THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY 0=30.7 i-f&b no. 37 7- The person on r o e ; U SoretheL.,e,,0...sum Thtt, mutiM nary action ana may r ". %? call Telephone C.^ for JAN 1 5 1991 4AN2820I 03 L161-0-1096 Shrinkage of Hogs From Farm to Market by Truck and by Rail By R. C. ASHBY UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 388 FOREWORD In opening the problem of the comparative shrinkage of livestock shipped to market by truck and by rail it was deemed desirable to ascertain the results ex- perienced by careful and dependable stockmen in their normal livestock market- ing operations. It was believed that the results of such a study would be useful to stockmen and would develop leads for further analysis if such were needed. It may be objected that the truck and rail data presented here are not com- parable because no short rail shipments and few long truck hauls were included. The answer is that livestock is not shipped short distances by rail and that no cooperators were interested in or cared to undertake long-distance shipments by truck at the time this study was made. The study is not presented as a series of data taken under controlled con- ditions but as a cross-section of results of standard farm practice by successful Illinois stockmen at the time the records were taken. Controlled shipments were limited to shipments from the University farm. As pointed out on page 574, there is need for further studies under con- trolled conditions. CONTENTS PAGE Nature of Study 559 How Shrinkage Was Calculated 561 What Cooperators' Weight Reports Showed 562 Comparison of Truck and Rail Shipments Under Different Methods of Handling 564 Shrinkage in Truck Shipments Under Five Different Methods of Handling 565 Comparison of Truck and Rail Shipments From the Same Farms... 570 Truck vs. Rail on a Distance Basis 573 Further Study Needed 574 Summary 575 Urbana, Illinois January, 1933 Publications in the Bulletin series report the results of investigations made or sponsored by the Experiment Station Shrinkage of Hogs From Farm to Market by Truck and by Rail By R. C. ASHBY, Associate Chief in Livestock Marketing 'HEN LIVESTOCK truckage came into general use, Illi- nois stockmen began to ask about the relative shrinkage on livestock marketed by truck and by rail. Experiment stations had no adequate information, and inquiry failed to locate stockmen who had made other than casual tests. On the markets pack- ers often complained that truck hogs shrank more (dressed lower yields) than rail hogs. Order buyers complained on the same score and, in addition, stated that truck hogs arriving in small lots fought: more when bunched together in the course of buying operations and! thus there was further loss by reason of shrinkage between the time the hogs were bought in the yard and the time (later in the day) that sorting was completed and the hogs were weighed out on order. With practically 10 million hogs arriving at terminal livestock markets by truck in 1930, besides other millions moving by truck to local markets and to packers direct, the importance of this question of shrinkage on trucked-in hogs is apparent. As trucks will probably be increasingly used in moving livestock from farm to market, the im- portant question for the stockman is whether to truck all the way to market or to use a combination of truck and rail. Shrinkage is one of the factors that has an important bearing on the decision. Nature of Study Arrangements were made whereby certain stockmen in thirteen counties of Illinois undertook, when marketing livestock, to weigh it out of the farm feedlot 1 and later to forward to the Animal Husbandry Department, University of Illinois, a report giving both the farm and the market weights. No change in their regular procedure was sug- gested or requested. Special forms for reporting the data were sup- plied to each cooperator. The first reports were submitted late in 1927 and all cooperators were advised early in 1930 that no reports w r ould be expected after June 30, 1930. 'Previous to motorized livestock transport, shrinkage was commonly cal- culated from railroad loading point to market, this being a common meeting point for all consignments and a convenient point from which to check weights. With the truck, livestock moves direct from farm to market, there being then no intermediate point. So if shrinkage is to be compared under present practice, farm weights must be used, both with truck and with rail shipments- 559 560 BULLETIN No. 388 [January, FOUR STAGES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION 1933] SHRINKAGE OF Hoes FROM FARM TO MARKET 561 As cooperators' weight reports began to come in, there arose at once a question of accuracy of the scales on which farm weights were taken. To answer that question the author tested cooperators' farm scales, so far as they were accessible, applying 3,000 pounds of stand- ard scale test weights. All reports on hogs weighed over inaccurate or untested farm scales were discarded. In order to increase the com- parability of the data, weight reports on sows and "out" hogs, when- ever recognized, were also discarded. The reports for cattle and lambs were not used because of the small number of consignments represented. This bulletin then presents shrinkage data on 1,252 hogs marketed by truck and 2,084 marketed by rail, all weighed over accurate farm scales. 1 How Shrinkage Was Calculated In approaching this question of livestock shrinkage from farm to market, some wish to know the degree of shrinkage incurred on the total weight of livestock involved ; others ask results simply on the basis of consignments, regardless of the weight represented in each shipment. Therefore the percentage of shrinkage has been calculated in two ways: (1) treating each hundredweight as a unit; (2) using each consignment as a unit, whether it represented one hog or a hundred. The results are designated respectively as weighted average shrink and unweighted average shrink. In the tables the shrinkage for each group is shown both in pounds per head and in pounds per hundredweight. This is because live- stock feeders commonly think and speak of shrinkage in terms of pounds per head, whereas market operators find a percentage repre- sentation more convenient. What Cooperators' Weight Reports Showed On the basis of method of transport, but without reference to differences in feeding at farm or at market or in distances shipped, 'Illinois tolerances (pages 27-28, "Tolerances and Specifications on Weights and Measures and Weighing and Measuring Devices,' effective Dec. 1, 1922, Division of Standards, State of Illinois) allow a maximum variation of 2 pounds per 1,000 pounds of platform load on "scales of the railroad and wagon types; and also scales of the dormant type which are not installed inside of a building having side walls and roof, and which are exposed to weather effects and sudden changes of temperature." While too much emphasis cannot be placed on the matter of accuracy in scales, it was considered desirable to have a larger sample than would be possible by taking only those farm scales per- forming within the legal tolerance. Accordingly farm scales showing errors not exceeding 3 pounds per 1,000 pounds of test load were considered acceptable for the purposes of this study. 562 BULLETIN No. 388 [January, Date Form on Which Cooperators Reported Data ._193 : Owner : Post Office.. .Illinois Kind of feed; remarks No. of Weight at Time Last feed Amt. of feed regarding feeding head farm fecdlot weighed given at full, v4, etc. or watering a.m Cattle _____ ________ Ibs. p m __________________ ____________ ________________________ a.m < time > Calves ________ _ _ ______________ Ibs. , p m .................... ____ ___________ ______ ....................................... a.m HogS . __ , .,,, __. ________________ Ibs. p in _______________ M ________________ _________ _ _________ a.m Sheep _.~.. _____________ Ibs. _ ______ p.m _____________ .... ___________ ... ________________________ Remarks (Feeding, handling, heavy or light loaded, bedding in truck or wagon, or any con- dition likely to affect shrink. ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kind of road ___________ ..... : Condition of roads ____ ........... : Distance ________________ : Kind of truck ____ ....... _ If by truck, ar- a.m. a.m. Hauling rived at market ---------- p.m. Weighed at _______ p.m. Weight ___________ Ibs.: charge, $ ............................. Condition of stock on arrival at market ----------------------------------------------------------- .......... ------------------ (Mention any condition that might affect the shrink) Watered before weighing? Yes ------------ : No ---------- Fed before weighing? Yes -------- : No -------- a.m. It shipped by rail, weight at R. R. station --------- Ibs., at -------- p.m. at (station) __________ Illinois Stock moved to R. R. station by wagon, truck, driving, arrived ....... ----------------------- (mark out ones not used) (condition) a.m. Weight of stock at ______________________________ , ____________________ Ibs. at ____________________ p.m. on ____________________________ (market) (date) shrinkage on the weighted basis (Table 1) was slightly less on hogs shipped by rail than on those moved by truck, a difference of .04 pound per hundredweight. Calculated on the basis of consignments regardless of the number or weight of hogs in each, shrinkage was less by truck, .26 .17 pound per hundredweight. This difference, however, being little greater than its probable error, cannot be said to be significant. (The prob- able error is large because of the small number of cases included, there being always more hundredweight of hogs than consignments of hogs, particularly in the case of rail shipments.) That one difference favors rail and the other truck is not surprising, since in one calculation each 100 pounds of hogs was used as a unit, in the other each consignment was used as a unit. Inasmuch as some truck shipments included only one or two hogs, while single rail con- signments contained as many as 47,000 pounds of hogs, it is clear that by the first method one 47,000-pound shipment would have as much weight as 94 shipments of 500 pounds each. Note that the range in shrinkage was almost the same by rail and 1933] SHRINKAGE OF HOGS FROM FARM TO MARKET 563 i i|ii 1 o - . . e .E-S ' . CM S eg *i '"^' X u "~ u E c g U 1 J- TC xr '** - ^ . ^J S x cS .- u 1 'e o* t* a ^ "~!1 a ^ :1 t +1+1 : ; H > c-f ^ ; JO s 5 -'- .2 | H - " ^ < foO> 5 = e Si 8 (0 ^ M tt 8- " 11 l| J o g-s o . ' a > -O v CM CM JS u CM- W tf) C ; CMC^ ^3 ^ 1 I 3 u * ** E "15 1| tn ?5 fc *3 p. rs vooo C B Q.>--U3 jj CM CM O'~ 'S > P^ rt^ n n B < II So <> ji M "'I _ < a z < S ds =3Cl4 ,-, 05 ^7 C u v X ^ > H S 0) H E ^ - ^ u rt %** Sa " 125 z < rt H E ^ S u, "^ * o. *"** E > ? " jj M73 n 1"|| |1 4 fo 00 VO |la| ii ~ rr "* l SI u ~^ be u u ^ \2 )*? S o ;_ > g 4> CM CM \j *-i CM U ^ s m " M E 5 c VM c Q ^s^^ * g ^ JJ *** bi U><- 1! CM CM ^CM III* l-s W Z! *- y tn E ill O " C '~ u IE UsJii z a o - <-) | : : a*'j 2 T3T3 11 U i^'&ll rt "a "3 il'^2 v B B ^'^o^o I rt 52 "S"S Jo^o* u H II JJ *0 M U '5j< iHil Average distance ipped, per nsignment Hi i * C _g ri B J ^ ** U rt *i i " 38 u 0-5 3 C"rt i O M B V 1* u > 5 u * w '&^"2 o g li li "* rt^ trf 564 BULLETIN No. 388 [January, by truck, while the "minimum shrink" (gain in this case) was some- what less by rail. At this point a word as to farm scale performance is pertinent. Of the scales showing errors of 4 pounds or more per 1,000 pounds of load, 45 tended to weigh heavy and 48 tended to weigh light. Moreover 22 scales weighed both heavy and light heavy with some test loads and light with other test loads. Since anything over 2 per- cent is considered a heavy shrink on hogs, it is apparent that satis fac- FARM SCALES OF PROVED ACCURACY ARE THE FIRST ESSENTIAL TO A MEASURE OF LIVESTOCK SHRINKAGE FROM FARM TO MARKET Neglect or lack of maintenance is responsible for inaccuracies in many farm scales. Large errors sometimes develop in a short period. In two years the scale at the left developed an error of 205 pounds per 1000 pounds of test load. Beam boxes may sag out of plumb without being noticed. tory shrinkage checks can be made only with reasonably accurate scales; the only known way of proving such accuracy being by care- fully testing the scale with standard test weights up to the amount of the load in question. Tho a scale tests accurately at 1,000 pounds of load, that is no assurance it will test accurately at 5,000 or 10,000 pounds of load. Comparison of Truck and Rail Shipments Under Different Methods of Handling Since all consignments were not handled alike previous to weighing at the farm and following arrival at the market, it is desirable to reduce the data to a more comparable basis before attempting to draw any conclusions. Accordingly both rail and truck shipments were di- vided into two further groups: (1) those having a full feed previous to farm weighing, and (2) those having less than a full feed previous 1933] SHRINKAGE OF HOGS FROM FARM TO MARKET 565 to farm weighing. No cooperator reported restricting water previous to shipping his stock. All rail shipments included in this study were reported as fed and watered previous to being weighed at the market. As part of the truck shipments were handled similarly, it was possible to make direct comparisons as shown in Table 2. On hogs full-fed previous to farm weighing and fed and watered at the market there was apparently definitely less shrinkage by truck, it being about three- fourths that by rail, the difference on a weighted basis being .46 pound per hundredweight. On an unweighted basis there was no significant difference, the probable error of the result being high because of the small number of truck consignments. On hogs having less than a full feed previous to weighing at the farm the difference in shrinkage showed even more definitely in favor of trucks, the difference being .58 pound per hundredweight on a weighted basis. In these groups perhaps both the difference in length of haul and in period of time elapsing as between truck and rail shipments had greater influence than in the case of the groups full-fed at the farm. The distance from market was nearly five times as great by rail as by truck. As shown on page 574, it has been demonstrated that shrinkage on rail shipments increases with the distance shipped. The data in Tables 3 and 4 indicate the probability of a similar situation as to truck ship- ments. Too much emphasis should therefore not be placed on the shrinkage differences between truck and rail shipments shown in Table 2, without recognizing the differences in distance shipped. The showing of lighter shrinkage on lots having less than the usual feed at the farm may easily mislead, being in each instance (Table 2) much less than that shown for hogs having a full feed at the farm. Stockmen seek to deliver over the selling scale as nearly normal livestock weight as possible. By reducing feed previous to weighing at the farm the apparent shrinkage becomes less, simply because part of it has occurred before the farm weight is taken. The total shrinkage may even be more than it is when there is normal feeding previous to moving the stock from the farm. This is a matter which feeders may well check on, under their own conditions. Shrinkage in Truck Shipments Under Five Different Methods of Handling Of particular interest to stockmen marketing largely by truck is a comparison of shrinkage incurred in different handlings of truck shipments. Cooperators' reports included five different w ? ays of han- dling truck consignments as follows: 566 BULLETIN No. 388 [January, Full feed at farm; feed and water at market. Full feed at farm; water only at market. Full feed at farm; no feed, no water at market. Less than full feed at farm; no feed, no water at market. Less than full feed at farm; feed and water at market. An analysis of the reports from the above standpoints is shown in Tables 3 and 4. Altho incomplete and scattered, the data have suggestive value to stockmen who may be in doubt on some of the points covered. Shrinkage was consistently greater on hogs not fed or watered at the market, and it appeared to become greater as truckage distance in- creased. Much more information is needed on this phase of the prob- lem, however, before definite conclusions can be drawn. (Table 7 includes only consignments fed and watered at the market, thus af- fording a more convenient comparison of the effect on shrinkage of feeding or not feeding at the farm previous to shipment by truck.) Altho truck hogs fed and watered at the market showed less shrink- age than those not so treated (indeed the two short-haul groups weighed on good farm scales showed gains over farm weights), it is surprising to find that over 59 percent of the hogs were reported as having had neither feed nor water at the market. It is interesting, therefore, to see how truck hogs not fed or watered at the market com- pared with rail hogs as to shrinkage. Such comparison is presented in Table 5. Note that the average haulage for the two truck groups was almost identical, yet the group that was less than full-fed at the farm showed much heavier shrinkage than the group that was full-fed. Of the hogs full-fed at the farm (Table 5) the truck group clearly showed less shrinkage than the rail group, the difference being .56 pound per hundredweight on the weighted basis and .49 .20 pound per hundredweight on the unweighted basis. On the other hand, for the hogs less than full-fed at the farm the truck group showed more shrinkage than the rail groups, a difference of 1.04 pounds per hundredweight on the weighted basis and .27 .33 pound per hundred- weight on the unweighted basis. On such short hauls (27 of the 39 consignments in the first group were trucked 20 miles or less) it seems reasonable to believe that most of the farm fill may be retained if the hogs are handled carefully and weighed immediately on arrival at the market. Yet as a result of his tests in connection with this project one cooperator who markets many hogs and is less than 20 miles from his market now feeds and waters many more of his trucked-in hogs after they reach the market. Nor should these results be understood as constituting a general 1933] SHRINKAGE OF HOGS FROM FARM TO MARKET 567 pq w u fe H 8 f. M I e i ~ * 1 ^ 2 g o s !* 2 1 +l +1 +1 'u2? >4 O 00 * ; _x -^"5 "*3 4i _; "5 M " jn 5 * c 'j;- * ! , , 0? 5 S c^ 1 '5 o K* jg - o o ** o) " A 1 "8 1 ' . , . n "3 is s-So^s S?M^ SS53 * 01 "rt o . u .^ -^ CM- , * T ^ ^Q bo *^ - W " ji ~ be-* 60 ON"O ^ t^OC? OI^O OfO O CO 'C u-5 Ja ^j moO*CMu"i OO**O -HinO O c^ ja > J3 * * ^{V) 0^ "-! '-r -r'-r-t iX ri J! < al a "o Si * 2 ONUIt^t^OO O>OOO> OOfOO to 00 c *'B^ S ultvOMOO CMCMf Sf 00 * v ^ <*s. rOCMCM CMCMCM * E T-1 Number of hogs CM\OMO f NOON>O O txCMO ON Tf * coo>o o O\CMCM <*> tx _ JO t-i in Weighte< u ,| II "eSs -CMM3CM >*5 T-C CM '" 11 s ' W T3 a C U U BE u : J t si : 3 C a a u n > > || 11 : Se u'~ it U j^O U *-"7S *- n g . - - - - O O u u ice ec i! 0-0 -o'-o 1 ^ ^ water, 2-g "O -u v u . U V 9J U . c - n * I^iil Jj O O O O u O -r ' '3-g bo N M MS E 2 J-j O "W : v u u ! a* *i !!i!2 y. ^.y. B i = B SE 55 3 [5|3 B : H n O w c e c e e .1 : 1 1 ill. ll! li: 1 1 1 r ag H ISI5J ggj 13 j II c /. ! .g'c Distance trucked is ? 2 s ? 96-125 - > .2 s V .4 568 BULLETIN No. 388 [January, TABLE 4. FARM TO MARKET SHRINKAGE BY TRUCK, ON DISTANCE BASIS, OF Hoes HANDLED DIFFERENTLY AT MARKET Distance trucked Treatment at farm Number of con- signments Number of hogs Average weight per bog Shrink per hog 1 Weighted shrink per hog* All consignments fed and watered at market miles 0-15 Full-fed 1 17 Ibs. 1S5.9 Ibs. (.59) Ibs.percwt. (.38) Less than full-fed 2 207 180.8 (.58) (.32) 16-35 Full-fed T 4 224 36 321.9 5.00 1.63 36-55 Less than full-fed 1 20 281.0 4.00 1.42 56-75 76-95 No consignments Full-fed 1 4 407.5 15.00 3.68 96-125 Over 126 No consignments Full-fed.. 5 65 249.8 2.98 1.19 Consignments given no feed and no water at market 0-15 Full-fed 22 367 208.7 1.96 .88 6 133 226.7 3.27 1.54 16-35 Full-fed 28 9 500 109 223.8 4.97 2.23 Less than full-fed 14 155 245.9 4.30 1.77 36-55 Full-fed 23 8 264 97 234.8 4.10 1.38 Less than full-fed 2 22 246.3 4.54 1.84 10 119 'Figures in parentheses indicate a gain rather than a shrinkage. 'Weighted percentage of shrinkage, calculated to two decimals only, is shown here for convenience in comparing with shrinkage in pounds per hog. recommendation of full- feeding hogs at the farm just previous to ship- ment, whether by train or by truck. Different factors, especially tem- perature, must be considered in that connection. Successful stock- men, however, are coming generally to believe in normal handling of livestock previous to shipment, that is, in making as little change in feeding as possible. Overfeeding previous to shipment is always bad practice. While, as shown on page 566, the large proportion of truck con- signments reported in this study were not fed or watered at the market, this situation is changing. With trucking distances extending farther and farther from the market, more and more truck hogs ar- rive in time to rest before the market opens and are fed and watered at the market. It was recently estimated that as many as 70 percent of all truck hogs were being fed at some of the markets. 1 The above data indicate that when buyers do not discriminate against truck hogs, there may be advantage in feeding and watering at the market. 'More recently the wide differentials maintained between farm prices of corn and the prices charged at the terminal stockyards have restricted the feed- ing of trucked-in hogs after their arrival at the markets. 1933] SHRINKAGE OF HOGS FROM FARM TO MARKET 569 1 1 ^ 58 S 'C ft- t +1+1 . tx\o 4! +1+1 0(0 +1 x c < " 4 < * 50 -r << D * ** "* fl ^^ J3 rt C ae c M txw> s pi i II 4 ooo MNO h n ~ Average arm weight per hog 4 ifference. . .. 000 I*>O MM ifference. . . . Q Q i! Ss OM Number of consign- ments 04 ? MO\ Mi e 22 H ~3 ~3 H D c c 1 OT) U U a a jtja V _^ i H S.S. ^^ Average distance shipped li 5 J( j< ll E^ i SHIPMENTS Unweighted average shrink *> COM s +i j 1 *U v * ""il U 00 j GO ^" 'C ^[ **^ ^^ ^ _i 'aj ^ ^ ^> v* r- < ^ rt " J * x H ^ s a. J* M |j . W 2 a? ^K ~ mM u u rt 1 K u rt U 5 LT) *O - ^ ^ ON O > i; ~^ t/) Number i consign ments iO u D H H to. ji h <, \coo JJ ^ EM M < 1 U 1 < H JJ H=2 570 BULLETIN No. 388 [January, This does not mean that all truck consignments can be fed to ad- vantage upon arrival at the market. Careful observation indicates that hogs do not eat well immediately after unloading from a truck; rather they often want to lie down and rest. So if feeding is to pay, they must be allowed reasonable time to rest and to eat and drink before they are weighed. Another factor which may in the future affect this aspect of the problem is a recent proposal that stockyard companies assess one scale of yardage fees on livestock that is fed in the yards and a somewhat higher scale on livestock that is not fed 1 in the yards. It is proposed that this basis be substituted for the old basis (under which yardage charges did not differentiate between "rail" and "road" receipts). The Evansville Stock Yards Company, Evansville, Indiana, and the Union Stock Yards in Detroit, Michigan, in Buffalo, New York, and in Cleve- land, Ohio, have already put such tariffs into effect. Comparison of Truck and Rail Shipments From the Same Farms In this study a limited number of both truck and rail consignments were loaded out from the same farms on the same day or were sold on the same day (tho not always on the same markets). The shrink- age on these shipments is shown in Table 7. In these instances the rail shipments moved one day earlier than the truck consignments or arrived at the market a day later, but farm weights were taken at similar hours, the rail lots usually being weighed an hour or two earlier, which was perhaps a slight disadvantage for them as regards farm-to-market shrinkage. While not representing simultaneous shipments, these tests do furnish a good basis for com- paring shrinkage since the hogs in the rail and truck lots w r ere similar, being from the same feedlots and having received the same feed and management. The hogs in both the truck and the rail shipments were full-fed (their regular feeds) at the farm, and the rail shipments were fed and watered in the usual way at the market. The truck consignments were not fed or watered at the markets, this omission of feed and water being standard practice among many stockmen with short-haul truck hogs. The difference in shrinkage between the truck and the rail con- signments, on a weighted basis, was .62 pound per hundredweight and 'Originally all livestock arrived at the terminal markets by rail and prac- tically all was fed. Yardage and feed charges were so based that most stock- yard companies derived equal portions of their revenue from yardage and from feed. With large receipts by truck, many of these not feeding at the market, the situation is now very different and the above proposal is one result. SHRINKAGE OF HOGS FROM FARM TO MARKET 571 H 7. -P < g C/) 0) u, "g ^ ?. o J J .= *= T5 U Z 2 - 1 5 I ? -8 M c ?s Bxi fe *^ 3 n oe ""* ** Weighted average shrink 1 ^** -.' oo jj 0000 11 g H s S i * H * to a 7, 'Cue JS B S s o B >>c 3C M $."* g . CJ- :a- s l 5 3 J4 e . Exl hSS 3 B at ^ E ' ^ ^><*) fi.So M * o 00 w U a. . *"; "S c fc +I-H -H e fJ " *sa S la- j * .c c s|S ^ rt fe ^^ o h* S-Sf ^ss >~ u <6. Average farm weight per hog QO f*> Difference. . . . (4 B^l IO O NO 00 3 j: es z Number of consign- ments M Average distance shipped IS? j, 572 BULLETIN No. 388 [January, on an unweighted basis it was .48 .30 pound per hundredweight both in favor of the rail shipments. This difference, however, cannot be regarded as statistically significant. For two years the division of Swine Husbandry at the University of Illinois cooperated in this study by sending a truck load of hogs to the Indianapolis market whenever a carload was shipped there by rail. In each instance the hogs sent by truck were directly comparable with those sent by rail. Both truck and rail lots were weighed at the same time at the University farm. Neither of the groups was allowed access to feed after farm weights were taken. On arrival at the market the hogs were watered and fed at the same time in the same alleys ; they were sold at the same time and weighed at the same time (that is, in successive drafts). Five pairs of truck and rail shipments were marketed in this way. From the results shown in Table 8 it will be noted that there was no significant difference in shrinkage either on a weighted or on an unweighted basis. The data in Table 8 have been subjected to additional statistical analysis (Students' Method) as shown in Table 9. The mean differ- ence in amount of shrinkage between the five rail shipments and the five truck shipments was .03 pound per hundredweight; the standard deviation of the differences was 1.51 ; and the value of z was .02. This z value gives odds of approximately only 1:1 that this difference in shrinkage has any significance ; in other words, there is no suggestion that anything other than chance is responsible for it. The data in Table 9 also show how unsafe it is to base shrink- age estimates on one or two weight checks. Here are variations rang- ing from a gain of 2.28 pounds to a loss of 4.01 pounds per hundred- weight on five truck shipments of comparable hogs sent from the same farm to the same market, over the same roads, in the same truck, but at different times. Only the first shipment even approximated the average TABLE 9. COMPARISON OF SHRINKAGE ON PAIRED SHIPMENTS FROM UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS BY TRUCK AND BY RAIL Shrinkage by truck Shrinkage by rail Difference 1st pair Ibs. Per cwt. 1.29 -2.28 .75 2.30 4.01 Ibs. per cwt. 1.20 .41 .99 .41 3.22 Ibs. per cwt. + .09 -2.69 - .24 + 1.89 + .79 2d pair 3d pair. . . . : 4th pair 5th pair Sui n of differences - .16 Mean difference .( W II )2 Standard deviation 1 .. z value. . . A 1933} SHRINKAGE OF HOGS FROM FARM TO MARKET 573 shrinkage for the five movements. If weights had been checked on only one of the four other lots and those weights had been used as an in- dicator of probable shrinkage on all these truck shipments, it is appar- ent that the calculations would have been a long way from the actual facts. Both Table 7 and 8 represent limited numbers of consignments, but the conditions under which the two groups of shipments were handled were to a very high degree comparable. While the hogs in the five truck shipments represented in Table 7 were not fed and watered at the market, because of the relatively short distances hauled, such omission of feed and water is the standard practice of thousands of stockmen, and for that reason the combining of the data for those shipments with the data for the University consignments, which were fed and watered at the market, seems allowable. While the combined TABLE 10. SUMMARY OF DATA ON TRUCK AND RAIL SHIPMENTS FROM THE SAME FARMS, INCLUDING UNIVERSITY SHIPMENTS Number of consign- ments Number of hogs Average farm weight per hog Average shrink per hog Weighted average shrink Unweighted average shrink Truck 10 11 125 369 Ibs. 231.2 258.7 Ibs. 2.84 2.82 Ibs. per cwt. 1.23 1.12 Ibs. per cwt. 1.22 .33 .98 .21 Rail Difference. . . .11 .24 .40 data (Table 10), covering 10 consignments of 125 truck hogs and 11 consignments of 369 rail hogs, show a difference in shrinkage of .11 pound per hundredweight on the weighted basis and of .24 .40 pound per hundredweight on the unweighted basis, both in favor of the rail shipments, neither of these differences can be regarded as statisti- cally significant. Truck vs. Rail on a Distance Basis Under Illinois conditions few hog shipments now move less than 50 miles by rail. For practical purposes, therefore, comparison of shrinkage by rail and by truck should be made on the basis of the longer truckages those of 50 miles and more. Only six consignments of truck hogs fed and watered at the market were transported more than 55 miles. Those six consignments are compared with 59 rail consignments in Table 6. The difference in favor of rail is significant on the weighted basis (.18 pound), but not significant on the unweighted basis because of the large probable error resulting from the few truck consignments. One large buyer 574 BULLETIN No. 388 [January, operating on a leading terminal market told the writer recently that late tests had shown their truck hogs yielding as well as their rail hogs or a little better, but that the truck hogs consistently showed more bruises. While this operator had no explanation for improved yields by truck hogs, it could well be that increases in the distances over which truck hogs have been transported have caused enough greater shrinkage en route to result in such improvement in dressed yield. This question of shrinkage on longer truckages deserves more care- ful study. The group data shown in Table 3 indicate that there was a trend toward greater shrinkage as truckage distance increased. The data in Table 6 indicate a similar trend. We need to know with more certainty to what extent shrinkage by truck does increase with mileage hauled and whether such increase is on a basis comparable to increases that have been demonstrated for rail shipments. Data assembled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture 1 show shrinkage on hogs shipped by rail to increase as follows with distance shipped: PERCENTAGE OF SHRINKAGE IN HOG SHIPMENTS, SHIPPING POINT TO MARKET, BY COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS, 1921, BY DISTANCE Straight Mixed Distance shipped shipments shipments Less than 100 miles 1.48% 1.91% 100-150 miles 1.10% 2.23% 150-200 miles 1.25% 1.91% 200-250 miles 1.24% 2.76% 250-300 miles 2.10% 2.89% 300-350 miles 2.11% 3.47% The above tabulation, in addition to showing greater shrinkage with longer hauls, shows materially heavier shrinkage on mixed shipments than on straight shipments. That fact suggests the pertinent question, is shrinkage proportionately greater on mixed shipments by truck? Anyone who has watched large numbers of truck shipments arriving at terminal markets, often with cattle, calves, and hogs indiscriminately mixed, will agree as to the need for information on this point. Further Study Needed In order to have an accurate basis for conclusions concerning the relative merits of truck and rail for livestock shipments, further studies are needed of numerous and regular shipments made under controlled conditions controlled at least to .the extent that shipments of the same sort of livestock of similar weights, from the same feedlots, to *U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook for 1922, page 90S, Table 481. Similar studies on beef cattle are reported in U. S. Dept. Agr. Bui. 25, 1913. 1933] SHRINKAGE OF HOGS FROM FARM TO MARKET 575 the same markets, move by truck and by rail for selling on the same day. Until more complete data are available, stockmen will find it well to check shrinkage for themselves where dependable farm scales are available, recognizing that results shown by any one shipment may be very different from an average of results from several shipments. Stockmen everywhere consider livestock shrinkage a factor of con- stant variability. Unexpected, and at times apparently unexplainable, shrinkages occur. Rut the more data that become available and the more information at hand, the better the factors causing shrinkage may be understood and controlled. Naturally the first step is to assure the accuracy of scales over which weights are taken. Summary Data presented in this bulletin show considerable variation in the shrinkage of hogs from farm to market, thus emphasizing the impor- tance of feeders and shippers checking results under their particular conditions. The necessity of proving the accuracy of local scales can- not be too strongly urged. Comparing all truck hogs included in this study with all rail hogs, there was no essential difference in shrinkage, but the truck hauls averaged only about one-fifth the distance of the rail hauls. This com- parison is based on 2,084 hogs in 59 consignments shipped an average of 129 miles by rail, and 1,252 hogs in 76 consignments shipped an average of 27 miles by truck (Table 1). Of the consignments from all distances, fed and watered at the market, the truck hogs showed less shrinkage than the rail hogs whether full-fed at the farm or not so treated (Table 2). However, shrinkage on truck hogs tended to increase with length of haul (Tables 3 and 4), and the hogs trucked more than 55 miles showed more shrinkage than the rail hogs (Table 6). Truck hogs not fed at the market showed heavier shrinkage than did truck hogs that were fed at the market (Tables 3 and 4). In both truck and rail consignments some of the hogs receiving less than a full feed at the farm appeared to shrink less than those full-fed, for the reason that part of the shrinkage had occurred before the farm weights were taken (Tables 3, 4, and 5). Short-haul truck hogs given full feed at the farm but not fed and watered at the market shrank considerably less than rail hogs similarly treated at the farm, shipped about six times as far, and fed and watered at the market C Table 5). 576 BULLETIN No. 388 Truck hogs given less than a full feed at the farm and not fed or watered at the market showed much heavier shrinkage than rail hogs similarly treated at the farm but fed and watered at the market (Table 5). Comparable truck and rail consignments shipped from the same farms but to different markets showed less shrinkage by rail than by truck ; the differences, however, were not large enough to be considered statistically significant (Table 7). Comparable truck and rail consignments shipped from the Univer- sity of Illinois to the Indianapolis market, a distance of 130 miles, showed no significant differences in shrinkage (Tables 8 and 9). Because of the comparable handling of the shipments from the same farms (Table 7) and from the University of Illinois (Table 8), the data for these groups have been combined in Table 10. While these combined data seem to show that less shrinkage occurred by rail than by truck, the difference again is not statistically significant. While the carefully controlled shipments from the University farm showed no significant differences, statistically, in hog shrinkage by truck and by rail at a distance of 130 miles, the preponderance of evi- dence from the data developed by cooperators is that shrinkage by truck tended to increase as hauls were lengthened, which appears to indicate that on hauls of comparable distances larger shrinks might be expected on truck hogs than on rail hogs. In view of the range of 61/4 percent in shrinkage of the five Uni- versity truck shipments against a range of only 3.1 percent in the shrinkage of the five comparable rail shipments, shippers are cautioned against estimating probable average shrinkages on too limited a number of actual shrinkage determinations. The study reported in this bulletin was made possible by the interest and cooperation of a large number of Illinois stockmen and the farm advisers in the counties in which these stockmen are located. Assistance at various important points was rendered by Mr. C. A. Briggs, Livestock Weight Engineer, and Mr. W. L. Frank, Assistant Livestock Weight Engineer, Packers and Stockyards Di- vision, Bureau of Animal Industry, U. S. Department of Agriculture; by Mr. W. T. Fossett, Superintendent of Standards, Illinois Department of Trade and Commerce; and by Mr. Clay Johnson, Scale Inspector, Peoria Board of Trade. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA