LIBRARY G.30-7 NOTICE: Return or renew all Library Materials! The Minimum Fee tor each Lost Book is $50.00. The person charging this material is responsible for its return to the library from which it was withdrawn on or before the Latest Date stamped below. Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons for discipli- nary action and may result in dismissal from the University. To renew call Telephone Center, 333-8400 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN Y L161 O-1096 Some Important Factors Affecting Costs in Ho Production By R. H. WILCOX, W. E. CARROLL, and T. G. HORNUNG In cooperation with Division of Farm Management and Costs, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . PA 3 Methods and Procedure 3 Corn and Hog Prices During Period Covered 4 General Systems of Hog Production 6 VARIATIONS IN PROFITS FROM FARM TO FARM 6 TOTAL COST OF PRODUCING PORK 9 Quantities of Feed and Labor Used 9 Dollar Costs I 13 COMPARISON OF HIGH-COST AND LOW-COST FARMS 13 Amounts of Concentrates Fed 14 Differences in Breeding Herd Costs 15 Death Losses 15 THE BREEDING HERD AS A FACTOR IN THE COST OF PRODUCING PORK 17 Relative Importance of Various Cost Factors 18 Amounts of Feed and Labor Required by the Breeding Herd 19 Cost per Pig Weaned 20 Factors Responsible for Differences in Cost of Weaned Pigs 23 How Size of Litter Weaned Affects Pork Costs 24 Care of Pigs Principal Factor in Size of Litter at Weaning 27 Avoiding Losses in Suckling Pigs 27 THE PIGS AFTER WEANING AS A FACTOR IN COST OF PRODUCING PORK 29 Amounts of Feed 31 Rapidity of Gains 33 Character of Ration 34 Care and Housing ' 35 GILTS OR SOWS FOR THE BREEDING HERD 36 Average Net Costs With Sows and Gilts 37 Performance in Early and Late Farrowings 37 Net Gains by Sows and Gilts 40 Little Choice Between Gilts and Tried Sows Unless Their Gains in Weight Can Be Sold at a Profit 41 COMPARISON OF ONE- AND TWO-LITTER SYSTEMS 41 EARLY OR LATE SPRING PIGS 49 SWINE SANITATION 54 DETAILED OUTLINE OF THE VARIOUS FACTORS THAT AFFECT PROFITS IN PORK PRODUCTION 57 SUMMARY.. . 58 Urbana, Illinois June, 1933 Publications in the Bulletin series report the results of investigations made by or sponsored by the Experiment Station Some Important Factors Affecting Costs in Hog Production By R. H. WILCOX, W. E. CARROLL, and T. G. HORNUNG* IEEDING AND MANAGEMENT practices used in pork pro- duction in Illinois differ markedly in the same community. These differences in some instances are the result of well-laid plans ; in others they are the result of differences in timeliness and care in doing the everyday jobs about the hog lot. In old established hog areas of Illinois the more improved and economical methods are gradually tak- ing the place of the more costly. The study reported in this bulletin was made on farms in McLean and Woodford counties in central Illinois, the area in which the "McLean county system of swine sani- tation" originated. It was the object of this study to ascertain the quantities of feeds and of other items that enter into pork production on corn-belt farms and to locate the important causes of the wide farm-to- farm differences in the cost of growing pork. While cost figures expressed in dollars and cents will of course vary with changing prices, it is believed that the fundamental differences here shown between various groups of farms following different prac- tices are a general index to the results that will usually follow such differences in practices. Methods and Procedure Work was begun in the early winter of 1923 and continued until all the pigs from the spring and fall litters of 1926 were either sold or placed in the next year's breeding herd. A cooperative agreement was entered into with 34 swine growers in McLean and Woodford counties to make a study of the factors that enter into the cost of pro- ducing pork. Twenty-two of the original 34 farmers remained in the study the entire period of three years. Thirteen other farmers con- tributed records for two years and 15 farmers for but a single year. During 1924 there were 788,491 pounds of marketable pork 2 pro- duced on the 34 farms in the study; in 1925 the 37 farmers keeping J R. H. WILCOX, Associate Chief in Farm Organization and Management; W. E. CAR- ROLL, Chief in Swine Husbandry; and T. G. HORNUNG, formerly with the Bureau of Agri- cultural Economics, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2 By "marketable pork" is meant the pork that was produced during the year and sold or left on hand in the closing inventory. It is the total pork produced less the weight of any animals that died. 4 BULLETIN No. 390 {June, cost records produced 944,247 pounds of marketable pork; while in 1926 the 35 farms under study produced 1,061,126 pounds of market- able pork. The farmers were assisted in the record work by a route man whose entire time was spent in visiting the farms, weighing feed, checking numbers and weights of pigs, and gathering the necessary figures for a complete analysis of the factors affecting the cost and the perform- ance of the pigs under study. The production year began with the breeding of sows and gilts in the fall for spring farrow. Careful records and notes were taken on the conformation and thrift of breed- ing animals as well as their sanitary surroundings and precautions for sanitation during and after the suckling period. Counts were made of deaths, and the causes of deaths were determined whenever possible. Feeds were weighed and measured frequently enough to give a good record of the kinds and amounts consumed by the breeding herd during gestation, during the suckling period, and during the fattening period if they were fattened for market, or until they were rebred if they remained in the breeding herd. The amounts of feed fed to the pigs after weaning were also measured. A record was kept of the hours of man labor and horse labor put on the breeding herd up to the date the pigs were weaned, and a sepa- rate record was kept on sows and pigs after weaning. The equipment costs were computed for sows and pigs separately. All direct costs on sows and pigs were kept separate and where joint costs occurred, they were apportioned to sows and pigs, so that a- figure showing the cost of maintaining a breeding animal could be obtained. In like manner a record was kept of the cost of fattening pigs after weaning. The original farm figures were assembled and tabulated monthly except during the months of breeding, farrowing, weaning, and inven- torying, when all feed, labor, and other current expenses were recorded to and from the date of breeding, farrowing, weaning, and inventory- ing, so that at any time a cost figure could be determined for each class of hogs from one period of the production year to the next. Separate records were of course kept on spring and fall pigs. Corn and Hog Prices During Period Covered This study covered the major part of a hog and corn price cycle, the full period of which began during 1923 and extended to the middle of 1927 (Fig. 1). Prices of both corn and hogs experienced a temporary strengthen- ing in October and November of 1923, when this study began, but by 1933~\ FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS IN Hoc PRODUCTION December hogs had dropped to the lowest price since the World War and corn had also declined sharply. The price of corn remained rela- tively low during the spring of 1924. By late summer, when spring pigs were getting most of their corn, prices of both corn and hogs had again risen sharply, so that in the spring of 1925 some sows were JULY OCT. JAN. APR. JULY OCT. JAN. APR. JULY OCT. JAN. APR. JULY OCT JAN. APR. JULY FIG. 1. MONTHLY PRICES OF No. 3 YELLOW CORN AND OF HOGS AT CHICAGO DURING THE YEARS OF THIS STUDY The movement of corn prices from month to month and from season to season has a great deal to do in determining the system of pork production that will give the greatest profit. farrowing their pigs when corn was about 35 cents a bushel above the prevailing price the previous winter and spring. The price of hogs, however, made a rather marked rise during the early months of 1925 and followed a rather normal seasonal decline in the winter of 1925-26. Hog prices again rose until they reached their highest post-war peak in July, 1926. By June, 1927, they had declined to only two-thirds of their previous high mark. Corn, on the other hand, began to decline in the early months of 1925 and continued its decline thruout the months when hogs were at their peak prices. These broad price movements influenced the methods used by farm- ers in their pork production and also influenced costs and profits. Observation would indicate that feed was used less carefully when feed prices were low, and used more carefully when feed prices were high. 6 BULLETIN No. 390 [June, In the spring of 1927 there was a general tendency to hold hogs in the f eedlot waiting for an upturn in the market ; this threw some hog men out of their normal system of handling fall pigs that year. General Systems of Hog Production Hog producers in this section of Illinois, for the most part, do not follow rigidly any single system of pork production. With changes in feed and hog prices some of them change their systems from year to year. There are, however, what may be called systems and practices of enough difference followed by enough hog men to mark these sys- tems as characteristic. In this study farm records have been analyzed from the standpoint of: (1) the practice of producing one or two litters of pigs a year (occasionally these two systems are combined on the same farm and when this is done, one breeding herd produces two litters a year, while another produces only spring pigs) ; (2) the pro- duction of early or late spring pigs; (3) the use of gilts or mature sows as breeding animals. Under the one-litter system sows and gilts may be bred for either early or late spring farrow. After the pigs are weaned, the breeding animals are either fattened and marketed or are carried over on a maintenance ration for the farrow of pigs the following spring. With the two-litter system sows are usually bred for early spring farrow and rebred as soon as, or sometimes before, the spring pigs are weaned. Under the combination system outlined above the breeding herd pro- ducing one litter a year is bred to farrow late" spring pigs during the latter part of May or early June. These late- farrowing animals are usually gilts, the best of which may be retained and used for the pro- duction of two litters the following year. The best system for any individual hog man to follow and the ex- tent to which it will be profitable for him to develop the swine enter- prise will depend very largely on the general organization of his farm and the amount of corn he will have available any year. VARIATIONS IN PROFITS FROM FARM TO FARM There are wide differences in the net income from the production of equal quantities of pork on different farms in the same locality. These differences usually result from practices in growing hogs that affect both costs and the time of year pork is put on the market. It is quite possible to plan production so as to have some pork to sell either at the season most advantageous from the standpoint of cost of pro- duction, or of market price, or both. After the plan that fits best into 1933] FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS IN Hoc, PRODUCTION $61 1924 - 34 FARMS _ 2| -2 -4 -6 $6 4 2 -2. LOSS -4 PROFIT 1925-37 FARMS iimmiin -6 $8 e 4 2 -2 -6 PROFIT 1926-35 FARMS Illlllllll LOSS FIG. 2. PROFITS AND LOSSES PER 100 POUNDS OF PORK PRODUCED ON 34 TO 37 IN- DIVIDUAL FARMS IN McLEAN AND WOODFORD COUNTIES, ILLINOIS, 1924-1926 The wide differences in the profit from the pork enterprise that occurred on farms in the same locality the same year are to be noted here. On the whole, differences in cost were a greater factor in causing differences in profit than were differences in the prices at which the hogs were sold (see Table 1 and page 8). the usual seasonal hog-price movements has been determined, the prin- cipal factors that will make for success with hogs are those which have a bearing on cost of production. On 34 farms in McLean and Woodford counties in 1924 the net BULLETIN No. 390 [June, financial results from the hog enterprise varied from a loss of $6.56 a hundred pounds of pork produced on one farm to a net profit of $4.77 a hundred on an adjoining farm. In 1925 on 37 farms, on most of which cost figures had been kept in 1924, the returns from hogs varied from a loss of $6.78 to a net profit of $6.04 a hundred pounds of pork. During 1926 the returns on 35 farms varied from a loss of $4.64 a hundred pounds to a net profit of $9.01 a hundred (Fig. 2). These farms are located relatively close together and many of them adjoin. TABLE 1. DIFFERENCES IN COST OF PRODUCTION HAD A GREATER INFLUENCE ON RELATIVE PROFITS OR LOSSES FROM THE PORK ENTERPRISE ON A GROUP OF CENTRAL ILLINOIS FARMS, 1924-1926, THAN DID DIFFERENCES IN PRICES AT WHICH THE HOGS SOLD (Prices are per 100 pounds) 1924 1925 1926 Num- ber of farms Average cost of produc- tion Average sale price Num- ber of farms Average cost of produc- tion Average sale price Num- ber of farms Average cost of produc- tion Average sale price Profit $8-$10 1 $ 6.92 $14.09 6-8 . . 1 $ 6.38 $12.08 2 6.04 12.27 4- 6. . . . 2- 4 0- 2 Loss $0-$ 2 .... 2- 4 4- 6 . . . 1 12 12 5 3 $ 7.96 8.46 9.57 $11.50 12.39 $12.17 10.61 9.71 $ 9.22 8.51 10 16 7 1 1 7.74 8.79 10.07 $14.54 13.84 11.87 11.49 11.47 $12.52 10.28 9 12 8 1 1 1 7.38 7.58 8.98 $11.85 13.26 15.15 11.86 10.92 10.97 $11.04 11.21 10.08 6- 8 1 15.63 7.81 1 16.97 ii/6i On these various farms differences in cost proved, on the whole, a greater factor in determining the relative profits from the hog enterprise than did differences in the prices at which the hogs were sold. To ascertain the relative influence of cost and sales price on profit, all the farms under study each year were arranged in order of net profit. Between the one-fifth of the farms with the highest profit and the one- fifth with the lowest profit or no profit, a profit difference of $6.34 was shown in 1924, $4.74 in 1925, and $6.85 in 1926. The cost differences for these three years were $3.85, $3.90, and $4.21 respectively. This means that in 1924 differences in cost ac- counted for 61 percent of the differences in profit between the high- and low-profit farms, in 1925 for 82 percent, and in 1926 for 61 per- cent. (Figures not shown in tables.) Comparisons between smaller groups of these farms (Table 1) gives further evidence of the correctness of the above observation. In 1933} FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS IN Hoc PRODUCTION all but 8 of the 64 possible comparisons in this table, the difference in cost accounts for a greater share of the difference in profit than does the difference in the price at which the hogs sold. TOTAL COST OF PRODUCING PORK Quantities of Feed and Labor Used The total concentrates fed for each 100 pounds of marketable pork produced increased rather regularly from 457.0 pounds in 1924 to 475.5 pounds in 1925 and reached 486.9 pounds in 1926 (Table 2). By far the largest portion of these concentrates was corn. TABLE 2. QUANTITIES OF FEED AND LABOR USED IN PRODUCING 100 POUNDS OF MARKETABLE PORK, CENTRAL ILLINOIS FARMS, 1924-1926 (Breeding herd and fattening pigs combined for both spring and fall systems) 1924 34 farms 1925 37 farms 1926 35 farms Three-year average Feed Ibs. 394.2 Ibs. 398.2 Ibs. 408.5 Ibs. 400.3 Wheat 3.0 1.2 2.0 2.1 Rye .6 .4 .7 .6 Barley 2.7 2.2 2.0 2.3 Oats 32.4 40.5 42.8 38.6 Mill feeds 5.7 8.5 3.8 6.0 Skim milk 1 4.3 5.6 1.8 3.9 8.8 12.7 17.6 13.0 .2 2.0 3.3 1.8 5.1 4.2 4.4 4.6 Total concentrates 457.0 475.5 486.9 473.2 Dry roughage 3.9 1.0 1.1 2.0 Minerals 1.2 1.7 1.6 1.5 13.3 7.8 2.0 7.7 (2.1) (2.1) (2.2) (2.1) Labor Man labor hrs. 1.50 hrs. 1.44 hrs. 1.65 hrs. 1.53 .28 .30 .40 .33 1 Skim milk has been reduced to dry basis by multiplying the pounds of milk fed by .099; "Feeds and Feeding," Henry and Morrison, page 732, 1926 edition. 'Some soybean meal is included in the 1926 soybean figure. 'For description of a pasture-unit day see footnote on page 10. In 1924, when the farm price of corn during the hog-feeding season averaged approximately 93 cents a bushel, corn made up 86 percent of the total weight of all concentrates fed to make 100 pounds of pork. In 1925 and 1926, when the price of corn was 79 cents and 63 cents respectively, corn was fed to the extent of 84 percent of the weight of all concentrates. Very little labor was expended in preparing the corn for the hogs, as 72 percent was shoveled to them as ear corn, 24 percent was hogged down, 2 percent was shelled before being fed, .5 percent was ground, and an estimated 1.5 percent was salvaged from cattle 10 BULLETIN No. 390 [June, droppings. In 1924 oats made up a little over 7 percent of the total concentrates fed, and the next two years a little more than 8.5 percent. Approximately 46 percent of the oats were ground before being fed ; the remainder were fed whole. Barley, wheat, and rye were fed in small quantities. Among the mill feeds in Table 2 has been included mixed feeds as well as by-products of the milling industry. These made up less than 1.5 percent of the concentrates fed. Naturally they were used more extensively on some farms than on others. As an average for the three-year period mill feeds consisted of commercial mixed feeds, 77.5 percent; wheat middlings, 13.0 percent; wheat bran, 4.0 percent; red dog flour, 3.6 percent; alfalfa meal, 1.0 percent; and burnt flour, .9 percent. Somewhat more skim milk was used during 1924 and 1925 than during the last year of the study. It is difficult to account for the decided decline in the use of milk in 1926 other than by the decline in price of farm feeds that year which made the inclination to save grain by feeding milk less urgent. Tankage was the principal protein feed used ; the total amount of soybeans and linseed meal fed equaled roughly one-half the amount of tankage. Some of the mill feeds were relatively high in protein, serv- ing in some measure to take the place of the more concentrated protein feeds. Not until 1926 was there any soybean oil meal fed, and only a very few feeders used much of it that year. Since 1926 the feeding of soybean oil meal has become more general among the hog men of this and other areas of the state. Practically all the soybeans fed during the three years covered by this study were hogged down, most of them in the cornfields. The use of pasture for both breeding herd and pigs is very general in this area of the state. Every farm included in the study used some pasture, the amount 1 varying little from one year to another. lr rhe number of days of pasturage recorded in this bulletin are animal- unit pasture days. An animal unit in livestock is equivalent to one mature horse, cow, or steer. Since the conversion of pigs into animal units to measure the pasturage they consume should take into account the amount of concentrated feeds they are being fed, the following table was used as the basis for de- termining animal units of pigs on pasture. Weight of Weight per Pigs per Weight of Weight per Pigs per pigs animal unit animal pigs animal unit animal Ibs. Ibs. unit* Ibs. Ibs. unit* 30 1,720 57 100 2,210 22 40 1,790 45 120 2,350 20 50 1,860 36 140 2,490 18 60 1,930 32 160 2,630 16 70 2,000 29 180 2,770 15 80 2,070 26 200 2.910 14 90 2,140 24 Five sows and their litters per animal unit. 1933] FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS IN HOG PRODUCTION 11 s a == U v2 a .8 S s 8 O 03 OH t"0 o'a 2 1. 1 i (3 fi cscsin^oOkO'l'-HOOio 2i^ X M H ** t-4 -H < oo 3 ii IO ^OO'OOvOM/'JC^-^OO'* o ercentag a ^*"1< H oo PL, o oo_ n ,M i a ^ JS (d U 00 > o* r^. -ketable l S 3 O\O>O040000 <00-^ ^tOOtNO^CNOO"* s 9 to ts a "o 1O fO 8 w v> 8 a a ->! gjrt OiO/)/^OOfOWHr-.fO rJt<5O(SO 0)OO-< s 01 t ^< i 8 "o OS t~ 4 x, V> 5 o> o O "* u S S Scxj^ioirt-'ts-Jinio <*>O(SOH'^OO'H * * ft Ok ? "* f5 OC 0^ '/> <& 00 i ! 11 !': : } : j : : c c :::-:::: :| c S cd 'TS O. c .... 53 a : : :.2 : : : :^ g 1 . . .-S 60 r bushel. . . "S i I Feed and pasture Man labor Horse labor Lots and equipment (deprecii Deaths in breeding herd Veterinary Overhead 1 Taxes and incidentals Interest on capital in breedin Interest on capital in lots anc Total cost Average farm price of corn p< I >. a to U V 1 3 -^ a 3 o H 12 BULLETIN No. 390 [June, $18 15 12 9 6 3 $18 15 12 9 6 3 $15 12 g FEED COST OTHER COSTS 1925-37 FARMS FIG. 3. DIFFERENCES IN THE COST OF PRODUCING 100 POUNDS OF PORK ON 34 TO 37 FARMS IN WOODFORD AND MCLEAN COUNTIES, ILLINOIS, 1924-1926 With a few exceptions, the causes of the wide differences here shown in the cost of pork production on these central Illinois farms were those every-day management practices that are entirely under the control of the producer. The principal factor was the amount of concentrates fed. The one-third of the farms with the highest costs used 52 percent more concentrated feed than the one-third of the farms with the lowest costs to produce the same amount of pork. Hogs do not make heavy demands on man and horse labor com- pared with some of the other livestock enterprises. The hog enterprise, however, especially during the farrowing and suckling periods, is very exacting in its labor demands. Neglect of the breeding herd for one day during the farrowing season may result in severe financial loss. The amount of labor required yearly to care for a sow while in the 1933] FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS IN HOG PRODUCTION 13 breeding herd, during the years of this study, was 14.1 man hours and 1.5 horse hours (Table 7). For the entire hog enterprise, 1.53 hours of man labor and about one-third of an hour of horse labor were re- quired to grow 100 pounds of pork (Table 2). Dollar Costs The average cost of producing pork on 34 farms in 1924, some of them producing two litters and others one litter yearly, was $9.44 ; the average cost on 37 farms in 1925 was $8.75 ; and in 1926 on 35 farms it was $7.91 (Table 3). The costs on individual farms, however, in 1924 varied from $7.18 on the farm having the lowest cost to $15.63 on the farm having the highest cost (Fig. 3). In 1925 this range was from $6.38 to $16.97, and in 1926 from $5.72 to $15.15. These costs cover marketable pork produced by both breeding herd and pigs. These wide differences in costs and the fact that no two men had the same costs were due to a great number of conditions surrounding the growing of hogs on the individual farms. Some unavoidable con- ditions, such as changes in w r eather, in prices of feed, and in the hog market affect the good manager as well as the poor manager but the ability of some men to meet these unavoidable adverse conditions is much better than others, and it is not unusual to find the careful pro- ducers ready for the emergency when it occurs. With few exceptions the real causes for these wide differences in the cost of pork production were those every-day management practices that are entirely under the control of the producer. A discussion of some of the important causes of these variations in costs from farm to farm are taken up in the following pages. COMPARISON OF HIGH-COST AND LOW-COST FARMS The one-third of the farms 1 which had the lowest cost of produc- tion over the three years of this study produced 100 pounds of market- able pork for $6.22, while the one-third with the highest cost of pro- duction required $10.24. The main points at which these two groups of farms differed in their management of the swine enterprise is sug- gested by the data in Table 4. Just how much influence each of the factors listed had in causing the above difference in costs is hard to say, but three factors amounts of concentrates fed, breeding herd costs, and death losses stand out as having particular significance. J See footnote to Table 4 for explanation of "farms." 14 BULLETIN No. 390 [June, TABLE 4. COMPARISON OF CERTAIN SELECTED FACTORS ENTERING INTO COST OF MARKETABLE PORK ON THE HIGH-COST FARMS AND ON THE LOW-COST FARMS, 1924-1926 Selected factors Low-cost farms 1 OowH) High-cost farms 1 (high H) Number of farm years included 33 33 Average number of sows per farm 16 13 Net cost of 100 pounds of marketable pork $6.22 $10.24 395 597 80 4 81 6 Percentage cost of maintaining breeding herd was of total pork cost 2 .... Percentage gain in weight of breeding herd was of total gain 31.0 11.6 33.6 9 6 Percentage of breeding herd that were gilts 61.9 43.6 Days breeding herd was on farm . .... 252 266 Days pigs were on farm 252 255 Average weight of pigs sold, pounds 236 211 Average price per bushel of corn fed % .77 $ .78 Pounds of carbohydrate feed fed per pound of protein feed 7.7 7.7 7 10 Poor sanitation, number of farms ...... 12 7 No sanitation, number of farms . 14 16 Spring pigs weaned per breeding animal farrowing 5.7 5.2 Fall pigs weaned per sow farrowing 6.4 5.3 Percentage of herds with one-litter system 54.5 45.5 Percentage of herds with two-litter system 45.5 54.5 Percentage of pigs lost before weaning 29.5 38.5 Percentage of pork lost by death of pigs after weaning .96 3.15 'For each year of the three-year period of this study the farms were divided into three groups on the basis of the net cost of producing 100 pounds of marketable pork. The data on each year's low-cost farms and on each year's high-cost farms are here summarized for analysis and comparison. For this purpose each farm each year is considered a separate unit in the group. Thus it is more accurate to say that each group represents 33 farm years than to say that it represents 33 farms, but the term "farm" is used for convenience in all discussions. 2 Each farm was given equal weight in computing these averages. Amounts of Concentrates Fed From the relative importance of the different items of cost that appear in Table 3 and the different kinds of feeds shown in Table 2 it would seem that the principal factor responsible for the difference in cost was the quantity of concentrates fed. On the farms with low cost 395 pounds of concentrates were used to produce 100 pounds of mar- ketable pork, while on the high-cost farms 597 pounds were fed. Thus the high-cost farms used 52 percent more concentrated feed than the low-cost farms to produce the same amount of pork (Table 4). This difference in feed fed does not appear to be due to a difference in the proportion of protein supplements used, since the nutritive ratio (one pound of protein feeds to 7.7 pounds of carbohydrate feeds) was the same in both the low- and high-cost groups. The men who used large quantities of feed to make 100 pounds of pork also had high costs for other items than feed, for the share that feed was of the total cost was very nearly the same on both the high- 19331 FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS IN HOG PRODUCTION 15 cost and the low-cost farms. Thus poor management did not stop with poor feeding methods but showed itself all along the line. Differences in Breeding Herd Costs On the low-cost farms the cost of carrying the breeding herd was 31.0 percent of the total cost of pork production; on the high-cost farms it was 33.6 percent. Decidedly more gilts were used on the low- cost farms. This fact is no doubt partly responsible for the greater FIG. 4. COSTS MOUNT RAPIDLY WHEN FEED Is WASTED In lots that flood badly during the winter and early spring considerable feed is lost. Since feed makes up about 75 percent of the cost of carrying a brood sow and approximately 85 percent of the cost of fattening pigs, it is evident that every effort should be made to use it economically. percentage gain in weight made by the breeding animals of this group. The age of the sows in itself, however, does not seem to be the con- trolling factor in the final cost of producing pork (see page 36). It is very noticeable that the two-litter system predominated among the high-cost farms. This again was partially responsible for the larger share of the total cost that was incurred on the breeding herd in the high-cost group, tho probably not a factor in the cost of the pork made by the two groups of farms (see page 41). The degree of sanitation did not appear to have a very direct effect on cost at this point. A more detailed study of this factor, however, is presented on pages 54 to 57. Death Losses The tangible factor that seems to be responsible, to some extent, for the difference in the feed cost of the pork marketed from these two 16 BULLETIN No. 390 {June, a j- ". ^___ o 3 ? .5 S - H jo &< 8 : c c M % a ~100'-''5CS o .22 c 1" JB, MM 8 : Q I ** /> (S ^" CS O^ 00 o U n \J *O t^- ^J* C-'^' O 8 : 1 2 c la 000(0 00 h ii K OJ b ^9S888 S : i i CS PO O 00 ej i s "o H U 00 * A 3 ^2^ g3 M C^l 00 f*5 **5 ^ r^ O t2 O r* H O tS S - a g ft ^ c 2 53 i a (2 8 S <* X 18^" U M 1*8 -2SS 22 ro \O O r- 2 I o a S (S c 1 t tn w ... a ... :::::: Ii at 1 cyj S 1 Feed and pasture Man labor Horse labor Lots and equipment (depreciation a Veterinary Interest on investment Other costs Total costs Average farm price of corn per busl 'Each year of study was giv< 'Less than one-tenth of 1 per 1933] FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS IN HOG PRODUCTION 17 groups of farms is the difference in death losses. The low-cost farms weaned more pigs per sow and sustained a lower death loss among the pigs both before and after weaning than the high-cost farms. The feed consumed by these pigs until their death is charged against the market- able pork produced by the rest of the herd. The higher the death losses the larger, therefore, is the feed charge for each 100 pounds of marketable pork produced. THE BREEDING HERD AS A FACTOR IN THE COST OF PRODUCING PORK Because of the complex nature of the costs involved in maintaining the breeding herd and the relationship of these costs to the final cost of producing pork, particular attention was given in this study to the items chargeable against the brood sows. PERCENT BREEDING HERD COST WAS OF TOTAL COST FIG. 5. PERCENTAGE WHICH COST OF CARRYING THE BREEDING HERD WAS OF THE TOTAL COST OF PORK DURING THE DIFFERENT YEARS OF THIS STUDY For the three years of this study the cost of maintaining the breeding herd on all farms represented, as an average, 30.2 percent of the total cost of produc- ing pork. The fluctuations in the relation between breeding herd expense and total expense are largely explained by the fluctuations that occurred in corn prices before the pigs were weaned and after they were weaned (Fig. 1). On the average, for the three years of this study the cost of main- taining the breeding herd on all farms under study represented 30.2 percent of the total cost of producing pork. This fact is brought out in Table 5, which shows the various items of expense that entered into the cost of 100 pounds of marketable pork divided between breeding herd and fattening pigs. 18 BULLETIN No. 390 [June, The way in which breeding herd expense fluctuated in relation to total expense during the years of this study is brought out in Fig. 5. By comparing these fluctuations with the changes in corn prices shown in Fig. 1 it will be noted that when grain prices were declining during the production period (from the time the sows were bred until their pigs were sold), the cost of maintaining the sow made up a larger pro- portion of the total cost of marketable pork than it did when prices were rising thru this period. Relative Importance of Various Cost Factors While feed does not represent quite so great a proportion of the cost of carrying a brood sow as it does of the total cost of producing pork, it is still the major charge against brood sows. In this study TABLE 6. AVERAGE COST OF MAINTAINING A FARROWING Sow 1 IN THE BREEDING HERD (One- and two-litter farms combined) 1924 1925 1926 Average Number of herds 34 37 35 106 Number of sows 541 594 625 1760 266 260 340 291 Items of cost Feed and pasture $27.26 $37.00 $31.56 $32.07 Man labor 2.93 2.94 3.22 3.04 Horse labor .20 .22 .28 .23 Lota and equipment (depreciation and repairs) 1.58 1.80 1.67 1.69 Veterinary .04 .03 - .07 .05 Overhead 1.01 1.32 1.20 1.18 Death risk .73 1.25 1.47 1.17 Taxes and incidentals .54 .49 .62 .55 Interest on breeding herd .79 1.07 1.37 1.09 Interest on lots and equipment .88 .95 .84 .89 Gross cost per year $35.96 $47.07 $42.30 $41.96 Value of gain in sow and manure 11.49 18.87 17.12 15.98 Net cost per year $24.47 $28.20 $25.18 $25.98 Average farm price of corn per bushel $ .74 $ .98 $ .63 $ .78 'The feed and other costs for maintenance of a sow include a proportional share of maintaining male hogs and barren females in the breeding herd. *In computing the days in the breeding herd, the bred sows bought, the barren sows withdrawn from the herd, and the sows losing their pigs and sold shortly after farrowing have been included with the sows that weaned pigs. feed represented 84.2 percent of the cost of producing 100 pounds of pork and 76.5 percent of the gross cost of brood sows (Table 5). As might be expected, labor is the next largest cost in brood-sow r management. Man labor represented somewhat over 7 percent of the brood-sow costs and horse labor about .4 percent. It is not surprising to find, as shown in Table 5, that labor, especially man labor, is rela- tively more important with brood sows than it is with fattening pigs. 1933] FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS IN HOG PRODUCTION 19 Interest on investment is the next largest item of cost in carrying brood sows, representing nearly 5 percent of the total. Buildings and equipment costs follow very closely, making up over 4 percent of the total cost. As with labor, both these items are relatively more impor- tant with brood sows than they are with fattening pigs. As an average for the three years, the net cost of maintaining a farrowing sow in the breeding herd was $25.98 (Table 6). 1 Some variation in net cost occurred from year to year, tho the relative im- portance of the various items was substantially the same each year. The gross cost was $41.96 a head, which represents the actual outlay per sow. This gross cost was reduced to $25.98 by a credit of $15.98 for gain in weight by the sow and other appreciation in her value and by credit for the manure produced by her. Amounts of Feed and Labor Required by Breeding Herd The average amounts of the various feeds fed the animals of the breeding herd from the time the sows or gilts were bred until their pigs were weaned and they were either rebred or fattened for market are given in Table 7. Sows were on these farms an average of 291 days from the time they were sorted out for the breeding herd until they were sold or rebred. In addition to pasturage each sow is charged with a total of 2,075 pounds of feed. This represents a feed charge of 280 pounds per pig weaned, as 7.4 pigs were weaned per sow. Corn was, of course, the principal feed used, nearly 28 bushels (1,549 pounds) being fed per sow. Nearly one-fifth as many pounds of oats were fed as corn, while other farm grains and mill feeds totaled less than 100 pounds per sow. Protein supplements were fed sparingly, high-protein feeds making up only a little over 5 percent of the total feed fed. This amount falls considerably short of balancing the ration properly. Each sow or gilt in the breeding herd was responsible for a total of 1,587 pounds of pork when the gains she made are combined with those of her offspring. To make this pork the pigs consumed 5,634 pounds of feed and the mother 2,075 pounds, the mother's portion being about 27 percent of the total. The sow used 14.1 hours of man labor, or about 51 percent of the total man labor in the whole production process, and her pigs 13.3 hours. The sow required only 1.5 hours of horse labor a year, or 25 percent of the horse labor used in the whole process, and her pigs used 4.5 hours. 1 Note that the cost of carrying male hogs and barren females is included in the sow costs. 20 BULLETIN No. 390 [June, TABLE 7. QUANTITIES OF FEED AND LABOR USED PER FARROWING Sow 1 YEARLY (Data combined for one- and two-litter farms) 1924 1925 1926 Three-year average Number of sows 541 Average number of sows per farm 16 Average days in breeding herd 1 266 Feed Ibs. Corn 1 432 Barley 9 Wheat 27 Rye 2 Oats 176 Mill feed 19 Tankage 41 Soybeans* 24 Linseed meal 1 Skim milk< 20 Roughage 26 Miscellaneous* 42 Minerals Pasture-unit days' (12) Total feed less pasture 1 826 Labor Man labor, hours 13.1 Horse labor, hours 1.4 Number of pigs weaned per sow farrowing. . 6.7 Pounds of feed fed sow per pig weaned 272 594 16 260 Ibs. 1 468 2 20 13 298 65 53 21 6 28 28 1 6 (12) 2 009 13.7 1.4 7.4 271 625 18 340 Ibs. 1 728 10 11 1 397 36 87 33 12 11 17 16 7 (14) 2 366 14.7 1.7 7.9 299 760 17 291 Ibs. 549 7 19 5 296 40 59 26 6 20 23 19 6 (13) 2 075 14.1 1.5 7.4 280 'The feed and other costs for maintenance of a sow include a proportional share of maintaining male hogs and barren females in the breeding herd. J See note 2 to Table 6. 3 Some soybean meal is included in the 1926 soybean figure. 4 Skim milk is reduced to a dry basis by multiplying pounds of milk fed by .099. 'Mostly sweet-corn canning-factory silage and kitche'n slop. 'For a description of a pasture-unit day see page 10. Cost per Pig Weaned The breeding herd has three functions in the swine enterprise: (1) to provide for the continuance of the enterprise by supplying replace- ments for the breeding herd as needed; (2) to produce pork from its own increase in weight; and (3) to provide animals for the fattening herd. From the standpoint of values involved, the greatest contribution the breeding herd makes to the swine enterprise is the crop of weaned pigs it produces. In turn, the net cost of a weaned pig is probably the best single measure of the efficiency of the breeding herd as a part of the swine enterprise, tho the cost of gain made by the breeding herd cannot, of course, be entirely ignored. The cost of a weaned pig is the cost of carrying a brood sow dis- tributed over the number of pigs this sow weans alive and ready to go into the fattening pen. Under the different methods of handling the breeding herds in this study the average gross cost of producing a 1933} FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS IN HOG PRODUCTION 21 weaned pig was $5.39 in 1924, $6.30 in 1925, and $5.30 in 1926 (Table 8). While the gilts and sows were producing their pigs, they gained some weight and produced some manure. When the value of these two items is subtracted from the gross cost, the net costs become $3.67 for 1924, $3.77 for 1925, and $3.16 for 1926. There was, however, a wide variation from farm to farm in the cost of producing pigs. In 1924 FIG. 6. Sows AND GILTS BRED FOR FALL LITTERS CARRIED THRU THE SUMMER ON A WELL-DRAINED MIXED-CLOVER PASTURE Breeding animals cared for in this way will be in good healthy condition when farrowing time arrives, and they will have consumed much less grain than if held in dry lot. This means better litters and lower costs for feed. the net cost of a weaned pig varied from 47 cents on one farm to $10.49 on another; in 1925 the range was $1.18 to $7.31, and in 1926, 65 cents to $6.60 (figures not shown in tables). This variation from farm to farm in the net cost of a weaned pig is wider relatively than the variation in cost of gain on pigs after wean- ing or in the total cost of producing pork. This fact suggests that fewer farmers attain as high a degree of success in the management of the breeding herd as they do in the management of the fattening pigs. Certainly more skill and attention to details are required to raise pigs to weaning age than to fatten them thereafter. The importance of producing weaned pigs at low cost is shown in Table 9. Every dollar saved in the cost of a weaned pig was associated with a saving of 70 cents in the final net cost of each 100 pounds of marketable pork. The average net cost of producing weaned pigs on the one- third of the farms showing the lowest cost per pig was $2.23, while on the farms in the high-cost group the average was $5.24 per pig. Assuming the cost of gain after weaning to be the same with the 22 BULLETIN No. 390 rt .. If CM -CN0010-*10CN 2 .fi cd H : : : iS 1 "" 8 ' S 8 >e ibution 2 . . . ^.f, ro MPO CM g 10 to 5 V ^ ^^^^^^ 00 ercentai o : : : S* : IO O CL, r~CM CM CM-* CL, D W In* 2 IOOO * CMCM-HCMCM O . . . t^. O oo w I* g V cd "o CM ^^^^-^^'-2:2 ^S ^ O _C U 10 JJ JOCM s 1 * '. rt oo <> CM t^ 00 T* r*5 rj< ~* IO ^ 00 CM f*5 O CM * O ^O CMO O -^ H *5t~ P U ^ CQ s s- W) a I; ::iti iii :i u ...^ g ' : :| ::::::::: o . .- . . . rt : :g_ : : : :::::: :| ' '"S ' ' "a S V t c S : : i 2 g o, :-o.& a > D . ^ 3 CO J I I Iflll bi a h eg fe :-g : :^o ~5 5 11 ^ S sl ?>; ^'^ 15 51 | aislslllill ol || w |iSSS^>OQH ZZ< si Net cost pe 1933} FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS IN Hoc PRODUCTION 23 two groups of pigs, those in the higher cost group would have to sell, for $1.34 more per hundred at 225 pounds weight in order to make up this difference in initial cost. Factors Responsible for Differences in Cost of Weaned Pigs A study of the individual records indicates that there is no one factor which will account for all the above difference in the cost of TABLE 9. FACTORS AFFECTING THE COST OF A WEANED PIG One-third farms with low-cost pigs One-third farms with high-cost pigs Three-year average, all farms Number of farm years included 36 36 106 25 18 22 $2.23 $5.24 $3.53 41 43 42 8.0 7.2 7.4 Percentage of pigs lost before weaning date 30.1 34.5 31.7 $18.48 $35.65 $25.98 35.2 48.0 44.7 64.8 52.0 55.3 252 272 261 Percentage sows barren, sold, or died before farrowing .... Gain in weight of sow, pounds 15.2 168 12.8 111 13.2 128 Feed fed each sow, pounds 1419 1696 1580 Mill feed 431 448 336 95 127 111 Roughage and miscellaneous 61 17 48 12 10 13 7.0 6.8 6.9 Minerals fed, pounds . Salt .4 1.3 .9 Minerals 7.2 4.2 6.6 $ .79 $ .78 $ .78 13.1 15.9 14.1 22.4 37.5 30.5 34.8 25.8 30.2 42.8 36.7 39.3 Marketable pork produced per sow, pounds 1811 1480 1587 Net cost of 100 pounds of marketable pork $6.78 $8.98 $8.70 iBoth spring and fall litters. weaned pigs. The difference is due to the accumulated differences of many factors, as suggested by the data in Table 9. The percentage death losses of pigs before weaning were lighter by nearly 4.5 points on the low-cost farms ; which fact resulted in more pigs being weaned per litter on these farms by nearly one pig than were weaned by the sows on the high-cost farms. A further discussion of the effects of death losses on costs appears on pages 24 and 25. 24 BULLETIN No. 390 \_]une, The sows on the farms that produced the low-cost pigs gained an average of 168 pounds during the time they were on these farms; the sows on the farms producing the high-cost pigs gained only 111 pounds. Gain produced at this point will always reduce the net cost of carrying a sow when pork is produced at a profit, as it was in this study. FIG. 7. COST OF A WEANED PIG AS AFFECTED BY SIZE OF LITTER WEANED The difference between the cost of a weaned pig from a 2-to-4-pig litter and that of a pig from a 6-to-8-pig litter is hard to overcome by any system of feeding or handling that may be practiced during the fattening period. The above data are based on records of spring litters on 34 to 37 central Illinois farms in 1924-1926. The percentage of farms in each size-of-litter group was practically the same each year. As a three-year average, 11.3 percent weaned between 2 and 4 pigs per sow in their spring litters, 42.4 percent weaned be- tween 4 and 6 pigs, and 45.3 percent weaned from 6 to 8 pigs. The remaining 1 percent weaned more than 8 pigs per sow. Differences in the feed consumption also contributed to the differ- ence in cost of a weaned pig. The sows on the farms producing the high-cost pigs averaged 282 pounds more feed per head than those on the low-cost farms, tho it is true that they were retained on the farm some 20 days longer. However, when allowance is made for the longer feeding period, it still is true that sows on the high-cost farms used a pound more feed per day than the sows on the low-cost farms. There was no marked difference in the character of the rations fed nor in the price of corn fed the two groups. How Size of Litter Weaned Affects Pork Costs Over the three years of this study the average net cost of producing a weaned pig in spring litters of 2 to 4 pigs was $5.18 (Fig. 7). Pigs weaned in spring litters containing 6 to 8 pigs, on the other hand, cost only $3.56. Pork produced in the 6-to-8-pig litters cost $8.39 a hun- dred pounds as an average over the three years, while in the 2-to-4-pig litters it cost $11.14 a hundred (Table 10 and Fig. 8). Unless there are got)d-sized litters to show for the time and expense put into the breeding herd, the weaned pig will start into its fattening 1933] FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS IN HOG PRODUCTION 25 TABLE 10. COST OF 100 POUNDS OF PORK FROM PIGS WEANED IN LITTERS OF VARYING SIZES Year 2 to 4 pigs per litter 4 to 6 pigs per litter 6 to 8 pigs per litter 1924 $11.51 $ 9.34 $8.96 1925 11.36 10.00 8.02 1926 .. ,. 10.47 8.60 7.25 $11.14 $ 9.55 $8.39 period with a cost 1 very difficult to overcome by any system of feeding or handling that may be practiced later. Let us assume that two pigs one out of the small litter of 2 to 4 pigs and one from the good-sized litter of 6 to 8 pigs each weighing 40 pounds at weaning time, were fed to a market weight of 240 pounds. If it cost $16.25 to put on the 200 pounds gained after weaning, which was about the average cost over this three-year period, then the hog from the small litter would cost a total of $21.43. The selling price necessary to meet the cost of COST OF 100 POUNDS MARKETABLE PORK FIG. 8. COST OF PRODUCING PORK AS AFFECTED BY SIZE OF LITTER The breeding herd share of the cost of producing pork in the 2-to-4-pig group was 39 percent higher than in the 6-to-8-pig group. Costs after weaning were 34 percent higher in the 2-to-4-pig group than in the 6-to-8-pig group. Small litters evidently were only one manifestation of less expert care given the enterprise on the small-litter farms. this hog would therefore be $8.93 a hundred pounds. The hog from the good-sized litter would cost when finished $19.81. The cost of pro- ducing this hog would be covered by a sale price of $8.25 a hundred, which is 68 cents less than w r ould be necessary to cover the cost of the hog from the small litter. As a matter of fact, the after-weaning costs on the small-litter farms in this study were also higher than the after-weaning costs on the large-litter farms (Fig. 8). Evidently the pork enterprise was 'Farm figures show that it costs within a few cents as much to maintain a sow producing only two pigs ready for the fattening pen, as it does a sow that weans six or seven pigs in as good condition. 26 BULLETIN No. 390 [June, "6 g II 2 ~ u- - y ir --r .r -> u- - ~ :r | 3* oooOr^oor*^^**Sf*5 ^^ O *^ < SS222 :"- : :- :-K 2 E D 2 S * a :- : :- :. :, S 1 IO * to * 2 - i *** :- : :- : 8 | I -o to \O O> O- 00 ts * 00 'O\ 00 H C 2 o, 10 3 a 2 - s s 552S- :=" :::: : g 1 SS223-2 :-::: S ing litters SI t~ ts oo o * H t- -to < ->o oo OOlO <-llO -l >O 00 e -0 1 - rt" 5 ' to (S (S r~ (S ON * O\ 00 ts -"ts -ts 00 h ll :::::::::::::: :J : . . .3 "y 8 : : -S : : : : :3 : : : : : s . :*> . '" i 2 j 7933] FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS IN HOG PRODUCTION 27 handled less efficiently on the small-litter farms, and small litters were only one manifestation of less expert care. Differences in cost are less noticeable to the producer than the same differences in selling price, yet they have the same effect on net profit. If two neighbors had their hogs on the same market the same day and the hogs were of equal value, yet one load brought 68 cents more a hundred than the other, as in the example shown above, the man whose hogs sold cheap would consider the market very unfair. He may, however, lose this much or even more because his costs are higher than his neighbor's, and yet know nothing of it. Care of Pigs Principal Factor in Size of Litter at Weaning Variations in size of litters in this study were very largely deter- mined by the number of pigs that were saved during the farrowing and suckling period. While it was true that the number of pigs farrowed per litter differed somewhat from farm to farm, there was far more difference between farms in the number of live pigs on hand at weaning time. Of all the spring pigs farrowed during the course of this study an average of only 66.2 percent were alive when it came time to put them into the fattening pens. The other 33.8 percent had either been born dead or had died during the suckling period. Losses among the pigs farrowed in the fall were not so heavy, 68.1 percent of these pigs living to weaning time. By far the majority of these losses were due to physical causes and not to disease (Table 11). The extent to which these losses are reduced will govern to a considerable degree the effi- ciency of pork production on any farm. While it may not be within the range of practice to eliminate these losses completely, the fact that they can be greatly reduced is borne out by a study of the records of individual farms. Avoiding Losses in Suckling Pigs More pigs are lost by being crushed by the sow than from any other single cause (Table 11). Such losses result from three general causes: carelessness on the part of the sow, physical conditions in the pen, and strength of the pig. Gilts should be selected to go into the breeding herd on a basis of their promise to develop into good mothers. After a trial, that criterion should still be the basis of their retention, and all naturally careless animals should be eliminated. Sows, as they mature or if they are permitted to become over fat, are frequently so heavy, awkward, and lazy that they are a menace to their litters. Deaf and 28 BULLETIN No. 390 [June, blind sows naturally will overlay more pigs than sows whose hearing and sight function normally. Guard rails on the sides of the pen will save the lives of many pigs that might otherwise be crushed. Pens that are too small are a hazard. An excess of bulky, loose bedding into which the pigs can burrow and be lost from the sight of the sow is dangerous and should be replaced by fine bedding that will lie close to the floor. Bedding should be renewed frequently enough to insure a thoroly dry bed for the pigs at all times. Pigs that are weak when farrowed are more likely to be crushed than are active, vigorous pigs. The number of weak pigs as well as the number farrowed dead can be largely eliminated by giving the sows suitable quarters, feeding them a well-balanced ration and encouraging them to take sufficient exercise during gestation. Pregnant sows should be protected from injury, and precautions should be taken to avoid the ravages of contagious abortion. Pig-eating sows are very rare in herds that receive a well-balanced ration during gestation. Such a ration fed during this important period will also reduce the number of starved pigs, as the sow thus fed is in a condition to nourish her litter properly after, as well as before, it is born. If the loss due to starved pigs is to be completely eliminated, attention must be given to the soundness and condition of the sows' udders when they are selected for the breeding herd. A large number of starved pigs can be saved by shifting them to other sows that are able to take care of them. A considerable number of pigs are lost at farrowing time, especially in severe weather, because no record is kept of the expected date of farrowing. As a result, a litter or two of pigs may be farrowed under unfavorable conditions before they are really expected. This can be prevented by keeping a simple record of breeding dates. The next important losses occur because of lack of proper sanitary precautions. These losses include those due to sore mouth, necrotic infection, scours, thumps, and worms. Feeding also may occasionally be responsible for scours. The simple principles of the "McLean county system of swine sanitation," 1 if followed, will prevent practically all these losses and a larger amount of invisible loss that is due to the weakened condition of the pig after it has been exposed to the various filth-borne infections and parasites. In general the other causes of loss among young pigs chilling and J See Circular 306 of this Station, "Cheaper and More Profitable Pork Thru Swine Sanitation." 1933} FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS IN HOG PRODUCTION 29 cholera, for example are easily understood and the method of pre- vention fairly evident. THE PIGS AFTER WEANING AS A FACTOR IN COST OF PRODUCING PORK It has been shown that approximately 30.2 percent of the cost of producing pork was connected with the maintenance of the breeding herd ; the distribution of the remaining 68.8 percent is given in Table 12. The distribution of costs when only the fattening pigs are con- sidered differs materially from the distribution of costs in the main- tenance of the breeding herd, or of the total combined costs of breeding herd and fattening pigs (Table 5, page 16). Under comparable farm prices for feed and other items of expense the cost of producing 100 pounds of pork after weaning was consider- ably less on the farms in this study than the cost of 100 pounds when the whole period of production is taken into consideration breeding herd and pigs to date of weaning included. As would be expected," feed makes up a larger share of the cost after weaning than it does when the whole production operation is considered (Table 5), for more labor and more buildings and equipment are needed to care for the sows and their pigs than are needed after the pigs are weaned. The average cost of producing pork after weaning when corn averaged 99 cents a bushel was $9.58 a hundred pounds. When corn was 63 cents a bushel, as it was in 1926, the average cost of producing pork after weaning was $7.41 a hundred. When corn was 63 cents a bushel at the farm, the cost of 100 pounds gain after weaning was ap- proximately 12 times the price of corn; but when the price of corn was about a dollar a bushel at the farm, the cost of 100 pounds gain after weaning was a little less than nine times the price of corn (Table 12). Altho in 1924, when corn prices averaged approximately a dollar, hog men fed less grain to their hogs for each 100 pounds gain, the proportion which feed cost was of the total cost ranged higher than it did when the price was 63 cents. A comparison of the farms with low after-weaning costs and the farms with high after-weaning costs, with respect to certain selected factors entering into pork production, is shown in Table 13. The data are summarized for three years, the three annual low one-third of the farms and the three annual high one-third being combined into two groups for analysis. Each group of farms thus represents 33 farm years. On the farms with the lowest after-weaning costs, pork was pro- duced at an average after-weaning cost of $6.55 a hundred pounds. 30 BULLETIN No. 390 [June, H H b Ull g a -o en C Q cS 8 h ___ e S 11 oS" 5 8 I o 1/3 o* o cs ^H cmn e ibution 1 oo g 3 oo 8 u TJ* 10 *n t*- o* vo ^^ CS CS O -* CM ^ X oo "I 00 a u X S CS r weani e COCMO-H CSO CN ^ 9 -H "-, & i 00 ^ 10 :::!:: :::::: o 1 :::::: I ! *Ji ! " O ; : "o ; : g n per bushe weaning, p Items of cost Feed and pasture Man labor Horse labor Lots and equipment (de Veterinary Overhead Interest on lots and equ Total cost Average farm price of cor Total pork produced after 1933] FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS IN HOG PRODUCTION 31 On the farms with the highest after-weaning costs pork was produced at an after-weaning cost of $10.74 a hundred pounds. This difference in after-weaning costs on these two groups of farms shows a direct relation to the difference in the total cost of all pork produced on these farms, including the cost of the breeding herd as well as the pigs. On TABLE 13. COMPARISON OF THE FARMS WITH HIGH AFTER- WEANING COSTS AND THE FARMS WITH Low AFTER- WEANING COSTS (Average figures for 1924, 1925, 1926; one and two litters combined) Selected factors One-third low-cost farms One-third high-cost farms Number' of farm years 33 33 Net cost of 100 pounds marketable pork after weaning $6 55 $10 74 Net cost of 100 pounds marketable pork made from entire herd $6 43 $ 9.51 Marketable pork made after weaning, per farm, pounds 21 292 18 334 Marketable pork made from entire herd, per pig weaned, pounds Percentage of pigs that died after weaning 226 4 2 209 12.2 Percentage of total gain lost by deaths after weaning 1.0 3.0 Days pigs were on farm after weaning 180 198 Average market weight, pounds 239 210 Average daily gain, after weaning, pounds 1.3 1.1 Feed per 100 pounds gain after weaning, pounds Grain 314 566 Mill feed 35 55 Protein feed 24 51 Total concentrates 373 672 Roughage, pounds 26 1 Pasture-unit days 1.4 1.8 Minerals per 1,000 pounds gain after weaning, pounds 21.9 10.9 Carbohydrates fed per pound of protein, pounds 7.8 7.9 Average farm price of corn fed after weaning $ .75 $ .78 Man labor used per 1,000 pounds marketable pork, hours 10.2 14.2 Horse labor used per 1,000 pounds marketable pork, hours 2.5 3.4 the farms having the lowest after-weaning costs the cost of all market- able pork produced by the breeding herd as well as by the fattening pigs was $6.43 a hundred pounds, and on the farms having the highest after-weaning costs it was $9.51 a hundred. That the price of corn, the principal grain fed after weaning, was not the influencing factor in this difference is shown by the fact that on the low-cost farms corn was valued at only 3 cents a bushel less than on the high-cost farms. Amounts of Feed One of the most striking differences between the low-cost and the high-cost farms was the amount of feed used in producing comparable quantities of pork. On the low-cost farms 100 pounds of pork was made after weaning with 373 pounds of concentrates and 26 pounds of 32 BULLETIN No. 390 [June, roughage, while on the high-cost farms 672 pounds of concentrates and 1 pound of roughage were required. Since feed constituted 85.5 to 89 percent of the after-weaning cost, it is evident that this difference in amount of feed used would have an important effect on the difference in the total after-weaning costs. The larger amount of feed required for pork production on the high-cost farms was partly due to larger death losses. On these farms TABLE 14. QUANTITIES OF FEED AND LABOR USED IN PRODUCING 100 POUNDS OF MARKETABLE PORK AFTER WEANING Kinds of feed 1924 34 farms 1925 37 farms 1926 35 farms Three-year average Feed Corn Ibs. 396.7 Ibs. 411.8 Ibs. 417.4 Ibs. 408.6 Wheat 1.6 1.8 1.1 Rye .6 .5 1.0 .7 Barley 2.8 1.6 1.9 2.3 Oats 27.2 29.2 26.4 27.6 Mill feeds 6.0 6.0 2.1 4.7 Skim milk 1 3.9 5.2 1.6 3.6 8.5 12.6 17.0 12.7 Linseed meal .2 2.2 3.5 2.0 Soybeans 2 4.6 3.8 3.4 3.9 Total concentrates 452.0 472.9 476.1 467.2 Dry roughage 2.7 .8 .1 1.2 Minerals 1.0 1.7 1.7 1.5 13.9 10.4 1.4 8.6 Pasture-unit days 3 . . (1.8) (1.9) (1.9) (1.9) Labor Man labor hrs. .99 hrs. .91 hrs. 1.08 hrs. 1.00 Horse labor .26 .30 .41 .32 Average weight of pigs when sold, pounds . . Ibt, 217 Ibs. 215 Ibs. 215 Ibs. 216 ^kim milk has been reduced to a dry basis by multiplying the pounds of milk fed by .099. 2 Some soybean meal is included in the 1926 soybean figure. 3 For description of pasture-unit day see page 10. 12.2 percent of the pigs died after they were weaned, while only 4.2 percent of the pigs on the low-cost farms died after weaning (Table 13). Thru death losses the high-cost farms lost 3 percent of the total gain made by all the pigs after they were weaned. The low-cost farms, on the other hand, lost by death only 1 percent of their gain after the pigs were weaned. The quantities of feed used for 100 pounds gain after weaning tended to change somewhat inversely with the price of corn (Table 14). In 1924, when corn was approximately a dollar a bushel, 452 pounds of concentrates (principally corn) were used to make 100 pounds of gain; but in 1926, when the corn fed was priced at approxi- mately 63 cents a bushel, 476 pounds of concentrates were used. Very little less feed was used to make 100 pounds of pork after the 1933} FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS IN HOG PRODUCTION 33 date of weaning than was used as an average for the herd as a whole, breeding anirtials and pigs combined. (Compare Table 14 with Table 2.) The fact that the cost of feed makes up so large a part of the total cost of pork production accounts for the close relation between differ- ences in quantities of feed used and differences in cost of gains. For the after- weaning period this relation between amounts of feed used and cost of gains is shown in Table 15. The farms in the group using TABLE IS. RELATION BETWEEN AMOUNT OF FEED USED IN MAKING GAINS ON PIGS AFTER WEANING AND CERTAIN PRODUCTION FACTORS 200-399 Ibs. 400-599 Ibs 600-799 Ibs Number of farms 26 60 10 16 17 g Production factors Carbohydrate feed fed with each pound of protein feed, 7.5 8.1 9.2 Daily gain per head, pounds 1.06 .98 .96 211 229 210 199 234 219 32 39 8 41 29 No sanitation, percentage of farms 27 32 92 Death losses among suckling pigs, percent 29.2 32.3 40.4 Cost of each 100 pounds gain after weaning $6.69 $8.62 $11.19 600 to 799 pounds of concentrates for 100 pounds of pork after wean- ing produced this pork at a cost of $11.19 a hundred, while the farms that fed only 200 to 399 pounds of concentrates for 100 pounds of gain after weaning produced this pork for $6.99 a hundred. The weights to which the pigs were fed were practically the same on both the high- feed and low-feed farms. Rapidity of Gains Another point at which farms having low after-weaning costs were superior to those having high after-weaning costs was in rapidity of gains. The low-cost farms averaged 1.3 pounds daily gain per animal, compared with 1.1 pounds on the high-cost farms (Table 13). The pigs on the farms with low after-weaning costs were sold at 239 pounds 180 days after weaning; on the high-cost farms the pigs were sold 198 days after weaning at 210 pounds a head. A study of the individual farms indicates very clearly that carrying pigs along on a light ration after weaning did not pay so well as it did to put them on full feed as soon as practicable. 34 BULLETIN No. 390 [June, That daily gain is an important factor and that rapid and econom- ical gains go hand in hand is shown by a regrouping of these farms on the basis of the amounts of feed fed for each 100 pounds of gain made FIG. 9. FULL FEEDING PIGS SOON AFTER WEANING MEANS MORE RAPID AND ECONOMICAL GAINS The low-cost farms by putting their weaned pigs on full feed made more rapid gains and marketed their pigs sooner than the high-cost farms. (Table 15). In the high- feed group it was necessary to carry the hogs 20 days longer than in the low-feed group, in order to bring them to practically the same average market weight. Character of Ration The farms with high after-weaning costs fed a somewhat wider ration than the low-cost farms that is, they used more carbohydrate feed with each pound of protein feed (Table 13). Still there was not enough difference in this respect, it would seem, to cause much varia- tion in the performance of the pigs in these two groups or in the cost of the ration. The low-cost farms fed more mineral for each 1,000 pounds of pork produced after weaning. On the other hand, the high-cost farms used somewhat more pasturage. The large amount of roughage other than pasturage fed on the low-cost farms in 1924 was due to the feeding of sweet-corn canning- factory silage on a few farms in the group. No appreciable amount of roughage was fed during the other years. Regrouping these farms according to amounts of concentrated feed fed to the fattening pigs for 100 pounds gain (Table 15), we find that the high- feed group fed a wider ration than the others. They used FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS IN HOG PRODUCTION 35 9.2 pounds of carbohydrates for every pound of protein feed, while the low- feed farms used only 7^> pounds of carbohydrate feed for each pound of protein feed. Care and Housing As to care and housing, it would appear that there was every oppor- tunity for the pigs on the high-cost farms to have had the advantage, for on these farms more man labor and horse labor was devoted to FIG. 10. INEXPENSIVE BUILDINGS AND SHELTERS HAVE AN IMPORTANT PLACE IN ECONOMICAL PORK PRODUCTION To use labor and materials to construct better equipment than the enterprise requires is to increase costs and to lower net returns. Shelters like this which cost little often prevent sun blister and help distribute droppings where desired. them than on the low-cost farms (Table 13) and they had equally good housing facilities. One very marked difference in the way in which the hog enterprise was handled on the different farms in this study was the degree to which sanitation was practiced. The extent to which lack of sanitation may be linked with high feed requirements is suggested by Table 15. One out of three of all farms in the low-feed group practiced good swine sanitation, while of those in the high-feed group only one out of 12 did so. It is true that 27 percent of the farms in the low-feed group practiced no sanitation of any kind, but in the high- feed group sanitary practices were almost entirely absent. Another factor, difficult if not impossible to ascertain except by personal observation, had a determining influence in placing a farm in either the high-cost or the low-cost group, and that was the diligence used in caring for the animals and the timeliness with which every task was performed. Personal contact with these farmers for three years gave ample opportunity to form a rather accurate opinion of each 36 BULLETIN No. 390 {June, farmer's diligence ; and the low-cost producers were consistently found in the group that were attentive and exacting and timely in the care of their hogs. The wide differences in the kinds and amounts of feed fed to the pigs after they were weaned, in the length of time they were on feed, in rate of gain, in rate of feeding, and in other practices would seem to indicate that some of these feeders were too often influenced by immediate necessity or carelessness rather than by well-laid plans. GILTS OR SOWS FOR THE BREEDING HERD A wide difference of opinion exists among practical hog men con- cerning the relative economy of gilts and tried sows for breeding stock, of the one- and two-litter systems, of raising early- rather than late- farrowed spring pigs, and the economy in swine sanitation. It was therefore thought worth while to study these phases of hog production in an attempt to determine the causes for the wide differences in costs and profits found on these different farms. Whether either the use of gilts or the use of sows as breeding stock has an advantage over the other should be ascertained, for, as noted on page 17, the cost of maintaining the breeding herd is approximately one-third of the total cost of producing pork. The chief advantages usually ascribed to gilts over sows that have produced one or more litters are that because of their continued growth they are appreciating in value while they produce their pigs, and that owing to their greater smoothness and relatively light weight after rais- ing one litter they sell at less discount on the market than do old sows. On the other hand, one disadvantage of gilts as breeding animals is that until they are tried it is impossible to know their breeding ca- pacities. Because of this uncertainty it is customary for farmers using gilts to sort out more animals for the breeding herd than would be necessary if* they were using tried sows. Under the plan of retaining the best breeding animals in the herd for a few years it is possible to have the advantage of increased age, which in itself tends to give larger litters and permits getting rid of the sows with inferior breeding and maternal characteristics. As a consequence of this greater age and selection, mature sows, on the average, farrow larger litters than do gilts. In some studies this difference has averaged from a half to two pigs per litter. 1 In the present study the mature sows with early pigs lost a smaller percentage of their pigs before weaning than did the J See Bulletin 226 of this Station, "Variations in Farrow, With Special Ref- erence to the Birth Weight of Pigs," 1920. 1933} FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS IN HOG PRODUCTION 37 gilts ; with late pigs the mature sows lost a larger percentage than the gilts. The final number of pigs alive at weaning was larger for sows than for gilts in early litters and somewhat larger for gilts in late litters. Average Net Costs With Sows and Gilts Twenty-seven farms in this study used gilts entirely in spring pig production (Table 16). These droves of gilts weaned 5.7 spring pigs TABLE 16. COST OF A WEANED PIG AS INFLUENCED BY AGE OF BREEDING ANIMALS USED; SPRING LITTERS ONLY, 1924-1926 (Figures are based on number of breeding animals that farrowed pigs) Items Farms using all gilts Farms using all sows 27 14 18 13 Average number of animals farrowing pigs, per farm 16 11 Average value of each animal in the breeding herd $21.28 $25.66 250 276 Feed cost per breeding animal, corn 80^, oats 36#, tankage $65, other $21.40 $21.47 Other costs (actual) 6.90 6.90 150 43 Sales price per 100 pounds of breeding animal $10.04 $ 9.57 Reduction in cost of carrying breeding animal due to gain in weight Net cost of carrying breeding animal $15.06 $13.24 $ 4.12 $24 . 25 5.7 6.2 Average weight of pigs weaned, pounds 39 50 Average net cost of a weaned pig $ 2.32 $ 3.91 Spring farrowing date April 16 March 29 Spring weaning date June 25 June 6 Feed consumed per animal in breeding herd Ibs. 994 Ibs. 1 227 Mill feeds 311 177 Protein feeds 78 73 Roughage (dry) 27 20 4 Pasture-unit days 8 6 Total pork produced by each breeding animal and her pigs, pounds Percentage that gain in weight of breeding herd was of total pork made. . Corn fed to entire herd per breeding animal, bushels 1 322 11.3 96 1 407 3.0 99 Farm-grown grain fed to entire herd per breeding animal, pounds 6 000 6 193 454 440 as an average of all litters, at an average cost' of $2.32 per pig, and each pig averaged 39 pounds when weaned. On 14 other farms nothing but mature sows were used in producing spring pigs. The average number of spring pigs weaned on these farms was 6.2, their average cost was $3.91, and their average weight 50 pounds. Performance in Early and Late Farrowings Of the breeding herds included in this study only 7 of those farrow- ing before April 1 were composed entirely of gilts, while in 8 herds 38 BULLETIN No. 390 [June, mature sows were kept for the production of early spring pigs (Table 17). The herds farrowing after April 1 were not so evenly divided on an age basis, there being 20 herds of gilts and only 6 herds con- sisting wholly of sows. Because so few herds were composed entirely of gilts or entirely of sows, it was deemed best to throw into one group those herds in which fewer than half the breeding animals were gilts and into another group the herds in which more than half the breeding herd were gilts. Of the 59 early farrowing droves, 36 were made up principally of gilts, while a majority of animals in the remaining 23 droves were sows. Of the 47 late- farrowing herds 34 consisted largely of gilts and 13 chiefly of mature sows. The average feed consumption of a gilt while in the breeding herd totaled 1,383 pounds of concentrates, 27 pounds of dry roughage, 20 pounds of minerals, and 8 pasture-unit days (Table 16). The feed con- sumption per so w for the same years was 1,477 pounds of concen- trates, 4 pounds of minerals, and 6 pasture-unit days. The feed cost for a gilt was $21.40 and for a sow $21.47 when using 80-cent corn and other feeds at comparable prices. All other expenses of carrying a gilt averaged $6.90 a year for the three years under study. It happened that all other expenses for a sow were also $6.90. Gilts gained an average of 150 pounds yearly while in the breeding herd; the sows gained only 43 pounds yearly. By applying the three-year average sales prices at which the gilts and the sows actually sold during this study to their average yearly gain and subtracting this value from the gross cost, a net cost of $13.24 for gilts and $24.25 for sows results. During these years the average sales price received for gilts was $10.04 a hundred pounds, and for sows $9.57. These prices are con- sidered as being in favorable ratio to 80-cent corn, which was the aver- age price used in calculating breeding-herd costs in arriving at the cost figures shown in Table 16. Thus the price per hundredweight at which the gilts sold was de- cidedly higher than the cost at which their gains were produced. When this is true, gilts are more, profitable than sows because they make so much larger gains while producing a litter. Such gains, however, if made under an unfavorable hog-corn price ratio will be a disadvantage rather than an advantage. Early Spring Farrow. Among the early farrowed pigs the age of the dam appears to have had no appreciable effect on the net cost per pig at weaning time. While there were too few cases in which gilts and sows were run in entirely separate herds to warrant the drawing of definite conclusions, this equality in costs holds true also in the greater 1933] FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS IN HOG PRODUCTION 39 a M H X o S5 a a a at 0* CO H a H 005 C^ 5-< ffiinio^ cs * * 1 S2 S'a * -It^Tj" * 10O o>o-mi < 1 "* If W> C-H &oo s * j jj 1 1O m-om * OOO t*- 00 fO ^J* 1 S & B < Cm &ts < vO") in 0000<5O fjrt O\r>mO 5 *S g CS "Ov rt-H s r^io 10 ooa'f)'* "5-H t<5>OrO O> <-^ * w a < gn Sii 5 -a IO v -.1 ^IO tS C OOvO IOW>OOCS g o 1 li $2% a~* s r-oo m 00 00 OC CS 1H OlO<-5O* r^ O*^ W j>, "C al B I ts oo-gto -O-H o>oo t^ CS5 10O 1 ,rt < - fc a o -^j:_ NO 10-* IO t^O ^POOOO < ^S CdN s oc -^ O>CO>O 00 O O f5 00 - > o Kind of animals in the breeding herd Number of farms Average date of farrowing Average days animals were in breeding herd 1 . Feed used to carry one breeding animal, poun Gains in weight per breeding animal, pounds. Percentage of bred animals that farrowed Number of pigs farrowed per breeding animal Percentage death loss among pigs Percentage of pigs crushed Net cost of carrying breeding animal one year Number of pigs weaned per litter Net cost of a weaned pig Net cost of 100 pounds of marketable pork. . . s* - .s'l S** bfl rt rt 3 "op li s-g- 40 BULLETIN No. 390 [June, number of cases in which herds composed of 50 percent or more of gilts are compared with herds made up largely of mature sows. The percentage loss of pigs before weaning was somewhat larger in the early gilt litters than in early sow litters. In its influence on the cost of a weaned pig, the additional gain in weight made by the gilts tended to offset the smaller number of pigs they weaned in the early farrowing groups. Late Spring Farrow. The management of mature sows in the pro- duction of late spring pigs was definitely less efficient on the farms in this study than the management of gilts, when measured by the net cost of the pigs produced. The cost of maintaining mature sows was markedly higher than the cost of maintaining gilts. This, it would seem, was largely due to the mature sows being carried 252 days for each litter of pigs produced, compared with 219 days for gilts. The feed consumed by the late farrowing sows while producing a litter of pigs was 1,565 pounds per sow and by the gilts only 1,252 pounds (Table 17). That the longer feeding period of the sows was practically at a maintenance level is indicated by the low average gain in their weight. The longer stay on the farm and the consequent higher feed consumption of the older animals came as a result of many of the late farrowing sows being retained to produce pigs again the following spring. Their cost until they were rebred for this purpose was in- cluded as a part of the cost of the pigs. A large number of the late farrowing sows were handled in this inefficient manner. Gilts, on the other hand, were largely marketed soon after their pigs were weaned. In the late-litter group the sow herds lost a larger number of their pigs before weaning than did the gilt herds. Fall Farrow. Fall pigs were produced entirely from gilts on only four of the 57 farms for which fall-pig cost figures are available over the three years. Seven other farms used about as many gilts as sows, while seven additional farms used a gilt or two but kept the breeding herd predominantly sows for fall pig production. In all, 82 percent of the fall breeding animals were sows and the other 18 percent gilts. (Figures not shown in tables.) Net Gains by Sows and Gilts The 27 farms using gilts exclusively had larger breeding herds, producing in the aggregate more pigs to consume corn (Table 16). On these farms 96 bushels of corn, or its equivalent weight in other grain, were fed to hogs for each gilt farrowing, while on the 14 farms using sows 99 bushels of corn or equivalent weight in other grains were 1933] FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS IN HOG PRODUCTION 41 / fed to hogs for each sow farrowing. The gilt and her pigs made 1,322 pounds of pork; the sow and her pigs made 1,470 pounds of pork. Where gilts were used, their gain in weight while producing pigs was 11.3 percent of the total pork made on the farm. On farms where sows were used in the breeding herd, the gain in the weight of these sows made up only 3 percent of the total pork produced on the farm. This difference in the proportion of the total pork made by the animals in the breeding herd is due largely to the fact that each gilt gained an average of 150 pounds, while each sow averaged only 43 pounds gain. Not only did the gilts make a greater gain in weight but the gain sold for $10.04 a hundred pounds on the market, while the gain made by the sows sold for $9.57 a hundred. Little Choice Between Gilts and Tried Sows Unless Their Gains in Weight Can Be Sold at a Profit From the results of these observations under actual farms condi- tions it appears that there is little choice between gilts and tried sows for pig production unless the market price of the gain in weight of the breeding animals is in favorable ratio to the price of feeds, in which case gilts would have the advantage over sows. The figures indicate definitely, however, the unprofitableness under a one-litter system of carrying spring- farrowing mature sows over to produce a litter the following spring. The long idle period with little or no gain in weight runs up the cost of weaned pigs. These data contain a strong suggestion that in a system of pork production built on one litter of pigs a year, gilts should be used. COMPARISON OF ONE- AND TWO-LITTER SYSTEMS Farms in central Illinois are about evenly divided between those producing only spring litters of pigs from their sows and those pro- ducing both spring and fall litters. Little if any relation seems to exist between size of farm and system of hog production. This was found to be true in spite of the fact that some farmers recognize that the two- litter system affords opportunity to dispose of larger quantities of corn than the one-litter system and involves no added expense for equipment and little if any added breeding-herd expense. Assuming that 9.9 pounds of skim milk are equivalent to 1 pound of dry feed, and disregarding roughage and a few miscellaneous feeds such as canning- factory silage, 471.5 pounds of concentrated feeds were required on the one-litter farms and 450.7 pounds on the two- 42 BULLETIN No. 390 \June, litter farms to make 100 pounds of marketable pork as an average of three years' operations (Table 18). The amounts of feed, labor, and capital used in carry a breeding animal thru the year were all higher on the farms practicing the two- litter system than on those where the one-litter system was followed (Table 19). The cost of producing pork by the one-litter and two-litter systems is given in Table 20. Altho the price of corn fluctuated rather widely while this study was in progress, the monthly weighted price of all corn fed under the two systems was the same during the last two years of the study and was only 2 cents different in the first year. This gives an excellent opportunity to compare costs under the two systems of production. The total quantity of grain, mill feeds, protein meal, and skim milk (converted to a dry-matter basis) used by the breeding herd for each 100 pounds of pork produced by the whole herd was 128.7 pounds on the one-litter farms and 121.6 pounds on the two-litter farms, as an average of the three years (Table 21). Two litters a year do not materially increase the investment in breeding herd and buildings over that of the one-litter system. During this study, on the two-litter farms only $15.34 was invested in breeding animals for every 1,000 pounds of pork produced, while on farms following the one-litter plan it was necessary to carry $20.12 of fixed capital in sows and boars to produce 1,000 pounds of pork (Table 22). In the matter of buildings and equipment the two-litter farms again were at an advantage, for during this three-year period they carried a charge of only $18.79 per 1,000 pounds of pork for this item, while the one-litter farms carried a charge of $27.56. In fact on the two-litter farms the total money tied up in buildings and equipment was slightly lower than on the one-litter farms, averaging $592 on the two-litter and $597 on the one-litter farms. With practically the same investment for these items the operators of the two-litter farms made 59 percent more pork yearly than the one-litter farms, and there was every indica- tion that their pigs were as well housed. The total feed required by the weaned pigs for a unit of gain was somewhat higher on the one- than on the two-litter farms ( Table 23 ) . The total cost of keeping a sow on the one-litter farms averaged $33.55 a year (Table 24). After deducting the market value of the gain in weight made by them, the net cost was $19.70 a sow. The total cost per sow on the two-litter farms was $47.50 and the net cost $30.36. The usual seasonal changes in the farm price of corn works to the FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS IN HOG PRODUCTION 43 H S ^^ 5 o e r averag I- G H ^ *O cs ^H r^xcsoesPO O f^ i/> ^^ CN cs 1 i y en i 4) S ) .t! g ^ V BO _rt ^ 9 H "T ui o" -3 5 X y o u S H w u - g _____ o _^ w nning- pa |^ "" S^ 1 ^ 10 ' 5 -corn ca Q d ^ LI 8 ^ (S ro IN 00 -H 00 m OOtSS~ Ov E a! ~ ^ P4 ll O ~*5 ^" H Oj 1 o W O u 5 B sti S oa H < Z H 10 o!3 > **^ - . -- , - - X XI y ** Ui 1- MO *?? .M 1 ii T - o"** SS^^ iS^S"" | o c w g - I _____ _^ N u J3 i! (S ^ PO tS fO H PO 00 00 -O PO O TJ>^1CJ CN e '>, 3. h 5 1 __ e< ..^^ _ , SNS ^ a >, XI M O W fa fa fa / "7 u D ca t5 * r " - 1 * s a> 1 h 9 QUANTITIES OF I 11 11 a i) T 06 u CO < H ui .:;.':::::: . . : : -d :::::::::: : : : : : 1 ;;;;;:;;;; s liij-i :::::::::: 2 : : : c | ' co "O S ::::::: :i : a :g :- n milk has been re definition of pastu at. o S a ll'-^^mS^ SiCajS ^ *i2 c'^g : m '^-3j^g o "Slg3 |> ft a 44 BULLETIN No. 390 [June, II OJ a Is OooooS- . If - * ' *- H * 2 ' - ar .-<,- .00 000,. 0,00* 2 S gee ^.or, * 1 . H ^ QO*-QO^O*O O ** i/> fi *- O -H ^H \O OO .1/300 ^*-l fS -^VO -- Ol'-' f*5 .f3lO 8 s a !5 O S rO^SS^ ^2 ' fN^ | ^ ^0^ 00 ** tN , -- CS 00 O *0 O CS *-l O fO CS CS CS >O -* -- CS J2 ' ' I- :s : : : : : : : : : : : v . ** .J h rt " . 3 , I*" S^c-a o~-= 2 H fe < o liSII 1=3^ <5s ?I31 (ss |aa ^ Ok ~> H B If M g ssssa ^S2 i 3 o"" IN 8 ft ** S oo "i o SSSS2 SSS2 8 g 1O H ^ 4* op 9 49 Ok M U .1 S8382 SSS2 ^ 8 o"*" S S X Ii * - X S Og2 sssn N ts H u & * Oj B 00 oo 1 ^. CO sssss i X"1O 00 0> o"" X 5 i is: : . . . 4> ii MI i. .11 and re ... 3 rt "3 J3 V. 3 .a 1 :3 1 ; ' ft : : t> . : : : ' c : a- c c o U Number of farms. . . . Total pounds of mark Feed and pasture. . . Man labor Horse labor Lots and equipment ( Breeding herd deaths Veterinary Taxes and incidentals Overhead Interest on breeding 1 Interest on investmen Total cost Average farm price ol 46 BULLETIN No. 390 [June, u tJ S ^ ir averaj H i? 3 | i Ip . P^ 00 * 'I^O^CSt^fOOO !* CS t* ^* f*5 ure-un H 11 5 SS ^ :5 8 1 ed L. . O ^O W -- ts Tl< \O TJ< 00 t^ >O OP4-*f^ 1 to H ~* ': S * " -- id V O V - I ______ w _ Mg 11 <5 5 *$ ::* : J : S V 'o I? . oot^oots - ^ 1 o u n H Sg- : :^ f * 2 K 1 1 LI D S 1 OrOI- -IN fS ^ t o*" ~ oo ^' Hr -< 1 --^ 3 u .0-. W - .g c 1 AS H s s :^^-" s - '" 2 c hi U i ^ % a "3 11 --> o"^ ** ts CX " ^ V I o 1 X| E :::::::::: : : : : : :::::::::: : : : : : 3 been reduced tc ^ s E4) 'e ( JJ'S V 'to "O Sj c tJ m milk ha o c ;:::;;: g3s g c 13 in ^ 1? ' ;S*S"^ -3 ^^S^ 1933] FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS IN Hoc PRODUCTION* 47 advantage of fall pigs, since they are fattened largely on the new corn crop. While this advantage did not appear during the years of this study, nevertheless over a longer period one can expect the corn fed to fall pigs to be 3 to 7 cents a bushel cheaper than corn fed to spring pigs finished for a September market. 1 Market trends have to be TABLE 22. COMPARISON OF CAPITAL INVESTED ON THE ONE-LITTER AND TWO-LITTER FARMS Items One-litter farms Two-litter farms Number of farms 49 57 IS 18 Marketable pork produced per farm, pounds 19 848 31 649 Fixed capital invested in hog lots and equipment per farm $597 $592 Fixed capital invested in hog lots and equipment for each 1,000 pounds of pork produced 27.56 18.79 Capital invested in breeding animals for each 1,000 pounds of pork produced 20.12 15.34 watched very carefully, however, if full advantage is to be obtained from this cheaper corn with fall pigs. The factors that operated to lower the cost of production under the two-litter system in this study were practically balanced off by the heavier death losses among the spring pigs of the two-litter system, these losses apparently arising from the fact that the spring pigs were farrowed from two to four weeks earlier than the one-litter pigs. The spring farrowing date in the two-litter system cannot be delayed too long, otherwise the fall litters are crowded into unfavorable weather. During the three years of this study the sows that raised two litters lost 6 percent more of their spring pigs than did the one-litter sows. There seems to be no decisive advantage for either the one- or two- litter system of pork production. Where the production of a large volume of pork is an advantage, the two-litter system can be used with a lower farm investment in breeding herd and equipment than would be required under the one-litter system, and on some farms early spring pigs, which are characteristic of the two-litter system, help to give a more uniform distribution of labor for the farm as a whole than is possible with late spring farrowing, since late farrowing calls for labor when it is needed in the field. 'See Bulletin 301, of this Station, "The Place of Hog Production in Corn- Belt Farming," pages 174-175. 48 BULLETIN No. 390 [June, a H y a 1 > H I H M CL, IP B r avera o ^ H ~" 00 CS -! Tf ^-* cs Q b HI ^ o H 0^ "* * rt s^-^"" s M ~ 85 ll . vOTtNOO^Tfrooo^ NCSOC? oo cs H ""* S5 M ^ T? cs Li B _ e * *7 u o*" 5 T?! cs v oo Tj-o fo ^oroS" >o in H 4j-: fi-s-- | -ao cs | ______ ^ . OWR 8 ll - 3 ::g- a *-- 2 : a - B ______ ^ _^ TI- CS 11 H "~* vo cs fs cs * M 6 5 | w-0 - cs mint-in o"" ~ ^ M .fs 1 1 : :::::::::: : : : : is -| s :::::::::: g : j :^ -2 ::::::: :-a : g : :- jigs sold and invent o "g cJ! S J M *> 1 E o 3^5 ao 1 1933] FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS IN HOG PRODUCTION 49 TABLE 24. AVERAGE COST PER Sow OF MAINTAINING THE BREEDING HERD UNDER THE ONE- AND TWO-LITTER SYSTEMS One-litter farms Two-litter farms Number of farm years 49 57 Number of sows and gilts 751 1 009 Months in the breeding herd 7.6 10.9 Pigs weaned per sow 5.7 9.3 Items of cost Feed and pasture $25 . 29 $36.57 Man labor 2.31 3.47 Horse labor . .18 .25 Lots and equipment (depreciation and repair) 1.70 1.68 Death risk .88 1.41 Veterinary .07 .05 Overhead 1.23 1.72 Taxes and incidentals .13 .25 Interest on breeding herd . . .82 1.24 Interest on lots and equipment .94 .86 Gross cost per sow $33.55 $47.50 $13.85 $17.14 Net maintenance cost per sow . ... 19.70 30.36 Net cost per month . . . 2.59 2.78 EARLY OR LATE SPRING PIGS Because market receipts have such a marked influence on price, many thoughtful pork producers are attempting to avoid the heavy fall run of pigs at the market by having their pigs ready ahead of that time. This necessitates farrowing during February and March and giving careful attention to sanitation. Other' producers endeavor to avoid the heavy fall marketings by delaying the date of farrowing until May and sometimes June. Advocates of early pigs admit that somewhat more labor and better equipment are required to farrow successfully in February or March in this latitude than are necessary if the pigs come in May or June. They contend, however, and rightly too, that the greater amount of labor at the early season is actually cheaper than the lesser amount required by late pigs, because the late pigs are in competition with other farm enterprises for labor while this is not true, to the same extent at any rate, with early pigs. Farrowing losses are usually some- what greater in cold weather than when the pigs can be given greater freedom. A crop of fall pigs can be produced before cold weather by sows that have raised early spring pigs, but late spring farrowing precludes this practice. It is true also that early spring pigs are in a position to make better use of forage than pigs that are farrowed too late, for much of the best forage is gone before late pigs are old enough to 50 BULLETIN No. 390 [June, utilize it fully. In general it is somewhat simpler to apply sanitary precautions with late pigs than with pigs farrowed before pasture is available, tho strict sanitation is easily possible with early pigs. One of the chief advantages ascribed to early spring pigs is that they can be made ready for what is usually the highest market of the year the late summer market. Late pigs, on the other hand, have the advantage of being finished largely on new corn, much of which may be hogged down, while pigs finished for an early market must stand the carrying charge on the corn until the summer after it is harvested. In reality this situation is not simply a choice of raising either early or late pigs with all other factors remaining the same many elements are involved, some of which operate more or less in the relation of cause and effect. For example, it is not considered prac- ticable ordinarily to maintain a mature sow for the production of but one litter a year. The feed that would maintain her at a constant weight would produce considerable gain on a gilt, and it is doubtful whether the somewhat larger number of pigs weaned by mature sows would offset this gain on the gilts. A man producing early spring pigs, therefore, would either have sows that would produce fall pigs also or would use gilts. Late pigs, on the other hand, practically ne- cessitate a one-litter system, for fall pig production can hardly be made profitable on the average farm in this latitude when sows are used that produce spring pigs as late as May. It is true that fall pigs may be obtained from other sows (usually gilts) if this is desired. In the hope that the records taken in this study might contain some suggestion of the relative profitableness of these practices, they were classified on the basis of the date of farrow of the spring pigs. With April 1 used as the dividing line between early and late farrowing, it was found that 59 of the farms produced early spring pigs and 47 farms late pigs (Table 17, page 39). An analysis of the records reveals the fact that by no means all the farms raising early pigs attempted to take advantage of the early fall market. Only 15.4 percent of the farms on which early pigs were farrowed marketed them in September and 35.6 percent more in Oc- tober, a total of 30 farms. The remaining pigs were carried later, some even into January and February (Table 25). Of the 47 farms pro- ducing late pigs, 22, or 46.9 percent, marketed them in December and January. The chief advantage of early pigs is lost if they are not marketed before the fall market decline develops. To hold them later than October is indefensible; they have already been handicapped by heavy death losses incident to early farrowing and often by a high 1933] FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS IN HOG PRODUCTION 51 corn price, and the chance to compensate for these handicaps should not be passed by. Because of the wide range of time during which both the early- and the late- farrowed pigs in this study were marketed, it seemed advisable, for the sake of better comparison, to use only the records from the 30 TABLE 25. PERCENTAGE OF EARLY- AND LATE-FARROWED PIGS SOLD DURING DIFFERENT MONTHS, 35 TO 37 FARMS, 1924-1926 Months when pigs were sold Pigs farrowed before April 1 Pigs farrowed after April 1 August perct. 5 1 perct. September 15.4 2.1 October 35.6 2.1 23 7 19 2 December 10 2 32.0 January 8.5 14.9 February 1.5 17.0 March 8.5 April 4.2 farms that marketed their early- farrowed pigs in September and Oc- tober as most representative of the early system and the 22 farms that marketed their pigs during December and January as typical of the late- farrowing practice, tho even with this classification all the vari- ables are not under control. A summary of the records covering the two systems is presented in Table 26. It will be seen that somewhat larger litters were farrowed early than late. The fact that the late-farrowing group contained only 15 percent sows and 85 percent gilts while the early group contained 39 percent tried sows probably explains most of this difference. The sows farrowing early lost a higher percentage of their pigs before weaning than the sows farrowing late, but in spite of this the early farrowing sows weaned a somewhat greater number per litter. The net cost of carrying a breeding animal was very nearly the same for both groups. Owing to the smaller number of pigs raised per sow, however, the net cost of a weaned pig was somewhat higher for the late group than for the early group. This study bears out the common belief that somewhat more labor is required by early pigs than by late pigs. The early pigs required 1.6 hours of man labor for each 1,000 pounds of pork produced, the late pigs 1.4 hours. An item which is contrary to popular opinion, however, is the lower building expense for the early pigs. The building charge against the 52 BULLETIN No. 390 \June, early pigs was 22.2 cents for each 1,000 pounds of pork produced, while with late pigs the charge was 24.4 cents. This is probably due to the fact that the late pigs were marketed so late in the fall that it became necessary to house them for a considerable period. TABLE 26. RESULTS FROM EARLY AND LATE PIG PRODUCTION, 1924-1926 Farrowed early, sold in September and October Farrowed late, sold in December and January Number of farms 30 22 Number of litters 496 321 March 13 April 20 Average date of sale December 28 Days pigs were on farm 206 252 Average weight at which pigs were sold, pounds 186 216 Net cost of carrying a breeding animal $22 26 $22.41 Number of pigs farrowed per litter 8 8 6 9 Number of pigs weaned per litter 5 8 5.1 Death loss to weaning time 34.6% 26.5% $ 3 92 $ 4 31 61 85 42 66 Price per 100 pounds of sows when sows were sold (using 1921 thru 1928 prices) $ 8.90 $ 8.99 Price per 100 pounds of pigs when pigs were sold (using 1921 thru 1928 prices) 10.59 9.21 Concentrates fed per 100 pounds of marketable pork, pounds 396 435 Corn fed per 100 pounds of marketable pork, pounds 320 364 21 31 Feed cost per 100 pounds of marketable pork $ 6.51 $ 6.58 Total cost per 100 pounds of marketable pork 7.72 8.19 Man labor used per 1,000 pounds of pork, hours 1.6 1.4 $ .222 $ .244 1 519 1 607 The date at which the brood sows were sold that were marketed from these two groups of farms had little effect on the net cost of the pork. On farms producing early litters more of the sows were mar- keted during June than during any other month, tho the sales were spread fairly evenly thruout the spring and summer months. On farms producing late pigs, the bulk of the sows were sold during July, August, and September, with July leading. This difference in time of market- ing brood sows gave a slight advantage to the late- farrowing group. The average difference in value of the sows sold, based on the price per month during which they were sold, weighted by the number sold within each month, gave an average of $8.90 per hundred pounds for the sows that had produced early pigs and $8.99 for the late-farrowing sows (Table 27). The prices used in this table were the average monthly prices from January 1, 1921, thru December, 1928. 1933] FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS IN HOG PRODUCTION 53 The net cost of producing 100 pounds of pork when both breeding herd and pigs are considered was in favor of the early- far rowed pigs $7.72 compared with $8.19 for the late-pig system (Table 26). The late-farrowed pigs and their darns also used 39 pounds, or 9.6 percent, more feed (concentrates) on the average for each 100 pounds of pork produced. This is explained, in part at least, by the 30-pound heavier TABLE 27. PERCENTAGE OF EARLY- AND LATE-FARROWING Sows SOLD MONTHLY, 1924-1926 Month Early farrowing Late farrowing Average monthly price of sows 1 1921-1928 perct. 2 perct. 3 8 $8 59 February 15 3 9 8 73 March 7.8 .3 9.18 April 14.6 1.4 8.83 May 17 1 2 5 8 92 June 27.4 6.6 8.87 July 13.8 33.1 9.03 3 8 23 5 8 93 September 24 8 9.19 October 8.87 3 1 8 34 December 8.19 Average sales price of sows had they been sold at eight-year average prices $8.90 $8.99 l Crops and Markets, U. S. Department of Agriculture, January, 1921, thru December, 1928. market weight of the late pigs, as the later gains require more feed than do gains made at a lighter weight. Early farrowing required 396 pounds of concentrates, 320 pounds of which was corn, for each 100 pounds of gain ; the late farrowing required 435 pounds of concentrates, 364 pounds of which was corn. There was little difference in the amounts of feeds eaten other than of corn. Not only may the amounts of corn eaten under these two systems affect the net returns from the swine enterprise, but the seasonal dis- tribution of the corn consumption may be an even more important factor. July, August, September, and October are the months of heaviest corn consumption by the early spring pigs, while late pigs eat the bulk of their corn during October, November, December, and Jan- uary. The July-to-October average price of No. 3 yellow corn on the Chicago market from 1921 thru 1928 was 86 cents a bushel ; the October-to- January price 79 cents. 1 While by no means all the corn *Crops and Markets, U. S. Department of Agriculture, July, 1921, thru August, 1928. 54 BULLETIN No. 390 [June, eaten by these two groups of pigs and their dams was consumed during the months used for this price comparison, the records show that the bulk of it was eaten then. On the 30 farms that sold their pigs early, 21 percent of the corn fed was hogged down, while on the 22 farms selling their late-farrowed pigs in December and January, 31 percent of the corn fed the breeding herd and fattening pigs was hogged down. The advantage of having cheaper corn for the late spring pigs, taking into account the fact that a larger share of it was hogged down, was not enough to balance the additional amount of corn required in producing late pork. 1 As suggested above, however, part of this extra corn is properly chargeable to the heavier weight attained by the late pigs. Unfortunately there is no way of determining this amount. When the effect on net profit is considered, all the various factors so far discussed are of less importance in comparing early- and late- farrowed spring pigs than the single factor of market price. Varia- tions in the price of medium-weight hogs on the Chicago market from 1921 thru 1928 were such that September and October hogs of this weight sold for an average of $10.59 a hundred. The average price of medium- weight hogs in December and January of the same years was $9.21 a hundred. This difference on a 200-pound hog would be $2.76 in favor of early pigs. If the greatest profit is to be realized from early spring pigs, there- fore, it is very evident that they should be so managed that they can be marketed before the fall price decline occurs. This difference in market value of hogs of the same quality on the early and late fall market is also a serious handicap on late- farrowed spring pigs, which, under existing conditions, can seldom be overcome. Certainly so long as the bulk of hogs reach the fall market during November, December, and January there is an opportunity for careful operators to increase their income from the swine enterprise by having their early spring pigs ready for an early fall market. These two methods of producing pork must not be compared wholly from the standpoint of costs and income consideration must also be given to the way in which they fit with the other farm enterprises into the general organization of the farm. SWINE SANITATION It is of special interest to study the effect of swine sanitation upon the cost of pork production and the income from the swine enterprise *A further reduction of 7 cents a bushel was made for corn hogged down. During the five years 1924 thru 1928 this was the average cost of husking corn when all labor, both family and hired, was included. 1933} FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS IN Hoc PRODUCTION 55 on farms in the section of Illinois where this study was conducted, for it was here that the first field demonstration of the "McLean County system of swine sanitation" was made in the fall of 1919. Most of the men who furnished figures for this bulletin have lived near enough to or long enough in the area where the system is practiced that they have had full opportunity to observe hog production under it. While this study was in progress, great care was exercised by the in- vestigators to observe and record the degrees of sanitation practiced on each farm that was furnishing hog-cost figures. The production of FIG. 11. CLEAN GROUND SOWN TO LEGUMES Is ONE ESSENTIAL OF HOG SANITATION Where good sanitation practices were followed, 55 pounds less of concen- trates was used for every hundred pounds of pork produced than where no at- tempt was made to follow good sanitation practices, and furthermore the labor per sow was no greater. hogs on each farm was judged and graded with respect to the degree to which the sanitation rules of the McLean county system were adhered to. The records gathered during the three-year period totaled 106 farm years. In 34 instances every sanitary precaution called for in the McLean county system was followed in detail. In 41 instances no at- tempt was made to follow any of these sanitary precautions; and in the remaining 34, for various reasons, the system was followed only in part. The records for the spring pigs on the sanitation farms and the farms not practicing sanitation have been summarized in Table 28. Sanitation appears to have reduced the death losses resulting from worms and disease. The daily gain was also slightly in favor of the sani- tation pigs. It is significant that on the farms disregarding sanitation 495 pounds of grain and 26 pounds of protein were required to produce 56 BULLETIN No. 390 [June, TABLE 28. COMPARISON OF THE PERFORMANCE OF BREEDING HERDS AND PIGS WHERE THE MCLEAN COUNTY SYSTEM OF SANITATION WAS FOLLOWED AND WHERE No SANITARY PRECAUTIONS WERE TAKEN, 1924-1926 1 Items Good sanitation, McLean system followed Poor sanitation, no system 34 41 Average date pigs were farrowed March 26 April 10 Size of litter farrowed per sow 8.7 8.1 5.8 5.4 30.3 33.5 Percentage of pigs dying from worms and disease 4.9 6.4 Average weight per pig at weaning, pounds 41 43 Weight at which pigs were sold, pounds 202 209 1.31 1.21 Feed required per 100 pounds gain Grain, pounds 436 495 Protein feeds, pounds 30 26 Total man labor used per sow to weaning, hours 7.2 7.6 Total man labor used per litter after weaning, hours 6.6 7.3 Cost of 100 pounds marketable pork $7.31 $9.00 J Only spring-farrowing sows and their pigs, on both the one- and two-litter farms, are included. 100 pounds of pork, whereas on the farms using good sanitation only 436 pounds of grain and 30 pounds of protein feeds were required. That sanitation and low feed requirements go hand in hand is shown also by the data in Table 15 (page 33). For example, on only one farm in 12 where the feed requirements were high (600 to 800 pounds of feed for each 100 pounds of pork produced) was any attempt made to follow the sanitation plan. On the other hand, one- third of the farms that made pork with the least amount of feed (200 to 400 pounds for 100 pounds of pork) carried out the principles of the sanitation system in every detail. The chief objection lodged against the swine sanitation plan by those who have not given it a careful trial is that it requires more labor than the old methods, especially when it becomes necessary to haul feed and water to the pigs on clean pasture. As a matter of fact, in this study the farms that practiced the McLean county system used slightly less man labor per sow and per litter after weaning than the farms practicing no form of sanitation (Table 28). This occurred in face of the fact that each breeding animal on the farms where good sanitary measures were enforced weaned more pigs and produced a larger total quantity of pork than on farms practicing no sanitation. Apparently the labor involved in washing the sows and pens and in moving the sows and litters to clean pasture and caring for them there is more than offset by the more rapid gains made by the clean pigs. FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS IN HOG PRODUCTION 57 It is a demonstrated fact that on most corn-belt farms more pork can be produced in a shorter time with fewer sows and at less expense by following the principles of the sanitation system than under the old methods. DETAILED OUTLINE OF THE VARIOUS FACTORS THAT AFFECT PROFITS IN PORK PRODUCTION Only some of the more important factors that influence the cost of producing pork are discussed in this bulletin. Back of these factors are many details of care and management that a producer must practice if he is to realize a profit on his pork. The following outline shows in a brief way what these details are, and it is hoped that it may prove of help to those who are interested in making further improvement in their hog business. I. General factors that affect the cost of producing pork A. Prices of feeds, labor, etc. B. Topography and layout of the farm C. Crop production program D. Relation of labor demands of swine and other farm enterprises E. System of swine production followed (whether gilts or sows, early or late spring pigs, full or limited feeding of fattening pigs) F. Weather conditions G. Size of the enterprise II. Factors that affect the cost of a weaned pig A. Number of pigs weaned per litter. In the production of large litters of strong pigs the following management practices are important: 1. Use for breeding purposes only healthy, normal animals selected from prolific families 2. Have sows in thrifty, vigorous condition at time of breeding 3. Provide exercise and suitable amounts of a well-balanced ration for pregnant sows, in order to bring them to farrowing time in a vigor- ous condition 4. Provide suitable shelter away from other animals 5. Use care to save pigs. A producer can save many suckling pigs by: a. Being on the job at the time pigs are farrowed, especially during early spring farrow b. Following the sanitation plan c. Using a farrowing pen equipped with guard rails and large enough to prevent the pigs being overlaid d. Keeping the pen dry with a type and amount of bedding that will give the pigs protection from the carelessness of the sows e. Protecting the pigs from cold, parasites, and disease 6. Feed nursing sow liberal amounts of a milk-producing ration 7. Feed suckling pigs a well-balanced ration in a pig creep 8. Cull unproductive sows B. The cost of carrying the brood sow. Breeding herd costs make up ap- proximately 30 percent of the total cost of producing pork. This cost is influenced by: 58 BULLETIN No. 390 [June, 1. Amount of feed fed the brood sows, which in turn is determined by the kind of feeds fed, the size and condition of the sows, and the amount of feed actually wasted. 2. Amount and value of labor used in caring for the sows. Conveniently arranged lots and effective use of equipment reduces this cost. Labor is worth more at some seasons than at others. 3. Character of equipment and amount of fixed charges. Too much or too little equipment, or equipment poorly suited to the purpose, will increase this item. III. Factors that affect the cost of carrying pigs after they are weaned A. Amount and character of feed fed. Feed makes up about 80 percent of the cost of carrying pigs from weaning to market weight. This cost can be held low by: 1. Feeding well-balanced rations 2. Providing a liberal supply of good, cheap pasture 3. Feeding for rapid gains 4. Preventing waste of feed B. The degree of sanitation practiced. Pigs that are healthy and free from parasites make cheaper gains than sick pigs do. C. Amount of labor and character of equipment IV. The market factor. If highest profit is to be realized, production must be intelligently balanced with selling. This means that attention must be given to the best season for marketing and to the weight and quantity of hogs marketed. Adjustments at either of these points may necessitate a change in the date of farrow, or in the rate of gain for which the pigs are fed, or both. The greatest profits in pork production it is obvious can be realized only by a producer who has the ability and the willingness to plan his production so that the work in connection with the sow and her litter, and the job of feeding the hogs once they are weaned and well started, will be done in the most advantageous way, and so that his marketing comes when he can get the best spread between his costs and the sale price. , SUMMARY This bulletin presents an analysis of 106 hog cost records kept by 34 to 37 central Illinois farmers for the three-year period 1924-1926. In order to give the study some permanent value in the face of changes in the general price-level, costs are expressed in amounts of feed and hours of labor per unit of production rather than merely in terms of dollars and cents. The general price-level of the period is indicated by the average farm price of corn, which was 93 cents, 79 cents, and 63 cents in 1924, 1925, and 1926 respectively, and by the average yearly value of hogs on the Chicago market for the same three years $8.18, $12.03, and $12.39 respectively. 1933} FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS IN HOG PRODUCTION 59 Range in Costs. Under the above price conditions the average cost of producing 100 pounds of marketable pork on these farms was $9.44, $8.75, and $7.91 for 1924, 1925, and 1926 respectively. The average amount of concentrates consumed for each 100 pounds of marketable pork produced was 457.0, 475.5, and 486.9 pounds respectively for the three years. Man labor used in producing this amount of pork amounted to 1.50, 1.44, and 1.65 hours; while less than half an hour of horse labor was required. The most outstanding fact brought out by the study was the wide variation in cost between these farms in the same year. On one farm the average cost of producing 100 pounds of pork in 1926 was $5.72, while on another it was $15.15. In the two other years of the study the spread was somewhat less than this but still very wide. Breeding Herd Expense. The cost of maintaining the breeding herd made up about 30 percent of the total cost of pork production on these farms. Since records show that in general the breeding herd is handled less efficiently than are the fattening pigs, special attention was given in this study to the factors that affect breeding herd costs. Feed is the greatest single item in the cost of carrying brood sows, tho it constitutes a somewhat smaller proportion than it does of the cost of fattening pigs. In this study feed made up 76.5 percent of the brood sow cost and 84.2 percent of the cost of the fattening pigs. As might be expected, proportionately more man labor was required by the breeding herd than by the fattening pigs 7.2 percent of the total cost compared with 3.0 percent. Equipment, interest, and miscellaneous costs make up a somewhat larger proportion of breeding herd costs than of the cost of carrying fattening pigs. The sows were in the breeding herd an average of 291 days, in which time they consumed an average of 2,075 pounds of feed each in addition to pasture and produced with their pigs an average of 1,587 pounds of pork. Cost of Weaned Pig. The efficiency of these operators in handling the breeding herd, as measured by the net cost of a weaned pig, varied even more widely than did the total cost of producing a unit of pork. Differences in the amount of feed fed the sows and in the number of pigs weaned per litter were the principal factors in this wide variation. Size of litter weaned had a marked influence on the cost of pork production. Pork produced from litters of 2 to 4 pigs cost $11.14 a hundred pounds, while with litters of 6 to 8 the cost was only $8.39. 60 BULLETIN No. 390 Costs After Weaning. Variations in the amount of feed fed to produce gain seemed to be the principal cause of variations in the cost of producing pork on the pigs after they were weaned. Gilts or Sows. Whether the breeding herd consisted chiefly of gilts or of sows seemed to have little influence on the cost of producing pork. The larger gain in weight of the gilts and their smaller feed consump- tion offset the smaller amount of total pork which they produced. One- or Two-Litter System. There was no choice between pro- ducing one and two litters of pigs a year, so far as cost was concerned, except that it was not profitable to hold mature sows if they were to produce but a single litter a year. Early or Late Spring Pigs. Altho death losses were somewhat higher among early spring pigs than among those farrowed later (34.6 percent compared with 26.5), the total cost of producing pork was somewhat less for the early pigs. The evidence is very clear, however, that nothing is to be gained by having spring pigs farrowed early unless they are given the advantage of the early fall market, which in past years has always been higher than the later market. To bring early spring pigs to good market weight early in the fall requires good sani- tation and liberal feeding. Sanitation. The McLean county system of swine sanitation again- demonstrated its value. Death losses were lower and less feed was required per pound of gain where thoro sanitation was practiced than where no care was given in this respect. Contrary to common belief, less labor was required per sow and litter on the sanitation farms than on the nonsanitation farms 7.2 hours compared with 7.6 hours for each sow up to the time her pigs were weaned and 6.6 hours compared with 7.3 hours per litter after weaning. This was true even tho the sanitation sows and litters produced more pork than the others. Opportunity for Efficient Producer. The existence of so much variation, in the cost of producing pork and in the profits realized from the pork enterprise suggests to the thoughtful farmer the possibility of changing his practices in one respect or another so as to insure a more satisfactory return on the investment in materials and labor which he puts into the enterprise. From the facts brought out in this study it is evident that after the swine enterprise has become well established and well related to the other farm enterprises its success is not a matter of "luck" but the result of giving intelligent attention to the every-day management factors that are under the control of the producer. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBAN/*