AGRICULTURE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN no. 668 - 353 Return or renew all Library Materials! The Minimum Fe for each Lost Book > $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 The person charging this material is responsible for its return to the library from which it was withdrawn on or before the Latest Date stamped below.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, 333-9400 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 1999 LI6I 0-1096 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS Agricultural Experiment Station BULLETIN No. 342 LIVESTOCK TRUCKAGE RATES IN ILLINOIS With a Comparison of Marketing Expense by Truck and by Rail By R. C. ASHBY URBANA, ILLINOIS, FEBRUARY, 1930 CONTENTS PAGE Nature of Data 120 Factors Determining Truckage Rates 127 Comparison of Truck and Freight Rates , 127 Origins of Trucked-In Receipts 134 Changes in Truckage Rates 140 Other Factors in Marketing Expense 145 Comparison of Net Marketing Expense by Truck and by Rail 149 Other Aspects of the Trucking Problem 163 Trend of Truckage Rates 164 Summary 165 Appendix A 167 Appendix B 170 ACKNOWLEDGMENT The writer is indebted to the railroad companies for rate information cheer- fully supplied; to officials of stockyards companies for assistance rendered; to the transportation department of the Illinois Agricultural Association for ma- terial assistance in compiling freight-rate data; and to the Producers Commis- sion Associations of Peoria, East St. Louis, and Chicago for access to their records. Particular credit is due Mr. Gary D. Palmer, Assistant in Animal Husbandry, for service in directing the tabulation and summarization of the mass of statistical work involved in this study. Y LIVESTOCK TRUCKAGE RATES IN ILLINOIS With a Comparison of Marketing Expense by Truck and by Rail By R. C. ASHBY, Associate Chief in Livestock Marketing Transportation charges and service are matters of basic interest to all stockmen. Charges are of interest because they constitute about two-thirds of the usual cash marketing expense; 1 service, because it may and often does affect directly both shrinkage and selling price. When marketing by truck, as when marketing by rail, transportation charges are the largest single item of expense. However, despite a rapidly increasing movement of livestock by truck, but little infor- mation has been available regarding livestock truckage rates as ap- plied to extensive areas. This study was planned and carried out in order to secure data from which such information could be de- veloped. Just how rapidly livestock trucking has increased may be seen by comparing truck receipts at two-year intervals from 1920 to 1929, for eight leading markets (Table 1). The year 1929 shows an increase of 18.2 percent over 1928 in numbers of hogs trucked in to the eight markets and an increase of 20.9 percent in all livestock trucked in. TABLE 1. TOTAL NUMBERS OF LIVESTOCK TRUCKED TO EIGHT MARKETS, 1920 TO 1928: INDIANAPOLIS, CHICAGO, EAST ST. Louis, ST. JOSEPH, Mo., KANSAS CITY, OMAHA, Sioux CITY, IA., AND ST. PAUL Year Total receipts of trucked hogs Percentage increase for hogs 1 Total truck receipts, all livestock Percentage increase, all livestock 1 1020... 1 467 651 2 058 696 1922 1 769 816 20.6 2 702 568 31.3 1924 2 562 897 74.6 3 671 773 78.3 1926 3 189 897 117.3 4 914 487 138.7 1928 6 245 331 325.5 8 906 556 332.6 1929 7 384 497 403.2 10 774 446 423.4 Calculated with 1920 receipts as a base. That the use of trucks for shipping livestock to Illinois markets has continued to increase during 1929 is shown by the data in Table 2. 'Bulletin 29, Bureau of Railway Economics, American Railway Association, Washington, D. C., reports data on 19,701 cars of livestock marketed during 1924 to 1927. These data indicate that freight charges constituted 64.7 percent of the total freight and terminal marketing expense. 119 120 BULLETIN No. 342 [February, TABLE 2. NUMBERS OP LIVESTOCK TRUCKED TO THREE ILLINOIS MARKETS, 1928 AND 1929 East St. Louis Chicago Peoria Totals Cattle I92S truck receipts 1929 truck receipts 61 636 92 205 30 569 71 014 100 460 29 446 27 495 28 779 1 284 160 145 221 444 61 299 Percentage increase in 1929 49.60 41.47 4.67 38.28 Calves 1928 truck receipts 1929 truck receipts Increase in 1929 70 006 102 964 32 958 23 540 35 545 12 005 39 941 41 445 1 504 133 487 179 954 46 467 Percentage increase in 1929 47.08 51.00 3.77 34.81 Hogs 1928 truck receipts 1929 truck receipts Increase in 1929 412 746 734 337 321 591 304 957 379 481 74 524 554 492 597 531 43 039 1 272 195 1 711 349 439 154 Percentage increase in 1929 77.91 24.44 7.76 34.52 Sheep 1928 truck receipts 1929 truck receipts 87 219 129 822 42 603 62 521 88 498 25 977 11 351 13 349 1 998 161 091 231 669 70 578 Percentage increase in 1929 . . . 48 85 41.55 17.60 43 81 All livestock 1928 truck receipts 1929 truck receipts 631 607 1 059 328 427 721 462 032 603 984. 141 952 633 279 681 104 47 825 1 726 918 2 344 416 617 498 Percentage increase in 1929 67.72 30.72 7.55 35.76 NATURE OF DATA In order to study livestock truckage rates satisfactorily, data from actual shipments are needed. Terminal livestock markets are the logical places to secure such information. Accordingly livestock com- mission firms were approached with a view to securing the necessary facts from which the study could be developed. All of them expressed interest but few were in a position to cooperate. Fortunately three of the largest commission firms made available their complete records of truck consignments for the full calendar year of 1927 and later for the month of December, 1928. Suitable forms were prepared and the required information, cover- ing truck consignments from points in Illinois, was transcribed from the duplicate accounts sale at each of the three offices. From these forms the primary data were tabulated, organized and summarized. This involved the use, covering 1927, of over 19,600 accounts sale from Peoria, over 12,000 from East St. Louis, and more than 3,000 from Chicago. Supplemental data covering December, 1928, included over 2,000 consignments at Peoria, more than 2,000 at East St. Louis, and over 800 at Chicago. The numbers of livestock included in the transcribed records were 19.5, 14.2, and 4.4 percent respectively of the total truck deliveries of cattle and calves received at the three 1990} LIVESTOCK TRUCKAGE RATES IN ILLINOIS 121 markets; 26.9, 15.4, and 12.8 percent of all trucked hogs; and 24, 11.8, and 16.7 percent of all trucked sheep (Table 3). TABLE 3. NUMBERS OF LIVESTOCK TRUCKED TO THREE ILLINOIS MARKETS DURING 1927 AND NUMBERS OF EACH KIND OF LIVESTOCK INCLUDED IN THE STUDY Kind of livestock Peoria East St. Louis Chicago Totals Cattle and caltet Total 1927 truck receipts 63 653 83 330 65 983 212 966 Included in transcribed records 12 418 11 805 2 916 27 139 Percent included 19.5 14.2 4.4 12.7 Number included in this study 6 858 6 625 2 001 15 484 Percent included in this study 10.8 8.0 3.0 7.2 Hoot Total 1927 truck receipts 412 287 227 598 148 251 788 136 110 907 34 960 18 910 164 777 Percent included 26.9 15.4 12.8 20.9 Number included in this study 80 576 16 559 14 851 111 986 19.5 7.3 10.0 14.2 Sheep Total 1927 truck receipts 9 600 65 695 39 209 114 504 Included in transcribed records 2 307 7 742 6 547 16 596 Percent included 24.0 11.8 16.7 14.5 Number included in this study 930 3 248 4 659 8 837 Percent included in this study 9.7 4.9 11.9 7.7 However, not all the data transcribed were usable. For example, where two or more kinds of livestock were included in one account sale and covered by one truckage charge, they could not be listed separately by species. Moreover, numerous consignments showed no truckage charge, evidently being delivered by owners' or by neighbors' trucks or having had the truckage paid in advance. 1 Rejections from these causes totaled 72,205 head of livestock, as shown in Table 4. The proportions of total truck receipts that were usable for the pur- pose of this study ranged from a maximum of 19.5 percent to a mini- TABLE 4. NUMBERS OF LIVESTOCK INCLUDED IN MIXED SHIPMENTS OR Nor SHOW- ING TRUCKAGE CHARGES AND THEREFORE NOT INCLUDED IN STUDY, 1927 Kind of livestock Peoria East St. Louis Chicago Totals CaUle and eatoet In mixed shipments 2 226 1 651 326 4 203 No truckage charge* 3 334 3 529 589 7 452 Hog, 7 295 4 449 1 029 12 773 No tnickngp ohnrg^ 23 036 13 952 3 030 40 018 Sheep In mixed shipments 628 1 810 646 3 084 749 2 684 1 242 4 675 ToUU 37 268 28 075 6 862 72 205 'Bulletin 440 of the Ohio Station, page 13, reporting on livestock truckage from 37 counties lists 40 percent of the trucking as done by farmers, 47.7 per- cent by commercial truckers, and 123 percent by other agencies. 122 BULLETIN No. 342 [February, FIG. 1. UNLOADING LIVESTOCK TRUCKS UNDER DIFFICULTIES With truck receipts increasing steadily, such facilities as shown above are obviously inadequate for efficient handling. mum of 3.0 percent (Table 3). From the three markets records of 136,307 head of livestock marketed by truck were analyzed and used in this study. With the 18,748 head included in the analysis for De- TABLE 5. PEORIA UNION STOCK YARDS: SUMMARY OF 1927 TRUCK RECEIPTS INCLUDED IN STUDY Average Zone Miles to market Consign- ments Head Total market weight truckage charge per hundred- weight Cattle and calves 1. . 0-15 number 819 number 1 290 Ibs. 662 190 cents 31.9 2 16-25 1 242 2 029 1 047 480 38.2 3 26-35 1 198 1 906 922 290 43.8 4 36-45 780 1 256 644 300 48.7 5 46-55 164 309 172 920 50.2 6 56-65 40 67 36 970 53.3 7 66-75 1 1 180 50.0 Hogs 1. . 0-15 1 101 11 153 2 627 940 26.6 2 16-25 2 694 28 281 6 757 910 33 3 26-35 2 612 22 286 5 375 475 40.2 4 36-45 1 774 15 346 3 624 120 45.8 5. .. 46-55 333 2 907 692 300 46.6 6 56-65 49 496 112 650 49 7 66-75 9 107 27 590 56.5 Sheep 1. . 0-15 23 303 26 840 37 6 2 16-25 54 274 26 010 43 7 3 26-35 36 194 21 060 46 2 4 36-45 26 136 13 420 57 8 5 46-55 4 14 1 400 76.4 6 56-65 1 9 580 41.4 1930] LIVESTOCK TRUCKAGE RATES IN ILLINOIS 123 FIG. 2. UNION STOCK YARDS, PEORIA Convenient facilities increase promptness and efficiency in handling truck-ins. FIG. 3. AFTEE UNLOADING, CHICAGO UNION STOCK YARDS Livestock trucking makes its strongest appeal to the stock- man because of its convenience and because of the greater flexi- bility of movement permitted. cember, 1928, as discussed later, total receipts of 155,055 head were studied. From the transcription sheets data were assembled by shippers' post offices and tabulated separately by species. Summaries were 124 BULLETIN No. 342 [February, then prepared by species and by truckage zones. From these sum- maries weighted average truckage rates were calculated by truckage zones, Zone 1 including all territory within 15 miles of the market; Zone 2 all territory within 16 to 25 miles; Zone 3 all territory within TABLE 6. EAST ST. Louis NATIONAL STOCK YARDS: SUMMARY OP 1927 TRUCK RECEIPTS INCLUDED IN STUDY Average Zone Miles to market Consign- ments Head Total market weight truckage charge per hundred- weight Cattle and calves 1 0-15 number 30 number 36 Ibs. 18 705 cents 43.5 2 16-25 654 877 443 235 47.1 3 26-35 792 1 123 589 350 51.8 4 36-45 837 1 236 606 140 52.4 5 46-55 1 360 2 049 811 245 55.0 6 56-65 394 642 211 860 67.1 7 66-75 228 327 147 375 65.5 8 76-85 41 79 32 035 65.5 9 86-95 90 134 60 295 61.8 10 96-105 65 119 77 490 61.7 11 106-115 2 3 1 995 74.9 Hogs 1 0-15 14 85 20 970 33.7 2 16-25 305 1 985 412 275 40.7 3 26-35 404 2 328 489 400 48.4 4 36-45 482 4 174 905 375 45.7 5 46-55 590 4 572 932 325 51.7 6 56-65 187 1 486 305 270 52.6 7 66-75 101 706 141 770 59.3 8 76-85 43 646 136 020 53.6 9 86-95 43 443 88 560 51.8 10 96-105 17 91 18 690 58.6 11 106-115 5 43 8 960 77.2 Sheep 1 0-15 3 41 2 740 52.9 2 16-25 31 174 13 460 63.0 3 26-35 44 229 19 180 60.8 4 36-45 62 431 31 670 68.2 5 46-55 160 1 302 101 170 62.2 6 56-65 44 356 27 990 66.5 7 66-75 37 282 ' 25 285 69.1 8 76-85 25 243 18 990 74.7 9 86-95 16 151 10 810 76.6 10 96-105 11 106-115 12 116-125 2 39 2 400 75.6 26 to 35 miles; and so outward by 10-mile intervals as far as truck receipts required (Figs. 12, 13, 14). One may ask, why not use the actual mileage for each consign- ment? There were two reasons: first, such a study would have con- sumed much more time and money than were available; second, mile- age from the same farm to the same market varies from trip to trip according to roads and weather conditions, except where there are direct hard roads. The possibility that assemblage of consignments on the basis of shippers' post offices may tend to a slight error where such points are located just at zone edges is recognized, but it may 1990} LIVESTOCK TRUCKAGE RATES IN ILLINOIS 125 be expected that the errors would be as often on one side as on the other of the zone line. Basic data, assembled in the form of zone summaries, are presented in Tables 5, 6, and 7. All subsequent discussion and presentation are developed from this material. Table 5 shows for Peoria by livestock species, the zone, distance from market, number of consignments, total number of head shipped, total weight at market, and average TABLE 7. CHICAGO UNION STOCK YARDS: SUMMARY OF 1927 RECEIPTS INCLUDED IN STUDY Average Zone Miles to market Consign- ments Head Total market weight truckage charge per hundred- weight Cattle and calves 1 0-15 number 10 number 20 Bt. 18 610 crntt 25.0 2 16-25 51 198 177 190 24.9 3 26-35 129 523 520 095 26.2 4 36-45 168 588 598 960 28.1 5 46-55 138 307 269 545 39.3 6 56-65 90 210 175 650 46.9 7 66-75 38 93 76 780 45.6 g 76-85 6 18 13 530 56.9 9 Bfr-M 7 30 12 060 63.7 10 96-105 11 106-115 1 6 6 250 75.0 12 116-125 1 3 460 97.8 13 126-135 2 5 730 102.7 Hogs 1 0-15 3 38 X ,(,-! 32.0 2 16-25 46 390 95 100 24.5 3 26-35 292 2 821 749 425 34.2 4 36-45 375 4 418 1 128 530 30.5 5 46-55 315 3 457 881 500 33.2 6 56-65 291 2 483 629 370 44.3 7 66-T5 72 558 143 360 45.1 g 76-85 30 180 47 110 57.3 9 MMMS 20 317 80 410 53.0 10 96-105 7 97 21 340 64.4 11 106-115 3 21 3 850 75.5 12 116-125 5 59 16 610 60.2 13 126-135 1 12 2 800 50.0 Sheep 1 0-15 2 16-25 1 44 3 640 35.0 3 26-35 14 262 22 060 32.5 4. ., :>-. r. 52 1 013 104 510 32.9 5 > --..I 39 899 76 530 37.8 6 56-65 42 1 503 126 060 40.2 7 66-75 1 88 B 080 35.0 g 7>. U 7 105 9 040 72.8 9 v, ..-, 10 234 18 140 95.2 10 96-105 18 189 18 420 91.6 11 106-115 5 164 13 710 79.8 12 116-125 6 146 10 085 29.6 13 126-135 1 12 850 141.2 truckage charge 1 per hundredweight of all truck receipts included in the study. Similar information for East St. Louis and for Chicago is given in Tables 6 and 7. 'The average truckage charge is obtained by dividing the total truckage charge for each kind of livestock within each zone by the total weight of each kind in each zone. 126 BULLETIN No. 342 [February, I o I B S o O =: s 8. < w g H O M O"SOOCC O 00 IN IN "3 i-i t^ .Tji o B O"5(N>C(NC<5'HC<5O^f"OIN '2 O (NTf-o-OWrtnOI^M-^iCO CCNCCWW*'"'5i-'5tOt>.i ^ x *>'3 Rates 01 M MOOOiO-H(NO3M-HOOr^ C<5 TJI T}< TJI >O 1C O O "5 O t>. * tOONOOO o M O O5 Ot- (NNINN CO-^'^'So -t^O H3 cj *'i 1C -H OC TJH o <-> >O U5 t OS 1 &1 w Mh-KNiOt-T)iOr-i-<'o o io j h market *O U5 O XJiCiOOOiO'Oi^'OO'^N i-HNecY" ;it P^ < ' 5 ' H ' H '~ l 'HiNWTjonot^ooSo'^ 1 rtC^W^"'5tOtOOOO'-'C > ) 1930] LIVESTOCK TRUCKAGE RATES IN ILLINOIS 127 FACTORS DETERMINING TRUCKAGE RATES The reader will note inconsistencies in the average truckage rates by zones and by species, increases in rates not always corresponding with increases in distance from market. In Zone 6 of the Peoria district, for instance, there is a rate of 41 cents on sheep as against 76 cents in Zone 5. In the East St. Louis district the more striking inconsistencies occur in Zones 8, 9. and 10 on cattle, in Zones 4, 8, 9, and 10 on hogs, and in Zones 2, 3, 4, and 12 on sheep. In the Chicago district the greatest variations appear in Zones 1 and 7 on cattle, Zones 1, 4, 9, 12, and 13 on hogs, and Zones 1, 7, 10, and 11 on sheep. Since truckage rates are not passed on or fixed by any regulatory or supervisory agency, it is to be expected that increases in average truckage rates from zone to zone would not be entirely regular or uni- form. Factors influencing the establishment of rates are: intensity of trucking competition; introduction of larger trucks with lower rates in some sections; competition by well-organized and well-man- aged shipping associations; mileage and distribution of hard roads; development of a back-haul business; truck-rate wars; and compara- tive freight rates. However, despite van-ing factors, considerable regularity of rate increases from zone to zone is shown. In order to facilitate comparisons of rates by species and by markets, Table 8 has been compiled from Tables 5, 6, and 7. A ma- terially lower scale of truckage rates, it will be noted, was in effect in the Chicago area than in Peoria or East St. Louis areas. Since this study contemplated no analysis of factors responsible for truckage rates, the writer does not undertake to explain them. COMPARISON OF TRUCK AND FREIGHT RATES 1 Average truck and freight rates and the gross differences between these two kinds of rates are shown by zones and by markets in Table 9, and the data on truck rates are graphically displayed in Figs. 4 to 6. Adjustments for various other marketing expenses that modify the gross differences in truckage and freight rates are discussed on pages 145 to 149. Considering now only the gross differences in rates (Table 9), we find that at Peoria the average truck rates, zone by zone, were roughly about three times the average freight rates for the corresponding areas. At East St. Louis the truckage rates, especially for the shorter distances, were in several cases as much as four times the corresponding freight rates. At Chicago the truckage rates were usually from two to three times the corresponding freight rates. 'Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 440, 20. 1929: So. Dak. State College Bui. 223, 18. 1927. 128 BULLETIN No. 342 [February, 1 I I tf S y CO H QJ = = r *S o .SP < & o I M v H C. I O H H H Bi Ctg ? Q S J; Ote orooo(0(CT(( ^ CO t ^ OC *^ ^C t* O U5 US "5 IN CO CN N&&S&: COcDfr*^f*COC5Ci W S2228Sgf=feSS2 : 5 to * M" N oo o _ C CO O CO to U3 OS C5 CO CO CO O NKSOOoici-* WtN^CD^-doi^-^" * m ^ oo o o * co T(" us oo oo O> O 00 C$ W ^C ^^ t^ CD OWOOONOOONtCOOtOM ISSSJoSS : oSc^o^ctcsocot^t^ Sco8KS!;S : > ^^HfNtNMMM SScOCNCOCOCONCNCoS 8SSS^SlS8i88 (Nt-WOtCOO--H^.C wow-o^-oooo-ewxs CCONOOCCOO .3 '3 OfeNiONW^WO-*Sc tc co IN IN CN CN CO Til rf< O CO .... * i M CO ^f *O CO f~ 1930] LIVESTOCK TRUCKAGE RATES IN ILLINOIS 129 TABLE 10. COMPARISON OF TRUCK AND RAIL RATES IN THREE ILLINOIS MARKET AREAS, 1927 (Cent* per hundredweight per mile) Zone Mile* to< market Peoria East St. Louis Chicago Truck Rail Truck Rail Truck Rail Cattle and calves 1.. \2\i 2.6 9 3.5 1 2 g 2 20 1.9 6 2.4 .6 1.2 6 3 30 1.5 5 1 7 4 9 4 4 40 1.2 4 1.3 4 7 3 5 50 1.0 3 1.1 .3 .8 3 6 60 .9 3 1 1 3 g 2 7 70 .7 o .9 .3 7 .2 8... 80 .8 .2 .7 .2 9 90 7 3 7 o 10 100 .6 .2 11 110 .7 .2 .7 .2 12 120 .8 .1 13 130 .8 .1 Hogs 1. . 12>4 2.1 1.0 2.7 1.1 2.6 .9 2 20 1.6 .7 2.0 .7 1.2 .9 3 30 1 3 .5 1 6 .5 1 1 5 4.. . 40 1.1 .4 1.1 .4 .8 .4 5 50 .9 .4 1.0 .4 .7 .3 6 60 .8 .3 .9 .3 .7 .3 7 70 .8 .3 .8 .3 .6 .3 g 80 .7 .3 .7 .3 9 90 .6 .3 .6 .3 10 100 .6 o .6 .2 11 110 .7 .2 .7 .2 12 120 .5 .2 13 130 .4 .2 Sheep 1. . 12U 3.0 1.0 4.2 1.0 2 20 2.2 .8 3.2 .6 l.g .7 3 30 1.5 .6 2.0 .5 1.1 .5 4 40 1.4 .5 1.7 .4 .8 .4 5 50 1.5 .4 1.2 .3 .8 .4 6 60 .7 .4 1.1 .3 .7 .3 7 70 1.0 .3 .5 .3 g 80 .9 .3 .9 .3 9 90 .9 .3 1.1 .3 10 100 .9 .2 11 110 .7 .2 12 120 .6 o 1.1 .2 13 'Using the median of each sone. Comparisons of transportation charges alone, however, may be misleading. The differences between truck and rail transportation charges in cents per head for hogs are shown in Fig. 8. From this graph, trucking charges appear as prohibitive except when it is kept in mind that all items of expense for the two methods of transporta- tion are not included here. Actual comparison of expense can only be made after all items have been accounted for as has been done later in Tables 17 and 19 and Fig. 16. The question of comparative charge per mile per hundredweight, by truck and rail, is sometimes raised. Information on this question 130 BULLETIN No. 342 [February, Zonel Z. 2> 4 5 6 7 a 9 IO II li li FIG. 4. CATTLE TRUCKAGE RATES TO CHICAGO, EAST ST. Louis, AND PEORIA, 1927 Note the evenness of Chicago rates in the first 4 zones (45 miles), again in Zones 5, 6, and 7, and the rapid increase in Zones 11, 12, and 13. See Table 8. FIG. 5. HOG TRUCK RATES TO CHICAGO, EAST ST. Louis, AND PEORIA, 1927 At Peoria rates increased gradually with distance from market. More ir- regularity appears in the East St. Louis and Chicago rates. See Table 8, page 126. 1930] LIVESTOCK TRUCKAGE RATES IN ILLINOIS 131 is presented in Table 10 in so far as it could be obtained from the data studied. In working out this table an arbitrary distance of 12% miles is used for Zone 1 ; each of the other distances is the median for the zone. To indicate further the relationship between truck and rail rates by zones, their ratio was ascertained by dividing the truck rate in FIG. 6. SHEEP TRUCKAGE RATES TO CHICAGO, EAST ST. Louis, AND PEORIA Note the relative evenness of the rates into Chicago and East St. Louis in Zones 2 to 7 inclusive and the comparatively high rates for Chicago in the outlying zones. See Table 8. each case by the rail rate (Table 11 and Fig. 7). Cattle truckage rates, it will be noted by inspection of this table, range from as low as 2 times to as high as 8 times the corresponding freight rates; rates on hogs, from as low as 2 times to as high as 3% times corresponding freight rates; rates on sheep, from as low as 1% times to as high as 132 BULLETIN No. 342 [February, II ss M O S :S88 CO 0000 CSt^OOWOO 2 oo oocooo ^ CO CO CO CO W C*3 1930} LIVESTOCK TRUCKAGE RATES IN ILLINOIS 133 U Q o O 3 UJ CJ U Q. O (O LJ H ui d ^ 30 20 10 O | 1 rr | 1 -j I 1 \ !' X 1 1 ' ' '" | 1 1' | ! 1 ', ^ 1 ^ 1 II 1 i 1 ' g 1 ZoNl Z 3456 7 a y /o // iz 13 FIG. 8. DIFFERENCES IN TRUCK AND RAIL RATES ON HOGS PER HEAD, BY MILEAGE ZONES AND BY MARKETS, 1927 The greatest gross saving in marketing hogs by rail is observed in Zone 11 of the East St. Louis area, where the rate per head was 93 cents less by rail than by truck. However, stockmen are less interested in comparative rates than in the differences between the total comparable expense of the two methods of shipping; this difference is developed in Tables 17 and 19 and in Fig. 16. of shipment than at first appears. Total marketing expense and com- parative marketing efficiency should be the determining factors, as discussed later on pages 149 to 162. ORIGINS OF TRUCKED-IN RECEIPTS The question of economic trucking distances has been a subject for discussion ever since automobile trucking began to be used. The writer's general observation is that there is no single economic truck- ing distance, but rather that every set of conditions presents a differ- ent problem and decisions must be made in the light of those con- ditions. 1930] LIVESTOCK TRUCKAGE RATES IN ILLINOIS 135 CAT TLE CECtlPTS CHICAGO t Si Ux, Ft O FIG. 9. ORIGINS OF TRUCKED-IN CATTLE INCLUDED IN THE STUDY AT CHICAGO, EAST ST. Louis, AND PEORIA MARKETS, 1927 Peoria receipts of trucked cattle came largely from Zone 2, 16 to 25 miles; Chicago drew the largest proportion from Zone 4, 36 to 45 miles; and East St. Louis from Zone 5, 46 to 55 miles. This chart and Figs. 13 and 14 are based on data in Tables 5, 6, and 7. FIG. 10. ORIGINS OF TRUCKED-IN HOGS INCLUDED IN THE STUDY AT CHICAGO, EAST ST. Louis, AND PEORIA MARKETS, 1927 Aa with cattle receipts, the largest proportion of hog receipts at Peoria came from Zone 2, 16 to 25 miles; at Chicago, from Zone 4, 36 to 45 miles; and at East St. Louis, from Zone 5, 46 to 55 miles. 136 BULLETIN No. 342 [February, At Peoria the largest numbers of cattle and calves and of hogs came from Zone 2, a distance of 16 to 25 miles; while at Chicago, Zone 4, 36 to 45 miles, sent the greatest numbers (Figs. 9 and 10). The largest sheep receipts came from Zone 1, 15 miles, at Peoria; from Zone 5, 46 to 55 miles, at East St. Louis; and from Zone 6, 56 to 65 miles, at Chicago (Fig. 11). Peoria drew 88 percent of its cattle and calves and over 95 percent of its hogs and sheep from the first four zones, a radius of 45 miles. At Chicago 66 percent of the T'ti.ctNT; FIG. 11. ORIGINS OF TRUCKED-IN SHEEP INCLUDED IN THE STUDY AT CHICAGO, EAST ST. Louis, AND PEORIA MARKETS, 1927 At Peoria the largest proportion of sheep receipts came from Zone 1, 15 miles; at East St. Louis from Zone 5, 46 to 55 miles; and at Chicago from Zone 6, 56 to 65 miles. cattle and calves, more than 51 percent of the hogs, and more than 28 percent of the sheep came from within this distance. At East St. Louis (National Stock Yards) 50 percent of the cattle and calves, slightly over 51 percent of the hogs, and about 27 percent of the sheep came from such a radius. In comparison it is of interest that Ohio Bulletin 440, 1 reporting the 1928 livestock truck receipts at Cleveland, lists 93 percent of the cattle, 69 percent of the calves, 31 percent of the hogs, and 44 percent of the sheep as being trucked less than 50 miles ; at Cincinnati 84 percent of the cattle, 86 percent of the calves, 73 percent of the hogs, and 88 percent of the sheep are listed as being hauled less than 50 miles. 'Ohio Station Bulletin 440, pages 15-16. 1990] LIVESTOCK TRUCKAGE RATES IN ILLINOIS 137 Since information available for the Sioux City market 1 permits a broader view of the field, data from Tables 5 to 7 are arranged in as nearly as possible the same form as the Sioux City data and are FIG. 12. ORIGINS OF TRUCK RECEIPTS STUDIED AT PEORIA Additional shipping points for December, 1928, are not so numerous in the Peoria area as in the East St. Louis area (Fig. 13). Here the truck movement appears to be approaching stabilization. Expansion is to be observed in the southwest portion of the area. Each dot shows original consignments; figures indicate the number of consignments from each point. included in Table 12. 1 A greater proportion of livestock, it will be noted, was received by truck at Sioux City from within 25 miles than at either East St. Louis or Chicago. This may mean that more live- stock is produced near Sioux City than within the same distances of 'Data furnished thru courtesy of Mr. W. H. Benn, formerly connected with the Sioux Citv market. 138 BULLETIN No. 342 [February, S 2 S 34-8 CONWQOS** 0*0 HS1S gr : & r. / - o J3 Go Sf-it.ia eq i 2 & :c ri < r '" 6 a cot-^eo to ft o 3 "5 oo w o ro co eg O ot^ocs CD - 3*-g ts.(NOOO^-" o> o H-S *** KOi-l B & U5U5INNIO 1 1 t^COIN^ lOWrt OD & U5CO^t>.C 1 H T^COTI *^ CO *~* CNCOOW a U U5CO^< _cO_c . . . 34-8 ,,-.,. .... o > o H~S K5TO .... ^1U5 .... & *(>. .... cS 1 1 OQ C>55 .... U5TJI .... o PH 8) M-^CP o H ^<1!5 .... 4110 .... J U5-* .... d O OCO . . . - T^llft .... o A Miles to mar >o o N .lOQiS . . .ICNIO-H 5 "5 "O O -H IH gtTVAil &SSt222o 34-8 U3 N ID ^ t- 1>. n as iM! n 1-1 -H oo w MTUN O & O h- O IN T)I 00 >O X 1 CO IN O *f i-i CO N 55 1~ i-i -H O 1030] LIVESTOCK TRUCKAGE RATES IN ILLINOIS 139 FIG 13. ORIGINS OF TRUCK RECEIPTS STUDIED AT THE NATIONAL STOCK YARDS, EAST ST. Louis Expansion in the trucking area around East St. Louis can be observed by comparing the points from which 1927 consignments were received with those from which shipments came in December, 1928. The large numerals at the left of the map (15, 45, and 95) indicate distance from market. Chicago and East St. Louis. Sioux City apparently draws slightly more long-haul truck business that is, business from distances of 75 miles and beyond than the three Illinois markets. 140 BULLETIN No. 342 [February, FIG. 14. ORIGINS OF TRUCK RECEIPTS STUDIED AT THE UNION STOCK YARDS, CHICAGO Expansion in the Chicago trucking area between 1927 and December, 1928, was about the same in all directions. Heavy traffic in and about Chicago is a disadvantage to livestock truckmen in this area. CHANGES IN TRUCKAGE RATES As explained above, the principal data used in this study were from 1927 shipments. But with the rapidly changing economic con- ditions the situation has altered considerably since 1927. What changes have occurred in livestock truckage rates in the interim? In order to answer that question in part and to bring this presentation as nearly up to date as possible, data covering the month of December, 1928, were obtained from the same firms as before, in like manner, and were treated as has been explained in connection with the 1927 data. The volume of the shipments included in the December, 1928, study are shown in Table 13 in comparison with the 1927 shipments. 1930} LIVESTOCK' TRUCKAGE RATES IN ILLINOIS 141 I-H SB I . Q H | JL EPI g 8 j~ J o " J 2 O > E S5 'z. |2 Q 2 *"o 8 |l << M * 0. - c 1 l x P 7. IB 1 1 Q 1 5 1 ^ a a; 5 I r S .8 =li H b T"O ~n Q . H $ g | EM - I r ^^ O $ ^ I b. O r S| X if 9 SE 2 | 1 _ - _______ : -SS5S=S :g : : S * s a8|s2gas =-- ; i -lliliill- O 00 CO OC I s * O fC 00 O ^i CO / ^ ' /"t-r*7 XCl-I~^ - 'T;"* W CO CO O O CO N CO ^ CO O 0.-.0-- . S2282SSSS28 : : -2SS5SSBS$ : : : 00-HOiGCr^CC5^OSU5COO OSCO'^ -rccooic^(~-ci'j'O5co 1 S3 x 3C PI t~ f - x 5 ;r ^r S * s ~ ^ PI IB p r - -PI-- SlOiQiQ P4MM .* *-O o *O O irj i?5 O *fl O ^^ PI CO ^ 4 ~- PICO^ l *^l'3tO>O^*PIW jjjJjjjjljJJJj 142 BULLETIN No. 342 [February, i| WOC^PSOONift "*. t. r o o o _ ^1 * 00 C5 CO C*3 CO t* *O ^^ ... wo5>oo !-! . . . ,-c2 g-'c. .,JiiO . .,-1 s JO *&l * fe is ffl-^ON -i-i o & Is o D & n # *f CD *c a> cr~c;Mi a Oa *" S 1C O *O "5 >O OiCtf5ir5KJ>O>O;>'3O-*NW*' 11 SE OCDCOCDCOCOO5DCO5OOtO5C-O .OOO5O ^ 1 iiNCOTjiiOOh.OOO3O'HNWTf 1080] LIVESTOCK TRUCKAGE RATES IN ILLINOIS 143 a (III :i?SgSSg8 :S : : : siS3SS,S8SreS?S : : I ~ f ^ :53S2SS2 :8 : : : re^' ^8 c-.""^?*-* I i33 NNSwO*^- -CO oNoo-o'we i Q s- t--ct- n~ -re 2^"* ^""^S 222 : 2 6 i8| -.*-ONSOO* o-ot.ooN^retNO.NOo* g C22 :SSoSSS55S5:S : : : SSSS??re553S?2?SS?S 2 M ~"> ooxN-.reoxex3.r~ -ooor- . 0-5(N-5 o" ^ x K g*s CSOOO^OOO^W^'OO^ or-Nooar-reoreo^ooo o -a " a22 5S5SS!oSS8 : : S5!g5$53?g S - : | * ^ i S55 ift -H 00 * O - O U9 00 1- C> ^^r-core.eoocee* . I iS O Ot^coooo^- N s s 5 | C -H 2 o ^ Q ft. gS3 oooor^c,,, cc re co o >o * 1 e Q22 & S S o,ootcNreo 8 u 22 xreoooreo rew^^ouSSS orec>4coo>(O 3-g a-,-,-. ifi tfi 4.~ L- U) S D H J j , J J 9 H 8*S< - i (S|8 2-22-^ .2- *-2 OMT^O ^5 Q* S on o -w fe . t^ (N 00 * * 22 ?*te3 Miles to market a o N 1930] LIVESTOCK TRUCKAGE RATES IN ILLINOIS 145 The cattle truck receipts studied at Peoria in December, 1928, were 6 to 23 percent as large as those included in the 1927 study from cor- responding zones; at East St. Louis the December receipts were 10 to 100 percent as large; at Chicago, they were 2 to 311 percent. Simi- lar comparisons for hogs and for sheep at each of the three markets are shown in the table. The data for the more distant zones may have little significance, since only a small number of long hauls were made, but they are included for what light they may throw on the situation. Truckage rates on cattle and calves at Peoria were lower in De- cember, 1928, than for the year 1927, by 4 to 21 percent (Table 14). At East St. Louis there were 2 increases and 9 decreases during the later period as compared with the earlier; at Chicago 3 increases and 6 decreases. Rate changes for hogs and sheep at Chicago totaled 5 increases in December, 1928, and 15 decreases. Thus a downward tendency in truckage rates on livestock is indicated by the 1928 data. Too much reliance, however, should not be placed upon the above figures because of the comparatively few consignments made in the one month's time. Furthermore, under present unstable conditions in the trucking field any data on livestock truckage rates are but indicative of trend, with no assurance that they will apply for any given length of time. The instability of rates is illustrated by their lack of uni- formity in areas equidistant from a market. For example, in one area some 50 to 60 miles from Chicago truckage rates in May, 1929. were uniformly 50 cents a hundredweight; during the same period, in two other areas about 60 miles out, the going rates were 25 to 30 cents a hundredweight and at times even so low as 20 cents. One area about 90 miles from Chicago was paying 60 cents a hundredweight, while another region the same distance away was paying only 45 cents. One operator stated that whereas rates formerly were about one cent per mile per hundredweight, truck-rate wars had reduced charges in some sections to such an extent that truckmen were hauling as far as 150 miles at a 50-cent rate. OTHER FACTORS IN MARKETING EXPENSE 1 Altho transportation charges represent the major expense in marketing livestock, yet a study of marketing costs is not complete without consideration of other factors which modify directly the final transportation expense. In any comparison of the expense of truck and rail marketing the following items must be considered: (1) com- parative risk; (2) terminal differentials in yardage and in commis- sions; (3) comparative shrinkage; (4) on some markets the attitude 'The reader is referred to Circular 331 of this Station, "Livestock Trucking by Illinois Shipping Associations," pages 22 to 27, for further discussion of the points included here. 146 BULLETIN No. 342 [February, of buyers toward truck and rail shipments; and (5) convenience which tho not directly measurable in terms of expense, must be recognized as a very important factor in determining type of shipment used. Risk. Only recently has the extent of the loss incurred on live- stock shipped by truck been studied. The Clay County Shippers As- sociation, shipping livestock both by truck and by rail, found their losses in 1927 to be almost as high on truck shipments as on rail. 1 The data in Table 15 show a higher proportion of dead cattle in truck receipts than in rail at three markets out of five irrespective of length of haul; a higher proportion of dead calves in rail receipts at four markets out of five; and a higher proportion of dead hogs in truck receipts at three markets out of five. Comparative losses in sheep were very similar. Regarding the accuracy of the count of deads and cripples as shown in the truck receipts, it is the opinion of one of the best informed men at one of the leading markets that the numbers are larger than actually appear on the records. Inquiry is frequent as to comparative livestock losses in truck and rail shipments on the basis of equivalent mileage. Losses checked in this way at two markets during July, 1929, gave the following data. 2 LOSSES ON SHIPMENTS OF 100 MILES OR LESS Truck Hogs Number Number received dead Ratio Market 1 132,747 174 1:763 Market 2 137,871 145 1:951 Rail Hogs Number Number received dead Ratio Market 1 43,318 15 1:2,888 Market 2 31,202 9 1:3,467 A comparison of insurance rates applying to livestock shipped by truck and by rail can be obtained readily for any market where the Hartford Insurance Company furnishes livestock coverage. The rates in effect at several terminal markets are shown in Table 16. In com- paring the rail and truck rates in this table, the reader should bear in mind the fact that the insurance company recovers from the rail- road companies for a certain proportion of its rail losses, shippers re- ceiving full payment from the insurance company and assigning to it any claims they may have against the carriers. There is no similar 'See Circular 331, page 12. "Data obtained thru courtesy of Dr. W. J. Embree, Chief Veterinarian, Western Weighing and Inspection Bureau, Chicago. LIVESTOCK TRUCKAGE RATES IN ILLINOIS . 3 g' I 147 - a s 3.S S 4J 55 * W ? lid B t> a ^3 a S 1! e f s *i* 36 o cj ^^ ob . i teTI ^"-HMlO>'i (^ 2 **ooo "* ^5 OWOOOO^MINOCfOiOO . _ ^. ooin M H < e S a o r- ^^ T-cQt>.O 1-1 | IH mm o ea fcjg D * OS IN Q i 00 CO * -i --HOSO5 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ "* os EC S-3 * WOO- 1 1 1 1 *""* *"* ^ ^ CO CO CD t> *-"2 CO M 00 -H (N iO CO -H O "H i fil OOCSOcOOOfiCOcN '"5 -H CO IN CO CN CM CO CO CO -ft s-s m t . CO (N CO O t^ CO t~ <" t -00 fa 2 sfe O3 O5 "5 -H CO CO O> CN * -O CN CO CO * CO CO CO T}I Tfl -rjl g & 1 ^"2 CN Tfi t^ CO CO CO O CN * C35 ** B-o 5 S a a fcj H -H CO 00 O "5 t>- ^ ^ CO CO CN CO 1" CO * <* O ^J< CO "3 OS HH ^ 00 a - CO -H CN 00 CN CN >)! O O M "O w > fi Js S'* "S ^ ^ UJi.'St-mcO'J'C^cNCNCOt^ SI O SI U5 00 CN -H CO CO -H -H CO t^ 00 i-i -H CN CN CN CO CO CO CN CN CO 1-5 42 t-T3 oooooororo 2 M ft, 1-1 O t- to * ^ | H M OQ "- : coco oiaoo s (6 i-CrtrtcN'J' 2 a fc-g OOOOCOt^CNO o 2 d | a A^ ^-c CN iO iO >O t. -H CN CO * Tt> < t- n U ^a O-^CSNCNOOCO H H % <^S o *r o o o cc 1-H-HMCN H fc" ! CO CO Cfj u> W CN i i c * s v - A^ 00 "3 O> CO -H o CN CN us cO e -H CN co C <3 11 Q Stf 1. t>I i ( AS "5 O ^ 00 O H h. ^^^CNCN-H S B e S 'HCNCOTf5tOt>.OOC*O'HCNCO 1930} LIVESTOCK TRUCKAGE RATES IN ILLINOIS 151 9 ^ H - O I H CO a Ed it ? "-^ w | 55 II & * u - ^ ii f* ^ ^ 5 s Is u: j l> s s S2 2< s H B I = H P I X 00 X) we<<"4i^it^>Ha NMOO eSMr->fi ao - osc waofjc^ - _/- t>.NC . :/-.-; o l-l.- O^""5t^t / -j -^ - r- -i .- MX r-O*' 1 Coltl. expense at . St. Louis as j Catlle Sheep Rail expense at Peoria as I 3 # 9 10 II It FIG. 16. COMPARATIVE NET EXPENSE OF MARKETING LIVESTOCK BY TRUCK AND BY RAIL Where net marketing expense by truck is the same as by rail the dot indi- cating expense by truck would appear on line 1 in the above chart. The net marketing expense on hogs trucked to Chicago from Zone 2 is shown in Table 19 as .96 of the expense by rail; note that it is shown in the above chart as just below line 1. The net expense of trucking cattle to Chicago from Zones 1 to 4 is shown in Table 19 as less than shipping by rail. In all these zones it is therefore indicated by dots below line 1. On the other hand, for sheep from Zone 13 to Chicago the net expense by truck was 3.12 times that by rail and is indicated by a dot just above line 3; while for hogs from Zone 11 to East St. Louis the net expense by truck was exactly twice that by rail and is plotted directly on line 2. 156 BULLETIX No. 342 [February, truck would apparently have ranged from $1 to $2 a head for eight out of the eleven zones represented. The preceding paragraph suggests that marketing problems may be viewed from the standpoint of individual savings or of savings to the industry. In the livestock field the industry conception has heretofore received insufficient emphasis. Fortunately it is becoming TABLE 20. GROSS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRUCK AND RAIL RATES WHEN SUB- STITUTING HOG FREIGHT RATES FOR CATTLE FREIGHT RATES (Cents per hundredweight) Zone Peoria East St. Louis Chicago Differ- ence using cattle rates Differ- ence using hog rates Reduc- tion in differ- ence using hog rates 1 Differ- ence using cattle rates Differ- ence using hog rates Reduc- tion in differ- ence using hog rates 1 Differ- ence using cattle rates Differ- ence using hog rates Reduc- tion in differ- ence using hog rates 1 1... 20.7 25.9 29.4 33.4 35.1 36.4 32.5 19.8 24.1 28.0 31.6 32.3 33.8 30.5 .9 1.8 1.4 1.8 2.8 2.6 2.0 31.4 34.4 38.6 37.4 39.2 48.8 46.6 46.0 38.0 42.1 53.0 29.3 32.4 36.5 35.4 36.4 46.6 44.5 41.4 35.7 39.3 50.4 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.8 2.2 2.1 4.6 2.3 2.8 2.6 15.0 14.9 13.9 15.7 25.8 31.9 29.3 40.1 41.7 13.5 12.9 11.7 13.0 23.3 29.4 27.1 36.9 40.7 1.5 2.0 2.2 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.2 3.2 1.0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 'The difference in expense in favor of rail marketing is reduced by this amount when the hog freight rate is applied. better understood that what is beneficial to the industry in the long run is usually beneficial to the individuals engaged therein. Applying Hog Freight Rates to Both Hogs and Cattle. Returning to the question of differentials, the fact that small associations ship few straight loads of cattle must be taken into consideration. Their cattle come a few at a time and usually must be mixed in with hogs. A fairer basis, therefore, of calculating net differences in the expense of shipping by truck and by rail is to apply hog freight rates to both hogs and cattle. Sheep are omitted from this phase of the study be- cause from very few points can they be shipped with cattle or hogs without increasing materially the freight rate per hundredweight. Gross differences per hundredweight when' hog freight rates are substituted for cattle freight rates are shown in Table 20, differences computed on the cattle freight basis being brought here from Table 9 for convenience in comparison. The differences between rail and truck rates are reduced on cattle in general about 2 cents a hundredweight by applying the hog rate to all cattle and calf shipments. The results of applying hog freight rates to all shipments of cattle, calves, and 1930] LIVESTOCK TRUCKAGE RATES IN ILLINOIS 157 hogs included in this study are shown in Table 21. On the hog freight- rate basis the total net savings that would have resulted from using rail instead of truck are somewhat reduced, being $43,471 against $45,150, the total of the figures for cattle and hogs shown in Table 18. Effect of Decline in Truckage Rates. But, as shown on pages 140 to 145, truckage rates have tended to decline since 1927. On the basis of average truckage rates apparently in effect in December, 1928, the total net differential in favor of rail shipment becomes for the three markets $34,016.04 (Table 22) as against $46,951.78 (Table 18), an apparent reduction of $12,935.74. Dividing $34,016.04 by the num- ber of head included in this study (136,307), the apparent possible saving per head becomes 24.9 cents instead of 34.4 as above. Suppose the total net difference between rail and truck expense be calculated for all livestock sent by Illinois stockmen in 1927 to the three markets here considered, as was done on page 154, but using now the December, 1928, rates instead of the 1927 rates. Such a calcula- tion for the entire 1,115,606 head of livestock reduces the apparent total net differential in favor of rail marketing from $400,763.30, as developed on the basis of 1927 truck rates, to $243.282.44, or to 21.8 cents a head. Differences in Rail and Truck Expense on Longer Hauls. The question of the difference in expense when shipping by truck or by rail must be considered from yet another angle. Truck advantages would be expected to be more pronounced on short hauls, differences in favor of rail increasing rapidly as distances lengthen. The first four truckage zones (45 miles or less) are therefore dropped in this phase of the study and the data for truck consignments having a haul of over 45 miles summarized (Table 23). At East St. Louis the records studied included 13,713 head of livestock trucked from Zone 5 and beyond. This number included 3.353 cattle and calves, 7,987 hogs, and 2,373 sheep. The total com- bined weight was 3,160,535 pounds. On the basis of 1927 truckage rates the cost of marketing this livestock by truck would appear to have been $7,878.14 higher than by rail. This is an average differ- ence of 57 cents a head or 25 cents a hundredweight. Applying hog freight rates to the cattle instead of cattle rates, and using the regular sheep rate for sheep, the total higher cost by truck is reduced to $7.522.61, which is an average of 55 cents a head or 24 cents a hundredweight. Applying truckage rates of December, 1928, the total higher cost by truck, as compared with rail, becomes $5,986.66, an average of 44 cents a head or 19 cents a hundredweight. At Chicago this study included 672 cattle and calves, 7,184 hogs, and 3,340 sheep, a total of 11,196 head which were trucked from Zone 5 and beyond. It will be noted that costs by truck, under 1927 rates, were higher than by rail to the extent of 26 cents a head or 11 cents 158 BULLETIN No. 342 [February, 4 =: g 3 O o W z H B3 . *! 6g H WQQ iS xS j M 5 .5 H K Q a5 H g 13 a BS ^ Ha" S> ^ BH" ai 3S s^ ^ *< *2 si a; B g S K g Q 5 a ^^ > % Z* o ~< r 9 9 H *OOWN(NO>U500OMaO CR S o H * Jt "SSSggSSSSSS 9 00 1 o a woc St^sxihO'j' 02 1 1 a B 8SS&SSSS3S3 S Cattle anc O^^^CO^OOOcOOlh* CO CD S ^tCO^'iOt^^5o-'C l CLOC5iOX CO o I a ;s|iiii2sss- | 8 "i a SSMSSSSS SSS S Cattle an ^nOl s * | O' M 00!OC 4 '5 cy M es ta c 51 CN ^-CNC,^. 2 III BM i JL 00StOCN US (~ 8gaa8ai8 33 SS jj"" 1 C. Q 3 ^" i-< US 00 "S to 00 OCCN OOCSQCOpt- 00 O-H Q .2 S g B P 00 - P O C3i h- SSSSg^3?? SJJ ' ij Z *-> pjq J4 !S TO CO CO CO U5 OOCNOOOSP-^PPOO OP U H p 03 O c5 S 2 i*i. it O t^ M P P CO t~ to '3 CN P P ^ t US ^f* rji c b^ CO -t* H C 55 H S In S |l|l S Q M I PH POOSOOO5i-l T)< East St. L n *r oo p w cs ^ T)- 06 f :N '?f us b. oo ^ ^ 1-1 FH -us SI 1 as o o< <> a W ccn K ^^CD-^IN'-IOOO wgr^oow^ar-o oo Q g gg 1 SB a ? in c 2 51 WCi CD P CO P CO I- JN " * P Ill 2SSSSS2K OOi <^HU^i 'O^b-Pi *3Ct-. CO ||| 1 1 e S o" r- QO co o -i o ^ INOiPOOCO US * " v- CN P - CN M OOCNCOPOOUSCOCN OCOtNOO-Hl-">ftJ-;N -H 1 151 51 f!!^ 8 1 1 ^ o a o a ! ::;:::: i : :? CO : H H 3 -i tN CO Tf U5 CO t~ -**: oooSo^ss 1930] LIVESTOCK TRUCKAGE RATES IN ILLINOIS 161 H 51 I!?! S s |SJ I SB 51 111 Sr O M o o> - t^.?iM t-.i x t I oaw^ortx -. - 3 i^Sic ;: r r~ >-T to x 5 2 -.-: r: 5: s; n T IN V 8 E H 1 1 S I m JSS? !0 ^o s o ^f II! .5-58 * _ s III l!l 162 BULLETIN No. 342 [February, H ! & T r. -r CO | - i * -: i OH ! I 5 oo * us M g CO V - W i "3 h- N J3 -H -. O - e> r- <-i oo "3 CO CO -^ OO "o ^ "* M H i 1 1 5 " 1 J "3 - ''- ~ (-, c - S H 8 3 2 H O 19SO] LIVESTOCK TRUCKAGE RATES IN ILLINOIS 163 OTHER ASPECTS OF THE TRUCKING PROBLEM Transportation, particularly as it involves the matter of making necessary adjustments between motor and rail, is one of the basic questions before the livestock industry today. It is a problem of many phases, of rapid and continuous development, and of great significance. Stockmen, both individually and collectively, are rightfully giving more consideration to these matters. They are beginning to realize that, depending upon the course of its development, the increasing use of motor transportation may change the entire livestock market- ing system. Trucking, for example, may be encouraging the establish- ment of innumerable small markets at the expense of the present terminals; probably it has accelerated direct marketing; it may tend toward further decentralization of the packing industry; it has im- peded operation of local cooperative livestock shipping associations, yet if properly used, it could well contribute to an effective farmer- owned and controlled livestock marketing system. Railroads, it would seem, should be interested in the new transportation problems con- fronting shippers of livestock, but as yet they appear to have taken little active part in their solution. Regulation of motor transportation by state or interstate agencies and by standardization of rates and schedules has been widely dis- cussed. The South Dakota Motor Carrier Act, passed March 5, 1925, is one step in that direction. Free and unrestrained competition al- lows truckmen to demonstrate how cheaply it is possible to operate, but carried to the extreme it may result in demoralization. Another angle of this question of regulation which applies also to truck trans- portation, was presented by the Ohio Farmer editorially in its issue of June 15, 1929, when it said: "The terrific toll of lives taken by busses in Ohio this year brings forcibly to mind the need for some law en- forcement agency on the highways of the state." Assessment of fees against trucks and busses in proportion to their probable wear and tear of the public highways is important to property owners of the state, especially landowners. In the mean- time the state permits the use of its hard roads by motor transport companies at rather nominal charges. A state board of one of the corn-belt states is said to have made a careful survey of the truck situation in 1926 as regarded the use of public highways. The in- vestigator reported that the state was losing some $1,600,000 a year because of insufficient revenue from trucks that were hauling for compensation. It should be mentioned in passing, however, that a given truck wears the highways equally whether operated solely in the owner's business or for hire. 164 BULLETIN No. 342 [February, TREND OF TRUCKAGE RATES Conversations with truckmen indicate a realization on the part of many that rates are now so low in many instances as to preclude satisfactory profit on the present basis of operation. Attempts at voluntary regulation of rates usually have failed because certain in- dividuals fancied they could get more business by remaining outside and cutting the price. A truckman of long experience says: "As a result of this condition many truckmen wear out their trucks and have to quit, but it seems that as fast as one drops out two more buy trucks on a small-payment plan and try to take his place." Many truckmen say that on the basis of current livestock rates their margin of profit is dependent largely upon the development of a back-haul business. In at least one area livestock trucking appears to be stabi- lizing on that basis and to be concentrating largely in the hands of a few operators. Obviously further changes in livestock truckage rates will be in- fluenced directly by the degree to which back-haul business is de- veloped for trucks moving livestock to market. The scope of this study did not permit inclusion of this item, which is one of rapidly growing importance. At a recent conference one Illinois farm adviser stated that livestock trucking in his county was now controlled largely by three of the larger outfits that were operating on a strictly business basis and that they had succeeded in developing a regular back-haul business of fair volume. Farmers in increasing numbers mention the convenience and economy of the back-haul service as an important reason for their growing patronage of livestock truckage. The question is often asked whether the railroads may not enter the livestock-trucking field either by providing local truck-in service to shipping points or by putting on truck service direct to market. Definite developments in those directions have not as yet appeared in the livestock field. However, railroads do use both the motor trucks and the motor bus. The Department of Commerce reported in 1926 1 1 "Over fifty railroads in the United States and Canada are now using motor trucks to supplement their shipping service"; in 1927, 2 "Seven- ty-two railroads now use trucks to supplement regular shipping service 46 in terminal operations, 15 in the form of store-door delivery, and 11 to replace local freight trains." Organized trucking by cooperative livestock shipping associations has received increasing attention in the last two years and instances of its success are numerous. It would seem that any agency which can increase the volume handled by a given truck or number of trucks should be able to furnish satisfactory service at minimum expense. Stockmen are interested in optimum transportation, in service that is rapid, efficient, and economical. Optimum utilization of motor 'Report of U. S. Secretary of Commerce, June, 1926, p. 48. Mune, 1927, p. 16. 1930] LIVESTOCK TRUCKAGE RATES IN ILLINOIS 165 transportation necessarily is included as part of such a system. But optimum utilization does not necessarily mean truckage all the way from farm to market from all distances; often it means a combi- nation of truck and rail. SUMMARY This study of truckage rates in Illinois is based on data derived from analysis of more than 39,000 actual accounts sale, covering more than 155,000 head of livestock trucked in to the three Illinois terminal markets, Peoria, East St. Louis, and Chicago, in 1927 and December, 1928. At Peoria truckage rates in 1927, per hundredweight per mile, averaged 2.8 to 3.5 times the rail rates on cattle and calves, 2.1 to 2.7 times the rail rates on hogs, and 1.7 to 3.7 times the rail rates on sheep. At East St. Louis they averaged 2.3 to 4.2 times the rail rates on cattle and calves, 2 to 3.5 times the rail rates on hogs, and 3 to 5.3 times the rail rates on sheep. At Chicago they averaged 2 to 8 times the rail rates on cattle and calves, 2 to 3.5 times the rail rates on hogs, and 1.6 to 4.5 times the rail rates on sheep. A downward tendency in truckage rates on livestock is indicated by a comparison of 1927 rates with those of December, 1928. Further shifts in rates will depend largely upon the possibility of further re- duction of the actual costs of operating trucks and the adoption by truckmen of adequate records of their respective operating costs. Stockmen will not benefit from truckage rates that are too low to support efficient and dependable truck service. On the basis of the 1927 truckage and freight rates, the apparent net savings possible in marketing livestock by rail instead of by truck would have been 34.4 cents a head. For the 136,307 head included in this study, this would have meant a total saving of $46,952. On all Illinois livestock trucked to these three markets in 1927 (1,115,606 head) , a total of $400,763 would have been saved by shipping by rail. In calculating net marketing expense by rail 10 cents a hundred- weight was allowed for trucking from farm to market and 10 cents a hundredweight for shipping association home expense. Applying hog freight rates to all truck consignments of cattle and valves on the assumption that it would have been necessary to ship in mixed loads, the apparent savings on this class of livestock for the number of head included in this study would have been reduced from $46,952 to $43,471. Applying December, 1928 truckage rates instead of 1927 rates would reduce the total apparent saving still further from $46,952 to 166 BULLETIN No. 342 [February, l:,016, making the saving 24 cents a head instead of 34.4 cents, as above. The bulk of the truck shipments included in this study moved less than 50 miles. Truck consignments came from greater distances to East St. Louis and Chicago than to Peoria. Considering only truck shipments moving 45 miles or more, the apparent savings in marketing by rail instead of by truck, figured on the basis of the 1927 truckage and freight rates would have been as follows: To Peoria 53 cents a head, or 20 cents per cwt. To East St. Louis 57 cents a head, or 25 cents per cwt. To Chicago 26 cents a head, or 11 cents per cwt. On the basis of the December, 1928, truckage rates and 1927 freight rates, the apparent savings would have been: To Peoria 38 cents a head, or 14 cents per cwt. To East St. Louis 44 cents a head, or 19 cents per cwt. To Chicago 15 cents a head, or 6 cents per cwt. Any comparison of the expense of marketing livestock by truck and by rail should include attention to risk, differences in terminal market charges, shrinkage, buyers' attitudes, and convenience to ship- per. With the exception of buyers' attitudes and convenience these factors have been taken into consideration in the foregoing compari- sons of net marketing expense. From available data it appears that losses due to death or crippling in truck shipments are as heavy as in rail shipments, and heavier when shipping mileage is considered. More complete information, however, is needed on this subject. Ter- minal charges (yardage and commission) are higher on truck ship- ments than on rail at the three markets here considered. Shrinkage is not greatly different on the two methods of shipment, judging by available data. Having allowed for all other factors, the cost of convenience may be measured by the net difference between the cost of two methods of transportation. Trucking is appealing to more and more stockmen. The number of livestock trucked to the three Illinois markets included in this study increased from 1,726,918 in 1928 to 2,344,416 in 1929, or by 35 percent. Two main reasons for the growing use of this method of transportation appear to be convenience and greater flexibility of movement, since in the majority of cases the actual cost of truckage is materially higher than shipment by rail. The problem of necessary adjustments between truck and rail transportation is a basic one, and a study such as this suggests that the best service is not necessarily truckage all the way from farm to market but that it may be a com- bination of truck and rail. 1930] LIVESTOCK TRUCKAGE RATES IN ILLINOIS 167 APPENDIX A As pointed out on page 145, the net differences between transpor- tation costs by truck and by rail are affected or modified by several factors, among them risk and terminal marketing expense and, at Chicago, a terminal railway charge per car. In order to ascertain the net difference in cost between marketing by truck and by rail, al- lowances were necessary for an insurance charge on shipments by truck and for higher terminal market charges. Constant amounts per hundredweight, for each kind of livestock and for each market, were used for these items, the amounts being figured as follows. Figuring the Higher Terminal Expense on Truck Shipments Cattle and Calves. Since cattle and calves could not be separated readily in the analysis of the data, it was necessary to secure a repre- sentative and fair factor, covering both, as regarded the difference in terminal market charges. Accordingly a sample of 40 towns from each market area was taken from the original data sheets and the total number of calves and total number of cattle in these shipments determined. The combined excess yardage and commission rates as- sessed per head on truck calves at that market was multiplied by the total number of calves in the shipments. Similarly the excess yardage and commission rates assessed per head on truck cattle at that market were multiplied by the total head of cattle. These sums were then added and the total divided by the combined weight of the calves and cattle. This gave an amount per hundredweight which was applied to all truck consignments to that market. For example, the sample of 40 towns from East St. Louis data sheets worked out as follows: /charge per calf for excess yardage and\ / number of \ \ commission / \ calves / _ n /charge per head of cattle for excessX M /number of \ coon ' V yardage and commission ) ' * \ cattle ) " Total charge for cattle and calves $111.47 $11 1.47 -=-6,416.35 (number of cwt.) = $.017, or cost per hundredweight. In calculating truck-in costs on cattle and calves at East St. Louis, 1.7 cents per hundredweight was therefore added to truckage rates for each zone. Hogs. The combined excess yardage and commission charges assessed on truck hogs at a given market was multiplied by the num- ber of head included in the analysis for that market, and the sum divided by the number of hundredweight of hogs in the shipments. This gave a sum per hundredweight which was used as a constant for all hogs trucked-in to that market. For example, at East St. Louis: 168 BULLETIN No. 342 [February, $.07 X 16,559 ( hogs ) 34,596.15 (cwt.) = $.034 per cwt. Sheep. Sheep were handled in the same way as were hogs. At East St. Louis the figures were: $.02 X 3,248 ( sheep ) .-.. -. -r -T = $.025 per cwt. 2,536.95 (cwt.) All Species. Using the methods described above, the amounts added to cover higher terminal market costs on truck receipts were as follows: East St. Louis Peoria Chicago (cents per cwt.) On cattle and calves 1.7 3.1 1.03 On hogs 3.4 7.1 3.9 On sheep 2.5 2.1 2.3 Insurance Differential Truckage insurance charges, as already explained, are figured as a differential because complete loss coverage by rail is covered in the charge of 10 cents per hundredweight deducted for shipping associa- tion home expense. In calculating this item the actual rate, per head, in effect for each zone, at each market, was figured for each kind of livestock. The amounts by zones were totaled and this sum was divided by the total weight of livestock involved in order to put it on a hundred- weight basis. The results obtained, and factors used were as follows: East St. Louis Peoria Chicago (cents per cwt.) On cattle and calves Under 55 miles 1 2.4 3.4 1.3 55 to 75 miles 2.9 4.2 1.6 75 to 105 miles 3.5 ... 1.9 Over 105 miles 4.0 On hogs Under 55 miles 5.7 1.8 3.9 55 to 75 miles 6.7 23 4.7 75 to 105 miles 8.1 ... 5.9 Over 105 miles 8.6 ... 6.6 On sheep Under 55 miles 6.4 6.2 9.0 > 55 to 75 miles 7.7 7.3 102 75 to 105 miles 102 ... 11.3 Over 105 miles.. 13.6 'The Hartford Insurance Company's truck insurance rates are based on a 50-mile radius for the first zone and 25-mile intervals thereafter. Certain of the above items necessarily included 5 miles of additional territory because of the zoning used in this study. 1930] LIVESTOCK TRUCKAGE RATES IN ILLINOIS 169 Terminal Charge at Chicago. At the Chicago Union Stock Yards a terminal charge, usually $2.70 per car, is made. It was calculated that, on straight loads, allowances of 1.2 cents per hundredweight on cattle and calves, 1.6 cents per hundredweight on hogs, and 2.2 cents per hundredweight on sheep would account for that item. Those amounts were accordingly used on all consignments from all zones in the Chicago area. 170 BULLETIN No. 342 APPENDIX B [February, Livestock Freight Rates in Illinois. Let a layman take a map of Illinois, mark at each town the railroad freight rates in effect to Chicago or to East St. Louis on each kind of livestock and then try to interpret the results in terms of a rate system. He finds it an FIG. 17. FREIGHT RATES ON CATTLE TO CHICAGO, 1927 For rate-making purposes, railroads early divided the country into districts or territories. The line of demarcation for rail rates in the area shown above runs diagonally from southwest to northeast, the rates in the southeastern part of the Chicago area being noticeably higher. unsolvable puzzle. Yet livestock shippers deal with freight rates continuously and should have an understanding of how these rates affect their business. In tabulating and analyzing the freight-rate data required in this study for a comparison of livestock transportation charges by rail and by truck, a large-size state map was used and livestock freight rates as of 1927, for each kind of livestock, were entered for each station in both the Chicago and in the East St. Louis ter- ritory. The next step was to attempt some form of graphic presen- tation that would show the principal rate variations and the outer ; 00] LIVESTOCK TRUCKAGE RATES IN ILLINOIS 171 margin of each region or territory affected. The results are shown in the accompanying maps (Figs. 17 to 22). Obviously it is impossible to indicate all rate variations on a small illustration and have the data readable. The plan adopted was to Fio. 18. FREIGHT RATES ON HOGS TO CHICAGO, 1927 Note that rates on hogs are 2 or 3 cents higher in the southeastern part of the Chicago area. connect up corresponding rate points on the principal main lines and to indicate by bars or circles single points or particular territories having markedly different rate situations. Frequently the circles show higher rates than other territory equally distant from the market concerned. Often the points thus affected are on branch lines, in many instances the rates being much higher. This condition is especially noticeable in the East St. Louis territory. Truckage rates being established more on direct distances than are freight rates it is easy to see why truck competition is especially difficult for rail shipping associations located at these high-rate points. Two Livestock Rate Systems in Illinois. In Figs. 17 and 18 note that rates in the southeastern part of the territory are higher than those to the north and west. This is due to different scales of freight 172 BULLETIN No. 342 [February, rates applying on intrastate shipments of Illinois livestock. The di- viding line for livestock follows the A. T. & S. F. R.R. from Chicago to Streator to Peoria, thence the Illinois river to its junction with the Mississippi. Livestock rates are generally higher in the southern di- vision. FIG. 19. FREIGHT RATES ON SHEEP TO CHICAGO, 1927 Apparently sheep rates were -affected but little by the two sets of intrastate rates in effect. Note the lower rates in effect on one railroad in the eastern edge of the area. Numerous suggestions have appeared as to how the railroads might meet truck competition on livestock. They have included: (1) Lower minimum weights per carload. (2) Permission to load a car at more than one point at no additional charge. (3) Operation of route cars from certain points on certain days, to haul livestock and crated poultry and taking whatever livestock is offered at carlot rates. (4) Movement of livestock shipments by gasoline power where regular service is not available or stopping of heavy thru trains is too expen- sive. (5) Operation of feeder truck-in service by the railroads to bring the livestock from the farms to railroad loading points. In this connection it is but fair to say that stockmen generally should be better informed as to the service rendered in their behalf 1930} LIVESTOCK TRUCKAGE RATES IN ILLINOIS 173 by the traffic departments of such organizations as the livestock ex- changes, the Illinois Agricultural Association, and the American Farm Bureau Federation. Fie. 20. FREIGHT RATES ON CATTLE TO EAST ST. Louis, 1927 Rates shown in circles or small enclosed areas usually represent rates in effect at loading points on branch lines. 174 BULLETIN No. 342 [February, FIG. 21. FREIGHT RATES ON HOGS TO EAST ST. Louis, 1927 Intrastate livestock freight rates are higher in southern Illinois than in the northern part of the state (see page 171). MOO] LIVESTOCK TRCCKAGB RATES IN ILLINOIS 175 Fio. 22. FBEIGHT RATES ON SHEEP TO EAST ST. Louis, 1927 Many apparent irregularities are found which only a rate expert could ex- plain. . UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA