UIBRAFLY 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 or ILLINOIS 
 
NON CIRCULATING 
 
 CHECK FOR UNBOUND 
 CIRCULATING COPY 
 
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 
 Agricultural Experiment Station 
 
 BULLETIN No. 301 
 
 THE PLACE OF HOG PRODUCTION 
 IN CORN-BELT FARMING 
 
 BY H. C. M. CASE AND ROBERT C. Ross 
 
 URBANA, ILLINOIS, DECEMBER, 1927 
 
SUMMARY 
 
 The farm costs involved in the production of over three million 
 pounds of pork in three different areas of Illinois are presented and 
 analyzed in this bulletin. These data represent over two hundred full- 
 year records from more than fifty different farmers who cooperated 
 with the University in keeping records. 
 
 Wide variations in cost occurred in the three areas. In Hancock 
 county, the most important hog-producing area of the state, the co- 
 operating farmers averaged a profit of $1.97 a hundredweight over the 
 ten-year period 1913 to 1922, while in Franklin county a profit of $1.44 
 was realized. In Champaign and Piatt counties the farmers lost an 
 average of 58 cents a hundredweight over the six-year period 1920 to 
 1925 because of unfavorable price conditions during a part of that 
 time. 
 
 The place which hog production may fill on any particular farm 
 depends, in large measure upon the peculiarities of the farm and upon 
 the ability of the manager in handling and marketing hogs. Each year 
 some of the cooperators in each area produced hogs at a profit in 
 spite of conditions which proved unfavorable to others. For in- 
 stance, among ten farms in Champaign and Piatt counties the cost of 
 production ranged from $7.76 a hundredweight to $13.72, as an aver- 
 age over a four-year period. 
 
 In fitting the enterprise into the general farm scheme a manager 
 needs to consider the physical character of the farm, the grain and 
 concentrate feeds required to be bought or raised, the advantage of 
 combining hog production with other livestock production, labor re- 
 quirements thruout the year, the size of the enterprise, the extent to 
 which crops may be fed off, how the enterprise fits into the scheme of 
 soil maintenance, the time of year when the hogs can be marketed, and 
 differences in the abilities of men in raising hogs. 
 
 The hog enterprise, because of its flexibility both as regards the 
 numbers which may be produced within a short time and the weights 
 to which hogs may profitably be fed, offers to corn-belt farmers one of 
 the best means of adjusting production to take advantage of changes 
 in the relative prices of farm products, especially corn and hogs. 
 
THE PLACE OF HOG PRODUCTION 
 IN CORN-BELT FARMING 
 
 By H. C. M. CASE, Associate Chief in Farm Organization 
 and Management, and ROBERT C. Ross, Associate 
 
 Hog production is the leading livestock enterprise thruout central 
 Illinois. Several reasons combine to give it an important place in 
 corn-belt farming. In the first place it is profitable over a period of 
 years; again, it fits into the plan of operating many farms, especially 
 in helping to market a large part of the corn crop; and finally, it 
 affords one of the best means by which the corn-belt farmer can ad- 
 just his farm production to meet changing market conditions. 
 
 Cost-of-production studies which have been conducted in different 
 parts of Illinois since 1913 by the University of Illinois show that after 
 deducting all costs the production of hogs has generally resulted in a 
 profit. Some farms have made much larger profits than others, but on 
 the average hog production on the farms studied has proved directly 
 profitable. Direct profits alone are sufficient to explain the important 
 place which hogs hold in the organization of corn-belt farms. 
 
 In addition to being a "direct profit" enterprise, hog production, 
 as suggested above, fills an important place in corn-belt farming by 
 reason of the fact that it offers a way of marketing much of the corn 
 crop. With most crops there is the alternative of selling them directly 
 or in the form of livestock and livestock products. Approximately 85 
 percent of the total corn crop, which is the most important Illinois 
 crop, is fed mainly on the farms where produced or in the immediate 
 locality, and of this amount about half is fed to hogs. 
 
 The third point mentioned above, the value of the hog enterprise 
 as a means of adjusting the sale of farm products to market demand, 
 is realized when one notes the great fluctuations in the relation be- 
 tween corn and hog prices that occur from one season to another. Over 
 a period of years the average price of 100 pounds of hogs has been 
 equivalent to the average price of 11 to 12 bushels of corn. During 
 the period covered by this study, however, the ratio of the price of 
 hogs to the price of corn has varied from the equivalent of 7 bushels 
 of corn to 17 bushels. Since hogs can be increased rapidly in numbers 
 and can be marketed at a considerable range in weight, they offer one 
 of the best means of adjusting farm production from season to season 
 to an abundant or short corn crop. 
 
 NOTE. The material presented in this bulletin is based upon investigations 
 initiated by the Department of Animal Husbandry in 1912 and upon subsequent 
 studies by the Department of Farm Organization and Management after that 
 department was organized in 1917. Valuable assistance and constructive criticism 
 was given in the preparation of Part III by Dr. W. E. Carroll, Chief in Swine 
 Production. 
 
 147 
 
148 BULLETIN No. 301 [December, 
 
 The extent to which a particular farmer will produce hogs over a 
 period of time should be decided, however, not merely on the basis of 
 these three factors but by consideration also of the many factors 
 making for good farm practice. 
 
 PART I COST OF PRODUCING HOGS 
 
 The cost studies on which Parts I and II of this publication are 
 based were made in Hancock and Franklin counties during the ten 
 years 1913 to 1922 and in Champaign and Piatt counties in the years 
 1920 to 1925. 1 Costs are recorded on the production of 2,257,675 pounds 
 of pork in Hancock county, 299,669 pounds in Franklin county, and 
 831,282 pounds in Champaign and Piatt counties, a total of more than 
 3,000,000 pounds. 
 
 Hancock county is in west-central Illinois bordering on the Mis- 
 sissippi river and is in the principal beef-cattle and hog-producing sec- 
 tion of the state. Franklin county is in the central part of the south- 
 ern one-fifth of the state, and is in an area of mixed types of farming 
 where pork production is of minor importance. Champaign and Piatt 
 counties are in the east-central part of Illinois in the region known as 
 the grain farming area of the state. Here the corn sales exceed the 
 value of hog sales by a wide margin. 
 
 Despite the abnormal price conditions which occurred during the 
 period of these studies and the high costs in relation to sales price dur- 
 ing the more recent years, hog production proved to be a profitable 
 enterprise on typical Illinois farms. This was true in areas where it is 
 of minor importance as well as where it is one of the major farm en- 
 terprises. However, there were wide variations in cost between differ- 
 ent areas and between different periods, and between different farms 
 
 'In gathering the facts on which this publication is based, eight to twelve 
 farmers operating typical Hancock county farms cooperated with the University 
 each year, keeping detailed records of the cost of all farm products and the profit 
 or loss realized from each productive enterprise. 
 
 A like number of records were secured in Franklin county with the excep- 
 tion of the last year of the period, when the number of farms decreased to three. 
 In Champaign and Piatt counties an average of about 14 records was secured for 
 each of the six years. 
 
 The object of these studies has been to determine the conditions which 
 make for more profitable systems of farming in different parts of the state. The 
 data secured are valuable for this purpose because they extend over a number 
 of years and so fluctuations due to seasonal conditions and changes in price 
 levels are rounded off and results given which represent average conditions. Also, 
 since these studies include a record of all parts of the farm business, it is possible 
 to show more accurately the relation of any single enterprise, such as hog pro- 
 duction, to the rest of the farm business, as well as to show how the enterprise 
 may be conducted more economically. Such an analysis should help farmers to 
 arrange their business to meet changing economic conditions. 
 
1927] 
 
 THE PLACE OF HOG PRODUCTION IN CORN-BELT FARMING 
 
 149 
 
 in the same area in the same year, as pointed out in the following 
 paragraphs. 
 
 Costs Vary in Different Areas 
 
 In Hancock county pork production on the farms studied gave 
 for the ten-year period an average direct profit of $1.97 a hundred- 
 weight. For the same period in Franklin county, where pork produc- 
 tion is a minor enterprise, a profit of $1.44 was realized. In Cham- 
 paign and Piatt counties the farmers lost an average of 58 cents a 
 hundredweight during the six-year period 1920-1925. In this area 
 only the first three years of data coincide with those from the other 
 areas. 
 
 Champaign- 
 
 Piatr 
 Counties 
 
 Franklin 
 County 
 
 FIG. 1. DISTRIBUTION OF HOGS IN ILLINOIS AND 
 
 AREAS STUDIED 
 
 The above map is based on average numbers during 
 1920-1924. Each dot represents 5,000 hogs. 
 
 Thruout the ten-year period the average price received by the 
 Hancock county producers exceeded the average cost of production 
 (Table 1 and Fig. 2). In Franklin county this was true during six of 
 the ten years, and on the whole the margins of profit in years when 
 there was a profit exceeded the margins of loss in other years. These 
 results in Franklin county are good considering that swine production 
 is of minor importance and that the number of hogs was not large 
 
150 
 
 BULLETIN No. 301 
 
 [December, 
 
 enough to make possible as economical production as on farms where 
 the enterprise was larger. 
 
 In Champaign and Piatt counties in 1920, 1921, 1922, and 1925 
 the hogs sold at a profit. During 1923 and 1924, however, they failed 
 to sell for the cost of production. This was due to the fact that during 
 
 $16 
 15 
 12 
 9 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 J<? 
 - Co. 
 
 Iliny f. 
 tf- pet 
 
 vice f 
 cnrf. 
 
 cr cw\ 
 
 / 
 
 ^--~~ 
 
 "--, 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 /, 
 
 
 s 
 
 s 
 s 
 
 % 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 // 
 
 
 
 
 \ N. 
 
 s \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 ^^- 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ., 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1913 19/4 1915 1916 19/7 19/6 1919 I92O /92I 1922 /913 1924 1925 
 Hancock Counfy 
 
 15 
 IZ 
 9 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 Je 
 -Co 
 
 //ing 
 st pe 
 
 price 
 r cwf. 
 
 oer cm 
 
 t. 
 
 \^*^ 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 ,'' 
 
 \ 
 
 s 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / ,'' 
 
 ,' 
 
 
 
 ^ \ 
 
 ^>^^ N 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -___ 
 
 ~~^~~ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1913 1914 1915 19/6 
 
 /9I7 1916 19/9 I92O 
 Frank/ in County 
 
 1921 1922 1923 1924 
 
 10 
 
 15 
 12 
 9 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 
 Se 
 - Co. 
 
 II ing t 
 it pei 
 
 jrke / 
 cwt 
 
 ter cwt 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X \^ 
 
 ^- ' 
 
 S^ 
 
 s 
 
 ^~/~ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^.^ 
 
 >>< 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 **^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 /9I3 1914 1915 1916 19/7 1918 19/9 I92O 1911 /922 1923 1924 1925 
 Champaign and Piatt Counties 
 
 FIG. 2. AVERAGE COST AND SELLING PRICE OF HOGS ON FARMS 
 IN THE THREE AREAS STUDIED 
 
 In Hancock county the price received for hogs exceeded the 
 average cost of production in each of the ten years. In other words, 
 hogs returned a profit to the producers. In Franklin county this was 
 true for six out of ten years, and in Champaign and Piatt counties 
 for four out of six years. 
 
 the greater part of this two-year period the farm price of hogs was 
 equal to only about 8 bushels of corn. In 1924, owing to a short 
 national crop, corn went above $1.00 a bushel. This high price for 
 corn coupled with a large supply of hogs caused an abnormal spread 
 between the price of hogs and the cost of producing them. On the 
 
1927} 
 
 THE PLACE OF HOG PRODUCTION IN CORN-BELT FARMING 
 
 151 
 
 cooperating farms hogs sold for an average of only $7.49 a hundred- 
 weight, while they were produced that year at an average cost of 
 $11.36 (Table 1). 
 
 TABLE 1. AVERAGE COST OF PRODUCING 100 POUNDS OF HOGS ON COOPERATING 
 
 FARMS IN HANCOCK AND FRANKLIN COUNTIES. ILLINOIS, FROM 1913 
 
 TO 1922, IN CHAMPAIGN AND PIATT COUNTIES FROM 
 
 1920 TO 1925; AND PRICE AT WHICH SOLD 
 
 
 Hancock county 
 
 Franklin county 
 
 Champaign and Piatt 
 counties 
 
 Cost of 
 production 
 
 Price of 
 hogs sold 
 
 Cost of 
 production 
 
 Price of 
 hogs sold 
 
 Cost of 
 production 
 
 Price of 
 hogs sold 
 
 1913. . . 
 
 * 6.12 
 7.31 
 6.93 
 7.56 
 12.64 
 11.86 
 15.43 
 11.75 
 6.08 
 6.42 
 
 S 8.48 
 7.98 
 7.22 
 9.84 
 16.08 
 16.99 
 15.95 
 12.76 
 8.49 
 9.14 
 
 S 6.98 
 6.34 
 8.58 
 8.22 
 10.07 
 13.09 
 15.23 
 14.35 
 9.69 
 9.62 
 
 $ 7.87 
 7.88 
 6.96 
 9.60 
 14.76 
 15.92 
 15.55 
 11.08 
 8.29 
 8.68 
 
 $i2! 36 
 8.41 
 6.74 
 8.71 
 11.36 
 10.69 
 
 
 1914. 
 
 
 1915 
 
 
 1916 
 
 
 1917.. 
 
 
 1918 
 
 
 1919 
 
 
 1920 
 
 $13.25 
 8.48 
 9.10 
 7.46 
 7.49 
 11.93 
 
 1921 
 
 1922 
 
 1923 
 
 1924 
 
 
 
 
 
 1925 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Wide Variations in Profits Between Farms 
 
 Some farmers are much more successful than others in the hog 
 enterprise. During each of the ten years for which records were se- 
 cured in Hancock county, half or more of the cooperators produced 
 hogs at a profit (Fig. 3). During six of the ten years some of them 
 produced at a loss. 
 
 The fact that some men were consistently more economical pro- 
 ducers than others indicates that average results are not a good guide 
 in measuring the value of an enterprise or a practice to any particular 
 individual, but that a producer must regulate the size of his farm en- 
 terprises in accordance with his ability to handle them. The extent to 
 which men vary in their ability to produce hogs is well illustrated by 
 records from a number of individual farms as shown in Part II, 
 pages 166 to 168. 
 
 Variations in Cost During Different Periods 
 
 The cost of producing hogs shows wide variation not only between 
 farms but between different periods on the same farm. From 1913 to 
 1916 fairly stable conditions prevailed; from 1917 to 1919 the ab- 
 normal price conditions resulting from the World War greatly in- 
 creased costs; while from 1920 to 1922 agricultural prices were de- 
 pressed. 
 
152 
 
 BULLETIN No. 301 
 
 [December, 
 
 26 
 24 
 22 
 
 Cost of hoys per cwt. on individual form 
 Average cost per cwt 
 Average selling price per cnt 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 , , 
 
 
 
 
 
 '6 
 ft 
 
 .4 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 a 
 t 
 
 4 
 z 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^. 
 
 ^^_ > ^' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / j 
 
 .^.^ 
 
 / 
 
 \ 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / ' 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 -^ 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 \\ 
 
 ' 
 
 
 1 
 
 L--"l 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \j 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 \ ' ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 FIG. 3. COST OF PRODUCING 100 POUNDS OF HOGS ON THE 
 
 HANCOCK COUNTY FARMS STUDIED 
 
 The lines showing average cost of production and selling price 
 are the same as in the upper section of Fig. 2. The dots are added 
 to show how the individual farms stood with respect to cost of 
 production. It will be noted that during each of the ten years one- 
 half or more of the cooperators produced hogs at a profit, and that 
 in four years of the ten they all made a profit. 
 
 In Hancock and Franklin counties the average cost per hundred- 
 weight by periods was as follows: 
 
 Hancock Franklin 
 
 1913-1916 $7.04 $7.65 
 
 1917-1919 13.32 13.10 
 
 1920-1922 8.00 1125 
 
 Ten-year weighted average 9.57 11.15 
 
 This average cost for the entire period for Franklin county is 
 somewhat higher than that for Hancock, due mainly to the relatively 
 larger production from 1917 to 1919, when costs were high. On the 
 farms in Champaign and Piatt counties cooperating in this study hogs 
 were produced at a cost of $9.18 per hundred pounds during the six- 
 year period from 1920 to 1925. 
 
 Feed Is Largest Item of Cost 
 
 Feed made up from 72 to 89 percent of the total cost of producing 
 pork in the different years of the ten-year period in Hancock county. 
 During six of the ten years it made up 75 to 85 percent of the total 
 cost, the higher and lower extremes representing abnormal conditions. 
 For example, with the rapid advance in the price of corn resulting 
 from the World War conditions in 1917, the feed cost of 100 pounds of 
 
1927] THE PLACE OF HOG PRODUCTION IN CORN-BELT FARMING 153 
 
 gain averaged $11.13, or 88.1 percent of the total cost. In 1921 the 
 other extreme was reached when the feed cost was only $4.40, or 72.6 
 percent of the total cost. This low cost in 1921 was due to the general 
 break in prices in 1920, when all farm products were abnormally low 
 (Table 2). 
 
 For the entire period in Hancock county the costs were made up 
 as follows: feed 84.1 percent, man labor 5.9 percent, horse labor .8 
 percent, interest 2.8 percent, buildings and equipment 1.6 percent, 
 overhead 2.6 percent, and miscellaneous 2.2 percent (Table 3). 
 
 In Franklin county for the same period man labor, horse labor, 
 and overhead made up a larger proportion of the total cost (Table 5). 
 For the six-year period in Champaign and Piatt counties feed made 
 
 How THE DIFFERENT ITEMS OF COST WERE DETERMINED : 
 
 1. Cost of Feed. This was determined for each month at farm prices; that 
 is, in the case of home-grown feeds the cost charged to the hogs was the local 
 market price less the cost of hauling to market, and in the case of purchased feed 
 it was the local market price plus the cost of hauling to the farm. As a check on 
 the daily feed record kept by the farmer, the feeds on hand were carefully 
 measured each month. 
 
 2. Man Labor. The rate per hour for all hired labor was determined by 
 dividing the total labor cost for the month by the hours of labor performed by 
 hired help during the month. The labor of members of the family not paid a 
 definite wage was charged at the average monthly rate of hired labor on all the 
 cooperating farms. The amount of labor spent in caring for hogs was recorded 
 daily by the cooperator and checked by the route man on his visits to the farm. 
 
 3. Horse Labor. The cost of horse labor per hour was determined by divid- 
 ing the total cost of keeping horses for the entire year by the number of hours 
 of horse labor performed on the farm during the year. The hog enterprise was 
 then charged with the number of hours devoted to it. 
 
 4. General Farm Expense. There are always expenses incurred in the oper- 
 ation of the farm that cannot be charged directly to any one farm enterprise but 
 must be shared by all the productive enterprises. The more important items in- 
 cluded here are taxes, automobile expense incurred in operating the farm, fencing, 
 maintenance of the farmstead and water system, and such minor items as tele-' 
 phone service. The share of these expenses to be charged to each productive en- 
 terprise was determined by the proportion of man labor devoted to the enterprise. 
 This seems to be as accurate and fair a basis as any for making this division. 
 
 5. Interest. This charge includes interest on the total investment in hogs 
 charged at the rate usually paid on borrowed money. 
 
 6. Buildings and Equipment. The annual cost includes depreciation, up- 
 keep, and interest on buildings, feeders, waterers, and other miscellaneous equip- 
 ment. Where such buildings and equipment are shared with other livestock, the 
 amount to be charged to hogs is estimated as accurately as possible. 
 
 7. Miscellaneous Expenses. These include such items as veterinary fees, 
 medicines, and personal expenses of the operator in purchasing and selling hogs. 
 
 Death risk is not figured as a cost of production since all costs of producing 
 hogs that died are charged against the hogs actually produced and sold. No ex- 
 cessive losses occurred on the farms of the cooperators, and altho there was con-- 
 siderable loss on some farms, the large amount of data included in this study 
 over so long a period of time is believed to represent fairly normal conditions. 
 
154 
 
 BULLETIN No. 301 
 
 [December, 
 
 
 t 
 
 <* 00 IO 00 lO 1-1 
 
 
 
 i r; ** 
 
 in t^ -^t r~ oo * 
 
 
 t- 
 o> 
 
 ll*JI 
 
 45 
 
 i-ri^ d 
 
 Tj< IN 1-I.HX 
 
 00 
 CO O CN CN CO 00 CO 
 
 m -H n *-> IN 1-1 
 
 64 100 
 5,742 Ibs. 
 
 <N 
 
 IN 
 
 5 
 
 S^-g S 
 
 PH S S* 
 
 43 
 
 S !--> 2 fl 
 
 t- COCOCOtNOO 
 b- 
 
 00 m IN CN * 00 CO 
 
 il 
 
 us 
 1 
 
 S S 
 
 
 S fc fl.3 
 
 
 
 
 s SX s-s 
 
 
 
 
 5 ft- ga 
 
 B 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 0*^88 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 8 8 
 
 
 
 * O M CO O * * 
 
 
 
 
 mo>omi-"*co 
 
 
 CO 
 
 9 
 
 o 
 
 Pi o 9 
 
 45 
 
 " Sis fl 
 
 co -< co rH ec 1-1 co 
 os oo >n o IN -> --I 
 
 O (N I-H <N 1-1 CO 
 
 56 100 
 98,455 Ibs. 
 
 ti 
 o> 
 
 g o -g o 
 P-i S 2 o 
 
 ^KO"| a 
 
 o cocom^cN 
 -i t 
 
 ScDOJ'H'Ht-O 
 O -! <N CO CN < 
 
 2 1 
 
 00 
 
 S 
 oo (>: 
 
 S 
 
 
 3&s|l 
 
 ^ 
 
 r- 
 o 
 
 
 Q & ^ o S 
 a 
 
 ^ 
 
 o * 
 
 
 
 
 I** *3.*> 
 
 SO -> 1-1 CO D CM 00 
 
 
 
 T 
 
 (N t^ O t~ CO <N CO 
 
 
 <e 
 at 
 
 8 
 
 fefilJ 
 
 O 1-1 CO r-i N r-1 CO 
 
 00 
 
 to oo -" I-H oo 05 c 
 
 * O <N rt i-i O 00 
 
 8 J 
 
 00 
 
 co 
 co TiT 
 
 C35 t- 
 
 g 
 
 O) 
 
 S3 g'S-g o 
 
 PH S 2 
 
 *-2'S 
 
 CO INi-"INtNTji 
 00 
 
 co oo * o -H co co 
 
 t- O CN CN CO CN OJ 
 
 .75 100 
 55,980 Ibs. 
 
 
 8 "3 
 
 oft- g a 
 
 at 
 
 * 
 
 S 
 
 
 o o 3 
 O a ^oS 
 a 
 
 ai 
 
 M 
 
 ^H N 
 
 S 
 
 
 I * -!+ 
 
 1-1 C CD T)< IN OS !O 
 
 
 
 
 -H CO OS i-O CO 't 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 at 
 
 o -g o 
 
 PH S 2 
 
 M hOl? S 
 
 b 1-1 IN 1-1 Tf IN O 
 
 00 
 
 <N (32 O> O 1-1 1-1 OS 
 
 m o -! 1-1 co CM oo 
 
 SB 
 ^ S 
 
 m 
 t^ 
 t^ 
 
 CO CO 
 
 9 
 
 a 
 
 g ^ 
 PH S 2 o 
 
 m 
 
 .-. -73 ^, 
 t-o a fl 
 
 T)! r*r+r* mt , 
 00 
 
 So o> eo m -" oo 
 O CM I-H CN 3 ij< 
 
 .43 100 
 89,370 Ibs. 
 
 
 o $o S-g 
 
 O o.-Hga 
 
 a 
 
 IO 
 
 
 
 si ~ 
 
 
 o So ' 3 
 O a ^ o S 
 P. 
 
 CO 
 
 * 
 
 JO CN 
 
 8 
 
 
 1 *> "S -** 
 
 (N 00 IO CO 00 1-1 O 
 
 
 
 
 in t- co oj i" 01 
 
 
 w 
 o 
 
 sg-sls 
 
 c 3 . 
 
 ** t-m' d 
 
 t TJ< i< CM 
 00 
 
 TJI in oo Tf d 1-1 1-1 
 
 2 100 
 4,464 Ibs. 
 
 oo 
 
 a 
 
 I^J8 
 
 **" t-o'S fl 
 
 TJ< CO 1-1 00 
 00 
 
 CO C5 CO i- ' CO O ^ 
 lO O 1 1-1 1-1 1-1 ^" 
 
 8 J 
 
 "O 
 
 3 
 co "! 
 
 00 (N 
 
 
 S So fl -3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O a ^oS 
 a 
 
 ^ 
 
 x> 
 
 
 
 c3 a2 a 
 
 o, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ! 
 
 "5 
 t-l 
 
 niini 
 
 d 
 
 
 Items of cost 
 
 . . . d 
 
 :::::: 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 . . . .3 . . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 fc -3 
 
 
 
 ) 
 
 .5 -2 
 
 
 
 JS |S il 
 
 0^3 . tD-O d 
 
 i-^ts^g^ 
 2 PI l-o 
 
 jUUBfiU 
 
 Total c 
 Total pork pr< 
 
 
 
 : : :1 :! 
 
 uS :- :S 
 
 |3lll 
 
 g^j3"o 
 
 SSfesSS-g 
 
 <3 o * 3 >" 0) 
 
 Sp3o2fe 
 
 Total C 
 Total pork prc 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 a 
 
 p 
 
 o 
 O 
 
 M 
 
 o 
 o 
 p 
 
 3 
 
 !8 
 
 5 
 
 o 
 
 S 
 
 P 
 o 
 
 PH 
 
 V 
 
 t 
 
 d 
 
 I 
 
1927] 
 
 THE PLACE OF HOG PRODUCTION IN CORN-BELT FARMING 
 
 155 
 
 TABLE 3. COST OF PRODUCING 100 POUNDS OF HOGS IN HANCOCK 
 COUNTY: BY PERIODS, 1913-1922 
 
 
 1913-1916 
 
 1917-1919 
 
 1920-1922 
 
 1913-1922 
 
 Items of cost 
 
 Cost Per- 
 per cent 
 100 of 
 pounds total 
 gain cost 
 
 Cost Per- 
 per cent 
 100 of 
 pounds total 
 gain cost 
 
 Cost Per- 
 per cent 
 100 of 
 pounds total 
 gain cost 
 
 Cost Per- 
 per cent 
 100 of 
 pounds total 
 gain cost 
 
 Man labor 
 
 $ .48 6.8 
 
 S .58 4.4 
 
 $ .62 7.7 
 
 $ .56 5.9 
 
 Horse labor 
 
 .08 1.1 
 
 .09 .7 
 
 .06 .8 
 
 .08 .8 
 
 Interest 
 
 .23 3.3 
 
 .35 2.6 
 
 .21 2.6 
 
 .27 2.8 
 
 Buildings and equipment 
 Overhead 
 
 .09 1.3 
 .25 3.5 
 
 .13 1.0 
 .21 1.6 
 
 .21 2.7 
 .29 3.6 
 
 .15 1.6 
 .25 2.6 
 
 Miscellaneous 
 
 .11 1.5 
 
 .26 2.0 
 
 .24 3.0 
 
 .21 2.2 
 
 Feed 
 
 5.82 82.5 
 
 11.69 87.7 
 
 6.37 79.6 
 
 8.06 84.1 
 
 Total cost 
 
 $7.06 100. 
 
 $13.31 100. 
 
 $8.00 100. 
 
 $9.58 100. 
 
 Total pork produced. . . . 
 
 673,075 Ibs. 
 
 787,267 Ibs. 
 
 797,333 Ibs. 
 
 2,257,675 Ibs. 
 
 up only 76.2 percent of the total cost (Table 6). This is accounted 
 for by the lower price of feeds during most of the period. 
 
 Since there was so much variation during the ten-year period in 
 the cost of producing pork from $6.12 a hundredweight in 1913 to 
 $15.43 in 1918 in Hancock county, and a like variation in Franklin 
 county it is noteworthy that the proportion of total cost made up by 
 feed did not vary more widely (Tables 2 and 4) . 
 
 The gradual rise in the cost of man labor during the war period 
 and the continued high level during 1919, 1920, and 1921 is reflected 
 in these data. During these three years man labor cost 64, 73, and 64 
 cents respectively in producing 100 pounds of pork, while it averaged 
 only 48 cents during the first four years of the study. 
 
 Horse-labor costs and interest charges were high from 1917 to 
 1919. Horse-labor costs are made up in large part of the cost of feed; 
 hence the highest costs occurred at those periods when feeds were 
 highest. The interest cost is of course directly proportional to the 
 price of hogs. 
 
 Building and equipment costs rose gradually during the ten-year 
 period, reaching their highest point in 1922. This is explained by the 
 continued high prices of building materials, and the fact that farmers 
 made few repairs during the war period and so tended to increase their 
 expenditures in the following years. 
 
 The above data indicate how changes in general price conditions 
 affect the cost of producing hogs. Since, however, feed makes up such 
 a large proportion of the total cost, any change in prices at that point 
 is much more quickly reflected in the cost than are changes in other 
 items. 
 
156 
 
 BULLETIN No. 301 
 
 [December, 
 
 
 
 00 O> CO t- N O 00 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 -H o oo 10 oo o a> 
 
 
 t- 
 
 2 
 
 IS" 8 ! 5 
 
 1C CN CO CO 
 00 
 
 SO) CO I s - CO * CO 
 OCNOCOOt- 
 
 .07 100 
 6,379 Ibs. 
 
 H 
 
 CN 
 
 
 
 ,s S"! 
 
 PH o &9 
 
 M " <WN J; 
 
 CD 00 1*- CO t* O >"H 
 i-H O CN O CO CN 10 
 
 | 
 
 00 
 
 8 - 
 
 
 3s|a 
 
 . 
 
 ^r 
 
 
 ft 
 
 
 S^ 
 
 
 a* 
 
 l* O ^* Oi C$ 00 ^ 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 <-" 1-1 oo as a> CN o 
 
 
 CO 
 
 H 
 O 
 
 p,88 
 
 0-HIN CO 
 
 I-H 00 
 
 t~ * O 00 CD t- O 
 
 00 ICNOCNOCO 
 
 22 100 
 32,355 Ibs. 
 
 CN 
 
 a> 
 
 . 
 
 COCNrH TCCNU5 
 
 t O !> S> t~ CN t- 
 
 CN IN .-i O <> <N IN 
 
 2 J 
 
 oo" 
 
 
 a 
 
 CO 
 
 00 
 
 
 6 a -|a 
 
 *" 
 
 S 
 
 
 i, *" "3 
 
 T / ~. r _ ' 
 
 
 
 
 COOOOOOCOOiO 
 
 
 OS 
 
 
 OOCNi-H M 1 iH 
 00 
 
 CN * t*. 00 * iO 00 
 
 l^- CN -H O CO O C3 
 
 58 100 
 17,355 Ibs. 
 
 1 
 
 u o'o'n o 
 PH S 2 
 
 1O -H 1O Tjl rH CO CD 
 
 C> I-H <N --H CO O CN 
 
 S 
 
 10 is 
 
 
 a 
 
 CO 
 
 8 
 
 
 a 
 
 - 
 
 2 
 
 
 i*" "3*" 
 
 1*- ^ 00 CO CN t* O> 
 
 
 
 
 ^t--HCO50t- 
 
 
 at 
 
 
 IO CO CN -! TJ< CN O5 
 CD CN 00 C5 t^- 1^- O 
 
 o ^ 
 
 10 
 00 
 
 iS 
 
 m CO 
 
 2 
 
 g'o-g o 
 
 PH o 5 
 
 >O CN CO ^ 
 00 
 
 t~ ^H CN 10 CO IN CO 
 
 00 1-1 CO O "O O CO 
 
 . 
 
 - 
 
 W 
 
 CO *O 
 
 
 
 
 . IN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ft 
 
 1C 
 
 CO 
 
 
 a 
 
 - 
 
 s 
 
 
 i *> "^ * 
 
 * CO 00 -> O O -" 
 
 
 
 
 ^ t*- O} *O ^* iO CD 
 
 
 CO 
 
 g'S-g o 
 
 PH S 3 
 M "' B 
 
 00 
 t^OOOOOCN -CO 
 
 98 100 
 9,777 Ibs. 
 
 00 
 
 2 
 
 PH 5 
 
 CO CN COi-H-* 
 00 
 
 00 <-< CO O * IN O 
 
 .09 100 
 7,665 Ibs. 
 
 
 a 
 
 "5 
 
 S 
 
 
 ft 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Items of co 
 
 . . . a . . . 
 
 Li 
 
 d 
 
 
 O 
 
 "o 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 :::-::: 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 : : : & : : : 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 *i 3 
 
 
 
 : : : o- : : : 
 
 - 1 
 
 
 
 ,2 i M 03_C3 
 
 g "g 
 
 1- 
 O (- 
 
 1 
 
 O 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 J| :j| 
 
 iililii 
 
 Total co 
 Total pork pro< 
 
 S 
 
 C2 
 *^ 
 
 e& 
 
 ^H 
 
 O 
 
 sS 
 
 h 
 
 a 
 
 D 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 g 
 3 
 a 
 
 o 
 o 
 S 
 
 p 
 
 S 
 
 o 
 
 g 
 
 I 
 
 a 
 
 i 
 
 =H 
 
 D 
 
 f 
 
 a 
 3 
 
 a 
 
 H 
 
1927] 
 
 THE PLACE OF HOG PRODUCTION IN CORN-BELT FARMING 
 
 157 
 
 
 
 
 10 <N * ID (^ 00 00 
 
 
 i 
 
 CO 
 
 2 
 
 PH u 2 
 
 "^ e * W 00 8 ai 
 
 ^ 
 
 tO_ 
 
 (N 
 
 
 O, 
 
 05 
 
 CO 
 
 i i 
 
 
 
 COOWW-*IN 
 
 'ERIODS, 1< 
 
 1920-1922 
 
 f 
 
 o> 
 to fc'O'a fl 
 
 ,, a8 ,, g ] | 
 
 I-M 
 IH 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 -H 00 ri 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 01->0"5THCO 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 fc 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 o> 
 
 2 
 
 *!*!! 
 
 to N co to o 
 00 O m 
 
 to 
 
 U5 
 00 O Cl tO ^ 00 O5 t^ ^ 
 t*- t CO O MI O * ' O^ tO 
 
 g 
 
 
 3ap 
 
 1-1 IN 
 
 03 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 OT|i>OOi-iOO 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 00 
 
 P 
 
 to 
 
 o> 
 
 co 
 
 2 
 
 .pi's gi 
 
 P-i u 3 
 
 "m fcl O rt ^ 
 
 00 IN i-l * ^H i-( o 
 
 00 O 
 
 ^ 5 
 IN 
 t- 
 
 O 
 
 1-1 OS O> 00 1-1 00 O> "3 g 
 
 O 
 PH 
 
 8 
 
 
 a 
 
 * * u 
 
 OF PRODUCING 1 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 Items of cost 
 
 iiiiiii , 
 
 
 
 
 iHlniij 
 
 
 
 
 ji ;|;| al 
 
 ^J" J S^ fn O 
 C fe2 j; 073 ^ 
 
158 
 
 BULLETIN No. 301 
 
 [December, 
 
 1 
 
 s 
 O 
 
 
 
 2 
 fi 
 
 3 
 
 I 
 
 
 , -^ 
 
 CO O O CO 00 i-l C4 
 
 
 1920-1925 
 
 o,828 
 
 t>. 
 
 1 
 
 CN 
 
 CO 
 CN 
 
 00 !-<" 
 
 1 2 
 
 
 c3a-|S 
 
 * " 
 
 i 1 
 
 
 
 -.''--- r 
 
 
 IP 
 
 CM 
 
 2 
 
 g^-g o 
 
 ; o 
 
 CO CN-^.-CO 
 
 IO CO < O CO CO CO 
 CO O CM CN ^" 1-1 OS 
 
 00 
 
 
 8 8 '3 
 S-|S 
 
 CO 
 
 o i 
 
 
 -^ 
 
 Tf O O t- OS 00 CO 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 CO (N OS i-H t>. O 
 OS 1-1 CN CO CO CO t- 
 
 1 
 
 CD . 
 CO (N 
 
 
 !&|1 
 
 00 
 
 '/.- 
 
 
 1 *> ~ *S 
 
 N ^^, in ^^, <0 
 
 
 w 
 
 CN 
 
 OS 
 
 fSol-a 
 
 00 1-1 IN CS * N 10 
 
 2 1 
 
 i 
 
 CO 
 
 
 uS.2gg> 
 a 
 
 
 
 8 " 
 
 
 i a 
 
 OS CO IN O 00 CO <N 
 
 
 CN 
 
 OS 
 
 H 
 
 OS OO O CO * ' O 
 O CN (N * CO 00 
 
 74 100 
 34,854 Ibs. 
 
 
 <3e-|S 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 1 3 
 
 a -! co ^f >o oo >}< 
 
 
 OS 
 
 . o "o -g o 
 
 -3 o 
 
 g g C.9 
 
 1-1 CN CO T" O CO 
 
 1-1 I-H CD 
 
 l^" 00 00 I s * 00 1* CO 
 OS -< CN CO 00 "5 1-1 
 
 2 
 "5 
 OS 
 
 ^ s 
 
 
 o^|S 
 
 1O 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 TJ< 00 CO CN CN 1/5 CO 
 
 
 1 
 
 OS 
 
 Pu 2 
 
 1-1 -H CO *J< CO l-H IO 
 
 2| 
 
 >o 
 
 g 
 
 10 
 
 
 jal|a 
 
 ^ OS 
 
 CN ro 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 jiiji :j 
 
 d 
 
 
 "o 
 
 : : .-g . : : 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 s -3 
 
 
 M 
 
 . . .-o . aa 
 
 . . . .7 
 
 sl ;S : 
 
 O ,O . CD "O fl 
 
 sllllll 
 
 Total c 
 Total pork pr< 
 
1927] THE PLACE OF Hoc PRODUCTION IN CORN-BELT FARMING 159 
 
 PART II FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN FITTING THE HOG 
 ENTERPRISE TO THE INDIVIDUAL FARM 
 
 The planning of a successful system of farming requires the fitting 
 together of a number of different enterprises in a way which will insure 
 economical production from the entire* farm. It is largely an indi- 
 vidual matter, for it must take into account the peculiarities of the 
 farm and of the manager himself. Careful attention must be given to 
 the best utilization of the land and the crops produced, the available 
 labor and equipment, the outlay required, the efficiency of operation, 
 and the relation of each part to the entire farm unit. 
 
 The place which hog production may be made to fill on any given 
 farm may be said to depend upon the following factors: 
 
 (1) The physical character of the farm, (2) the grain and con- 
 centrate feeds required to be bought or raised, (3) the advantage of 
 combining hog production with other livestock production, (4) labor 
 requirements thruout the year, (5) the size of the enterprise, (6) the 
 extent to which crops may be fed off, (7) how the enterprise fits into 
 the scheme of soil maintenance, (8) the time of year when the hogs 
 can be marketed, and (9) the manager's own ability in raising hogs. 
 
 How the changing relation between the price of corn and the price 
 of hogs may affect the practices of handling hogs and the sale of hogs 
 and corn on the same farm from year to year is discussed later (in 
 Part III). In this section the discussion will be confined to the points 
 mentioned in the above paragraph. 
 
 Physical Character of the Farm 
 
 Farms in the same community vary greatly in their natural fertil- 
 ity and in the proportion of the land which is tillable. The need of 
 maintaining or of improving the fertility of the land may call for the 
 growing of certain crops, especially legumes. Again, some of the land 
 may be untillable and suited only for permanent pasture. Either of 
 these conditions will provide a large proportion of rough feeds. In 
 planning a system of farming, unless one expects to purchase feed, the 
 crops raised will largely determine the kinds of livestock to be kept. 
 
 Hogs Require Large Amounts of Grain and Concentrates 
 
 As we have already seen, feed normally makes up about 80 per- 
 cent of the total cost of producing pork where hogs are produced in 
 large numbers. Altho forage crops have been used in increasing 
 amounts in recent years, they make up but a small part of the total 
 feed cost, for hogs consume large amounts of grain and other concen- 
 trated feeds compared with the amount of forage they utilize. In these 
 studies over 460 pounds of feeds exclusive of pasture were required 
 for each 100 pounds gain in weight. The amount of pasture and other 
 
160 
 
 BULLETIN No. 301 
 
 [December, 
 
 roughage used would be equivalent to not more than 150 pounds on 
 the dry-roughage basis, or to about one-fourth of the total weight of 
 feed. Moreover, the roughage used by hogs must be mainly of the 
 succulent and more valuable kinds. 
 
 The economic place of the swine enterprise in the farming system 
 often depends, therefore, on whether the surplus roughage feeds can 
 be economically sold or turned back to the soil. Since good cropping 
 systems in the corn belt produce from one to two times as much 
 roughage (including hay, straw, and corn stover) as grain by weight, 
 the economical utilization of legume crops and the by-products of 
 grain production are of vital importance to the profitable operation of 
 most farms. In the utilization of such roughages hogs cannot be con- 
 sidered to have an important place except as they fit in with the 
 production of other livestock. It may well be observed, however, that 
 in so far as hogs can utilize forage crops they can make the best use of 
 legumes. They therefore provide a direct income from the legumes 
 which are needed in a good system of soil improvement. 
 
 In the areas represented by these studies quite a difference exists 
 in the amounts and kinds of feeds used in growing hogs (Table 7). 
 
 TABLE 7. KINDS AND AMOUNTS OF FEED CONSUMED BY HOGS FOR 100 
 
 POUNDS GAIN: HANCOCK AND FRANKLIN COUNTIES, 
 
 1913-1922; CHAMPAIGN AND PIATT COUNTIES, 
 
 1920-1925 
 
 Kind of feed 
 
 Hancock county 
 10-year average 
 
 Franklin county 
 10-year average 
 
 Champaign and Piatt 
 counties 
 6-year average 
 
 Corn. . . . ... 
 
 Ibs. 
 424 .1 (7.57 bu.) 
 
 Ibs. 
 372 .9 (6 67 bu ) 
 
 Ibs. 
 437.6 (7 81 bu) 
 
 Other grain 
 
 34.7 
 
 12.9 
 
 29.9 
 
 Mill feed 
 
 4.1 
 
 59.7 
 
 3.9 
 
 Protein supplements 
 
 18.4 
 
 14.2 
 
 31.8 
 
 Total concentrates 
 
 481.3 
 
 459.7 
 
 503.2 
 
 Roughage 
 
 3.5 
 
 4.8 
 
 6.4 
 
 Total feed (except pasture) . 
 Value of pasture 
 
 484.8 
 $ .32 
 
 464.5 
 $ .24 
 
 509.6 
 $ .73 
 
 Pasture days 1 
 
 3.88 
 
 6.10 
 
 7.68 
 
 Total pork produced 
 
 2,257,675 Ibs. 
 
 299,669 Ibs. 
 
 831,282 Ibs. 
 
 
 
 
 
 'The term pasture day, as used here, indicates the amount of pasture which a mature cow or 
 horse would consume in a day when receiving no other feed. The equivalent in hogs is equal to 1,800 to 
 3,000 pounds live weight, depending on the age of the hogs and the amounts of concentrates being fed. 
 
 In Hancock county corn is a major crop and hogs are fed out to good 
 average weights. In Franklin county less corn and more wheat are 
 produced, with the result that less corn and more mill feeds are fed. 
 Hogs are sold at lighter weights, and so less concentrates are used. 
 Also, the hog enterprise is small on most of the farms in Franklin 
 county and waste feeds on which no records could be secured made 
 up a larger part of the ration. In Champaign and Piatt counties the 
 hogs were not handled so efficiently as on many farms in Hancock 
 
1927] 
 
 THE PLACE OF HOG PRODUCTION IN CORN-BELT FARMING 
 
 161 
 
 county, where large numbers were produced. This in part accounts 
 for the use of more feed for 100 pounds gain in these two counties. 
 It is apparent that horse, beef, 1 dairy, or mutton production has 
 a distinct advantage over hog production in the use of pasture and 
 roughage. In those enterprises pasture and roughage make up a large 
 proportion of the feed and at some seasons roughage may be fed ex- 
 clusively. Also, the roughages used include kinds which hogs cannot 
 utilize to advantage. 
 
 Hog Production Supplements Other Livestock 
 
 On many farms hog production fits in advantageously with either 
 beef or dairy production. In beef production hogs utilize the by- 
 products of the feed lot. In dairy production, where the butterfat is 
 
 eoo 
 
 600 
 
 labor on entire farm 
 Man labor on hogs 
 
 Jon. fet>. Mar. Apr. May June July Au<j. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 
 
 FIG. 4. MAN LABOR REQUIRED FOR THE HOG ENTERPRISE ON A 320-AcRE FARM AND 
 
 TOTAL MAN LABOR USED ON THE FARM 
 
 The above graph is based on ten years of records (1913-1922) from a farm 
 raising both spring and fall pigs. Under these conditions the labor on hogs is 
 quite evenly distributed thruout the year and makes up but a small part of the 
 total farm labor. 
 
 sold, the by-product, skim milk, can be used to take the place of 
 more expensive nitrogenous feeds. 
 
 Labor on Hogs Evenly Distributed Over the Year 
 
 Except for the farrowing period, which may come during periods 
 of slack labor demands, the labor on hogs is quite evenly distributed 
 thruout the year. This is especially true where both spring and 
 
 'See Bulletin 261 of this Station, "Cattle Feeding in Relation to Farm Man- 
 agement," pages 231 to 237. 
 
162 
 
 BULLETIN No. 301 
 
 [December, 
 
 fall pigs are produced. The labor distribution on one of the farms in 
 this study which regularly produced both spring and fall pigs thruout 
 the year is typical of farms operating on this basis (Fig. 4). 
 
 In contrast, the labor used in crop production or in feeding cattle 
 and sheep is concentrated at certain periods of the year. Cattle and 
 sheep fed in winter may be said to market labor to better advantage 
 than hogs because there is not much use for the available labor at 
 that time. The labor required for hog production may be reduced 
 somewhat during the summer if the hogs are allowed to make full use 
 of forage crops. Also, the costs can be reduced considerably thru the 
 use of self-feeders, watering systems, and by other good practices. 
 
 Large Numbers Reduce Cost 
 
 Farms producing large numbers of hogs have an advantage over 
 those whose swine enterprise is small. This applies especially to the 
 amount of labor required and the annual charge for use of equipment. 
 
 TABLE 8. How SOME OF THE COSTS OF PORK PRODUCTION ARE AFFECTED 
 BY SIZE OF ENTERPRISE: HANCOCK COUNTY, 1913-1922 
 
 Amount of pork 
 produced annually 
 
 Number 
 of 
 records 
 
 Costs for 100 pounds of pork produced 
 
 Man 
 hours 
 
 Horse 
 hours 
 
 Buildings 
 and 
 equipment 
 
 Miscel- 
 laneous 
 
 Under 15,000 pounds 
 
 13 
 29 
 20 
 20 
 
 3.91 
 2.50 
 
 2.57 
 2.03 
 
 .659 
 .614 
 .501 
 .454 
 
 $.257 
 .159 
 .136 
 .135 
 
 $.244 
 .209 
 .248 
 .180 
 
 15,000 to 25,000 pounds 
 
 25,000 to 35,000 pounds 
 
 Over 35,000 pounds 
 
 
 In Hancock county it was found that on farms producing less 
 than 15,000 pounds of pork approximately 4 hours of man labor and 
 % hour of horse labor were required for 100 pounds of pork, while on 
 farms producing over 35,000 pounds, 2 hours of man labor and % hour 
 of horse labor were used. 
 
 Likewise, building and equipment expenses bear a close relation 
 to the amount of pork produced. They are comparatively low since 
 hogs do not require expensive equipment. On some farms, however, 
 unwise expenditures materially increase the charge for this item. 
 Large producers had an expense of only 14 cents for equipment and 
 18 cents for miscellaneous expense, while on the farms with the smaller 
 production these items amounted to 26 cents and 24 cents (Table 8). 
 Advantages with respect to equipment costs, in larger production, are 
 readily recognized. Water systems, self-feeders, and hog waterers, for 
 example, may care for a large number of hogs as satisfactorily as for 
 smaller numbers. A large-sized enterprise frequently may justify the 
 use of more expensive equipment than may be economical where pro- 
 duction is small (Tables 2, 3, 4, 5; 6). 
 
1927] THE PLACE OF HOG PRODUCTION IN CORN-BELT FARMING 163 
 
 The interest charge on hogs does not change with the number of 
 hogs produced, but it may be noted that it is relatively light, amount- 
 ing usually to less than 3 percent of the total cost. Since hogs increase 
 rapidly and mature at an early age, the necessary investment in breed- 
 ing stock is low compared with the value of young animals produced. 
 
 While it might seem that with large herds there is more danger 
 of the premises becoming infected with disease, and greater losses in 
 case of infection, on the other hand, a large producer is apt to give 
 more attention to sanitation and disease control. There is no evidence 
 from the studies made that the percentage of loss is any higher on 
 farms having a large enterprise. 
 
 Hogs Reduce Expense of Harvesting Crops 
 
 When crops raised on the farm, including grains and legumes, are 
 fed off rather than harvested, swine production takes a more impor- 
 tant place in the economical operation of the farm than it otherwise 
 would. 
 
 The present cost of harvesting corn is about 10 cents a bushel, 
 according to recent studies. When hogs are used to harvest the crops, 
 the amount of expensive farm labor is reduced at the growing and 
 harvesting seasons, which are the busiest of the year. Not only are 
 the crops harvested with less labor, but less time is needed for the 
 daily hog chores. 
 
 While feeding-off crops often involves additional labor and ma- 
 terial to fence fields to hold hogs, the annual cost for these items is 
 much less than the cost of harvesting the crop. Moreover, fencing can 
 be done during off seasons and on days when it is too wet to harvest 
 crops or to do other field work. Altho this practice may not give the 
 most efficient use of feed, there is a gain from the saving of labor and 
 the return of fertility to the land. 
 
 Hogs Rightly Handled Help Maintain Soil 
 
 Many farmers who are practicing improved methods of hog sani- 
 tation and are using movable houses which are taken from field to 
 field on succeeding years are using .hogs successfully in helping to 
 maintain or to build up the soil. When crops are completely fed off 
 with hogs confined in the field growing the flfcp, a minimum of plant 
 food is lost and the problem of maintaining the soil for the following 
 year is largely solved. 
 
 In these studies no credit was given hogs for soil improvement 
 because the practices employed in handling them are not standardized 
 and most farmers are not yet making the best use of them as a means 
 of improving the soil. While it is difficult to place a value on manure 
 for crop production, field experiments conducted by the Agronomy 
 Department of the University of Illinois indicate that $1.50 a ton is 
 
164 BULLETIN No. 301 [December, 
 
 a conservative estimate when the manure is applied to the brown silt 
 loam soil found" thruout central Illinois. The feeding-off of a 50- 
 bushel corn crop, together with the feeding of 8 to 10 percent of 
 protein concentrates, may be considered the equivalent of returning 
 3 tons of manure to the land. 1 A credit of $4.50 an acre under these 
 circumstances might therefore be given to the hog enterprise. 
 
 Where a considerable part of the feeding is done in dry lots and 
 little of the manure is returned to the tilled land, it is difficult to de- 
 termine a fair credit. Also, the value of the manure recovered is off- 
 set in part by the cost of hauling it to the field. However, the indi- 
 vidual hog producer may well consider the advantage of hog produc- 
 tion in helping to maintain the productivity of his land and credit his 
 hog enterprise to the extent that it contributes to that end. 
 
 Possibilities of Finishing Hogs for Better Seasonal Markets 
 
 Hogs sell better at certain times of the year than at others, owing 
 largely to the uneven supply going to market. Spring pigs usually 
 command a higher price in August, September, and October than in 
 November, December, and January. Fall pigs similarly are usually 
 marketed at a better price in March, April, and May. One may well 
 consider, therefore, directing his hog production so as to bring the 
 hogs to normal market weight at a time when the better prices are to 
 be expected. The possibility of feeding to heavier or lighter weights, 
 in response to temporary market conditions, which is another matter, 
 is discussed at length in Part III, pages 169 to 178. 
 
 Over the twenty-five-year period from 1901 to 1925 the highest 
 seasonal price of hogs occurred on the average during the fall months 
 and again during the spring, with the highest monthly price in Sep- 
 tember (Fig. 5). During the five years from 1921 to 1925 prices were 
 highest in March and April and again in August, September, and Oc- 
 tober. However, the price in September and October has been some- 
 what lower than in August. The average price in March is apt to be 
 relatively much higher than at any other time of year, tho occasionally 
 when bad roads delay winter marketing until that time, prices tend 
 to stay low. 
 
 While both curves in Fig. 5 show the price of hogs to have been 
 higher in spring and again in fall than at other times of the year, the 
 difference in the trend of prices shown in the two curves calls for 
 further explanation and the question may be raised whether the curve 
 for the later period (1921-1925) may not be a better basis for judging 
 the seasonal variation that farmers are now likely to encounter than 
 the curve representing the past twenty-five years. 
 
 The reason for the differences in the two curves probably is found 
 in the change which has taken place in the methods of raising hogs 
 
 'Based on "Feeds and Feeding" by Henry and Morrison. 
 
1927] 
 
 THE PLACE OF HOG PRODUCTION IN CORN-BELT FARMING 
 
 165 
 
 during the past twenty-five years. Under the dry-lot method of feed- 
 ing which prevailed prior to about fifteen years ago, very few hog 
 raisers succeeded in bringing their spring pigs to market weight by 
 September. Naturally considerable premium was paid for spring pigs 
 which could be put on the market at that time. Also, a larger pro- 
 portion of the hogs than at present were held until they were at least 
 a year old, and this tended to spread out the heavy marketing of 
 spring pigs from about November thru the next May or June. Gradu- 
 ally* the practice of better disease and parasite control and better 
 
 Jan. Feb. Mar Apr. May June July Auy. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec 
 
 FIG. 5. AVERAGE MONTHLY PRICE OF HOGS AT CHICAGO, 
 
 1901-1925 AND 1921-1925 
 
 The prices for the five-year period "1921-1925 are 
 probably better indicators of future monthly varia- 
 tions than are those for the twenty-five-year period. 
 
 feeding methods, together with a change in the type of hog produced, 
 has made it possible to market hogs at an earlier age. A larger pro- 
 portion of the spring pigs are therefore reaching market in August 
 and September and the bulk are marketed before March; this has 
 been reflected in the upward trend in prices from January to March 
 over the past five years. A few producers of fall pigs are able to put 
 them on the market in March, when fewer hogs are normally mar- 
 keted. The greater part of the fall pigs, however, are not marketed 
 until April, May, or June, and this tends to depress prices during the 
 latter part of this period. 
 
 The foregoing facts may then indicate that the normal seasonal 
 variation in the price of hogs is changing more definitely to that shown 
 during the past few years. While it is of course true that the prices 
 from 1921 to 1925 have been influenced by rather abnormal market 
 
166 BULLETIN No. 301 [December, 
 
 conditions, reflecting some of the consequences of the agricultural de- 
 pression, the period is long enough to justify giving consideration to 
 the price tendencies evidenced during that time. 
 
 Of equal consideration with price, in determining the time of year 
 when it will be most advantageous to market hogs, is the matter of 
 the cost of producing hogs for different seasonal markets. The oppor- 
 tunity of using forage, the possibility of feeding off grain crops (thus 
 saving the cost of harvesting and feeding) , the relative price and feed- 
 ing value of old and new corn, and the larger credit which may be 
 given hogs for the fertility returned to the soil where crops are fed off, 
 all enter into the question. Also, in planning to feed off crops, it is ad- 
 vantageous to plan late spring farrowing in order to avoid early spring 
 losses from poor weather conditions. 
 
 Spring pigs finished for sale in August, September, or October 
 must, of course, be grown rapidly, and a full grain ration is therefore 
 essential. This means that most of the gains must be made on old 
 corn and that the full use cannot be made of forage crops. With hogs 
 finishing two or three months later, more use may be made of forage 
 and the new corn crop can be- used at least in part; this tends to re- 
 duce the cost of feed at least to the extent of the cost of holding the 
 old corn in storage for a year. Also, a part of the new corn crop may 
 be fed off, and this reduces the amount of high-priced labor otherwise 
 necessary in harvesting it. 
 
 While, as already noted, the price of hogs is usually high in 
 March, April, and May, the cost of finishing fall pigs for the spring 
 market under farm conditions usually is higher than in finishing spring 
 pigs for the fall market. This is due to less use of forage crops, the 
 greater amount of labor required, and the difficulty of controlling 
 disease and parasites when the hogs are not on pasture. Also, condi- 
 tions on many farms during the winter are not conducive to the most 
 economical gains. 
 
 Unless a greater difference than the average exists between the 
 price of old and new corn, the advantage of the cheaper gains on new 
 corn may be entirely offset by lower prices. The small supply of 
 hogs sent to market during the early fall months tends to keep up 
 the prices at that season, but as more producers get into the habit 
 of marketing hogs then, the advantage will tend to disappear. Of 
 course when the hog supply is short, prices will tend to stay high; 
 consequently there are years when little or no disadvantage results 
 from marketing during the winter months. Under such conditions 
 hogs may well be held to heavier weights, as discussed in Part III. 
 
 Men Vary in Ability to Keep Costs Down 
 
 Success in hog production is dependent largely upon skilful man- 
 agement. This fact may be illustrated by the records of the ten farms 
 in Champaign and Piatt counties shown in Table 9 and Fig. 6. 
 
1927] 
 
 THE PLACE OF HOG PRODUCTION IN CORN-BELT FARMING 
 
 167 
 
 The average cost of producing pork on these ten farms ranged 
 from $7.76 to $13.72 a 100 pounds, a difference between the lowest 
 and highest cost of $5.96. None of the men were large hog producers, 
 for only 2,000 to a little over 12,000 pounds of pork was produced 
 annually per farm. The cost of feed is the item mainly responsible 
 for the wide variations among the ten farms. This cost ranged from 
 $5.91 on Farm 2 to $10.70 on Farm 10. The amount of concentrates 
 fed for 100 pounds of gain varied from 488 pounds on Farm 5 to 791 
 pounds on Farm 10. Man labor varied from 1.6 hours on Farm 1 to 
 6.7 hours on Farm 9. 
 
 $14 
 
 /3 
 
 '8 9 
 
 -m 
 
 * 
 
 ^/_ . :;:;:. ; :. : ;.-:.- 
 
 Farm No. I 
 
 IO 
 
 \Feed 
 
 \Buildings 
 Equipment 
 
 Man Labor [ "Ahorse Labor ^^ Interest 
 \ Overhead 1JII Miscellaneous 
 
 FIG. 6. VARIATIONS IN THE COST OF PRODUCING 100 POUNDS OF 
 
 PORK ON TEN FARMS IN THE SAME AREA 
 Differences in the management ability of the operators are 
 strikingly illustrated by these variations in cost on ten Champaign 
 and Piatt county farms during the four years 1922-1925. 
 
 These facts are significant because they represent the average of 
 a four-year period. The differences are then due, not to misfortune, 
 but to typical differences in management. A man occasionally has a 
 poor year, but some of these men were consistently more successful 
 than others. When some men are using 60 percent more feed and four 
 times as much labor as are other men, it is apparent that there is large 
 opportunity for improvement in methods of production. 
 
168 
 
 BULLETIN No. 301 
 
 [December, 
 
 CD CO CM O CO CO CO _ 
 
 OS O5 1-1 CO CM t CM iO . TI O> OS CO * CO 
 
 o r- o >i5 1- co co 
 
 -OCM - * 
 
 1-1 t- OS i-l CO 00 CM * Cf* 1 5 
 
 t-COOCMCOOO t- .OOr-iOOCM -* 
 
 jl-l CM 
 
 OS ^}* CO I O3 t*- Oi t*~ O COCO CO 
 
 15 CO O T)< T< CO O 00 .^t^SOOCO 5 00 CO-* 
 
 -H r~ I-H - 
 
 t- t~ U5 O> O "5 b- _ 
 
 cOUSi-llNINi-lO'-l .O><Nb-cOCMCO O t- -*i-i t~ 
 
 ?O CO 00 rH CO f* i ' t^ CO i-H 
 
 CO CO CO CO i-* 00 OO ^1 00 CM CM t 
 
 CDi-l i-l O >O 90 CO CM CO U5 U5 
 
 1-1 ~00<NCO CM 
 
 i-H i-H r-< CM CO O IN O CO CO"-* 
 
 ^1 T-* i ( CO i * CO CO CM .^OOSOCM *O ^ 00 ^j< 
 
 r-t '^'O CM CO 
 
 ee co co 
 
 00 co 1-1 CD co **< a> co cot- >n 
 
 OOi-<CM(Nh-O CO .-HCOOCDOO i-l CO COCO "5 
 
 t~ O> ;> CO >O "15 CM I-H CO 
 
 IO CO O CM 00 CO O3 O 00 t~*ej* 15 
 
 115 O 1-1 CM 1-1 U5 ri 00 . * * O CM O O O CM ij<t^ t^ 
 
 93 > ' O3 
 
 CO i ' OO'^Oi' IOCMCOOOW5^* _rt 
 
 **^iO Tl< O 115 
 
 IN CO CM CM Ti< CD CO rj< T( CM 00 "5 
 
 lOOOCMi-icDCO MI CO ,- 
 
 5 CO CM 15 i-* * 
 
 1-1 U5 CM * t- CO CO 00 CO T? i-icO O 
 
 iO 00 "^ O> i ' CO O 
 
 9 9 TH 
 
 U5 CO O3 CO i-* ^ O CO CM *< t>- 
 
 OCOTJ" t-O5 CO O 5 i-H 
 ~U5CM 1-1 O CM 
 
 : : : : : | 
 
 :* 2 I " 
 
 ill Sj 1 
 
 8 : -g | -g -"f I 
 
 d & o -2 , a $ S, 
 j**m.m ~ -a^-aaRgSo- 
 
 !|| I j Sjq -a 
 
 S -^S^i| H ^aSr^ H "I <S a 
 
 23-S8 o5=S o a 22 -3 
 ^.a IOOO^H tf 
 
 fa S2M^OS < PM KB H 
 
1927] THE PLACE OF HOG PRODUCTION IN CORN-BELT FARMING 169 
 
 It is not the purpose of this bulletin to analyze in detail the extent 
 to which different practices are responsible for the wide variation in 
 cost of producing pork, but a study of these farms shows that the 
 more important factors accounting for the lower costs are a larger 
 number of pigs weaned per litter, better sanitation and disease con- 
 trol, the use of forage crops, better selection of feeds, better use of 
 labor and equipment, and the larger size of the enterprise. A producer 
 may well scrutinize the management of his hog enterprise with these 
 points in mind. 
 
 PART III HOG PRODUCTION A MEANS OF ADJUSTING 
 SALE OF FARM PRODUCTS TO MARKET CONDITIONS 
 
 To the corn-belt farmer hog production offers a means by which, 
 with a minimum disturbance to other farm plans, he can best take 
 advantage of changing price conditions. The swine enterprise is 
 flexible compared with other livestock enterprises. Hogs may be in- 
 creased in numbers in a short time, and they may be sold at varying 
 weights without meeting serious price disadvantages. Because of this 
 flexibility the proportion of products sold as corn or as hogs can be 
 changed within a relatively brief period of time. 
 
 The acreages of the staple crops on most farms cannot be changed 
 so as to take advantage of the markets because yields cannot be 
 anticipated and the relative price of staple crops is dependent largely 
 upon total production. Also, crop enterprises cannot be changed in 
 size without danger of interfering with the rotation of crops or with 
 the adjustments of labor and power in such a way as to increase the 
 costs of operation. As compared with crop production, the swine en- 
 terprise requires a relatively small amount of labor, which is well dis- 
 tributed thruout the year, and its size therefore can be changed con- 
 siderably without seriously interfering with the economic organization 
 and operation of the farm. 
 
 Recognizing that the prices of corn and hogs do not bear a con- 
 stant relation to each other and that hog production is flexible, it is 
 evident that the most successful hog producer will be the man who, 
 in addition to producing hogs efficiently, adjusts the production of 
 hogs to price conditions. 
 
 Forces which help determine the demand for and the supply of 
 hogs brought to market, and the resulting price changes, are analyzed 
 in Bulletin 293 of this Station, "Adjusting Hog Production to Market 
 Demand." As brought out in that study, when the relative prices of 
 corn and hogs can be anticipated, a larger or smaller number of brood 
 sows can be kept and either one or two litters of pigs raised each year. 
 Within a year this will materially change the numbers available for 
 market. At times feeder pigs may be bought to good advantage. 
 
170 BULLETIN No. 301 [December, 
 
 While the above points are well recognized, less study has been 
 given to the possibility of selling hogs at lighter or heavier weights. 
 Hogs of the right type may be marketed at 175 pounds, or if condi- 
 tions warrant, they may be fed to 300 or even to 350 pounds. The 
 producer of corn and hogs can therefore change considerably the pro- 
 portion of corn and hogs which he sells without changing the number 
 of hogs raised. The advantage of this practice of feeding to lighter or 
 heavier weights in order to vary the marketing of corn and hogs de- 
 serves careful consideration because of the short time required to 
 make the adjustment. 
 
 Selling at Light or Heavy Weights 
 
 With a large supply of corn available at relatively low prices, the 
 main problem of the man with hogs on hand is the weight to which 
 it is profitable to feed. 1 In deciding this point he must give due con- 
 sideration to five factors, in addition to his own efficiency in feeding 
 hogs and the thrift of the hogs: (1) the number of hogs and the 
 amount of corn available, (2) the current prices of corn and hogs, (3) 
 the probable trend of the hog market, (4) the additional amount of 
 feed required to produce 100 pounds of gain as the hogs increase in 
 weight, and (5) the probable relative prices of light and heavy hogs 
 when marketed. 2 
 
 J Over a long period of time the average market price of hogs per hundred- 
 weight has been equal to the market price of 11.4 bushels of corn. During the 
 past fourteen years there have been four periods when it has taken less than this 
 amount of corn to equal the price of 100 pounds of hogs 1915, 1917, 1920, and 
 again in 1923 and 1924. At other times 11.4 bushels of corn more than equalled 
 the price of 100 pounds of pork. These cycles of high and low hog prices in rela- 
 tion to corn prices have lasted about 42 months on an average. The man who 
 consistently brings hogs to 250 pounds at a cost equal to the price of 9 bushels 
 or less of corn for every 100 pounds of gain will find few times when he cannot 
 produce hogs at a profit. The less efficient producer, whose costs exceed the price 
 of 14 bushels of corn, will seldom realize a profit. Between these extremes, how- 
 ever, are many men who, by giving more attention to market conditions, could 
 guide production to more profitable ends. That is, even tho they may not be 
 the most efficient producers so far as costs of production are concerned, they 
 could increase their incomes by learning better how to adjust their production to 
 market conditions. 
 
 2 The year 1926 illustrates well the advantages to be gained by feeding hogs 
 to heavy weights. The farm price of 100 pounds of hogs during this year was 
 equal to the farm price of more than 16 bushels of corn. Hogs were scarce, 
 while corn was abundant on most farms. Also, there was little prospect of any 
 increase in the number of hogs to go to market either late in the year or early 
 in 1927, and the outbreak of cholera in the fall still further reduced the number 
 going to market. The fall of 1923, on the other hand, offers an example of a 
 time when most producers could not have afforded to feed hogs to heavy 
 weights, for from August 1, 1923, until a year later the price of 100 pounds of 
 hogs was less than the price of 10 bushels of corn. 
 
1927] 
 
 THE PLACE OF HOG PRODUCTION IN CORN-BELT FARMING 
 
 171 
 
 Two facts suggested by the above statement deserve emphasis; 
 namely, that success in feeding hogs to heavy weights depends upon a 
 man's efficiency in production; and that as hogs increase in weight 
 more feed is required for a given gain. 
 
 Feed Required for Gains at Different Weights 
 
 Under good conditions about 350 pounds of feed, including grain 
 and protein concentrates, are required to put 100 pounds on hogs 
 weighing between 100 and 150 pounds, while about 450 pounds of feed 
 are necessary to put this gain on hogs that weigh over 300 pounds. 
 On the basis of the information given in Table 10, the probable feed 
 
 TABLE 10. FEED REQUIRED TO PRODUCE 100 POUNDS OF GAIN ON HOGS 
 AT DIFFERENT WEIGHTS 1 
 
 In gaining from 
 
 Corn 
 
 Tankage 
 
 Total 
 
 100 pounds to 150 pounds 
 
 Ibs. 
 314.6 
 
 Ibs. 
 30.4 
 
 Ibs. 
 345 
 
 150 pounds to 200 pounds 
 
 343.2 
 
 29.8 
 
 373 
 
 200 pounds to 250 pounds 
 
 370.9 
 
 30.1 
 
 401 
 
 250 pounds to 300 pounds 
 
 398.5 
 
 30.5 
 
 429 
 
 300 pounds to 350 pounds 
 
 425.0 
 
 31.0 
 
 456 
 
 
 
 
 
 'Calculated from data reported in Bulletin 335, Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station. 
 
 TABLE 11. FEED COST OF PUTTING 100 POUNDS OF GAIN ON HOGS OF 
 DIFFERENT WEIGHTS.! 
 
 (Tankage at $70 a ton) 2 
 
 Cost of feed in gaining from 
 
 Corn required for 100 pounds gain* 
 
 100 pounds 
 to 
 150 pounds 
 
 150 pounds 
 to 
 200 pounds 
 
 200 pounds 
 to 
 250 pounds 
 
 250 pounds 
 to 
 300 pounds 
 
 300 pounds 
 to 
 350 pounds 
 
 315 pounds 
 
 343 pounds 
 
 371 pounds 
 
 399 pounds 
 
 426 pounds 
 
 Price of corn per bushel 
 $ .50 
 
 $3.87 
 4.15 
 4.43 
 4.71 
 4.99 
 5.27 
 5.56 
 5.84 
 6.12 
 6.40 
 6.68 
 
 $4.12 
 4.42 
 4.73 
 5.04 
 5.34 
 5.65 
 5.96 
 6.26 
 6.57 
 6.87 
 7.18 
 
 $4.37 
 4.70 
 5.03 
 5.36 
 5.69 
 6.02 
 6.36 
 6.69 
 7.02 
 7.35 
 7.68 
 
 $4.62 
 4.97 
 5.33 
 5.69 
 6.04 
 6.40 
 6.76 
 7.11 
 7.47 
 7.82 
 8.18 
 
 $4.86 
 5.24 
 5.62 
 6.00 
 6.38 
 6.76 
 7.14 
 7.52 
 7.90 
 8.28 
 8.66 
 
 .55 
 
 .60 
 
 .65 
 
 .70 
 
 .75 
 
 .80 
 
 .85 
 
 .90 
 
 .95 
 
 1.00 
 
 
 'To determine the total cost of putting additional weight on hogs, add 10 to 15 percent to the 
 above coat to cover man and horse labor, use of equipment, risk or insurance, interest on investment, 
 and miscellaneous items. The percentage will vary, depending upon the equipment and the facilities 
 for handling hogs. 
 
 2 If the price of tankage is higher (or lower) than $70, add to (or subtract from) the values given 
 in the table 7.5 cents for each $5 change in price. 
 
 'In addition to the corn, 30 pounds of tankage on the average will be required for each 100 pounds 
 of gain thruout. 
 
172 BULLETIN No. 301 [December, 
 
 cost of producing 100 pounds gain on hogs of different weights has 
 been calculated with different prices for corn. These costs are given 
 in Table 11. 
 
 Of course these tables are to be taken merely as guides. The feed 
 costs are what may be expected only if the hogs are handled properly 
 and fed a well-balanced palatable ration. If either the feeds or the 
 animals are not of good quality, or if conditions under which they are 
 fed are not satisfactory, more expensive gains can certainly be ex- 
 pected. Whether or not the figures are representative of any par- 
 ticular farm depends upon the efficiency of the manager in handling 
 hogs, and of this the individual must be his own judge. 
 
 Thrifty hogs properly fed and handled may be expected to gain 
 about 50 pounds a month after reaching a weight of 150 pounds. Hogs 
 weighing 200 pounds in September, if full fed, should weigh 350 
 pounds in December, or fall pigs weighing 200 pounds in March 
 should weigh 350 pounds in June under favorable conditions. The 
 comparison of the prices of light and heavy hogs should be made, 
 then, between the current price of light hogs and the price of heavy 
 hogs about three months later. 
 
 Probable Prices for Different Weights When Marketed 
 
 Except for the months of November, December, January, and 
 February, and occasionally during these months, light hogs usually 
 sell for a higher price than heavy hogs at the same date (Table 12) . 
 Almost without exception, however, the prices of light hogs in August. 
 September, and October are considerably higher than the prices of 
 heavy hogs three months later, when the bulk of spring pigs are mar- 
 keted. If fall pigs are thrifty, there is usually an advantage in feed- 
 ing to heavy weights, since the price of heavy hogs in May, June, and 
 July is usually good compared with the price of light hogs three 
 months earlier. 
 
 Table 13 has been arranged to show the value of spring pigs if 
 sold in August, September, October, or November at a weight of 200 
 pounds, and the value of the same pigs if carried to 350 pounds and 
 sold three months later. An example of how this table may be read 
 would be this: In August, 1922, 200-pound hogs were selling in 
 Chicago for $9.84 a hundredweight, or for $19.68 a head. The same 
 hog fed out until November to a weight of 350 pounds would sell for 
 $8.25 a hundredweight, or $28.88. The hog fed to heavy weight would 
 be worth $9.20 more than if sold at the light weight. After deducting 
 the cost of tankage and other costs excepting grain, there would be 
 $7.13 left to pay for the grain fed. Assuming that it would require 
 10.7 bushels of corn to secure this added weight, 67 cents a bushel 
 would be returned for the corn fed. In that month the corn in 
 Chicago was worth 63 cents a bushel on a new-corn basis; hence a 
 
1927] 
 
 THE PLACE OF Hoa PRODUCTION IN CORN-BELT FARMING 
 
 173 
 
 3 
 
 I 
 
 2S 
 
 
 COC5O 
 
 O OS OS O OOC5 X 00 O5 
 
 osji 
 
 OlOSOOOOOCOOOOOOOt-t- 
 
 xfr 
 
 ilJJI 
 
 SESSs 
 
 03 CO 
 
 SP 
 
 gpa 
 "81 
 
 
 
 ICdR 
 
 a 
 
 V 
 
 ** .* 
 
 S3 
 ^ 
 
 - V 
 
 * 
 
174 
 
 BULLETIN No. 301 
 
 [December, 
 
 
 
 5 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 O 
 O >-i 
 
 El 
 
 ^ w 
 W 
 
 < H 
 
 ffl = 
 
 o g 
 
 ~. 
 
 Sg 
 
 CO 
 
 go - 
 
 c s a s a 
 
 aSoog 1 
 
 <D t>T! 
 |l1 W :a 
 
 S B 1 
 
 1 * 
 
 <; 
 
 lOW^tO COCOCOt- 5OO>-O '(COOCO {S'J'CO.-c 
 T}< n< T} T COCOtOtO OOOOt-t- OO"-""-! tth-t 
 
 10 
 M 
 
 91 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 g 
 
 s 
 
 "5 CO CON 
 
 t^t-t-t- 
 
 
 
 'In the above table 50 cents is allowed to cover the cost of items other than feed in carrying a hog from 200 pounds to 350 pounds. It is assumed also that 
 tankage will cost $70 a ton, or that the 45 pounds of tankage which might be required would cost $1.57. The difference in the total value of light and heavy hogs 
 is reduced by $2.07, therefore, to cover cost of tankage and other costs except grain. 
 ! It is assumed that under good conditions 10.7 bushels of corn will be required to make the additional gain of 150 pounds. 
 During fall and early winter farmers in general are using new corn for feeding. This seldom grades as good as No. 3, which at this season is old corn. The 
 prices used here are therefore for No. 3 corn reduced by 7 percent to put them on a new corn basis. This is a conservative estimate of the cost of holding cornon 
 the farm for a year. 
 
 w 
 
 ii.il 
 
 U|5 
 
 W ^"o 
 
 -IOC* CO t-cO^t- <N--<OO5 COINt-O CNOCNIN 
 INiOOOcO COCOt^CC CO"3t-00 i-iCO^O F4O<Oi9 
 
 "5Ot^OO 
 
 r^oooco 
 
 
 
 
 sis 
 
 <s o a 
 2g| & 
 
 V VJB4* 
 
 Bill 
 
 SJ-al 
 fi 
 
 -HONO9 eoi-i'Hco >-io> 1-1^1 ^-4O5<-io momco 
 pjcoccco r-ioosco cof Tjurj 1-iot-co oiOMco 
 
 gCO(NO> 
 lo^t- 
 
 00 00 ^ ^* 
 
 
 
 CM"OOOt^ t^t^t^OJ S0tf300O> C^TJIIOO i-iOtDt- 
 
 
 
 g'o-O 3> 
 
 a a 2 
 
 g 3 OJ-S 
 
 ta1^> 
 
 S * MoJ 
 
 Q.S-.S 
 
 OOt^OtO OOOOOO OO<OOOi-i OOcOOOt^ CMCOCNO 
 CMCOOO^< OJOCS^ tDiOTjicD i-iJ-it^W Ot-CO^t 
 
 I>-OCO 
 OtD'fl'OO 
 
 OOCOCD 
 
 
 
 *tOO5 O5O5O3-* OdtO-^ T}<!Ot-M -<1<(NOOO3 
 
 350-pound hogs 
 
 Value per 
 hog 
 
 oomcoo ooo^o TCOOCO OOOOO-H o-^oo 
 
 1OO-^" 
 CO CMOS CD 
 
 ooi-im 
 
 9 
 
 Tj>Tj<t^C<5 OOOOOOt- TjTj<U5iO M>Ot^OS OSCO'-iCM 
 (NINCMCO (NININN (M N IN <N CO CC CO CO CO CO * * 
 
 Price per cwt. 
 of hogs weighing 
 over 250 pounds 
 
 OOOOOCO lOCOHO M'WfOOO cOrH 10 h-COt^O 
 Or~ IMININO5 OON^-i >0^-it~IN COOOt^O 
 
 CO CO Tit .-H 
 
 COCDr-cO 
 
 r-cot-cs cxioooot^ t^r^t^t- OO^ r-ionN 
 
 r e-year av 
 
 OOOOOO) 
 
 m 
 
 Month sold 
 
 
 s 
 
 November 
 December 
 January 
 February 
 
 
 |i^i li^b |ix& |i^i li^ 
 
 H d M B <1 M 4 C G (- 03 M S M H d H 4 
 
 im im liii iiii im 
 
 o^S-2 ells Sg-g oSg-g ogg-S 
 ZQ^fe ^O^fe ^Q^fe ZQ^fe ^Q^ 
 
 200-pound hogs 
 
 Value per 
 hog 
 
 SOO^TJI OONffltD tO^C^IN OOINO-* 00 00 00 O 
 t-cocs 3t^t-<j( osooO"5 cqiNi>o r~(Noo 
 
 *QOOO 
 CM CO "5 1^ 
 
 O OS 00 CO 
 
 8j-" 
 
 OCDeD^ O5O500D mt~TjCO OO5O5t^ "3"5<NC^ 
 
 8 
 
 Price per cwt. 
 of hogs weighing 
 150-200 pounds 
 
 5O>t-N TjftOOOCO OONi-itO -"Jii-imiN O^'^'O 
 NMrHrH OOOOCOIN OS'O'S't- CDCOOO'O OO CO Tl< CO 
 
 CNOU3O 
 1-1 00 IN CO 
 
 OOC5 00 
 
 
 
 OOOOOt^ O5O5OOO t-t5O CSOCJOO (N(Ni-i-H 
 
 M 
 
 Year and 
 month sold 
 
 
 August 
 September 
 October 
 November 
 
 
 .^.u ! t- . u .h.h .h.^ . t- . t- 
 
 Q>m 4>V V.Q) O . o V.0> 
 
 :^s t.j3 :.Q t ^5 :^3 ^ja :j= ^.a :^ ^^5 
 
 g a_g a B e -nQ%B -g s_ s BS_ga 
 
 gs'o^ gs-og; a^-o^ as-ggj s^o^ 
 |IIJI|IlilgIIJl2lUI|Iill 
 
THE PLACE OF Hoc PRODUCTION IN CORN-BELT FARMING 
 
 175 
 
 
 Ha 
 a w -J 
 
 co co co co *S co co co t-*oooooo i^t^coo i-H-HrHO 
 
 
 (-OOCN^ 
 
 t^-~oooo 
 
 
 > oS 
 <J 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 "3 
 
 O ^ ^1* CO CO CN CN Oi l* O CO O OOOOCNCO h*^OOO 
 
 
 t~C5CNCO 
 O 00 CO CO 
 
 i 
 
 B* 
 
 life's 
 
 Pi 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 1- 
 
 old 
 III 
 
 898SS S5S3R *$$$ SS8S S8SS 
 
 
 co>oco>n 
 
 
 
 25o. 
 
 CO-*")-* tfCOCOO r~>OCDO 0500CNOO 000- 
 
 
 ^CJJ-*-* 
 
 Q . 
 
 I|S 
 
 ** 
 
 
 w 
 
 1 
 
 !"! 
 
 gsgs gsss sgs gggg ssss 
 
 
 SCNOCN 
 COCNCO 
 
 te 
 
 3^ ^ 
 
 oocor~co coming cst^wcN i-io-*o ot^co-n 
 
 
 CO < CO CO 
 
 5 - 
 
 s=^ 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 
 
 Jlf 
 
 S^OOCO OOOJCNOO -*00--l CN^HTfOO CO (N t^ * 
 OCOO t^OOCNO COCOCOCN t^^tOiO lOkOOCN 
 
 
 co oo oo * 
 
 O 00 ^ "< 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 c3 
 
 CNCNCOCO COCOCOCO CNCNCNCN CM CN CN CO 1< *** 
 
 i.O 
 
 CN 
 
 
 
 CN^-cOO 
 
 
 i 
 
 a 
 
 1. 
 w 
 
 CS-*-*C t-KNiniO ^IIOTJ<CO IO;O-*00 COCMCNi-H 
 i-<OnO UJiOCO-* COOCOO CO<NTl<00 i-ir-OCN 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 2 
 
 rH -t O O 
 
 350-poun 
 
 
 
 00 00 O O O O O O) t* r^ t- 00 t" t^ 00 Oi CN 04 ^ CO 
 t 
 
 re-year av 
 
 C5O1OO 
 
 
 
 
 J3 
 
 ST3 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 S" 
 
 ilif II j| lljl lljf || t | 
 
 
 IS 1-5 1-5^ 
 
 
 ll 
 
 Oi O CO -H O W 00 <N Oi O5 CO W ^H ^ Co "5 00 ^t *-< ^* 
 
 
 SCOOOCN 
 CNO5"5 
 
 
 03 
 > 
 
 ^ ~ ^^ ~~~~ ww 
 
 
 jjCN-Hrt 
 
 1 
 
 Ja 
 
 M 
 
 $$% 8S5SS SSI3S ?5??S SSS* 
 
 
 OOCOO55O 
 
 200-pounc 
 
 c u 
 
 PH 
 
 Oi O GO CO OOOO 00 00 GO t^* t* I s " t* t^ O CO M W 
 
 rt 
 
 
 
 
 
 Tj2 
 
 
 
 
 
 Year an 
 month BC 
 
 J? : : : & : : : b : : : t? : : : EJ : : : 
 
 a.g_: ; S^_: ; p-gj : p-gj : f-gj : 
 
 S S 8 S 8 
 
 
 l^li 
 
176 BULLETIN No. 301 [December, 
 
 gain of 4 cents a bushel would have been made on the additional corn 
 fed to the hog. Such results would be obtained, of course, only under 
 good conditions, where the hogs are efficiently handled and are making 
 excellent gains. 
 
 The prices given in the table are Chicago prices. The informa- 
 tion may be adapted to farm prices by reducing the difference in value 
 between light and heavy hogs by the cost of marketing the 150 pounds 
 additional weight. This should include shipping and selling charges. 
 Also, the average price of corn shown in the last column of the table 
 should be reduced by the cost of shelling and marketing it. 
 
 Table 14 shows the same information for fall pigs excepting that 
 in the last column the average price of No. 3 corn at Chicago is used, 
 as it is assumed that after April No. 3 corn will be available from the 
 new crop. If a lower grade of corn were to be used, it could not be 
 expected that there would be a similar reduction in the cost of grow- 
 ing the hogs out to heavier weights, as more than 10.7 bushels of corn 
 would probably be required to secure the 150 pounds gain. 
 
 In this comparison a ration of corn and tankage has been used 
 since it is regarded as a standard ration for hogs of the weights dis- 
 cussed. A farmer, however, may choose to use other feeds in secur- 
 ing the added weight. But, if tankage is not used, some good protein 
 supplement will be needed to produce efficient gains, and it is probable 
 that the cost would be equal to the cost of tankage at $70 a ton. If a 
 less-efficient protein supplement were to be used, its lower cost would 
 probably be balanced by the need for a larger amount of corn or other 
 grain. While the figures here given do not have universal application, 
 they illustrate facts which one should take into account in determining 
 whether or not to feed hogs to heavier weights. 
 
 In the above illustrations the costs other than feed of carrying 
 hogs from a 200-pound to a 350-pound weight are estimated at 50 
 cents a hog. Under some conditions these costs may be less. Where 
 corn is hogged down, little labor and other expense, aside from feed, 
 will be required to carry hogs to the heavier weight. Also, with this 
 practice the greatest saving of fertility is made, as previously dis- 
 cussed. However, experimental work at the University of Illinois 
 indicates that the saving in labor from hogs harvesting their own corn 
 is partly offset by lower gains from corn fed in this way. 
 
 Seasonal Variations in Price 
 
 The average September price of hogs, compared with that at other 
 seasons of the year during the past five years, has not been so favor- 
 able as the average price of the past twenty-five years. August seems 
 to have become a better month than September in which to market 
 hogs. This may be expected to continue as more farmers use sanitary 
 measures in hog production and follow other improved practices that 
 
1927} 
 
 THE PLACE OF HOG PRODUCTION IN CORN-BELT FARMING 
 
 177 
 
 will enable them to put spring pigs on the market at an earlier date 
 and spread the marketing of hogs more evenly thru the year. 
 
 While data are not now available to show the relative cost of 
 finishing hogs at different seasons of the year, it is true that the earlier 
 spring pigs are finished for market the larger is the proportion of old 
 corn required, and this tends to increase the cost of production. Of 
 course when some pigs are put on lighter feed than others farrowed 
 
 FIG. 7. THE CORN-HOG RATIO FROM 1913 TO 1926 BASED 
 ON FARM PRICES FOR ILLINOIS 
 
 The graph shows the bushels of corn required each month to 
 equal the price of 100 pounds of hogs at. farm prices. The relative 
 prices of corn and hogs may serve more or less as a guide in the 
 production and marketing of hogs. 
 
 at the same time, they will take a longer time to reach given weight 
 and will have to be charged with the additional carrying cost of main- 
 tenance during the longer period. 
 
 While the price received for hogs during the winter months may 
 be relatively less than at other seasons, more of the gain will be 
 secured from new corn, which can be charged to the hogs at a lower 
 price. Also, the finishing of hogs during the winter months does not 
 interfere with other farm work, as it may during the cropping season. 
 
178 BULLETIN No. 301 [December, 
 
 Using the five-year period 1921 to 1925 as a basis, there would 
 seem to be little to gain by carrying hogs weighing 200 pounds in 
 August or early September to a heavier weight for November mar- 
 keting. If, on the other hand, the hogs do not reach a weight of 200 
 pounds before October or November while making normal gains, there 
 would seem usually to be a definite gain from feeding to heavier 
 weights for marketing the following January or February. Of course 
 if hog prices are low or on a downward trend in relation to the price 
 of corn, this might not be true. 
 
 In regard to fall pigs, the experience during the past five years 
 indicates an advantage in general in feeding out to heavier weights, 
 especially when the pigs can be carried to July or August. The mar- 
 keting of fall pigs is usually distributed quite evenly over several 
 months of the year. Hence there is no one month which is outstand- 
 ingly profitable from the market standpoint. While prices of hogs are 
 usually relatively high in March, few fall pigs reach market then, and 
 the difference in the price of light hogs in March and heavy hogs three 
 months later is not so great as during the fall and winter months. 
 Also the hogs marketed at this time are all fed out on the same crop 
 of corn, and waiting for the later markets in order to use new corn is 
 not a factor. 
 
 Consideration of Price Trends 
 
 In deciding whether or not to feed hogs to heavier weights, the 
 probable trend in the prices of corn and hogs should be taken into 
 account. Producers too frequently base their decisions regarding pro- 
 duction and marketing upon current market conditions, and neglect 
 to take into account information which might help them to foresee 
 market conditions two or three months later. When the price trend of 
 hogs is definitely upward and is favorable to that of corn, there may 
 be a marked advantage in feeding to heavier weights. But when hog 
 prices have been for some time at a high level in relation to corn, and 
 an increased supply of hogs or a short supply of corn is in sight, a 
 downward trend will destroy the advantage before the hogs can be 
 fed out to the heavier weight. 
 
 Briefly some of the factors which should be taken into consider- 
 ation in planning future hog production are the facilities on the farm 
 for handling hogs, the number of hogs on farms, as reported by various 
 public agencies, the movement of hogs to market, the results of sur- 
 veys of the intentions to breed, weather conditions, the prevalence of 
 disease, the supply of old corn in the country, the prospect for a new 
 corn crop, and general business conditions. 
 
 The final decision, however, whether to feed hogs out to light or 
 to heavy weights comes back primarily to the question of a man's own 
 efficiency in producing hogs and the thrift of the hogs on hand at the 
 time the decision is made. In connection with the first point the 
 
1037 \ THE PLACE OF HOG PRODUCTION IN CORN-BELT FARMING 179 
 
 attention of the reader may well be called again to Fig. 6, page 167, 
 and Table 9, page 168, which illustrate the wide range that occurs 
 among different farms in the cost of producing hogs. It is evident 
 that the reason for the differences in the results which men secure in 
 conducting the same farm enterprise lies largely in the ability of the 
 manager. 
 
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBAN*