THE GREENEZA'E EON “NEE“..ECEN ENE ENE? EC’E‘E VENEEE GE? 0N-Q LAME FOG LS ESE—ENE»: SEEEE 311E? EJBEE 34‘wa N NE WARE; QNEEEEE'EAW E969 'Y‘H S 153 LIBRARY University r‘ q w w—v— '— . ,.._ 4:. .u 9: 2%.. m. <. ~>..§.E_.E... _ a. 4...?fi.» . E. . ... V. .- v.. V. .v t“ ._. . E. . O. . . . E . . . . - -.. v. Q . ”1....E._._E..EWE.E _ .E......_ ... - _ .E .E .... ._ .Elvb. .IVA 3‘ - .».A- fly]? to . u .‘ 1a... - . l C I I ' .0 .nt..-\ .- I. l- E 4 I E “E . «E. E 1. . .. .w. x .-v . | I I -l.‘EI}v" . . . raw EWV. .E.. .... .1). Ff.- .1. firminém... 5%? . . .EEE....;..E.. .. , E . 1-. 4'...E~.- . n; .5. a . . I . oafv \- . . 7 . . no a . - . t -. A o ... a . E EE.-. '~U s. - .. .4 .. . .. o . mi: 1 .4 . . . . t . .- E 4. c _ 4-- . . .. a vb 0| . s flax-us»... .. . “1.? W _ . u 1 E .-. .- .v. ~.‘ . '- ”NJ ...s \ . .. .. _ EN... O. .. . . . o - \ . v . . ‘ . . . o .. .. . . .. - . E n I. .l n pl 0 o . . . ..E -l . . | - . E . .1 . z . J . u . . I a . u. n . - ! . n u . .. - . ¢ _ . I .I . E - . . .o .- .r . . .. . E . . - E r .E .. . a . .L E E . r n . - . E . - .. . . . . . u . I 3 o .u o s . . .1.... n t . .. .. s. I . . I. I . . .. . . . r . .E. . . . - . u . u . . A . o c . o . A ...- . n‘ u v E I E .I 4 . t I I. u . - . 0- . - .r v 1 . . I O n. . . .. ‘_ b .. . . . 0 O V . I ( > - u - . E .. . . E I. r . n c . I a a . n .. . . E . ‘- . c - . o. I . .. . . a. . . n1 . \ I . E . .. E . . . . E . . u . A .- I a . I . - . . . . - I . t n. . - d v . a .- - ~ . I- . .l . - . - o. . . n I ‘ f v ~ . . _ E . . . . a _ .. . . 1 .29.. c .. . - t . . n D C -O - .u - a . . .. E. . . u. - 1 \- E . - o . E .. .EA - . - .- i - . . v o - . E v . E v . q - v c - . . . . . | . . a. E . . . . u . . . . . . . u n o . . . . v. .. r -. o. E. . o o O O I E E _. . . . L . - (L t c A . .r EIAI v . I I . b I o . . . .. E... ..._ . . .. 1...... . . . .. . .. . .:. ... ....-. . r... . . .. . E . . - o . ... . _- .E .. V” 4..- EH». v. Jim-c; .‘m. w)|.V...-. “UfiwflwLA/HI M.”- . \ktk. . . .E - - . JMWVEEWfi}. .53... .fi-Hm.....-..-.. . xv. . .E. a... h .. . . . . .. WV. tam. J... 43...!» 316%.... Away»... . I O n . . - hl r ‘l’w .r FL. I N. . A, . -$fi V§ .I I Ix . . - .. . . ..I I. ‘1..- MV) fl) \.' J . .. I .. _. . . . . n . ._--w H Mirna/hr. . ,. . . E.- . . . .\ L. 3 . .. t - ‘ \.I I )III fir; “Er 1'. - . E0- 9. m E. JLrtr 'l.4 E I..v I-Il .. p .I - .- .. Al.’ - 3 I - E. 2.5.... .E r E. v I... E . . n . \. . . THE ORGANIZATION, OPERATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF OHIO LAMB POOLS by RALPH HOWARD GRIMSHAW AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the College of Agriculture of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Department of Animal Husbandry 1959 ..j /: /i Approved -. // 1/. _- Recor 1954-1958, the first reports a- Programs ‘ Inte the imprc Sheep 1m] P001 pro OPeta-tic La: mark-Eu lamb p0 auctior T return mendefi the 1 ABSTRACT THE ORGANIZATION , OPERATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF OHIO LAMB POOLS Ralph H. Grimshaw Records from five Ohio lamb pool programs for the period, 1954-1958, were used in this study. Some comparisons were made with the first five year Operating period for each pool area. Lamb pool reports and the first hand knowledge of the author in each of the pool programs were the main sources of the data. Interested sheepmen of a county or area have been responsible for the improvement in production practices and marketing methods. A sheep improvement committee plan of organization was used in the lamb pool programs and group action was the dominant force behind these Operations. Lamb pools, to some peOple, have been simply another method of marketing lambs. Many marketing agencies have not considered the lamb pool system because of the expense involved when compared to auction selling of ungraded lambs or direct buying. The pools have been effective in securing a larger financial return per lamb and have provided information on the value of recomr mended production practices. The pool program activities have develOped continuing leadership through the local committees and such leaders were found representing the livestock industry in state improvement associations. County E: of mal get} for encm grade of hi marke' t0 loc Commit Ralph H. Grimshaw Extension Agents have noted an increased interest in the development of their programs through the planning and preparation of teaching materials for their use. Production and marketing improvement were shown to be tied to- gether. The pool programs have contributed to the quality of lambs for effective marketing. Tbmely ”tOpping-out” of lambs has been encouraged. Pool programs have insured the use of experienced lamb graders and encouraged marketing more lambs during seasonal periods of higher prices. The pool method has effectively encouraged the marketing of fewer feeders and other low grade lambs. The closed pool method of pricing does not allowvmarketing agencies to locate new'markets to increase buying competition. Local pool committees should consider the auction method of pricing lambs. THE ORGANIZATION , OPERATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF OHIO LAMB 12001.5 by Ralph Howard Grimshaw A THESIS Submitted to the College of Agriculture of Michigan State University of Agricultural and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Department of Animal Husbandry 1959 Ralph Howard Grimshaw candidate for the degree of Master of Science Final Examination: Dissertation: The Organization, Operation and Effectiveness of Ohio Lamb Pools. Outline of Studies Major Subjects: Animal Husbandry Minor Subjects: Agricultural Economics Biographical Items Born, July 4, 1908, Lucasville, Ohio Undergraduate Studies, Ohio State University, 1927-1931 Graduate Studies, Ohio State University, Summer terms of 1934, 1935, 1936, and 1937. Michigan State University, Fall quarter, 1955 and Spring quarter, 1957. Experience: Vocational Agriculture Instructor, Ohio, 1931-1943 Fieldman, market manager, and lamb grader for Cincinnati Livestock Producers Association, July 1943 - February, 1947. County Extension Agent, Agriculture, Wilmington, (Clinton County) Ohio, 1947-1951. Animal Science Extension Specialist, Ohio State University, 1952 - present time. Member of American Society of Animal Production, Gamma Sigma Delta, and Epsilan Sigma Phi. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his appreciation to Dr. Harold A. Henneman for his guidance of this project and to the advisory committee for their help and friendship. Grateful appreciation is extended to Dr. George R. Johnson, Chairman of the Department of Animal Science, Ohio State University, for his continual encouragement and personal interest during the course of this study. I dedicate this work to the late Lawrence A. Kauffman, former Chairman of the Ohio State University Animal Science Department, and to C. W; Hammons, Extension Economist in Farm Marketing, Ohio State University; the former for his devotion and aid to the sheep industry, the latter for his help as a co-worker in setting up the Ohio lamb pools. TABLE OF CONTENTS 2393 I. INTROIIJCIION.................................................. II. OBJECTIVES.................................................... III. HISTORY OF THE OHIO LAMB POOL PROGRAM......................... Organization of Ohio Lamb Pool Program...................... The Guaracteristics of Lamb Marketing....................... Ohio Lamb Pool Method of Marketing.......................... IV. METHODS AND PROCEDURE......................................... Choosing the Counties....................................... Source of Data for Analysis, Charts, and Tables............. V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION........................................ Effect of Lamb Pool Volume.................................. Effects of Closed Pools on Lab Marketing Prectices......... Inprovement of Lamb Quality Through Pools................... Seasonal Lamb Prices....‘.................................... Price Comparisons of Pool Lambs............................. Clipping Native Lambs...".................................. Ra Distribution Programs................................... Production and Marketing Improvuent........................ VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS....................................... VII. LITERATURE CITED.0.0.0.0.0000...0.0.0.0000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO VIII. ”meXOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0...00...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00...... 76 81 91 93 0“ e O O D u \ o s \- Times 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. LIST OF TABLES mm Wilmington Lamb Pool Volume Consigned from Clinton County Area for T'entY“six Yaar‘, 1933-1958eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Location Of 0h10.5 T'OntY‘t'O P0015eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Average Number of Sheep and Lambs Slaughtered Under Federal Inspection in the United States Compared by Five Year Periods, and Average Number and Percent Slaughtered in Specific Regions, 1936-1955.................. Average Number of Consignors per Pool and Lambs per CODSignBeDt for Five Ohio p0013eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Volume of Lambs Consigned Through Five Ohio Pools and All Ohio Pools for Five Year Period, 1954-1958.............. Location of Ohio Lamb Pools Showing Trend to Graded Anetion “CthOd Of prICIHg, 1958eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Ohio Lamb CrOp Marketing DiSposition, Number Lambs Saved as Percentage of Ewes One Year Old and Older as Compared with Lambs Marketed Through Closed Pools for Five Year Period, 1954-1958....o........................ Established Uniform Grading Standards for Ohio Lamb P0013 RQVISOd, June 1955eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Percent of Wool Lambs by Grade for First Five Years of Five Pools Compared with Period of l954-1958............. Madison County Lamb Pool Comparison by Years, 1954-19580000000000000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... Seasonal Variation for the 1954-1955 London Lamb p001000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO..0...O...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... Seasonal Variation of the 1955-1956 London Lamb pOOIOOOO0.0.0.0000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...O... Seasonal Variation of the 1956-1957 London Lamb POOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.000...O... Seasonal Variation of the 1957-1958 London Lamb FOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO000......0.0.9.000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 13 14 24 33 37 39 51 52 53 54 55 e e O O 'I O p e . a V O 4a o | on e e 4- e o . 0 I I . e I O O s 1 O O 1 e 1 O QIDQ~fi 0 a . 1 o . a A I‘ C D Q s e a a e e p , . ‘ v 0 e . . TABLE). 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 24. TABLES Continued 2595. Seasonal Variation of the 1958-1959 London Lamb POOleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Seasonal Variation of the 1957-1958 Morrow-Delaware- Marion COUDtY LaMb P001eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Seasonal Variation of the 1957-1958 Lancaster Lamb pOOIeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Seasonal Variation of the 1957-1958 Union County Lab POOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0......OOOOOOCCOQOOOOOOOOOO0.0. Seasonal Variation of the 1957-1958 Wilmington Lamb POOIOOOOOOOO0.000000000COOOC0......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Average Dollars per Hundredwaight for First Three Grades of Wool Pool Lambs for the Five Closed Pool Are‘O, 1957’1958, by "Onth3eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Double Blue, Single Blue, and Red Prices per Hundred- weight for Wilmington Lamb Pool Compared with TOp Three Pens of Graded Lambs Sold in Regular Auction 83-. UCeks, 1958eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Lancaster Lamb Pool Area Comparison of Noel Lambs and Clipped L.nb3eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 1958 Ashley Lamb Pool Area Comparison of Wool Lambs and Clipped Labs by Grade, Average Weight, Average Price per Hundredweight and Value per Head................. 1958 Lancaster Lamb Pool Area Comparison of 11001 Lambs and. Clipped Lambs by Grade, Average Weight, Average Price pOr Hundrfid'eight and Value p.r Head....................... Madison County Comittee Ram Distribution by Breeds 1941-195800000000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO000...... One Day Kosher and Traefa Lab Report of Lambs Killed in “9"York City by Origin.......oo....o....o.............. 56 57 58 59 6O 78 79 8O 83 86 t a O O . O O . e e a I U 0 v a U I I I O O O I I e 0... Door 0.00 e c v e O l 9 I e . . e e e e I Q . O i e I e O O... O I C 1 i 09". 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. LIST OF FIGJRES Prices per Hundredweight for Double Blue and Single Blue Grades by Pool Compared with TOp Prime Prices at Chicago 1954-1955 AOhIOYeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Prices per Hundredweight for Red and Yellow Grades by Pool Cupared with Top Choice Prices at Chicago Ashley.... Prices per Hundredweight for Double Blue and Single Blue Grades by Pool Compared with TOp Prime Prices ‘t Chicago 1954'1955 L‘anStCreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Prices per Hundredweight for Red and Yellow Grades by Pool Compared with TOp Choice Prices at Chicago 1954-1955 L‘nCC‘tereeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Prices per Hundredweight for Double Blue and Single Blue Grades by Pool Compared with TOp Prime Prices ‘t Chicago 1954‘1955 Londoneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Prices per Hundredweight for Red and Yellow Grades by Pool Compared with “hp Choice Prices at Chicago 1954-1955 LondonOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00....OIOOOOOOOOOOOO0.000000000000000 Prices per Hundredweight for Double Blue and Single Blue Grades by Pool Compared with TOp Prime Prices ‘t Chicago 1954.1955 “ary3V1lleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Prices per Hundredweight for Red and Yellow Grades by Pool Compared with Top Choice Prices at Chicago 1954-1955 erYOVIIIGOeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Prices per Hundredweight for Double Blue and Single Blue Grades by Pool Compared with TOp Prime Prices at Chicago .195"1955 Wilmington............................ Prices per Hundredweight for Red and Yellow Grades by Pool COOIpared with Tap Choice Prices at Chicago 1954-1955 Wilmington.................................................. BABE 67 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 9 O C ' G e I O I s Q a e e 5 D ' O I ' 'IOEOIOI‘lue'weee-u. APPENDIX A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. O. P. LIST OF APPENDIES 1954-1955 Lamb P001 sumNHIY”W0013eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 1954‘1955 Lamb p001 summaIY"CIip5eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 1955-1956 Lamb P001 Summary-~Wools...................... 1955'1956 Lamb P001 SummaIY"c11P5eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 1906-190? Lamb P001 Summary--Wools...................... 1956.195? Lamb p001 Summary--C11p8...................... 1957-195? Lamb P001 Summar7"W0015eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 1957'1958 Lamb P001 summarY"c11pSeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 1958-1959 Lamb p001 summarY"w001$eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 1958'1959 Lamb P001 SummarY--Clip80eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Marysville - Number of Lambs Marketed. Average Weight by Pool for First Two Top Grades. Price per Hundredieight and per Head, 1954’1955eeeeeeeeeeeeeee Wilmington - Number of Lambs Marketed. Average Weight by Pool for First Two Top Grades. Price per Hundredweight and per'Head, 1954'1955eeeeeeeeeeeeeee Ashley - Number of Lambs Marketed. Average Weight by Pool for First Two Top Grades. Price per Hundredwbight and per Head, 1954‘1955eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Ashley - Number of Lambs Marketed. Average Weight by Pool for Red and Yellow; Price per’Hundred- 'lgight and per Head, 1954.1955eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Lancaster - Number of Lambs Marketed. Average Weight by Pool for First Two Top Grades. Price per Hundredweight and per Head, l954-1955............... Lancaster - Number of Lambs Marketed. Average ‘leight by Pool for Red and Yellow. Price per Hundredweight and per Head, 1954'1955eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee PAGE 94 96 97 99 100 102 103 105 106 108 109 111 113 114 115 116 —_—_-—.———-_———_—.—_.-—- APPENDIX Q... R. PAGE London - Number of Lambs Marketed. Average Weight by Pool for First Two TOp Grades. Price per Hundrad'eight and per Head, 1954.1955eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 117 London - Number of Lambs Marketed. Average Weight by Pool for Red and Yellow. Price per Hundredweight and per Head, 1954-1955eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 118 l'llill I. INTRODUCTION Ohio's lamb pool program was started by Clinton County sheepmen in 1933. The first year's volume of pooled lambs totaled 983 head. Ohio sheepmen for the year 1954-1955 consigned 117,729 head through 'hwenty pools. Interested sheepmen of a county or area have improved production practices and marketing methods through interest generated by County Sheep Improvement Committees elected by flockowners. The Lamb Pool Committee plans the production and marketing of quality lambs on a graded basis. Representatives of several County Improvement Cbmmittees have joined in forming an Area Lamb Pool Committee. A lamb pool has been an action program that started on the farm and ended when lambs were sold to consumers as meat. Activities have included improvement of production and marketing methods, by: (l) the production of more quality lambs with higher carcass value: (2) the use of grade standards that reflected quality and carcass value in grading lambs; and (3) selling graded lambs to packers on a basis that reflected quality and carcass value in prices paid to the producer. Sheepmen and their committees have taken the responsibility for establishing lamb pools and arranging for marketing services; they have cooperated with the Agricultural Extension Service for the needed edu- cational activities. Lamb pool programs were designed to help solve production, market- ing, and economic situations confronting sheepmen. Some of the major problems were: (1) The consumer demand for lambs was limited to certain areas. (2) The production and marketing of large numbers of low quality lambs at materially lower prices. (3) The heavy seasonal marketings of Ohio lambs in the fall which competed with heavy seasonal marketings from western ranges during a period of declining prices. (4) The markets which did not use grade standards which reflected high carcass value in prices paid producers. (5) The many areas of dense lamb production which were not adja- cent to markets using improved methods of assembly and grading for packer procurement. The over-all lamb marketing problem consisted of: what type, grade, or quality of lambs to produce: how much of each grade and weight to produce or sell; when to sell; where to sell lambs and how to market more effectively. This investigation involved five Lamb Pool Programs and is in no way a final solution to the problem of lamb production and marketing. II. OBJECTIVES 1. To serve as a guide to Extension Service workers for evaluating the improvement in production and marketing of lambs in areas of lamb pool activities. 2. To determine some problems and trends in lamb production and marketing in the five market areas served by pools. 3. To provide educational information and facts for the county Sheep Improvement Committees that might suggest the need for a revision of activities. 4. To help County Committees, the Extension Service, and the College of Agriculture to explore possible profit incentives resulting from farmer's participation in a continuing effective action program that combines profitable production techniques with effective marketing procedures. III. HISTORY OF THE OHIO LAMB POOL PROGRAM Ohio's lamb pool program was started by Clinton County sheepmen in 1933. The first market year‘s volume of pooled lambs totaled 983 head. possibilities of lamb and wool production prior to 1933‘ had been overshadowed by the much greater attention given to hog production. Clinton County ranked first among Ohio counties in the production of hogs, according to the United States Census (1935). Their was a popular belief that sheep were not profitable on high priced, productive land. However, a marked upward trend in sheep production was in evi- dence in the typical corn-hog counties of Southwest Ohio. Prior to 1932, little effort was expended on the problems and possibilities of lamb and wool production in Clinton County. Flocks were small, averaging less than thirty breeding ewes. Production practices lacked purposeful direction and the selling of lambs and wool was extremely diversified, with little or no attention paid to market demand or grades. The problems involved were revealed in a farm survey Of sixty flocks prior to the inauguration of the County-wide Improvement Program in the Spring of 1932. This survey was undertaken by the County Agent with the endorsement of the county Farm Bureau and officers of both Pomona and subordinate Granges of the county. Observations at the Cincinnati Terminal Market and information supplied by the largest commission firm revealed that not more than half of the market lambs from Clinton County possessed sufficient quality to grade as Good and Choice. Since the normal spread between Medium and Choice grades approximated $1.50 to $2.00 per hundred pounds, the loss to flock owners was readily apparent. The survey revealed that only a meager portion of the market lambs were sired by purebred rams. This lack of breeding required a longer period to get the lambs ready for market, higher production costs and more medium fleshed lambs. Forty percent of the flocks received no legume hay. Sixty percent of the flock owners had no systematic plan for con- trolling either internal or external parasites. Lambs were generally sold by lot regardless of grade, usually to country buyers. Others consigned their lambs unsorted to the terminal market. Prices received under such methods offered little incentive for flock owners to give increased attention to the management of their flocks. Facts gleaned from the survey were considered by more than seventy flock owners who met early in the Spring of 1932. After thorough dis- cussion the group agreed to launch a program designed to place their industry on a sound management program. Recognizing that each flock owner working alone would fall short of the goal, especially in the marketing of his products of lamb and wool, a voluntary organization was set up to make detailed plans and set the program in motion. Officers were elected from the group and the Sponsoring organization was named The Clinton County Lamb and Fleece Improvement Association. Two directors were elected each year from each of nine improvement districts in the County. This board determined policies, provided lead- ership for a continuous educational program and directed the purebred ram campaigns and marketing activities of the association. Regular counsel was maintained with the County Agent, Livestock and Marketing Specialists and Terminal Cooperatives in planning and directing activities. The campaign was started at a county-wide Sheepmen's Roundup and Field Day held on the County Fairgrounds on April 27, 1932. Spectacular features were provided through a county shearing contest, wool show, carcass cutting and flock management demonstrations. Nearly three hundred flock owners attended the event and learned of plans for future activities. A roast lamb luncheon was served at which many sheepmen consumed, for the first time, the product they had been regularly producing for many years. Beginning with the first Purebred Ram Campaign in 1932, forty-four registered rams were purchased. Flock owners purchased four hundred registered mutton rams during the first five year period. Of these, 293 were Shropshires; 58 Southdowns; l5 Hampshires: 5 Dorsets and one Corrie- dale. Duplicate copies of registration certificates for all rams owned by Association members were maintained in the office of the County Agent. Information as to the age and breeding of rams available for exchange or sale was readily supplied to all interested flock owners and many rams were exchanged each year. A purchasing committee from the Association Board of Directors and the County Agent selected the rams from purebred flocks throughout the state, and adjoining states, during June and July. Selections were made on a high standard, and a cash Option was taken on the entire lot selected. Flock owners made advance deposits of $5.00 each on the number of rams they desired to purchase. The balance was paid at the time the rams were delivered to the county. Usually a Special date was set for distribution and was known as "Ram Distribution Day”. Flock owners drew by lot for their rams, following the selectiOn by the committee. Values were placed on in- dividual rams according to quality. All rams were purchased with the breeder’s guarantee that he would either refund the money or supply another ram in event a ram proved a non-breeder. Only yearling and two-year old rams were purchased. No charges were made for this committee service. Such a program not only proved profitable to the purchaser, but also offered a good outlet at reasonable prices for purebred breeders. By 1937 this association, incorporated under the cOOperative laws of Ohio, embodied a membership of 326 flock owners, all of whom.were using registered rams of recognized mutton breeds adapted to Clinton County conditions. There were no dues, and membership was terminated when a flock owner ceased to use a purebred ram. Simultaneous with the purebred ram campaigns, purchases of more than one hundred registered yearling ewes were made by 1937 in the es- tablishment of eight purebred flocks. Eleven dipping rings, of ten members each, were organized in 1935 within the Improvement Association to meet the external parasite problem. Portable dipping equipment using metal cages for retaining the sheep were purchased by each ring. Signed reports, received by the County Agent, showed that these members dipped a total of 7330 Sheep and lambs in that year alone at a cost of less than five cents per head. Dipping sUpplies were purchased cooperatively by association members. Prior to the inception of the improvement program, only a few Clinton County lambs were sold on a graded basis and a still fewer number were graded in the presence of the producer. The entire season's production of market lambs was sold at one time, regardless of grade or finish, the grower taking the price offered. Expense of tranSporting small lots of lambs to a terminal market reduced his Opportunity and interest in sort- ing his lambs. Small lots, offered for sale, ungraded, by flock owners working independently and without knowledge of lamb grades, placed the Clinton County lamb crop in "weak hands" from a market standpoint. Beginning in the summer of 1933, with their first crOp of lambs sired by purebred rams, members of the Improvement Association launched a program for grading their lambs within the county and pooling shipments to reduce tranSportation and selling costs. The Board of Directors engaged the services of the Producers Cooper- ative Commission Association, located at the Cincinnati Union Stockyards, who sent their field representative to Clinton County on grading days. Assistance was also rendered individual members in sorting their lambs at the farm in advance of the grading days. This was done to lend further encouragement to the practice of ”tapping-out" the lamb crOp and avoiding marketing of unfinished lambs. Lamb grading days were held at the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Yards in Wilmington at monthly intervals from June until December and the lambs moved to market by rail. Five grades were established and all lambs were marked as to their respective grade before shipment. They were designated as Double Blue, Single Blue, Link Blue, Red dot, and Yellow dot. Descriptions of the grades follows: DOUBLE BLUE (premium lambs) marked with two blue rings in the cen- ter of the back. This grade represented the cream of the crOp and included only lambs of thick, low-set conformation capable of producing the highest quality cuts. Lambs for this grade weighed from seventy-five to eighty-five pounds and dressed out from fifty-two to fifty-five per- cent. SINGLE BLUE (Good and Choice, sometimes referred to as "tOps”) were marked with a single blue ring in the center of the back. The bulk of the lambs marketed by the association were of this grade. This grade was comparable to the good and choice lambs at the Cincinnati Terminal Market. Weights ranged from seventy to eighty-five pounds and dressing percentages ranged from fifty to fifty-two. Condition was the determining factor in the Single Blue grade. LINK BLUE (heavy lambs) were marked with a blue paint brand. This grade represented lambs carrying sufficient finish, but too large to furnish the cuts the trade demanded and were penalized accordingly. Lambs in this grade usually exceeded an average weight of ninety pounds at the market. RED DOT (medium lambs) were marked with a single red ring. Lambs in this grade lacked the finish required for the top grades. The smoother lambs in the Red Dot grade would usually become good and choice lambs if fed longer following rigid treatment to eliminate internal parasites. -10- YELLOW DDT (common lambs) were marked with a yellow ring. This grade caught the ”Shelly” light lambs usually weighing less than sixty- five pounds and so lacking in thrift and condition as to render them undesirable for slaughter or further feeding. During the first four years, 1746 of the lambs, or an average of 13.7 percent graded premium (Double Blue) and 8454 or an average of 66.4 percent graded good and choice (Single Blue). There were 241 farms eligible to market lambs through the association in 1936. Of this number 214 or 88 percent of the eligible farms consigned part or all of their lambs. . ._ ,u-n . . - cg), o, o , ... . .. in It was difficult to measure accomplishments in dollars and cents. However, a rough estimate might be made by comparing the prices paid for pool lambs to the prices paid on the Cincinnati market on the same marketing days. The average price received for pool lambs over the twelve years (1933-1944) was $11.84 a hundredweight, as compared with $10.28 for Cincinnati market lambs. This average premium of $1.56 per hundred pounds for 70,341 lambs amounted to $81,165.25 additional income to Clinton County producers. The premium for pool lambs ranged from forty-two cents in 1934 to $2.40 per hundred pounds in 1943. credit for this record goes largely to forty-four farmers Spurred by an aggressive county agent, Walter L. Bluck of Wilmington, Ohio, who, in 1932, influenced them to head their flocks with registered rams. Lambs sired by these rams brought an average premium of seventy-six cents a hundredweight; and the neighbors heard about it. Bluck bombarded the county with facts and figures by mail, in newSpapers, at leg-o-lamb -11- banquet programs, in discussional parleys, field days, contests, demonstrations and tours. These forty-four farmers comprised the original improvement associ- ation and became the Spearhead of Bluck's educational attack. By 1944 owners of 473 flocks belonged to the Association. The only requirement was that a member must use a purebred’ram and pay six cents a head for ”trade marking” (grading) and costs of marketing pool lambs which had formerly averaged forty cents a head for such services. During the twelve years 78.8 percent of the pool lambs graded in the top two classes. Prior to 1933 less than half of Clinton county's lambs graded either good or choice. Since 1932 association flock owners have bought 1,237 registered rams. At first most of them came from outside; but by 1944 the demand had been met largely within the county. In 1944, for the first time, the local supply exceeded local demand and thirty head were sold into Kentucky. Thus a county group had money by collectively following a program of constructive breeding, efficient management and merchandising of a superior product. With justification, the Clinton County Lamb and Fleece merovement Association claimed it ”led the nation in market lamb improve- ment”. (The total lamb pool volume of Clinton County for the past twenty- six years has been 171,292 head of lambs as shown in Table 1. WW? Lamb pools have made it possible to assemble quality lambs in sufficient volume for effective _ marketing. During the year, 1955-1956, the twenty-two pools listed in -12- 'Table 2 were the maximum number Operating in Ohio. Up until June, 1955, not one market lamb pool had failed. However, the Adams County Pool (small volume), which began Operations in 1941, Inerged with the Hillsboro Pool in 1948. This action gave these men a choice of more pool days, the use of adequate market and tranSportation facilities, and an improved grading service. TABLE I WILMINGTON LAMB POOL VOLIME mNSIGNED FROM CLINTON mUNTY AREA FOR TWENTY-SIX YEARS--1933-1958 .Xsar .laluas .133: ladies: 1933 983 1946 6820 1934 2082 1947 5481 1935 4089 1948 5929 1936 5583 1949 5057 1937 4783 1950 4841 1938 6499 1951 5346 1939 6811 1952 6804 1940 7353 1953 8440 1941 8123 1954 10,741 1942 9108 1955 11,105 1943 7587 1956 10,747 1944 8033 1957 7460 i945 7180 1958 3027 LONDON LAMB poor. VOLUME (DNSIGNED moo MADISON COUNTY AREA FOR EIGHTEEN YEARS--l94l-l958 12:: .lelnae .lsar ,laluas 1941 2,978 1950 5,987 1942 6,531 1951 6,806 1943 7,000 1952 9,085 1944 11,741 1953 10,312 1945 13,117 1954 9,445 1946 10,632 1955 9,296 1947 9,090 1956 10,082 1948 9,140 1957 8,640 1949 7,516 1958 8,681 ‘ Q qu ......... -14- TABLE 2 LOCATION OF OHIO'S TWENTY-TWO POOLS 1955 Town County Year Organized Wilmington Clinton 1933 Eaton Preable 1936 Hillsboro Highland 1937 Findlay Hancock 1938 McGonigle and) Butler 1939 Hughes Station) Lebanon Warren 1939 Washington C.H. Fayette 1941 London Madison 1941 Greenville Darke 1941 8. Charleston Clark 1944 Marysville Union 1944 Bellefontaine Logan 1945 Ashley Delaware 1945 Lancaster Fairfiold 1945 Greenwich Huron 1947 Mt.Vernon Knox 1949 Coshocton Coshocton 1953 Bucyrus Crawford 1954 Upper Sandusky Uyandotte 1954 lapakoneta Auglaize 1954 Hicksville Defiance 1955 McConnelsville Morgan 1955 ....v .<-.‘ 0 -15- Organization of Ohio Lab Pool Progra- W. Participating parties in the County Inprove- nent Co—ittees have been: (1) Sheep—ens At least two-thirds of the co-ittee have been flock owners inc narket slaugnter labs in cOOperation with their neighbors. (2) Educational Agencies: County Agents, State Extension Service specialists of Aninal Science and Agricultural Econonics, Vocational Agricultural Teachers, press, and radio. (3) llarketing Agencies: Co-ittee selections included the Producers Livestock Cooperative Associations and the Ohio heel Growers COOperative Association. ' (4) Packers. (5) Public carriers, bankers, sheep dippers, shearers, consmers, the press, and others interested in the sheep industry have been invited to serve on the cmittee. W. The responsibilities of the Co—ittees have been: ' (1) To organize and elect officers annually. (2) To deter-ine and carry out an educational progra and plan of work in cooperation with the Agricultural Extension Department. (3) To naintain close cooperation with the sponsoring narketing agency. The co-ittee plan of organization has been used with the follow- ing sub-co-itteess (a) Ran and awe procurement, (b) Parasite control, (c) Junior Sheep Progr- (4-1-1 and EPA), (d) Pool operations, and (e) Other co-ittees were often used. 1 The County Sheep Ilprovuent Co-ittees have cooperated in a state-wide industry progra by becoming a nenber of, and using a director-at-large to the Ohio Sheep Inprovenent Association. (1) Since sheep and wool production and narketing inprovuent were involved, County Extension Agents, Animal Science Specialists, and Marketing Extension Economists cOOperated with County and Sheep Inprove- lent Co-ittees in planning annual and long-tine sheep and wool inprove- lent progrus. (2) Effective group action included: (a) Joint consideration of needed inprovenent in production practices and (b) needed inprovenent in narketing methods. ' ’ (3) The Extension Service cooperated in: a. The analysis of production problus and situations. b. The analysis of lab pool records and narketing problas. c. Providing W and narket agencies with data and infornation obtained fron narket studies. d. Providing tinely infer-ation through all nedia, conducting neetings, and field d-onstrations. (4) An analysis of sheep pepulation and factors affecting lab narketing before a new l-b pool was forned. Requests for an analysis of a new area originated throud: County Extension Agents and of an existing pool throufii County Extension Agents or a narket agency. -17- (1) To grade, identify, weifi, yard, sell, and load lube and nake pay-ant to consignors. (2) To provide on-the-farn service to assist with production and narketing problne. Schedule regular days to fill recpests for assist- ance in “topping-out“ labs for narket during the pool narketing season. (3) 'To work with conittees and the Extension Service in an advisory capacity in all phases of the production and narketing ilprov—ent pro- gru. (4) To furnish infer-ation for publicity i-ediately following each pool. (5) To nake regular reports following each pool to the County Exten- sion Agents and the Eastern Order Buying Conpany. (6) To pay the co-ittee treasurer the agreed e:- per head deducted fron the consignor's returns for financing the Sheep Inprovuent Conittee's activities. Wo (1) To coordinate l-b pool schedules. (2) To deveIOp and naintain uniforn standards of grading and other services. (3) To effect marketing agreenents with slaughterers for dependable and consistent sale on the respective nerits of all labs iaich were consigned to the regularly scheduled pools. (4) To ass-ble available infomtion fron slaughterers as to per- fornance of labs at given pools. This has been useful in achieving uniforlity of grades and in guiding the i-prov-ent progru. (5) To assalble two copies of each individual lanb pool report, one to be forwarded to the Extension larketing Specialist, Ohio State University. The Characteristics of Lab Ilarketing WW. Lab and flatten him bun nor- unevenly distributed than nest agricultural cmodities. Doty (1956) reported that during periods of short supply, lamb disappeared from any retail stores for weeks at a tine. To avoid such gaps, producers have been encouraged to adjust their breeding and feeding schedules to assure a nore uniform supply. Doty (1956) reported that an in-and-out supply of lab has tended to discourage bOth the packers and retailers. Lamb and nutton distributed to new York and California was more than double the distribution to any other state in 1954. New York received 23.9 percent of the United States total and California, 20.9 percent. The third ranking state was Massachusetts with 8.3 percent of the total. Other states of sons importance in the quantity of lab and nutton dis- tributed to than in 1954, each receiving four to six percent of the lab and nutton distributed throughout the United States, were: Pennsylvania, Illinois, New Jersey, and lichigan. He further reported that certain states accounted for almost the entire quantity of lamb and nutton distributed to the regions for con- euption in 1954. California took ninety-one percent of the l-b and nutton distributed to the Pacific region. Massachusetts was by far the greatest receiver of lanb and nutton in New England, taking seventy per- cent of the total going to that region. Illinois and lichigan took seventy-two percent of the total lamb andnutton available for consump- tion in the East North Central region. In only one region did all of the states in the region have available for consunption a fairly high amount of lab and nutton, and that was the lliddle Atlantic region conposed of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Doty (1958) reported that lab was available in only thirty-nine percent of‘the retail stores handling fresh red neat: across the nation in 1955. W. Although the average lab and mutton consumption nationally is 4.5 pounds per person annually, there are wide variations anong the states. Doty (1956) reported that the peeple of llassachusetts and California consumed 12.4 pounds annually, Ohio 2.2, Texas 1.4, mile in Iiseiseippi and Georgia, it was only 0.2 to 0.3 pound. Thirty percent of the population ate seventy-percent of the l-b produced and any people have never tasted lanb. _ W. Sotola (1958) reported that carcasses from labs weigh- ing over 105 pounds have‘linited outlets. Heavy lab carcasses wish nade up to twenty and twenty-five percent of the total supply, were fairly well absorbed by the hotel and restaurant trade. Iany of the leetern hotels have raised the linit on lnh carcasses fro. fifty to sixty-five pounds. Pornerly the hotel trade considered the heavier car- casses to be produced from yearling sheep. There were four to five chops to a pound from loins of lamb carcasses weighing forty to fifty-five pounds, but only three if the weight was sixty to seventy pounds. Killing labs in packing plants has been different fron other red neat: because nore labor per pound has entered into the processing. Levine et. a1. (1956) reported that the retailers nade the best use of lab carcasses that were under fifty pounds in weight. -21.. Ohio sheepnen have been encouraged to “tap-out” lube and market thn with timing being important. Many times lambs'which were not “topped-out“ have drOpped back in grade and have neant the difference between profit and loss for the feeders. The Agricultural Marketing Service (1959) reported that lube marketed during the past five years have been heavier. This has cone about because of earlier lubing, better management of the ewes, and the labs fattening more quickly on better rations and pasture. The Agricultural Marketing Service (1957) shows that there has been a wide price gap between l-b chOps, leg-kof-lanb, and the less desirable lamb cuts. Levine et. a1. (1956) found that most consmers desired chops or leg-of-lnb. Doty (1958) reported that, to compensate for the slow mov-ent of the less desirable cuts, those nore in duand have been priced up- wards. We. Th- omas: amber and percentage of sheep and lambs slaughtered under Federal inspection in the United States has changed by periods in the various specific regions, Table 3. Slaughter in the North Atlantic region has declined 1,270,000 head, or 33.7 percent, while the Pacific region gained 2,039,000 head or 211.5 percent for the period 1936-1940 to 1951-1955. The North Central region has similarly declined 2,601,000 head, or 64.2 percent for the period 1941-1945 to 1951-1955. The 1958 slaughter indicated a further decline in the North Central and the North Atlantic region. The 1958 Federally inspected slaughter in (mic totaled 225,000 head Of lambs, ‘vhile estimated narketings have been about three times this number, The Agricultural Marketing Service (1959). Shifts in value of regional slaughter have influenced the size and character of Ohio's market outlets for sheep and lube. have been informed many times that Jewish holidays have an influence on the Ohio lamb pool markets. Many of the sheepmen the have heard this remark seemed that the Jewish peeple were forbidden to eat meat on these holidays. Swift and Company (1955), Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregation (1956) and Arnour's (1953) point out that the abstinence from eating meat, because of a religious requirement‘had a minor influence on the lamb market. The main reason was that no slaughtering was done on these holidays. Kosher slaughtering .is not performed on Saturdays. Swift and Company (1955) have shown that forty days have been set aside each year, and published as Jewish holidays, for the years 1954 to 1960, inclusive. no work was permitted on thirteen of these days and no lube were slaugxtered for the kosher trade. Each year these dates were taken into consideration when setting up lamb pool market dates in Ohio. Kosher meats come from packing plants store the animals are slaughtered and meats prepared under the close supervision of the rabbi or some rep- resentative of the Rabbinical Board. The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations (1956) reported that the preparation of these meats was a religious rite. A careful physical exaination, from a religious health standpoint, was made of all parts of the carcass. Particular attention was given the lungs and stomach. If the lungs did not hold air, or if any lesions were found any place in the body, the meat of the particular lamb did not meet the requirements of the kosher trade. Armour's (1953) reported that the Jewish trade has used only those cuts wish came from the forequarter of'the carcass. Kosher lamb and veal carcasses were cut with one rib on the hind-quarters. Approximately fifty percent of the lab carcass was in the kosher forequarters. Swift and Conpany (1955) and Armours (1953) reported that the meat for the kosher trade must behsold very soon after slaughter. It was conon to see retail buyers of kosher lab meat trading and buying on the killing floor or as the carcasses first entered the coolers. Jewish regulations require that the meat be consumed within seventy-two hours after slauwter. However, this has not been a definite requiruent, as this seventy-two hour period can be extended three times by the rabbi or one of his representatives in a religious rite called ”beguissing". The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregation (1956) showed between 2,750,000 and 3,000,000 Jewish people, about fifty poi-cut of whom were Orthodox in flow York City. -24- TABLE 3 AVERAGE7NUMBER10P SHEEP AND>LAMBS SLAUGHTERED UNDER FEDERAL INSPECTION IN THE UNITED'STATES,ODMPARED BY FIVE YEAR PERIODS, AND>AVERAGE NUMBER All!) PERCENT SLAUGHERED IN SPECIFIC REGIONS, 19364955. (IN 39054313) . . Five Year Average Northwest1 Eastv‘r North:r Pacificz Periods Slaughter W 1936-1940 17,428 5030 23.8 3933 22.8 3774 21.6 964 5.5 1941-19“ 21 , 242 6569 30 .9 4052 19. 1 3230 15. 4 2216 10.4 1946-1950 15, 154 4221 27 .3 2091 13.7 2523 16.6 2139 14. 1 1951-19.55 13, 113 3906 30. 2 1451 ll . 1 304 19. 1 2003 15.3 1958 only 12,397 3679 1264 2159 1871 (1) north Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, and Nebraska. (2) Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and lisconsin. (3) Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, and the District of Columbia. (4) Mashington, Oregon, and California. *The Agricultural Marketing Service (1940) and The Agricultural Marketing Service (1957). Ohio Lamb Pool Method of Marketing Mam-Wanna. Since Clinton County started the first lamb pool program in 1933, the number of buyers for a local pool has been discussed during the annual Sheep Improvement program planning meetings. During the first twelve years of the Clinton County program, the lambs were trucked or railed to the Cincinnati Livestock Terminal Market and sold to the highest bidders. In 1936, Swift and Company organised an Eastern Buying Department in Colmbus, Ohio. Since 1942, the majority of the Ohio lamb pools have sold their labs to Swift and Company as a “closed-pool“. Each year the pool comaittee would select a packer, die agreed to'purchase all of the lambs during the marketing year. Armour and Company also became interested in purchasing the pool lambs, as a result of purchasing many of the Clinton County lambs at Cincinnati. M other order buying companies were set up in Ohio to purchase lambs for both the larger and smaller out-of-state packers and retailers. These two companies were the Teegardin Livestock Company and The Eastern Order Buying Company of the Producers Livestock Association, Columbus, Ohio. Mr. Teegardin was never interested in purchasing pool lambs at a closed pool. men Armour and Company closed their Eastern lamb killing plants in late 1956, this left Ohio lamb pools with only one packer interested in purchasing all of the lambs from a closed pool. The local marketings and county Sheep Improvement Cosmittees determined the pool schedules for the marketing year. Copies of the year' a scheduled pools were provided the order buying departments and the packing plants. Copies of the schedule were mailed each year to all sheepmen in the pool. Before buying any lambs for the next week's slaughter, the Plant X order buying company's offices gave an estimate of the coming weeks kill of lambs, by numbers, weights, and grades for each pool scheduled. This estimate was made after contacts were made with each of the pro- ducers' branch markets where the closed pools were scheduled for the next week. The packing company sales office has then estimated what percentage the pools may provide of their next week's need. Early in the day of each pool the Plant X order buying department has telephoned the Eastern Order Buying Company and a price was bargained on for each pool. Most of the buyers do not see the live lambs at the local pools. The prices offered for the pool lambs have been based on the agreed grading standards and the past performance of each pool. 6 Trucks or rail shipping instructions have been given at this time. At the end of each lamb pool the local lamb grader prices the lamb pool grades according to the graders' estimate of the dressing percentage and carcass grade. It has been very important for the lamb graders to know current price values of lambs and be able to estimate the performance of the grades. Plant I would later supply the Producers Order Buying Company with a report on how all the pool lambs yielded and graded for each pool market. At the next l-b pool the pricing would be based on. the previous pool performance at Plant 1:. Thus each market pool comaitteemen have always been concerned with the performance of each pool. Co-Iitteemen have been interested in weighing conditions, degree of fill, and the length of time the labs have been in shipment to the killing plant. The Plant X buyer and local market grader always have had to con- sider the collective value of the pelt and offal credits. Pelts have ranged from twenty-five cents per lamb, to $4.50 per hundredweight for fully wooled lambs during the current marketing year. The offal credits have been relatively less important. Lab pool co-itteemen have been assigned certain work days at the pool. The comaitteemen usually have taken charge of the unloading, pen- ning, putting on the paint brand, and visiting with the producers who were consigning their labs. Thus much production and marketing knowledge was spread through the local leaders to producers. IV. METHODS AND PROCETXIRE Choosing the Counties The pool areas for study were set up as follows: (a) the county where the first lamb pool program was started in Ohio, (b) all the county pools which were graded by the same grader and sold by the same branch market, (c) at least one pool progra would be present in each of the four Ohio County Extension Agent Districts. The four Ohio County Extension Districts have represented very well the four different areas of Ohio where the livestock production patterns have been similar. Clinton County met the requiraent of being the county adhere the first Ohio lamb pool program was started, in 1933. Madison County (London), Union County (Marysville), and the Ashley pool program were the only pools were more than one Ohio pool was graded, sold, and field work done through one Producer Branch Operatic -- The Columbus Producers Association. Clinton County (lilmington) and Madison County (London) are in the Southwest Ohio County Agent's District. The Union County pool (Marysville) is located in the Northwest District. The Ashley pool is located in the Northeast District. The Lancaster pool has served three counties in the Southeastern Ohio's County Agent District. Source of Data for Analysis, Charts, and Tables Records for making the analysis, charts, and tables for the five pool areas were secured from the Ohio Agricultural Extension Service files, and the Eastern Order Buying Company office, as well as the County Sheep Improvement Coaittees. One of the responsibilities of the local Producer Livestock Marketing Association was to make regular re- ports following each pool to the County Extension Agents and the Eastern Order Buying Company. The five production and marketing years of 1954-1955, 1955-1956, 1956-1957, 1957-1958, and 1958-1959 were used for the analysis. An analysis and statistical data was prepared for the year 1954-1955 and presented to all of the County Sheep Improvement Coaitteee, County Agents and Marketing Agencies in each of the pool areas. V. RESULTS AND DISGJSSION Effect of Lab Pool Velma During the 1958-1959 marketing season the nmber of lambs and sheep consigned per pool day for the five areas averaged: Lancaster-558 head, London-434 head, Ashley-308 head, Marysville-29O head, and lilmington- 232 head. A sufficient volume of labs per market day has been one of the major reasons for establishing lamb pools. The freight or trucking rates have made it necessary to move full car or truck loads to the out- of-state packing plants. Most of Ohio's pool labs were scheduled for the killing-floor within forty-eight hours after loading. Friday's pool labs have been scheduled for Monday's kill. Field service expenses of the cooperating marketing agencies have also made it necessary for the pool's volume to average at least one carload of labs per pool day. In Ohio it has been necessary to schedule an average of two pool days per month during the season to acconodate the “topping-out” progra of the consignors. ' ' WW. Factors considered in Chic before selection of a possible pool concentration center have been: market service available, converging highways, and the established number of sheep and lambs marketed within the area. During the 1954-1958 period auction markets for graded lambs have been developed within twenty-five miles of the Ashley, Lancaster, Marys- ville, London and Milmington pools. -31- Lamb production in Madison County and in the other four pool areas has determined the number of labs available for market through the pools. According to the Agriculture Census (1954), thirty-six per- cent of the Madison County farms reported an average of thirty-eight sheep and labs per farm. Madison County sheepmen consigned fifty-one percent of the available vclme to the London lamb pool in 1954. Pool consignments were received from all tomships. Madison County sheepmen contributed 76.4 percent of the volume: the five adjoining counties contributed 23.6 percent during the 1954 season. Iith few exceptions, consignment mileages to the London Pool were less than twenty-five miles. Ninety-one head of labs were sold for each one hundred head of sheep and labs on the farms, January 1, 1954, in the six counties contributing labs to the London Pool. The number of a... of 1.1m. pooled during the moat.» year period, 1941-1958, in the London lab pool totaled 156,079 head, Table 1. According to the Agricultural Census (1954), 414 of the Clinton County farms reported sheep and labs with an average of 28.5 brood ewes per farm. The umber of head consigned through the Milmingtcn pool dur- ing the twenty-six year period, 1933-1958, totaled 171,292, Table l. The 1955 pool was the largest with 11,105 head marketed. W. One of the objectives of Ohio's lamb pool progra has been to encourage timely “tepping-cut' of the lambs. One of the Operation problems of pool programs has been to schedule enouw pool days per year in order to encourage regular 'tOpping-out" of labs. The average naber of sheepmen who havo'ccnsigned lambs to the five \ pool area: has been 26.6 per pool day during the 1955-1958 period, Table 4. -32- The number of ccnsignors per pool day by each individual pool has been: Lancaster 31.6, Milmington 27.5, Marysville 27.0, London 25.9, and Ashley 21.1. The average number of lambs consigned by each producer has been 16.9 lambs per pool day during the 1955-1958 years. The number of lambs per ccnsigncr at each pool day was: Lancaster 19.3 head, London 18.0, Milmington 17.5, Ashley 16.8, and Marysville 14.1. This data indicates that the Clinton County Sheep Improvement Com- mittee had a forty-six percent less in the number of ccnsignors during the 1958 marketing year. The number of lambs consigned by each sheepman per pool day through the lilmingtcn pools decreased twenty-four percent. This would indicate that a change in the marketing procedure of the pool lambs was needed. From this data, one can conclude that lamb pools have had some handi- caps, one of which has been scheduling. Lamb pools have been scheduled two to three weeks apart during the lamb marketing season. 10ther outlets have been offered for lab marketing every day. Another handicap has been the failure of marketing agencies to provide timely field service. Banning et. a1. (1958) reported that the Ohio's livestock marketing system at the time of this study was made up of three terminal markets, 71 auctions, 134 local markets, 49 packer buying stations, and 159 dealers. Kenning et. al. also reported that convenience was the most cosmon factor given by farmers in selecting the market outlet for slaughter livestock. Hiwer price was second most coacn reason given. These facts indicate that the 659,000 head of labs marketed during 1957, as reported by the Agricultural Marketing Service (1959), were not sufficient numbers for all the markets to attempt a pool type program. 0.0H H.VH o.m~ n.9H m.o~ .o>< 2.2 0.2 22 «.2 «12. «4.2. «42. ~43 an: or: «.2 22 0.2 o.2 .12 .12 «.02 «.v2 «.2« «.62 2.2 «.2 0.2 2.2 $2 «82 B2 82 .32 1.92 682 -««2 flag-«331.24 0.0N 0.5N o.nu 0.Hn H.HN .e>< «.5 H12. «.5 5.8 5.5 «.2 .82 :mnOH anon 0.8 8 3M. a m«.. 6.2 «.3 on 18 2.3 a 9. v.2 .« «a «.«u on «82 B2 32 4.82 382 A92 3 eoene>< 85532: magnanunem condom «3.35m 52.4 een< v udmsh 38a 38 E: «on 223182sz mun 33 ea .82 and «85528 no «mama: Badge Effects of Closed Pools on Lamb Marketing Practices The five pool areas of Ashley, Lancaster, London, Marysville and Milmington have operated as closed pools during the 1954-1958 periods. There has been a decline in the anchor of lambs consigned through the five pool areas involved in this analysis, Table 5. Ashley's (Union County) volume declined 28.3 percent, from 7300 to 5244 during the period. The Lancaster area pool declined from 15,789 to 12,276, or twenty-two percent. The London (Madison County) area pool declined 8.9 percent. The London pool volume has not declined consistently since 10,082 head were consigned during the 1956 season. The Marysville (Union County) pool volme has show: a decline of 28.3 percent during 1958-1959 as compared to the previous year. The Wilmington (Clinton County) area showed the greatest decline - 76.5 percent, or a decrease from 10,741 marketed during the 1954 season to 2,524 in 1958-1959. The regular, graded, weekly auction market at lilmingtcn has increased its volume more than the seventy-six percent lost from the pool program during the sac period of time. This auction market has been held weekly and at the same market location where the closed pool lambs have been graded. Other weekly auction markets have reported an increased volume of labs. During 1956 many of the Sheep Improvement Coaittees becae inter- ested in studying the value of Opening the closed pools and selling the labs at graded auctions. Some of the reasons for the study were: (1) Increased producer interest in the auction method of selling cattle, hogs, and labs. (2) Opportunity for market agencies to find small killers of sheep to increase buying competition. (3) Opportunity to secure the buying services of Teegardin's Buying Company, in addition to Swift and Company. Since the 1955-1956 marketing season when there were 22 pools, changes have been made in methods of selling lambs at six Ohio pools, Table 6. The percentage of Ohio lambs marketed through the closed pools. has declined from 18.2 percent in 1954 to 11.7 percent in 1958, Table 7. Ohio's lamb pools have demonstrated for the past 25 years the ad- vantages of marketing labs in cc-mingled lots by grade. There has been an increased acceptance by other Ohio marketing agencies of the marketing practices demonstrated. Lambs from the six pools selling on a graded auction were not included in the 1957 or 1958 lamb pool volume. Accurate records of grades were not available from these auctions. These market areas changed to graded auctions in order to increase competition through buyers than were available through the closed pool program. The Ohio Agricultural Extension Service has actively cooperated with Sheep Improve- ment Ccaittees in twelve other counties during 1958, where local auction markets have indicated an interest in selling labs in co-mingled lots by grade. The volume of these markets has not been included in the Ohio lamb pool volume because of the lack of uniform grading and accurate records. The County Sheep Imprcvaent Conitteee have not volunteered labor for these weekly auction programs. Field visitations indicate that the shift made by the six counties from closed pools to regular weekly auctions of labs has show these handicaps of marketing lambs through a weekly auction: (1) Appeal of the auction method of selling has not always insured -36- more buyers for the lambs. Three of the markets have had no buyers or only one buyer present at auctions during the season. (2) Lack of volume to ship full loads of labs has increased market- ing costs. Lambs have been held over and shipped to other local markets. (3) Lack of volume at three of these auctions has discouraged the grading and selling lambs on their merits. (4) Less incentive from sheep improvement cmittees to continue the lamb production improvement programs. This has occurred in four of these markets since the closed pool method of. selling has been drOpped. (5) Three of the six former pool markets have not had an experienced lamb grader to do the grading and make farm visits. This service had formerly been supplied by the Eastern Order Buying Coupany during the time the pools were in Operation. These handicaps have indicated some of the reasons that the County Sheep Improvement Ccaittees have continued the closed pool programs. The poOl program has given the Ohio Agricultural Extension Service the Opportunity to work with the County Coaittees and the sheepmen in educa- ti onal daenstraticns. TABLE 5 VOLUME OF LAMBS CONSIGNED THROUGH FIVE OHIO POOLS AND ALL OHIO POOLS FOR FIVE YEAR PERIOD, 1954-1958 Ashley Area Lamb Pool Year No.0f Wooled Clipped Pool Pools ‘ Lambs Lambs Total 1958-1959 17 2892 2352 5244 1957-1958 17 2993 2343 5336 1956-1957 17 4545 1775 6563 1955-1956 17 4175 2740 7129 1954-1955 16 5268 2032 7300 Lancaster Area Lamb Pool Year No.0f Wooled Clipped Pool Pools Lambs Lambs Total 1958~l959 22 9579 2697 12,276 1957-1958 22 9269 3971 13,240 1956-1957 22 8256 1916 10,595 1955-1956 22 9509 2208 12,181 1954-1955 23 13,492 2247 15,739 London Area Lamb Pool Year No.of Wooled Clipped Pool Pools Lambs Lambs Total 1958-1959 20 7568 1113 8681 1957-1958 19 7609 1031 8640 1956-1957 17 7930 1088 10,082 1955-1956 17 8167 615 9296 1954-1955 17 9166 279 9445 938- TABLE 5 Continued Marysville Lamb Pool Year No.0f Wooled Clipped Pool Pools Lambs Lambs Total 1958-1959 16 3078 1563 4641 1957-1958 17 3807 2669 6476 1956-1957 15 4234 1010 5490 1955-1956 16 5072 534 5832 1954-1955 16 5149 555 5704 Wilmington Lamb Pool Year No.0f Wooled Clipped Pool Pools Lambs Lambs Total 1958-1959 13 3027 503 2524 1957-1958 13 5378 2082 7460 1956-1957 20 9603 280 10,747 1955-1956 19 9632 112 11,105 1954-1955 17 10,403 338 10,741 I Ohio Pools NO.POOls No.0f Wool Clipped Pool Included Pool Areas Total Lambs Total 1958-1959 16 57,581 15,902 73,483 1957-1958 18 67,621 25,391 93,012 1956-1957 20 85,098 19,590 104,688 1955-1956 22 95,294 23,998 119,292 1954-1955 17 107,198 25,097 122,295 L,- —; '39: TABLE 6 LOCATION OF OHIO LAMB POOLS SHOWING TREND TO GRADED AUCTION METHOD OF PRICING 1958 Location of Grading Center (1) Operated ‘12) Closed Pool as Closed DrOpped. Weekly Town County Wilmington Clinton Eaton Preble Hillsborc Highland Findlay Hancock McGonigle and) Butler Hughes Station) Lebanon Warren Washington C.H. Fayette London Madison Greenville Darke S.Char1estcn Clark Marysville Union Bellefontaine Logan Ashley Delaware Lancaster Fairfield Greenwich Huron Mt. Vernon Knox Coshocton Coshocton Bucyrus Crawford Upper Sandusky Wyandotte Napakoneta Auglaize Hicksville Defiance McConnelsville Morgan Pool yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Graded Auction yes yes yes Yes yes (1) Closed pools mean that all the lambs have been graded and paint marked. All the lambs and sheep are sold to one Order Buying Company dur- ing the current marketing year. (2) Graded auctions mean that the lambs are graded. The lambs have been sold to the highest bidders by the auction method. No packer is com- mitted to take all or part of the pool. TABLE 7 OHIO LAMB CROP MARKETING DISPOSITION* NUMBER LAMBS SAVED AS PERCENTAGE OF EWES ONE YEAR OLD AND OLDER* AS COMPARED WITH LAMBS MARKETED THROUGH CLOSED POOLS FOR FIVE YEAR PERIOD, 1954-1958 1954 Ewes One Year and Older 874,000 Lambs Saved as Percentage of Ewes 100 Disposition of Lamb Marketings 670,000 Total Lambs Sold Through Ohio Closed Pools 122,295 Percent of Ohio Lambs Sold Through Closed Pools 18.2 Ygggs 1955 847,000 103 670,000 119,292 17.8 1956 849,000 103 676,000 104,688** 15.5** 1957 829,000 101 659,000 93,012** 14.1%? 1958 846,000 103 627,000 73,483** 11.7** * Agricultural Marketing Service(l959) ** Lambs sold through graded auctions have not been included. Accurate records not available. -41- Improvement of Lamb Quality through Pools The primary purpose of Ohio lamb pools has been to encourage sheepmen to produce and market lambs on the basis of their quality, weight, type, finish, and condition. Other objectives have been to strengthen an improved market service for quality lambs and expand new market outlets. The five Ohio lamb pool areas involved in this study have been graded by four trained, experienced, market lamb graders. Experiences in Ohio have shown that live grading has varied by pools and seasons with new A graders who have lacked experience. Market lamb graders, county Sheep Improvement Coaitteemen, Order-Buyers, and Ohio Extension Service workers have cooperated to establish uniform grading standards and to train graders, Table 8. Other states have reported that graders from the Department of Agriculture have been necessary to help encourage standard methods of grading. . The reported rail performances of the previous lamb pool lets have been taken into consideration during the pool seasons. Breimyer (1959) reported that carcasses of lambs have been coaonly sold by weight classes. In lamb, quality has been recognized separately from weight. Grades have not been a measure of consumer preference: but grades have become the means through which consumer preferences have been expressed. In comparing the labs marketed during the 1954-1958 period, with those marketed the first five years of the pool: the records show that the sheepmen have made major changes in grade, weight, and type of lambs produced, Table 9. -42.. The results of these data indicate that with the present breeding, management, and feeding syst-Is, lamb pool programs have encouraged in- terested sheepmen in these five areas to improve the quality of the lambs and to increase average returns per head. During this five year period all lambs consigned graded an average of 19.6 percent in Double Blue grade, 37.1 percent as Single Blue, 19.3 percent as Red, 6.2 percent as Yellow, and 4.2 percent were graded as Bucks. The pool progra has encouraged consignors to market not over 2.1 percent as Link Blue or heavy weight lambs, and only 8.8 percent were graded as feeders. During the 1954-1958 marketing seasons 56.7 percent of the lambs consigned in the five pool markets were graded as Blue wool lambs. lhen this percentage is compared to the 32.0 percent for the first five years of these pools, there has been an increase of 24.7 percent in the numbers of lambs grading Blue and an improvement in quality. A total of 77.6 percent of Clipped lambs have graded in the Blue grade during the 1954-1958 period. It may be concluded that more research and educational work is needed to further help producers increase the percentage of lambs grading choice and the percentage of lambs reaching market earlier in the season. Quality and type of lamb meat demanded by consumers would have been more highly reflected back to the Ohio lamb pool consignors, had the packers been able to kill all the lambs by grades, and had they reported the wholesale acceptance by grades back to the consignors. Sheepmen cooperating in these lamb pool programs have requested pro- duction testing programs and more meat research, in order to help make possible the production of an improved meat type lamb carcass wish will meet with increased consumer interest. Sheep-en have requested additional lamb marketing research on methods to improve live-lamb grading standards. Three handicaps of lamb pool programs have been: (1) rigid sort- ing of labs has not been desired by all sheepmen; (2) failure of a consignor to participate in production improvement programs; and (3) lack of understanding on the part of educational workers that the grading phase of the pool programs, without production improvement pro- grams, has not changed the quality of the lambs consigned by the producers. The Ifllmington pool area reached a higher percentage of Blue lambs than the other four areas during the first years, because of a very successful County Sheep Improv-ent program. Live Grade **Double Blue **Single Blue *‘Red **Yellow TABLE 8 ESTABLISHED mum GRADING STANDARDS FOR OHIO was POOLS REVISED, JUNE 1955 *Established Carcass - Differentialfii Yield Grade 48e5‘-49e0% All Fri... 47.5% All Choice 5 .75 to $1.00 Under 00 Blue 45.5% All Choice $1.00 th. Under 0 Blue 44.0% All 600d $1000 or .01.. Under 0 Red *One percent in yield means forty to fifty cents per hundred-eight differential alive, depending upon the wholesale dressed lamb price. **leights of Double Blue live lambs should average above ninety pounds; the single Blue above eighty-five pounds and Red above seventy-five pounds. TABLE 9 PERCENT'OF IDOL LAMBS BY GRADE HJR FIRST FIVE YEARS OF FIVE m5 WARE!) III}! PERIOD OF 1954-1958 % D. x s. x 5‘ Pool Area Blue Blue Red Yellow Ashley Putt 5 Y.”‘ 5.0 5.4 38e6 23.0 1954—1958 17.8 41.7 20.1 6.2 Lancaster First 5 Years 16.0 25.1 20.7 3.1 1954-1958 18.6 32.2 16.9 3.8 London First 5 Years 18.5 Blues 43.0 38.5 1954-1958 16.6 36.9 20.7 7.9 Marysville First 5 Years 13.3 Blues 40.7 46.0 1954-1958 15.9 36.1 23.4 6.8 lihmington F1!‘t 5 Y.”‘ 20a!) 36e3 13e8 3e4 1954-1958 29.7 35.7 16.1 3.4 ~46- Effects of Seasonal Lamb Prices on Value of Lambs The annual average lab price for all of the wool lambs consigned thrde the London lamb pool markets varied from $19.56 per hundred- weight, in 1955, to $21.54, for the 1957-1958 marketing season. This was a variation of $1.98 per hundred or 5 percent live-weight during the five years, Table 10. Boger (1949) reported a similar percent variation in the annual price of lambs. As shown in Tables 11 and 19, wool lamb prices varied more within any of the five marketing seasons by years, than the annual prices varied by years. lool lamb pool prices varied $3.43 in 1954 from the high to the low monthly price. For 1955 the variation was $5.87; 1956, $4.83; 1957, $3.67; and 1958, $5.75. This indicates that sheepmen in the London pool should have been more concerned with the seasonal price variation than with the average annual price variation. Badger 11.31. (1958) found that prices of lambs follow a fairly regular seasonal pattern because of the seasonal nature of production, and to a lesser extent seasonal duand. Similar seasonal price variations have appeared during the five mar- keting seasons of 1954-1958 for Ashley, Lancaster, Marysville, and lil- mington. During the five marketing years the average price of all the wool lambs started out the highest in June and July and fell unevenly to the seasonal low during October, Novmaber, and Decuber. The 1958 marketing season was an exception when prices declined unevenly to the seasonal low in February, 1959. Badger 33,41. (1958) found that there is more variation in spring lab prices than infed lamb prices. W. The greatest percentage of lambs has been marketed during the seasonal market period of October, Novuber, and Decuber. A downward seasonal price movement appeared in all of the five market pools at this period during the five year period 1954-1958. The seasonal price moved upward during the January, February, and March seasonal period, but did not move above the June and July price. October has sham the largest receipts for the five market pool areas during 1954- 1958. The second highest consigment through the five Ohio market pools, has been during the August and September period, Tables 11 through 19. This percentage has been increasing as pool progrus have continued. In the uadison County pool, 16.6 percent of the labs have been con- signed during the June and July period. The percentage of lambs consigned during the June and July period in Ashley, Marysville, and Lancaster has been under 10 percent. Sheepmen in these areas could have increased their income by having lambs ready to market at this period. The largest percentage of the wool lamb consigment during the June and July period, for the five pool markets, has been at Uilmington. There has been a gradual increase in percentage over the years. The average weight of lambs consigned by Madison County sheepmen has been highest during the June and July seasonal period, and decreased thereafter with a low during January and February. The percentage of wool lambs consigned during the two early seasonal periods has been: 50 per- cent for lilmington, 48 percent for London, 45 percent for Lancaster, 35 percent for Marysville, and 22 percent for Ashley. W- m. mne- valu- per head for all lambs fell to a seasonal low during one of the months in the October, hovuber, and December period of 1954 through 1957. The average value received per head for lambs in the five market lamb pools increased during the January, February and March period and approached the June and July values. The value per head continued to decline during 1958 until March of the 1958-1959 marketing season. For lambs consigned at the London pool, the spread per head in value between the highest and the lowest seasonal period has been $4.04, $5.41, $3.60, $3.92, and $5.43 for the five year period. This indicated that Iladison County sheepmen consigning lambs during October, November, and Decuber have grossed an average of $4.48 less, for a lamb which averaged only 1.5 pounds less in weight, than lmabs marketed in June and July. This same seasonal price variation, has occurred in the other four lamb pool markets. W. The highest percentage of Blue grades of wool lambs has been marketed during June and July, Tables 11 through 19, for all of the five market pool areas during the 1954-1958 period. There has been a downward trend in the percentage of lube grading in the Blue grades from June and July until the November and December period. W. Data in Tables 11 through 19 indicates that the sheepmen in the five lamb pool market areas have done a very good job of "topping-out“ the lambs during the season. The seasonal average-weigat variations, for'all wool lambs consigned, have been within a range of 0.5 to 3.5 pounds. Sheepmen have also done a good job in ”topping-out” the lambs in order to avoid heavy weight carcasses or the Link Blue grade of -49- live lambs. The Link Blue percentage has only averaged 2.1 during the five year period for the five market pool areas. The sheepmen in the five areas have discussed whether it would pay to change the breeding, feeding, and managaent practices in order to realize greater returns from the seasonal price variation, and whether it would fit into their management program. In these five areas, as well as in all of Ohio's lamb producing areas, there has been a definite trend and interest in changing breeds of ras, and a change in brood ewe selection to help insure faster gaining lambs. During the five year period there has been a definite increased demand for more research information on creep feeding lambs, the creep feeding of labs in barn lots without going to pasture, earlier weaning, and the type of breed, rams, and owes to select. Bell (1958) stated that if more progress was to be made in the faster growth and the earlier marketing of the lamb crop, more research was needed to understand the following traits in sire and da for lab production; adequate milk supply; inherent growth rate potential of ras and ewes; and the heat cycle characteristics. Pope (1958) reported that one of the>most important areas of sheep investigation in the future will be the study of sheep breeding and nu- trition. Personal visitations with the sheepmen in the five areas have indi- cated that many have a definite interest in gearing their lambing progra to the maximum use of high quality forage-pastures as the method of fattening the lamb crop. There has been an increased interest among other -50- sheepmen for earlier lambing, selection of mutton rams with high gaining growth potential, and for early creep feeding of lambs. -51- v.00 V0.HN ovom mod own oooh m.Hm me H.o 0.0 m.v mom h.> H.m 0.0N m.om v.mn h.Ho mm.om 00.0H «mood coma NOn nNH mmoH 0H0 omom roam h.mm v.0w oom cam mam—ma .303 99.30 :< mo R BS.- 53 do m 3.5.- 32- 5:3- co m Be».- 30: Ba .8 a man—MA H003 QDHm .«O R mace; HH< mafium .>< wanna use macaw Haves «mama cheese: Hench anew.- Rxazo H33 323 3°: :33 nocmuucoo non was: .>< anocmaomoo Hench mnoHIVMOn mm >m zomHmHZDDO zomHn<£ OH mqmdh e {(W- .0 .| Ho.oH o.~m Hm.ou o.mn mm.NN .00H -52- coda nvvo op.n- oo.p- ee.o~ v¢.n- um.v- HH.o- ms.nn om.m-n «.95 o.nm s.mm s.om H.os n.s> o.mm «.mm oo.oH mn.om oo.ofl mo.sH oo.ofl me.o- man-u oe.mus o.pm m.-s ”.mc m.ov n.mv m.nn -.oo m.ms mm.~u on.um n>.- mm.du mo.om ms.Hm m>.mm on.mmn n.o m.» n.u- o.«H o.-H n.0H -.>- -.m- chm «so «and omn- smog m-na mon- soda a o 3 Ohm Noe NFHH omHH omoH Mama mend coda u H a m m a a m «mum. quad. swam. «mum «mam. ammum «mum ”and mQEmH HH< cart and omaa> .>< chasm HH< mamas; .>< unamq HH< oownm .>< nomam mo R manna cram OO rowan .>< mmpcoz >3 upmaeoom.x «sumo: >n mumwooem eased HH< mo mumdeoom naoom mo uoassz goon m£ Am oo.HN m.m arm vow H w©.©H HW.VH m.nm m.uw ho.oH om.>H 0.00 0.0w hm.om 00.0H N.@ are m.o bah omoH hum m «mum. «new .agmmnnlamnm N Nm.nu N.mm NN.mH o.vn mb.o~ v.oa mmna coca N om.n- ov.o~ mo.~a ~.om H.vm p.-m om.m~ mm.o- om.om «.mn o.mo m.on mm.ou mp.om mm.mu n.4H m.nH p.o~ mmfl- omma Omen «mammuamgm «and smug each u m m .mmo .vaum .m:< nu.ad N>.oam o.nw m.vm mm.NN 0N.mum H.Nm -.mo n~.mu mm.emm m.» -.m man now man now a H 24mm. «mam «mash H-< use: you emaa> .>< ahead HH< bnmnos .>< enema HH< oounm .>< memam mo R unaam os-m 00 sound .>< «coco: >3 upmweoem a «Hoosumnpcos >n avmaeuom manna Ha< mo mumaooem maoom mo nonasz NH mqm A .>< 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000 000; 00000; .>< 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.000 00300 0003 mound .>< 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00:00 00 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.000 0000: 0000 00 00000 .>< .000 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 00000: 00 00200 0 H003 mo R 4 . .0 0000 00 000 000 000 0000 0000 000 0000 000 0000.000 0000 000: 0 o: 0000 000 0000 000 000 0000 0000 000 0000 000 00000000 0500 00000 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 we nonasz 000000 0000 40000 40000 4000. 40000 .0000. 4000. 0000. 0000 400m m2<4 ZOQZQA hooduomoa mmh mo ZOHH A .m>< 00300 000 00000: .0>< mnEMA Ham mowum .o>< mos0m mo pcmonmm «sam 00 moflnm .o>< 039:0: >2 pcoouom 020:0: >0 unawmomm 00500 000 m0 wuaaouom .00om mo amass: 400m mS A Hood ovm Vmo oom Hmha N H N m .3 .3. .mm .3 hm.ha m.Hm hvoaN m.hn oo.mN o.0N Nmma Nana m .mmm m>.>a >m.m~ op.o~ n.mm 5.0m m.mm on.HN m».m~ on.mm m.mn v.mn o.mh om.mm Ho.vm Ho.vm m.vH o.mfl N.HH Hpod ooo ova m o: fined mom omm m a m .Hmum .mmq. xamm Ill“ vv.ON v.vm NN.¢N N.mm 00.nN h.a mNa MNH N «nah A005 mz A .m>< magma Ham pgmwoa .o>< unawg Ham mownm .o>< mwsam mo & mnsmq mzam oo mowum .w>< mcpcoz xn mpmfimomm & mcpcoz >3 mpawwomm magma Haw mo mpafimoom «doom mo umnasz -57;' bo.ma m.vm om.HN v.mm om.mN OOH mooN moon ha mmwmum om.oa 0.0m mN.NN 0.00 mm.VN o.NN 0H0 VONH mmNH H n mN.bH ha.wa ©.vm v.vm om.0N mn.HN H.mn m.b© mv.NN no.MN h.mv 0.0N ehaa nah mmwmwammMm Nona hvm n v .mmmmqmmq .mumu>ozuMma NH.mHm h.mm vo.HNw 0.05 mo.me H.b Nod Nod a and. anamq Ham vmm: awn ¢3Hm> .m>< mafia 2m pang»; .m>< magma Ham oownm .m>< unawq msam mo & @sam 00 oofium .m>< 282$ S mpqwooom mo & mvounom >n mpafimomm mumwwoom sang Hmpoh maoom mo nanssz and. .311..le 3m :3. 400m m2 0H mAmH m.am mm.ON m.Nm ha.mN 00.00H QONo OVNmH mm qmmmmm. No.5H oo.oH mo.o~ mm.nfla n.mm o.~m 5.05 ”.mm 0H.Hm mm.om om.om hm.ama m.«n m.on H.0n m.oo oo.vm on.mm mn.mm nm.mma H.om o.mv n.5m m.m pomfl meow mvmm om» mmammudqmm. Noam flown pmom omm o o n m .mm2.num.umh . mo.>ozummo .Hmumjmmfl. ”maniacsh «gang Ham cam: awn maam> .o>< magma Ham panama .m>< anama Ham ooaum .m>< mnewq msam mo vcoouom magma msdm OO OOHHQ o¢>< avownmm >n mvawcoom mo ucmonom muowuom >n maooz mo mpaumowm mpawoomm namq Hmwoh uaoom mo Honasz 400m m£ A.mm m.vm o.mm o.vm ho.HN mo.ON mm.HN o>.HNa O.ov ©.Hm O.hm O.v> mm.vw ov.NN ow.VN NH.mNm H.0H m.om N.oN 0.0 NHo vmoH coo NON mmamg Hum: ONOH ommm HVOH OON v o v m .mwgfimMMdew_ .muqummqmmm .mmmmdmmq. : : sh unamq HHm cam: awn msHm> .o>< magma Ham pgmamz .o>¢ magma Ham ooHnm .o>< magma wsam mo unmouom mnemq osHm oo «OHHQ .m>< avoHnwm >n mvaHoomm mo R mvoHnwm >n mpanoomm mpaHmomm nama Hmuoh mHoom mo Hananz 400a m2HZDOO ZOHZD mnothmoH mmh mo ZOHH Ho OO.HN o.hm hmON ONHm n .mun.>ozummo Oh.mH Nm.mm HN.NN v.00 mo.mN ©.¢v OOVN mammm QOVN V mm.mHa H.mw mm.NNa ©.Nh Hm.mNm n.5H Hvo OOOH v .Hmumqmmq. memuuqmw unama HHm ummm non msHm> .m>< mnamq Ham panama .o>< mnswq HHm ooHnm .m>< mnewH msHm mo pcmonmm anamg msflm OO ¢OHHQ o 0>< unoHnmm >2 meHmomm mo x muoHnom >3 mpaHoomm muQHoomm gang Hmpoh mHoom mo Hmnasz goon mz A¢ gnaw... mxazos am when aza whoa .mamme moon ammoau m>Hm amp mom ON mamsh mgu 400m Ag mo mg mum:— Hmmum mom Han—”£95: mum $2.38 84mg: -655 Ho.Hm mm.mm od.mu ommus>< nonmaoz ---- ---- u--- 00.0” oo.om oo.Hm pa .ooo oo.om mn.wm om.mm mm.am on.am oo.mm m .oao ma.>fl mn.mm on.mm oo.om mm.am mm.mm 0H .>oz oo.om oo.mm oo.mm mm.oa on.Hm on.mu n .>oz 00.0“ om.mm oo.mu oo.om m>.au mp.mm mm .900 om.om oo.mm oo.mm on.om mp.au mp.mm 0H .poo on.om om.mm na.mm on.om ne.am oo.mm am .pamm mm.mm om.mm oo.vm m>.om mp.aa ne.mm oh .oamm ofi.mm oo.vm oo.nm on.mm on.mu on.ea um .m:< om.om ma.mm oo.vm oo.dm mm.mw mm.mm ma .ma< em.H~ ma.m~ on.vm on.mm oo.vm oo.nu om adsn 00.0“ o>.mw on.mm oo.Hu mm.mm mm.mm ea >aam maHm ODHm m can a can a com emm «macaw «Hanan open p :4 mmammndquInnnnu mood mvmmz gm ZOHHUD< gag 2H Odom mg..— Qmo Vtt l 8.. l non 8.6.6 33.3% >254 mm .. 39 9.2.3 A 00320 .0 82...... 83:0 no... ES 8858 .8a 3 £238.23: .3 82... 32.9 Ba Ba m manor. (o8 .Nuh umno. swim. 3-0.1. m.u__lv 5-8-9 Onlm.lm m.ln .N and . c2. .80 502 .80 .Eom 6:4 3.... 05.. .N ON m. o. t w. .n. u. n. N. .. o. m 0 x. m n e n N . q a q . . I . 1 a a . \n H . . . a a . CON: \ / \ / \ / \si I \l\ (\)/(\\ /I(\ I \\ / . Ill \ \ “00.: I l.\ 2.3 22%|} \ ’ (x ‘ 0 2th Senna nan hail snooze 00 _+ oo.N+ 93:8 83.3.5... nnavnm. 33.30 .0 mouth. 25...“. no... 5.: ofanoo .oon. um 20.25355: be 30.5 2.5 0.9.5 oco mam 0330 -m manor... be So» oz * 5-... case. Rum. 8:9 n. m... In e Enemun. on: Bum Elm .m .3... e2. .8o .32 to tom .02 :2. 25.. 8829299322=Qmmnmnenm_. , . . . _ . _ a . . . 7 . a _ q _ a _ . 000- . \I In... lm.zl.m.z \‘m2‘ *1 I .Wz . \.m.z\ 00¢ / m.z\nz !Q\\§x .. m2.\ I .m... 100». I .mz\ / \ not ’\ com- l8.—| fink 8.339 Quanta IV 0 0Q.+ 32.3 .8833 nnémm. oooo. so .0 mourn. 3.9.0 go... 5.3 motoQEoo 20.03355... ten. mouth 30:; use mom a. memo... mu mmDmV—h. ‘70 «N... I.._l .Nnn nmlmlm wmlm_lm_‘.mmuv_ 2min. swim do... do: .000 so 2 .80 .Ewm .034 a .3 5 h. m. m. c. 9 § : 9 m My 5. o n v n w _ _ fi _ _ 4 fl 4 . _ _ _ . . _ _ CON- > «3% QuSmlv‘ / 7 ) \ / \/ ) 18.—| ./ \ (. ( / \ / In, ‘ _\\\ I / \ I .\ b O ‘ ’\ 8.: ask mfitl 33.23 33 «33¢ 123: lan+ agozoo cones nmnvne 000020 .0 .3th 95.5 no... 5:3 0923800 .09... xm 23033551 Ba 3th 35 29.5. can «:5 29.50 m manor“. w WKDO—k ‘11 00320 .0 32.5 @3on go... 5.3 09.09.30 _ooa 3 23033.65: .3 33.5 3ozo> uco com 0 manor... NNI. |_|_| .Nnh nNImIN wNIm_nN_ mNI v. 2min. swim no“. as. .08 .82 .80 .33 9.4 :2. b. w. n. 3 n. N. ._ o. m o h m n V n N . . q q _ a . d d 1 J a _ d . 4 _ 00¢- 5 \\// \ / 00.nu / ksxtxi /II x < /<\ IA < 8.? II\ PE 00..- :\ 0 mos 3.3.3 ogumsu 00.: 2230 c0934 anvmm. h E Tu! tQLtC. . ~1- ‘13... 0N1? IN... lem 0.1.0 NNIm VNIO. ONIw nNIm do“. dos .03 $02 .80 .Eom .95 x3... 0. V. n. N. _. O. m m h w m V n N _ . q _ q a J _ _ _ q _ . _ CON: \\/ \\ / 3m 32% .|’ \’,l\\ /I\\)// \V‘|/18_| I n\ O l‘ 1 «3k «Etl 33.23 00.. + «3% «\QSQ ICON... 82.00 2.325: on- com. 00850 6 82.5 05.5 nab 5.3 3.09:8 .ooa xm .Sfisuobcar .3 32:“. «:5 20:5 use 35 £2.50 N. mung... '73 v. VNlm m_lm NNIm VNIO. Ole mNtm 3.... c2. o8 >02 80 Sum 0:4 :2. m. S m. N. . _ O. m m h m n v n N _ . . . q _ _ _ . 1 _ _ q _ 004T . \7/( I I 7 100 n I \\ / \ :Sxmxlb \ 1 / \ / \ / \ 1 cow - / \ ( oo._ - but I]? 1\ o 3.6st goutxu ‘ 00.. + ».o:oo 2.32322 3-39 30qu .o 32.5 36:0 ooh £3 3.3600 .08 8 22033651 8a $25 32.3 oco 3m m Mano; 74 1W_ wNIN_ mNIQI. tun omlm mmlm own: mmuu 9 do... :2. doc .32 .80 .33 .034 2...... 2.2. .2 w. n. v. m. m. : o_ m m s o m a. m m ,_ . 4 u — a — q _ — q _ _ q — — A OONI \‘ \ z oo..- \\a..l I \ «SE «33% II) \ // \ / .IL .\ l, \)V \\ 0 ask «EEK gu§3\ 00.: «3% «33% OO.N+ 96:00 5356:; 09.va 00320 3 mourn. mEta aok 5:; 092.600 _oon_ 3 20830922... .8 mmota mam 205m. oco mam 22.60 m mung... 75 0N I IN. 3-9:. 2:» 81¢ «mum mm-.. mans w. dog :2. .25 .82 to .38 6:4. :2. 25., to.o_¢_n_~.__o_mosmn¢n~_ ]||_|l.1|_ + I a 1 L_I|..1II_II.1IJIA|._.IJ cod- \ I \ I \ I .000. \ I \ . .. \I \ I 8» \ I \ I \ I \ \ / I 8wl a \ I \ ¢\ . I x I ‘I x I \ ooou : > x < N / \\ /(\ OO.VI . I x \ ’ TI ES}: QM: ~ \ 1‘ 00... but 3 3.6.3 023.23 N o 8355:; nnémm. 2.2.8 00320 B mourn. 3.9.0 no... 5:; 3.6950 .00.". 3 20333551 .8 82...... 32:.» uco mom 0. meOE Clipping Native Lambs There has not been the interest for clipping native Ohio lambs in areas such as Wilmington, where 62.1 percent of all the lambs consigned have been marketed in the early seasonal periods, June through Septuber. In London, on a five year average, forty-five percent of all lambs were similarly marketed. coo . Clinton County sheepmen consigned an average of 340 clipped labs during the 1954-1958 marketing years, the London area 621, and Marysville 1161. There was an increasing number of clipped lambs consigned to the Marysville pool during the per- iod. The need for clipping lambs shows up in the Lancaster and Ashley areas were only thirty-five percent of the year’s total lambs were con- signed during June through September. W. A higher percentage of the clipped lambs has graded in the two top blue grades. In the Ashley area an aver- age of 72.8 percent of the clipped lambs were graded Double and Single Blue grades. An average of 61.7 percent of the wool lambs in Ashley were graded in the Double and Single Blue wool grades, Table 22. In the Lancaster pools 78.2 percent of the clipped lambs have graded in the tw top grades. An average of 52.7 percent of the Lancaster wool labs were graded in the Blue grades. There data indicate that in the Lancaster area there have been a 25.5 percent higher number of clipped lambs grading Double and Single Blue than wooled lambs. W. In the Ashley area the clipped lambs consigned through the pool averaged an annual 2.5 pounds heavier than the similar grades of wool labs for the 1954-1958 period. During the 1958 season the clipped lambs consigned averaged 1.4 pounds heavier than the wool lambs, Table 22. During the same period, the Lancaster clipped lambs averaged 3.4 pounds heavier than similar wool grades. During the 1958 season the clipped lambs averaged 5.4 pounds heavier than the wool lambs. W. The 1958 clipped lambs were discounted more per hundredweight than in 1954, 1955, 1956, or 1957. The 1958 average range between all clipped lambs and wool lambs, consigned through the Lancaster pool, was $1.18 per hundredweight. The clipped lambs averaged $19.46, and the wool grades averaged $20.64, Table 24. The average price spread for the 1958 lambs at Ashley showed that the clipped grades averaged $1.47 below the wool grades. A The average five year price spread per hundredweight of wool and clipped lambs consigned through the Ashley pool was $1.05. The wool grade lambs average $20.09, and clipped grade lambs averaged $19.04 for the 1954-1958 period. The clipped lambs at Lancaster averaged $0.80 per hundredweight below the wool grades consigned, during to. 1954-1953 period. W. The average annual value received per head for all of the Ashley wool lambs consigned during the 1954-1958 period, has been $0.46 per head higher than the clipped lambs. In the Lancaster area the average annual returns per head were $0.10 higher for the clipped lambs consigned through the pool. In 1958 the clipped lambs at Ashley returned $17.37 per head for all grades, and the wool lambs averaged $18.33 per head, Table 23. During the 1958 marketing year the clipped lambs consigned through the Lancaster pool averaged $17.54, and the wool lambs averaged $17.50 per head. These data would indicate that any market dollar increase received for clipping lambs has come about because a higher percentage of clipped lambs were graded Double Blue and Single Blue. -73- TABLE 22 LANCASTER LAMB POOL AREA COMPARISON OF WOOL LAMBS AND CLIPPED LAIABS FOUR YEAR PERIOD 1955-56 1956-57 i2p1;p§ 1 5 -5 Total W001 Lambs 9509 8526 9269 9579 Total Clipped Lambs 2208 1916 2956 2033‘ Av. Price Wool Lambs $19.14 19.17 20.86 20.64 Av. Price Clipped Lambs $18.15 18.98 20.61 19.46 W001 Clips W001 Ciips Wopi Clips W001 Clipg % of Blue Lambs 51.6 76.2 52.8 77.0 53.6 76. 2 55.1 83.2 % of Red Lambs 20.8 10.8 16.7 11. 7 14.2 11.9 12.4 9.1 % of Yellow Lambs 4.2 8.3 3.8 3. 4 5.1 2.6 4.7 2.4 % of Buck Lambs 5.8 1.7 6.0 3. O 6.9 2.2 5.8 0.4 % of Feeders 15.3 1.0 20.1.0 16.2 3.6 18.3 1.1 % of All Others 2.3 2.0 1.14.9 4.0 3.5 3.7 3.8 ASHLEY LAMB POOL AREA COMPARISON OF WOOL LAMBS AND CLIPPED LAMBS FOUR YEAR PERIOD i255-56 i256-57 1257-58 i258-52 Total W001 Lambs 4175 4545 2693 2892 Total Clipped Lambs 2740 1775 2360 2085 Av. Price Wool Lambs $19.03 19.93 21.30 21.36 Av. Price Clipped Lambs $18.16 18.35 20.86 19.89 Wooi Clips Wooi Clips W001 Ciips Wooi ‘Qiipg % of Blue Lambs 68.3 78.8 61.8 64.2 58.4 67.6 58.3 80.6 % of Red Lambs 19.1 10.9 20. 8 13.2 18.5 7.6 23.9 13.0 % of Yellow Lambs 5.4 4.6 7.3 6.4 8.4 11.4 4.9 2.4 % of Buck Lambs 3.2 2.7 2.9 .8 4.1 4.9 4.3 .9 .% of All Others 4.0 3.0 7.2 15.4 10.6 10.5 8.6 3.1 -79. TABLE 23 1958 ASHLEY LAMB POOL AREA COMPARISON OF WOOL LAMBS AND CLIPPED LAMBS BY GRADE, AVERAGE WEIGHT, AVERAGE PRICE PER HUNDREDWEIGHT AND VALUE PER HEAD Wool Lambs 7 Grades No. Price Average % of Price Head Per th Weight Total Per Head Double Blue 506 $23.36 92.0 17.5 $21.50 Single Blue 1,096 22.04 89.4 37.9 19.71 Reds 692 20.77 82.9 23.9 17.22 Yellows 141 19.43 76.7 4.9 14.91 Heavy Blue 83 19.66 109.2 2.9 21.47 Buck Lambs 124 19.39 87.5 4.3 16.96 Feeder Lambs 184 18.19 65.8 6.3 11.96 Common and Cull 66 12.47 52.8 2.3 6.58 Total Wool Natives 2,892 21.36 85.9 100. 18.33 Clipped Lambs Grades NO. Price Average % of Price Head - Per th Weight Total Per Head Double Blue 393 20.97 92.5 18.8 $19.41 Single Blue 1,239 20.23 88.1 59.3 17.82 Beds 272 18.42 79.7 13.0 14.67 Yellows 47 16.56 69.4 2.4 11.48 Heavy Blues 52 18.71 113.6 2.5 21.25 Buck Lambs 18 17.91 89.7 .9 16.07 Feeder Lambs 54 14.80 66.8 2.6 9.88 Common and Cull 10 9.98 53.5 .5 5.34 Clasps 2,085 19.89 87.3 100. 17.37 7307 TABLE 24 1958 LANCASTER LAMB POOL AREA COMPARISON OF WOOL LAMBS AND CLIPPED LAMBS BY GRADE, AVERAGE WEIGHT, AVERAGE PRICE PER HUNDREDWEIGHT AND VALUE PER HEAD W001.Lambs Grades . No. Price Average % of Price Head Per th. Weight Total Per Head Double Blues 1559 23.10 95.6 16.3 22.09 Single Blues 3511 21.59 90.9 36.7 19.63 Reds 1192 20.03 81.3 12.4 16.28 Yellows 451 19.13 76.3 4.7 14.60 Heavies 207 19.43 113.9 2.1 22.12 Bucks 557 18.27 85.6 5.8 15.63 Feeders 1751 18.77 66.8 18.3 12.53 Common and Cull 104 8.46 49.9 1.1 4.22 Total Wool Natives 9570 20.64 84.7 100. 17.50 Clipped Lambs Grades No. Price Average % of Price Head For th Weight Total Per Head Double Blue 675 20.49 94.1 33.2 19.27 Single Blue 1016 19.40 90.3 50.0 17.53 Reds 186 17.60 78.9 9.1 13.88 ,Yellows 48 15.65 71.6 2.4 11.20 Heavies 53 18.88 111.4 2.6 21.03 Bucks 8 15.71 86.3 .4 13.55 Feeders 23 17.79 71.1 1.1 12.65 Common and Cull 2 7.50 55.0 .1 4.13 Total Clipped 2033 19.46 90.1 100. 17.54 -81- Ram Distribution Programs Purebred mutton-type ram programs were one of the major activities of the County Sheep Improvement Comittees, who sponsored lamb pool programs. No one method of procurement of purebred rams has been accepted as the most desirable. During the 1954-1958 years the Clinton County (Wilmington) Comittee cooperated with the Producers Marketing Agency to sponsor two ram and ewe auctions and breeders from Ohio were invited to consign ras. The larysville and Ashley sheepmen have ordered their breeding rams through the Producers Harketing Association fielalen or purchased from purebred breeders. Since 1941 the Madison County Sheep Improvement Col-mittee has had a standing sub-emittee called the Ram Comittee. During these eighteen years the committee has purchased 743 purebred rams for Madison County sheepmen, Table 25. The ram purchasing and distribution program followed by the Madison County Sheep and Lmnb Improvement Association has been one of the keys to the high quality and uniformity of the lambs produced in the London pool area. Starting in 1942 the association decided to send a comittee to buy r-s. These rams were to be distributed at a central point on a given day. All sheepmen in the county were given an opportunity to order pure- bred rams. The purchased rams were graded by the comittee and priced by grade lots at the ram distribution day. The rams have carried a purebred breeders guarantee. One advantage of the Madison County ram activities has been that a greater control over the amtton qualities of the rams were maintained. -32. The lab graders have been able to accomplish a more uniform and con- sistent job of grading over the seasons, when there has been uniformity in the types of lambs consigned. Note, Table 25, that ninety-sir per- cent of the rams distributed by Madison County were of the Shropshire and Southdown type. The Clinton County auction type program during 1954-1958 period has not permitted as much control over the quality of rams and type of rams best suited for the individual sheep-en's program. The auction method of selling purebred rams has met with an increase in sheepmen’s approval and a greater number of rams were distributed per year. -83- TABLE 25 MADISON COUNTY COMMITTEE RAM DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM BY BREEDS 1941-1958 P B. P B +— ’ Xea; ShrOpshi re Souihgown Oihg; Totai 1941-53 406 157 18 581 1954 22 12 2 36 1955 13 9 O 22 1956 13 15 4 32 1957 12 26 3 41 1958 11 18 2 31 Total to Date 7477' 237 29' 7'43 -84- Effects of the Production and.Marketing Improvement through Pool Programs Pool programs have offered opportunities and much interest for pro- duction improvement. Local leaders, educational and.marketing workers have cooperated to get problems solved concerning the effects of internal parasites in lambs. e... is z: o »,a! o -_ . : 1 >111 91 a- - ., 1» . Sheepmen marketing lambs through these five pools had to meet kosher standards to receive the top prices for lambs. Lambs with nodular parasites were re- jected. This rejection has meant as high as $1.50 per hundred livedweight in pool lambs. Lamb pneumonia and lung adhesions have contributed to kosher rejection. The Ohio Extension Service, the Experiment Station and Swift and Com- pany have cooperated with sheep committeemen to have flock owners' lambs killed separately in order to study the effects of flock.management on kosher acceptance. Sanger (1959) reported that research men at the~Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station have made two important observations regarding disease problems in slaughter lambs. One was that intestinal parasites were no longer the major problma in Ohio sheep flocks, especially if the flocks were treated regularly. The other wms that pneumonia problems were a major cause of lamb ill health, as well as a cause of financial loss, due to downgrading at the slaughter house. Producers Eastern Order Buying Cmpany and the Ohio Extension Service have been informed concerning lamb pools meeting kosher acceptance. Ta] pal ha ce er 1a c0 8C -35- Table 26 presents data provided through the courtesy of Swift and Chap pany. At certain times of the year the~EasternIOrder Buying Cbmpany has reported that counties with a history of low kosher acceptance have re- ceived a lower price quotation. This has depended upon the supply of kosh- er lamb meat available. This information has been used to decide whether lambs wore shipped to Massachusetts or to New'York City. Certain Ohio counties have shown a consistent lower percentage of lambs with kosher acceptance. Accurate data by counties was not available to show the lambs saved and lambs marketed by counties for the years which the sheep improvement programs were started by counties. .The Census data for Ohio has showed that during 1947-1956 years, Ohio saved an average of 765,000 lambs. Similar data shown for the years 1957 and 1958 were 829,000 and 854,000 head. The lambs saved, as percentage of ewes one year old and older, for January 1 has been: 95 percent for 1947-1956 years; 101 percent for 1957; and 101 percent for 1958 as reported by the Agricultural Marketing Service (1959). ~86- .Hm>HmH Enos Amazpoc one mo mpasmon we named one mo ecwamovcfi esp mo Ham; onw c“ monsoonm madame: mo eocomenm one we omzmoon woes Hosmox now pouoonon mnewa op pennomon mm: .m 80 ooze .> .z .usaououmoo2 .2 .m .m: .oan .co>fipm .m .m .92 .oo .-. BM M. 8m mm .2 3.- .mcsn goo o.mo om mo” .3 ..caoo mam 6H o.am mm no r a man an e e 8.06 as man .oeH ..oHooaH «Hm om . r m.mo an omm .rm .onan>mnoon new ha a r >.oa 2mm and .o .sxmooaam .2 are OH r s a.eo or mom .0 .soemanednr mam ma o.mm om mom .m> .3 .maromeoooa mmm on .mmmo moss I o.mo 4mm 0mm .m> .r .masbosoboa mom on o.me Hm am .0 ..: .o .an3 mad o apt-mm hbqqqm .3 Mam-H boamox - awn-1M0. a 3.3 amma .>zm >HHO xxo» zwz zH omqux mm249 mzo 0N mgm n.eH mmm- squashed“: no.o~ -.-- o.u so me.~m n.me H.o «on oo.o- o.-m o.¢u mom- «Hanssmu.a -m.oa m.ma- >.o mm mo.p- -.m> «.o mom mn.oH -.om o.o~ mmm- cannon oa.od o.e-H n.- mud mm.>- n.~> w.~ vn- no.0- «.ms a.o~ when nosssocan no.0“ m.u- m.« as” me.»- p.05 ”.0 «on na.o- H.vm «.m- ans. >.-:s< pro “on .Sz -.soh was: 930 use .»3 Hanan use: ago use .p: Hanan uaom oo«u&.>< >< mo R moooz oonhmo>< o>< mo R «0.02 Confin— o>< .>< MODR moooz .s-m mafia sad-.s use a. a, mo.om o.nm o.om amen ps.-m -.-o v.vm omen moeo- avpo- s- copmcnaans «n.0a o.mm «.He o-ou ne.Hu ~.«o m~.e- poo ov-n «can o- oHH-sssuaa au.- ~.>m mm.mm seam mn.«u m.oo m.sd man- soda newo an coecom ~p.o« o.nm m.o« swam mo.a« m.oo s.m« coon «send ompn- nu nossaocen on.o« s.~o s.me mama ee.-m m.uo v.0" mood mean come on >o-a.< use use .»a -.so~ use: are “on .»3 Hence was: s-ooa Havoc .-ooa Deana o>< o>< MGR moooz touhm.>< o>< mo Nmoooz HavOH doom meooz emfim camcaw .a-m .Hnsoo E use» new mqoollu>m.>a.x 0-.0~ -.00 0.0 00H 00.0” ”.00 0.0 000 00.0” 0.00 0.0 000 000000 00.0 0.00 a.“ 000 00.0- 0.00 0.0- «000 00.00 0.00 «.0 000 "00000000 00.H- 0.00 0.H 00 00.00 0.00 0.0 000 00.0a 0.00 0.0 000 songs< 0:0 0.0 .0; Hapoh 000: 030 «00 .0: H0000 00.0 030 0.0 .00 H.000 0000 mowhmo>< o>< mo R hmoooz oowumo>< o>< mo R moooz cowhmo>< .>< mo R moooz .38 con-moo mum—30m axon-m omncmvmoo < anzmmm< m XHQZWQQ 00.00 0.00 0.0 0 00.00 0.00 «.00 00 000000000: 3.0035: . covaoq 00.00 0.000 0.0 000 «0.00 0.00 0.0 00 00.00 0.00 0.00 000 000000000 00.00 0.000 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.0 .000 00.00 0.00 0.00 «00 000000 0.0 000 .00 00000 0000 030.000 .00 00000 000: 030.000 .00 00000 000: OWWHQo>< o>< mo +R moooz OOHHAe>< e>< mo X MOeOZ OOHHme>< e>< mo R MOeOZ .p. 0000 0000 2000.0 000 .. 000 00.00 . 0.00 0.00 000 0000000003 .w non 300-02000: 0", 000 000000 0000 00.00 0.00 0.00 000 00.00 0.00 0.00 0000 0.0000000 0000 00.00 0.00 0.00 000 00.00 0.00 0.00 000 0.00.4 00000 030 000 .0: 00000 000: 0:0 000 .0; 00000 0000 00000 eownmdé .>< .00 R “«0.02 00.00.000.30 .>< 000 R m0.oz use» .0000 0003 009.3 2.3 summon mdenl>§ 4800 mg ammonia." m xHazmn—na I v 4 ‘ ‘ | ' I x ‘ I O y i e ‘l I '1 . I O U W :7 us a . O . . . . O C n .1. L . .0 . 0 Q . I . n . - l a I l l. 6 A . s I on. I . . . . . . . a a I I s 0 e . e U xHQZNQl< . u v I u | CRT . Q . s a 0 a I Iv I . 1.1 . cl .. ._ . s I. x \ . . I I I... I). 1 -lr . | 00.00 0.000 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.00 0000 000000000: 00.00 0.000 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.00 000 0000>0000s 00.00 0.000 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.00 0000 000000 00.00 0.000 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.00 0000 000000000 0.00 0.000 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.00 000 00000< 020000 .0: 00000 000: 0.0 000 .00 00000 000: 0.0 0.0 .00 00000 00.: unmo>< o>< we R moooz OOHHmo>< o>< mo R moooz OOdHn—CE o>< mo R moooz .000 0000 3000.0 n, 0.0 u. 7 A, _ 00.00 0.00 0.00 0000 00.00 0.00 0.00 0000 0000 00000 00 000000000: 00.00 0.00 0.00 0000 00.00 0.00 0.00 0000 0000 0000 00 .000>0000: 00.00 0.00 0.00 0000 00.00 0.00 0.00 0000 0000 0000 00 000000 00.00 0.00 0.00 0000 00.00 0.00 0.00 0000 0000 00000 00 000000000 00.00 0.00 0.00 0000 00.00 0.00 0.00 000 0000 0000 00 000000 0:0 0.0 .0300000 000: 0:0 000 .03 00000 00.: 0000: 00000 .0000 Cowkmo>< o>< mo R moooz Coffin—05¢ e>< mo £0.02 HQHOH noon— $0.02 0003 e395 e003 e353 .000» .0000 l m4§su>m<§=m .0000— 24 commungu U KHZ—2mg . .1 . u. a! v .t - ' II... C O . I C o ‘..0. .a:.. . | 0. 0003:3030 0 .:l .u r O I o o O O O I l O U 0 - '... .. . . 0 O O o O l 0 a |,. u.... XHQZNQQd‘ . .l | st. I . . ( nt‘u. . V v ‘0’: . I . Atqu ~98:- 00.00 0.00 0. 00 00.00 0 00 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.0 000 000000000: 00.00 0.00 0.0 00 00.00 0 00 0.0 000 00.00. 0.00 0.0 000 0000000000 00.00 0.00 0.0 000 00.00 0 00 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.0 000 000000 00.0 0.00 0. 00 00.00 0 00 0.00 0000 00.00 0.00 0.0 000 000000000 00.00 0.00 0.0 00 00.00 0 00 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.0 000 000000 000000 .00 00000 000: 0:0 000 .00 00000 000: 0:0 000 .0: 0.000 000: OOHHQ>< o>< mo R M0002 OOHHQ0>< o>< mo R monoz Oowhnmo>< o>< max M0002 HH8|CO§U uhOflOflm axon” 0030:0030 U 552me Q XHQZNQEX 000000000: -99- 7- 00.00 0.000 0.0 0 00.00 0.00 0.0 00 00.00 0.00 0.00 00 0000>0>002 00.00 0.000 0.0 00 00.00 0.00 0.00 00 00.00 0.00 0.00 000 000000 00.00 0.000 0.0 00 00.00 0. 0 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.00 000 000000000 00.00 0.000 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.00 000 000000 030000 .00 00000 000: 000 000 .03 00000 000: 000 000 .03 00000 000: ohmo>< 0>< mo $0002 oowflmo>< 0>< mo R ““0002? cowhmlrd 0>< mo R $0002 I .0353: 08:0» tom L 000 000000000: 000 00.00 0.00 0.00 000 00.00 0.00 0.00 000 0000>0>00s 000 00.00 0.00 0.00 000 00.00 0.00 0.00 00 000000 0000 00.00 0.00 0.00 000 00.00 0.00 0.00 000 000000000 0000 00.00 0.00 0.00 0000 00.00 0.00 0.00 000 000000 000 000 .00 00000 000: 000 000 .0: 00000 000: it r Cowhmo>< 0>< mo R moooz oomhm0>< 0>< mo R $0002 0000 00000 0000 000000 0000 000000 mdeII>§ 48m 93d onodnnmoa Q xHszn—E‘ 5"! 00.00 0.000 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.00 0000 000000000: 00.00 0.000 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.00 0000 0000000000 00.00 0.000 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.00 0000 000000 00.00 0.000 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.00 0000 000000000 00.00 0.000 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.00 000 000000 000000 .00 00000 000: 000 000 .00 00000 0000 .000 000 .00 00000 000: ohmo>< 0>< mo R mo0oz 00.200130 0>< mo X moooz coffin—.004 0>< «0 R $0.02 0000 0000 .000000 - 000 0 ”w 00.00 0.00 0.00 0000 00.00 0.00 0.00 0000 0000 00000 00 000000000: 00.00 0.00 0.00 0000 00.00 0.00 0.00 000 0000 0000 00 00000000.: 00.00 0.00 0.00 0000 00.00 0.00 0.00 0000 0000 00000 00 000000 00.00 0.00 0.00 0000 00.00 0.00 0.00 0000 0000 00000 00 000000000 00.00 0.00 0.00 0000 00.00 0.00 0.00 000 0000 0000 00 000000 000 000 .00 00000 000: 000.000 .0: 00000 000: 00000 00000 00000 Guano—.02 o>< mo R meooz oowhm0>< o>< mark 00on Have“. doom moooz 200m .0903 2.3 03:09 .020» .0000 3§I|>m<§=m A000— 9444 0.037.000." m 552me «1010. 00.0 0.00 0. 00 00.00 0.00 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.0 000 0000000000 00.00 0.00 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.0 00 0000000000 00.00 0.00 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.0 000 000000 00.0 0.00 0. 00 00.00 0.00 0.00 0000 00.00 0.00 0.0 000 000000000 00.00 0.00 0.0 00 00.00 0.00 0.0 000 00.00 0.00 0.0 000 000000 000000 .00 00000 0000 000 000 .00 00000 0000 000 000 .00 00000 0000 can—{é 0>< wok ~moooz OOHHQ0>< o>< mo R h«0002 moan—mesa 0>< mo R "“0002 HHBICOQE—OU 0000000 000000000-Jm x002000< axosm hm XHQZMlnbx ~102- c oopooaaafla oo.>d p.o«~ H.m Hm no.0" o.oo ~.m m mo.>~ m.om a.» co ondn>u>u~s no.o~ H.«~ o. p oo.o~ «.mp o.v« mom cooaoo on.o« n.uu~ H. a H~.nd o.ao m.m co no.5” «.op ».HH «an no»..o=~o o».o~ o.oo~ o.n om «p.o~ o.>p v.0 mud om.oH o.«o u.nH can >udoa< ozonco .9: ”much one; ago you .9: Hooch can: ago «oo .9: Hooch one: ..5.>< .>< wok wo.oz 03.5.5 .>< wok wo.oz 0035.3. .3. wok wo.oz osam 3:54 .5-a> com oom c3222: ofloa oh.o~ o.oo v.>v onv om.o« «.mo o.nn can o-d>u>uas mood no.ofi o.>o H.~m ova no.od o.oo o.oH cod nausea odofl mo.o~ H.om v.o¢ «p» «o.oa ~.vo n.om one noouaocao aura u~.o~ o.oo v.om “we ou.ou h.mo o.ou oom >¢~=¢< «no non .9: “apes coo: pzo nag .us dapoh vac: 3.75.3 .>< wo k wo.oz 03.5.5 .>< wo k wo.oz Amoco uofiHo oaam .Hocom ooflm .Hozoo “1 up 8.51:»; 4005 g..— 5.00.7009— ..w 552mm“: u I n It 1 .. fl I Ill.1 . .. r . w u .n u I I , . .0 :..I. I {l o C O I l . I t | v a \ . C no- a . 6 :e' v I ‘. \ . .15 | . I ll 5 I n y I . t v . u l . . ‘ o .- 0 NHQZanldw I 3 .li . !.I‘ 3.. II 1 n I I I I . y. .. C ‘ . .| \ . ‘ . I V 1| . mm.ou o.o- o.u so oo.o~ u.op o.“ pp Ho.ou o.oo o.vH Hos coooooaAfl: mo.um p.5HH a.” mo no.o~ o.nu >.o mom «o.ou o.Ho >.n~ ova cana>m>uaz oo.H~ >.oHH m. «H oo.o~ o.~p v.» «on uo.o« o.o> 5.5” ocma coucoo «v.o~ m.mHH m.~ Hm” Hu.ofl o.m~ ".0 «he vv.o« v.op «.vH oamd nopamocmo hm.Hu p.o«~ o.” pm oo.o~ m.nh c.m hum oo.ou n.nm n.o~ mow- >odaa< ononao .oo ”much ago: exouoo .pz Amoco on»: onouoo .9: HuoOH oaam ohmo>< .>< wok moooz Ooahmo>< c>< «OR MOooz oowflmo>< o>< wok $03.2 2.3 x5..— Iofiow com 9 3. 0. 1 .u om.~m m.no o.mm doom mo.u~ m.oo o.wm cap” whoa oovp ma copocanqwz v~.u« v.oo «.mm coma ou.mu o.¢o v.v~ own noon cove pd aH~H>a>uaz mv.~u n.5m o.mv «mom mv.m« «.wo «.od onuu ooop ovom o” coucoo o~.m~ p.5o o.mo pHHm ha.mu o.mo n.oa mood aouo ovum” um «opaaocao Hm.m~ o.oo p.o¢ noofi om.m« n.«o 5.0” avg moon coon ha >o~ga< agonmo .pg Hapoh ago: pxonmo .«a Haves on»: «dog: Hooch «doom 03.5.3. .>< wo k wo.oz 00:53.1 .>< workwo.oz H33. doom wo.oz 03m 035m 03m 03:8 .30» “om u >m<§5m 408 g..— onwausbou U “SH—29554 ‘0 I; is... 1| VQSCHHCOOIU NHQZMQQ< vl . n l I . . t I 4 .l y l . n L c I o y ‘ . - I . I n . I ‘. . ~ \ K .I .. . I... I v C . g a o c o . I I o q l D I w 0 I ‘u 4 I. c. .I . I n ‘ n U . I . I (. u . . ‘1 ll. I 1 . c! In ‘I: - 1.. . .V o I. it I I ‘ I o t o I «104- J‘ mn.o o.Ho o.H ma vo.oH 0.00 o.o omv oa.o~ u.po o.m ac” cooocduaa; un.a~ o.vn m.“ we ov.»~ o.>o v.oH_ hon oo.o~ m.mm o.o on” gado>a>ua= H>.uo o.mn p.u com no.5H ~.oo o.o can vo.o~ >.o> o.n ppm coocoo mo.o ~.Hn o.~ or“ on.>~ «.mo “.0” movo om.o~ p.nm o.o moo aauaaocao mo.HH u.vn v.m oo o~.>~ o.po ~.m Hum «H.o~ ~.Ho H.¢ ofld >¢~ga< psonoo .o: Hmooh can: pxo goo .oz “nook one: ago non .9: Haves owe: ..5.>< .>< WW k wo.oz cow.5.>< .>< wo k wo.oz «3.5.5 .>< wo k wo.oz 35-5530 3235 3.25 guanucoouw “Shawn—9. It Cl.c .‘ 'IJ. 50058:: vo.oH p.0h p.“ ow om.oa v.oo 0.0” «on ongo>u>umx 50.0“ o.oo >.m 0H n>.o~ o.o> H.oH ow ooocoo mo.ofi 0.05 o.“ o» no.0o o.op m.HH mom noomaooao oo.oa v.0» v.HH mom oo.ou o.nu 0.». ooH >odga< ago goo .0: ”much cam: .020 "no .0: Have“ omen 03.5.3. .>< wo k .362 oo.w.5.>< .>< wo k wo.oz sedan» oum . 5 0 .q 85 8353:. «How wo.~m 0.00 0.0m mom 00.00 o.oo o.~m Hop oflflo>u>ums owe mo.m~ o.om H.on pom os.mu H.Ho 0.00 odd coocoo onou 00.00 5.50 n.~v ammo o~.u~ «.mo p.wo «mod nooaoucao oomm on.am >.>o m.om moo ”p.00 o.no p.om who >o~ga< 030 new .0: ”much oaax 0.00.0 .0: “much coo: r 00.35.25 .>< wok wo.oz 03.5.03 .>< wo k wo.oz oaom Hapoo undo odocflm osdm.0da:oo "ma—HAD wag—am 4005 92A moonnhnoH : ~3szan -.I A ..\. . 0' .r- .. I.I.Ivlll 1 I Q.!.r .F >Fc~¢ucc¢ I I 3.. .x II I u . u I. V. . ‘ I I J ‘1 n~.m~ n.0HH « ov.o~ u.v> >.H ow Ho.am m.~o o.mfi onm couoadaafl; mo.o~ m.oofl Q.” on Hm.oa ~.mo o.o~ Nov no.ou o.oo o.ea «on oduo>u>uaz nu.flu «.mdfi «. 0H no.0H v.~> a.» >¢n oo.oa ¢.oo p.00 mop” coocoo m¢.oH o.o~H “.0 how m~.ofl m.oo >.v How mo.o~ o.do «.md «odd unwoaoomo oo.oH a.ooo 0.0 mm m¢.oH v.0» o.« How 55.00 o.um o.m~ «on >ofigm< ozonoo .0: H.000 cam: pro goo .0: ”much vac: 93o goo .0: ”nook on»: oun— .>< £5. «0% h.floooz oownm.>< .>< mo R woooz mouhm.>< o>< .wo R moooz . «zoo xcflo onHo> oom . 6. 0 1 . no.0“ o.om o.~m «or o~.m« v.oo o.nm ooo «mom puom 0H oooacoaflfig po.a« o.oo m.Hm woo oo.ma ”.mo 0.0” «on moon avov o” oaao>a>uas om.m~ H.5m m.mm doom ov.m« o.Ho o.n~ Homo moor Hooo om coocoo on.~m o.oo >.om Homo ”.mu o.no m.oH ammo ouno coma“ «a nooaaocao vo.m« v.oo 0.5m oood om.m~ o.mo m.>H eon moon coma 5H xoosm< ago “an .0: Hmooo can: ozonoo .0; ”much swam .Hooz H.000 «goon oowhm.>< .>< mo Rmoooz conkm.>< o>< mo RwOooz Havoh doom meooz 03m 035m 03m 0339 900» now 3§II>§ 48m $53 onaalmnma H NHszn—AE noseducoUIlH XHQZNQEV. .. A -.v . .at . . . v o a I 0 I I n 0 o 0 I 0 o o .. . .l. .I‘ . .y .\ c ..l n: . I: l 0.9!. 131...! 1, -107- m~.o n.om o.H pm oo.mH «.00 v.0 pom ou.ou v.oo ”.0 on” copocoaadz po.«a v.vo m.m o» oo.>H o.mo 0.0 now Ho.oa 0.00 0.“ mo ofldfl>a>uax ov.u~ 0.00 o.o mum v».o~ o.>o H.o owe om.oo ~.op o.u pad coocoo ov.o o.o¢ H.H cod 55.0” m.oo m.oH “mpg 50.0“ o.oo 0.» won «op-aoaao >v.- 0.00 «.0 co no.0” o.no «.0 «0H om.oH 0.50 «.0 «No >o~zu< axonmo .0; ”nook one: 030 goo .0: ”much uaom ago new .0: Magoo can: ..5.>< .>< wo k wo.oz 00.75.32 .>< wok wo.oz 03.543 .>< wok wo.oz 35:55.8 0000005 3.2.5 voacapcoolnn “352mg H. XHQZMQQ< | I. .h.‘ III. I u I v -1080- 835:2: oo.o~ o.oo o.v oo oo.og o.oo o.og non oHHg>o>goz oo.oo o.oo o.« «g ou.od o.oo o.o~ go oooooo no.og o.go v.o oo oo.og o.oo ~.o ooo goooooooo oo.og o.oo o.o ow oo.og o.oo o.og «on oogooo oxo goo .os.gooog ooo: o-o goo .o: Hooch coo: 0395.3. .>< wouk wo.oz 03.5.52 .>< wo k wo.oz gooooo ooo om.“ c3055; oooo og.oo o.oo g.oo own oo.go o.oo o.oo moo oggg>oogos ooo go.og o.oo o.o« oog oo.o« o.oo o.oo ooo oooooo oooo oo.og o.oo o.oo ogog oo.oo H.oo o.oo moo goooooooo oooo oo.oo g.oo o.oo ooog oo.ou o.oo o.o~ moo oogooo poo goo .oz gooog coo: oxo goo .oo gogog ooom ooukmo>< o>< wo R meooz oouhmo>< :5 «OR No.02 ooom Hooch oogo ooooom oogo ogoooo mdellwrg 4005 as: ogaumnoa ...l h. 5329?? l-l‘- v: . I! l b. a. .. 0 0 Q 0 o 0 o O 0 I III I. I .I. It 4:.";’I .'. 0' t . i.‘ I}. STUIU Mud/flick m... ( NT.“ J k ‘ :\ e11 F ( mm \M\ -109- APPENDIX K . MARYSVILLE NUMBER 0? LAMBS MARKETED AVERAGE WEIGHT BY POOL FOR FIRST TWO TOP GRADES PRICE pea HUNDREDWEIGHT'AND'PER|HEAD~71954-1955 Inagu5L§nns .§insls_§lus Month Av. Per Per Av.r Per Per NQthho____£auL___flsa§ N01fl§a______£!flL___§£§§__. 5! 1 9 47 92.8 24.50 22.73 90 85.2 23.50 20.03 (2) 23 18 95.6 21.75 20.78 49 87.4 20.75 18.15 2‘51“” 3 6 52 92.5 20.50 18.96 95 86.2 19.50 16.80 (4) 20 53 89.1 21.50 19.15 105 84.5 20.50 17.32 .%s§3slhex 5 1o 82 89.3 22.00 19.65 244 85.2 21.00 17.90 (6) 24 70 93.4 20.00 18.67 177 89.9 19.00 17.07 0 . 7 8 21 91.4 20.25 18.51 110 91.1 19.25 17.54 (8) 22 46 90.4 20.50 18.54 170 84.5 19.50 16.47 5351 . 9 5 72 94.0 21.50 20.20 178 89.7 20.50 18.38 (10) 19 19 95.8 20.25 19.40 69 91.7 19.25 17.66 511; 3 85 95.0 20.50 19.48 281 91.5 19.50 17.84 (12) 24 46 93.0 21.25 19.77 149 88.1 20.25 17.84 813! 14 31 93.7 22.00 20.62 178 96.0 21.00 20.16 5145 4 32 91.3 23.00 20.99 79 90.4 22.00 19.88 (15) 25 16 110.0 23.25 23.40 38 92.8 22.25 20.64 W 16 18 7 93.6 24.50 22.93 10 84.0 23.08 19.39 Total 697 92.7 21.43 2,016 88.9 20.32 ~110- APPENDIX K MARYSVILLE NUMBER OF LAMBS MARKETED Am WEIG-IT BY PCDL FOR BED AND YELLOW PRICE PER HUNDRED "BIG” AND PER HEAD--1954-1955 12132! Month Av. Per Per Av. For For N00 wig—M ' "W u (1) 9 97 81.5 22.00 17.93 16 71.9 20.50 14.73 (2) 23 29 79.8 19.25 15.37 -- 00.0 00.00 00.00 A 3 6 36 82.8 18.00 14.90 5 72.0 16.50 11.88 (4) 20 38 79.0 19.00 15.18 10 72.0 17.50 12.60 %3§1§mhsx 5 10 156 80.2 20.04 16.07 42 74.9 18.50 13.85 (6) 24 80 81.7 17.50 14.30 24 74.4 16.25 12.09 0 o e 7 8 76 85.0 17.75 15.09 22 75.0 16.25 12.19 (8) 22 161 79.9 18.21 14.56 65 72.2 16.50 11.19 No 9 5 124 81.4 19.00 15.46 72 72.6 17.50 12.71 (10)19 44 82.3 17.75 14.60 11 75.5 16.25 12.26 511) 3 182 82.9 18.55 15.38 78 75.6 17.25 13.04 (12) 24 51 83.6 18.75 15.68 18 73.3 17.25 12.65 fan§axx 13 14 55 83.8 19.75 16.55 11 73.2 18.25 13.36 5145 4 42 78.1 20.75 16.20 11 73.2 19.75 14.45 (15) 25 28 78.9 21.04 16.61 9 65.6 19.50 12.78 M 116) 18 4 70.0 21.50 15.05 -- 00.0 00.00 00.00 Total 1,203 81.5 19.09 324 73.5 17.43 _' -111- APPENDIX K WILMINGTON NUMBER OF LAMBS MARKETED AVERAGE WEIGHT BY POOL FOR RED AND YELLOW PRICE PER HUNDREDWEIGHT AND PER HEAD-~1954-1955 73:2 Xsllga Month Av. Per Per Av. Per Per NQ- W11. .42:£o__135312 N2oJELo______£anL_._fluodL_ n 1 16 27 79.6 22.50 17.92 4 68.8 19.00 13.06 2 7 36 7806 21050 16090 "' "" "" '- (3) 28 58 85.3 20.00 17.07 4 82.5 12.00 9.90 Au 5 (4? 11 51 78.0 20.25 16.80 -- -- -- -- (5) 25 108 81.1 19.25 15.61 5 78.0 13.00 10.14 fiofinamhs: 6 8 123 80.6 19.50 15.32 4 66.3 14.00 16.56 (7) 22 144 77.7 17.50 13.61 12 76.3 12.00 9.15 28) 6 78 73.7 17.25 12.72 4 72.5 13.00 9.43 (9) 20 102 74.9 18.25 13.66 18 63.3 15.00 9.50 02xfnhsx 10 3 201 75.6 18.75 14.17 52 68.1 14.00 9.53 (11) 17 129 77.1 18.50 14.27 17 73.2 14.00 10.25 512) 1 128 77.7 17.50 13.59 61 70.2 15.00 10.54 (13) 15 43 77.2 17.00 13.13 17 65.6 14.00 9.18 (14) 29 40 74.1 19.50 14.45 4 63.8 16.00 10.20 315) 12 46 83.4 20.00 16.67 38 72.5 18.00 13.05 16) 26 46 83.6 20.50 17.74 13 75.8 16.00 12.12 E17) 16 28 81.6 21.25 17.34 22 65.9 19.75 13.02 Total 1,388 78.1 18.86 275 69.9 15.32 u 0 . 0 a I Q 0 o v 1 0 0 I 0 0 u . O I n u a n 0 I O ‘ c . u D 0 t 0 o C u 0 t 0 o I . O I O 0 . I, I .. a . n O o O . O 0 1 0 0 0 0 u I O . . 1 L . . 0 O o u I D 0 O ‘ O O . n O I o I 0 Q 0 l O 0 I 0 u 0 O o I '-1129 APPENDIX L WILMINGTON NUMBER OF LAMBS MARKETED AVERAGE WEIGHT BY POOL FOR FIRST TWO TOP GRADES PRICE PER HUNDREDWEIGHT AND PER HEAD--1954-1955 Doug“ 215m W Month Av. Par Par Av. Per Per N94.Eflh___._£!flL_._lflflfllf— N23_Efln____.__£auL_..lkfiuL_.. 1 16 115 90.8 25.50 23.15 130 84.3 24.25 20.44 11 2 7 183 91.1 24.50 22.34 186 84.6 23.25 19.67 (3) 28 412 91.5 23.00 21.05 366 86.3 22.00 18.99 A 4 11 206 90.0 23.25 21.05 192 84.4 22.00 18.57 (5) 25 410 89.0 22.00 19.59 327 84.8 21.00 17.81 7%2212022: 6 8 304 90.5 22.00 19.92 311 85.7 21.00 18.00 (7) 22 351 92.0 20.00 18.40 309 84.8 18.75 15.90 182m 8 6 170 89.6 19.75 17.69 - 184 81.1 18.50 15.00 (9) 20 345 88.8 21.00 18.48 299 84.2 19.75 16.62 No 10 3 227 92.5 21.75 20.12. 302 83.0 20.50 17.01 (11) 17 135 90.4 21.00 18.99 233 84.3 19.75 16.64 D 12 1 261 95.4 20.00 19.08 329 87.4 19.00 16.61 13) 15 31 89.0 19.50 17.36 72 83.3 18.50 15.42 (14) 29 46 93.4 22.00 20.54 48 88.4 21.00 18.57 £15; 12 24 92.5 22.00 20.35 55 90.2 21.00 18.94 (16) 26 37 95.1 23.00 21.88 47 87.9 22.00 19.33 5175 16 23 89.3 23.25 20.77 43 89.7 22.25 19.75 Total 3,280 91.1 21.77 3,433 85.0 20.62 : M _ .wa. NTUIG .mTv Ofnuhu N08“. 01 all 8L @NL m\ -113,- Appendix M ’ Ashley Number of Lambs uarkoted Average ieight by Pool far First Tho Top Grades Price Per Hundrmight and Per Head-49544955 u 11 B Month Av. Av.P0r Per Av. Per Per N W 0 V! 1 16 54 92.7 22.5 20.62 80 90.5 21.25 19.23 22) 6 100 92.0 20.50 18.86 128 90.9 19.50 17.73 (3) 27 65 89.0 21.50 19.15 94 87.0 20.50 17.83 .%2§128221 4 17 101 93.2 20.50 19.10 172 90.9 19.50 17.73 $5) 1 70 90.0 21.25 19.13 209 89.0 20.25 18.02 (6) 15 63 94.0 21.00 19.80 86 88.9 20.00 17.78 (7) 29 101 92.8 21.25 19.71 281 90.7 20.25 18.38 E8; 12 91 94.9 21.00 19.93 188 92.7 20.00 18.54 (9) 26 83 93.1 21.50 20.02 200 92.7 20.50 18.99 210; 17 79 91.8 21.00 19.27 276 93.2 20.00 18.64 (11; 7 124 94.4 22.50 21.25 273 92.1 21.50 19.80 (12) 28 , 35 90.6 23.00 22.00 112 94.2 22.00 20.72, P (135 18 23 95.0 23.25 22.09 133 95.6 22.25 21.88 181 14 11 14 97.1 24.50 23.80 18 96.7 23.50 22.72 161.1 1,003 92.8 21.44 2,252 91.7 20.55 9114!.- APPENDIX N ASHLEY - NUMBER OF LAMBS MARKE AVERAGE WEIG-IT BY POO. FOR RED AND YELLOW PRIG PER HUNDREDWEIGIT AND PER HEAD-"1954-1955 .321 .!:112! Month Av. Par Par Av. Par Par ”MM—M 1 16 42 83.1 20.25 16.83 -- -- -- -- i2; 6 39 81.9 18.00 14.75 11 75.0 16.50 12.38 (3) 27 37 80.5 18.75 15.10 12 75.4 17.00 12.82 s 4 17 56 83.2 18.00 14.98 12 74.2 17.00 12.61 895* 5 1 92 84.7 19.00 16.10 12 75.4 17.50 13.20 (6) 15 16 85.9 18.50 15.90 2 62.5 17.00 10.63 (7) 29 136 83.8 18.75 15.71 57 76.5 17.25 13.19 N W 8 12 87 83.4 19.00 15.86 45 75.1 17.00 12.77 (9) 26 110 87.0 19.50 16.97 43 79.0 18.00 14.23 .¥22§nhsr 10 17 109 85.7 18.50 15.86 32 75.3 17.00 12.80 11 11 7 85 79.5 20.00 15.89 17 72.4 18.50 13.39 (12) 28 51 87.3 20.50 17.89 7 69.3 19.00 13.16 513; 18 69 85.3 21.00 17.91 10 74.5 19.00 14.16 %14§ 11 7 77.9 22.00 17.32 2 87.5 20.75 18.16 Month E u 7- 6 m m 7 M8 10- . 311 F aria-w- 1111' . a 1 a 13 m 1) .11 N 3(h 0(( o 34) c \. U456 Chm. :l nu\|l 2 5.0 A (( APPENDIX 0 LANCASTER 74115- NUMBER OF LAMBS MARKETED AVERAGE WEIG-IT BY 2001. FOR PIRSTJVD mp GRADES PRICE pea HUNDREDWEIGHT‘AND PER HEAD-e1954-1955 L h 1 902212 81113 Sing}; 3126 Month Av. Per Per Av. Per Per N9, W}, m Hggd N0. WtL Out Jig;— J 1 21 138 92.0 25.0 23.00 127 88.0 23.75 20.91 2 5 19 87.9 23.00 20.21 80 82.2 22.00 18.08 (3) 19 122 88.6 22.75 20.17 194 85.9 21.25 18.25 Au 4 2 153 85.7 22.50 19.29 151 81.9 21.25 17.41 (5) 16 437 87.3 24.00 21.08 323 80.8 22.75 18.38 (6) 30 143 86.3 21.25 18.34 194 80.9 19.75 15.97 .%2§Isahsr 7 13 197 88.6 21.75 19.27 214 86.1 20.50 17.64 (8) 2o 43 88.8 20.60 18.30 55 86.8 19.35 16.80 (9) 27 115 88.7 20.50 18.21 158 89.5 19.15 17.13 E10? 4 142 89.9 21.00 18.89 135 85.1 19.50 16.59 (11) 11 66 92.0 20.00 18.41 104 83.4 18.75 15.63 (12) 18 32 88.8 20.50 18.19 54 81.3 19.50 15.85 N 13 1 221 90.5 21.50 19.41 284 87.7 20.25 17.78 (14) 15 226 94.9 21.25 20.17 240 90.7 20.00 18.14 (15) 29 295 93.1 20.75 19.31 291 88.2 19.50 17.20 516; 13 81 93.1 20.25 18.85 79 88.2 19.00 16.76 (17) 27 126 91.0 21.75 19.78 145 89.0 20.50 18.24 $18; 10 85 92.4 22.25 20.64 88 88.7 21.00 18.66 (19) 24 80 91.3 22.75 20.77 111 88.6 21.50 19.05 .F 20 7 127 92.1 23.25 21.41 121 87.2 22.00 19.20 (21) 21 28 88.0 23.25 20.47 33 86.2 22.00 18.97 'Tbta1 2,904 90.2 22.05 3,227 85.9 20.72 —— PRICE PER HUNDREDWEIGHT’AND PER HEADb-l954-1955 APPENDIX‘P LANCASTER -116- NUMBER OF LAMBS HARKETED AVERAGE WEIGHT BY POOL FOR RED AND YELLOW .321 .12112: Month Av. For For Av. Par Par N00 Wt. M Head “00 "t0 M Head 11 1 21 74 77.2 21.75 16.81 -- -- -- -- 2 5 52 7807 20000 15073 "- '- -- -- (3) 19 152 79.4 19.75 15.68 -- -- -- -- 4 2 96 74.9 19.75 14.79 7 97.1 17.00 16.51 (5) 16 167 71.7 21.00 15.06 -- -- -- -- (6) 30 222 74.1 18.25 13.53 3 70.00 16.00 11.20 s z7§ 13 184 7607 19000 14058 ." -" -- -00 (8) 20 52 77.2 18.00 13.90 -- -- -- -- (9) 27 116 84.7 17.75 15.02 -- -- -- -- E10; 4 74 79.7 18.00 14.35 8 69.4 16.25 11.27 (11) 11 117 76.8 17.50 13.43 -- -- -- -- (12) 18 78 75.8 18.00 13.65 -- -- -- -- No 13 1 183 77.8 18.50 14.38 20 85.5 17.90 15.29 (14) 15 227 81.2 18.50 15.02 -- -- -- -- (15) 29 258 79.1 18.25 14.43 94 68.1 16.75 11.41 16 13 83 80.5 18.00 14.53 -- -- -- -- (17) 27 27 85.6 19.25 16.47 -- -- -- -- £18: 10 95 80.5 20.00 16.12 -- -- -- -- (19) 24 82 84.9 20.50 17.40 24 71.3 18.50 13.18 520; 7 37 8203 21000 17.28 '“' '"I' II- -- (21) 21 31 80.2 20.50 16.43 -- .. -- -- Total 2,477 78.3 19.5 71.5 17.33 APPENDIX Q LONmN NUMBER OF LAMBS MARKET'ED AVERAGE WEIG-IT BY POOL FOR FIRST TVD TOP GRADES PRICE PER HUNDREDWEIG-IT AND PER HEAD--1954-1955 LanflumLfiflgs §insla.§12£ Month Av. Per Per Av. For Per 119, 11;, m Hggg N9, 11;, 9;; 1mg 51; 6 101 88.4 $24.00 21.21 195 84.1 23.00 19.34 (2) 27 225 91.6 23.00 21.06 351 87.3 22.00 19.21 An 3 17 296 89.5 23.00 20.59 453 85.3 22.00 18.78 (4) 31 84 88.6 22.50 19.93 203 85.1 21.50 18.31 .%22$§nhsr 5 14 200 89.5 21.75 19.46 349 86.1 20.75 17.87 (6) 28 90 91.9 21.75 19.82 206 85.8 20.75 17.79 812m 7 12 58 89.4 20.75 18.55 186 86.7 19.75 17.12 (8) 19 67 92.6 21.50 19.91 135 87.9 20.50 18.01 (9) 26 5 89.0 20.50 18.25 23 83.9 19.50 16.36 $10) 2 36 92.5 22.00 20.35 98 87.7 21.00 18.41 (11) 9 29 92.4 21.00- 19.41 98 88.2 20.00 17.63 (12) 23 49 89.8 21.00 19.03 167 89.6 20.00 17.93 13 7 50 95.2 21.50 20.47 204 88.5 20.50 18.14 (14) 21 63 95.3 22.00 20.97 188 89.5 21.00 18.79 i15§ 11 72 92.7 22.50 20.86 333 90.8 21.50 19.52 16 1 54 93.1 22.75 21.17 97 88.0 21.75 19.14 17) 22 34 90.6 23.00 20.84 58 86.0 22.00 18.93 Total 1,513 90.8 22.38 3,344 87.2 21.22 “QIIBB APPENDIX R ‘ LONmN NUMBER OF LAMBS MARKETED AVERAGE WEIG'IT BY POOL FOR RED AND YELLOW PRIG PER HUNDREDWEIG-ll' AND PER HEAD--1954-1955 .322 712112! Month av. Per Per Av. Par Par W 119, n, g; Hggg N2, 11;, 9!; Hggg u 1 6 32 81.1 21.50 17.44 5 70.0 19.00 13.30 (2) 27 120 76.5 20.50 15.69 24 64.8 19.00 12.31 3 17 150 78.4 20.50 16.07 30 69.5 18.50 12.86 (4) 31 157 81.2 20.00 16.24 68 75.3 18.00 13.67 .%2§ssnhsr 5 14 103 78.4 19.25 15.48 24 70.4 17.75 12.50 (6) 28 151 80.4 19.25 15.48 102 71.2 17.75 12.64 i7§ 12 179 79.6 18.50 14.73 72 73.8 17.00 12.55 (8) 19 88 79.8. 19.00 15.17 33 70.9 17.50 12.41 (9) 26 24 79.6 18.50 14.72 .4 65.0 17.50 11.38 N 10 2 86 80.4 19.25 15.48 59 75.6 17.75 13.42 (11) 9 94 79.0 18.50 14.62 36 69.2 17.25 11.93 (12) 23 153 83.8 19.00 15.91 61 73.1 18.00 13.16 13 7 159 80.8 19.50 15.75 111 76.6 18.00 13.82 14 21 119 82.9 19.50 16.17 44 68.4 18.00 12.31 iaagarx .15 11 85 78.5 20.00 15.70 79 78.9 18.20 14.35 P (16) 1 66 81.5 20.25 16.51 22 70.9 18.00 12.76 (17) 22 57 77.1 20.50 15.81 31 70.3 19.00 13.36 Total 1,823 80.1"‘ 19.53 805 73.1 17.93 "7171711171171? 11111): 11111111111111)?!“