 6,727 12,649 846 4,744 25,324 51,540 1906 8,224 13,371 6,926 12,944 1,103 4,834 26,649 52,680 1907 10,252 13,360 7,633 13,287 2,024 6,211 32,885 54,058 1908 10,304 13,526 7,279 12,852 1,958 6,048 38,643 60,515 1909 11,342 14,725 7,714 13,611 2,189 6,516 31,395 53,220 1910 11,408 14,797 7,807 13,541 2,238 6,553 26,014 47,076 1911 14,020 18,057 7,619 12,958 2,184 6,264 34,133 56,646 1912 14,979 19,247 7,253 11,979 2,278 6,348 33,053 55,564 1913 14,406 18,520 6,978 11,478 1,902 5,285 34,199 57,046 1914 14,229 18,290 6,757 11,004 1,697 4,661 32,532 55,501 1915 12,212 15,756 7,153 10,822 1,819 4,640 38,381 62,017 1916 11,941 15,408 8,310 12,027 2,367 5,774 43,084 67,613 1917 9,345 12,149 10,350 13,724 3,143 7,031 33,910 56,901 1918 10,320 13,359 11,829 15,750 3,456 7,514 41,214 64,796 1919 12,691 16,317 10,091 14,838 3,969 8,445 41,812 65,190 1920 10,982 14,180 8,609 13,885 4,058 8,453 38,019 61,890 1921 13,005 16,710 7,608 12,271 3,808 7,771 38,982 62,957 1922 10,929 14,112 8,678 13,148 4,182 8,363 43,114 68,105 1923 11,529 14,862 9,163 13,883 4,500 8,824 53,334 79,843 1924 11,991 15,441 9,593 14,400 4,935 9,466 52,873 79,631 1925 12,001 15,454 9,853 14,706 5,353 10,099 43,043 68,294 1926 12,961 16,689 10,180 14,971 5,153 9,542 40,636 65,779 1927 12,883 16,589 9,520 14,000 4,876 9,030 43,633 69,250 1928 13,488 17,348 8,467 12,452 4,860 8,667 49,795 76,593 Source of data: 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, pp. 1-9 1929. the past few years — will be butchered. It is scarcely possible that the market can absorb the additional supply without reduction in price. Increase in slaughter during the past five years, averaging about 400,000 a year, has been largely offset by the upward trend in the consumer's demand for lamb. The domestic market can absorb some increase in lamb production each year, at least in line with the normal increase in population. 42 University of California — Experiment Station Centers of Slaughter. — Of the total slaughter under federal inspec- tion (over 60 public stockyards) the five markets — Chicago, New York, Omaha, Kansas City, and South St. Joseph — accounted for over 71 per cent during the five-year period 1924-1928. The per- TABLE 18 Monthly Sheeip and Lamb. Slaughter, Under, Federal Inspection and Percentage Monthly Slaughter, 1915-1929 Slaughter (Thousands, i.e., 000 omitted) Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total 1915 1,196 946 986 830 739 883 984 1,139 1,220 1,116 1,132 1,041 12,212 1916 976 904 861 769 854 990 930 1,173 1,158 1,172 1,121 1,033 11,941 1917 956 819 861 777 632 710 688 766 740 822 764 809 9,345 1918 780 655 736 614 659 737 869 937 1,029 1,194 1,139 971 10,320 1919 1,004 754 738 808 894 931 1,160 1,234 1,292 1,414 1,227 1,235 12,691 1920 955 828 788 714 671 818 1,048 1,042 1,151 1,068 968 932 10,982 1921 1,068 958 1,075 1,041 985 1,116 1,060 1,237 1,249 1,285 1,040 890 13,005 1922 954 776 837 739 872 1,028 964 1,024 1,013 981 882 858 10,929 1923 1,021 836 977 960 972 914 962 957 990 1,046 915 978 11,529 1924 1,083 912 868 860 959 975 1,051 1,063 1,150 1,148 950 972 11,991 1925 990 854 984 1,012 1,030 999 1,071 1,031 1,086 1,083 879 981 12,001 1926 1,039 988 1,163 994 959 1,081 1,042 1,093 1,224 1,167 1,039 1,172 12,961 1927 1,115 1,006 1,027 960 992 1,058 1,014 1,168 1,185 1,194 1,070 1,094 12,883 1928 1,151 1,048 1,016 918 1,015 1,109 1,076 1,196 1,307 1,409 1,189 1,053 13,488 1929 1,150 953 1,006 1,119 1,202 1,108 1,255 PERCENTAGE MONTHLY SLAUGHTER 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 9.79 7.75 8.07 6.80 6.05 7.23 8.06 9.33 9.99 9.14 9.27 8.52 8.17 7.57 7.21 6.44 7.15 8.29 7.79 9.82 9.70 9.81 9.39 8.65 10.23 8.76 9.21 8.31 6.76 7.60 7.36 8.20 7.92 8.80 8.18 8.66 7.56 6.35 7.13 5.95 6.39 7.14 8.42 9.08 9.97 11.57 11.04 9.41 7.91 5.94 5.82 6.37 7.04 7.34 9.14 9.72 10.18 11.14 9.67 9 73 8.70 7 54 7.18 6 50 6.11 7.45 9.54 9 49 10.48 9.73 8.81 8.49 8.21 7.37 8.27 8.00 7.57 8.58 8.15 9.51 9.60 9.88 7.80 6.84 8.73 7.10 7.66 6.76 7.98 9.41 8.82 9.37 9.27 8.98 8.07 7.85 8.86 7.25 8.47 8.33 8.43 7.93 8.34 8.30 8.59 9.07 794 8.48 9 03 7 61 7.24 7.17 8.00 8.13 8.76 8.86 9.59 9.57 7.92 8.11 8.25 7.12 8.20 8.43 8.58 8.32 8.92 8.59 9.05 9 02 7.32 8.17 8.02 7.62 8.97 7.67 7.40 8.34 8.04 8.43 9 44 9.00 8 02 9 04 8.65 7.81 7.97 7.45 7.70 8.21 7.87 9.07 9 20 9.27 8.31 8.49 8.53 7.77 7.53 6.81 7.53 8.22 7.98 8.87 9.69 10.45 8.82 7.81 Sources of data: Slaughter, U. S. Dept. Agr. Slaughter under federal inspection. Crops and Markets, monthly issues. Percentage monthly slaughter computed by authors. centages for the different cities were as follows : Chicago, 25.3 ; Omaha, 14.3; New York and Jersey City, 13.2; Kansas City, 10.2; and St. Joseph, 8.7. A larger proportion of the sheep and lambs slaughtered in the United States is handled under federal inspection than any other class of livestock. Out of a total killing in 1928 estimated at 17,348,000 head, 13,488,000, or 77.8 per cent, were slaughtered under Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 43 federal inspection. In the same year 68 per cent of the cattle, 65 per cent of the hogs, and 54 per cent of the calves butchered were feder- ally inspected. California has been attaining- a place of increasing importance in the sheep and lamb slaughter of the United States. In 1899 this state accounted for 7.6 per cent of the sheep and lambs killed for market in the country. 29 By 1919, the percentage had risen to 8.9 per cent, and during the three years 1925-1928, the state accounted for over 10 per cent of the total slaughter (1925, 10.9 per cent; 1926, 10.4 per cent; 1927, 10.3 per cent; 1928, 10.1 per cent.) Age Classification of Sheep Slaughtered in the United States. — Since July, 1922, the United States Department of Agriculture has TABLE 19 Percentage of Lambs and Yearlings Slaughtered in the Total Recorded Slaughter of Sheep and Lambs in the United States, 1922-1929 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Aver- age 1922 91.20 88.80 86.59 79.46 83.41 85.35 1923 82 90 83 16 89 82 88 83 81.08 87.49 89.31 88.79 89.53 88.74 83.74 88.27 1924 89 78 87.79 92 08 87.75 85.52 89.99 92.41 88.56 84.22 91.04 91.36 91.59 1925 87 31 89 70 91 28 91 76 88 15 91.92 92.69 88.65 91.19 88.59 90.63 85.02 1926 88 36 93 47 95 23 92.00 81.07 87.96 91.69 92.31 88.89 90.64 90.51 91.54 90.38 1927 94 32 93 81 88 25 89.02 89.15 89.41 93.55 87.65 90.52 92.11 91.73 92.45 91.09 1928 93.36 92 79 92 93 93.33 88.16 90.71 90 40 93.01 92.63 90.45 90.79 92.34 91.74 1929 92.59 93 12 94 15 91 56 87.12 89.91 Sources of data: 1922-1925. U. S. Dept. Agr. Livestock slaughter statistics. U. S. Dept. Agr. Year- book 1925: 1187. 1926. 1926-1928 and current data in monthly issues of U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets. been collecting information on the number of (1) sheep and {2) lambs and yearlings slaughtered. These reports (table 19) constitute 75 to 85 per cent of the sheep slaughtered under federal inspection. From these data indications point to an increase during the past six years in the relative number of lambs and yearlings killed for the market. It is highly probable that during periods of prosperity in the industry relatively fewer sheep of all ages would be slaughtered because stockmen would breed sheep over as long a period as possible. During the years 1922 and 1923 sheepmen were forced to liquidate holdings, which necessitated the slaughter of a high percentage of sheep during these years. One of the serious problems in forecasting livestock production has been the determination of breeding stock available on farms and ranches. Data available over a series of years 29 U. S. Census data. 44 University of California — Experiment Station on the age classification of sheep slaughtered should in a general way give some indication of the number of breeding animals retained on farms. The percentage of lambs slaughtered in May is low (table 19). The total slaughter of sheep and lambs is also low during that month (table 18). California shipments of lambs are high during May, the peak month of the year. While these statements bring out one of the great advantages which this state possesses in lamb production, it should not necessarily be inferred that during subsequent years a similar situation may prevail. Table 19 should be used in conjunc- tion with table 18, and as time goes on data will be available covering a longer period, making it possible to form more definite conclusions. Slaughter of Sheep TABLE 20 and Lambs at San Francisco* and Los Angeles, 1921-1924 (Thousands, i.e., 000 omitted) 1921 1922 1923 1924 Month San Fran- cisco Los Angeles San Fran- cisco Los Angeles San Fran- cisco Los Angeles San Fran- cisco Los Angeles 68 62 74 91 96 83 85 90 87 89 75 94 35 32 41 39 41 45 45 50 49 46 48 46 85 65 72 81 90 80 77 84 76 83 70 63 51 42 48 53 43 45 45 47 43 43 39 41 68 59 83 86 88 77 73 76 70 76 66 60 47 40 51 47 50 51 50 51 47 50 50 48 53 57 69 101 141 79 71 69 69 73 62 67 52 49 48 30 May 129 104 July 57 50 50 October 46 49 December 52 Total 995 516 926 540 880 582 910 716 Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Agr. Econ., San Francisco, Calif. W. E. Wofford, U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Agr. Econ., Los Angeles, Calif. Number and Trend of Sheep Slaughtered in California. — Data on the slaughter of sheep and lambs at San Francisco and Los Angeles are available since 1921 (tables 20 and 21). In addition, information on state-inspected slaughter in other cities of California is now obtain- able. An estimate of 10 per cent of the known slaughter has been placed on the uninspected slaughter in the state. Totals have been computed only since 1925, because records for state-inspected slaugh- ter previous to the latter year were incomplete. Lambs slaughtered Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 45 for eastern markets are included in these totals, and the latter must be subtracted if information on the slaughter for consumption within the state is desired. During the past three years the slaughter and consumption of sheep and lambs has been fairly constant, only a slight variation in totals occurring. Marketable increases have been sent east and as a result prices have remained at comparatively high levels on the local markets. The period for which complete slaughter data are available is far too limited a time on which to base accurate information rela- tive to seasonal variation in slaughter. During the four months, March to June, when the bulk of the spring lambs come to market, slaughter is especially heavy. During these months an appreciable part of the dressed carcasses is sent east in express refrigerator cars (table 45). In table 21 the difference between the estimated slaughter and the estimated consumption represents the number of carcasses sent elsewhere for consumption. Beginning in October and continuing through February the kill is less than normal. California depends during this latter period on out-of-state supplies and fed lambs from the state to fill the demand. The kill in the San Francisco Bay region increased from 640,991 head in 1915 to 995,000 in 1921. Since the latter date there has been a decrease. 30 This section accounted for from approximately 43 to 46 per cent of the state slaughter during the three years 1926-1928. Slaughter at Los Angeles increased from 386,471 head in 1915 to 411,820 in 1920, and 516,316 in 1921. Unlike the slaughter at San Francisco, that at Los Angeles increased from 1921 to 1924. A drop was recorded for 1925 and there has been but little variation during the past three years. The kill in Los Angeles amounts to approxi- mately 36 per cent of the state total. Data on the slaughter of sheep and lambs under state inspection indicate that there has been a steady increase during the past four years. This may be attributed to the fact that more and more county slaughtering plants are being brought under state inspection. The carcasses may then be transported by truck to larger cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Oakland. 30 It is believed by many familiar with local conditions that this decrease may be explained in the following manner: San Francisco is the center of spring- lamb production, and prior to the introduction of eastern lamb shipments, a considerable number of spring lambs were unloaded on that market. Many were sold on the consignment basis — the killers receiving a flat rate per head for slaughter and selling the carcasses for what could be obtained. At present there is no dumping, because the lambs are now sent east instead of to the San Francisco Bay region. Using wholesale prices of the daily press, it has been found that since 1920 prices for spring lambs have been relatively higher during the spring and early summer than previously. 46 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 21 Estimated Total Slaughter and Consumption" of Sheep and Lambs in California, 1925-1929 San Francisco District slaughter Los Angeles District slaughter State- inspected slaughter other than Los Angeles Known slaughter, California Estimated slaughter, California Estimated consump- tion, California 1925 January February March April May June July August September . October November... December... Total. January February March April May June July August September ... October November... December... Total. 59,160 51,310 65,618 81,296 69,764 66,031 66,929 66,022 71,138 65,116 54,098 58,737 775,219 48,802 44,289 52,445 73,462 76,585 50,992 50,104 47,397 47,620 45,802 41,015 43,544 622,057 10,972 8,098 9,305 14,777 13,436 12,979 14,023 10,343 12,947 10,468 9,385 9,133 135,866 118,934 103,697 127,368 169,535 159,785 130,002 131,056 123,762 131,705 121,386 104,498 111,414 1,533,142 ,687,000 131,000 131,000 114,000 114,000 140,000 126,000 186,000 156,000 176,000 146,000 143,000 141,000 144,000 144,000 136,000 136,000 145,000 145,000 134,000 134,000 115,000 115,000 123,000 123,000 1,611.000 1926 805,148 56,326 44,580 50,448 42,626 70,355 65,223 74,537 59,885 74,147 65,576 70,495 49,346 70,020 48,507 68,174 50,792 77,515 52,843 65,168 49,544 63,548 49,053 64,415 47,620 625,595 11,430 8,229 13,961 13,006 15,806 13,329 14,583 10,799 14,116 11,080 10,212 11,307 147,858 112,336 101,303 149,539 147,428 155,529 133,170 133,110 129,765 144,474 125,792 122,813 123,342 1,578,601 124,000 111,000 164,000 162,000 171,000 146,000 146,000 143,000 159,000 138,000 135,000 136,000 1,735,000 124,000 111,000 151,000 142,000 146,000 146,000 146,000 143,000 159,000 138,000 135,000 136,000 1,677,000 1927 January 63,409 55,091 71,539 77,340 76,273 66,829 66,013 68,745 69,223 63,406 60,163 52,043 49,778 46,080 54,804 65,163 61,375 52,648 48,583 51,196 51,009 49,593 46,304 45,918 9,022 7,674 9,290 14,911 15,708 11,258 9,837 12,964 11,932 12,383 12,237 7,851 122,209 108,845 135,633 157,414 153,356 130,735 124,433 132,905 132,164 125,382 118,704 105,812 134,000 120,000 149,000 173,000 169,000 144,000 137,000 146,000 145,000 138,000 131,000 116,000 134,000 February 120,000 March 144,000 April 143,000 May 148,000 June 144,000 July 137,000 August 146,000 September 145,000 October 138,000 November 131,000 December 116,000 Total 790,074 622,451 135,067 1,547,592 1,702,000 1,646,000 Bul.473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 47 Table 21 — (Concluded) San Francisco District slaughter Los Angeles District slaughter State- nspected laughter other than LosAngeles Known slaughter, Palifornia Estimated slaughter, California Estimated consump- tion, California 1928 January February March April May June July August September October November.. December.. Total 57,306 51,103 9,572 52,228 47,687 8,264 63,283 64,925 11,977 69,187 60,293 15,991 77,708 65,782 19,154 62,924 56,010 15,198 63,605 53,142 13,959 60,707 58,574 16,935 65,134 51,610 12,081 64,905 55,270 16,305 61,414 54,513 14,510 59,845 52,312 9,533 758,246 671,221 163,479 117,981 108,179 140,185 145,471 162,644 134,132 130,706 136,216 128,825 136,480 130,437 121,690 ,592,946 130,000 119,000 154,000 160,000 179,000 148,000 144,000 150,000 142,000 150,000 143,000 134,000 ,753,000 130,000 118,000 141,000 134,000 158,000 148,000 144,000 150,000 142,000 150,000 143,000 134,000 ,692,000 1929 55,593 47,392 56,963 67,350 73,192 58,173 62,292 60,168 50,387 67,330 68,082 66,864 57,441 63,143 11,469 8,075 11,870 14,665 24,035 17,120 20,710 127,230 105,854 136,163 150,097 164,091 132,734 146,145 140,000 116,000 150,000 165,000 181,000 146,000 161,000 140,000 116,000 137,000 April 142,000 May June 158,000 146,000 July 161,000 Total Source of data: Calif. Wool Growers Assoc, San Francisco, Calif. Age Classification of Sheep Slaughtered in California. — In San Francisco there are approximately ten wholesale slaughterers operat- ing under regulations of the city health board which require that inspectors maintain records showing the number of sheep killed per week as distinct from the slaughter of lambs. The animals which do not show a 'break joint' are classified as sheep and those which do, as lambs (p. 54). Practically all of the mature mutton carcasses go to institutions, steamship lines, etc., relatively few reaching the retail trade of the San Francisco Bay district. Both the Chinese 31 and Greek trade in the larger centers of population prefer mutton to lamb, the higher price of lamb being the controlling factor. si Davis, W. C. Methods and practices of retailing meat. U. S. Dept. Agr. Dept. Bui. 1441:6-7. 1926. 48 University of California — Experiment Station The summary of slaughter by certain San Francisco Bay district killers can be considered a representative cross-section of the markets at both San Francisco and Los Angeles (table 22). Kecords are not available over a sufficiently long period to indicate a pronounced seasonal variation in the slaughter of sheep. From the meager data on hand indications point to smaller amounts of mutton available as the lambing season approaches, as ewes are most plentiful during June, July, August, and September after the lambs have been weaned and sent to market. The proportion of available wethers is so small that quotations on two-year-olds have been discontinued at most live- TABLE 22 Percentage of Mature: Mutton in Total Sheep Slaughter,* San FranciscO', 1926-1928 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Average 1926 6.81 4.09 6.81 6.87 2.95 4.00 2.25 2.83 3.30 3.01 4.02 2.74 6.51 3.72 6.03 4.49 5.09 3.86 8.46 5.19 7.49 8.36 5.59 6.18 7.12 6.64 6.25 5.46 5.91 7.02 6.86 6.09 5.42 7.02 7.42 5.57 6.18 1927 4 94 1928 5.36 * Based on total slaughter of slaughterers reporting to the San Francisco Board of Health. In 1926 the total was 398,560; 1927—406,927; 1928—385,174. Source of data: San Francisco Board of Health. stock markets. In all probability, approximately 5 per cent of the total slaughter of sheep and lambs is sufficient to take care of the limited trade demands of the various groups mentioned above. In the average retail shop the product offered is lamb. In marked contrast to the large supply of lamb offered during recent years, it is significant that almost universal testimony has been supplied by many old-time buyers of sheep and lambs that prior to 1904 very few lambs were slaughtered, the bulk being yearling wethers, ewes, and mature animals. MUTTON AND LAMB CONSUMPTION United States. — Data on the estimated annual consumption of meats are available since 1900 (table 23). Estimates of the output of meat from federally inspected slaughter plants can be relied upon. On account of the difficulties surrounding the estimation of unin- spected slaughter (p. 40) total consumption data are apt to contain a considerable percentage of error. Contrary to popular belief, there has been but little change in the total per-capita consumption of all meats during the past twenty-nine years. The per-capita consump- Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 49 tion of meat is apparently in the neighborhood of 140-150 pounds a year. In considering this meat ration the utilization of eggs and poultry in large quantities must be taken into account, for the figure quoted does not include eggs and poultry. The country has, therefore, a heavy meat intake, despite expansion in use of fruits and vegetables in recent years. TABLE 23 Estimated Annual Per-Capita Consumption of Meat and Lard in the United States, 1900-1928 (Pounds per capita) Year Lamb and mutton Beef Veal Pork, not including lard Total meat* Lard Total meats and lard 1900 1901 6.8 6 9 7.0 7.2 6 8 6 5 6 5 6 4 6 3 6 6 6 4 7.8 8 1 7 5 7 4 6 3 6 1 4 6 4 7 5 8 5 5 5 9 5 5 2 5 2 5.2 5 5 5 4 5 6 67.8 69 68.5 76 73.6 73 72.6 77.5 71 5 75 4 71 1 67.7 61 1 60 6 58 5 54 5 56 59 5 63 61 6 63 1 56 9 60 4 61.4 61.6 62 2 63 6 58.4 51 7 3 5 3 9 4 4 4.7 5 1 5 4 5 4 6.7 6 4 6 9 68 6 4 6.3 5 1 4 6 4 3 5 3 6 5 7.4 7.7 7 6 7 7.3 7.7 8 2 8 7 8 2 7.4 6 8 64.7 63.0 57.8 59.3 62.8 58.8 59 7 64 4 66.1 60 1 57 1 64.5 61.8 63 62.3 59.5 60 1 49 3 54.8 54.8 60 5 63.5 66.1 74.7 74.7 67.6 65 7 68.5 73.9 142.8 142.8 137.7 147.2 148.3 143.7 144.2 155.1 150.3 149.2 141.6 146.5 137.4 136.3 133.0 124 8 127.7 120.1 130.1 130.0 136.8 133.3 138.8 149.0 149.7 143.7 143 139.7 138 13 2 12.9 11.7 11.8 12.4 10 11.2 13 5 13.5 11.5 11.4 11 3 11 2 11 4 12 2 12.9 13 6 11.7 13.3 12 .3 13.3 11 3 14.2 15 3 15 4 13.2 13 5 13 8 14.7 156.0 155.7 1902 149.4 1903 159.0 1904 160.7 1905 153.7 1906 155.4 1907 .... 168.6 1908 163.5 1909 160.7 1910 153 1911 157.8 1912 1913 ... 148 6 147.7 1914 145.2 1915 137.7 1916 141 3 1917. 131 8 1918 143.4 1919 142.3 1920 150.1 1921 1922 144.6 153.0 1923 164.3 1924 165 1 1925 136.9 1926 156 5 1927 153.5 1928 152.7 * Includes a relatively very small quantity of goat meat which is not given separately. Source of data: Roberts, John. Meat production, consumption, and foreign trade in the United States, calendar years 1900-1928. U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Anim. Indus. Mimeographed Circular, pp. 1-9, 1929. Of this per-capita meat consumption, mutton and lamb contribute between 5 and 6 pounds. There has been a distinct decline in the estimated per-capita consumption of mutton and lamb since the begin- ning of the century. Before the War consumption was between 6 and 8 pounds. Conclusions drawn from a comparison of isolated years or even from a series of years are oftentimes erroneous unless the corresponding phase of the production cycle is considered. Went- 50 University of California — Experiment Station worth and Clemen 32 have made a long-time estimate of the per-capita consumption of mutton and lamb by decades since 1830-1839. This indicates a gradual downward tendency. Since 1900, there have been four more or less well-defined move- ments in the consumption of mutton and lamb. From 1903 to 1907 there was a gradual decline ; from 1907 to 1912 there was a rise to a peak, the estimated consumption reaching 8.1 pounds; during the period 1912-1917 there was a considerable falling off in consumption ; and since the latter date there has been a small increase. It will be noted that since 1922 the trend in consumption has been slowly upward, and that during this time the sheep cycle has been in its expansion phase. Since 1900, beef, mutton, and lamb have apparently been occupy- ing places of lesser importance in the meat diet of the American people, while pork and veal have been increasing in importance. While data are not available, it is highly probable that the decrease in the combined per-capita consumption of mutton and lamb has been brought about largely by a decrease in the consumption of mutton. In 1928, the national consumption of meat is estimated to have amounted to 16,569,000,000 pounds (138.0 pounds per capita) . Of this 673,000,000 pounds was lamb and mutton (4.1 per cent), 7,032,000,000 beef and veal (42.4 per cent), and 8,863,000,000 pork, not including lard (53.5 per cent). The production and consumption of mutton and lamb is smaller than that of beef, pork, or veal. Pearl in studies on the food supply of the United States 33 has estimated that during the period 1911-12 to 1915-17 (fiscal years) mutton and lamb, together with their offal, contributed 1.01 per cent of the protein, 1.25 per cent of the fat and 0.61 per cent of the total energy (in calories) in the average annual production of all foodstuffs (available for human food) produced in the United States. Data on foodstuffs consumed in the United States indicate that in the six years 1911-12 to 1916-17, 1.20 per cent of the protein, 1.28 per cent of the fat and 0.61 per cent of the total energy were contained in mutton and lamb. It was toward the end of this period that a pronounced drop occurred. Pearl estimates the 1917-18 protein, fat, and energy provided by lamb and mutton to be 0.75 per cent, 0.86 per cent and 0.40 per cent respectively. 32 Wentworth, Edward N., and E. A. Clemen. Long trend meat consumption. Armour's Livestock Bureau. Monthly Letter to Animal Husbandmen 7(4) :1. 1926. 33 Pearl, Raymond. The nation's food. 274 p. W, B, Saunders Co., Phila- delphia. 1920. Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 51 Regional Consumption. — From estimates made by both the United States Department of Labor 34 and the United States Department of Agriculture (table 24) it appears that the consumption of lamb and mutton varies more by sections than either that of beef or pork. The per-capita consumption of mutton and lamb is larger in the western and north Atlantic states than in any other sections of the United States. Per-capita consumption in both the southern and middle western states is relatively low. Estimates made by the authors confirm the information with reference to the high per-capita con- sumption of mutton and lamb on the Pacific Coast. The estimate for the per-capita mutton and lamb consumption in California in 1926 was 13.3 pounds. Leaving out of consideration the western states, the north Atlantic states probably consume nearly 75 per cent of the mutton and lamb slaughtered under federal inspection in the remainder of the United States. The New York City area is estimated to consume 20 to 25 per cent of the total inspected slaughter in the United States. 35 The Commercial Research Department of Swift and Company in 1922 estimated that approximately 75 per cent of the sheep in the country were raised west of the Mississippi, 30 while approximately 70 per cent of the mutton and lamb is consumed east of it. 37 The problem of transportation in the sheep business is a vital one. Consumer's preference studies 38 on meats in twelve cities of the country also help to substantiate the statements made with reference to consumption by sections. In San Francisco households, lamb was preferred to a larger extent than in the remaining eleven cities. The urban demand for lamb and mutton is almost 50 per cent greater than that from rural sections except in the western sections of the country (table 24). It is highly probable that the growth of cities in the United States has greatly increased the demand for lamb. The average city dweller prefers small cuts of meat. Lambs furnish cuts which fit in admirably with this scheme. 34 U. S. Dept. Labor, Bur. Labor Statistics. Eetail prices 1890 to 1925. IT. S. Bur. Labor Statistics. Bul. 418:4. 1926. 35 Letter from C. H. Harlan, Livestock Statistician, Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates, Bur. Agr. Econ., Washington, D.C. so From the estimated lamb crop of the United States for 1926-1928, the authors have calculated that approximately 80.6 per cent of the lambs were produced west of the Mississippi during those years. 3" Swift and Co. Commercial Eesearch Dept. Studies in livestock marketing. The geography of meat production and consumption. 4 p. Jan., 1922. 38 Gardner, Kelsey B., and Laurence A. Adams. Consumer habits and pref- erences in the purchase and consumption of meat. U. S. Dept. Agr. Dept. Bul. 1443:1-64. 1926. 52 University of California — Experiment Station The characteristic of the present-day consumption of slaughter- house meat is the preference for younger animals, lighter and leaner carcasses, and smaller cuts. This is the result, in part, of the limita- tions of the modern kitchen, of the preference for broiled meats rather than roasted meats, and of the disfavor into which boiled and sauteed TABLE 24 Estimated Per-Capita Meat Consumption by Eegions, 1919 Total Mutton and lamb Beef Veal Pork Urban North Atlantic 129.9 154.0 163.2 142.4 158.9 166.6 10.9 7 3 11.7 5.4 8.7 13.6 64.0 75.6 77.5 55 1 66.1 76.2 13 5 11.6 6 9 5.7 4.4 16.3 61 5 North Central, east 69.3 North Central, west 67.2 South Atlantic 76.3 South Central 79.7 Western 60.5 155.8 9.3 68.3 11 8 66.3 Rural North Atlantic 150.8 171.1 180.7 153.7 158.5 171.3 7.6 5.8 3.8 4 4 6.9 15.8 47.1 48.3 57.4 28.5 28.6 64.7 10.7 7.2 6.3 3.2 1.7 9.3 85.5 North Central, east 109.9 113 1 117 6 South Central 121.3 81.5 163.2 6.5 41.6 5.4 1097 Total population 150.1 167.3 174.9 150.9 158.6 169.0 10.0 6.6 4.8 4.7 7.3 14.7 59.6 62.7 64.1 35.2 36.3 70.3 12.8 9.5 8.1 3.8 2.3 12.7 67.7 North Central, east 88.5 North Central, west 97.8 107.1 South Central 112.8 71.3 159.7 7.8 54.0 8.4 89.6 Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr. Sectional meat consumption in the United States. U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook 1920: 828. 1921. meats have fallen. This trend expresses itself in preference for lamb, baby beef, young pork, and broiler poultry. 39 California. — Some indication of mutton and lamb consumption in California can be obtained from data on the estimated number of sheep and lambs slaughtered and consumed in the state (table 21). These figures show but little variation for the three years 1926-1928. The data show that the average consumption for the seven months 39 Address by Dr. Alonzo Taylor, Director, Food Eesearch Institute, Stanford University, given before the 21st Annual Convention of the California Wool Growers Association, San Francisco, Nov. 17, 1928. Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 53 beginning in March is appreciably larger than that during the remainder of the year (table 21), and that the five months from October to February are those of less than normal consumption. During a portion of this latter period poultry and in all probability pork are substituted for other meats. Supplies of lamb must be sent into the state in large quantities from September to February (table 51). From slaughter data at San Francisco and Los Angeles it is evi- dent that the per-capita consumption in the Bay city area exceeds that in the southern section of the state. Annual consumption in the San Francisco Bay area approximates 800,000 head, or almost two- thirds of a lamb per person, which is roughly from 20 to 24 pounds, or between four and five times the estimated per-capita consumption for the entire country. Not a few retailers testify that between 25 and 30 per cent of their retail meat business consists of lamb. Various reasons have been assigned by members of the wholesale meat trade of San Francisco for this above-average trade in lamb. Many wholesalers state that the fact that they deliver carcasses of lamb to the retail shops in separate trucks is conducive to enlarged demand, because the carcasses are not injured in transportation. Approximately 80 per cent of the carcass retail trade in the Bay district is restricted to firms who do not handle the carcasses in and out of refrigerator cars. Boxes, barrels, and packages of meat are not loaded with carcass goods. One or two exclusive lamb slaughterers do not handle pork, beef, veal, or any other packing-house products. Another factor contributing to a large consumption is the appar- ently lower retail price for lamb prevailing in San Francisco (com- pare tables 39 and 40). The moderate climate is perhaps partly responsible for this larger consumption. One of the main reasons for a wide outlet for lamb in the San Francisco district is the fact that packers and slaughterers have access to large numbers of lambs the year round. There is a succession of 'spring-lamb' crops within a shipping radius of San Francisco from March 15 to September 15, and during the remainder of the year fed lambs of good quality are available, many Bay district packers operat- ing their own feed lots during the winter months in order to keep up the quality of their product. Increased Consumption of Lamb. — If the sheep population of the country continues to grow, the problem of greater consumption will present itself. Those interested in increasing the present consumption of lamb should realize that the problem is most difficult. Dr. Alonzo 54 University of California — Experiment Station Taylor states that the per-capita consumption of food (in calories) in the United States has been declining and that the end of the decline has not yet been reached. The main reasons given for this movement are: (1) substitution of machines for manual labor, (2) vogue for slimness, and (3) better heating of homes. 40 If lamb consumption is increased, lamb will take the place of some other food. This augmenta- tion of lamb consumption can only be brought about by the offering of high-quality lamb of uniform grade. The inauguration of educational campaigns regarding the use of lamb ought to have favorable results. Until recently legs and chops have been the only two cuts of lamb widely utilized. A greater demand for other parts of the carcass should be instrumental in lower- ing the present retail price on the two cuts mentioned, without affecting either the wholesale carcass price or the price paid to the producer. On account of the low consumption of lamb in the middle west it would appear that the population might be induced to include high-quality lamb in the diet. There still seems to be doubt in the mind of the consuming public as to whether a carcass is lamb or mutton. 41 If the consumer could be assured that the purchase made is lamb, sales might be increased. Lamb is a general term which refers to the flesh of young animals of the ovine species of both sexes. The age at which the change from lamb to yearling sheep takes place in the live animal is approximately twelve to fourteen months (see p. 68). Lamb carcasses as a group are distinguished from mutton carcasses by their smaller and softer bones, lighter-colored flesh, softer and whiter external and internal fats, smaller size of carcass and cuts, and by the break joint of the forelegs. Lamb foreleg joints break in four well-defined ridges, resembling somewhat the teeth of a saw. These ridges are smooth, moist, and red with blood. As lambs approach the yearling stage the bones become harder, whiter, and more porous, and there is only a slight indication of blood at the joint. When an animal has passed through the yearling stage and has become sheep, the cartilage becomes ossified or hardened and the knuckle no longer breaks off the end of the bone. This is a hard, smooth, white shiny surface with two prominent ridges. 42 40 Address by Dr. Alonzo Taylor, Director, Food Research Institute, Stanford University, given before the 21st Annual Convention of the California Wool Growers Association, San Francisco, Calif., Nov. 17, 1928. 4i Discussion, California Wool Growers Association Convention, Palace Hotel, San Francisco, Nov. 17, 1928. 42 Davis, W. C, and J. A. Burgess. Market classes and grades of dressed lamb and mutton. U. S. Dept. Agr. Dept. Bui. 1470:6. 1927. Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 55 The Division of Livestock, Meats, and Wool of the Bureau of Agri- cultural Economics has been attempting' to grade and stamp beef carcasses in order to supply evidence of the true grade in such man- ner that it will be easily distinguished by everyone, including the individual consumer. 43 This work has not been inaugurated with mutton and lamb carcasses except in a minor way, such as carcasses consigned to institutions. The adoption of this system might serve to stimulate the consumption of lamb by overcoming the doubt in the mind of the consumer relative to the quality of the meat purchased. TABLE 25 Estimated Per-Capita Consumption of Mutton and Lamb in Certain Countries, Pre- War, Annual, 1921-1928 (Pounds) Year United States Canada Argen- tina United Kingdom Den- mark Bel- gium France Ger- many Aus- tralia New Zealand Pre-War 1921 7 3 5 9 5 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 5 5 4 5.6 9 1 11 4 9 8 8 6 5 2 5 6 6 1 6 5 32 2 38 7 29 1 23 4 15 7 15 8 19 6 20 2 21 2 29 3 26.9 26 5 24 9 22 1 23 9 25 24 9 25 1 8.2 2.0 1.2 12 0.7 9 12 11 1.3 9.5 6.8 6 8 7.2 7.0 6 6 7.8 6.6 6 8 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.2 1.8 2.0 1.8 1.6 16 97.5 66.1 86.1 78.3 59 9 54 7 64 1 71.6 1 1 1922 1923 5 9 1924 [ 82* 1925 1926 1927 1928 J * Average per capita consumption for 10-year period ending with 1928. Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Agr. Econ. Estimated per-capita consumption of beef , mutton, and pork in specific countries. Foreign Crops and Markets 19 (3) : 95-97. 1929. Consumption in other Countries. — In the countries for which data are available consumption of mutton and lamb has been far lower in the seven years, 1921-1927 (table 25), than during the pre-war period. The general tendency in 1928 in most countries for which per-capita consumption estimates have been made was to consume more sheep- meat and pork and less beef per capita. The exceptions are the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. While the eight-year period is too short to detect a definite trend, indications point to a lessening of mutton and lamb consumption. The Bureau of Agricultural Econom- ics of the United States Department of Agriculture reports that this decrease has been offset by an augmentation of the per-capita con- sumption of beef and pork. The per-capita consumption of mutton and lamb is greater in New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, and the United Kingdom than in other countries. With the exception of the latter, all are surplus sheep areas and comparatively younger countries. 43 An excellent account of this work, which was inaugurated on May 2, 1927, will be found in: National Livestock and Meat Board. Grading and stamping prime and choice beef carcasses. National Livestock and Meat Board Bui. 1:1-15. Chicago, 111. 1927. 56 University of California — Experiment Station Purchasing Power of Sheep, United States and California, January 1. 1869-1929 220 r 190 /ao ■ • J * Co///orr>/o-^ • / K #i 'fsj \ /SO \~ /SO . /zo C //o ■\ <0 /OO I so CO SO AO so r * 1 i i i y vl i Y i /rri tea ' Srot**-, 1 i A / rAj vl Qv, / V II \ \ f w SI X\j / /v V A / V « " ■ 1 ■ ■ r I 1 i . i ■ i i 1 T ■ ' ■ ■ i i i ' i ' r , I , 1 , ■ , . i -i -■ ," 1 1 . . 1 , 1 , , , 1 Fig. 16. — The purchasing power of sheep on January 1 of each year in the United States and in California shows a fairly definite cyclical movement, not, however, as distinct as that of cattle. While the peaks and depressions of the cylces for the nation and state do not absolutely correspond, there is a high degree of correlation between the two. If the future can be interpreted from the past, values should decline for the next two or three years. High values of cattle will perhaps exert some tendency to hold sheep prices high. In the past, high inventory values have been reached in the United States in 1892, 1899, 1908, 1911, 1918, and 1929, while low values occurred in 1895, 1903, 1909, 1912, 1922. (Data from table 26.) PRICES AND PURCHASING POWER OF SHEEP AND LAMBS Owing to the divergent interests of those to whom this publication may be of value, and to the uses for which the various data are sub- mitted, several series of price and value data are given. "With these varying purposes in view, price and value series are given for (1) annual inventory values of the United States Department of Agricul- ture, (2) prices paid producers for sheep and lambs in the United States and California, (3) wholesale quotations on lambs at San Francisco and Los Angeles. 1. Annual Inventory Values of the United States Department of Agriculture. — Since 1869, yearly estimates on the valuation of sheep in both the United States and California have been made on January Bui,. 473] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE SHEEP INDUSTRY 57 first by the United States Department of Agriculture (fig. 16). These estimates represent inventory values but not sales. While studies with reference to the trends and cycles in sheep values should be helpful to sheepmen in preparing for future operations, such statistical informa- tion does not enable one to see the future in an absolute manner. The data relative to cycles of sheep values simply indicate what has hap- pened in the past. In these inventory studies January first values have been expressed in terms of purchasing power (table 26). An analysis of these values indicates that fairly regular cycles in purchas- ing power have occurred. The New York State College of Agricul- ture 44 and Armour's Livestock Bureau 45 in independent researches have come to the same conclusions. The purchasing power of sheep compared with all commodities has shown a general upward trend with considerable irregularity. The peaks in the January first valua- tions of sheep have been 1874, 1883, 1892, 1899, 1908, 1917, and 1929 (fig. 16). The period from peak to peak has been from eight to twelve years. Low points have occurred in 1869, 1880, 1886, 1895, 1903, 1912, and 1922. The period between the low points has been less regular than that between high points. These cyclical movements are not absolutely uniform and even if history were to repeat itself the exact number of years in the cycle could not be foretold. Never- theless, these cycles should prove to be of interest to sheepmen. If present values (Jan. 1, 1929) were to continue, a very great expansion might be justified. The purchase of sheep at present prices with high land rentals and labor costs makes such an expansion highly specu- lative. On January 1, 1929, sheep, in the United States, had a higher value in terms of purchasing power than they have had since 1918. All indications point to the present (1929) as being the peak of the purchasing-power cycle. It is of interest to note that in purchasing power, values have tended upward since 1869 (fig. 16). It is highly probable that when values go lower they will not go so low as they did in the previous depression phase of the cycle. Continued high values during the past few years have been largely the result of an increased demand for lamb. Calculations of California data show a fairly close agreement with those for the United States (fig. 16). It should be noted that values 44 Warren, G. F., and F. A. Pearson. Periods of over and under-production of sheep. New York State College of Agriculture. Farm Economics 1(22): 249- 250. 1925. 45 Wentworth, Edward N., and Tage U. Ellinger. Cyclical trends in the sheep industry. Monthly Letter to Animal Husbandmen 5(12) :l-4. 1925. 58 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 26 Actual and Beilative Values, Purchasing Power of Sheep, California and United States, January 1, 1869-1929 Year 1870 1871.. 1872. 1873.. 1874.. 1875.. 1876.. 1877.. 1878.. 1879 1881. 1882 1883. 1884 1885. 1886. 1887. 1890 1891*. 1892. 1893.. 1894. 1895.. 1896.. 1897. 1900. 1901.. 1902.. 1903. 1904. 1905.. 1906.. 1907. 1909. 1910 1911 1912. 1913. 1914. All-com- modity index on Jan. 1 1 135 125 119 122 121 117 112 104 97 89 85 94 93 95 93 87 82 81 81 83 83 80 82 77 83 73 69 70 68 70 71 83 81 83 91 87 93 91 94 104 96 96 102 100 California Actual value (dollars per head) 53 56 59 78 97 31 53 02 1 40 1 52 1.61 1 62 1.70 1.65 2 02 1.90 1.89 1.81 1.77 1.88 1.88 2.08 2.20 2.42 2 32 1.81 1 65 1.85 1.86 2.23 2.64 2.85 3.47 2.80 3.30 3.59 3.60 3.70 3.80 Relative value 3 70 71 72 77 83 64 70 56 39 42 45 45 47 46 56 53 53 50 49 52 52 58 61 67 65 50 46 51 52 62 73 79 83 81 81 76 74 84 92 96 78 92 100 100 103 106 Relative purchasing power 4 52 57 61 63 68 55 63 54 40 47 53 48 51 48 60 61 64 62 61 63 63 72 75 87 78 69 67 74 76 89 103 95 103 97 89 88 84 95 99 106 83 88 104 104 101 106 United States Actual value (dollars per head) 5 1.64 1.90 2.14 2.61 2 71 43 55 37 13 21 07 29 39 37 53 37 14 1.98 1 58 1.70 Relative value 67 72 91 99 100 88 106 101 89 101 103 Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 59 Table 26 — {Concluded) All-com- modity index on Jan. 1 =; :_ California United States Year Actual value (dollars per head) Relative value Relative purchasing power Actual value (dollars per head) Relative value Relative purchasing power 1915 1916 1 100 115 156 188 202 237 173 141 159 154 163 159 150 149 152 8 4.50 S.QQ 6 70 11 30 12 00 10.90 6.70 5 30 8 10 9 00 9 20 10.60 10 00 11 40 10.80 3 125 139 186 314 333 303 186 147 225 250 256 294 278 317 300 4 125 121 119 167 165 128 108 105 142 162 157 185 185 213 197 5 4.50 5.17 7.13 11.82 11.63 10.46 6 28 4.80 7.53 7 91 9 70 10 51 9.71 10.25 10 60 6 116 133 183 304 299 269 161 123 194 203 249 270 250 263 272 7 116 116 1917 118 1918 162 1919 148 1920 115 1921 93 1922 88 1923 122 1924 132 1925 1926 153 170 1927 166 1928 177 1929 179 Sources of data: Col. 1 — U. S. Bur. Labor Statis. All-commodity wholesale-price index for the United States. Base 1910-1914 = 100. Col. 2—1869-1927, California Cooperative Crop Reporting Service; January 1 farm values of California livestock per head 1869-1928. California Crop Rpt. 1927: 62. 1928. 1928-1929, California Cooperative Crop Reporting Service. Summary of California annual livestock report. Mimeographed report issued Feb. 6, 1929. Col. 3— Relatives of items in col. 2. 1910-1914=3.60 = 100. Col. 4 — Items in col. 3 divided by the index number for the month of January of the year in col. 1. Col. 5—1869-1893, U. S. Dept. Agr. Sheep: farm price per head. Yearbook 1922: 867. 1923. 1894-1929, U. S. Dept. Agr. Farm price of sheep per head. Crops and Markets 6 (2): 41. 1929. Col. 6 — Relatives of items in col. 5. 1910-1914 = 3.89 = 100. Col. 7 — Items in col. 6 divided by the index number for the cor- responding year in col. 1. on January 1, 1929, were lower than on the same date a year previous. In both the state and nation sheep values apparently increase over a period of from four to five years and then retrograde. 2. Farm Prices of Sheep and Lambs in the United States and California. — The value per head of sheep and lambs varies with con- dition, quality, age, size, and weight. In addition, the covering of wool affects the price. In tables 27 to 30 prices are given per hundred pounds liveweight instead of per head, as the former prices are far less variable than the latter. 46 These data can be used in a general way to indicate trends (fig. 17) . Compared with the wholesale prices of all commodities on a 1910- 1914 base, the purchasing power of sheep rose to a peak in 1918. After a decline which reached a low point in 1921, the purchasing power has improved steadily, and during the past four years, 1925- 1928, it has been over 100 per cent (table 31). Data for California (table 31) show a similar trend. 46 Sarle, Charles F. Reliability and adequacy of farm-price data. IT. S. Dept. Agr. Dept. Bul. 1480:1-65. 1927. 60 University of California — Experiment Station XJl N H m lO r^ C7S CO »o CO o M 0) Ol CM «n fr» Ol CM »* ■o CO 00 «* CI CO -* US CO a> o OS CO ^ «o CO CO t^ t^ 3 i—l £ r^ CO 1^ 03 Q t^ T»< os CO r»- 'CK iO uO C) CO oo OS co CI «* CO •* <* «# ■Q CO o OS 00 lO "*< CO CO CO t^ CO t«- r- r^ oo oo o o © O CO CO o C4 CO ' —l >* C4 ' —l co OJ oo o Oi co •o I- ^ •o >* CO <# >* -* IO CO o o 00 CO CO CO CO CO t- CO t- l-- OO co OS CO CO, o ^ lO CO CI CO CO CI O r_l T_l '-" co CO co OS © 'O Tt< CO -* -* ■* w CO o o 00 CO co >o CO <£> 1^ CO t^ t^ ■»3 o CO >o lO OS OS -tl o t^ oo os 1—1 C4 oo o CI t^ «N 1-* >o CO CM © >o o co. OS CI CO co OS CO "*< co ** ■*< •^ IQ co a © OS t^ ■«*< >o CO CO I-- CO t^ t~- t~- >> »^ OS o >o ■a co. CI 3 lO •—I -r c^ © I«- <* '- 1 I s " CO CO OJ C4 co '^ Tt< CO' ^^ o "O CM *-a IO. ■«*< ■<* Tt< ■>* lO co cs ^ OS co ->* CO CO CD t^ 1^ t^ 1^ t^ «* o 1* -f. xrl ** •o CO OS ^H © OS ^ CO CO r^ r- t» r- t^ t^ >> o3 OS «* r*. -t< CO >o O) CO •<* lO CI 00 OS ie T_ 1 CO co r_l co >o t^. CO o IQ ■^ ■*♦< ■«*« "* m CO o N © o lO CO CO r^ r^ »-- 1^ 00 o r^ <© CO o oo CO o m CJ 1^ © a IC •o •— 1 cs CO CO CO OS CO CO ^ H T* CI ■* "^ CO Tfl •H ** CO "* m T* lO CO en ^1 ,_l o «o CO r~ f^ 00 r^ 1^ OO 00 Xi s r^ co o CO Tfl OS l^ co CO O) -r ^ Oi CM IC o CI CI CO -r OO CO o3 CO o> ^_l © o lO CO r^ t^ CO t^ i-~ f^ 00 S r^ r^ CO CM o CO o 00 X3 o CO o CO CO a "— 1 t^ OS OS 1—1 fe ■Q "* ■* <# «* lO lO 00 © OS OS >o iO CO CO CO CO t^ r~ !>. r- oo CO kO r^ CM T)< a CO -* CO CO CD CS IQ CO •o CO CO CO >o oo 33 io <# CO «* "* <# iO t^ o OS OS lO ^t- CO CO b- CD t^ t^ c3 N CI CO ^ lO CO OO OS CM CI C75 OS OS OS OS r* . ^ oo «- S3 S OS to -J 3 • - >> 13 3 _• S "o < 2 feS += £ (H T3 < s C a S o Q QQ s3 P > a c3 S T1 Tfl 0J 5 "o bO Bui>. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 61 * T) o IQ CO -JO CO OO eq CO CM ^H t ^ OS o o CM _l _( Cl c3 o O OJ BO CD CO os 0> Q GO OJ f~ oo re o r~ 00 <* OO "* 03 cn os ro "* «s -* IQ iO CO r^ oo r<- ei ^H OO CD © o o Cl o ^H ^H on ■* -M CO OS m h- CM o >o o CM o o »o M t^ *J< t^ >o -c* re — 1 ro CI '—' <* ■Q Tt< LO us CO so oo CM ,_i OJ CO o o o C5 H ^^ _l oo 00 N OJ o CM OJ o IO oo CO >o ^i Cl O t^ <* r> c_- CM -*< •H ro co Cl IO us US UO CO CO 00 <* r^ _ OJ IO O a o CM ^H „< ^, a >c Cl OS CM CO CO m re GO oo US Cl ^1 00 t* 1^ Ol re Cl *^ ro '—< e "5 IO iO "0 CO 00 M w N o CO oa O o „h _, _ _l EO O CTJ CO o 3 i- -1 CO ifl N o » 00 OJ re OB 00 00 CO CO ~f cr CO OB as o ,H ,_l _ ^^ _ >> t» g O © 1 - ■<* t^ o IS. n ci © re IO CO >o t*« IO Tt< Cl © d i- _H _H r^ O o ^H ^H ^H H ci 03 CO CO "«*< oo OJ ci OS r^ eq Cl t^ iO GO c _ CO ~r CO CM CO — 1 CO 3 t^ »o co CO CO ,» 00 ci -* re Cl h- OJ o ,_, ^H Cl ^H CO > co CO CO oa ei OJ OJ «# CO oo os o CO 'OJ oo co © N — -r re •<* to. CO re ro -* os © t^ t - »o CO CO CO t-«. 00 ci iO ~r ~f t^. O ro CM 1 - >o ■* OS CM CI Cl l~ CO a T* '- OJ IC •<* re «o rr. re •o -o IO re CI ro OJ t^ CO t^ "5 io CO CO r^ 00 Cl iO -t> o a CI Cl CO -C h- O CM oo CO >o CO ■<*< re IO re CO -t< 1—1 O '- ci CM •o ro - t>- »o IO CO 03 03 00 * -f <* r>- O re Cl CO l»» on 03 re re CO Cl >* © o xi co -r CO SB 1 - US i~- ■H o i - rt fc -+i i~ oo O o co Cl o (H Cm ~r re Cft OJ OJ OJ IO -H CO c 00 i- ci o T CM ■o cc l> OB re — ' CO oJ ,, ci ei CO i^ o o CM Cl o ^H CM ci ce ■<* IO CO t^ GO) OJ ci et CI £ OB 09 OS oa oo S 73 £> & d bC cj c O ss o O o *** a X] El £ >> o C o X2 T) oil CU ■< 3 a a a o O Q 73 T) 62 University of California-— Experiment Station !q M O ^^ fa 13 T3 ^ rt o 3 o OS - Ph Ol % o H m o H-J OQ pq 0) < P< H t» r/> f-H W rt O ^ Ph O ft % 51 Ph >< ^ a H fc O P3 K! M lO N H OSOSlOM^OlMMMOiUJ »coi^eoO(Mt--.^i-(co-^i»-i^HOiooc^ * ^ ^ io io » a » » 115 * h N oooooooooo t^cooor^©r^r-~co©© o o o o o H * ■* Tjl •* 115 «5 o o o o CO •<*< ■<* «5 »0 © © oooooooooooo ©rH"<*<©©. t^ t- ©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©© l«Tt<(MTtT^©00'*i(MiOt^«OC^-H^f < iO**<**. © Tf< CO •*tlO!00)NOO)10«NNN OO©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©© OcD«00*000»iO»OONH!00 iOf«5il5CO©ONrtOtONOOOOO>M»0) lO * lO ■>*< «5 © 00 © © © t~- © O OO N Oi OS ©©©©OO©©©©© tONNOJOiNHrHXNOO © © © © ■^O^^^iO©*©©©^"? © © © t^ N N N » N OO OO ©^H(MCO-*"0©J^ ©OS©©©©©© M * lO tO t" 00 O o C o a ,H T! <0 - C 43 O O 03 c 33 ea sH -5 a a> © GO CO iQ »Q CO CO r^ _ ^H © T-< © CM -H ,H — i io r- 1 co © © © © § © s © © © © © § o »Q CO CM © 00 t^ ■*»< IQ iQ CO CD t~ © oa CO ,_( © © CM ^H ^H ^_l © o o o o o O0 OS O © "H © © s © © © © © © © © © © o t^. IQ 99 CO t^ IQ 00 © <* CXI © t^. c© >* * lO o to l> _ co _ OB CJD © © CJ rt _l ^ a o o o o o o »o CO >— i O OS © - © © a e © § © © © © © «ra ■-£ •-o CO -*> CO © IQ oo »o -^ OB e co )C >Q IO CD CO r» ^H eo __ a-. © © _ © ,_, pH _! ,_( o o o o o o © a © § © a © © © © © © © 3 < •H © © © O0 so io OJ O0 5 00 co t^ 00 CO »>~ CO to IO « * "O to l>- pH CO CM OB © © © 0B __ __ „_ ^1 © >> o — — © © © © © © 8 © © 00 CO © co *-■ m CO IQ oo 3 CO CO 14 ifl U) CO r^ _ f CI © r- SB _ © _l ^1 _ >» o o o o o o © io © © © o © = m a 00 §§88 © © © 0B © © © © © © a «o t» K) lO CO N 1- t cm CM t~ C-4 CO CM § o o o o o ■O 1^ o t o e ~ © IO a © © © © © © © co © B 0B CO IQ uO IQ © a IQ < CO CO U) CO CO N 00 -*■ CM 3 00 co C4 CM CO •«*< § o o o o o — > CI CO © CM -H fa 03 C) en ** IQ te r~ 00 Oi CI OB OB OB OB r" a 2 >> I St i Jo oo ^ bfi i* o *i 3° W & 1 - Q h P 3 «_ pq o 43 >> 03 S [-j 00* • OB »Q -7 1 S CO © s uo' 02 3 3 .2 « 64 University of California — Experiment Station Prices of Sheep and Lambs in California, 1910-1929 «> IZ \ « \ 6 \ A 1 ■ J . JLo/rth /or/, 79 -v J » tfV fi . % A A / X ^Illl/Os ukj pHlW^^ ^ A, l' /S/O *// 'AS VJ '/-* VJ Vff va '19 «o '.z/ ^^ «j % z# 'zs 'as 'zr 'za 'Z9 Fig. 17. — Prior to the War, sheep and lamb prices seldom differed by more than one dollar per hundredweight. Since 1922, not only the actual but the relative difference in the prices has widened. At times the actual difference has been as high as $4.50. Conditions have been similar in most sections of the United States, and as a result most sheepmen are now on a ewe and lamb basis for their operations. (Data from tables 29 and 30.) Based on the average of prices during the period 1910-1914, lamb prices for both the United States and California have remained at relatively high levels since 1910. While prices declined abruptly in 1920 there was a rapid recovery in 1922. During the past seven years the purchasing power of lambs in both the state and nation has been above 100 per cent. Provided the sheep population is not expanded too rapidly there does not appear to be any reason why the purchasing power of lambs and sheep should go much lower in the immediate future. Price predictions on lambs are very difficult to make on account of the highly perishable nature of the commodity. Milk- lambs might well be compared to head lettuce. A period of less than a week of poor feed conditions or drought will have a radical effect on the quality of the lamb crop, as will delays in transit. 47 *7 During the 1929 season the lamb market was affected by many unusual conditions. Considering the increased numbers of ewes bred during the fall of 1928, throughout the western country, indications pointed toward an immense lamb crop. Unsatisfactory weather conditions in other states reduced the numbers of lambs saved. Although 1929 out-of-state shipments broke all previous records, a larger than average percentage of thin lambs were marketed on account of adverse feed conditions. Bui,. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 65 Lamb-Sheep Price Batto, California, 1910-1929 no — 1 zmmJk^t^ Z TnwmWWJi- j+o 1/ i | '| if 1 /-o \A ft| 1 *A]1lltlll'\lLi U Am 11 KJla fJ^M ffwijti'vv w^^mM^T^l "°\ r /p/O '// '/Z '/J '/■* ''S V« '17 V6 '19 VZO '2/ 'ZZ 'Z3 '*■* '2S 'Z€ '27 '28 '29 Fig. 18. — From 1910 through 1919, the price which the producer received for 100 pounds (live weight) Of lamb was approximately 20 per cent more than that received for 100 pounds (live weight) of sheep. During 1920 and 1921, there was a radical change in this relationship. From 1922 through 1928, the producer has received approximately 50 per cent more for 100 pounds of lamb than for a similar weight of sheep. The economic reason for the change to the ewe and lamb basis can be seen from this figure. (Data computed by authors from tables 29 and 30.) Thus, compared with beef cattle, predictions as to the price of lambs are much less apt to be correct. Except for minor fluctuations, there was but little change in the relationship between lamb and sheep prices from 1910 to 1920, although there was a widening in the range between the actual prices received. A distinct and rather abrupt divergence between the price relationships of sheep and of lambs occurred in 1921, sheep prices declining to a relatively greater extent than those for lamb ; since the latter date there has been but little change in the relationship (fig. 18). Although the general price level for lambs (table 31) and wool (table 74) has been favorable during the past few years, a factor which is sometimes overlooked in analyzing the present condition of the industry is the cumulative effect of the transition which has occurred in land tenure in the sheep industry. As homesteading has gradually absorbed the more desirable portions of the public domain, over which sheep had previously grazed, sheepmen have been com- pelled to buy their range lands. The additional demand for capital which this would normally have entailed was many times increased by the speculation and inflation in land values which occurred throughout the whole country before and after the Armistice. 48 3. Quotations on Live Lambs at San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Omaha. — The Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the United States Department of Agriculture publishes daily quotations on the various weights of livestock and upon the grades within these weights. A 48 Perrin, John. Sheep raising in the Twelfth Federal Eeserve District. Fed. Reserve Bank of San Francisco Spec. Eeport 3:1-15. 1921. 66 University of California — Experiment Station range of price is quoted, and in calculations in this bulletin the arith- metic mean of the high and low quotations of the range is used. This type of computation is open to the criticism that a daily sale of each specific grade is not made in a number of markets and that variance in quality from day to day, month to month, and from season to TABLE 31 Belattve Farm Prices and Relative Purchasing Power, of Sheep and Lambs, 1910-1928 Sheep --«■»■ — Lambs All California United States California United States Com- modity wholesale Year Price per cwt. per cent ol 1910-1914 average Relative purchas- ing power 1910-1914 = 100 Price per cwt. per cent of 1910-1914 average Relative purchas- ing power 1910-1914 = 100 Price per cwt. per cent of 1910-1914 average Relative purchas- ing power 1910-1914 = 100 Price per cwt. per cent of 1910-1914 average Relative purchas- ing power 1910-1914 = 100 price index 1910-1914 = 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1910 109 107 114 111 104 101 108 105 103 1911 97 103 90 96 104 110 89 94 95 1912 93 92 92 91 92 91 94 94 101 1913 95 94 99 97 97 96 102 100 102 1914 105 105 104 104 104 104 106 107 100 1915 120 117 115 112 118 115 116 113 103 1916 134 104 137 106 130 101 138 107 129 1917 202 112 205 114 194 108 207 115 180 1918 236 120 238 120 236 119 235 119 198 1919 205 98 209 100 211 100 218 104 210 1920 177 77 185 80 200 87 200 87 230 1921 107 72 101 68 130 87 121 81 150 1922 139 92 130 86 177 117 164 108 152 1923 157 100 145 92 193 124 177 113 157 1924 150 99 148 97 187 123 181 119 152 1925 170 105 167 103 212 131 207 128 162 1926 166 108 162 105 203 132 195 126 154 1927 165 111 158 106 202 135 192 129 149 1928 173 113 167 109 216 141 204 133 153 Sources of data: Col. 1— Relatives of average prices in table 29. 1910-1914 = 4.78 = 100. Cols. 2, 4, 6, 8— Items in cols. 1, 3, 5, 7, divided by wholesale price index in col. 9. 1910-1914 = 100. Col. 3— Relatives of average prices in table 27. 1910-1914 = 4.60= 100. Col. 5— Relatives of average prices in table 30. 1910-1914 = 5.85 = 100. Col. 7— Relatives of average prices in table 28. 1910-1914=5.94=100. Col. 9— U. S. Bur. Labor Statistics all-commodity wholesale price index for the United States. 1910-1914 = 100. season, changes actual worth. During the late winter months heavy lambs predominate and light lambs bring a premium, but in the range marketing season choice 75-80-pound lambs often sell in the same price range with 70-75-pound lambs. Since the latter part of 1922 the quotation on light and handyweight slaughter lambs, 84 pounds down, medium, good, and choice grades has been most consistently published. The data in tables 32 to 34 are based on stockyard quota- Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 67 tions excepting in the case of San Francisco during the period October, 1922 to March 2, 1927, prior to the opening of the South San Francisco Union Stockyards on the latter date, they were on an 'off car' basis. Since March 2, 1927, quotations have been on the fill and water basis for South San Francisco. TABLE 32 Monthly Average Prices for Slaughter Lambs (84 Pounds Down, Good and Choice Grades), San Francisco and Omaha, 1922-1929 (Dollars per 100 pounds) SAN FRANCISCO Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 1922 11.85 12.41 13.49 13.80 1923 14 35 13 38 12 82 12.01 12.46 11.97 11 25 11.69 12.47 12.66 1924 12.84 13.01 13.69 13 75 10.94* 10.81 10.34 10.36 11.19 12.04 12.81 13.60 1925 15.50 16 22 15 62 14.32* 12.36* 12.08 12.43 12.39 13.44 14.04 14.12 14 23 1926 14 12 13 41 12 60 12.50* 12.25* 12.56 13.26 13.12 13.00 12.75 12.42 11.74 1927 11 25 11 44 12 65 13.11* 12.22* 12.62 12 62 12.01 12.56 12 53 12.55 12.99 1928 12 95 13.86 14 75 15.30* 14 06* 14 01 13 14 12.33 13.44 12.88 12.66 12.98 1929 15 01 16 40 17.02*t 14 93* 12.43* 12.53 12.46 12.12 12.1 3 * Spring lamb quotation, t Based on average of three weeks' quotation. Note: Beginning May 1 of each year new crop lambs are considered as lambs 84 pounds down. A similar change is made June 1 at mid-western markets (see Omaha quotations below). OMAHA Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 1923 13 74 13 79 13 69 13 55 13.29 13 86 13 01 11.96 12.25 12 14 11.72 11.68 1924 12 25 13 54 14.82 15.15 14 08 12.91 12.63 12.58 12.47 12.80 13.16 1500 1925 16 68 16 14 15 48 14 20 12 37 14.59 14 09 14.08 14.22 14.32 14.42 15 31 1926 14 06 12 69 12 60 13.70 14 26 14 95 13 22 13.14 12.81 12.86 12.40 11.72 1927 11 52 12 37 14 15 15 02 14.01 15 36 13.66 13.07 12.94 13.09 13.27 12.81 1928 12 85 15 80 16.20 18.19 17.84 15.88 14 67 13.94 12.73 12.83 12.67 13.46 1929 15 70 16 01 16 26 16.39 13.17 14.80 13.98 12.77 12.68 Note: Beginning June 1 of each year new crop lambs or spring lambs considered as lambs, 84 pounds down. Spring lamb quotations change from old crop to new crop basis. Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Agr. Econ. Daily Livestock Reports issued by the San Fran- cisco office. Prices represent arithmetic averages computed by the authors for each month. Quotations have not fluctuated greatly either at San Francisco or Los Angeles, nor has there been any pronounced upward or downward trend during this limited time. These quotations represent the gross price per 100 pounds received after a period on feed and water, and from which, freight, yardage, selling commission and insurance fees are deducted before net returns are remitted to the original shipper. 68 University of California — Experiment Station On account of changes in classification and the lack of a sufficiently long series of data, it is impossible to make accurate computations on the seasonal variation in lamb and sheep quotations for California. Since 1922, quotations on lambs have kept at fairly uniform high levels. Since lambs constitute an age selection rather than a class, diffi- culties are encountered in attempting to compile data with reference to quotations throughout the year (tables 32 and 33). In market practice a lamb is a young animal which has not yet acquired its first pair of permanent teeth. When the animal approaches the yearling stage, it is sometimes necessary to inspect the mouth to determine whether it is still a lamb. If it has not yet acquired its first per- manent teeth it is considered a lamb. In immature animals sex con- dition has not had time to exert an important influence on conforma- tion, finish, and quality; hence ewe and wether lambs are considered in a single group. Lambs are divided into three subclasses — slaughter, feeder and shearer — upon reaching the terminal markets. Slaughter and feeder subclasses are most generally known by producers and others engaged in the industry. Shearer lambs comprise a group of animals similar to feeder lambs. As a rule they are somewhat deficient in finish, but average higher in this respect than feeder lambs. In fact, slaughterers and shearer-lamb buyers frequently compete for the same lambs. The chief object in buying them is to return them to the country, shear them, and later bring them back to market. Hence shearer lambs usually carry a fairly heavy fleece. Occasionally the lamb is fed long enough to raise it one or more steps in the grade schedule before it is returned for slaughter. During the late winter or early spring at the larger public markets some lambs are always purchased as shearer lambs ; but the practice is most prevalent when wool is relatively high and the trend of fat-lamb prices upward. It is based partly on the theory that the wool will bring a higher price if removed from the lamb than if it is sold to the slaughterer on the lamb's back, and partly on the expectation of a quick gain in the lamb and a higher market when it is returned for slaughter. Slaughter lambs are divided into two age selections — 'spring lambs' and 'lambs.' The term 'spring lamb' is not easily defined. Theoretically any lamb dropped in the late winter or early spring is a 'spring lamb' and might be so considered until the close of the grass season the following fall. In market practice, however, the term is based on the time of birth combined with the time of marketing. Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 69 Hence the term ' spring lamb' is limited to lambs which are born during the winter or very early spring and which come to market between the middle of March and the first of June. The first of them usually come to market shortly before Easter and are in the nature of a delicacy. As a rule these lambs are dropped sometime between January 1 and April 1 in the nation as a whole. However, the interior valleys of California and parts of Arizona are exceptions to this rule. They are marketed when 3 to 5 months old and usually weigh between 55 and 70 pounds. The new crop or so-called 'spring lambs' are classified and quoted upon as such by the United States Bureau of Agricultural Economics from the time they make their first appearance in appreciable quanti- ties in load lots until the time most of the old-crop lambs (fed lambs) are showing yearling teeth and must, therefore, be classified as ' yearlings' rather than as 'lambs.' The chief reason for giving spring lambs a special designation is to distinguish them from the more mature lambs, which were born approximately a year earlier and which, as a rule, have been carried through the winter in feed lots. By June most of the latter have attained the age and maturity which make them yearlings. Thereafter they are known as yearling sheep, and the 'spring lamb,' in the mean- time, has taken on additional weight and maturity, and in market parlance has acquired a new label, 'lamb.' On the first Monday in June old-crop lambs are classified in both livestock and meat-market reports as yearlings, and lambs of the current-year's crop as lambs rather than spring lambs, this switch being applicable to markets such as Kansas City, Omaha, St. Joseph, Denver, and Chicago. Because of earlier production and marketing in the west coast and southwestern areas, the markets of Los Angeles, South San Francisco, North Portland, and Fort Worth, find it advis- able to make this change in classification at an earlier date, usually on the first Monday in May. This is purely an arbitrary date selection and is not maintained rigidly from year to year by the market news service. It is unfortunate that it is impossible to select a uniform date on which to make this switch in classification for all markets of the country. This cannot be done because in climates such as those of the large lamb-producing sections of the California valley areas, ewes are bred to lamb earlier than they are in most other important lamb- producing sections. In this state lambs become yearlings at an earlier date than those produced in most other sections. 70 University of California — Experiment Station At San Francisco and Los Angeles 'spring lambs' arrive as early as March 15 in sufficient volume so that a regular quotation on ' spring lambs' is published. At many other markets the few which arrive are quoted upon in reporters' comments. Load lot detailed quotations seldom appear until May 1. This inclusion of dates is somewhat arbitrary and leads to confusion among laymen. Lambs born in December or even November at Willows, California, may be marketed at Omaha in May and be correctly called ' spring lambs' whereas if these lambs were shipped to Pacific Coast markets in May they would be called 'lambs 84 pounds down.' Similarly Idaho lambs born in March and sold in Omaha in July, although strictly speaking 'spring lambs' would be quoted on as 'lambs 84 pounds down.' With the coming of spring there is a decided change in character of receipts of sheep and lambs on the markets of the country. Sheep- men begin shearing. Market supplies are made up of wooled and shorn stock. At the major markets from about May 1 to June 1, or later, 'spring lambs' and 'old-crop lambs'; the former in fleece and the latter largely shorn, are marketed simultaneously in sufficient volume to quote upon. During this time only, it is customary to quote the old-crop lambs on a shorn basis. At other times during the year all sheep and lambs are quoted on a wooled basis. Such loads of fresh- shorn or clipped stock as are sold are covered in comments as clipped lambs, yearlings, or ewes. The 'spring lambs' appearing on the market during the same period as the old-crop lambs are quoted on a wooled basis. ' Spring lambs ' are never quoted on a shorn basis in detail. If sales are made on a shorn basis they are spoken of as 'freshly shorn spring lambs to killers or feeders' and if such sales are con- sidered pertinent market information they are commented upon. It will be noted that all detailed class and grade quotations are on a wooled basis except during a comparatively short period of the year. 49 Prices on ' spring lambs ' are of especial interest to many producers, and on account of the acceleration in the growth of the sheep popula- tion of the state during the past seven years and the resulting surplus lambs in the spring of the year, these prices have become of increasing importance. Approximately one-half of the California lamb crop is marketed during March, April, May, and a portion of June. Weekly quotations are listed in table 34. As a general rule, the earlier offer- ings command higher prices, although it should be noted that early 49 The authors are indebted to C. V. Whalin, in charge Livestock, Meats, and Wool Division, TJ. S. Dept. Agr., Washington, D.C., for explanation of differences in quotations. Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 71 Comparative Market Quotations op Lambs, San Francisco and Omaha, 1925-1929 Do//ot~s yoer- c\A*f. /a ..... )Z6- t 27 - \ Osn o/?o ) < J !!>» y-y IZ - Son /^/-ostcisi TOJ y to /e /-a /z /o - ^ n ?*7-, 1 — 23 < \ Osrti vboj / •--* ] c \ » -•— , mmmmmm .— — - ^r #^^^ - O»-ie<>^Hi-lT-lO00O5CM<-ICNC0CMWOOMO)hO)0» ~-< ,_, _,_,H r _ IC <, ( M C c | ,_,^H^H_,_(M,_|,_|^ 02 S 43. bD 03J £ a OlOOOOlOHMHNHOCOOOINNMniNMW 0> 43 c id a IO^HOOCOOOI~-OOOC5OCOIO 00000050^HCM-<*l-HCOCMOCOOOC»a5^H05050 ,-H i-i^h^hi-1(MCMCNCM^Hi-Ii-I^^CMi-I'-ICM a 03 5 CO bfi 3 bD 03 fl £'9K o3_a 5 a iOHlOtDIMi|iNWOiaOiO«}*Ol»INOiO t-000050^HCNICNCM^HOOiOO(M(M(M a •*"O**MWWM'iCiO000)Oh(N(NN«01»N0101O10)O10>9 43'C a) a INOOH a 03 o CO O > 1 !zi bC 03 G >-BS5 -»J 03 > 03J3 £ ££a *a COCNMlO^NNOiNON^NCOCONM'J'lO 9JO0001OHNNiNNOW!0O)MOl010>0)9 03 .Z 03 -^ o at a o>c»^«0'* , 0'^'eMO-H05coo5>ot^t^-^05co ©»Ot^C»0'-iCOCOCOiO^HOOOiCOCO'«»0)0>OJO>0)OJOJOO)OlO)OJOiOJO>0)010i T5 ._ c DO 03 u a 03 CD Ul 1) ;- a +3 03 9 Qj K \ > O 03 O t^ >, lO 03 CO Q CO o bfl o o ed ^J U II "2 a S s i± •IS .G 2 ja n a CO 03 > 03 *-, P ° G . "E bD _g> §°! ^i 8 is ^ T3 >^ >» -I O in "C UJ 0) O Q 5 g o Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 77 the farm price has increased greatly since the pre-war period, 1910- 1914, which would indicate a somewhat higher relative wholesale price when compared with the relative farm price. Table 36 shows distinctly that there has been an increasing spread between the wholesale prices of lambs and those of sheep at Chicago. While the purchasing power of both lambs and yearlings has been high, that of sheep has been low. The average sheep grower has a variety of products which contribute to the annual income. Enthusi- TABLE 37 Comparative Percentages of Sales of the Combined Pure-Bred Sheep Breeds, 1924-1928, by Price Ranges Number Below $15, $15, but under $100 and above, Year sold per cent $100, per cent per cent 1924 18,027 24.7 74.6 0.7 1925 27,430 27.0 71.9 1.1 1926 14,376 11.4 86.7 1.9 1927 16,557* 4.6 92.6 2.8 1928 10,597 1.4 94.5 4.1 * The composition by breed of the number sold in 1927 was Cheviot 126, Cotswold 248, Dorset 133, Hampshire 4,353, Lincoln 134, Oxford 486, Rambouillet 9,519, Romney-Marsh 146, Shropshire 1,208, Southdown 204. Sources of data: 1924-1926, U. S. Dept. Agr. Prices of pure-bred cattle, hogs and sheep. U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets 4: 140-141. 1927. 1927, U. S. Dept. Agr. Prices of pure-bred sheep, U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets 5: 132. 1928. 1928, U. S. Dept. Agr. Prices of pure-bred sheep. Bur. Agr. Econ. mimeographed report Apr. 15, 1929. asm is apt to be too prevalent in connection with returns when the main product of that industry is high in price. Aged sheep con- tribute to the income of the grower, but the returns from this product have not increased so rapidly as those from lambs, yearlings, or wool. Prices of Purebreds. — The United States Department of Agricul- ture has endeavored to obtain sale prices (both at auction and private treaty) of pure-bred sheep in the United States from a large and representative number of breeders. Prices were materially higher in 1928 than in the four preceding years. From the limited data on hand it would appear that purebred prices reach proportionately higher levels than those for ordinary sheep (table 37). When the latter are rising stockmen are encouraged to improve their flocks. Conversely the drop in prices during periods of over-production will be greater because the farmer's demand for purebred stock will then be curtailed. The 1928 report showed that 61 per cent of the purebred sheep sales occurred in the mountain and Pacific states, 28 per cent in the north central, 8 per cent in the southern, and 3 per cent in the north Atlantic states. 78 University of California — Experiment Station s* sis O h s * OO CO CM O OO •«*< »-H OS t^ OO O OS O CM O O t^ ■<*< Tt< CO t-- 00 *# CM H 19 ^ CO H O O O 9 00 CO O O O N (O N O0 N * N N N N N N d o d d d o 6 ff |6 0>00INM*00N O OS CO OS O CO OSOOOOOOOSi-l^OsOOCOOCMCMCOOO^CO 9 CO 4 ^< >Q K9 ■*OM!0NC0i9IN00W*00^NNrt00(O00 CM <-i 00 00 OS -i* tO^'jItDtOWMiOH^MeiOHONO^N CO CO CO T(l ■<(< 19 rtrtiHHHrtrtlMtOCOCONNMNNCONCq CM CM CM CM CM CM dodododooddooooddod o d o o o d H HN N N ^i CO N 19 19 19 WOOHi9i9»^ XI « h-1 ^ ^ ^— ' a> O T3 Q Sii 9 CO d a! P 3 CO G O 5 G .a tG G 3 co » QQ l a «o « S d "IS ,04 c3 0000000 <-H CM CM CM ci> d> d> a ^H o •>*< CO 00 N CO * » N 00000000 000000 OHINM*l9ION O —1 IN CO »9 CO t^ 00 OS HNNMINNNMNNN osososbsososososos OS OS OS OS OS OS Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 79 MEAT PRICES Since 1910, lamb prices and to a lesser extent sheep prices have risen more rapidly than the prices of all commodities. It will be of interest to analyze wholesale and retail meat prices in order to ascer- tain whether the relatively high prices for live animals have been reflected in high wholesale and retail meat prices. Since data are available for other classes of meat than mutton and lamb, compari- sons may shed some light on the demand for the various meats. Wholesale Prices at Chicago and New York. — Data on wholesale prices of meat are unfortunately available only for a limited number of localities. It will be seen from figures published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that when a comparison is made with the pre-war period, prices of dressed lamb at Chicago, with the exception of 1921, have been consistently higher than those of other meats (table 38). These prices have risen more rapidly than those of other commodities. Dressed-mutton wholesale prices have not risen relatively so high as lamb-carcass prices, and in many cases they have failed to keep pace with other meats. The consumption of lamb and mutton since the War has been less than during the pre-war period. The lessened supplies and increased demand together with a number of other eco- nomic causes, have undoubtedly been important factors in the steady and consistently high lamb-carcass prices. Calculations made by Wentworth and Clemen 52 on the wholesale prices of various meats at Chicago have shown that the price of lamb has been steadier than that of other meats. Attention is called to the fact that the base date used in table 38 is 1913. There is ho particular reason for selecting this year except that it was the year before the outbreak of the Great War. Prices for lambs were fairly steady, however, for several years prior to 1913. Quotations on western dressed meats at both Chicago and New York are given in considerable detail by the United States Bureau of Agricultural Economics. In figure 20 quotations for medium beef, good lamb, and good mutton are graphed. Mutton has failed to show the same tendency to rise as lamb. Since 1921 the spread between good mutton and good lamb prices has been greater than previously. 52 Wentworth, Edward N., and Rudolph A. Clemen. Livestock and meat prices. Armour's Livestock Bureau. Monthly Letter to Animal Husbandmen 8(8) :3. 1927. The coefficient of variability in the price of lamb over the period January 1919-October 1927 was 11.0 per cent compared with an average of 16.6 for all meats studied. Coefficients were calculated on a weekly basis. 80 University of California — Experiment Station ti flTTJ fl tL ™ ~ O b.*^3 J2 fj 0> fl T3 ~ m C PP Because of the varying quantities of wool carried by animals at different seasons of the year the seasonal variation of lamb and sheep prices might be misleading (see table 79, p. 247). In order to obviate this difficulty the seasonal variation in the prices of dressed lamb have been computed as follows: Jan 94.8 May 111.2 Sept Feb 95.0 June 10&4 Oct Mar 102.3 July 101.8 Nov Apr 109.2 Aug 97.4 Dec Average month = 100. Computations by authors based period Sept., 1917-Aug., 1928. 97.8 91.0 95.1 96.0 upon Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 81 There is apparently a lag of a month or more in the prices received by producers in the spring and the prices of dressed lamb in New York during the same period. During the remainder of the year — from July until March — this state is a deficiency area rather than a surplus area, and the indices of seasonal variation in producers' prices do not closely follow those for dressed lamb in New York. Factors Belated to Lamb Prices. — In a study by Ezekiel, 53 of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, it has been shown that the most important factors related to the wholesale price of dressed lamb were the general price level and the per-capita production of lamb under inspected slaughter. Next in importance were the prices of steers and veal, although these latter two factors were far less important. Changes in business activity, in hog prices, and the per-capita demand for lamb were of less significance. Retail Prices, United States and California. — Price data are avail- able over a series of years on only one cut — leg of lamb. Therefore, comparisons with other cuts of meats are not altogether satisfactory. Since 1913, the leg-of-lamb retail price has risen more rapidly and has steadily maintained a higher level than has any other important retail cut of meat (table 39). When compared with the retail cost of food in the United States, the same tendency is noticeable. It is fallacious to reason that this is true for all lamb cuts. Since the wholesale carcass price (table 38) is relatively high in comparison with other meats and commodities, there is reason to believe that the retail price of the lamb carcass has been high. Consumer demand for lamb during the first half of 1929 was considerably stronger than in the same period of 1928, as indicated by higher retail prices and an increase in the movement of lamb into consumptive channels. Common experience leads one to expect that 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 compared to wholesale price move- ments. In calculations on the retail prices of lamb and other meats at Chicago, Wentworth and Clemen 54 found that the variation in 53 Ezekiel, Mordecai. Factors related to lamb prices. The Jour, of Pol. Econ. 35:233-260. 1927. s* Wentworth, Edward N., and Kudolf A. Clemen. Livestock and meat prices. Armour's Livestock Bureau. Monthly Letter to Animal Husbandmen 8(8) :3. 1927. The coefficient of variability in the weekly prices of leg of lamb over the period January, 1919-October, 1927, was found to be 4.89 per cent compared with an average of 8.69 per cent for all cuts of meat. 82 University of California — Experiment Station -4 H ou o a o e II CO w iH e 03 & hH ft 05 3 r» W -fJ OS a r5 CO & hH 3 ^ £ pq A P! < Eh a fa o o ft hH 02 ft M O hi CD o hi hi OO CO CO co t^ 00 t^ t^. oo 03 s o tf^a I W o 00 CO 00 CO co t^ rH t-~ t^ O O CO CO GO OS ■* CM t^ to 00 CM ■t< hi _l ,_, O t^ ,_, o> CO >JO « CO oo CO t-- OS OS o — 1 CM T-l Ph CJ CM CJ CM OJ CO -* if< CO CO CO CO CO co CO 73 ig8 rt^ a r^ r^ R o CJ CO to CO r-- CO CO e ^ CM * H " H 03 OJ CO _< H* CJ oa T*< >o 00 00 *Q CO CO <# o OS CO t^ CO ^ ,H CO 1-^ CD r^ ^ tO to Ph CJ CJ CJ CJ co i* lO lO -* «* «* T* « lO iO to to tO to "0 a> o "5 c o o 03 03.£'E 8 8 CO CO >* oo (^ o CD >o s OS oo OS o _ CM o o CT> o r^ oo to CJ " 03 a to OS t^ O OS •* CO t^ oo ^ t^ (^ CO CM o o b~ OS CO to 00 r~- r^- CO _i CJ r^ CD o t^ rfH CO co S3 n Ph Cl CJ CM CJ -*< •^ «# -* •**< o J3 o p« hi o Ph Ch^ a g o o o OS O «o on o o CO >o «# oo CO to >o CD r^ oo 00 Ol CJ 03 9 O o CO t^ oa O CO CO CT> o M< oo CO m 00 CO CO o CJ CJ t^ t^ _| CJ o CJ _. OS CJ CM o o CO OS CO ■<*< CM r^ r^ t- Ph CI cj CM CI CO CO «* Tj- CO CO CO CO co CO CO CO CO CO co co CO co A«g o r^ CO r^ r^ t^ o 0) o> o o o O co CO lO o o o CI CM to r^ CD CO r^ !*■ !>. ~ 03 rH CO tH oo t- CO C>J CO CO oo 02 CJ oo CD ■* o CO CO CO CO -1 CO Ph CJ Cl >o o o on f CM CJ co ■^ «o OS o o o o _H PH Oh CM CM CJ CJ CJ CJ CM CM 1 o o 3 O I— CO o> 3 CO o lO _ ^H _ o o o o o o CM ■^ oo OS OS rt *^ ~ o r- OS o t^ CO to "* t^. J3 O SO to CO r^ O CO r^. CO ,_, CT5 o o ^H CJ (^. OS oo oo OS o o Ph CM CM CJ CJ CM CJ CJ CJ CO CO ig8 Pn^a r>- CO oo 1^ 05 CO CO o CO oo t^ OS C73 TtH oo o o o CO >* >o oo r~ r-- oo OS SB 03 o hi " ~ 03 oo ** _ CJ CJ; t^ «9 OJ ^ CO t* 00 CO co CO o oo « to «* CJ CO o o _, o OB 1-^ oo oo C35 o ^H to to to to CD t^ t^ Ph CI CI CM CJ CO CO CO C-J CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO ^ 03 >*B Ph^ a 8 CO >* t^ M< tQ o CM CO o CD oo OS os to _ tO 03 CO 1^ r-- "0 TJH 0) CO (3 *"* 03 CO eo o to o CJ5 C35 >o •<* CO lO 00 (^ CO IH o CD CM CM "* OS oo q OO •* CM CO CO -<*< » 1^ CM CM CM CJ co Tf to « Ph CJ CM CM CM CM CO CO CO co CO CO T* ^ 03 .2 'E tf^ a 8 r^ "* CO O CO 00 oo oo OS CO 00 53 n CO r^ n " H O 03 tH OS l^ CO lO c» t^ t- 00 ^ ■H CO CD CO CO 00 1JH 00 OS o -<*< CM hi r . _ ^ H r^ 05 o> o ^-1 CJ b~ oo t^ 1^ OS a H 83 Ph cj CJ CM cj CO co >* CO CO CO CO s o3 03.2'E Ph^ a o CO OO 3 CO lO co § GO OS C33 CO OS 3 CO o CD o § PH CO CD CJ co CI 00 CJ 1—1 1-1 *^ 1-1 o 8 OS tO <* CO SB Cft lO eo r- CO t^ PH CO o SB ■«*< OS co OS oo — CM £ oo eo CO r- oo OS oo OS OS o o ^H CJ H hH CI CI C) co co CO CO co CO CO CO CO CO CO CO «* 03 03 r" 1 CO cr. o ^ CJ CO -r >o CD 1^ °° Ji EJ 03 M t~ >i 03 a 3 »-B a < SB SB as SB OS s> OS C3i OB OB OB CT> SB 02 OS OS *-i M s Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 83 o © o © 02 iH % II -$ CO « I-l fa © z CD 02 -e a 1 1 CD ft. 02 en *j r 1 " = o> « a - = 1 — IMHNN0>*U)0)C6 ©OOO^Hf^OOOScOcOcOr^OOt^-r^ ^1 lO ^ ■* U) * 00 OC O0 0O O0 00 o> o 'E ft N^WWOSHN^NiO^OrtNMN kti OO «0 «3 00 © •^•^■"^cococnooocooo^cn-^coco •*/! ■*»< •**! ■**< -*f "5 Tt< -<*< -*f ■*■«*< ■»»< •X3 | B w is>8 a.-'E tf *» a 1 0»OHO)MNMN»»HNillM30 oo-H-*cocoooosf^f^cot^os»-o»oio«5cocococo O cm (C, CO CO CO T3 e .2 e o o e3 m o>.2'E «*» ft OMOMN»NW(0010l»W01*iO oooococoooooco»o»o-«*0001TlilNHNOMN*NHHO o©ooscor^-ososr-co»o»oooosoor^ CO "5 CN 00 00 O0 co co i^ i"» r^ r-- 0) o 'E ft. »o os t^. © -h © CNCNCNeNCO-«*<-«*<-«»<"<»hNthN'(lHH00NWOei« O O © ■*< "9 O «N -H _t -H O O CN CN CN CN CN CN 1 o X\ O 4«g w.S-E «- ft o^05»or^oooco»ocooco-HoococN 0001«OW**Nf)(NINM(NW» — I 00 ^H OS CO OS M N 00 N N CD ft, 05«cr^i-iOcoot^«opooot~u30cot^-'-i«5oc©os CO ■* ■* t M rt o o o o o o tN CN CN CN CN CN s 'E ft cooscjo^co-hoooo^ocnco-^ooco » CO * * N N ososososcNOOOooi-^t-^ooooosoco OS OS OS OS OS 00 CO CO CO CO CO CO oi g 00 G j5 ~E 00 i$8 o>._'E «*> ft ooooscMooot^«ot^.'^ , 0'^-icm«ooo —i O — i O ~h o s J5 "o bfi Hi g.S'C «~ ft ©ooi^cowcot^ooc»coco©os;£r>.;5; ©©©-hi/50SOS©00©©-hCNCNCNCO ^h CO t^ «0 i-c OS lO ifl IO iO •* M CN CN CN CM CN CN 01 'E ft O>W>h(OXN«NN»00t(IN»WIO lO » * H N N (COOOCIOllONM'O'-l't'^WOONXCO CN CN CO CO O 00 -CIl010S»018>0)»010>0)010!01 g-2 S a 5? g a Y Q C-l M •- P M a 3 ■* PQ g^ > CN rg oj J - « mg J CO i^i h CN O OS w « S 3 O 3 "O 5« 8 .S ^' " 8 1 « IS 3 "3 .„ - a J2 «*-. o -D 03 ^ •* 1 ftw -g 02 J CO CO* ^ 2 2« •a . fci _ CN O CO •• J CO »rt •— I "2 -2 '« eg 84 University of California — Experiment Station m 2 M .H P3 CD 3 fc P< -a O c3 cd cd r ^ CO "* 00 CI C3 O -<*< l^ 00 CO lO >n 10 CO CO CO Ir^ l> I s " tf «" a 0) C3 W CD co rt 5D t^ -H 03 co CO CO t^ O <* CO os CM C3 C3 «* C3 CO "C co r~ US co 02 OS CO OS -f ^H 05 03 C3 CO CO CO CO h- CO t^ Ah C-0 ■* CO -* "<*< -* ■* •<*< >* tl "* OS T3 Ph~ ft § r~ CO CO in CO >* OS 1^. 00 1^ r^ CO' CO 02 _u 1-1 1-1 ^ 1-1 1-1 1-1 ■"* 1—1 1—1 ** 1—1 1 CO a 03 w l-H ■CO CO r-H O co OS CO CO C3 M< 02 C3 "* Tl CM C3 CO CM ■* -r to CO CO >n ^H OO CO pq Ph co CO co CO ** 10 CO CO CO CO U3 V} T3 O c3 Pn^ft CO ^ CO 02 CO CO 00 C3 co CO ■># t^ C72 CO CO 1C0 CO 10 CO r^ CO M* "W ~ " ~ M " ~ 1—1 ~ ~ rt [§ CD co US CO CO OS 02 CO CO CC) C-3 C3 CO OS 05 CO CD CO t>~ CI CO OO OS CO 00 06 en pq Ph co co CO CO 10 -* "* IO 10 10 U3 -* US 10 CM OS Rela- tive price r^ CO »o a O OS co 00 C73 CO 10 •^ lO 00 co CO CO t^ r^ t^ rt " H * H ~ rt rt ' H *^ " CO C3 CM CM O Ph CD ~H rH rH OS O CM OS co CO o> CO CO r^ >o PH CM O CO 10 ■* US CO *# lO CO C3 CO CO ^H CO CO 1^ M< 10 CO ^_, ^H T _, co c^ -* O Ph CI CI CI CM <* co co co ->*< ^CH -* >* •ct* «# ** «N igo 3 8 t^ s PQ 0) CD 0) "0! Ph*" ft O os O US <* <* O "* CO CO 10 lO ^ ~ ^ co CD O CM CO CO O CO OS CO CO OS oa t^ CO IO ,_, O l> CO C4 c3 Ah "fj 03 IT-, os r^ <* C3 C3 ^H OS 00 O c3 Ph 3 Ph^ ft R r^ 00 lO M< r^ CO _ -* IO CO M< CO _G to OS Ol co 03 O U *■" " ^ CD ft -Q CD CO OO O rH t*. c^~ 00 CO CO ^ CO CO «* O CO ,H ^ CO 00 IO "Cf< s r^ 05 CO on CO 0O 03 O CO W5 IO IO 10 IO in Pm CM CI CJ C3 00 CM C3 CO CO CO CO CO CD « ^ i^S h- CO «* co CO CO ■* ^ CO ■* "*< Tt< CO •* O C3 03 Ph"^ ft « CO CO 0> 1-1 ""' ^ 1-1 ^ * H * H •^ ^ *"* ^ H ^ H 1-1 1-1 rt rH ^ H C O H-i O CD 00 C-3 •H O ^H r~ lO <* CJ3 C3 CO T-i t^ O — 1 UO CD co CO co CO CM Ph ,_, ,_! r^ 03 OS O ^H >o 00 CO CO CO OO 00 P « ei C3 C3 CI CM CJ CO CO C3 C3 CM C3 CO CO co CO CO co CO CO CO QQ >4 k CD g Ph*" 1 ft r^ 05 CO' -* O IO CO C3 C3 -* _ ^ us <# CO P 03 O O OS O CO- ^CM >o >* co OS 02 O 03 o 00 00 >o OS 02 C3 00 co «o CO O 00 CO CO CO B Ph CO C3 CO 01 CO 10 OQ C3 03 CJ CO CO co co co co n CO CO co ^< ** ^ ■* ■**< oa a S3 J3o -CH •0 * »« co 00 O OS t~ t^ »• OS rt co 'O -cH O CO OS CM »« ^H Cl CO CO 1- CO CO r^ t^. 00 OS OS ►3 01 01 CO CO CO CO CO O do a3 CD CO ~f 00 as _ CM CO ) CD a 1-9 ft 1 0: 9 sa ea 01 OS a 6s OB OS 6) OS 03 s a Bui/. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 85 price was far less than in the case of wholesale prices. Leg-of-lamb prices held far more stable than the prices of all cuts studied with the exception of that for sirloin steak. Retail prices of leg-of-lamb at both San Francisco and Los Angeles (tables 40 and 41) confirm the general statements made with refer- ence to the prices for this cut in the United States. Efforts to demonstrate the value of cuts other than the leg and loin should be encouraged by those interested in the sheep industry. An increased demand for other cuts might lower the retail price of the above-mentioned cuts and at the same time enhance the value of the carcass as a whole. STORAGE HOLDINGS OF MUTTON AND LAMB Compared with the total production of mutton and lamb, storage holdings have been small except during the year beginning September, 1921, at which time heavy imports were received from New Zealand. There is a fairly well defined seasonal variation. Stocks begin to accumulate during the fall of the year when larger supplies arrive on the markets. As a rule the peak in holdings is reached during the winter or early spring. From this time withdrawals from the coolers have been somewhat irregular, minimum supplies being re- ported from April to October during the past five years. Cold-storage holdings on the Pacific Coast have been almost negligible during the past few years. Frozen mutton in California is almost wholly used by such large buyers as the United States Navy and various steamer and freighter services. A small percentage is utilized by certain classes of foreigners. The supply of mutton holdings in cold storage on the Pacific Coast approximately meets the needs of the Navy and various shipping com- panies. A few concerns operating to Australia and New Zealand find it convenient to store supplies at certain seasons in these countries, especially if Pacific Coast prices for carcass mutton are relatively high. GENERAL MARKET MOVEMENTS OF SHEEP Market Receipts, United States. — Records of receipts on sixty to seventy markets of the country have been kept over a considerable period of years (table 42). While such data give some indication of total supplies, they should be considered in conjunction with stocker and feeder shipments. Stimulated by high prices received during 86 University of California — Experiment Station the war, receipts reached a peak in 1919. A low point in receipts was reached in 1923 ; since that time they have been climbing', arrivals during 1928 being larger than in any year since 1919. With the expansion in population, offerings of sheep will move upward. If TABLE 42 Sheep Receipts at all Public Stockyards and Percentage Monthly Receipts, United States, 1915-1929 Receipts (Thousands, i.e., 000 omitted) Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Totals 1915 1,517 1,257 1,248 1,019 1,050 1,080 1,264 1,725 2,501 2,359 2,042 1,373 18,435 1916 1,450 1,280 1,156 1,144 1,347 1,394 1,451 1,984 2,650 3,231 2,126 1,479 20,692 1917 1,578 1,384 1,257 1,152 1,059 1,240 1,353 1,764 2,554 3,195 2,102 1,583 20,221 1918 J, 354 1,096 1,270 1,159 1,214 1,429 1,639 2,270 3,496 3,327 2,605 1,626 22,485 1919 1,594 1,157 1,268 1,438 1,468 1,775 2,287 3,360 3,854 3,754 2,845 2,456 27,256 1920 1,614 1,416 1,315 1,466 1,488 1,640 2,034 2,606 2,895 3,027 2,471 1,566 23,538 1921 1,792 1,516 1,750 1,677 1,916 1,850 1,776 2,500 2,618 3,042 2,068 1,664 24,169 1922 1,835 1,400 1,465 1,227 1,692 1,700 1,677 1,951 2,303 3,311 2,288 1,516 22,365 1923 1,636 1,366 1,430 1,447 1,794 1,426 1,661 1,800 2,659 3,465 1,816 1,526 22,026 1924 1,697 1,412 1,367 1,348 1,344 1,550 1,672 2,005 3,027 3,295 1,879 1,605 22,201 1925 1,467 1,388 1,504 1,541 1,689 1,603 1,699 2,064 2,627 3,198 1,712 1,608 22,100 1926 1,548 1,486 1,694 1,502 1,717 1,913 1,739 2,277 3,279 3,090 1,917 1,706 23,869 1927 1,740 1,501 1,558 1,486 2,013 1,816 1,676 2,209 2,848 3,587 1,896 1,609 23,939 1928 1,705 1,669 1,520 1,591 1,952 1,913 1,898 2,362 3,386 3,938 2,053 1,610 25,597 1929 1,876 1,543 1,526 2,010 2,169 1,749 PERCENTAGE MONTHLY SHIPMENTS 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 8.23 6.82 6.77 5.53 5.70 5.86 6.86 9.36 13.57 12.80 11.08 7.45 7.01 6.19 5.59 5.53 6.51 6.74 7.01 9.59 12.81 15.61 10.27 7.15 7.80 6.84 6.22 5.70 5.24 6.13 6.69 8.72 12.63 15.80 10.40 7.83 6.02 4.87 5.65 5.15 5.40 6.36 7.29 10.10 15.55 14.80 11.59 7.23 5.85 4.24 4.65 5.28 5.39 6.51 8.39 12.33 14.14 13.77 10.44 9.01 6.86 6.02 5 59 6.23 6.32 6.97 8.64 11.07 12.30 12.86 10.50 6.65 7.41 6.27 7.24 6.94 7.93 7.65 7.35 10.34 10.83 12.59 8.56 6.89 8.21 6.26 6.55 5.49 7.57 7.60 7.50 8.72 10.30 14.81 10.23 6.78 7.43 6.20 6.49 6.57 8.15 6.47 7.54 8.17 12.07 15.73 8.25 6.93 7.64 6.36 6.16 6.07 6.05 6.98 7.53 9.03 13.63 14.84 8.46 7.23 6.64 6.28 6.80 6.97 7.64 7.25 7.69 9.34 11.89 14.47 7.75 7.28 6.49 6.23 7.10 6.29 7.19 8.01 7.29 9.54 13.74 12.95 8.03 7.15 7.27 6.27 6.51 6.21 8.41 7.59 7.00 9.23 11.90 14.99 7.92 6.72 6.66 6.52 5.94 6.22 7.63 7.47 741 9.23 13.23 15.38 8.02 6.29 Source of data: Receipts, U. S. Dept. Agr. Receipts and disposition at public stockyards. Crops and Markets. Percentage monthly receipts computed by authors. values are to be kept at present levels, sheep receipts should not increase too rapidly. Receipts in turn are influenced by inventories, which the sheepmen can regulate. The monthly record of receipts shows a distinct seasonal move- ment. During the months of August, September, and October, heavi- est supplies are received, range lambs appearing during these months. Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 87 A second peak in receipts, not so pronounced as the previous one, is developing during May and June when fat native lambs weaned from their mothers are shipped. It is this recent bulge which should be of interest to the California producer. Origin of Sheep and Lamb Receipts at Public Stockyards, 1927 Feb. Mar. \June Nov: Dec. Fig. 21. — Although the above data are not strictly accurate (see text, p. 88) this chart serves to illustrate the competition between different sections of the country in the sheep and lamb trade. Receipts from California are highly seasonal, appearing in quantity only during April, May, and June. (Original data from which chart is drawn was furnished authors by the TJ. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Agr. Econ.) About thirty years ago economic conditions in the western sheep industry caused a change from marketing animals as yearlings or older, to marketing them as lambs. This developed a peak in fall marketing. During the three years 1915-1917, 55 per cent of the sheep came to market during the five months August to December, which condition was not conducive to favorable market prices. Since the war, market runs of milk-fat lambs have appeared in the late spring. During the three years 1926-1928, receipts during the period August to December were reduced to approximately 51.5 per cent of the year's total; this change has undoubtedly had a favorable effect on prices. Sheep Markets. — On the basis of the 1924-1928 average, the fol- lowing are the leading sheep markets of the United States: (1) Chi- cago, (2) Omaha, (3) Denver, (4) Kansas City, (5) St. Joseph, (6) Jersey City, (7) Buffalo, (8) Ogden, (9) Pittsburgh, (10) Pueblo. 88 University of California — Experiment Station Sources of Sheep Receipts. — In figure 21 is shown the total num- ber of sheep from different states received at public stockyards or shipped direct to packing plants, where the latter figures are avail- able. For some states they are almost complete, but for others they show only a part of the total market movement. They also include considerable duplication, since the various markets report livestock passing through them in transit, and not net receipts. For states that ship a large number of feeder lambs direct to feed lots the market receipts do not begin to show total shipments. Estimates of total lamb production by states are shown in figure 22. Neither do the figures show the total movement of lambs to eastern markets, since a record of the state of origin of receipts at some of the important eastern markets is not available. Hence, shipments of early lambs marketed in May, June, and July, from Kentucky, Tennessee, Vir- ginia, West Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania are not complete records of the movements from these states. 55 With these limitations in mind, figure 21 can be used in showing the origin or market receipts during the year. The first lambs come to market from this state usually between March first and April first. Between the latter date and the middle of June this run is fairly heavy for a period of from four to six weeks. Approximately one-fifth to one-third of the sheep movement of the country during May origi- nated in California in recent years (fig. 21). There is some competi- tion between California spring lamb and the fed lambs of the previous season. The fed-lamb movement generally ends towards the close of March. In some of the states east of Mississippi, lambs dropped in November or December and sheltered during the winter are put on the market at this time ('hot-house lambs'). In late April or early May, lambs from Tennessee appear on the market, followed about two weeks later by those from Kentucky. 56 During the run of Kentucky lambs come those from Missouri, followed by the first of the milk lambs from Idaho and Washington. The large shipments of milk lambs from Kentucky, Tennessee, and the Rocky Mountain sections do not begin, as a rule, until the end of the California movement. About the first of June, Virginia lambs reach the market, followed in a couple of weeks by those from West Virginia and Ohio. By July the run from the corn belt states is in full swing, 55 The authors are indebted for the data from which figure 21 is made to C. L. Harland, Livestock Statistician, Bureau of Agricultural Economics. The comments in this paragraph are the result of correspondence with Mr. Harlan. se Johnson, E. C. Marketing Kentucky livestock. Kentucky Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 278:43-102, figs. 1-12. 1927. Bin,. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 89 and lambs also arrive from New York, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. The big range runs usually start in August with Idaho and Oregon lambs at first predominating. Lambs from Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado, Montana, and Wyoming reach the high points in shipment in September and Octo- ber. During August and September between 60 and 70 per cent of the receipts at public stockyards originate in the western states. Eelattve Importance of Main Lamb-Producing States, 1926-1928 Thousand Per lambs cent Calif. 2,203 8.9 Texas 1,782 7.2 Mont. 1,773 7.2 wy. 1,734 7.0 Utah 1,608 6.5 Idaho 1,439 5.9 Ore. 1,429 5.8 Ohio 1,166 4.7 N. Mex . 1,130 4.6 Ky. 819 3.3 Colo. 812 3.3 Nev. 769 3.1 Ariz. 678 2.8 Mo. 653 2.6 Iowa 610 2.5 S. D. 461 1.9 Ind. 446 1.8 Minn. 437 1.8 W. Va. 414 1.7 Wash. 410 1.7 111. 406 1.6 Others 3,467 14.1 Totals 24.645 100.0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 = Fig. 22. — California produces more lambs than any other state. The largest producers of lambs are the western states, only four of the twenty-one leading lamb-producing states lying east of the Mississippi River. (Data from Bur. Agr. Econ., Washington, D.C.) Many of these range lambs are unfit for slaughter and are sold to the feeder. Great numbers of these unfinished lambs are fed in the corn- belt states, and are marketed during January, February, and March. 57 Lambs are winter-fed in Colorado and Nebraska in large numbers, being fattened largely on alfalfa, beet pulp, and grain. They begin to move in December and furnish the principal source of supply during January, February, and March. The marketing season may continue for a full month after the advent of spring lamb from California. 57 Nearly 45 per cent of the feeder shipments occur during September and October. 90 University of California — Experiment Station The progressive sheepman of California should realize that he is experiencing competition from Arizona, Idaho, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and other states in the spring-lamb trade. In 1928 close to 100,000 ewes were lambed in Arizona for spring lambs. 58 Receipts of Arizona sheep and lambs at Kansas City, alone during 1929 were 106,396 head, according to M. Y. Griffin, in charge of Livestock Reporting Office, Kansas City, Missouri. Although Texas has a large sheep population, that state will never be a factor in this trade, as TABLE 43 Shipments of Stocker and Feeder Sheep and Lambs from Public Stockyards and Percentage Monthly Shipments, United States, 1916-1929 Shipments (Thousands, i.e., 000 omitted) Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total 1916 73 77 62 57 67 83 100 340 661 1,065 546 145 3,276 1917 126 108 69 102 76 146 195 368 968 1,195 791 306 4,450 1918 128 122 124 221 161 242 212 525 1,105 1,246 763 360 5,209 1919 229 131 136 207 160 223 340 1,039 1,505 1,386 860 740 6,956 1920 311 140 135 269 234 227 324 568 796 1,059 857 259 5,179 1921 88 62 84 107 123 89 139 404 555 731 511 202 3,095 1922 183 169 143 97 145 191 204 350 534 1,138 757 256 4,167 1923 171 169 114 82 216 117 188 341 897 1,489 540 154 4,478 1924 149 106 83 105 118 153 226 444 973 1,438 676 206 4,677 1925 138 119 94 109 178 137 193 421 857 1,392 475 220 4,333 1926 155 107 83 124 130 238 260 567 1,093 1,150 493 223 4,623 1927 207 136 140 118 259 257 216 390 947 1,560 497 174 4,901 1928 116 101 95 133 205 278 234 564 1,080 1,466 544 193 5,009 1929 188 115 122 210 217 226 PERCENTAGE MONTHLY SHIPMENTS 1916 2.23 2.35 1.89 1.74 2.05 2.53 3.05 10.38 20.17 32.50 16.66 4.43 1917 2.83 2.43 1.55 2.29 1.71 3.28 4.38 8.27 21.75 26.85 17.78 6.88 1918 2.46 2 34 2.38 4.24 3.09 4.65 4.07 10.08 21.21 23.92 14.65 6.91 1919 3.29 1.88 1.96 2.98 2.30 3.21 4.89 14.94 21.64 19.93 12.36 10.64 1920 6.01 2.70 2.61 5.19 4.52 4 38 6.26 10.97 15.37 20 45 16.54 5.00 1921 2.84 2.00 2.71 3.46 3.97 2.88 4.49 13.05 17.93 23.62 16.51 6.53 1922 4.39 4.06 3.43 2.33 3.48 4.58 4 90 8.40 12.81 27.31 18.17 6.14 1923 3.82 3.77 2.55 1.83 4.82 2.61 4.20 7.62 20.03 33.25 12.06 3.44 1924 3.19 2.27 1.78 2.25 2.52 3.27 4.83 9.50 20.81 30 75 14.46 4 41 1925 3.18 2.75 2.17 2.52 4.11 3.16 4 46 9.72 19.78 32.13 10.96 5.08 1926 3.35 2.31 1.80 2.68 2.81 5.15 5.62 12.26 23.64 24.88 10.66 4.82 1927 4.22 2.77 2.86 2 41 5.29 5.24 4.41 7.92 19.33 31.84 10.14 3.55 1928 2.32 2.02 1.90 2.65 4.09 5.55 4.67 11.26 21.56 29.27 10.86 3.85 Sources of data: Shipments, U. S. Dept. Agr. Stocker and feeder shipments. Crops and Markets, 69. Percentage monthly shipments compuled by authors. ss Letter from Prof. E. B. Stanley, Animal Husbandman, Arizona Agr. Exp. Sta. to authors, Nov. 28, 1928. Bilk. 473] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE SHEEP INDUSTRY 91 conditions are primarily favorable for wool production. Merino sheep predominate and early spring feed is not available to produce fat lambs. 59 Stocker and Feeder Shipments, United States. — A considerable part of the receipts on the sheep markets of the country consist of the Net Shipments and Consumption of Sheep and Lambs, California, 1926-1928 06OO 3-400 3ZOO 3000 5 zaoo zeoo z**oo zzoo A/ef &AJ/»/no./T?3 out ©/" C CM !>• CO o OS CO c 0O' 'O eo © CO t^ t^ 00 t^ 8 ^ «o OS *s .C j_ >) OJ cu - (-4 CO CO © t © CO o t^ 03 ■* 00 lO fl v-o 03 -* CM CO a ~H s C) CO s » «< l-J • 73 o o o o o CO O O O OS _^ r~ CO •»*< CO CM ^^ CO CM CO CO CO CO CO CO oo CM «0 CM X CM CO CM i—l CM o CM CO oo OS CO CO 1* 00 CO CO co CO oo CM CO OS ■ a> .5 A 2 ^ -«*< 1-1 b t- -^ 00 >> 03 >« CI OS CO CI OS CO 0)13 03 -H N CO Pi i-H ci CM C) 0) s < s >-) T5 03 Oj O OS CM ^H oo O CO o CO Cl CO CO O O OS CO I- CO CO co o CO -o CO lO CO CO O OS I~ »o r- t^ CO lO o t> fo - * tn CO rH o O) T-Z o CO 00 CO © CO CO OJ -t< CO l^ CO CM OS ^fl A _ >) .5 03 *"' S CO fc? CM OS * CO O o3 t- Tt< 00 a ^ a>-0 cm a CM CO s CI CI 2 T3 03 0J o © CO CM e o CM o CO c C) o o §§ o CO o © © © C-5 © CO OS oo CO OS o 00 N CM t*< lO H CO CO CM. iO t^ oo -*< T»< Cl" as lO 1-H CO -t< ^ CO CM <£> CM CM OS 0>.5 {? CO O l"^ Tf" >s 00 lO C) CT2 «o CM OS ,01-0 03 ft 1-H CM 1 " C) Cl 3 S >-a t3 03 o o o o O CO CM © o ■-T. © CO o "5 o EC o e CO e CC o o ■<*< OS f^ OS ua OS CM r^ ^ eo CO w .-( CO 1-H "5 CO CO o> co r~ Cl -* CO M< CO CJ lO m CM CM OS •a? A o _ >1 oj O ." (-1 «— 1 co «r ■<*< ^h or lO 03 CM ps co CO o c CO - 4>TJ 03 CM CM ft ~h CM £ CI CO £ > 03 "5 CJ OS CO 0> Cl 0)-0 03 ~ CM CO ft ^H CN CM CI fl S <: s —5 03 o o o © o o o Q o 8 CM O o CO C- CO co" CO o l> © Cl CM «o -t"' C) o CM CM CM OS •a a 1 _ >s 0) OJ .— b co »o Cl OS 03 * CO o 3 co OJ ft — 1 CI Los. Angeles for Sheep- and Lambs February 1, 1929 "ws^r* r^ * lT~"7 /^"xW U^^^^^^'/f ot(T __ OtnoAo \ l/tofTfo* C/fjr A/bJ^+rjA ^oS<. / ^sH) o*o 'xo&Cf o Fig. 24. — The figures indicate the doubledeck carload freight rates on sheep and lambs to (A) San Francisco, California, and {B), Los Angeles, California. The $200 rate means a transportation cost of about 70 cents a head; the $150 rate, 54 cents; the $100 rate, 36 cents; and the $50 rate, 18 cents. The broken line on A shows the dividing line west of which sheep or lambs may be shipped at a cheaper rate to San Francisco or Los Angeles, than to Kansas City or Omaha. (Data for maps were compiled by California Wool Growers Association, San Francisco, California.) Since all lambs moving by express refrigerator cars out of Cali- fornia must be slaughtered and handled under the provisions of the United States Meat Inspection Act, there cannot be any rapid expan- sion in this method of marketing for the physical capacities of the present plants now in operation are limited. At present there are only four major packing plants operating regularly under the Meat Inspec- tion Act that participate in this method of handling lambs, and they have mid-western and eastern branch-house connections closely affili- ated with the parent plants in California. A few firms without Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 95 eastern branch houses have occasionally slaughtered lambs on order from larger dressed-lamb buyers in Atlantic coast areas. There might be some expansion along this line in the future. Any progress which has been made in moving dressed lambs has been attributed almost wholly to the willingness of the major express TABLE 45 Eastern Shipments of Dressed Lambs Out op California, 1924-1929 1924* 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 Week Week Week Week Week Week end- Head end- Head end- Head end- Head end- Head end- Head ing ing ing ing ing ing Feb. 25 597 Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. 14 583 13 1,880 19 1,100 10 638 16 737 21 700 20 3,230 26 2,800 17 3,488 23 7,016 28 3,387 27 6,200 24 31 3,606 5,352 30 5,027 April April April April April April 5 3,000 4 9,169 3 2,528 2 1,090 7 3,958 6 6,203 12 5,400 11 5,209 10 650 9 5,280 14 3,510 13 6,342 19 7,200 18 10,701 17 2,470 16 7,780 21 4,600 20 5,058 26 8,800 25 6,671 24 7,700 23 30 7,699 9,429 28 6,147 27 5,105 May May May May May May 3 13,400 2 7,549 1 9,630 7 8,050 5 7,536 4 6,600 10 16,800 9 9,596 8 12,430 14 8,069 12 5,547 11 7,300 17 42,120 16 9,765 15 9,170 21 5,054 19 5,695 18 4,483 24 36,607 23 7,140 22 3,131 26 6,158 25 3,125 31 16,100 30 3,000 June June June June June June 7 16,400 6 2,419 2 3,955 1 1,300 14 14,700 21 4,975 28 July 5 4,425 18 2,100 26 1,325 Totals. 195,352 75,889 59,019 57, 551 t 60,787 58,296 * Foot and mouth quarantine caused most of the lambs to be dressed in California and shipped east. About 80,000 live lambs were shipped from six northeastern counties. t 1,200 dressed lambs, not in weekly totals are included in grand total. Sources of data: U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Agr. Econ. Mimeographed report issued by the San Fran- cisco and Los Angeles offices, July 12, 1928. 1929 data from U. S. Bur. Agr. Econ. companies to make reductions in rates during emergency periods, such as during the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic in 1924. Until the outbreak of the foot-and-mouth disease the express rate to the Atlantic coast for several years had been $5.67 per hundredweight. This was reduced to $4.28 in 1924. Coupled with this was a reduction in freight rates on live lambs from country points to San Francisco, 96 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 46 Origin of Spring Lamb Shipments in California, 1922-1929* Season — March 15 to June 15 (Single-deck carloads of lambs) Section and county 1922 1923 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 North coast 5 10 30 16 32 18 Sonoma 42 6 60 8 30 22 8 28 4 20 Napa 40 38 Total 48 68 4 26 16 31 52 66 55 70 58 South coast San Francisco Alameda 29 8 34 34 8 58 4 24 San Mateo Contra Costa 45 46 76 3 88 72 Santa Clara 6 San Benito 4 16 6 Monterey 8 12 24 58 San Luis Obispo 8 Total 82 89 46 18 94 460 85 87 142 2 38 500 160 33 350 149 128 174 Sacramento Valley Shasta Tehama 30 268 18 11 346 153 34 380 158 28 224 32 24 515 226 50 464 186 62 Glenn 696 Butte 302 Yuba 50 192 272 49 165 78 500 Sutter 80 Placer 38 97 114 189 16 54 90 112 21 74 170 286 14 82 132 344 8 56 Sacramento 11 65 130 83 135 250 175 Yolo 302 Solano 358 El Dorado .... 14 13 4 Total 714 74 18 56 106 12 396 1282 121 21 15 18 1368 111 16 6 103 26 80 20 28 1128 63 71 28 4 20 52 41 4 34 1783 92 60 54 42 20 238 19 6 54 2045 158 82 60 48 16 76 8 2599 San Joaquin Valley San Joaquin 168 Calaveras 76 Stanislaus 76 Merced 108 Madera 10 Fresno 132 18 137 55 296 Tulare 10 Kern 28 36 Total 690 517 474 317 585 448 780 Bui,. 473] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE SHEEP INDUSTRY 97 Table 46 — (Concluded) Section and county 1922 1923 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 Southern California Santa Barbara 10 Imperial 14 60 26 16 Total 14 60 26 10 4 10 16 Northern and Eastern Mountain Counties Lassen Inyo Total 14 Grand total 1534 1970 2000 1624 2589 2707 3611 * This movement represents lambs moving to middle-western markets. The compilations are derived from common carrier passings at Needles, Calif., Yuma, Ariz., and Ogden and North Salt Lake City, Utah. During 1924 shipments were curtailed on account of the foot-and-mouth disease. Sources of data; U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Agr. Econ., San Francisco, Calif.; W. W. Wofford, U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Agr. Econ., Los Angeles, Calif. Los Angeles, Sacramento, and San Diego. Present (1929) freight rates are shown in figure 24. The rate of $4.28 was continued in 1925. During 1926-1927 the rate was again raised to $5.06. On March 26, 1928, it was reduced to $4.50. Since 1922 there has been considerable expansion in the area from which live spring lambs have been shipped (table 46), although the actual increase has been greatest from counties in the Sacramento Valley (fig. 25). Almost the entire crop of spring lambs originate in either the valley or adjoining foothill counties of the Sacramento and San Joaquin. During 1929 Glenn County moved 696 single-deck cars, Colusa 500, Solano 358, Butte 302, and Yolo 302. Fresno fol- lowed with 296. The factor of transportation has played an increasing part in this expansion. During recent years all common carriers in the state have cooperated with the existing local sheep and wool growers organiza- tions in reducing the time in transit, improving corral facilities, selecting suitable hay and pure fresh water in order to expedite the movement of these highly perishable lambs. In time past train move- ment was slow, corral facilities crude, and employees of the roads at times neglectful. However, complaints have of late been reduced to a minimum by attention of officials, despatchers, trainmen, and others connected with the common carriers. Climate and resulting feed conditions have a most significant bear- ing on the origin of spring-lamb shipments. Lambs are forced to 98 University of California — Experiment Station County Origin of California Spring Lambs Shipped East, 1922-1926 Fig. 25^4. — Each □ represents 10 single decks shipped during March, a Q represents 10 decks shipped in April, a +, 10 decks in May, and a A, 10 decks in June. During 1928, approximately 76 per cent of the live lambs shipped east had their origin in the Sacramento Valley counties, while around 20 per cent originated in the San Joaquin Valley counties. Generally speaking, a larger percentage of March and April lambs originate in the latter section. (Unpublished data in offices of authors.) Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 99 County Origin of California Spring Lambs Shipped East, 1927-1929 Fig. 25B. — Each □ represents 10 single decks shipped during March, a O represents 10 decks shipped in April, a +, 10 decks in May, and a A, 10 decks in June. During 1928, approximately 76 per cent of the live lambs shipped east had their origin in the Sacramento Valley counties, while around 20 per cent originated in the San Joaquin Valley counties. Generally speaking, a larger percentage of March and April lambs originate in the latter section. The map for 1928 is perhaps more typical than that for 1927. (Unpublished data in offices of authors.) 100 Ijniversity of California — Experiment Station rapid maturity on choice green feed and mothers' milk. Mr. George J. Cleary, an experienced lamb shipper states, "The best lambs shipped out of California are from ewes which are fed a grain ration to supplement the grass pasture from lambing to shipping time, and excellent results have been obtained by feeding a small grain ration Principal California Counties Shipping Spring Lambs to< Mid-Western and Eastern Points Season, March 15- June 15; Average 1925-1928 Single Per 5 10 County decks cent Glenn 464 20.8 Cclusa 301 13.5 Solano 248 11.1 Butte 157 7.1 Yolo 132 5.9 Fresno 112 5.0 Sutter 111 5.0 San Joaquin 106 4.8 Sacramento 73 3.3 Contra Costa 67 3.0 Calaveras 57 2.6 Merced 49 2.2 Tehama 48 2.1 Stanislaus 37 1.7 Napa 27 1.2 Tulare 22 1.0 Madera 21 .9 Others 198 8.8 Totals 2230 100.0 Fig. 26. — The source of the largest shipments of spring lambs is the Sacra- mento Valley. Counties shipping the largest numbers of spring lambs are not necessarily those with the largest sheep population. Compare with figure 5. (Data from table 46.) in creeps to the lambs between marking and shipping. One most important consideration in producing quality lambs is to ship them while in ' bloom ' and this is accomplished by shipping them before the milk of the ewe is dried up. Care must also be exercised to keep ewes and lambs on green grass continuously between lambing and shipping. A few days ' shortage of green feed generally means a set-back for the lambs from which they will not recover in time to enable them to be shipped as prime milk lambs." 60 It will be noted (table 46) that 60 Letter from George J. Cleary, San Francisco, Calif., to Edwin C. Voorhies, Feb. 15, 1929. Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 101 shipments from the San Joaquin Valley did not show a tendency to rise until 1929. Several years of relatively low precipitation (1923- 1925) made feed conditions unfavorable. An examination of the March shipments illustrates the influence which an early or a late season may have during that month. A study of table 44 should be of particular interest to California sheepmen. Surplus lambs from the state are usually sent out between March 15 and June 15, which means that the bulk are slaughtered during April, May, and June. These have been and still are months of below-normal slaughter in the United States, although since 1915 there has been a tendency toward more even distribution of slaughter. These months are also below normal in receipts on the central markets. During eight weeks of the heavier California movement, the average weekly shipments do not exceed 60,000 head, whereas during the late- summer peak movement from the Rocky Mountains it is not unusual to have a weekly movement of at least five times this amount. This limited California movement is the chief cause of the high price received for California ' spring lambs.' It will be noted that especially during the three months of heavy California offerings there has been a pronounced relative increase. Although California is in a favorable position and some increase will undoubtedly be desirable over a period of years, the present rate of increase cannot long continue without adverse results to the shipper. Recently lambs similar in quality to the California product have been received from the warmer valleys in Arizona during an almost identical season. These found their way to Kansas City. Records for 1926 indicate that Arizona marketed about 100,000 head of sheep and lambs at Kansas City, approximately 58,000 arriving in April, May, and June. Methods of Marketing Live Lambs. 61 — In marketing live lambs in California any of the following general methods may be used : 1. At the ranch — a. f . o. b. ranch, dollars per 100 pounds. b. f. o. b. ranch, dollars per head. 2. Shipment to markets by growers — a. Stockyards. b. Off the cars. 6i W. P. Wing, Secretary, Calif. Wool Growers Assoc, assisted materially in writing pages 101 to 115. 102 University of California — Experiment Station a 1-5 »o : CM -h : • : • Os : : : : : : ■* CM j »h i •<*< OS >> c3 3 OO OS »0 (M O : ffl N co :-h : h n N::::::iooicn:::h: n :::::: h in ::: 1 o o CO cm" a < CM ■<*< OO r-H t- iot^CM : r- : O tN CO 0::::::hiot)i:::h:h co :::::: .-h : : : : : OS s u 00 os : : : 1 : : co co :::::: —i 1 H H tN CO I : •«* I CM CO c S3 CO j i CO 3 o H ON : CO ■* I CM : 00 N N co : 0O : ^ « h co »o : co : : : : : oi Oi N : ^ : (N >h rn : CM :»o:::: : tN w h - ; : : CM : : i i : i : : : to 00 co" CM OS O CM CO —1 Ifl, t>- :CM :»-i»-it--CO^HCO»-icOCMCOCOO'H co: ::: -hosO *-* i— itMOO co : : : co co cm cm" : ill OS CO CO OS CM CO OS t^- * W : CO : co O © »a : t- : ^ CN ■* OOO:: : Oi oo iO : i-h o CM : .cm :: ::cO'-h^h :: *-* • o 00 CM- CM OS t- 00 CM io : iocM-^co : ■** : h « to 00 :rHOCMOO :CM : co t-h t-h co::::: M « H : : j : : CO CM* CM OS CO CM CO I'^io : : OS as co :»C t»<: •»*<::: i—c »o co :: : CO CO CM OS CO *n CM co : os i^MOOsco : co losoooo cm::::::oscocm ::co: 2 New Mexico New York Ohio 03 '3 eS > to a D g « (3 x 1 c c t J i oi) § p cr c H a a o ^ n a* oj o 83 ^ 73 a A oi 3 O -V T3 S 99 i CD O Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 103 The common practice in California prior to 1922 was to purchase lambs at country points on the per-head basis, buyers usually being more accurate in estimating" the dressing percentages and weights of various lots of lambs than were growers. In this way local buyers could purchase lambs at country points, advantageously sorting the lightest end of bands for shipment to California markets and the stocky, heavier end for mid-western markets. Recently some killers Live Spring Lambs Shipped East from California, 1926-1929 /o zo h — Mar- c h Fig. 27. — The graphs in the above figure represent the weekly movement of live spring lambs to the east. The bulk of the lambs are moved during a four or five weeks' period, the peak of the movement usually occurring during the first three weeks of May. The 1929 season was especially early on account of weather and feed conditions. (Data from table 44.) and sheepmen's organizations have urged buying lambs on the per- pound basis rather than by the head. Both believe the per-pound basis more satisfactory, as thus the poor market type of lamb is penal- ized on account of its lack of weight and quality. On account of the necessity of keeping supplies moving to market in an orderly volume and of lessening the risk of marketing such a highly perishable commodity, and also on account of competition for needed supplies during March, April, May, and June, a consider- able part of the early lamb crop is usually contracted several months in advance of delivery. In contracting for the purchasing of fat 104 University of California — Experiment Station lambs, the larger lamb buyers make a common practice of following the crop into the various sections of the state. It is estimated that during the 1925 and 1928 seasons about two-thirds of the early crop was contracted by local slaughterers and large eastern lamb shippers before the first of May. By far the greater portion of the business of purchasing lambs for mid-western shipment has centered in the San Francisco Bay dis- trict, where a number of local killers are situated, as well as several Dressed Lambs Shipped East from California, 1927-1929 h/VM A4ay Fig. 28. — The graphs in the above figure represent the weekly movement of dressed spring lambs to the east. The bulk movement is spread over a longer period of time than in the case of live lambs (compare with fig. 27). (Data from table 45.) independent lamb buyers, who either act as representatives of mid- western killers, or who purchase with a view of re-selling. These large lamb shippers or eastern buyers buy, sort, and load the lambs, order the cars, and control the movement of their purchases to the various markets by diverting or withholding shipments according to their information, judgment, and experience. A written contract usually is accompanied by a deposit of $1.00- $3.00 per head and includes a statement as to the number of lambs to be delivered between certain dates, usually at two-week intervals. The contract is generally drawn up after the prospective buyer inspects the band and agrees with the owner as to the price to be paid on delivery at the nearest scales or local shipping point. Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry • 105 In 1928 considerably more than three-fourths of the total out-of- state shipments were handled by California slaughterers and larger lamb buyers or mid-western shippers. A relatively small portion are shipped direct to mid-western markets by growers, because the indi- vidual grower either prefers to sell at home or feels that he cannot spare the time to make the trip or does not have sufficient lambs ready at any one time to enable him to ship in double-deck cars. It is the practice of some early-lamb producers to hold over the 'tail-end lambs' in California until the next season, when they are marketed as yearlings, and moved with the spring lambs to mid-western markets. Usually the bulk of the Sacramento Valley lambs are delivered during the period between April 20 and May 15. The peak of the movements is in May (fig. 27). During the early spring, summer, and fall months before and after the major portion of the early Cali- fornia crop is marketed and even to some extent during the main lamb-shipping season, additional supplies become available in scat- tered localities. Oftentimes in such cases the individual grower has experienced difficulty in obtaining a buyer at the ranch. Either his shipments were too small to invite buyers' attention or the country price offered seemed unsatisfactory. The establishment of public stockyards at Los Angeles, South San Francisco, and Stockton in recent years has provided additional outlets for all grades of sheep ai?d lambs during the entire year. At these public stockyards sheep are yarded in pens provided with feed and water immediately upon arrival. Usually the grower con- signs his offerings to commission men, who sort, display and sell the lambs or sheep to the highest bidder. After the sale is completed the stock is weighed on scales provided by the management, whose yardage charge covers the use of all handling facilities. Freight, in-transit feed charges, feed charge at the yards, yardage, insurance, and commission-house fees for selling are deducted by the commis- sion firm from the gross proceeds of the sale. Rates for these services are regulated by the Packers and Stockyards Administration, United States Department of Agriculture. Schedules of Bates for Yardage, Feed, and Selling.-^Table 48 shows the rates and charges for yardage and feed at a number of leading markets where California lambs are sold. These charges were in effect on June 30, 1927, as shown by tariffs on file with the Secre- tary of Agriculture. There are also differences in the types of feed utilized at the different markets. Several kinds of hay are generally fed, the price being given, however, for that kind which is most gen- erally used at the market. 106 University of California — Experiment Station Table 48 also shows a schedule of the commission charges for sell- ing straight cars of sheep and lambs which was in effect at a number of markets on June 30, 1927. This does not represent the complete schedule of rates and charges, in many cases tariffs making provisions for separate charges for buying and selling mixed-car lots, drive-in livestock, and plural-ownership consignments of livestock. In some cases additional charges are made for extra services such as pro- rating, extra sorting, and rendering separate accounts. The charges set forth in each instance represent those observed by most of the agencies at the various markets. TABLE 48 Stockyard Charges for, Yardage and Feed Stockyards and address Union Stockyards, Chicago Kansas City Stockyards, Kansas City, Mo Union Stockyards, Denver, Colo Union Stockyards, Los Angeles, Calif Union Stockyards, Ogden, Utah Union Stockyards, Omaha, Neb.* Union Stockyards, North Portland, Ore Union Stockyards, North Salt Lake, Utah Union Stockyards, South San Francisco, Calif Union Stockyards, Stockton, Calif St. Joseph Stockyards, St. Joseph, Mo Yardage per head $0 05 Feed Hay per 100 lbs. Corn per bu. $1.55 1 45 1.50 1.80 3.001: 1.45 3.00J 3.50J 3.00J 1.45 Rates for selling Single decks $14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 12.50 14.00 14.00 Double decks $20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 18.75 20.00 20.00 * Any interested agency may file a petition or complaint with the Secretary of Agriculture requesting inquiry as to the reasonableness of tariffs. Such proceeding is now being conducted by the Omaha Live- stock Exchange, March 1929. X Price per hundredweight. Source of data: Chief of the Packers and Stockyards Admin. Ann. Repts. of the U. S. Dept. Agr., pp. 1-38. Aug. 25, 1927. Lamb Shipping Losses. — Many shippers maintain that the largest death loss in shipping lambs east occurs during the first 24 hours (usually from California loading points to the first unloading sta- tion). No definite data are available by which the authors could check this opinion. The questioning of a number of caretakers and shippers partially confirms this. Because spring lambs have not been used to handling in livestock trains when first loaded they are inclined to ride standing up, especially during the first 24 to 36 hours. After they become adjusted to the side-swaying and novelty of the situation they are inclined to lie down. Experienced care-takers work the car with a prod-pole to keep the lambs from piling up at the forward Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 107 end at every stop during the first two days of the journey and under normal road operating' conditions the lambs will soon learn to lie down and rest easy during the balance of the six or seven day journey to mid-western markets. Careless care-takers of livestock usually experience heavier losses than do active workers who watch the riding of the lambs. Some losses are reported from water founder, or access to too much water at unloading stations, after a dusty and hot journey. Many shippers prefer to water at corrals having a water-trough by which the amount of water each lamb receives can be regulated rather than to water at a running stream where no indication of the amount of water con- sumed can be ascertained. When lambs are exceedingly thirsty they tend to over-drink. Some losses in transit are chargeable to ' strange' hay, that is, hay to which the lambs have not been accustomed, and most operators specify good clean, bright, leafy alfalfa hay as distinct from woody, stemmy hay lacking leaves. On account of the large number of lambs shipped from California during a short season the capacity of feed yards enroute to mid- western markets is often taxed, causing abnormal losses. During the 1929 season lambs coming from a temperate climate in California were subjected to severe snow storms, muddy corrals, high winds and lack of shelter. Obviously the shrink in many cases was severe. Weighing Conditions. — Conditions under which sheep and lambs are weighed vary considerably. With fed lambs in feed lots during the winter months the common practice is to allow the feeder to give a morning feed, after which the lambs are taken to the scales. A deduction of 4 per cent is usually allowed in such cases and the net weight after deduction is the selling weight. During the spring and summer it is the custom at many ranches to drive the ewes with their lambs to enclosures near the scales. The buyer and seller separate the ewes from the lambs, driving the latter on the scales. A deduction of 3 per cent is usually made. In cases where it is necessary to drive 8 or 10 miles to the nearest scales it is not uncommon to drive the ewes and lambs to corrals close to the scales, where the animals are bedded down for the night. The next morning the ewes are separated from the lambs, the latter being weighed. The buyer usually demands a 2-per-cent deduction. In lieu of this method the lambs are often separated at night and allowed access to neither feed nor water, weighing taking place early the next morning. This latter method of weighing is designated as "a 12-hour 108 University of California — Experiment Station stand without feed or water." Occasionally 5 to 15-mile drives are made without the ewes, and the lambs are weighed immediately upon arrival, no deduction for shrinkage being made. The activity of the lamb market will govern the weighing basis to a considerable extent. It is natural that there should be considerable variation in the number loaded per deck with the different weights of sheep and lambs. A relation exists between the season of the year during which lambs are marketed and the number loaded per deck. During the fed-lamb season (January and February) probably only 135 to 140 head of from 85 to 100-pound lambs can be loaded to a single deck. During the spring-lamb season one experienced buyer loads 140 to 145 head of 75 to 80-pound lambs to a single deck, or 280 in a double deck. A check of the number of single decks and lambs arriving at Ogden, Utah, during the 1928 California spring-lamb season gave 147.8 head per deck. Mr. G. A. Scott, Bureau of Livestock and Crop Estimates, Sacramento, Calif., checked the number of decks and lambs at Ogden during the California season of 1927 and found an average of 142 to the single deck. According to Mr. George Cleary, a lamb shipper of San Francisco, Calif., there are livestock cars of different sizes in the Pacific Coast area ranging in length from 35 ft. 9 in. to 40 ft. One line which handles the bulk of California lamb shipments to midwestern markets generally utilizes 36 ft. 6 in. cars in which approximately 145 head of 75 to 80-pound lambs can be loaded. Near the close of the California movement a considerable number of feeder lambs are shipped and instances are known of 150 to 155 head of 55 to 60-pound feeder lambs having been loaded to a single deck for midwestern markets. Cost of Shipping Live Lambs. — Estimates on the costs of shipping lambs to market are made on a per-head or on a hundredweight basis. Buyers, sellers, and students of the industry are greatly interested in shipping costs. This subject causes considerable controversy. It is seldom that all the factors, such as home weights, selling weights, loss by shrinkage, death loss, and feed and transportation charges, are actually known until after the movement is completed. There is therefore variation between costs of shipments during the same year and more noticeably between those of different years. Many large buyers figure care-takers' wages and expenses at 15 cents a head on all lambs shipped, in addition to other shipping costs. Cuts have been made in shipping costs by eliminating care-takers, Bud. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 109 making arrangements at feeding stations for care en route. The total cost of shipping to any of the Missouri River markets averages about $1.33 per head (1925-1929) exclusive of shrinkage. Average shrink- age in transit to midwestern markets amounts to 5 to 7 pounds per lamb or 10 per cent of the live weight, the greatest shrinkage occur- TABLE 49 Estimated Approximate Live;- Lamb Shipping Costs' (Double-deck cars) From mainline California points To Denver To river markets To Chicago $201.00 1.50 0.75 22.40 20.00 15.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 $257.00 1 50 0.75 22.40 20.00 15.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 22.00 $304.00 1.50 75 22.40 20.00 15.00 Feed en route per car*: 8.00 10.00 Third feed 12.00 22.00 Fifth feed 22.00 Other charges : 0.05 2.80 0.05 2.80 0.05 National Wool Growers (optional) (1 cent a head on all 2.80 $293.50 1.05 $371.50 1.33 $430.50 Cost per head (280 lambs per car) 1.54 * Feed costs are exceedingly variable, depending upon quantity consumed and market values at each station. The above figures are averages taken from shippers' account sales during the season of 1925, and are given as an indication of items to be considered. % River markets include Omaha, Kansas City, and St. Joseph, Mo. Source of data: California Wool Growers Assn., San Francisco, Calif. ring in the first 24 hours. 62 If the original cost is $10.00 per cwt., average shrinkage will amount to between 50 and 75 cents per head, whereas if the cost is $12.00 per cwt., it will amount to between 60 and 84 cents per head. The more important costs involved in shipping live California lambs to midwestern livestock markets appear in table 49. Destination of Live Lambs. — Shipments of live lambs move to the large markets of the middle west (table 50). After slaughter it is estimated that approximately 90 per cent are sent dressed to cities * 62 Some difference of opinion exists relative to the amount of shrinkage. One large shipper considers the average shrinkage stated above to be too low. Another shipper of over 100,000 head in 1928 states "With a normal country shrink we figure a 10 per cent shrink from California east." 110 University of California — Experiment Station east of Pittsburgh. 63 Of these, one-third are sent to New York, a second third to Philadelphia, and the remainder to Boston and adjacent New England points. Thus California dressed lambs come in compe- tition with mid-western dressed lambs on the Atlantic Coast markets. It is significant to note that California live lambs have been re- shipped to Boston, New York, and Philadelphia for Kosher slaughter, having changed ownership at Omaha and Chicago livestock markets. 64 TABLE 50 Principal Markets for California Live Lambs, 1920-1929 (Number of live lambs received) Kansas San Los Year Chicago Omaha St. Joseph Denver City Francisco Angeles 1920* 84,000 1921* 80,000 264,000 254,000 175,000 185,000 1922* 65,000 104,005 1923* 53,051 143,725 29,613 22,960 7,009 253,100 232,000 1924* Foot-and- mouth diseas e quarantin e. 314,000 235,000 1925J 129,000 74,589 30,600 8,100 17,026 280,000 250,000 1926$ 72,100 51,105 39,158 7,000 18,547 259,000 250,000 1927$ 203,058 130,065 27,764 Til, 627 24,187 250,000 250,000 1928J 202,000 132,066 27,830 [15,680 23,592 210,178 180,835 1929$ 265,900 138,968 37,846 26,704 5,398 200,000 195,000 * Note: 1920-1923 data are not available for all principal markets. X In addition it is estimated that 10 per cent should be added to the totals for shipments not included in the table. Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Agr. Econ., San Francisco, California. Dependable data on distribution of live lambs prior to 1922 are not available, but a survey of the 1923 marketings indicates that approximately 56 per cent of the total number shipped out of the state were sold at Omaha, 21 per cent at Chicago, 12 per cent at St. Joseph, 9 per cent at Denver, and 3 per cent at Kansas City. The first two have continued to be the more important markets, although Kan- sas City and Denver have received increased shipments since 1923 (table 48 ). 65 A number of cars have been sent to North Portland, Seattle, Tacoma, and Reno. 63 Information to W. P. Wing, Sec. California Wool Growers Assn., from Cudahy & Co., Chicago, 111. 64 There are differences of opinion among shippers concerning the advisa bility of this practice. Some believe that these live lambs generally do not hold up very well after they have passed Chicago, while others do not consider that there is much difference in the quality and dressing of lambs shipped to New York and to Chicago. 65 Information to Federal-State Market News Service from branch offices, Livestock, Meats and Wool Division, U. S. Dept. of Agr. those cities. Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 111 Available data for 1926, 1927, and 1928 show that between 5 and 10 per cent of the lambs shipped were sold as feeders. A considerable number of these have been sent to feed yards in Michigan and Illi- nois, appearing on the markets for slaughter during June and July. (Table 47 shows total out-of-state shipments.) Some feeding is done at Omaha and Kansas City adjacent to the stockyards by men who make a business of feeding lambs — usually not by packers. The local markets of San Francisco and Los Angeles receive the bulk of the lamb crop, estimates in 1926 accounting for two-thirds of the crop, in 1927 for one-half, in 1928 for slightly less than half, and in 1929 slightly more than two-fifths. In addition to these two larger state markets, considerable numbers are sent to other markets within the state, as may be seen by data on state-inspected slaughter at other points than Los Angeles (table 21). The distribution of the 1928 early California lamb crop was prob- ably the widest on record. The total shipments for the spring lamb season (Mar. 15 to June 15) were: Market Slaughter lambs Feeder purchases Total Approximate number single decks Per cent to each market 191,600 23,592 15,680 22,330 110,066 210,178 180,835 78,178 10,400 202,000 23,592 15,680 27,830 132,066 210,178 180,835 78,178 1,443 168 112 200 943 1,500 1,300 560 23.2 2.7 1 8 St. Joseph 5,500 22,000 3.2 15.2 24 1 20.8 9 Total 832,459 37,900 870,359 6,226 100.00 The above data for Denver included 19 double decks which were later shipped eastward. Minor markets such as Reno, Ogden, Portland, Seattle, Tacoma and numerous cities within the state received small shipments of spring lambs during this period. An opinion has been expressed that with the increased buying of spring lambs for eastern shipment by four large packers in Cali- fornia, the percentage of these lambs to be killed in Chicago will be greatly increased and the percentage killed at Denver, Omaha, St. Joseph, and Kansas City will be lowered, Chicago being closer to the consuming centers on the eastern seaboard. 66 George J. Cleary, San Francisco, California, in letter to Edwin C. Voorhies, Feb. 15, 1929. 112 University of California — Experiment Station Dressed-Lamb Marketing. — The movement of dressed spring lambs from California to Atlantic Coast markets was begun in an experi- mental way in 1918 by a large slaughterer, who maintains a plant at South San Francisco, A few carloads were sent to the Atlantic Coast markets during March with the idea of having California spring lamb on sale before Easter. These early shipments met with ready sale and each succeeding year the movement has increased. During 1923 about 35 express refrigerator carloads were sent. Leading lamb ship- pers state that the shipment of dressed lambs out of California is resorted to largely to supply the eastern demand and often is found necessary because the lambs which are so shipped are generally not old enough or mature enough to ship east without running the risk of loss of quality en route. 67 The cost of shipping dressed lambs across the country resulted in rather narrow margins to the packer because of the relatively high express rate. More recently, however, joint action has enabled the carriers to reduce this rate. It was demon- strated that 'good to choice milk lamb' could be en route seven days and placed on the market at a time when the major portion of supplies were fed lambs. In 1924 because quarantines prevented the movement of live lambs out of most of California those slaughterers operating under federal inspection shipped dressed lambs in express refrigerator cars and saved the situation for the California spring lamb producer. This indicated the great importance of federal inspection in the state to take care of such an emergency. The price received by the grower in most instances was equal to that of the year previous, due to a considerable extent to the cooperation of railroads and express com- panies in giving emergency rates in moving the live and dressed lambs to market points. (See p. 95.) The style of dressing for eastern markets is somewhat different from that commonly practiced on the Pacific Coast. Experienced operators dress the lambs, ' pluck out' (heart, liver, lungs, windpipe), drop the neck to allow drainage and aeration, do not split open the breast bone, and the lambs are dressed without back-sets or caul attached. As a rule only choice carcasses weighing under 38 pounds, neatly wrapped in clean white muslin bags are shipped. Most con- cerns plan to have their lambs arrive in New York for unloading during the forepart of each week. 67 Letter from George J. Cleary, San Francisco, California, to Edwin C. Voorhies, Feb. 15, 1929. Statement confirmed by letter from Forrest Taylor, Western Meat Co., San Francisco, to W. P. Wing, Secretary, Calif. Wool Growers Assoc, Feb. 23, 1929. Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 113 At the height of the season as many as two or three express refrig- erator cars of lambs leave in a day, which are attached to the fastest transcontinental passenger trains. Dressed-Lamb Marketing Costs. — The following represent average costs of marketing dressed spring lambs through refrigerator car shipments during the 1925 season : Per 100 pounds Good to choice 70-75 lb. lambs, f.o.b. ranch $12.00— $12.50 Shipping cost ranch to plant including 5 lbs. shrink, freight, sand- ing car (roughly estimated) 1.00 — 1.00 Average cost off cars at plant, Pacific Coast 13.00 — 13.50 Express charges, plant to Atlantic Coast (dressed) 4.28 — 4.28 Icing, packing, shrinkage, bagging, commission on selling dressed lambs (roughly estimated) 2.00 — 2.25 Total shipping cost for dressed animals (average estimated) $ 6.28 — $ 6.53 The cost of delivery to eastern markets ranged between $6.00- $7.00 per 100 lbs., depending upon the size and number of carcasses loaded per car. Of about 175 cars loaded at San Francisco, the num- ber averaged practically 646 lambs per car, while 112 cars shipped from Los Angeles averaged 596, indicating perhaps that the former market practiced stricter plant grading and shipped only the choicest under-40-pound carcasses. In general, the smaller lambs commanded the top of the market at the Atlantic Coast. Distributing Dressed Lambs. — After the dressed lambs leave the slaughtering plant in California the head offices of the shippers keep in constant communication with eastern Atlantic Coast markets, diverting the express cars to various markets, principally New York, Boston and Philadelphia. In order to have California spring lambs sell profitably on Atlantic Coast markets, it is absolutely essential that they be in good condi- tion. Even high-conditioned stock which has been shipped so far must be sold soon after arrival, and obviously, low-conditioned stock must be sold at once and not infrequently at a sacrifice. Desirable weight is also essential. Heavy spring lambs of similar grade fre- quently sell practically in line with fall lambs. California lambs will sell most readily if they hold closely to the desired mutton conforma- tion, buyers criticizing offerings of some seasons as being uniformly rangy and decidedly coarse, and not accepting the meat as genuine spring lamb from California. 114 University of California — Experiment Station Opinions differ among California slaughterers as to the economy of marketing dressed lambs at Atlantic Coast markets. On the whole the more experienced shippers seem to have had reasonably good suc- cess by carefully grading their products and using the other grades on local markets. Sorting for eastern shipments apparently cannot be too severe. Naturally some shippers are more careful than others in this respect, but lack of proper selection almost always brings a penalty in the form of lower price. One operator who shipped a com- paratively small number of cars maintains it is hardly practical to ship dressed lambs from California, as it is difficult to have the car- casses reach Atlantic Coast buyers before they become slick or drip with moisture. When once the lambs become slick, buyers note their appearance and reduce their bids $3.00-$4.00 per cwt., and if trade is draggy, it may result in considerably lower prices than anticipated. The Philadelphia market during 1928 received 17 carloads of dressed lambs, as compared with 17 cars in 1927, 22 cars in 1926, 8 cars in 1925, and 23 cars during 1924. A prominent chain-store system which operates 492 retail chain meat markets bought a con- siderable portion of these lambs in 1928 and made a feature of 'Cali- fornia baby lambs' in its advertising during March, April, and May. The Boston market received only 2 carloads in 1928, returns being such that continuous shipment was not advisable ; during 1927 only 5 cars were received and during 1926, 6 cars. The New York market receives a major portion of supplies shipped from Califorina. During 1928 this metropolitan area received 53 cars, in 1927 about 55 cars, in 1926, 48 cars. During 1927 New York received a few carloads of dressed lambs by fast freight from South San Francisco. On opening the cars in New York City a very strong odor was present. The lambs were sticky on the flanks and wet and slightly discolored in the crotches, the muslin bags stuck to the legs in some places and were decidedly out of condition. These lambs were the right kind for shipping, weights being satisfactory and quality equal to anything received from California that year. However, the cars were in transit twelve days, which, of course, means that they were not moving part of the time and when parked between long lines of freight with compara- tively little air, the situation was right for the production of stale meat. Cities and towns east of Chicago which cannot handle a complete carload of spring lambs are served by 'peddler cars* or mixed cars Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 115 of fresh meats which contain a dozen or two lambs. Lambs are loaded into these cars at Chicago, having moved from the Pacific Coast by express. Marketing Methods Compared. — The majority of the 1923 crop of lambs marketed at mid-western markets was shipped east as live lambs. In the following year (1924) necessity compelled the bulk of lambs to be moved in the dressed condition. The years 1925-1928 witnessed a rather general return to the policy of shipping the bulk of the lambs out of California, alive (figs. 27 and 28). This was chiefly because more competition could thereby be obtained in middle western markets, not only on desirable fat lambs but on feeder lambs as well. The present tendency in California is to market the entire lamb crop as spring lambs, and during recent years a greater proportion has been sold early than in any other state. Concerns who have had experience in shipping by both methods believe that less financial risk is involved in shipping live lambs to middle western markets than the more costly dressed lambs to Atlantic Coast markets under present methods and freight rates. Feeders Shipped Out of the State. — The bulk of the lambs usually shipped out of the state are in condition for immediate slaughter. Along with the spring-lamb shipments, however, is an appreciable number of lambs which are sold as feeders on the middle western mar- kets. On account of inadequate data it is difficult to estimate the per- centage of feeders for eastern shipments. It is probable that these have constituted from 6 to 28 per cent of the eastern shipments made during the three months March 15 to June 15. Pew California sheep- men are in a position to feed ; many prefer to sell all of their surplus stock at one time. The largest number of feeders from California are handled at Omaha, with Chicago as the second market. These feeder lambs are usually sheared, placed on dry feed, and finished in from sixty to ninety days. 68 During the late spring or early summer*, Washington buyers go to the Sacramento Valley to purchase ewes for feeding purposes. These are shipped to feed yards adjacent to packing plants in the northwest and marketed there. Imperial Valley buyers are during some years large purchasers of old ewes in the early lamb producing sections of the state. Letter from Wm. R. Smith & Son., Chicago to authors, Oct. 22, 1928. 116 University of California — Experiment Station Q be .5 6 CM j : CO CO o» . 1 ■«*< : O CM »o P m > OO "* : t*< : ■«*< : N (N O) ': -h CO « a *o 1 1 : a> ': CO ': co co : co CO IO iO : »-i : oo : O CO CO III I M : M ! 00 bfi IN N 1(5 1 1 : t- 1 co : co CM ': iH 00 : "* : O CM CM < i ^ CM £ CO : cm : cm "* •* "3 CO : ^ CM OO CM OS : c ^ 1 CO 03 ^ ^ : *° : co CM «5 1-5 : O 1 ^ CO CM >> 03 t^ : ui 1 -^ Tt< o Tfl s rt 'C CO : : CO -«cH : co • ^ ,H a -* 1 1 ; N OO ■< t* o cr : ° I co O co ': t- CM CO CN ! : : M N : CO § " CM X 00 o- : t* : CO ■* co -^ CD CM C : us : i-( CM CO CO N "" "* ! -* G S^S ': Os : ■<*< co : CO 03 ►"3 1 "* : cr> CO CO "3 CM Oi >~ I I iO : co : co to h I t> co t> : co co : co : as cm C35 : t- >o o CO "t II 1 °° : i-H r-i oo : CO H ! ~ TlT t>- CO a : ° : a> cc r- 1 t-I OS CO OS ■* w : TH CO e> : i-H : as : co CM O O o c : : : ; t-h : 9 N ^ h cm »"< ~ Ml M <* cm as co c i : i : : r-< CM -* CO ^H o : t- c\ : CO »0 CM 00 o oo -a ■ "3 : ffl h ^ h »o CO CM oo 00 : o : c ill: i ■■ ■■ : Is : O : OS OO 03 O CO cm ■ C£ > : : : • °° ; ir> OS CO : co_ CO CO : o tQ ct : i- < t^ -*< ■ "■ > CO i- : iC oo : CO ^ CO G bfl O o o 1 £ iz 1 3 03 o3 & o c 1 j a b 5 X i t 1 1 * ■8 ^ cu ctl *3 U c o u nd T3 c 3 03 u c N 03 7J a 0) 03 o r, ^ < O 01 T3 £ Fh XI 3 o a £ Buu 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 117 SHEEP SHIPPED INTO CALIFORNIA Total Shipments. — During the spring of the year the state has a surplus of lambs, but for the remaining months sheep must be shipped in from outside states. Although California has a dense sheep popula- tion (fig. 6), the per-capita consumption of lamb and mutton is high (p. 51). Considering only total shipments both in and out of the state, a net balance of approximately 150,000 sheep has been sent in from the outside in order to supply the demands. To conclude from this that a larger sheep population is desirable would be fallacious. It will be realized more and more that the state cannot be separated from the surrounding territory in considering many crops and products. TABLE 52 Monthly Shipments of Sheep and Lambs into California, 1923-1928 (Single decks) Year Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total 1923 404 304 121 29 19 29 154 321 411 672 561 347 3,372 1924 390 404 356 44 5 41 142 184 437 615 406 313 3,337 1925 415 489 219 48 71 123 195 284 509 637 293 221 3,504 1926 427 420 200 51 40 130 304 361 1026 728 190 334 4,211 1927 295 301 211 61 81 179 459 317 843 587 478 387 4,199 1928 336 464 262 81 40 235 324 228 833 565 424 559 4,351 Source of data: Calif. Wool Growers Assoc, San Francisco, Calif. Equally erroneous would be the conclusion that these sheep are used entirely for slaughter purposes. Many operators in the early lamb producing sections of the state believe that it is more economical to buy young ewes rather than to hold over their ewe-lambs and grow them out for breeding stock. A number of sheepmen make a practice of buying ewe lambs or yearlings in other states, winter them in California and sell them later. This is a regularly established busi- ness and the turnover is estimated to be from 100,000 to 200,000 head per year. These sheep are purchased mainly in Oregon, Nevada, Idaho, and Utah. Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, and Utah furnish over 90 per cent of the sheep shipped into the state (table 51). During the five years, 1924-1928, the first two states have supplied approximately one-half of these arrivals. Occasional shipments of sheep for slaugh- 118 University of California — Experiment Station ter have been sent from the western section of the Mississippi Valley and Texas. Breeding animals have been received from all parts of the country. Like the outward movement, incoming shipments are highly sea- sonal. The heaviest shipments into the state are made during Septem- ber, October, and November, although movement begins soon after the first of July and usually continues through March, until the local spring lambs come on to the market. During the three months (Sep- tember-November) between 40 and 50 per cent of the year's outside offerings are sent in (table 52), consisting largely of fat and feeder lambs from the inter-mountain territory. Fed lambs arrive from the same area during January, February, early in March, and often December. Sheep Shipped into California for Grazing. 69 — The Division of Animal Industry of the State Department of Agriculture has at- tempted to differentiate between sheep entering the state for feeder and for grazing purposes, although the line of demarcation is diffi- cult to make. From the data for 1925-1928, it is evident that there has been considerable decline in incoming shipments of grazing sheep. Available feed is the main determinant for the carrying capacity of the ranges. Although records indicate that sheep for grazing pur- poses have been shipped into the state during every month of the year, by far the larger number cross the state lines in the spring, especially during March and April. During the past four years all of these sheep entered from southern Oregon and northwestern Ne- vada, the greater part having the northeastern mountain counties as their destination. Feeder Sheep Shipped into California. 70 — Records of feeder and grazing sheep entering California are available since 1925. Since this date there has been a decided increase in the number of feeder sheep entering the state. The movement usually begins in September or October during which time one-half to two-thirds of the total number cross the state's borders. Although California produces fewer lambs than are consumed in the local markets, such a general statement is of but little significance. The bulk of the lamb crop is produced ,; ' For information with reference to the range types of California the reader is referred to: Voorhies, Edwin C, and A. B. Koughan. Economic aspects of the beef cattle industry. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 461:33-37. 1928. 70 The authors are indebted to Dr. J. P. Iverson, .Chief of the Division of Animal Industry, California State Dept. Agr., for data on the movements of feeder and grazing sheep into the state. Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 119 during the spring months (p. 53), hence the seasonality of lamb production is a factor of prime importance. By the end of June the larger part of the spring crop of lambs is gone and local markets must look elsewhere for supplies. Although there are sections where lamb- ing takes place at a late date (p. 53), local supplies are not sufficient to supply the demand. In addition to fed lambs sent to local markets, feeders are also shipped, which are placed on stubble fields and feed lots. Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, and Texas, in the order named, have furnished the largest shipments of feeders with occasional offerings from Utah, Idaho, New Mexico, and Montana. REQUISITES FOR EARLY LAMB PRODUCTION71 Some of the requisites in successful spring-lamb production are (1) proper type of ewe and ram, (2) favorable climatic conditions, and (3) ideal feed supply. Proper Type of Ewe and Ram. — In California the majority of range ewes are of grade Rambouillet or Merino type, although in many bands a percentage of crossbred (black-faced Merino) ewes is found. The more progressive sheepmen interested in the production of spring lambs have lately introduced about one-fourth long-wool blood cross- ing with Romney or Lincoln rams. The Corriedale and Romeldale crosses are also favored where it is desired to retain the ewe lambs for breeding stock. These crossbred ewes are superior milkers to the straight Rambouillet type and are therefore favored by some sheep- men. The great advantage of the Rambouillet ewe, however, is that she is not only very hardy but also early lambing, breeding as early as June and July for November and December lambs. Mutton-type ewes, and to some extent crossbred ewes, do not possess the early- breeding faculty so desirable in this industry. The ewes are mated with one of the standard mutton sires — Hamp- shire, Shropshire, Suffolk, or Southdown — to insure good mutton- type, early-maturing lambs. The Hampshire and Shropshire have in the past been the more popular sires, although there is interest at present in the possibilities of the Suffolk as a sire in producing early- maturing lambs. The Southdown is also gaining favor, particularly 71 On account of the importance of maintaining proper quality in spring lambs, requests have been made by sheepmen to include this section in the publication. Associate Professor E. F. Miller, Associate Animal Husbandman, California Agr. Exp. Sta. has prepared pp. 119-121. 120 University of California — Experiment Station in the north coast counties, where the winters are more severe. The lambs in this region, however, are not dropped until February and would hardly classify as early lambs. The larger type of rams, such as Hampshire and Suffolk, are especially well adapted to range conditions where early spring feed is plentiful. Under these ideal conditions the lambs resulting from this cross develop very rapidly and at a given age outweigh Shrop- shire or Southdown crossbred lambs by 5 to 10 pounds. The chief aim should be, however, to provide choice spring feed in order to dispose of all of these as early spring lambs. If they do not fatten as early lambs, they become large, rangy, summer lambs and do not prove desirable feeder lambs. They do not fatten readily and when finally in market condition are too heavy for the coast trade, weighing 90 to 95 pounds. The Shropshire sire is well adapted for crossbreeding under farm conditions and also preferred by many range sheepmen, particularly where early range feed is not ideal. The lambs are somewhat smaller and more compact than those sired by Hampshire or Suffolk rams, and for that reason will fatten more readily and also prove desirable feeder lambs in case they do not mature for the early lamb trade. What has been said of the Shropshire also applies to the Southdown as a sire. However, Southdown crossbred lambs are often criticized for lacking in weight as compared to the larger breeds, and for that reason they have not become more popular in this state. For farm conditions they have proved very satisfactory and in the early lamb sections of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia, Southdown rams com- prise 60 to 70 per cent of the sires used. Favorable Climatic Conditions. — Climatic conditions are a factor because the lambing period comes during the winter months of November, December, and January. Some sheepmen provide special lambing sheds where each individual ewe is cared for with her lamb in a small pen for one or two days, yet a great many sheepmen lamb on the open range in sheltered places afforded by ravines and tim- bered areas. The former method requires considerable labor and a special supply of feed and bedding in the form of alfalfa hay and straw, and special attention to sanitation. For these reasons the open- range type of lambing is preferred by most sheepmen. Feed Supply. — The natural feed supply is no doubt the most important item in the successful production of choice lambs. It is highly important to have green feed at lambing time, so as to insure Buii. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 121 a good flow of milk for the lamb. Sheepmen who lamb as early as October and November usually depend on alfalfa pasture for green feed ; foxtail grasses and alfilaria are seldom available until December. Seasonable rains in early fall and during the winter are essential to produce a continuous growth of green feed, and in the spring months of February, March, and April, an abundance of alfilaria and bur clover is found in leading early-lamb regions, crowding the lambs to maturity and market weight at an early age. The green grass usually lasts until the middle of May, when it begins to dry. The seeds of foxtail, bur clover, and alfilaria, when dry, affect both pelts and car- casses. These seeds often push through the pelt, causing small blood clots, which have the appearance of needle points on the carcass. If a pelt contains these punctures it lessens its value because it is neces- sary to remove the spots by knife trimming, thereby detracting from the appearance. Often the wool containing the seeds must be car- bonized in the process of scouring, which entails additional expense. Both dressed-lamb and live-lamb buyers heavily penalize all lambs affected. Growers should aim to market the lambs before infestation occurs. Attempting to produce lambs at a too-early period — in October, and marketing in March — is not usually advisable owing to a scarcity of green feed at lambing time and the danger of encountering a heavy supply of lambs from country feed lots with resulting low prices. The April and May markets are usually better, because the feed-lot lambs are practically all shipped by April 1 and the supply of lambs is more or less limited, resulting in a brisk market. The production of spring lambs is likely to increase as more sheep- men engage in the business. Quality is of prime importance in the spring-lamb trade, and the California grower should strive to produce better lambs rather than more lambs. GRAZING AND FEEDING SHEEP Grazing in the National Forests. — National forests occupy a large proportion (19.2) per cent) of the area of California. As a general rule between 400,000 and 500,000 sheep (lambs under 6 months not included) are grazed in these forests under annual or term permits. Permits are obtained by from 300 to 500 applicants (table 54). The importance of the national forests for the entire country can be seen from table 53. 122 University of California — Experiment Station Varying fees are charged for grazing in the national forests of the state. Table 55 contains a list of the fees charged from 1917 to 1928 and those proposed for year-long grazing in 1931. For some years a study has been in progress which has as its ultimate aim a more equable distribution of grazing fees. The new fees will go into effect gradually, starting in 1928 and reaching full operation in 1931. Favorable prices both in the sheep and cattle industries present problems in the administration of the national forests. One of the main problems is the prevention of overexpansion and overstocking. The system of management practiced is intended to meet the best needs of the range itself, of the related timber, game, water, recrea- tion and other resources and of the dependent ranch property. TABLE 53 Number of Stock Grazed Under, Paid Permit 1 on the National Forests oe the United States, 1910-1927 Year Cattle Sheep Year Cattle Sheep 1910 1,409,873 7,558,650 1919 2,135,527 7,935,174 1911 1,351,922 7,371,747 1920 2,035,432 7,280,584 1912 1,403,025 7,467,890 1921 1,999,680 6,936,377 1913 1,455,922 7,790,953 1922 1,915,113 6,851,690 1914 1,508,639 7,560,186 1923 1,804,274 6,377,759 1915 1,627,321 7,232,276 1924 1,664,087 6,301,308 1916 1,758,764 7,843,205 1925 1,538,942 6,162,263 1917 1,953,198 7,586,034 1926 1,456,858 6,212,657 1918 2,137,854 8,454,240 1927 1,403,192 6,376,838 Note: Years 1910-1920 are fiscal and numbers represent the number permitted; 1921-1927 are calendar years and numbers represent animals actually grazed. Source of data: U. S. Dept. of Agr., Forest Serv., Washington, D. C. Heavy losses from various causes are suffered by sheepmen both in the national forests and on private ranges. Estimates made of losses on national forests of the United States in 1927 indicate that 21,418 sheep (and goats) were lost by eating poisonous plants and 106,177 from predatory animals, disease and other causes. This loss of 127,595 on the national forests, except from natural causes can be materially reduced by poisonous plant eradication, predatory animal control, etc. Feeding Sheep in the Western States and California. — During recent years growers and producers favorably situated have taken a decided interest in the feeding of lambs for California winter mar- kets. Prior to the last five years sheep and lamb slaughterers under- took considerable winter lamb feeding in order to insure their plants sufficient stock during the winter months. Buu 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 123 TABLE 54 National Forests of California: Area, Stock Grazed, Permits Issued, 1909- 1928; Number of Stock Grazed in Different Forests, 1927, 1928 Stock grazed Permits issued Net area of Year Cattle and horsea Sheep and goats Cattle and horses Sheep and goats national forests in California 1909 178,454 385,606 2,846 322 28,531,077 1910 172,727 396,724 2,601 305 28,531,077 1911 165,273 382,245 2,449 298 27,830,525 1912 183,244 444,648 2,521 367 27,729,905 1913 184,076 449,105 2,664 377 20,731,777 1914 189,451 433,048 2,696 348 20,527,543 1915 191,337 397,570 2,694 317 20,162,736 1916 194,892 417,052 2,765 326 20,667,758 1917 205,792 465,752 2,913 378 19,348,831 1918 223,798 581,955 3,142 464 19,055,805 1919 218,926 619,812 3,021 551 18,958,004 1920 211,186 528,858 2,834 495 19,038,802 1921 217,687 554,223 2,884 504 19,320,663 1922 207,033 508,986 2,688 453 19,332,426 1923 200,451 468,971 2,502 395 19,297,896 1924 199,290 473,839 2,405 397 19,307,524 1925 170,026 426,028 2,171 355 19,313,492 1926 169,349 417,235 2,140 347 19,334,865 1927 161,297 431,504 1,947 366 19,159,443 1928 158,289 434,898 1,872 365 NUMBER OF STOCK GRAZED IN CALIFORNIA NATIONAL FORESTS 1927, 1928 Cattle and horses Sheep and goats Forest 1927 1928 1927 1928 . 876 4,989 875 7,452 8,690 5,201 10,737 34,215 4,518 10,657 2,169 8,834 18,797 5,558 13,383 10,287 6,122 8,183 801 5,458 955 7,437 7,831 4,929 10,016 32,621 4,523 10,073 2,283 9,391 17,323 5,357 13,637 11,083 6,910 7,661 2,000 17,472 1,150 16,435 39,999 1,430 23,963 88,500 77,866 52,905 18,265 500 Eldorado 18,513 35,107 671 19,617 Modoc 95,281 Mono •. 77,327 Plumas 45,825 4,767 2,000 20,284 22,750 13,072 41,774 12,593 4,422 Sequoia 3,550 25,147 Sierra 25,890 Stanislaus 12,975 Tahoe 39,268 Trinity 10,540 Source of data: U. S. Dept. of Agr. Forest Serv., California District. 124 University of California — Experiment Station Growers formerly exhibited little interest in this type of work. Of late, however, large firms have contracted for bands of feeder lambs and arranged for shipment and placement either in their own or in commercial feed lots. The largest commercial feed lots are found in the vicinity of Stockton, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. There are a number of smaller feeding stations in the Sacramento Valley. In addition to these are a number of scattered feeding stations in TABLE 55 Year-Long Grazing Fees for Sheep on the California National Forests, 1917, 1918, 1919-1927, and Monthly Fees, 1928, 1931 (Cents per animal) National forest 1917 yearly 1918 yearly 1919-1927 yearly 1928 monthly 1931 monthly 18.75 18.75 18.75 22.50 22.50 22.50 17.50 17.50 20.00 18.75 22.50 22 50 21.25 18.75 20.00 22.50 22.50 18.75 22.50 22.50 22.50 22.50 17.50 17.50 18.75 18.75 18.75 22.50 22.50 22.50 18.75 18.75 20.00 18.75 22.50 22.50 21.25 18.75 20.00 22.50 22.50 18.75 22.50 22.50 22.50 22.50 17.50 17.50 30.00 30.00 30.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 25.00 25.00 30.00 30.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 30 00 3000 35.00 35.00 30.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 25.00 25.00 3.625 3.625 3.625 4.125 4.000 3.875 3.250 3.125 3.750 3.625 4.125 3.875 4.125 3.625 3.625 4.000 3.750 3.625 4.000 3.875 4.125 4.125 3.250 3.125 5.50 California 5.50 5.50 El Dorado 6.00 Inyo, Main Forest 5.50 White Mountain 5.00 Klamath, eastern part 5.50 Western part 5.00 6.00 Modoc 5.50 6 00 5 00 6.00 5.50 Santa Barbara 5 50 5.50 High Mountain 4 50 5.50 Sierra, lower slopes 5.50 5.00 6.00 Tahoe 6 00 5.50 5 00 Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr. Forest Serv., California District. different sections of the state. A number of concerns have also fed lambs at Sparks, Nevada, and Ogden, Utah. Besides the major feeding stations, there are others scattered throughout the state. Lambs in feed lots and on pastures are usually topped each week for current slaughter needs and considerable replacements are made in feed yards during December and January so that the season 's total output of lambs is much larger than the estimated capacity. Some of the larger concerns handle 75,000 to 100,000 lambs through feed lots in a single season. Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 125 Commercial feed yards are usually operated on a custom basis. Feed is placed in troughs and the owner is billed weekly for the amount fed by yard employees to each individual lot or lots of sheep and lambs. Feeder customers are usually booked for space during the summer. Regular customers usually reserve sufficient space to handle their anticipated needs. A typical commercial yard usually consists of a large acreage of land with good railroad facilities and spur tracks, sufficient pure water supply, numerous corrals, lanes, branding and cutting chutes, TABLE 56 Estimated Number of Sheep and Lambs on Feed in Far, Western States, January 1, 1928-1929 State 1928 1929 100,000 18,000 105,000 106,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 90,000 29 , 000 Utah.. 102,000 100,000 30,000 30,000 10,000 419,000 391,000 Source of data : Scott, George A. Lamb feeding situation, Jan. 1, 1929. Mimeographed report issued by Regional Livestock Office of the U. S. Bur. Agr. Econ., Sacramento, Calif., Jan. 16, 1929. and scales for weighing feed and lambs. Good drainage is essential, for muddy feed lots hamper feeding operations and reduce the gains made on stock. Sufficient shelter is usually provided to place all lambs under cover in inclement weather. The success of feed-yard operations depends largely upon the sys- tematic topping out of fat lambs and ewes and selling on the current livestock market rather than waiting for the top of the winter market. Most of the San Francisco Bay district wholesalers who feed lambs do so in order to hold their carcass trade rather than to obtain profits during the winter months. Many operators claim that if they could be assured of suitable quality live lambs to meet their requirements they would forego this side-line activity, relinquishing it to growers and commercial feed yards. It is customary to discontinue packer feed-lot operations by incorporating supplies in the in-coming spring- lamb crops. During the winter of each year, the United States Department of Agriculture makes a survey of the lamb-feeding situation in the entire 126 University of California — Experiment Station Price Katto of Lambs and Sheep to Barley, California, 1910-1929 tz II to i- |; <<* J' / o i Jfoi Oa "'*y cfua / /n vo/i/e to /OO/Jbs. /omfo -^ 1 h J \ k I- AT I.- « J i \ A A A 1 \- p I u r \, / A \ A A t Ka ^ \ u i V f \ Jh Kj r / 4 P / I v \ P 'V \ W A If \ r A /3/0 '// '.'2 ''3 •/< vs Vtf */7 '/*> VJ '20 '21 '22 '23 '24 '25 '26 •-2 7 *^a '.2.9 \ 5 J 1 St rr/ey SiJiSO t /n \ o/ue to A ■)0/Jtx */6e */°^ % u ° A k K .A^A < J *\ A ifi \ A A *Y h ./ \ , \ F V A f* i I A If \ M h • \ f* V V J VJ f I 1 \s \ T ▼ V v a i I9IO 1ft '/a VJ v«* vs V6 '/7 va '/S •■20 '-3/ '22 •*5 •z* •«j •*« '27 '2d V39 Fig. 29. — The upper part (^4) of the diagram clearly depicts the changed relationship between lamb and barley prices which occurred in 1921. Since the latter year (with the exception of 1924) lamb prices have been relatively greater than barley prices if comparisons are made with the years 1910-1920. Sheep prices (B) have not made the same relative gains in terms of barley, as may be seen from the lower section of the diagram. (Data computed by authors from tables 29 and 30, and from monthly prices received by producers for barley. These prices are published monthly in the U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets.) country. On January 1, 1929, the number of sheep and lambs esti- mated to be on feed was 4,715,000 head compared with estimates of 4,463,000 on January 1, 1928, and 4,259,000 head on January 1, 1927. The largest number are fed in the corn belt, the estimates being 2,575,000, 2,186,000, and 2,674,000, respectively, on the above dates. The figures for the western states on the same dates were 2,140,000, 2,277,000, and 1,585,000. Colorado is the main lamb-feeding state of Buii. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 127 Price Ratio of Lambs and Sheep to Alfalfa Hay, California, 1914-1929 zz JBO < /a I- 0,0 r ir 2 1 \ A 1 1 X \ / 1 L { A \ k IS « \ w I j \ J A I \ r \. r i A * i V A* vo/e/ e to /OO /As. /om/b' - '/0//*6 1 €>ft* 'Of /ft - - A - /9f4 '/S V€ '/7 V8 '/9 *20 '2/ '22 '23 '24- '25 '26 '27 '£6 '29 /B }■ r Fig. 30. — Both the upper and lower figures show that from 1914 until 1920 alfalfa hay increased more rapidly in value than either A, lambs, or B, sheep. Since the latter date there has been a tendency for lambs and sheep to be increasingly more valuable in terms of alfalfa hay, so that the feeder using alfalfa has been (1924 excepted) in a favorable position with reference to roughage. (Data computed by authors from tables 29 and 30, and from monthly prices received by producers for alfalfa hay. The prices are published monthly in U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets.) 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i I A/fa/fo hoy eac/o/ /n va/ue fo /OOAbs. sheep -^ l\ i ^ /I h to - I f V H A " ft \ < - - - a - /3A4 '/S Vtf 77 V<9 '/9 '20 '2/ '22 '23 '2* '2S '26 '*7 '28 '29 the west, there being 1,480,000 on feed on January 1, of the present year against 1,580,000 on January 1, 1928, and 770,000 January 1, 1927. Although there is an apparent trend toward feeding more lambs each winter, on January 1, 1929, the number in California and the far western states was less than that on the same date the previous 128 University of California — Experiment Station year 72 (table 56). The practice of feeding lambs may possibly equalize the distribution of market lambs and in many cases assist in placing a superior product on the market. There are frequent radical shifts in the distribution and amounts of lamb feeding undertaken. The price of feed in sections other than California is of interest to the California sheepman. With alfalfa in Colorado and cheap corn in the middle west, there is a tendency for sheep which might have been shipped to California from the mountain states to be sent to feed lots in an opposite direction. When sheep are fed east of the Mississippi River, there is little likelihood of their destination being California. The Colorado crop of fed lambs is the most important potential competition California producers have to meet. Prom the standpoint of the California producer and the Colorado feeder it is highly important that the greatest possible cooperation be exercised in mak- ing shipments. A study of tables 57 and 58 is worthy of the attention of sheepmen in this state. In the data for 1923 it will be noted that Colorado supplies decreased abruptly during May, leaving the national markets to handle the California crop. No attempt has been made in this table to tabulate the Colorado shipments prior to the opening of the California season. The important fact to observe is the shipments from both Colorado and California after the middle of March. Every year presents a different problem, because climate, feed, and many other conditions are beyond the control of the grower. Even during the shipping season experienced shippers and observers in California find it difficult to forecast with certainty the extent of the movement. Unfavorable weather conditions in California in 1929 forced large numbers of lambs on to the market within a short period of time. Table 58 gives preliminary data for the 1929 season. The reader should note that the California shipments are given in single decks while those from Colorado are in terms of double-deck carloads. These are the original data as published. The importance of the competi- tion from western feed lots to California spring lambs can be clearly seen from both tables 57 and 58. 72 Scott, George A. Sheep and lambs in the 13 western range states. Mimeo- graphed report issued by Eegional Livestock Office of the U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Agr. Econ., Salt Lake City, Mar. 5, 1928. Scott, George A. Lamb feeding situation in far western states. Dec. 1, 1928. Mimeographed report issued by Eegional Livestock Office of the IT. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Sacramento, Calif., Dec. 7, 1928. Scott, George A. Lamb feeding situation, Jan. 1, 1929. Mimeographed report issued by Regional Livestock Office of the U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ., Sacramento, Calif., Jan. 16, 1929. Buii. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 129 TABLE 57 Live-Lamb Shipments from California and Colorado During California Spring Lamb Season (March 15-June 15), 1923 California Colorado Week Number Week Number ending head ending head March March 15 5,200 * 23 24 146,000 30 11,080 31 114,000 April April 7 13,440 7 132,000 14 8,820 13 114,000 21 8,120 20 97,000 28 12,600 27 84,500 May May 5 37,800 4 62,000 12 60,200 11 31,700 19 63,840 18 10,300 26 52,000 26 9,600 June 2 12,600 * During the period Jan. 1-Mar. 17 Colorado shipped 769,700 head. Sources of data: California shipments from table 44, p. 00. Colorado shipments compiled by C. L Harlan, Investigator in Marketing Livestock for the U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Agr. Econ. TABLE 58 Live-Lamb Shipments from California and Colorado* During California Spring Lamb Season (March 15-June 15), 1929t Week ending California, single-deck carloads Colorado, double-deck carloads March 16 4 424 23 6 505 30 20 482 April 6 52 612 13 126 529 20 216 539 27 547 405 May 4 502 316 10 838 385 17 614 286 24 530 200 31 118 84 June 7 30 14 8 * Data includes shipments from northern Colorado, Arkansas Valley (Colorado) and Scottsbluff (western Nebraska) sections. X From January 1 to March 9, 1929, 3,355 double-deck carloads had been shipped from these areas. Sources of data: All data are subject to revision. Computations by authors based upon Weekly Reviews of Livestock Market at San Francisco published by the U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Agr. Econ. 130 University of California — Experiment Station Feed Costs. — While the larger number of sheep raised in Cali- fornia are fed upon natural grasses, comparisons between the prices of feeds and sheep may prove to be of interest and value to the pro- ducer. Furthermore, the purchasing" power of sheep and lambs in terms of feeds is of perhaps more interest than the purchasing power in terms of all commodities. Since 1914 there has been a wide variation in the quantity of alfalfa hay required to purchase one hundred pounds of sheep or lambs (fig. 30). From 1914 until 1920, there was a marked decrease in the value of both sheep and lambs as compared with that of alfalfa hay. Since 1920 there has been a distinct improvement in the relation- ship with reference to lambs (fig. 30). Sheep do not show this improvement. The relationship between lamb (or sheep) and barley prices during the period 1910-1920 did not give evidence of a definite trend. Since 1920 both sheep and lambs have been giving evidence of a greater relative value than barley (fig. 29). This has been true more espe- cially with lambs. Prices paid for cottonseed meal are not available over a sufficiently long and continuous period to give definite informa- tion on the trend of the relationship between the prices of this feed and the price of lambs (or sheep). A part of the added interest in feeding can undoubtedly be found in the changed relationship since 1920 between the relative prices of lambs and feeds in this state. INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN MUTTON AND LAMB Foreign Trade of the United States. — Although the United States is practically self-sufficient with regard to mutton and lamb, potential supplies from the outside must be taken into consideration. Owing to the comparatively high prices for lamb prevailing in domestic markets, outside supplies may seek admission. During normal years imports and exports of live animals as well as lamb and mutton exports have been small, imports usually exceeding exports (table 59). In 1921 record-breaking shipments of frozen lamb entered the United States from Australasia and Argentina. The financial results of these shipments proved disappointing to the exporters and a large propor- tion of the carcasses were re-exported. The effect on local lamb prices was disastrous. The American people, as a whole, will not buy frozen carcasses. 73 Given proper refrigeration facilities and chilled carcasses, the results of future importations might be different. 73 Clemen, Rudolf A. The American livestock and meat industry. 872 p. 36 figs. The Ronald Press Co., New York. 1923. BUD. 473] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE SHEEP INDUSTRY 131 World Trade in Mutton and Lamb. — Although the amount of mut- ton and lamb entering international trade channels is comparatively large the number of important participating countries is small. Four countries of the southern hemisphere — New Zealand, Argentina, Aus- tralia, and Uruguay — dominate the world export trade, furnishing over 95 per cent of such exports. New Zealand alone contributes over one-half of the total shipments. TABLE 59 General Imports and Domestic Exports op (1) Sheep and (2) Mutton and Lamb, United States, 1910-1928 Sheep Mutton and lamb Fiscal year Imports Exports Imports Exports number number thousands thousands of head of head of pounds of pounds 1910 126,152 44,517 548 1,989 1911 53,455 121,491 500 2,160 1912 23,588 157,263 3,728 1913 15,428 187,132 5,266 1914 223,719 152,600 12,691 4,685 1915 153,317 47,213 15,529 3,877 1916 235,659 52,278 20,258 5,553 1917 160,422 58,752 4,684 3,196 1918 177,687 7,959 2,008 2,098 1919 163,283 16,117 4,542 2,174 1920 199,549 59,155 16,358 3,958 1921 161,292 80,723 108,528 7,255 1922 96,538 62,354 12,855 2,502 1923 82,903 15,791 8,709 1,769 1924 34,986 8,852 3,497 1,633 1925 45,806 19,410 766 1,460 1926 55,841 12,000 3,456 1,366 1927 42,844 13,000 2,852 984 1928 30,426 22,238 3,125 999 1929 33,396 3,841 4,406 915 Source of data: U. S. Dept. Com., Monthly Summaries of Foreign and Dom. Com. On the import side Great Britain's demands account for over 90 per cent of the world's exports. Since the War imports into France have increased rapidly amounting in 1927 to almost 30 million pounds. Germany has also increased its demands but these are insignificant when compared with world totals. With the exception of the countries of western Europe there are no importing countries of consequence. The United States' interest in the international movement of mutton and lamb lies primarily in the extent to which the European markets for pork exports are affected by available mutton and lamb supplies. 132 University of California — Experiment Station WOOL PRODUCTION The leading sheep producing countries are Australia, Russia, United States, Union of South Africa, Argentina, India, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. The densest areas of wool and mutton pro- duction are Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Argentina in the southern hemisphere, and the British Isles and the Mediterranean region in the northern (fig. 31). World Wool Production. — Estimates of the world production of wool are shown in table 60. During the War, production declined slightly, recovering during 1919-1921. It dropped to a low point in 1922 on account of low yields in all sections of the world (Australasia excepted). Since the latter date there has been a rapid rise. Undoubt- edly this increase has been brought about in part by favorable weather conditions and in part by comparatively high prices prevailing on Number of Sheep in the World, 1928 Fig. 31. — The leading sheep-producing countries of the world are Australia, Russia, United States, Argentina, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, and New Zealand. In Russia and the United States the distribution is less dense than in the other countries. The relatively new areas of Australia, Argentine- Uruguay, South Africa, and New Zealand, having sparse human populations, are in the southern hemisphere. The rough topography of the Mediterranean with its equable climate is conducive to a dense sheep population. In Great Britain the abundant pasture stimulates sheep production in spite of the dense human population. 1 dot = 500,000 sheep. (Data from the livestock census reports of the International Institute of Agriculture, Rome, Italy.) Buii. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 133 *< to CO CO CO CO CO CO CO co CO CO CO s CO CO CO CO CO CO CO i •1 to to to to to to to to tO) © 00 Oi Cn CO to o CO oo -1 Oi Cn 4s CO to © CO Q- 2 o CO oo «4 00 00 ^, oo oo ^J ^1 Oi ~0| oo "Si 00 00 oo ~J It? Cn ""■I oo Cn to 4* 4* 4s Oi to Cn CO to co Cn 5"? > 1 CO ~J © o © oo 00 to Cn to to Cn -J ^J e CO o *. -J 1 p o *ti I to co CO CO to CO co to 5 O to 00 o o 4* © CO Oi ^J 4s ^l CO Oi oo oo oo "4 o a 0- £7 ->J oo © © © © Oi oo ^4 •■J --] ■^ oo 00 00 oo 00 00 00 00 ^1 o -*- to ^4 ~a co co to oo CO o CO 4s CO Cn i~ • o O ' 3 c o o 5 to to to to to to to CO to to to to CO to to to to to to to to ^ to to rfk CO Cn o Cn ~4 oo oo o oo 00 00 ^1 oo oo © 2.2 EL » 0- Oi Cn Cn *- *. *. CO Cn 4". 4* co 4- 4s 4s 4s Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn o Oi Cn oo oa ^J CO CO 00 00 -OJ oo ^J Cn co Cn 3 00 Oi CO © Cn Cn © CO to -J Ifk oo o o -J Cn *" Cn Oi Cn o? c 3 > 3 g 2,1? Oi OB ^J •OJ -J ^1 Cn o Oi ^J ■si oo -J Oi 00 CO -J © © 23 i is x-9 CO CO CO CO CO to to to co co 4- CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 1 ^1 *. CO o 00 ■00 CO to co 2 o o o to co 4s 4s o ts9 CO CO CO oo 00 Oi o 00 CO Cn to oo ^J O ' 13 > 3 a 5* 2 £ ** © *" ** '-' o o © ■"* to to to to o o JL3 a «7 CO to to to to to to CO CO CO to to to to to to to to to to *- ^J Cn oo 00 Oi Oi to to to CD o -S 3 5' |-»; 5" o 5 p >-s sj o a> Q TABLE 61 Number of Sheep in Certain Countries (Average 1909-19-13, Annual 1925-1928) dumber of head in thousands Increase (+) or decrease (-) in 1927 (or 1926) compared with Country Average 1909- 1913* 1925 1926 1927 Prelim- inary 1928 1909-1913 1925 Canada 2,208 51,929 3,424 54,137 2,756 38,112 2,698 40,868 3,142 39,730 3,263 41,881 3,416 44,554 + 1,055 -10,048 + 507 United States + 3,769 North America reporting: Pre-war to 1928 .. 42,872 45,144 12,000$ 47,970 - 8,993 + 4,276 Peru Bolivia 1,750 3,477 10,550 26,286$ 43,225 93,240 18,346 7,028 3,787 1,398 1,205 16,176 15,778 3,073 11,615 4,988 2,406 10,496 5,884 8,551 11,128 4,473 1,152 996 1,330 101,379 69,743 3,175 8,757 705 3,436 4,094 4,200 Chile Brazil Uruguay 22,500 - 3,786 Argentina South American totals (esti- mated) England and Wales 15,975 7,119 3,297 1,529 1,200 10,172 18,460 3,684 16,859 7,203 3,533 1,595 17,072 7,536 3,721 1,608 16,386 7,505 3,888 - 1,274 + 508 66 + 210 + 1,097 Scotland + 417 + 424 Ireland Norway + 79 Sweden France 10,537 20,067 10,775 20,529 4,450* 12,600$ 4,080 1,611 7,736 6,951 8,682 13,582 1,918 1,365 1,128 1,368 99,729 65,328 7,712 5,083 2,172 3,968 2,400 1,827 1,232 2,010 2,000 1,842 2,842 1,252 40,109 2,149 4,779 69,466 47,696 10,693 - 5,401 + 4,751 + 1,377 + 885 - 908 - 795 - 2,760 + 1,067 + 131 + 2,454 - 2,555 + 213 + 132 + 38 - 1,650 - 4,415 + 4,537 - 3,674 + 1,467 + 603 + 2,069 + 766 Spain Portugal Italy Germany 5,735 1,891 7,907 6,623 7,450 13,612 4,753 1,804 7,933 6,636 3,819 1,566 — 1 655 Hungary — 280 Yugoslavia — 171 Greece 6,442 + 328 + 1,232 — 30 Bulgaria Rumania 12,950 12,941 Poland Lithuania 1,455 1,182 1,451 97,128 64,424 9,278 6,171 1,379 1,573 1,153 1,414 98,676 64,275 9,250 6,786 1,329 4,365 — 90 Latvia - 54 Finland — 83 All Europe reporting (exclud- ing Russia) : Pre-war to 1927 + 2,601 Pre-war to 1928 63,240 + 904 Morocco Algeria 5,614 2,142 - 1,088 Tunis + 793 French West Africa French Sudan Nigeria 1,479 1,091 1,639 1,809 1,144 2,000 2,000 + 348 Egypt 816 + 416 + 141 Anglo-Egyptian Sudan + 371 British Somaliland 2,000 Eritrea 1,585 5,469 555 30,657 1,369 3,596 56,869 40,419 + 257 - 2,627 + 697 + 9,452 + 780 + 1,183 +12,597 + 7,277 Kenya Colony 2,679 966 35,570 2,051 4,333 65,226 43,460 2,756 1,069 38,849 2,100 4,462 69,802 47,313 + 163 British Southwest Africa + 286 Union of South Africa 40,694 + 4,539 Basutoland + 98 Tanganyika + 446 All Africa reporting: Pre-war to 1927 + 4,240 Pre-war to 1928 48,797 + 4,236 Buii. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 135 Table 61 — (Concluded) Number of head in thousands Increase (+) or decrease (— ) in 1927 (or 1926) compared with Country Average 1909- 1913* 1925 1926 1927 Prelim- inary 1928 1909-1913 1925 3,500 13,512 Turkey 19,713 11,469 4,892 4,000 1,290 23,226 13,682 12,872 5,055 - 6,201 + 2,043 + 163 1,400 23,201 11,848 1,334 23,237 + 44 British India 23,164 8,038 25,951 + 73 + 3,810 + 11 India, Native States.. . . - 1,834 China Dutch East Indies 1,292 37,118 104,267 25,649 129,916 121,739 503,267 410,192 All Asia reporting (excluding Russia) : Pre-war to 1927 42,973 89,008 23,996 113,004 111,051 479,927 388,450 35,014 93,155 24,548 117,703 106,800 462,853 373,574 36,417 103,563 24,905 128,468 113,600 489,983 396,872 - 5,855 +15,259 + 1,653 +16,912 + 10,688 +23,340 +21,742 + 2,104 99,216 27,134 126,350 124,500 +11,112 + 1,101 Oceania reporting: Pre-war to 1928 +12,213 +14,939 +40,414 +36,618 All countries reporting: Pre-war to 1927 . Pre-war to 1928 411,252 * Average for 5-year period if available, otherwise for any year or years within the period except as otherwise stated. In countries having changed boundaries the pre-war figures are estimates for one year only of numbers within present boundaries. t Unofficial, f 1908. Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr. The world situation in sheep and wools. Foreign Crops and Markets. 18(6): 180. 1929. TABLE 62 Estimated Number of Sheep in the World*, 1909-1913 and 1921-1925 (Thousands, i.e., 000 omitted) Average number Per cent Division 1909-1913 1921-1925 increase or decrease North and Central American Countries South America 58,470 93,240 134,370 72,510 99,729 113,010 111,051 682,000 42,160 80,370 123,733 75,570 94,288 108,939 92,501 618,000 -27.9 -13.8 Europe (excluding Russia) - 7.9 Africa + 4.2 Asia (excluding Russia) - 5 5 Oceania - 3.6 Russia -16.7 The World - 9.4 Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Agr. Econ. The world situation in mutton and lamb. Foreign Crops and Markets 18(6): 180. 1929. 136 University of California — Experiment Station world markets. World production has not been accelerated to such an extent that prices have been greatly depressed, as has been the case with many agricultural commodities. Data on wool production in ten countries (United States, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Argentina, Uruguay, Australia, and New Zealand) which ordinarily produce a little over two-thirds of the world output, is estimated at 2,530,000,000 pounds in the grease for 1928, according to preliminary figures. This estimate is an increase of 6 per cent over 1927 and 5 per cent over 1926, the previous high year. TABLE 63 Production of Wool, United States, 1849-1924 (Thousands of pounds, i.e., 000 omitted) Division and state 1849 1859 1869 1879 1889 1899 1909 1919 1924 United States 52,517 22,014 19,255 5,868 5,303 77 60,265 21,134 22,903 5,368 7,370 3,490 100,102 24,141 51,561 4,805 5,900 13,695 155,682 24,722 72,073 8,109 15,900 34,879 995 127 692 3,197 4,019 314 973 655 1,389 5,719 16,798 191,278 18,447 60,966 6,555 25,391 79,919 12,177 2,119 4,147 4,544 7,981 2,182 9,686 1,451 1,557 9,983 24,093 276,568 17,110 73,909 7,892 17,688 159,968 30,438 15,474 27,758 8,544 15,209 3,353 17,051 4,843 5,268 18,350 13,680 289,420 10,527 73,381 6,677 17,483 181,353 37,669 16,377 42,828 7,563 16,994 5,504 12,102 6,274 3,135 18,842 14,065 228,795 8,253 63,850 5,268 21,340 130,083 18,267 17,861 18,412 9,755 8,301 3,131 11,690 6,402 5,009 16,039 15,217 227,105 North Atlantic states North central states 6,356 52,133 South Atlantic states 4,606 25,421 Western states 138,591 Montana 16,714 Idaho 3 30 205 685 14,026 Wyoming 18,728 6,474 New Mexico 33 493 9,776 Arizona 5,907 Utah 9 75 109 27 163 1,081 11,392 18,796 8,098 20 219 2,683 4,243 Oregon 30 6 14,750 21,079 Sources of data: 1849-1919. Dept. Commerce, Bur. Census. Production of wool. Fourteenth Census, U. S. 5: 676. 1922. 1924. Dept. Commerce, Bur. Census. Livestock on farms and livestock products. U. S. census of agriculture: Summary statistics by states, 1925: 28-37. 1927. During the past twenty years significant shifts have taken place in producing areas (table 60). Australasia has emerged as the most important wool-producing area of the globe, displacing Europe. Increased settlement in South America and competition with other industries has reduced both actual and relative production. A slight tendency for a decrease in the relative production of North America is discernible in the data in table 60. Asiatic production was appar- ently stimulated by the War. While it is difficult to obtain accurate data for all of Asia, estimates point to a net increase when post-war are compared with pre-war years. Africa has shown the largest relative increase Of any of the grand divisions. Bui*. 473] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE SHEEP INDUSTRY 137 TABLE 64 Percentage Distribution of Wool Production, United States, 1849-1924 Division and state North Atlantic states. North central states... South Atlantic states- South central states... Western states Montana Idaho Wyoming Colorado New Mexico Arizona Utah Nevada Washington Oregon California 1849 41.92 36.66 11.17 10.10 0.15 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.01 1859 35.07 38.00 8.91 12.23 5.80 0.82 0.12 03 0.36 4.45 1869 24 12 51.51 4.80 5.89 13.68 0.03 0.20 0.68 011 0.03 0.16 1.08 11.38 1879 15.88 46.30 5.21 10.21 22.41 0.64 0.08 0.44 2.05 2.58 0.20 0.63 0.42 0.89 3.67 10.79 1889 9.64 31.87 3.43 13.28 41.78 6 37 1.11 2 17 2 38 4.17 1.14 5.06 0.76 0.81 5.22 12.60 1899 6.19 26 72 2.85 6.39 57.84 11.01 5.60 10.04 3.09 5.50 1 21 6.17 1.75 1.90 6.63 4.95 1909 3.63 25 36 2 31 6.04 62.66 13.02 5.66 14.80 2.61 5.87 1.90 4.18 2.17 1.08 6.51 4.86 1919 3.61 27.91 2.30 9.33 56.86 7.98 7.81 8.05 4.26 3.63 1.37 5 11 2.80 2.19 7.01 6.65 1924 2.80 22.96 2.03 11.20 61.03 7.36 6.18 8.25 2.85 4.30 2.60 8.28 3.57 1.87 6.49 9.28 Source of data: Calculations by author based upon table 63. Relative Importance of Main Wool-Producing States, 1927-1928 Thousand Per 2 4 6 8_ ' 10 State pounds cent Texas 34,158 11.8 Wyo. 25,898 8.9 Mont. 25,596 8.7 Calif. 25,800 8.2 Utah 21,022 7.2 Ore. 19,250 6.6 Idaho 16,863 5.8 Ohio 15,744 5.4 N. Mex .12,500 4.3 Colo. 8,474 2.9 Mich. 8,396 2.9 Nev. 8,297 2.9 Ariz. 6,000 2.1 Iowa 5,928 2.0 Mo. 5,743 2.0 S. D. 5,402 1.9 "Wash. 4,876 1.7 Minn. 4,436 1.5 Ind. 4,198 1.4 Ky. 3,948 1.4 Others 30,205 10.4 Total 290,514 100.0 12 Fig. 32. — Ninety per cent of the wool shorn in the United States is produced in 20 states. The 11 western states together with Texas, account for approxi- mately 71 per cent. California ranks fourth among the states, occupying a place of lesser importance for wool than for lamb production. CSee fie; 22 ^ (Data from table 67.) *' ' } 138 University of California — Experiment Station Production in the United States. — Wool is now predominately a by-product of the meat industry in the United States. Formerly, wool production was the mainspring' of the sheep industry but with the diminishing sheep population and the growing popularity of lamb, conditions are tending more and more to a meat production basis, with wool as the by-product. The United States is one of the leading wool- producing countries of the world. In spite of this fact this country normally imports more wool than is produced. The quantity of wool produced annually in the United States has remained practically stationary for the past forty years. The domestic product amounted to about 300,000,000 pounds (fleece wool) in 1883, TABLE 65 Wool Production in the; United States,* 1915-1928 (Thousands of pounds, i.e., 000 omitted) Washed and Washed and Year in the grease Scoured Year in the grease Scoured 1915 288,777 131,988 1922 261,095 119,229 1916 288,490 130,756 1923 266,110 121,652 1917 285,573 129,431 1924 282,330 128,117 1918 299,921 130,611 1925 301,112 135,035 1919 314,239 138,937 1926 310,500 140,898 1920 302,207 137,315 1927 332,014 149,369 1921 273,064 126,021 1928 351,013 156,970 * Includes fleece and pulled wool. Sources of data: Nat. Assoc, of Wool Manfrs. Estimated wool product of the United States. Ann. Wool Rev. 1928: 141. 1929. and until very recently it has scarcely varied from this figure by as much as 20,000,000 pounds (table 66). The smallest annual product was in 1897, when the total clip amounted to only 259,000,000 pounds, and the largest in 1893, when 348,000,000 pounds (fleece wool) were secured from domestic sources. There naturally is a close correlation between the number of sheep and the wool production. Since 1922, when both sheep and wool production were at low points, wool produc- tion has been climbing, and in 1928 it was higher than at any time since estimates have been made of both fleece and pulled wool (table 67 ; table 63 is taken from the census). If cycles in numbers of sheep continue there is every reason to believe that those in wool pro- duction will also continue. Wool is primarily a western product, (fig. 32). Since 1886, there has been a slight increase 74 in the production of wool in the United States (4.36 per cent increase from 1886 to 1928). 74 The equation of the line of trend of wool production in the United States 1886-1928 is y = 294,450,000 + 299,310 x with center at July 1, 1907. Bui,. 473] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE SHEEP INDUSTRY 139 The per-capita production during this period has been downward. Since 1870 75 the per-capita production of wool in the United States has fallen from 4.94 pounds to 2.63 pounds (trend values) or a decrease of over 46 per cent. Average Weight of Fleece:, United States, 1928 Fig. 33. — In 1928, the estimated average weight of fleece in the United States was 7.8 pounds. California was slightly below this average. Fleece weights are low in the southeastern section of the country. Except in the northern portion of this area, sheep raising is relatively unimportant. (Data from U. S. Dept. Agr. Wool Shorn. Crops and Markets 62:56. 1929.) The data in table 65 are for wool which is washed and in the grease. The National Association of Wool Manufacturers issues reports on wool production which differ slightly from those of the United States Department of Agriculture. California Production. — Estimates have been made of the yearly wool production of California since 1854. 76 In this series the early data are questioned as they do not check with the census data, yearly 7 5 The equation of the line of trend of per-capita wool production in the United States 1870-1928 is y = 3.7863 — .0398 x with center at July 1, 1899. If 1886 had been taken as the beginning of the period instead of 1870, the decline in per-capita production would have been larger. "6 California State Board of Agriculture. California wool production. Report of the State Statistician, 1913:67. 1914. 140 University of California — Experiment Station fluctuations appearing unduly large. There can be but little doubt that the wool production of the state during the 1870s and 1880s was higher than at the present time. Between 1890 and 1900, both census data and commercial estimates indicate that wool production decreased by almost one-half. Judging both from the number of sheep in California and the estimated production of wool, there were only slight fluctuations in wool production between 1900 and 1919 (table 69). During the war years the number of sheep in the state increased although the resultant TABLE 66 Wool. Production in the United States by Five- Year, Averages, 1885-1924, and Four- Year Average, 1925-1928 Thousands of Years pounds 1885-1889 310,491 1890-1894 324,669 1895-1899 272,967 1900-1904 297,343 1905-1909 306,349 1910-1914 306,064 1915-1919 295,400 1920-1924 276,398 1925-1928 321,741 Sources of data: 1885-1919, U. S. Tariff Comm. Tariff Inform. Ser. The wool growing industry. 592 pp. 1921. 1920-1926, U. S. Dept. Agr. Wool, raw: production 1910-1926. Yearbook 1926: 1131: 1927. 1927, 1928, information to authors from O. C. Stine, Bur. Agr. Econ., Washington, D. C, March 22, 1929. increased wool clip did not become evident until 1919. This increased clip had scarcely made its appearance when the market broke. After a slight recession, the wool clip again took an upward trend. Since 1922 there has been a rapid acceleration in production, and California has been contributing a gradually increasing proportion of the nation's production (tables 63, 64, 67, and 68). During the past six years, production in this state has climbed rapidly. Table 70 shows that the average fleece weight in California is less than the average for most of the rest of the country (fig. 33). In this state where many growers shear twice a year the figures for average weight per fleece covers wool per head of sheep shorn and not weight per fleece. By proper breeding and selection, it would be possible to increase the average weight of fleece at least a pound without deleteriously affect- ing the number or quality of milk lambs. 77 77 Letter from Prof. James F. Wilson to Edwin C. Voorhies, Feb. 25, 1929. Bul, 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 141 TABLE 67 Estimated Production' of Fleece Wool, United States, 1919-1928 (Thousands of pounds, i.e., 000, omitted) Stateand division 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 North Atlantic states North central states South Atlantic states South central states Western states.. Montana Idaho Wyoming Colorado New Mexico.. Arizona Utah Nevada Washington .. Oregon California United States... 8,357 61,637 5,499 21,936 152,519 18,267 22,145 26,000 7,332 11,600 5,400 17,000 7,750 5,779 16,039 15,217 249,958 8,477 60,586 5,518 24,900 135,524 16,000 18,650 21,000 6,888 10,600 4,800 16,150 7,500 5,201 14,435 14,300 235,005 7,705 52,956 5,096 23,924 133,381 16,400 16,800 21,200 6,839 10,100 5,616 16,500 7,000 4,421 14,435 14,070 223,062 7,228 52,280 5,233 25,086 132,733 16,770 16,642 20,400 6,976 11,246 6,000 16,800 7,650 3,802 12,992 13,455 222,560 7,288 52,925 5,566 25,591 132,240 17,775 15,455 18,800 6,580 10,890 5,798 17,210 7,942 4,409 13,200 14,181 223,610 7,220 54,470 5,450 28,225 143,165 19,314 16,800 19,760 6,580 12,408 6,240 16,884 8,000 4,635 15,688 16,856 238,530 7,464 58,912 5,332 30,975 151,224 20,871 17,347 22,360 7,312 12,113 6,400 18,040 7,811 4,400 16,720 17,850 253,907 6,981 58,215 5,057 33,049 157,674 23,320 14,507 22,338 7,740 12,060 6,758 19,430 8,730 4,194 18,321 20,276 260,976 6,777 63,645 5,375 39,165 166,952 24,166 15,840 25,317 8,118 12,600 6,240 19,975 8,015 4,753 18,128 23,800 281,914 7,002 66,208 5,797 42,332 177,774 26,626 17,885 26,488 8,831 12,400 5,760 22,072 8,580 5,000 20,332 23,800 299,113 Sources of data: 1919-1923. U. S. Dept. Agr. Estimated production of wool. Crops and Markets 1: 62. 1924. 1924-1926. August issues of U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets. 1927-1928. U. S. Dept. Agr. Wool shorn 1927 and 1928. Crops and Markets 6 (2); 56. 1929. TABLE 68 Percentage Distribution - of Wool Production, United States, 1919-1928 State and division 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 North Atlantic states 3.34 24.66 2 20 8.78 61.02 7.31 8.86 10.40 2.93 4.64 2.16 6.80 3.10 2.31 6.42 6.09 3.61 25.78 2.35 10.60 57.67 6.81 7.94 8.94 2.93 4.51 2.04 6.87 3.19 2.21 6.14 6.08 3.45 23.74 2.28 10.73 59.80 7.35 7.53 9 50 3.07 4.53 2.52 7.40 3.14 1.98 6.47 6.31 3.25 23.49 2.35 11.27 59.64 7.54 7.48 9.17 3.13 5.05 2.70 7.55 3.44 1 71 5.84 6.05 3.26 23.67 2.49 11.44 59.14 7.95 6.91 8.41 2.94 4.87 2.59 7.70 3.55 1.97 5.90 6.34 3.03 22.84 2.28 11.83 60.02 8.10 7.04 8.28 2.76 5.20 2.62 7.08 3.35 1.94 6.58 7.07 2.94 23.20 2.10 12.20 59.56 8.22 6.83 8.81 2.88 4.77 2.52 7.10 3.08 1.73 6.59 7.03 2.68 22.31 1.94 12.66 60.42 8 94 5.56 8.56 2.97 4.62 2.59 7.45 3.35 1.61 7.02 7.77 2.40 22.58 1.91 13.89 59.22 8.57 5.62 8.98 2.88 4.47 2.21 7.09 2.84 1.69 6.43 8.44 2.34 22 13 1.94 14 15 59.43 8.90 5 98 8.86 2 95 4 15 Arizona 1.93 Utah 7 38 Nevada 2.87 1 67 Oregon 6.80 7 96 Source of data: Computation by author based upon table 67. 142 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 69 Estimates of Wool, Production, California, 1900-1929 (Thousands of pounds, i.e., 000 omitted) Year Production Year Production Year Production 1900 13,352 1910 13,300 1920 14,300 1901 12,319 1911 11,900 1921 14,070 1902 12,506 1912 11,900 1922 13,455 1903 11,781 1913 11,200 1923 14,181 1904 11,781 1914 11,480 1924 16,856 1905 12,688 1915 11,590 1925 17,850 1906 13,125 1916 11,600 1926 20,276 1907 12,688 1917 12,180 1927 23,800 1908 13,300 1918 12,545 1928 23,800 1909 13,300 1919 15,217 1929 25,192 Sources of data: 1900-1918. Estimates made yearly in quarterly bulletins of the Nat. Assoc, of Wool Manfrs. 1919-1928. Estimates of the U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Agr. Econ. Estimates are published in monthly issues of U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets. 1929. The world wool situation. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. mimeographed report issued Aug. 22, 1929. TABLE 70 Average Weight of Fleece, United States and Califonia; Shrinkage;, United States, 1901-1929 Weight of fleece Shrinkage United States Year Weight of fleece Year United States Cali- fornia United States Cali- fornia Shrinkage United States pounds pounds per cent pounds pounds per cent 1901 6.33 7.00 60.6 1915 6.80 6.10 58.5 1902 6 50 7.25 60.0 1916 6.86 6 30 59.1 1903 6.25 • 7.25 60.8 1917 6.95 7 00 59.2 1904 6.50 7.25 61.6 1918 7.11 7.00 60.8 1905 6.56 7.25 61.3 1919 7.39 7.40 60.4 1906 6.66 7.50 61.8 1920 7.22 7.60 58.7 1907 6.60 7.25 60.6 1921 7.10 7.50 59.0 1908 6.70 7.00 60.5 1922 7.10 7.30 59.0 1909 6.80 7.00 60.9 1923 7.30 7.40 59.0 1910 6.70 7.00 60.0 1924 7.40 7.30 59.0 1911 6.98 7.00 60.4 1925 7.60 7.50 60.0 1912 6.82 7.00 59.3 1926 7.80 7.40 60.0 1913 6.95 7.00 60 1927 7.74 7.00 59.0 1914 6.76 6 20 59 2 1928 7 80 6 80 1929 7.60 6.70 Sources of data: 1901-1919, Natl. Assoc. Wool Manfrs. Weight and shrinkage. Bui. of Natl. Assoc. Wool Manfrs. 50; 50. 1920. 1920-1927, United States; Natl. Assoc. Wool Manfrs. Weight and shrinkage. Ann. Wool Rev. 1927: 140. 1928. 1920-1927, California; U. S. Dept. Agr. Wool shorn. Yearbook 1927: 1133. 1928. 1928, U. S. Dept. Agr. Wool shorn. Crops and Markets 6 (2) : 56. 1929. 1929. The world situ- ation. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. mimeographed report issued Aug. 22, 1929. Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 143 Domestic Production, Net Imports, and Consumption of Wool, United States, 1878-1928 Fig. 34. — The production of wool in the United States has shown little or no trend since 1886. There is, however, a somewhat indefinite cyclical move- ment in production which since 1923 has been in the upward phase. The total consumption of wool has been increasing, forcing the country to depend more and more on imports. The shaded area represents the net imports. (Data from U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook 1923:1001-1002. 1924; ibid., 1927:1036. 1928; and from U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ., Washington, D.C.) CONSUMPTION OF WOOL United States. — Figure 34 and table 71 give some indication of the consumption of wool in the United States. During the period 1886- 1928 the total consumption increased by 67.5 per cent 78 (trend value), whereas production has shown no pronounced trend in either direction (fig. 34). The increase in consumption has been irregular. Figure 35 illustrates the situation in the per-capita production and consumption of wool in the United States. Since 1870 the per-capita consumption has decreased from 6.22 to 5.70 pounds (trend values) or 8.3 per cent. 79 78 The equation of the line of trend of wool consumption in the United States 1886-1928 is y = 516,700,000 + 6,210,000 #, origin July 1, 1906. 79 The equation of the line of trend of per-capita wool consumption in the United States, 1870-1926 is y + 5.960 — 0.009 x, origin July 1, 1898. 144 University of California — Experiment Station Per Capita Consumption and Production of Wool, United States, 1877-1928 Fig. 35. — The per capita consumption of wool gives evidence of violent yearly fluctuations. It has been less subject to fluctuations since 1900 than previously. The per-capita production of wool in the United States has been decreasing far more rapidly than the per capita consumption, as indicated by this chart. (Data computed by authors from U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook 1923:1001-1002. 1924; ibid., 1927:1036. 1928; and estimated population of the United States.) Since 1910 there has been a pronounced decline. The surprising growth of the rayon industry, the increased use of silk, and the changes in women's styles have undoubtedly exerted an influence on this downward movement. Other contributing causes have been the increasing consumption of furs, the increasing use of closed automo- biles and the prevalence of well-heated buildings. On the other hand, the heavy demand for wool in automobile manufacture has served to operate in the opposite direction. Undoubtedly some waste has been eliminated, which might account for a portion of the slight loss in per-capita consumption. It would be hazardous to attempt to predict the direction which consumption will take. Unless revolutionary changes occur, in all probability it will not be greatly affected within the next few years. By comparing the lines of trend in figure 35 it is evident that the average individual in the United States has steadily become more dependent upon outside supplies of wool. It should be noted that the larger part of these wools are low grade. Bui.. 473] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE SHEEP INDUSTRY 145 TABLE 71 Wool Supply of the United* States, 1888-1928. Domestic Production' Imports Less Exports (Thousands of pounds, i.e., 000', omitted) AND Fiscal years Percentage ended June 30 Annual average All wools Fine wools f fine wools 1888-1892 5 years 424,482 337,364 79.48 1893-1897 5 years 509,984 414,085 81.20 1888-1897 10 years 467,233 375,724 80.41 1898-1902 5 years 397,755 316,475 79.57 1893-1902 10 years 453,869 365,280 80.48 1903-1907 5 years 495,397 385,124 77.74 1898-1907 10 years 446,576 350,799 78.55 1908-1912 5 years 508,338 412,182 81.08 1903-1912 10 years 501,867 398,653 79.43 1913-1917 5 years 621,461 530,903 85.43 1908-1917 10 years 564,899 471,543 83.47 1918-1922 5 years 647,811 565,173 87.24 1913-1922 10 years 634,636 548,038 86.35 1923-1927 5 years 610,174 475,841 77.98 1918-1927 10 years 628,993 520,507 82.75 1928 1 year 580,471 435,298 74.99 * Does not include estimated production of mohair until 1923. t Includes all except carpet wools. Sources of data: Natl. Assoc. Wool Manfrs. Wool supply, 1888-1928. Ann. Wool Rev. 1928: 145. 1929. TABLE 72 Stocks of Wool Held by Manufacturers and Dealers, United States, 1917-1929 (Grease equivalents in thousands of pounds, i.e., 000 omitted) Year March 31 June 30 Sept. 30 Dec. 31 1917 584,731 643,518 562,546 272,062 1918 427,286 494,174 462,935 1919t 543,469 674,430 729,374 603,377 1920t 549,009 531,925 518,452 570,678 1921f 622,234 576,523 590,113 * 1922 479,151 525,174 515,543 415,681 1923 501,341 531,698 474,748 1924 371,158 410,381 391,248 359,612 1925 305,957 382,596 373,010 346,678 1926 331,323 397,445 375,713 324,578 1927 291,657 385,615 357,107 303,688 1928 261,749 385,407 369,816 309,566 1929 280,260 * No report issued. t Stock held by the government are included in totals. Source of data: U. S. Dept. Com. Wool Stock Reports, issued quarterly. Approximately 90 per cent of the mill consumption of wool in the United States is absorbed in the middle Atlantic and New England states. The woolen-goods industry centers largely around Boston and Philadelphia, The former city is the chief wool market in the United 146 University of California — Experiment Station States, often handling 75 per cent of the domestic wool and occasion- ally 70 per cent of the imported wool. Centers of production and consumption in the United States are far apart. Stocks of Wool Held by Manufacturers and Dealers, United States. — The United States Department of Commerce issues a quar- terly report on the stocks of wool held by dealers and manufacturers (table 72) . This is indicative of the demand for wool as well as of the supply on hand. It is noticeable that stocks during 1927 and 1928 have been relatively low. PRICES AND PURCHASING POWER OF WOOL Owing to variations in the quality and grade of wool it is difficult if not impossible to offer any one series of price or value data which will accurately depict price or value trends. There are unique condi- tions of supply and demand controlling each price, but there is never- theless a general correspondence between all prices. Trends in Prices. — On account of the individual deviations and fluctuations several price series are used. The Division of Statistical and Historical Kesearch of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics has furnished a series of wool prices (Ohio washed clothing fleece) cover- ing almost a century (fig. 36). Being a world commodity, the price level of wool is determined to some extent by world conditions of supply and demand (fig. 37). Substitutes play an important role, the price of wool being more affected by the price of cotton than by that of any other fiber (fig. 38). In the United States the natural play of economic forces has been interfered with by artificial influ- ences. With every tariff change the import duties on wool havetbeen revised. TABLE 73 Percentage Monet Returns from Meat and By-Products of Various Farm Animals Percentage returns from Animal Meat By- products Hide or pelt 81 4 87.3 92.8 96.6 4.1 4.1 7.2 3.4 14 5 Steer 8.6 Calf Sold with carcass Hog Sold with carcass Source of data: Clemen, Rudolf A. By-products in the packing industry. 410 p., 50 fig. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1927. Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 147 TABLE 74 Actual, and Belative Prices of Certain Wools, on the Boston Market 1890-1928 Year 1890 59 1891 60 1892 56 1893 46 1894 34 1895 33 1896 31 1897 39 1898 46 1899 46 1900 52 1901 43 1902 45 1903 48 1904 1905 54 68 1906 68 1907 66 1908 50 1909 64 1910 60 1911 50 1912 1913 56 52 1914 55 1915 66 1916 77 1917 136 1918 1919 146 1920 136 1921 64 1922 105 1923 122 1924 122 1925 121 1926 98 1927 92 1928 101 Price of wool, cents per pound 48 51 56 47 51 55 59 72 71 70 60 70 65 57 64 56 59 71 84 157 182 178 160 85 125 141 142 140 115 110 116 III* Relative price, 1926=100 55 69 69 67 51 65 61 51 57 53 56 67 79 139 149 139 65 107 125 125 124 100 94 103 42 44 49 41 44 48 51 63 62 61 52 61 57 50 56 49 51 62 73 137 158 155 139 74 109 123 124 122 100 96 101 III 50 54 46 46 52 58 71 69 69 56 71 65 54 60 54 54 75 88 140 160 140 110 58 96 117 119 121 100 96 115 Relative purchasing power, 1926=100 7 107 110 109 88 72 85 97 90 95 79 78 82 92 116 112 103 81 97 87 79 83 76 82 97 92 118 108 90 67 111 124 127 119 100 98 106 85 87 74 75 80 86 104 100 93 83 90 80 76 81 70 75 89 85 116 121 112 90 76 112 122 126 118 103 100 103 III 96 97 83 78 87 98 118 111 105 89 105 92 84 87 78 80 108 102 119 122 101 72 60 99 116 121 117 100 100 117 * I Territory, fine and fine medium scoured. II Territory, fine staple scoured. Ill Ohio, Pennsyl- vania, and West Virginia, jHrblood combing, unwashed. Sources of data: Cols. 1, 2, 3, Division of Statistical and Historical Research, Bur. Agr. Econ., U. S. Dept. Agr. Cols. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, computations by authors. In general, wool prices have followed the general price level (fig. 39). Since 1836 trends have been fairly definite. From 1836 to 1843 there was a period of decline followed by an upward swing which culminated in 1864. From the latter date until 1896 prices gradually fell, after which they rose again until the outbreak of the World War. 148 University of California — Experiment Station Prices and Purchasing Power, of Finei and Coarse Ohio Washed Clothing Wools at Boston, 1824-1922 too 90 >s ao I 7 ° !:- /"»e O/^/o c/o /^ />ry /"/e eee-\ J u * \ J ' 3 * S 1 9 \ ft\ 1 o> 30 20 /o m • • 7 ^ V \ \i 1] • . 1 r V \/\ J\/\:' v v , r v v W ^v ^w*V y • / V V VV C \ /^ V Cocj e OA/'o c/o /A //?y /Ve ece^ , A 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 /Q20 tejo /84o /aso /eeo zero /seo /eso /900 /9/0 /920 /azo /aso /84o /eso /eeo /37o /&ao /eso /900 /9/0 /920 /930 Fig. 36. — A, Prices of wool are available for over a century in the United States. The effect of both the Civil and World wars on prices are clearly shown. The long-time movements in wool prices can also be seen from the above figure. A fairly close correlation exists between wool prices and the prices of all commodities (fig. 39). B, The base used — 1910-1914 — for the calculation of purchasing power was a period of comparatively low wool prices, consequently the purchasing power in terms of 1910-1914 dollars is high. (Original data from the TJ. S. Dept. Agr. Division of Statistical and Historical Besearch, Bur. Agr. Econ. Calculations on purchasing power made by authors.) During the war, wool prices rose more rapidly than those of other commodities, which is evidenced when either the period 1910-1914 or the single year 1926 is taken as a base. Too much dependence should not be placed on the term ' purchasing power' (table 74). It will be seen from figure 36 that the period 1910-1914 was a time of relatively low wool prices. Consequently, relative purchasing powers for wool on this base will appear high. Bui/. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 149 The upward movement in price was especially marked during 1917 when the United States entered the war. There was a prevalent belief that the great quantities of wool required for military use would cause a serious shortage of this staple. However, several factors were overlooked. Civilian demand for the use of wool was curtailed and in many instances garments were worn for a longer period of time than had previously been the custom. Markets for wool in the central European countries were suddenly shut off, and shipping was cur- tailed. These together with other factors caused a large surplus instead of a deficiency of wool in the southern hemisphere. At the close of the war the movement of this commodity from the southern hemisphere to the United States and Europe was accelerated. Europe was unprepared to take the supplies offered and in the spring of 1920 Wool Prices, London and Boston, 1921-1928 /so ,C /92S Fig. 37. — There is a close correlation between London and Boston prices for similar grades of wool. In the above diagram 'Fine Territory Combing' prices at Boston are compared with prices of 'Sl-lb's* at London. (Data from U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Div of Statis. and Hist. Research.) the market broke, prices in the United States falling below the pre- war level. The liquidation continued through 1921. During 1922 a rapid recovery took place, since which time wool has occupied a favorable position among agricultural products. Until 1929 wool prices for ten years were relatively higher than the prices of cotton, silk and rayon. 150 University of California — Experiment Station Prices both at home and abroad began to weaken during the fall of 1928. During the first seven months of 1929 prices on most grades were lower than during the corresponding period of 1928. The world total wool output for 1928-29 was approximately 6 per cent larger than that of 1927-28. Indications point to a 1929-30 crop of approxi- mately the same size as that of 1928-29. TABLE 75 Monthly Fakm Prices of Wool (Unwashed), United States, 1910-1929 (Cents per pound) Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Weighted* average 1910 24 5 24.6 24.9 22.3 22.8 19.5 19.0 19.5 17.7 18.1 17.9 17.8 20.5 1911 17.3 17.3 16.8 15.7 14.7 15.5 15.4 16.0 15.6 15.5 15.6 15.5 15.6 1912 16 2 16.3 16.9 17.3 17.8 18.7 18.9 18.8 18.7 18.5 18.6 18.6 18.1 1913 18.6 18.7 18.4 17.7 16.3 15 6 15.9 15.8 15.8 15.5 15 .6 16 1 16.4 1914 15.7 15.7 16.4 16.8 17.2 18.4 18.5 18.7 18.6 18.0 18.1 18.6 17.7 1915 18.6 20 2 22.8 22.7 22.0 23.7 24.2 23.8 23 3 22.7 22.7 23.3 22.8 1916 23.3 24.2 25.9 26.3 28.0 28.7 28.6 29 28.4 28.7 29.4 30.8 27.9 1917 31.8 32.7 36.7 38.8 43.7 49.8 54 3 54.8 54.2 55 5 55 9 58.2 47.8 1918 58.1 57.1 60 60.0 58.2 57.4 57 5 57.4 57.7 57.7 56.4 56.2 57.9 1919 55 2 51.1 51.3 47.9 48.0 50.5 51 8 52.2 51.3 50.6 51 51.6 50.3 1920 53.3 52.5 51.5 51.3 50.3 38.6 29.5 28.3 28.0 27.5 24.9 21.9 39.1 1921 19.6 19.8 18.9 17.9 16.0 15 4 15 5 15.4 15 5 15.8 15.6 16 9 16.4 1922 18.0 22.3 25.0 24.8 29.0 32.8 32.5 31.6 31.6 32.2 33.2 35.3 29.8 1923 35 3 35.3 37.3 39 .2 41.7 41.5 • 38.3 37.0 37.1 36.9 36 4 36.2 38.9 1924 36.6 37.5 38.2 38.4 37.4 36.0 34 3 33.5 35.5 37.3 40.1 42.2 36.9 1925 42.8 43.2 43 40.8 36 9 35.7 39 4 38.1 37.8 37.2 37.8 39.5 38.5 1926 38.9 37.7 34.7 33.2 32.0 31 4 31.9 31.9 32.6 31.6 31.6 30.1 32.5 1927 30.9 31.1 31.3 30 4 30.1 30.2 30.7 30.7 31 2 30.9 31.1 32.0 30.7 1928 33.2 34.4 35.4 35.6 37.0 38.7 37.6 37 36.5 36.0 35 9 35.6 36.7 1929 35.9 35.9 35.5 33.8 31.3 30 2 29.4 29.2 * The following weights were used: Jan. 4, Feb. 3, Mar. 3, Apr. 14, May 17, June 17, July 13, Aug. 6, Sept. 6, Oct. 7, Nov. 6, Dec. 4. Sources of data: U. S. Dept. Agr. Monthly prices of wool. Crops and Markets 5 (7): 258. 1928. Cur- rent data from monthly issues of Crops and Markets. • Prices to Producers for Unwashed Wool, United States and Cali- fornia. — The Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the United States Department of Agriculture has attempted to obtain from producers information relative to prices received for unwashed wool. These data give a rough picture of wool price trends (fig. 40). The average producer, however, disposes of his product during one or two months of the year so that the data given in tables 75 and 76 would interest the producer in a general way. Uniform price data for California wool are quite difficult to obtain on account of the wide variability in the product. In a discussion on California wool, Wilson states "The California clip as a whole is Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 151 variable. The great diversity in altitude, climatic conditions and soil types, makes the clip very uneven in grade, shrinkage and character. Parts of northern California produce some of the best wools grown in the United States. The fine wools of Humboldt and Mendocino counties compare favorably with the best Ohio fines. Much of the southern wool, however, is inclined to be short, harsh, heavy in dirt, and very seedy." 80 TABLE 76 Monthly Farm Prices of Wool (Unwashed), California, 1910-1929 (Cents per pound) Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Average* 1910 17 12 16 12 17 14 17 12 15 14 16 11 15 12 14 11 13 10 15.55 1911 12 12 11 11.92 1912 13 12 13 14 14 15 16 15 15 14 16 15 14.33 1913 14 12 18 15 13 14 16 18 11 11 12 14.00 1914 11 16 12 18 14 19 15 18 17 22 15 21 16 21 15 17 14 17 13 16 17 17 14.45 1915 15 18.08 1916 17 15 22 22 24 25 23 25 24 20 26 23 22.17 1917 24 31 38 38 46 50 53 55 47 53 48 43 91 1918 53 44 53 40 48 44 50 47 51 49 49 47 50 45 50 41 49 40 50 46 50.30 1919 42 37 43.50 1920 44 12 23 45 12 30 49 43 10 32 41 10 35 36 11 35 20 13 35 24 13 29 24 11 30 22 14 35 34.80 1921 15 16 11 35 12.00 1922 27 30.17 1923 38 38 46 36 30 32 35 30 35.63 1924 30 30 40 31 33 33 36 35 35 40 36 34 45 1925 41 43 44 44 40 37 40 40 37 35 34 39 39.50 1926 39 36 34 32 29 30 29 31 30 26 29 24 30.75 1927 28 30 31 28 27 27 26 29 31 25 28 29 28.25 1928 31 35 35 34 37 37 37 35 33 35 34 31 34.50 1929 35 32 33 30 30 28 27 28 * Unweighted average. Sources of data: 1910-1925, U. S. Dept. Agr. Prices of farm products received by producers. U. S. Dept. Agr. Statis., Bul. 17: 146. 1927. 1926-1929. Monthly issues of U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets. Current data from monthly issues of Crops and Markets. The trend of wool prices in California has been similar to that in the United States (fig. 40), although the former have generally been lower than those for the nation. This was particularly noticeable during 1918 and 1919, although the proportional difference between prices showed but little change. During the slump in 1921 prices for this state went to lower levels than those for the nation. The former, as indicated in figure 40 show more variation than the latter owing to the more limited data. Prices in California recovered rapidly from the depression during 1921 and since that time have been maintained at fairly high levels. During the early part of 1929 there was a weakening of prices brought about by an increased crop at home and abroad. so Wilson, J. F. Wool production in California. California Agr. Ext. Ser. Cir, 12:4. 1927 (Out of print.) 152 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 77 Average and Relative Prices of California Wools at Boston, 1910-1928 (Scoured basis) Northern counties Middle counties Southern counties Year Actual price, cents per lb. Relative price* 1910-1914=100 Actual price, cents per lb. Relative price* 1910-1914 = 100 Actual price, cents per lb. Relative price* 1910-1914 = 100 1910 58 111 55 111 50 107 1911 50 95 47 95 45 97 1912 51 97 49 99 47 101 1913 50 95 47 95 45 97 1914 53 101 49 99 46 99 1915 64 122 60 121 56 120 1916 1917 1918*t 77 149 172 147 284 328 69 130 157 140 263 318 62 113 148 133 242 318 1919 157 300 145 294 134 288 1920 155 296 142 287 123 264 1921 75 143 68 138 54 116 1922 120 229 108 219 89 191 1923 133 254 120 243 104 223 1924 135 258 122 247 112 240 1925 134 256 121 245 112 240 1926 110 210 100 202 86 185 1927 103 197 95 192 76 163 1928 111 212 104 211 93 200 * Relative prices are based on the averages of the 1910-1914 prices for each wool considered. t Six months only, January-June. Sources of data: 1910, Nat. Assoc. Wool Manfrs. Quarterly report of Boston wool market. Quarterly Buls. 41: 178, 357, 495, 609. 1911. 1911-1928, U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Agr. Econ., Div. of Statis. and Hist. Res. Information to authors. Prices Paid to Producers for Wool and Cotton, United States, 1910-1928 •*0| 1 1 1 p 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 iflO Fig. 38. — Cotton and wool prices move in the same general direction. Fluctua- tions in wool prices are apparently less violent than those in cotton, variations in wool production being less than those in cotton production. (Data from table 75 and from monthly prices paid to producers for cotton. The latter data are published monthly in U. S. Dept. Agr. Crops and Markets.) Buii.473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 153 Index of Wholesale Prices in the United States, 1791-1925 (Pre-war prices = 100) Pig. 39.— (From California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bulletin 435.) Source of data: Warren, G. P., and P. A. Pearson. The general price level. New York Agr. Exp. Sta. Farm Economics 2(45) :697. 1927. TABLE 78 Prices Paid for Wool, Mendocino' County, California 1899, 1905, 1907, 1909, 1913-1927 (Cents per pound) Year Long wool Lamb's wool Year Long wool i Lamb's wool 1899 21.00 13.00 1918 66.00 40.00 1905 30.25 27.00 1919 64.00 32.00 1907 25.00 27.75 22.00 1920 1921 1922 45.00 25.00 52 50 1909 12.50 1913 11.00 26.25 1914 24.75 15.00 1923 48.00 24.00 1915 29.13 18.00 1924 48.00 24.00 1916 34.00 20.00 1925 45.00* 45.00* 1917 63.00 30.00 1926 41.50 24.00 1927 41.50 24.00 1928 * Long wool and lamb's wool sold together. The prices are f.o.b. railroad shipping point. Table 78 has been incorporated into this publication at the request of W. P. Wing, Secretary of the Calif. Wool Growers' Assoc, who states that the wool clip for which prices are given is one of the best prepared in the state. Source of data: Information from owner to Edwin C. Voorhies. 1929. Considerable California wool has a poor reputation on both the Boston and Philadelphia markets and also in the mill trade. There are several reasons for this situation. Local wool has been poorly packed. Owing to our mild climate, there is a lack of rigid culling, the clip from old ewes becoming short and frowzy and making an undesirable product. The use of black-faced blood for the production of early lambs, and crossing back and forth indiscriminately has also been 154 University of California — Experiment Station harmful to better wool production as the wool clip lacks uniformity. On account of the demand for fat spring lambs, during recent years there has been a tendency to market the 'tops' in flocks. The sheepmen will then carry the 'tail enders.' In the fall difficulties have been encountered in replacing ewes in the flock, and the 'tail enders' on hand have been used for this purpose. This practice has been an important factor in the inferior quality of California wool. 81 Boston Quotations on California Wool. — The reasons for the three quotations in table 77 are as follows : ' ' The wide difference in the clips from various sections of California has led to the division of the state TABLE 79 Average Prices of Sheep-Skins, San Francisco, 1926-1929 (Dollars per pelt) Full wool Spring lambs Increasing to full wool Year Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 1926 1927 1928 1929 2.65 1.921 2.55 2.20 2.80 2.20 2.75 2.45 2.70 2 45 3.00 2.45 90 0.90 1.00 1.10 1 05 1 20 1.20 .90 1.05 1.20 1 55 1.00 120 1.35 1.65 1.10 1 30 1 50 1.85 1.10 1.40 1.60 1 60 1 25 1 57i 1.60 1.60 1.771 1.85 1.70 1.771 2.07* 1 95 Source of data: Federal State Livestock Market News Service, San Francisco, Calif. into three main areas, and wool from these is known on the market as northern counties, middle counties, and southern counties. The great variation in shrinkage in these sections has made it imperative to place market quotations on a scoured basis." 82 The quotations in table 77 are for California wool on a scoured basis at Boston. Although the individual sheepman can not compare these data with the prices which he has received, the former give more accurate information on wool price trends. Northern counties' wool commands a premium over that from either of the other sections, while that from the middle counties tops the southern counties' product in price (fig. 41). Relative prices based on an average of quotations for the five-year period 1910-1914 have been listed in table 77 (see p. 148 for comments on base 1910-1914). These indicate that during and since the war quotations on wool from northern California were relatively higher si Interview with W. P. Wing, Secretary, Calif. Wool Growers Assoc., Decem- ber 15, 1928. 82 Wilson, J. F. Wool production in California, Calif. Agr. Ext. Ser. Cir. 12:5, fig. 1. 1927. (Out of print.) Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 155 Prices' Received by Producers for Unwashed Wool, United States and California, 1910-1929 1 1 ! oo /? ? \ k \a J ^ % % > V V"i\i I i \ M 40 \ ftL w Ai •% fcv 4 rx **3 ^ 1 u V *> 1 *r> \ 0^' 7Y c«» f/fO*-/T/0' -Jfc £ bu tf / • • 1 o ,J ^S ■Ai /^ ft /V r o /9/0 '// 'IZ *A7 V* V^" Vtf 77 Vd V* '-SO 'Zl 'ZZ m ZS 'Z+ 'ZS \3« 'Z7 'Z8 'Z9 Fig. 40. — Prices for unwashed wool in California have followed those in the nation rather closely. During the years 1911-1914 prices were fairly steady. As a result of the War, prices began to rise gradually in 1915 and 1916, and precipitously after the entrance of the United States into the hostilities. The decline during the last seven months of 1920 and during 1921 brought prices to a lower level than had prevailed previous to the War. The recovery of wool prices was rapid in 1922, and since the latter part of that year they have been relatively high compared with general commodity prices. (Data from tables 75 and 76.) Prices of California Wool on the Scoured Basis at Boston, 1903-1928 /»oy % o< »oo ~ ! oe vo vz v<3 vS 73 \eo 7 zz 1 S5 T zW Fig. 41. — Except for the sharp decline in prices during 1921, quotations on northern, middle, and southern counties wool have held at fairly high levels. The margin between the better and poorer grades of wool widened in the post- war period. (Data from table 77.) than those from middle and southern counties. Since the pre-war period the higher grade of this commodity has increased in value more rapidly than the lower grades. In common with prices for other grades in Europe and in this country prices declined during the fall of 1928 and the spring of 1929. 156 University of California — Experiment Station INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN WOOL Imports and Exports, United States. — Increased supplies of needed wool have been furnished by imports. These have shown a decided increase over the past forty-one years. The area between the lines of trend in figures 34 and 35 give some indication of the necessity for these imports. Imports fluctuate from year to year, a year of small offerings from foreign countries usually being followed by one or two of large imports (tables 80 and 82). During the past eighteen years there has not been a pronounced shift in the percentages of either clothing and combing or carpet wools imported, except that the war years brought about a noticeable increase in the imports of the first-mentioned class of wool. Following the war carpet wools again increased in the relative volume reported. Since the United States is on an import basis, it is natural to expect that exports of domestic raw wool would be small. This has been the case for a number of years, although during certain years re-exports of foreign wool were considerable. Practically all of the wool entering the United States is sent through the customs districts of the Middle Atlantic and New England States, little or none being sent via those of the Pacific Coast. Foreign wool is often unloaded at San Francisco, placed in bond, and usually shipped to Boston or Philadelphia. These imports are entered in the customs receipts of the Atlantic seaboard cities. In 1927 over 61 million pounds of wool were handled through Pacific Coast ports (San Francisco 53.5 per cent, Portland 38.1 per cent), most of this trade being represented by shipments billed for north and middle Atlantic ports. In figure 1 (p. 12) will be found the ' break' line for wool shipments by rail or water to the Atlantic Coast. 83 Origin of Imports. — Almost every section of the globe contributes to the imports of wool received by the United States (table 80). Since the war the principal sources of such imports have been Australasia (Australia and New Zealand), China, Argentina, the United Kingdom, and British India. Imports show a trend toward increased purchases in the primary markets rather than at the London sales. The pro- portion of wool imported from Great Britain in the last few years has been considerably below that of the pre-war average. The pro- 83 Calculations on the ' break ' line have been made by the American-Hawaiian Steamship Co. (J. E. Fitzgerald, agent), San Francisco, Calif. Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 157 TABLE 80 Wool, Imported into the United States by Principal Countries of Origin and Percentage Imports, 1913-1928 1 (Thousands of pounds, i.e., 000 omitted) United British All Fiscal Oceania China Argen- King- British South Turkey Russia other Total year tina dom India Africa countries 1913 31,853 35,572 26,743 19,330 10,212 * 15,457 24,695 12,681 180,262 1914 64,698 31,078 42,277 22,024 14,150 * 10,358 22,845 14,141 236,081t 1915 75,866 36,718 77,808 16,447 2,120 * 4,730 2,290 40,982 273,558 1916 121,361 47,435 129,163 23,326 11,506 78,430 331 3,310 24,122 448,494 1917 1,772 30,471 207,970 2,575 450 31,970 10 37,288 350,108 1918 32,367 26,880 181,155 139 54 61,027 3,124 31,750 354,904 1919 93,033 40,243 139,452 2,039 4,920 57,566 129 1,583 42,244 422,415 1920 75,809 32,161 139,602 13,979 8,641 49,636 9,543 4,890 46,139 427,578 1921 68,880 26,012 104,023 16,264 536 25,933 3,339 1,026 36,036 318,236 1922 43,775 68,455 34,020 23,665 29,561 8,769 2,788 1,182 19,333 255,087 1923 141,868 67,360 96,977 45,635 28,739 27,124 11,154 4,306 53,667 525,473 1924 59,452 59,297 31,339 24,132 14,290 6,513 6,961 41 29,159 239,122 1925 62,739 58,101 34,781 24,713 29,247 6,184 5,078 527 42,505 284,706 1926 96,598 36,478 46,027 31,169 22,051 22,331 2,315 1,887 46,558 345,513 1927 58,455 37,513 28,812 33,696 25,612 6,535 8,401 2,634 51,422 270,905 1928 47,526 57,699 24,327 23,277 24,969 6,250 5,526 126 58,490 248,190 PER CENT OF TOTAL IMPORTS 1913 17.7 27.4 27.7 27.1 0.5 9.1 22.0 19.7 13.2 13.4 10.6 8.7 7.6 9.5 14.8 17.9 28.4 28.8 59.4 51.0 33.0 10.7 9.3 6.0 5.2 0.7 0.0 0.5 5.7 6.0 0.8 2.6 0.1 0.0 1.2 * * * 17.5 9.1 17.2 13.6 8.6 4.4 1.7 0.1 13.7 9.7 0.8 0.7 * 0.9 0.4 7.0 6.0 15.0 5.4 10.7 9.0 10.0 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 17.7 21.6 17.2 27.0 24.9 22.0 28.0 21 6 19.1 7.5 8.2 26.8 12.8 24.8 20.4 10.6 13.9 23.2 32.7 32.7 13.3 18.5 13.1 12.2 13.3 10.6 9.8 3.3 5.1 9.3 8.7 10.1 8.7 9.0 12.4 9.4 2.0 2 11.6 5.5 6.0 10.3 6.4 9.5 10.1 11.6 8.2 3.4 5.2 2.7 2.2 6.5 2 4 2.5 2.2 1.1 1.1 2.1 2.9 1.8 0.7 3 1 2 2 1.1 0.3 5 0.8 2 0.6 10 0.1 10.8 11.3 7.6 10.2 12.2 14.9 13.5 19 23.6 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 * Included in all other countries. t From 1914 on imports of mohair, alpacca, etc. are included. The above table is apt to be confusing to the reader if an analysis of the data is attempted. The gross imports are a mixture, not only of different wool classes but of the classes of wool in varying conditions. In the following table (81) the items followed by a cross (x) are included in the totals for 1927, 1928, and 1929. It will be noted that in these totals are included wool on the skin or in the grease, in the grease and washed, and scoured. These differences account for the seeming discrepancies between the above table and table 82 for the years 1913-1918. It is difficult to list imports so that the yearly data will be comparable. Source of data: Nat. Assoc, of Wool Mnfrs. Wool imported into the United States. Ann. Wool Rev. 1928:156. 1929. 158 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 81 Imports of Wool for the Fiscal Years 1927-1929 (thousands of pounds, i.e., 000 omitted) Class 1927 1928 1929 Carpet On skin or in grease \ free \ dutiable Washed or scoured j free \ dutiable Clothing In the grease and washed: Actual weight Clean content — dutiable Scoured — dutiable Combing In the grease and washed: Actual weight Clean content dutiable Scoured dutiable Hair of the Angora goat, Alpaca, etc., and mohair Actual weight Clean content dutiable Hair of the Cashmere goat: Actual weight : Clean content dutiable Totals 16, 346 x 659 x 642 x 051 x 268 x 906 502 x 715 x 267 193 x 6,547 x 205 x 8,119x 95,952 x 5,083 x 36,331 x 18,741 x 10,837 635 x 78,783 x 47,725 1,499 x 2,204 x 1,628 686 x 465 17,718 x 103,721 x 5,058 x 38,216 x 17,291 x 9,637 l,116x 81,976 x 48,570 1,502 x 3,291 x 2,371 1,204 x 828 271,128 248.033 271,093 x Included in totals. TABLE 82 Gross Imports of Wool by Class, United States, 1913-1929 (Thousands of pounds, i.e., 000 omitted) Fiscal Carpet, Clothing, Clothing,* years class III class I class II Total 1913 111,168 67,239 16,886 195,293 1914 102,003 125,089 20,557 247,649 1915 65,710 222,017 20,356 308,083 1916 109,269 403,122 22,437 534,828 1917 67,673 279,482 25,218 372,372 1918 58,995 303,869 16,266 379,130 1919 84,178 327,945 10,292 422,415 1920 72,226 337,212 18,140 427,578 1921 50,065 251,562 16,608 318,236 1922 148,787 32,821 73,479t 255,087 1923 171,879 43,703 309,890t 525,473 1924 118,375 12,820 107,927t 239,122 1925 138,461 24,446 121,800t 284,706 1926 118,080 16,663 210,771t 345,513 1927 144,699 16,777 109,428t 270,905 1928 145,485 19,376 83,152f 248,033 1929 164,712 18,407 87,974f 271,093 * Includes mohair, etc. t This total includes wools not covered by the designation, class II wools, in the earlier tariff laws., Sources of data: 1913-1927, Nat. Assoc. Wool Manfrs. Gross imports of wool, Ann. Wool Rev. 1927: 166 1928. 1928, 1929: U. S. Dept. Com. to authors. Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 159 portions of imports direct from Australia has been about double the pre-war percentage. There are decided differences in the types of wools exported to the United States from the different countries. Australia, Argentina, New Zealand, Uruguay, and the United King- dom send the bulk of the combing wools, while China, British India, the United Kingdom, Palestine and Syria have been shipping the largest amounts of carpet wools. Clothing wool is shipped primarily by those countries sending combing wool. Owing to changes in the designation of wools entering the country it is almost impossible to follow the present grouping with the excep- tion of carpet wools over a long period of years. Imports and Exports of Wool Manufactures. — In addition to the large imports of raw wool, considerable quantities are imported in various manufactured articles such as cloth, tops and yarns, wearing apparel, carpets, rugs, etc. The value of such imports in 1927 was $62,396,620. The value of exports of manufactured material has amounted to approximately 10 per cent of the imports during the past five years. The World Trade in Wool. — With the bulk of the wool produced. in the more sparsely settled sections of the globe and utilized in the densely populated areas, there necessarily has developed a world-wide trade in this commodity. Over one-half of the world 's present supply of wool is produced in the southern hemisphere. Approximately two- thirds of all the wool produced is sent to other countries from the nation in which it originates, there to be utilized in manufacture. The largest exporters of wool are Australia, Argentina, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, Uruguay, China and British India. The largest amounts of wool are consumed in the highly indus- trialized nations of western Europe and the United States. Italy, Czecho-Slovakia, Poland, and Russia also purchase considerable quanti- ties of this commodity. In the far east the industrialization of Japan has caused imports to rise at an almost phenomenal rate ; imports for 1927 indicating an increase of 483 per cent over the pre-war average imports of wool. In the latter country this wool is not being imported entirely for consumption, but to a certain extent for manufacture and re-export. The notable failure of the United States and Europe to increase their demand for wool in proportion to the increase in supply would have resulted in considerably lower prices had it not been for radical changes in the habits of consumers in the Orient. The general adoption of western dress in Japan has enormously stimulated the consumption of wool. 160 University of California — Experiment Station TRENDS IN WOOL PRODUCTION (GRAND DIVISIONS AND COUNTRIES) Opinions differ as to the probable future supply of wool and the world demand for it. On the demand side it is impossible to predict what the future of styles in clothing and in other woolen products will be. Scientific inventions will have some influence on the demand for wool in the future as in the past. It is reasonably certain that the wool supply of the world during recent years has not been increasing at the same relative rate as the population. This fact has caused comparatively high wool prices during the past few years (figs. 37 and 40). It would be impossible to state with surety whether or not these trends will continue. In a discussion of world wool production during the latter part of the nineteenth century, T. Clyde McCarroll states: ' l The opening up for settlement of vast areas of virgin land in the Western and Southern Hemispheres provided the basis for the great expansion in the wool-growing industry that characterized the latter half of the nineteenth century. In the thirty-five years between 1860 and 1895 world production of wool more than doubled. This phase of the industry 's growth came to an end in the early nineties with the occupation of the best lands, and the maximum number of sheep attained around 1891 has apparently never been surpassed." 84 The larger part of the wool supply is still a product of what is called a 'frontier industry.' Owing to the encroachment of farming on the present frontiers the production of wool will be forced to compete with other agricultural industries. While it is undoubtedly true that there are sections in the world not now producing wool, which may eventually be devoted to it, such areas are not widespread. Generally speaking, if the demand for wool increases a considerable portion will necessarily have to come from both the present intensive and extensive margins of sheep production. Costs will be considerably greater than those now prevailing. Much wool is produced under hazardous conditions. The weather very materially affects the number of sheep and the production of wool. A temporary variation in production may influence prices but will not materially affect the fundamental shifts in production. It seems probable that ultimately demand will increase faster than 84 McCarroll, T. Clyde. The world's wool production. National Bank of Commerce. Commerce Mo., March, 1928. Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 161 supply. One source of augmented output is an increased weight of fleece per sheep. With this object in view and present world prices it seems reasonable to expect that governments and wool growers will encourage more efficient breeding and care of sheep. When studying future supplies the more important producing sections will be discussed separately. It is essential that sheepmen throughout the United States take cognizance of conditions prevailing in other parts of the world, not only as they affect the production of wool, but also in their relation to mutton and lamb. TABLE 83 Estimate© Number of Sheep and Estimated Wool Production, Canada, 1915-1928 Sheep and lambs, Wool production, Sheep and lambs, Wool production, Year thousands thousand pounds Year thousands thousand pounds 1915 2,039 12,000 1922 3,263 18,523 1916 2,023 12,000 1923 2,755 15,539 1917 2,369 12,000 1924 2,686 15,112 1918 3,053 20,000 1925 2,757 15,553 1919 3,422 20,000 1926 3,144 17,960 1920 3,721 24,000 1927 3,266 18,673 1921 3,676 21,251 1928 3,419 19,611 Sources of data: 1915-1925, Spencer, J. B. Sheep husbandry in Canada. Canada Dept. Agr. Bui. 75 (New Series): 103. 1926. 1926-1928, Information to authors from Dept. Agr., Ottawa, Canada. North America. — While numbers of sheep are advancing in North America, pre-war levels have not yet been reached (tables 61 and 62). Although the foreign trade of the United States in mutton and lamb is insignificant, that in wool occupies a prominent position. Trends of production and consumption of wool have already been discussed. It is probable that farming sections east of the Missouri River and in Texas could produce increased amounts of wool. During the eleven years 1918-1929 (January 1 estimates) the decrease in the combined numbers of horses and mules on farms in the United States was 6,952,000 head, or approximately 26 per cent. The greatest decline was evident in the eastern and central corn belt. From the standpoint of feed it is possible that this area could support larger numbers of sheep. The western range with improved methods of management could undoubtedly maintain a larger number of sheep. California might support greatly increased numbers should demand justify an extension of the industry. The relative profitableness of the cattle and sheep industries will undoubtedly have some influence 162 University of California — Experiment Station on the future. Entrepreneurs sometimes fail to recognize that sheep husbandry, similar to many other lines of endeavor, has its alternate periods of prosperity and depression. One disturbing factor in connection with future supplies of wool in this country is the tariff. Both advocates and opponents of a wool tariff agree that a large part of the wool demanded in this country could be produced more cheaply abroad than here. Another important factor in augmenting the supply of wool in the United States is the demand for lamb and mutton. A marked demand for meat would continue to increase the supply of wool. It has been estimated that an increase of 100,000,000 pounds of wool might be expected in the near future in the United States. 85 If this increase comes about the United States will be less dependent on foreign coun- tries for wool for clothing needs. Any increase in wool production in the United States will be in a type of wool suitable for clothing manufacture. There is a possibility of increasing the average weight per fleece in the United States, and especially in California, In any discussion of animal industries in the United States, Canada should be kept in view. Canadian sheep numbers undoubtedly run in cycles (table 83), as is the case in the United States. Since 1871 there has been no definite upward or downward trend in the number of Canadian sheep. Although the United States is the chief country to which Canada exports wool, there is little likelihood that this trade will ever become large. Indications point to an absorption of both the lamb and wool supply of Canada by domestic markets. It seems reasonable to expect a considerable increment in Canadian sheep numbers with the growth of the human population of Canada. Conditions are favorable for sheep production in Mexico, especially on the plateau in central and northern Mexico. Owing to unsettled conditions, numbers dropped during the post-war period. Sheep numbers have increased appreciably during the last few years, but reports indicate that numbers are still below those of the pre-war period. There are twice as many goats as sheep in the republic. 86 Goats are raised in preference to sheep because they are easier to handle in the brush country where the thorns damage wool. Goat meat is used very extensively, and the hides are also utilized. 85 McPherson, John Bruce. Increased world wool production. Mr. Stressinger 's summarization. Nat. Assoc. Wool Manfrs. Bui. 58(3) :347. 1928. 86 Information received by the writer from the National Statistical Depart- ment of Mexico shows that in 1928 there were 5,423,959 goats and 2,697,668 sheep enumerated. Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 163 South America. — Data from South America are not sufficiently complete to make authentic statements relative to the sheep popula- tion possible. Indications are that the production of wool has fallen behind that of other continents during the past two decades. A con- siderable amount of this decline has come about through the reduction of sheep numbers in Argentina. With more careful attention to sheep husbandry — by improvement and selection rather than by expansion — the production of wool in both Peru and Bolivia might logically be increased. It is impossible to state with any degree of certainty whether sheep numbers in South America are at present equal to those of pre-war periods. Argentina ranks second to Australia as an exporter of wool and is surpassed only by New Zealand in the export of lamb and mutton. A rapid development of sheep husbandry took place during the latter part of the nineteenth century, the peak being reached at about the turn. 87 Numbers decreased rapidly until 1913 (table 84). Some gains were made during the War but further losses occurred during the post-war slump. It is probable that no great increase in the sheep population will occur in the future. Production will be largely influ- enced by the same factor as in the United States, that is, by the future trend of prices for wool and mutton. It is difficult to ascertain the volume of production of wool in Argentina. Wool shipments (table 86) might lead to the assumption that production had been kept at a high level. Unsold stocks of wool in 1920-21 and 1921-22 have been exported little by little, which makes it difficult to judge of production by the exports. Reliable estimates (table 85) place the annual production at approximately 325,000,000 pounds or over — almost equal to that of the United States. Consumption amounts to only 26,000,000 pounds, leaving an export- able balance of approximately 300,000,000 pounds. The larger part of the exports go to Germany, France, Great Britain, Belgium, and the United States. Exports to the latter country reached a high point in 1916-17 when 225,467 bales were shipped. There has been a gradual diminution in these exports, 30,120 bales being sent out in 1926-27. Uruguay with its small human population and relatively large sheep population has a considerable amount of wool available for export. During the past fifteen years (table 87) there has not been a marked trend in these exports. Sheep population figures since the War are reported to be far lower than census returns for 1908. It 87 Estabrook, Leon M. Agricultural survev of South America : Argentina and Paraguay. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bul. 1409:40. 1926. 164 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 84 Number, of Sheep in Argentina, 1908-1928 (Thousands, i.e., 000 omitted) Year Number Year Number Year Number Year Number 1908* 1909 1910 1911 67,384 65,082 72,540 80,365 1912 1913 1914* 1915 76,279 81,485 43,225 43,677 1916 1917 1919 1920 44,855 45,309 45,767 45,996 1921 1922* 1928f 46,134 36,209 38,000 * Census. t Estimate. Natl. Assoc. Wool Manfrs. Ann. Wool Rev. 1928: 215. 1929. Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr. Number of sheep. Foreign Crops and Markets 17 (3): 91. 1928. TABLE 85 Estimated Production of Wool in Argentina and Uruguay Average 1909-1913, Annual 1924-1928 (Thousand pounds, i.e., 000 omitted) Year Argentina Uruguay 1909-1913 332,321 133,101 1924 316,000 97,000 1925 319,000 116,000 1926 363,000 129,000 1927 331,000 131,000 1928 343,000 139,000 Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Agr. Econ. Wool, estimated production. Foreign Crops and Markets 18 (6): 182. 1929. TABLE 86 Argentine Wool Shipments (in Bales*), 1912-1928 Year Number Year Number Year Number Year Number 1912-13 1913-14 1914-15 1915-16 310,933 305,606 304,517 299,207 1916-17 1917-18 1918-19 1919-20 349,622 288,051 273,392 305,524 1920-21 1921-22 1922-23 1923-24 301,322 474,776 363,780 285,286 1924-25 1925-26 1926-27 1927-28 257,625 342,699 351,199 322,067 * The average weight of the bale is about 420 kilos. A kilo equals 2.2046 pounds. Source of data: Nat. Assoc. Wool Manfrs. Argentine Wool Shipments. Ann. Wool Rev. 1928: 213. 1929. TABLE 87 Uruguayan Exports of Wool (in Grease) and Price Per Kilo, 1913-1927 Quantity, Price Quantity, Price Quantity, Price Year metric tons per kilo Year metric tons per kilo Year metric tons per kilo 1913 68,440 $0.47 1918 32,952 $1.16 1923 42,723 $0.49 1914 44,588 .50 1919 64,107 1 06 1924 43,585 .67 1915 37,904 .74 1920 31,746 .83 1925 39,516 .70 1916 30,602 .77 1921 55,359 .38 1926 51,511 .53 1917 39,352 1.07 1922 46,416 .34 1927 66,957 .48 Source of data: U. S. Dept. Com. Uruguay, tabular guide. Com. Rpts. 1928 (15): 64. 1928. Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 165 does not seem probable that there will be any appreciable increase in exports in the future, unless sheep husbandry becomes more profitable than cattle raising. Prices received for wool (table 87) during 1926 and 1927 were not satisfactory. The sheep population of Peru has been estimated at 12 millions. 88 There are opportunities for a large increase in production, but this will come about probably by improvement in breeds rather than by an increase in numbers. The same situation exists in Bolivia, where the sheep population has been augmented since the War. Although some extensions in the industry may take place in regions more or less inaccessible at present, an enlarged wool production probably will come about by improvements within the industry. 89 Number of sheep in Chile have remained somewhat stationary during the past fifteen years. The southeastern section of Brazil has a sheep population of considerable magnitude but from meager data available indications point to a reduction since the pre-war period. Although at present the consideration of livestock in Paraguay must be confined chiefly to the cattle industry, available data show that increasing importance was attached to wool exports during 1921-1924. 90 With the exception of the western section of South America, on the plateaus and moun- tainous areas in Peru and Bolivia the sheep industry is of little importance north of the Tropic of Capricorn. Australasia. — There was a slight decline in sheep numbers between 1909-1913 and 1921-1925, but during the four years 1925-1928 num- bers were higher than before the war. Australasia now supplies approximately one-third of the entire world wool production. The southern island continent of Australia is both the largest producer and the largest exporter of wool in the world. Although sheep numbers have been increasing during recent years (table 88), those recorded during the peak year of 1891 have never been exceeded. The most recent sheep returns for 1927 (Dec. 31) show considerable reduction compared with those for 1926. Rather severe and even more abrupt variations in sheep numbers brought about by drought conditions are not infrequent as may be seen by a study of table 85. With reference to the future of Australian production, one student of the industry states: "It seems likely that wool production is still ss Unofficial estimate for 1927, U. S. Dept. Agr. The world situation in mutton and lamb. Foreign Crops and Market 17(3) :87. 1927. 89 Interview with David Weeks, Associate Agricultural Economist, University of California, Dec. 18, 1928. 9 Estabrook, Leon M. Agricultural survey of South America. Argentina and Paraguay. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bui. 1409:87-88. 1927. 166 University of California — Experiment Station capable of expansion in response to favorable market conditions. The limiting factors appear to be drought and the depredations of pests rather than the encroachment of agriculture. The area under cultiva- tion which has been doubling every twenty years since 1870, now stands at 17 million acres or less than 1 per cent of the total area, and has not greatly affected as yet the capacity of the country to produce wool. While much of the interior is essentially too hot for TABLE 88 Number of Sheep, Australia and New Zealand, 1900- (Thousands, i.e., 000 omitted) 1928 New New Year Australia Zealand Total Year Australia Zealand Total 1900 70,603 19,355 89,958 1915 69,257 24,901 94,158 1901 72,040 20,233 92,273 1916 80,562 24,788 105,350 1902 53,668 20,343 74,011 1917 88,864 25,270 114,134 1903 56,933 18,955 75,888 1918 91,874 26,538 118,412 1904 65,824 18,281 84,105 1919 79,455 25,829 105,284 1905 74,541 19,131 93,672 1920 81,796 23,920 105,716 1906 83,688 20,108 103,796 1921 86,119 23,285 109,404 1907 87,650 20,984 108,634 1922 82,701 22,222 104,923 1908 87,043 22,449 109,492 1923 84,011 23,081 107,092 1909 91,676 23,481 115,157 1924 93,155 23,776 116,931 1910 92,047 24,270 116,317 1925 103,563 24,548 128,111 1911 93,004 23,996 117,000 1926 104,267 24,905 129,172 1912 83,254 23,750 107,004 1927 100,610 25,649 126,259 1913 85,057 24,192 109,246 1928 27,134 1914 78,600 24,799 103,399 Data for Australia for Dec. 31 of each year. In many compilations these data are used for the year following. See table. 00. Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr. Mutton and lamb. Foreign Crops and Markets 17 (3): 91. 1928. sheep raising, sheep and particularly merino sheep, are, of all animals, best adapted to the peculiarities of the climate. Given water, they will subsist where cattle will starve when one of the frequent droughts shrivels up the vegetation. As the production of wool is not so adversely affected by sparse feeding as is the case in the meat industry, both cattle and sheep (other than the Merino sheep) have taken a subordinate place to Merino sheep husbandry." 91 Data on the production of wool in Australia are given in table 89. The large fluctuations came about mainly on account of drought con- ditions. The 1928 production was the greatest in the present century. It seems probable, however, that it may decline somewhat during the 9i McCarroll, T. Clyde. The world's wool production. National Bank of Commerce. Commerce Mo., March, 1925. Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 167 next two or three years (see table 88). Predictions, however, are extremely hazardous to make. Although sheep numbers may decline, the health of the animal may improve, etc. Prices obtained during and following the war were below normal. During the War stocks were moved with difficulty owing to insufficient shipping. Since the 1921-22 season prices have been far more satis- factory and should be sufficiently high to encourage production. TABLE 89 Wool Production, Australia and New Zealand, 1913-1928 (Thousands of pounds, i.e., 000 omitted) Year Australia New Zealand Year Australia New Zealand 1913 632,297 194,628 1921 658,454 191,614 1914 569,775 197,267 1922 600,931 214,706 1915 463,750 181,283 1923 661,128 208,979 1916 547,972 193,830 1924 773,984 208,269 1917 641,771 209,841 1925 830,460 200,205 1918 652,920 227,521 1926 924,410 202,386 1919 547,058 204,965 1927 865,000 228,960 1920 536,542 181,480 1928 950,000 238,000 Sources of data: 1913-1914: Fairchild Textile Apparel Analysis. Wool production. Supplement to Fairchild Textile Apparel Analysis. 1927-1928: (7). 1928. Permission to publish material granted to authors, 1928. 1925-1928. U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Agr. Econ. Wool: estimated production. Foreign Crops and Markets 18 (6): 182. 1929. TABLE 90 Australian Wool Sales, 1913-1928 (Thousands of pounds, i.e., 000 omitted) Year Quantity Year Quantity Year Quantity 1913-14 1914-15 1915-16 1916-17 1917-18 639,770 504,533 580,235 722,505 824,612 1918-19 1919-20 1920-21 m 1921-22 1922-23 880,441 852,022 327,192 881,554 777,896 1923-24 1924-25 1925-26 1926-27 1927-28 710,577 671,131 997,187 956,513 920,067 Source of data: Nat. Assoc. Wool Manfrs. Australian sales. Ann. Wool Rev. 1928: 207. 1929. Merino wools accounted for 69 per cent and crossbred wools for 31 per cent of the production during the 1926-27 season. Prior to the War there was a slow but steady gain in the production of crossbred wools relative to fine wools. With a crop such as wool much may be stored pending a sufficiently heavy demand and except over a considerable period exports indicate but little. One change in Australian exports is noteworthy. During the past thirty years the exports to the United Kingdom have become 168 University of California — Experiment Station relatively less impotrant while those to Europe (the Continent), Japan, and the United States have occupied a position of greater importance. It is highly probable that sheep numbers in New Zealand (third in world's wool exports) have reached a saturation point. Sheep raising in this commonwealth must now compete with dairying and other more intensive agricultural enterprises. A peak in numbers was reached in 1918, followed by a decline which lasted until 1922 (table 88). Since the latter date there has been a steady increase, the number in 1928 being the largest number in history. Wool pro- duction for the fifteen years 1913-1928 is given in table 89. It will be noted that production in New Zealand fluctuates far less than in Australia. Africa. — During the past few years Africa has made the greatest relative gains in wool production. Sheep are kept in comparatively large numbers in the northern section — Algeria, Morocco, and Tunis — and in the Union of South Africa. With the vast expanse of territory and varied natural conditions it seems probable that the wool output may be increased considerably, especially in the southern portion of the continent. The most important wool-producing section of Africa lies in the south. In 1928 the Union of South Africa possessed 40,694,000 sheep (table 91), only a few less than the number in the United States in 1926 (table 4). Since 1908 there has been a somewhat irregular increase (table 91), culminating in a record number for 1928. A com- parison between wool production and numbers of sheep indicates that the average wool production per sheep is somewhat low compared with that of the United States. Flockmasters in the Union are greatly interested not only in augmenting the»wool clip but also in improving the quality of the wool produced. There can be but little doubt as to the steady increase of wool production in the Union of South Africa, Indications point to a doubling of the pre-war production during the past few years (table 92). Exports have gained steadily, the largest amount having been shipped to Great Britain. During the post-war period exports to the United States have been relatively small, although fluctuations are considerable. Europe. — Production of wool in Europe diminished during and after the World War, but in 1927 it was back on a pre-war level. It is Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 169 TABLE 91 Number of Sheep in" the: Union of South Africa, 1908-1928 (Thousands, i.e., 000 omitted) Year Number Year Number Year Number Year Number 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 29,082 30,508 22,198 30,657 35,889 1913 1915 1916 1918 1919 35,808 31,434 31,981 29,914 31,739 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 29,537 31,730 31,696 31,418 32,198 1925 1926 1927 1928 35,570 38,849 40,109 40,694 Source of data: U. S. Dept. Agr. The world situation in mutton and lamb. Crops and Markets 18 (6): 179. 1929. TABLE 92 Estimated Wool Production of South Africa, 1907-1912, 1921-1928 (Thousands of pounds, i.e., 000 omitted) Year Production Year Production Year Production 1907 108,000 1912 157,000 1925 220,000 1908 101,000 1921 140,053 1926 245,573 1909 138,000 1922 177,426 1927 273,000 1910 125,000 1923 187,290 1928 285,000 1911 125,000 1924 185,200 Sources of data: 1907-1912. Natl. Assoc. Wool Manfrs. Ann. Wool Revs. 1921-1923. Fairchild Textile Analysis. Wool production. Supplement to Fairchild Textile Apparel Analysis 1927-1928: (7). 1928. Per- mission to publish material granted authors. 1928. 1924-1928. U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Agr. Econ. Wool: estimated production. Foreign Crops and Markets 18 (6): 182. 1929. TABLE 93 Grease and Scoured Wool Exported from South Africa, 1913-1917, 1920-1927 (Thousands of pounds, i.e., 000 omitted) I — Grease Scoured Grease Scoured Year wool wool Year wool wool 1913 173,243 3,659 1922 198,570 11,215 1914 129,524 4,323 1923 155,053 9,045 1915 161,260 8,663 1924 162,738 7,761 1916 125,904 10,297 1925 200,669 7,948 1917 105,711 11,936 1926 205,654 6,041 1920 106,394 12,988 1927 253,866 6,468 1921 218,894 11,527 Source of data: Natl. Assoc. Wool Manfrs. Ann. Wool Rev. now relatively lower, compared with world production than before the war. Indications point to a considerable increment in wool pro- duction, as sheep numbers have increased appreciably during the past three years. Russia, Spain, England and Wales have especially dis- played a tendency to an upward swing. It is highly probable that no marked future expansion will occur in any of the European countries 170 University of California — Experiment Station with the exception of Russia. A decided amelioration of post-war unsettlement in business and politics is already in sight and this should stimulate Europe 's wool consumption. It is difficult to obtain accurate data on wool production in Russia. During the World War and later during the Civil War (in Russia), sheep husbandry suffered a severe set-back. In 1928 numbers were evidently higher than they were in the pre-war period. Wool pro- duction in 1928 is estimated at 350,000,000 pounds, an amount almost equal to that produced in the United States. This represents an increase of 6 per cent over 1927 and 6 per cent over 1916. Since the pre-war period there has been a sharp decrease in the commercial TABLE 94 Sheep Numbers and Wool Production, United Kingdom, 1913-1928 Year Sheep Wool Year Sheep Wool thousands thousands of pounds thousands thousands of pounds 1913 27,629 125,122 1921 24,273 101,100 1914 27,964 121,200 1922 23,761 102,900 1915 28,276 122,475 1923 24,155 101,965 1916 28,850 124,408 1924 25,042 104,668 1917 27,867 125,176 1925 26,474 109,853 1918 27,063 119,736 1926 27,684 114,567 1919 25,119 115,659 1927 28,419 118,537 1920 23,404 104,821 1928 27,873 119,690 Sources of data: Sheep numbers. U. S. Dept. Agr. The world situation in mutton and lamb. Crops and Markets 17 (3) : 91. 1928. Wool production: Natl. Assoc. Wool Manfrs. Sheep and wool production in Great Britain and Ireland. Ann. Wool Rev. 1928: 190. 1929. supply of wool. Efforts have been made during the past few years by representatives of the Soviet Union to foster sheep husbandry. Several thousand sheep were recently imported from the United States for the purpose of improving- Russian flocks. Before the War the Russian output was insufficient to supply the home market. Russia bears watching. With a large population a favorable change in economic conditions should greatly stimulate wool consumption. Although there are opportunities for a greatly expanded sheep indus- try especially in Asiatic Russia, 92 it is highly improbable that Russian products will ever be found on the world markets. The Mediterranean basin has an exceptionally dense sheep popula- tion, although political boundaries often make that of individual states appear relatively small. From the standpoint of sheep numbers, Spain ranks high, although Spanish wool occupies an insignificant place in 92 Tschajanoff, A. W. Die Landwirtschaft des Sowjetbundes. 40 p. 55 fig. Paul Parey, Berlin. 1926. Bul. 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 171 world trade. Present numbers (1928) indicate an increase of approxi- mately 25 per cent compared with the pre-war years 1909-1913. France suffered from serious depletions in flock numbers during the war, and since that time only a slight increase has occurred. Com- pared with pre-war years, numbers of sheep in Italy have shown a tendency to increase during recent years. During the World War flocks in the Balkan area were seriously depleted but since 1920 these have shown a tendency to return to the pre-war level, except in Jugoslavia. During recent years there has been a decline in the wool produc- tion of northern and western Europe. Sheep and wool production in the United Kingdom are still below pre-war levels although present trends point upward (table 94). No pronounced expansion in the industry can be expected. Asia. — Russia in Asia, China, British India and Turkey are the largest producers of wool in Asia. With the exception of the last- named country, sheep and wool production are apparently back to pre- war levels. Although the production of Asia constitutes less than 10 per cent of the entire world output, exports — especially carpet wools — are high. Undoubtedly there are possibilities of expansion especially in Asiatic Russia but it is not probable that any considerable advance in sheep numbers will occur in other parts of Asia. 172 University of California — Experiment Station THE TARIFF The tariff as related to sheep, lambs, and wool which has been in effect since 1922 is as follows : Par. 701. — Tallow % cent per pound. Par. 702. — Sheep and goats, $2 per head ; fresh mutton and goat meat, 2y 2 cents per pound ; fresh lamb, 4 cents per pound. Par. 1101. — Wools, not improved by the admixture of Merino or English blood, such as Donsoi, Native Smyrna, Native South American, Cordova, Valparaiso, and other wools of like char- acter or description, and hair of the camel in the grease, 12 cents per lb. ; washed, 18 cents per lb. ; scoured, 24 cents per lb. The duty on such wools imported on the skin shall be 11 cents per lb. ; provided that such wools may be imported under bond in an amount to be fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury and under such regulations as he shall prescribe ; and if within 3 years from the date of importation or withdrawal from bonded warehouse satisfactory proof is furnished that the wools have been used in the manufacture of rugs, carpets, or any other floor coverings, the duties shall be remitted or refunded; provided further, that if any such wools imported under bond as above prescribed are used in the manufacture of articles other than rugs, carpets, or any other floor cover- ings, there shall be levied, collected, and paid on any wools so used in violation of the bond, in addition to the regular duties provided by this paragraph, 20 cents per lb., which shall not be remitted or refunded on exportation of the articles or for any other reason. Wools in the grease shall be considered such as shall have been shorn from the sheep without any cleansing ; that is, in their natural condition. Washed wools shall be con- sidered such as have been washed with water only on the sheep's back, or on the skin. Par. 1102. — Wools, not specially provided for, and hair of the Angora goat, Cashmere goat, Alpaca, and other like animals, imported in the grease or washed, 31 cents per lb. of clean content; imported in the scoured state, 31 cents per lb. ; imported on the skin, 30 cents per lb. of clean content. Par. 1103. — If any bale or package containing wools, hairs, wool wastes, or wool waste material, subject to different rates of duty, be entered at any rate or rates lower than applicable, the highest rate applicable to any part shall apply to the entire contents of such bale or package. Buu 473] Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry 173 Par. 1106. — Wool, and hair of the kinds provided for in this schedule, which has been advanced in any manner or by any process of manufacture beyond the washed or scoured condition, includ- ing tops, but not further advanced than roving, 33 cents per lb. and 20 per cent ad valorem. Free List Par. 1655. — Sausage casings, wesands, intestines, bladders, tendons, and integuments not specially provided for. Par. 1666. — Skins of all kinds, raw, and hides not specially provided for. STATION PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION BULLETINS No. No. 253. Irrigation and Soil Conditions in the 407. Sierra Nevada Foothills, California. 263. Size Grades for Ripe Olives. 277. Sudan Grass. 408. 279. Irrigation of Rice in California. 409. 283. The Olive Insects of California. 304. A Study of the Effects of Freezes on Citrus in California. 310. Plum Pollination. 410. 313. Pruning Young Deciduous Fruit Trees. 331. Phylloxera-resistant stocks. 412. 335. Cocoanut Meal as a Feed for Dairy Cows and Other Livestock. 343. Cheese Pests and Their Control. 414. 344. Cold Storage as an Aid to the Market- ing of Plums, a Progress Report. 415. 346. Almond Pollination. 416. 347. The Control of Red Spiders in Decid- uous Orchards. 418. 348. Pruning Young Olive Trees. 349. A Study of Sidedraft and Tractor 419. Hitches. 353. Bovine Infectious Abortion, and Asso- 420. ciated Diseases of Cattle and New- born Calves. 421. 354. Results of Rice Experiments in 1922. 423. 357. A Self-Mixing Dusting Machine for Applying Dry Insecticides and Fun- 425. gicides. 426. 361. Preliminary Yield Tables for Second- 427. Growth Redwood. 362. Dust and the Tractor Engine. 428. 363. The Pruning of Citrus Trees in Cali- fornia. 364. Fungicidal Dusts for the Control of 430. Bunt. 431. 365. Avocado Culture in California. 366. Turkish Tobacco Culture, Curing, and 432. Marketing. 367. Methods of Harvesting and Irrigation 433. in Relation to Moldy Walnuts. 368. Bacterial Decomposition of Olives During Pickling. 434. 369. Comparison of Woods for Butter Boxes. 370. Factors Influencing the Development 435. of Internal Browning of the Yellow Newtown Apple. 371. The Relative Cost of Yarding Small 436. and Large Timber. 373. Pear Pollination. 438. 374. A Survey of Orchard Practices in the Citrus Industry of Southern Cali- 439. fornia. 380. Growth of Eucalyptus in California Plantations. 385. Pollination of the Sweet Cherry. 386. Pruning Bearing Deciduous Fruit 440. Trees. 388. The Principles and Practice of Sun- Drying Fruit. 442. 389. Berseem or Egyptian Clover. 444. 390. Harvesting and Packing Grapes in California. 445. 391. Machines for Coating Seed Wheat with Copper Carbonate Dust. 446. 392. Fruit Juice Concentrates. 447. 393. Crop Sequences at Davis. 394. I. Cereal Hay Production in California. 448. II. Feeding Trials with Cereal Hays. 395. Bark Diseases of Citrus Trees in Cali- 449. fornia. 396. The Mat Bean, Phaseolus Aconitifolius. 450. 397. Manufacture of Roquefort Type Cheese from Goat's Milk. 398. Orchard Heating in California. 451. 400. The Utilization of Surplus Plums. 405. Citrus Culture in Central California. 406. Stationary Spray Plants in California. 452, Yield, Stand, and Volume Tables for White Fir in the California Pine Region. Alternaria Rot of Lemons. The Digestibility of Certain Fruit By- products as Determined for Rumi- nants. Part I. Dried Orange Pulj) and Raisin Pulp. Factors Influencing the Quality of Fresh Asparagus After it is Harvested. A Study of the Relative Value of Cer- tain Root Crops and Salmon Oil as Sources of Vitamin A for Poultry. Planting and Thinning Distances for Deciduous Fruit Trees. The Tractor on California Farms. Culture of the Oriental Persimmon in California. A Study of Various Rations for Fin- ishing Range Calves as Baby Beeves. Economic Aspects of the Cantaloupe Industry. Rice and Rice By-Products as Feeds for Fattening Swine. Beef Cattle Feeding Trials, 1921-24. Apricots (Series on California Crops and Prices). Apple Growing in California. Apple Pollination Studies in California. The Value of Orange Pulp for Milk Production. The Relation of Maturity of California Plums to Shipping and Dessert Quality. Range Grasses in California. Raisin By-Products and Bean Screen- ings as Feeds for Fattening Lambs. Some Economic Problems Involved in the Pooling of Fruit. Power Requirements of Electrically Driven Dairy Manufacturing Equip- ment. Investigations on the Use of Fruits in Ice Cream and Ices. The Problem of Securing Closer Rela- tionship between Agricultural Devel- opment and Irrigation Construction. I. The Kadota Fig. II. The Kadota Fig Products. Grafting Affinities with Special Refer- ence to Plums. The Digestibility of Certain Fruit By- Products as Determined for Rumi- nants. II. Dried Pineapple Pulp, Dried Lemon Pulp, and Dried Olive Pulp. The Feeding Value of Raisins and Dairy By-Products for Growing and Fattening Swine. Laboratory Tests of Orchard Heaters. Series on California Crops and Prices : Beans. Economic Aspects of the Apple In- dustry. The Asparagus Industry in California. A Method of Determining the Clean Weights of Individual Fleeces of Wool. Farmers' Purchase Agreement for Deep Well Pumps. Economic Aspects of the Watermelon Industry. Irrigation Investigations with Field Crops at Davis, and at Delhi, Cali- fornia, 1909-1925. Studies Preliminary to the Establish- ment of a Series of Fertilizer Trials in a Bearing Citrus Grove. Economic Aspects of the Pear Industry. BULLETINS— (Continued) No. No. 453. Series on California Crops and Prices: 462. Almonds. 464. 454. Rice Experiments in Sacramento Val- ley, 1922-1927. 465. 455. Reclamation of the Fresno Type of 466. Black-Alkali Soil. 456. Yield. Stand and Volume Tables for 467. Red Fir in California. 468. 458. Factors Influencing: Percentage Calf Crop in Range Herds. 469. 459. Economic Aspects of the Fresh Plum 470. Industry. 460. Series on California Crops and Prices: 471. Lemons. 461. Series on California Crops and Prices: 474. Economic Aspects of the Beef Cattle Industry. Prune Supply and Price Situation. Drainage in the Sacramento Valley Rice Fields. Curly Top Symptoms of the Sugar Beet. The Continuous Can Washer for Dairy Plants. Oat Varieties in California. Sterilization of Dairy Utensils with Humidified Hot Air. The Solar Heater. Maturity Standards for Harvesting Bartlett Pears for Eastern Shipment. The Use of Sulfur Dioxide in Shipping Grapes. Factors Affecting the Cost of Tractor Logging in the California Pine Region. CIRCULARS No. 115. Grafting Vinifera Vineyards. 117. The Selection and Cost of a Small Pumping Plant. 127. House Fumigation. 129. The Control of Citrus Insects. 164. Small Fruit Culture in California. 166. The County Farm Bureau. 178. The Packing of Apples in California. 203. Peat as a Manure Substitute. 212. Salvaging Rain-Damaged Prunes. 230. Testing Milk. Cream, and Skim Milk for Butterfat. 232. Harvesting and Handling California Cherries for Eastern Shipment. 239. Harvesting and Handling Apricots and Plums for Eastern Shipment. 240. Harvesting and Handling California Pears for Eastern Shipment. 241. Harvesting and Handling California Peaches for Eastern Shipment. 243. Marmalade Juice and Jelly Juice from Citrus Fruits. 244. Central Wire Bracing for Fruit Trees. 245. Vine Pruning Systems. 248. Some Common Errors in Vine Pruning and Their Remedies. 249. Replacing Missing Vines. 250. Measurement of Irrigation Water on the Farm. 253. Vineyard Plans. 255. Leguminous Plants as Organic Ferti- lizers in California Agriculture. 257. The Small-Seeded Horse Bean (Vicia faba var. minor). 258. Thinning Deciduous Fruits. 259. Pear By-Products. 261. Sewing Grain Sacks. 262. Cabbage Production in California. 263. Tomato Production in California. 265. Plant Disease and Pest Control. 266. Analyzing the Citrus Orchard by Means of Simple Tree Records. No. 269. 270. 276. 277. 278. 279 282. 284. 287. 288. 289. 290. 292. 294. 295. 296. 298. 300. 301. 302. 304. 305. 307. 308. 309. 310. 311. 312. 313, 314. 315. An Orchard Brush Burner. A Farm Septic Tank. Home Canning. Head, Cane, and Cordon Pruning of Vines. Olive Pickling in Mediterranean Countries. The Preparation and Refining of Olive Oil in Southern Europe. Prevention of Insect Attack on Stored Grain. The Almond in California. Potato Production in California. Phylloxera Resistant Vineyards. Oak Fungus in Orchard Trees. The Tangier Pea. Alkali Soils. Propagation of Deciduous Fruits. Growing Head Lettuce in California. Control of the California Ground Squirrel. Possibilities and Limitations of Coop- erative Marketing. Coccidiosis of Chickens. Buckeye Poisoning of the Honey Bee. The Sugar Beet in California. Drainage on the Farm. Liming the Soil. American Foulbrood and Its Control. Cantaloupe Production in California. Fruit Tree and Orchard Judging. The Operation of the Bacteriological Laboratory for Dairy Plants. The Improvement of Quality in Figs. Principles Governing the Choice. Oper- ation and Care of Small Irrigation Pumning Plants. Fruit Juices and Fruit Juice Beverages. Termites and Termite Damage. The Mediterranean and Other Fruit Flies. 13m-10,'29