a

_—
7

—

 

Shrinkage Of Live Stock In Transit

' Thesis For Dear“ 0f M. 8
Arthur Grant Bovay

4» :- "W29;

a fun» A

 

5hr*rbage of Live Stock in Trrnz’t

 

Thesis f--.r Degree of LI. :3.

iXPf-‘mfir Great 1: B'nvay

\ ;

 

 

7 —cv-—- uv—u-v—w—F_

 

2'?"

'1“.-l '1'

_
“‘ ‘Lrl r‘ {l‘\rl I {F '."lrv“)l"tup ph!fi.’fl‘b‘k‘&’fl‘kt‘hflc. .J-QHDWPE‘.” . ’..‘l. J. a. alcflha I’llificmhr’flfi

 

1‘ .

Shrinkage of Live otock in .runs; .

Introduction - Juttle Lzae

('1‘.‘ 1'- ‘n "s '7 -' - ..'Hc- n2" - i": ' Cr 1;— "n 7 — 5
DALI—I‘LLLQLL’L’ 0- UUC IL Ll Lvatu J'- JL-au \.1 .1 -LV U

‘ . I' F. I ' 'v-! 'r‘ -‘ I . J- -" f 1 ‘5'. I: I 2 I '5‘. ’1. r: ‘f. '-
Slll‘lAA-.L‘:-"U Of J-‘Lrll—I lo C-aVU-LC UO—LC‘-L‘.IVL I L.'.AlokL —-c|J-LI;OJo-d' d - b

. . .-‘~ 1.“ .. .'. ' .. - .. T”... L' .. c- ' . . r 7
3053111th J. Ouil'v‘l‘ b.Ll‘l..--..'.;..__,'\. 43.791; ulu..-.ulO;1L / - 1;)
‘—I' 'p l 1-: a- _. (.‘. . I ‘--| \ ‘ 1 ‘I :-
hgrguurhv ughep - Leuuous 1% - la

—) I. I 'I. ‘ -II J' - I" (.'.
.113 (L .'. .'.“ -J-_'.ua l'.) - ..'..L

" r‘l . .' "-' L. ' .. -_' .' : . .'. . .'
'9’": '.'e(1 .5. : . ‘ u , | r. ,
.'.0' OJ - V .'.IJ IJLJ. .L'V-- J‘Clzg LJ- kl--.— )a.- —5. J04 IJ~

'I .. '| ' 'I,. .. .,-. .J- .'I r‘Ir
.e-I ecu 11L UHLl‘ (J- Aglt‘O‘L'. [.18 HR) - 5;]
*1 , , J. ‘ . .1 .‘ .. J. j .. . r~
.2 (Bed. 'n U \Lszl VILA'As - .LUJI bad
(‘1 _. .‘-, '\ I ‘ - c J- ‘_ . ‘ 1- - - . -' ~- ‘ J- _' (I.
Qllrll“x-\=‘c 0-.- - —O\_': ill Ul‘L'IaLii-J L U \le’ .IC‘. Ji‘rl. —-5'_lg.L‘—§.\; Us ‘40

T, ._' ._ ‘ _ ' ' '. .‘r. ‘.'. I . ‘. ‘ _' . ' ._-
lkelathIA 04‘- J. a...” u. - ('1. Iain. J .L“ J.- :..L:IJ. U uU L--_ .1...;..VC r—Ja‘J - La'b'u

‘ .1 l — .u 'I I ._ I I I I .1 ‘ i‘ . I‘- .- . . ‘I - _ ( 9-. nil:
_5\4-L'.- K'- U41 OJ- DL-rd.‘. 0 LI; —--0 :. 4L .'. l- -J\A \u'b‘ o‘vLA-A J..-- bub -_.U .LJ' \--: - Us)
l._ '- _' ‘ .'I _ I ‘. _ i \ _ ' .1 '.' Q 1
J‘-- I_'.Ul'van L'J. \n .‘.; A. .- J LA -LU.‘.'5L ‘IIJ - L:
.__-._a _ ‘ _‘ ‘_ : r. 'I -,_ “r- ' 7
-J-L ‘ CC U 0—- 5;;‘4 \a— o-va ‘z'-‘

“4101?

 

%;

FAR/(71W.

»)

 

Shrinkage of Live btock in Transit

Shrinkage as referred to in this narrative reans the net
loss in 'eight resulting in Shipping live atock from loading sta-
tions to the “arket, or the difference between weight at the lOad-
ing stations and the hoof or sales -eight at the market. A normal
shrinkage is to be eXpected and an excessive fil- resulting in waste
of feed and possible discount in the marnet prices is to -e avoided.

The subject of shrinkage has been given Special attention
because it is one of the factors in arketina liv» stocK on which
information is in greatest de and. The lack of scale facilities at
many of the shipping stations prevented ob.aining the neces:ary load-
ing weights needed to d~terrine the n t shrinkage or fill 2t market
on shipments origin-tins it such stations. In other instances, where
loading weights '2re obtained, the shippers failed to furnish the
sales weight at marcet. Inasvich as it was i practicable to follow
many of the Cattle shipments to -arket, inform tion ras obtained

from Shippers ann their records.
.Territory Covered

Record: obtained on the cost of srketing cattle Jere first
begun in the Flint Eills section of 4ansas and tne “Sage iation in
flklahoma, which are districts "here cattle are finished 3n erase and
narketed in the late sumrer and early fall. The lac: of seals frcilir
ties at nany of the loadinr Stationc, esoecially in Oglshora. prevent-
ed, in 3 nunber o“ in tances. obtaining lOaQinc Weights needs; to
deter ine the shrink:ge or fill res .ti a fro Shipping t.e stocx to
market. “hen the work was extended to the grazing sections 0: ester;

Eebraska, “ontana, “:0 ing, the Dagotas, and colorade, souls faci-ities

J

 

were found to be'flimited there also. Another factor which discourages
the practice of weighing at Icading stations in the western range states
is the size of the shipments usually sent to market. In.rontana and
Wyoming, for instance, it often is necessary to drive cattle from 50
to 125 miles to a shipping station after they have been rounded up on
the range, and the droves thus collected usually are of such size as
to reauire a lel train to transport them to market. The task of
weighing several cars of cattle when the scales will not acconnodate
a full carload, is not only laborious but reouires considerable time
which.very few shippers like to spare in their desire to get their
stock loaded as quickly as possible.

When the investigation WJS extended to those states where
cattle are finisaed in feed lots, better 'eighing facilities were
found and complete records were more easily obtained. Altogether,
complete records were obtained on 79 cars of steers, 49 cars of cattle
of mixed classes and arades, :nd 55 cars of pulp-fed cattle, the latter
Ibeing shipped from feed lots in tea best sugar districts of eastern
Colorado and "estern Nebraska. The shipment of steers and nixed

cattle originated in the following states:

State of STEERS state of TIIED CATTLE
origin Shipvents Cars origin Shipments Care
Ohio 17 3 Illinois 17 19
Hissouri 14 25 Tissouri 9 11
Illinois 8 10 Ohio 9 9
Indiana 4 4 Iowa 3 3
Tennessee 4 4 Indiana 2 2
South Dakota 1 5 South Dakota 1 2
Kentucky 1 2 tichigan l 1
Nebraska 1 2 Yinnesota l 1
Kansas 1 l Tisconsin l 1
Michigan 1 l

Yississippi l 1

Total 44 49

U!
01
q
to

Total

Qractically all these shipments were feed-lot cattle or

 

native cattle, as distinguished from range or western cattle. The
data on these shipments Were segiegated for comparison into three
groups, straight carloads of steers, cars of mixed classes and grades,
and shipments of pulp-fed cattle from the sugar beet districts of
Colorado and Nebraska. The data on the steers and ;ixed stock have
been assembled in tabular fore on the basis of the size of load, based
on weight. All cars weighing less than 20,000 pounds were seg;egated
into the first group. Other groups were created for each additional
4000 pounds of weight added.

Table 5 show the net Shrinks-e per hundredweight of stock
resulting from shipping the animals to market. The steers were of
fairly uniform weight, ranging from ar average of 1040 pounds, to 1223
pounds at the market, the grand average being 1113 pounds. The sizes
of loads based on the nurber of animals to the car Jere iiite uniform,
the average for the different groups Varying from 17 in the lightest
loads to 24 in the heaviest, with an gverage of 21 for all cars stud—
ied. The least Shrinkage took place in the lightest loads, and with
this exception the arount of s rinkage did not see? to be affected by
size of load based on weight, the uaxirum variation being less than
.2 per cent. The average shrinkage for all tee shipments was 4.2 per
cent, or 40 pounds for a thousand-pound steer.

In the “ixed classes and grades of cattle, with one exception,
the average weight of the animals was almost as uniform as in the case
of the steers, ranging from 738 to 887 pounds. The one exception gas
a sroup of six cars 'hich averaged 1136 pounds per animal. The grand
average for all cars of mixed .tock was 883 lbs. In this group the
heaviest shrinkage took place in the lightest and the heaviest loads,
the latter shrinkage most. Those lOads ranging in veight fror 20,000

to 28,000 pounds, suffered an average shrink of approximately 5.9

 

TABLE 5 — Showing relation of weight of load to shrinkage, incurred

in marketing steers and mixed classes and grades of cattle

at centralized markets.

 

:No

3 AV.

Av.

 

:Av. CarzAv. Car: Av. "5' Av.

Class-: of :No.headlength:loading: sales :sales wt:shrinkage;
:of haul weight;weight : of : per

es of

: to
Cattle:Cars: Car

 

€21,128 :

. . :cattle : cwt.
Lbs o 3 Lbs o 3 113%: ___i__LbS o.

 

 

218,019 217,478 E 1,040 2 -5.00
:21,551 :20,771 : 1,144 : -4.11
:25,905 :24,872 : 1,225 : -5.99

 

 

 

{_§§§ 22g,4gz ;23,465*; 1,115

:29,832 528 551_:_1411§ : -4.15
- “- z -4002 —

 

m .- —--

 

£17,225 216.490 2 738 E -4.25
:81,876 :21,029 : 887 : -3.88
:25,155 :25,125 : 855 ; -3.87

 

; 5 § 17 § 238
: 31 21 ' 182
Steers: 29 : 20 265
: 14 : 24 218
Average 79 I 21
Fixed; 9 Q 22 : 117
classes 21 : 24 : 179
and ; 15 ; 29 : 190
Grades: 5 : 25 . 186
§_ 25 172

 

Average 49

:29,Q§§_£§8,215 : l,l36 : -5.91

 

 

 

———o .-

 

§25L145 222,151 2 885 E -4.25

 

pounds per cwt., or 39 pounds, for a thousand-pound animal. The
average number of animals loaded )er car was quite uniform in this
group also, ranging from 22 to 29 and averaging 25 for the entire
group.

Minimum carload weights for eattle are obtained easily in
shipping cattle, as shown in the average weights of the loads studied.
In fact, it is easy to exceed the minimum weight allowance for cattle
without undue crowding. Reference is made elseWhere to the difficulty
of loading hogs.and sheep to the present minimum weight allowance for,
these animals. The average shrinkage on the steers totalled 44% lbs.,
and on the mixed classes and grades 37} pounds per animal. This loss
in weight measured by the market price of the stock amounts to a
considerable sum, and shippers in consigning stock to centralized
markets give this matter serious consideration, inasmuch as the amount
of shrinkage often determines their profit or loss.

Table 6 is a summary of the data showing net shrinkage in-
curred in marketing oulp-fed cattle from western Nebraska and western
Colorado. The first three shipments originated in the latter state,
two of then originating at the same loading station. The two fiebraska
shipments also originated at the same station.

The average weight of the cattle in three of the shipments
was ouite uniform, ranging from 1025 to 1043 pounds at the market.

The other two snip ents averaged 975 and 1420 pounds oer animal. The
lighter cattle suffered the heaviest shrink, averaging 6.65 pounds
per cwt. While one shipment shrunk 2.15 per cent, the amount of
shrinkage on the other three shipments was approximately the same,
being slightly over three per cent. The average car sales weight
ranged from 22,550 to 24.972 pounds. the shipment with the maximum

weight being loaded with the lightest weight cattle. The average

number of cattle loaded oer car ranged from 17 of the heavy kind to

25 of the light weights, the average for all shipments being 22.

Table 6 - Summary shOWing net shrinkage incirred in marketing pulp-
fed cattle from sugar beet districts of Colorado and Nebras-

ka.

.0

To 3A7. 110.: 3 3 3 3 3
of : of :Lengtthv. car: Av. carghv. sales:Shrinkage:
cars :cattle : of :loading: sales : weight : per .
per :haul :weight : weight : per : cwt. :
:car ° : : :animal

 

 

w .

:émiles : Lbs. :i _pps. 2 Lbs. i Lbs.

12 E 25 i 550 :25,550 :24,792 i 975 i -5.55
. 22 i 517 :25,045 :22,550 2 1,025 i -2.15
22 i 579 :23,685 :22,958 2 1,045 i -5.07

§ 17- '; 555 E24,579 225,951 2 1,420 :: -5.05

CID-GP?

22- E 555 £25,295 £22,558 2 1,058 2 -5.11 :2

 

Av.35 22- : 595 :24,707 :25,545 : 1,071 : -4.50

Results of Other Shrinkage Investigations.

As a supplement to the data obtained on shrinkage of cattle,
reference is made to the results obtained in an investigation made by
the Bureau of Animal Industry. The Bureau made quite an exhaustive
study of shrinkage of range cattle shipped from the southwestern and
northwestern range states to centralized markets in 1910 and 1911.

In addition data were obtained on the shrinkage of feedlot cattle ship-
ped from Oklahoma, Iowa and Illinois in 1911 and 1912. The results of
this investigation were published in Department Bulletin 25, "The
Shrinkage in Weight of Beef Cattle in Transit," and Tables 1, 2, and

3 are summaries of the data appearing in the bulletin.

Table l is the summary of the data obtained during the summer
and fall of 1910, and winter and early Spring of 1911. Data on nearly
6000 head of cattle are included in this table. The year i which the
work was done was a very dry one, with little grass, and was conducive
to a poor fill at origin and a small shrink in transit for range cattle.
With two exceptions the weather was good when all the shipments of
range cattle were moving to market. Two shipments which were destined
to Kansas City were caught in snowstorms and their shrinkage was heavy
when compared with the other shipments. The variations in the net
shrinkages were quite wide for the different shipments. The greatest
variation was found with the mixed range cattle in transit less than
36 hours, and the next greatest with range cows. The difference was
not so great with the calves nor with the fed cattle. The variation
was greater with the fed cattle which were in transit over 36 hours
then with those in transit for a shorter period. The average net

shrinkage for all of the range cattle was small.

.pamcmgp ma mafia Hence one pom +0: can .hosnsow was go
soappom access one now was mogsme one was .mpSoa ms op mm peaches an ego: mappmo Adv

IIII‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mg;

.mpgofisfime
mo :oapaflsomoc

#6 pflmwoau wapgwoulgflfl
GWMHUPAW” .HOoObH ukOoOhH

op ommxcagzm
mo oauwm

awnnm><n ommmm
.smmwasaahh hog

 

m.ou " on: " nnanu " mow " can u c " ntuunanuus hsso:.on ae>o passage
n u n H n H CH mpeopm counawefiucoemsoppoo
n.01 " on: " bouawu ” .mmm.a " owe " w " lulu: made: on can» shed pancake
" u u u n n ma mawopm comuasofincmon209peo
o.b| " was " mvubu " va " mom no N u auauuuautaaasuuusuanun sumo; moa
" n u n n 1 pflmsmgp cw mappmo emcee smug:
m.o+ " nL. u nnsm+ ” man u oam.au v ” rinsuuuuuuaaauAav made; we op on
u n u u u ” pfimmmgp Q“ mappuo amass voxflq
m.oa " n: H omnmdr " man " How u a " :sauniaauuauu redo: mm sane haea
" u u u H “ pfimcmnp a“ mappeo oases ceHmfl
m.an u van H owumd+ " are “ mom " w " ututtuunsasuunusnnaauuu radon on
u u n u n " gasp mama parse»; CH 5500 owns”
m.fi+ ” v+ " on¢+ ” mom " new H n " n-s:a aauastauuunuansuaans maze:
u u u u . n n we pe>o paucwhp Lfl me>aho ommmm
m.ea " as ” nauee+.u 55a 2 one u m u -----------------a----- eases en
n u u u " "swap mama panama» ma mopaao ommdm
| 9:00 helm ” .135” r" umflglnliluléna 1.1 u 1!».
nfimfigo pm 0 u u "
pgwfioe oped “ " sewage ” "meme.

0. O. .0 O. O. O.

 

 

 

.Hamanoama .mpoxamfi cesaamgpceo op wmpmpm sawemmsnpSOm scam mgecpm can

ameSuvmomcoppoo one mavens amass msfimmanm ca mafiVHSmog wmsxnfinsm pom msfisonm Asmaadm n a mnm<e

It will be noted from a study of Table 1 that the range
calves took on a fill instead of a shrink, also that the range cows
and mixed range cattle had a very slight shrink. The heavy shrinkage
on the mixed range cattle in transit 105 hours was due to one of these
shipments being in a snowstorm fourdays, and at one of the stations
Lhere they more unloaded ft? feed and Water the water pipes 'ere
frozen so that they obtained very little w ter. The fact that these
range cattle were shipped in a season of drought from pastures where
there was very little grass and water undoubtedly tended to cause a
very light not shrinkage at the market. On the other hand, the cotton-
seed-meal-fed steers were shipped under more normal conditions, with
the result that the net shrinkage was greater. These fed cattle were
shipped from feedlots in Oklahoma to Kansas City and St. Louis and with
the exception of one shipment which arrived at market during a raging b
blizzard, weather conditions were very good. The data received on
these cottonseed-meal-fed shipments indicated very clearly that the gre
greater part of the shrinkage on the cattle occurred during the first
24 hours of the shrink.

Table 2 is a summary of the results obtained in shipping
range and feedlot cattle from the northwestern states to the central-
ized markets during the season of 1911-1912. The range cattle origin-
ated in Wyoming, “ontana, and Western Nebraska, and were sent to mar-
ket from September to December. The shipments of fed cattle origin-
ated in lows and Illinois, the work being finished in the latter state
in June 1912. Ehe net shrinkage on all the cattle was very uniform.
The data indicate that the greatest shrinkage occurs during the first
portion of the journey. The work during 1911 and 1912 was conducted

under more normal weather conditions than that conducted in the pre-

ommue>s on» p50 puma ma

.mc::os on op comfiwh ma 0mm msfinawsop esp we ouuxcfisnm pen

pemseflammanp eH .poaees as Heme

on» gonna use: use means: a

 

 

 

cocamm hAHwSpow scams use: boa mo escapanw one we omsxoon sea hHHwSmsc: ma cmspc>w mans hflVI

mm.wn ” me u mean: u Hma.a ” wow " Ha "suuuunuuuuunsucnaau ammo: cm he»

" u n u u " pascapp 2H oappso comnewwaum

rm.au ” nmflwvu pour; n mmm.a ” can u a "vain-nuauuuouu mazes om menu weed

" H u u n " ufimnmhp ca mappco cemscmmaum

ma.¢n " ow " mated: " owo.a ” awn " ma ”unaunxuuinauuaann: made: on cu on

u u u u u ” ufimCmsp :fi manure cmMLcaOU comma

om.¢a " an " mmaumu " ¢HN.H ” mom.flu mm ”nu-nuanusunuaunnnu mason on on om

" u u H u " pamcmup ma cappco nowaghoo wouaq

ma.wu ” an " wbaomn ” mam.a ” mam " o "-uuauuuuunuuau unnog om cusp mama

" n u n u ” newsman c“ mappmo comucsoe woman

00.0: N no " bmuman " ono.a ” now u m ”u-;suuuus-::uuuunsn mason ms nose

" n u n u " pfimnmau :H oauumo emcee voxafi

mo.nn " on “ vnnfl+ ” who u was ” Ha " ssssss nn-s:--usuza msdox we on on

m n u u n ” pfimgmsp ca oappeo owns» voxafl

mn.en m an " madame- ” mom ” wow u we u-------------- ugsoa em ease awed

" u - u u u u pfimcwpp ma cappoo mmsc» vcxfiz
spec pom" " u n u "
:Hmfiue" " " .mhg ” n n
at unmwos obfla" u " cfimfiho ”cappmonproE "

op omwxcfihsm" owmpob.» . omsmm "pm pm fies" mo Humane " ennofigflnm
pom mo ofipmm" mmmxcflsgm pom “ omepo><u .oa " mo " mo soapmasomoo

" u u u .ohp u

 

.maadlaama

.mpothfi vomfiamspcoo op

mopmpm upopmosnppoc Gosh

caupso poanvoow use cappoo awash msfimnflgm a“ waapHSmou omoxqfinnm pm: mcasoge knofissm n m mqm<e

Vious season in the southwestern states. The range cattle from the
northwest were marketed while the weather was good and conditions were
favorable for keeping shrinkage to the minimum. The fed cattle which
were shipped later went to market when weather conditions were more
severe. Some of the shipments eXperienced extremely severe weather

at the market. The data shown in Table 2 on fed cattle is more compar-
able with that obtained in the investigation reported herein, and it
will be noted that in both investigations there is little variation

in the average percentage of shrink, the average being slightly more
than four per cent.

Table 5 represents a summary of work conducted in 1911 to
supplement the other investigation made. Approximately 5000 animals
were weighed in sucuring the data shown in this table, and the results
are a good indication of the shrinkage to be expected during a normal
season. It iwll be noted that there was a considerable variation in
the net shrinkage especially in those shipments from the northwest.

The cattle shipments from that section originated in Montana and Western
South Dakota. Those from the Southwest originated in Texas. Frequent
rains had fallen in Texas during the winter of 1910 and 1911 and good
grass was abundant the following summer. The grazing season of 1911
was about a normal one and the results obtained from the shrinkage work
that fall may be taken as an average. The cattle were either in good
flesh or fat. Post of the range cattle are driven any where from one
to upwards of a hundred miles to the railroad for slipping, and as a
rule they are driven TIC” fifteen to twenty miles each day and then
grazed along the trail for a few houss, and this procedure is kept up
until shipping pens are reached. it is very seldom that range cattle
are fed on arrival at the snipging pens before loading, and in many

cases they are allowed little, if any, water. Hey is seldom placed in

the cars for the stock to eat while in transit. AS a result of this

 

 

i

 

 

 

 

 

0.m ” mm ” mn:va: u 000.a ” 00H " w ” :::::::::: made; 00 na>o meson so

u u u u u “ mappmo amnes cesHE snowmonnvpo:

0.0 H mm " 00:0H: u H00 ” 00H " 0 ” ::::::::: maze: 0m 00 0m oudop :0

n u n u u ” mappeo mmcmp UmxHE snowmoaxpSon

0.0 u 0m " H0:m: ” 00b ” 000 n ma n ::::: memos 00 can» imam ops;s re

" u n u u H campeo empty cox“: shopmosgpzon

0.0 u a0 ” ms:om: " omo.a " 0mm H m " ::::::::::-;::::»:: mazes 0n n¢>o

" u u u u ” opfioh Cm 0300 mmcwh Chmpmwagvhom

0.0 H mm H @0rw: " 500 ” 000.H n ea " :::::::::::::::::: name: 00 on 00

u n n u u ” canon so 0200 omens snouwosnpSOE

0.0 H 00 " 00:0m: " 000 ” s00.a ” 0 u ::::::::::::: .mn30m mm camp mmea

" u u u u " cases no 0500 omsmg cumpmosxuSon

0.0 u 00 n 00:00: n 00H.a " one u 0 H ::::I:::::::: mkdog 00 nose chaos

” n u u u n no whoopm owns; shepmwsxunon

0.0 n ma " 0a:aa: ” 0mm " Ham ” 0 n :::z:::::::::: wagon 00 comp mama

u u u u " "muses no m¢>amo omcws snowm05£0500
.0.an hmm u Hung " .0,»le ” .004 n u u
u 11“ " sfimflno " ”apnoea
sfimflno u .m>¢ a omnmm “ pt “ ”:afimm"

pm pnmflos mead u H " psmfims " caapmo " me ” mpsofimfinm
op omwucwuflm u onxuwsmm no? mQMaso>« " mo .0? u .on n he soapmeOmoo

no 330

 

.Hama.mopmpm snapmosnpson 0:0
snowmosnpaon Scum cappmo awash msfimmflnm sfi mcflpasmoa ommxnwanm no: mammogw massesm : 0 mqm<e

treatment range cattle have undergone considerable shrink by the time
they are loaded on cars at the shipping stations.

Among the conclusions reached in the investigation conducted
by the Bureau of Animal industry was that the shrinkage of range cattle
in transit over 70 hours during a normal year is from 5 to 6 oer cent
of their live weight. If they are in transit 36 hours or less the
shrinkage will range from 3 to 4 per cent of their live weight. Also,
the shrinkage of fed cattle does not differ greatly from that of
range cattle for equal periods of time. It varies from about 3 per
cent with all of the silage-fed cattle and 4.2 per cent with the corn-
fed cattle, when both classes of these animals were in transit for less
than 36 hours,to 5.4 per cent for the pulp-fed cattle which were in
transit from 60 to 120 hours.

SHEEP
Methods of Marketing

A summary of the replies of the special live stock and price
reoorters of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the U. S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture to a schedule of q estions relative to the methods
of marketing practiced throughout the United States published in
Report 115, Office of the Secretary, shows that from 35 to 90 per cent
of the rheep marketed in the different sections are shipped to market,
that from 10 to 50 per cent are sold to local butchers and packers,
and that fror one to ten per cent are sold in the carcass or marketed
otherwise. In addition it is shown that the practice of shipoing to
centralized markets prevails most generally in the central states, and
that the greatest prevalence of local marketing is found in the ex--
treme eastern, western, and southern sections. These comparisons re-
present relative proportions and not actual numbers of arrivals market-
ed from the various sections. Corparing one class of animals with an-
other in the same group of states it was found in all sections except
the cotton states that sheeo show the largest proportion shipped in
carload lots by growers. In fact, the prOportion of sheep marketed
by owners leads to the conclusion that the majority of sneep producers
are large scale growers or feeders who handle stock in sxch numbers as
to pernit marketing in carload lots.

The data used here were collected on shipments originating
in Colorado, Illinois. Lansas, “ichigan, Lissouri, Iontana, Ohio, and
Wyoming. With the exception of Kansas, from 58.9 to 74.5 per cent of
the sheep marketed from the central states in this group are sold to
regular local dealers for shipment to aarket. (l)

(1) Report 113, Office of the Secretary.

Kansas sheepmen market 30.9 per cent of their marketable sheep thru
local dealers and ship 61.2 per cent in carload lots. The prOportion
of direct shipments in carload lots in the other four central states
where data on sheep marketing were collected varies from 6.3 per cent
in Ohio to 35.9 per cent in Illinois. In the former state ten per
cent of the sheep are sold to local butchers for the retail market
trade. In Nichigan 20.5 per cent are marketed in this way.

In the three western states in which data were obtained on
cost of marketing sheep, the percentage shipped direct in carload lots
ranged from 65.8 per cent in Colorado to 85.2 per cent in Wyoming.

In the former state 23.8 per cent of the sheep marketed are sold for
shipment to feeding points as compared with eight per cent thus sold
in Kontana and seven per cent in Wyoming. Montana sheepmen dispose

of 8.4 per cent of their marketing sheep thru local dealers and ten

per cent are bought by local butchers for retail trade.

Information frcm various sources indicates that four-fifths
of the sheep and lambs marketed in the United States pass thru the
large central markets waile only one-eighth are sold for local slaugh-
ter and from three to four per cent are slaughtered on farms and
ranges.

The replies of the special live stock and price reporters
of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics relative to the numbers of
feeder sheep and lambs bought in the different seasons show that fall
buying is most prevalent. (1) Figures for the cornbelt states, with
those for the two sheep-feeding states of Tichigan and Ohio added,
show that 65 per cent of the stocker and feeder sheeo are bought in
the fall. The replie 8 further show that the stockmen of these areas
buy 47 per cent of their feed-lot supplies at the centralized markets.

(1) Report 113, Office of the Secretary.

Data received from railroad division superintendents show that the
big movement of sheep and lambs to feed lots taken place from the
latter part of September to the first part of December. Kentucky,
Missouri and Texas buy a large percentage of their stocker and feed-
er lambs in the summber months.

The surplus-producing mutton states ship large numbers in
the fall, which makes this the heavy marketing season for sheep. It
is estimated that these states market 62 per cent of their sheep and
lambs during the fall months. The sheep-feeding sections of the
United States tend toward selling in the summer, with the exception of
those few states which make a specialty of shipping spring lambs.
Lambs from the feed lots of Colorado and Nebraska are sent to market

from February to June.
Jasis for Data

newsman/tray

Records were obtained on shipments comprising 11 single
and 43 double-deck care. These records have been summarized accord-
ing to states of origin in Table 7. Bresented in this form it is
possible to compare the shrinkage of sheep in the Corn Belt and in
the sheep-feeding states of the North-Central states with the shrink-
age on them from the western sheep-producing states. The lack of
scale facilities at many sheep loading stations prevented getting
loading weights needed in determining Shrinkage in transit, thus
accounting for the small number of records used in the comparisons.

Eleven shipments comprising three single and ten double-deck
care on winch records were obtained, originated in Ohio. The three
single-deck cars and two double-decks were marketed at Pittsburgh,
while seven double-decks were sent to Buffalo. The other double-deck

was billed to Cleveland. The length of haul for all the Ohio ship-

Table 7 * Summary showing net shrinkage incurred in marketing sheep

and lambs at centralized markets.

 

 

 

State :No. of : Av. no.: Av. Len-z év. load-: Av. : Av.
of : decks :animals : gth of : ing wt. :sales wt.; shrink per
origin: : per : haul : : : cwt.
: deck . : : :

: 1'1168 : Lbs e : 111380 3 111,30
Ohio : 23 : 111 : 300 :: 9,908 : 9,068 : 8.48
Hissouri: 6 : 115 : 157 : 9,158 : 8,374 : 8.57
Illinois:18 : 112 : 404 : 9,381 : 9,026 : 8.15
Michigan: 2 : 107 : 385 : 8,655 : 7,950 : 8.15
Kansas : 4 : 125 : 91 : 10,170 : 9,565 : 5.95
Fontana :16 : 114 : 1113 : ----- :10,150 : ----
Colorado:lO : 117 : 694 : 11,381 :10,760 : 5.45

Ifyoming :18 g 126 z 120 : 12,610 312,165 : 5°55

 

_...- ..._.—..— 'm

ments ranged from 170 to 366 miles. A record of the time in transit
was obtained only in five shipments, and with the exception of 27 hours
for the shortest haul the time ranged from 50 to 61 hours. The only
explanation to be offered for such a long period of time being required
to transport these cars to market is that not enough-cars of stock
originate in Ohio to justify special live stock trains such as are
furnished further west, consequently practically all shipments of live
stock originating in that state go in mixed freight trains.

Withe the exception of one mixed single-deck car of lambs
and sheep, all of the shipments originating in Ohio consisted of
lambs and the number loaded per deck ranged from 100 to 116, averag-
ing 110. The same weight per deck for these lambs ranged from 7,700
to 9,513 pounds, avexaging 8,911 pounds. “inimum carload weights
allowed for sheep range from 12,000 to 14,000 pounds for single-deck
cars and 18,000 to 23,000 oounds for double-deck cars. The maximum
weight recorded on a double-deck car in the reports obtained on Ohio
shipments was 41,800 pounds on two cars at the loading station, which
is an average of 20,900 pounds oer car. These cars weighed 38,050
pounds, or an average of 19,025 pounds each at the market. The max-
imum weight on a single-deck car was 10,850 pounds at loading station
and 10,100 pounds at the market. Vhile it is possible to attain the
minimum weight allowance for double-deck cars in loading sheep, eSpeci,-
ally for the lower weight allowances, it is practically impossible to
do so in loading single-deck cars without undue crowding, which would
increase the risk of injury and loss in shipping.

Shrinkage is affected by so many factors that it necessarily
varies widely. This is verified by the data on the Ohio shipments of
sheep where it will be noted that the shrinkage from loading station

to market ranged from 5.6 per cent to 12.09 per cent. It is impossible

to explain why some loads had a greater shrinkage than others,
especially when one of the most important factors, (1) length of
time in transit, is unknown in someof the shipments.

By averaging the data on shrinkage in a great number of
shipments a fair idea of the shrinkage to be expected under average
conditions in a given section may be obtained, but it must be under-
stood that for individual shipments a wide fluctuation from the
normal can be expected. The figure on shrinkage appearing in Table
7 must be taken for their respective values based on the number of
shipments used the averages.

The six cars of sheep originating in Lissouri shown in
Table 7 were all single-deck cars, and, with the exception of two
cars of mixed sheep and lambs, all were lambs. The number of animaha
per car ranged from 88 to 135, average being 115. All of the ship-
ments were marketed at National stock Yards, Illinois, and the length
of haul varied from 125 to 177 miles. The time en route ranged from
11 to 19 hours, the average being 17 hours. There was a wide range
in the weight of the loads, the minimum at the market being 5,880
pounds, and the maximum 10,410 pounds, and in this instance both loads
originated at the same loading station.

The net shrinkage on four cars was ouite uniform, being
approximate y 8.75 pounds per cwt. The other two cars had a shrink-
age of 6.39 and 10.77 per cent, and the greater shrinkage occurred in
the lightest load which consisted of 88 mixed lambs and bld sheep.

It is of interest to note that with the exception of the loads of
sheep originating in Kansas the average net shrinkage on the sheep
loaded in each of the central states where data were obtained ranged
from 8.15 to 8.57 per cent.

(1) sechahlc 14A Page 50A

 

The shipments of sheep originating in Illinois on which
data were collected consisted of 8 double-deck cars consigned from
Chicago to Pittsburgh, and two local shipments, both single-deck
cars, one of which went to Chicago and the other to Indianapolis.
The only information obtained on the shipments originating in Chicago
was the weights at loading and destination, which made it possible to
calculate the net shrinkage resulting. This shrinkage varied from
1.00 to 3.91 per cent and averaged 3.55 per cent. The low shrinkage
one these shipments was very likely due to the sheep receiving a good
shrink while on route to Chicago from the original loading station.
The shrinkage on the two local shipments was approximately the same,
that on one car amounting to 5.29 per cent and the other 5.67 per cent,
These two cars, one a mixed load and the other consisting entirely of
lambs, averaged 9,785 pounds in weight at the market, and as the mar-
keting costs shown in the table on shipments from Illinois applies en-
tirely to them no detailed explanation of the items is deemed necessary.

The data on sheep from kichigan apply to one douole-deck car
shipped to Buffalo.

The two shipments originating in Colorado consisted of fat
lambs loaded in the best pulp feeding district in the nnrthern part
of the state. One shipment of two double-deck cars went to St. Joseph,
and the other, consisting of three double-decks, was sold in Kansas
City. The latter shipment was the heavier, averaging slightly more
than 11,000 pounds per deck at the market. The sales weight of the
St. Joseph consignment averaged 10,383 pounds per deck, but there were
three less lambs loaded to each deck. The net shrinkage on the lambs
consigned to Kansas City was one per cent less than on those to St.
Joseph.

The records of the four shipments from Wyoming were obtained

from one of the largest sheep growers in that state. The consignments,
all double-deck cars, were marketed in Denver.

It will be noted with particular interest that all of the
cars loaded in Wyoming were loaded much heavier than those loaded in
the other states, the full minimum weight allowance being attained in
every shipment. The cars averaged 126 sheep to the deck, and with the'
exception of 130 wethers all of the sheep were old ewes.

The net shrinkage resulting on the Wyoming shipments varied
widely, ranging from 1.86 per cent to 6.29 per cent, and averaging
3.53 per cent. No information is available as to the reasons for this
variation, but, as stated elsewhere, shrinkage fluctuates widely under
identically the same conditions for the same classes of stock.

Summarizing the data shown in Table 7, it is very conclusive
that sheep and lambs shrink more in prOportion to their weight than

other classes of stock while en route to market.

HOGS
Classification of Shipments

Records on 873 shipments of hogs comprising 1193 cars,
double-decks counted as two cars, were used in this report in making
the comparisons on cost of marketing hogs. These records represent
two distinct methods of marketing; viz: consignment to commission
firms at public stock yards, and consignment direct to packing com-
panies. Stock marketed by either method is consigned either by the
farmer, local stock buyer, or live stock shipping association. A
commission firm receiving consignments has entire charge of the dis-
position of the stock, which is sold to packer buyers, city butchers,
or shippers. The proceeds of the sale, less commission and other
marketing charges, are the net proceeds received by the owner of the
stock. Stock consigned direct to a packer is sold either at a previous-
ly stipulated price or at the market price on day of arrival. Practic-
ally all the records of consignments direct to packing plants were ob-
tained from local dealers, this class of shippers doing more business
direct than farmers.

In making comparisons of the two methods of marketing begs,
the data on shipments to centralized markets were tabulated so as to
show the differences in Shrinkage 01 Shipments made uy farmers, local
dealers and c00perative shipping associations. Table 0 SuOWS the dis-
triuuuiun 01 the records according to class of shipper, destination,
and treatmeit in regard to fill after arrival, Where shipments were
consigned direct to packing plants. as has been stated, many of the
records used in this invesblgation were Obtained oy urhfibcrlbius
records and account sales or local dealers. inasmuch as this class of e

shippers market more hogs than do farmers or cooperative shipaing

organizations and are more inclined than farmers to keep accounts

or their shipments, it was only natural that the majority of the re-
cords should be obtained from them. The data collected have seen
assembled in several uaDle , so as to show the effect of variations
in factors that influence shrinkage and marketing expenses. rhese
factors are: amount or feed placed in car or fed en route, season
of the year, time in transit, distance traveled, and size of load,
on basis of both weight and number of animals per car.

The difference in the shrinkage resulting from shipping to
either point, will determine which is the most profitable method of
marketing. Therefore, it is only necessary to determine if one
method furnishes an advantage over the other as regards the net shrink-
age from the time of loading to the time of weighing, to the buyer.
With this factor in mind, the data obtained on shipping hogs direct
to packing plants were compiled only to show the average shrinkage
resulting from shipping to these plants, with a view to making com-
parisons with the amount of shrinkage resulting in shipping to the
central markets where the animals are given feed and water and allowed
to rest before weighing.

heed in Car or En Route

It is a common practice in shipping hogs either to central-
ized markets or direct to packing plants to provide them with fe~d
either in the car, or, if necessary to unload to comply with the 28-36
hour law, at feeding-in-transit stations. rue advisability of placing
feed in the car from an economical standpoint is questionable and de-
pends entirely on the motives of the shipper and what is expected to be
gained. In order to determine the relative extent of the practice
among farmers and dealers of providing feed en route in shipping hogs

to centralized markets, Table 11 was constructed. This table shows

the variation in the extent of feeding according to season and length
of time in transit. It will be hated that with the exception of ship-
ments made during the spring and fall, farmers are more inclined than
dealers to supply feed to hogs en route. During the spring and fall
months the prOportion of farmer shipments receiving feed'en route as-
ceeded that of dealers by aporoxirately 15 per cent. During the

summer months the preportion of farmer shipments receiving feed en
route exceeded that of dealers by about 16 per cent. During the winter
all farmer shipments in transit more than 14 hours received feed in

car or en route while there were dealer shipments in transit as much as
68 hours without receiving feed. The tendency as a rule, both among
farmers and dealers, in to practice feeding en route to a greater
extent during the winter months than in any other season, altho the
preportion of farmer shipments receiving feed was greatest in the
summer, the season in which occurred tne greatest percentage 0! dealer
shipments without feed. Undoubtedly the greater proportion receiving
feed in the winter months is due to feed being more plentiful and to
the fact that shippers believe that in cool weather feeding can be
practiced without danger of loss from overheating. The fact that the

greater proportion of shipments not receiving feed occurs in the

spring and fall may serve to emphasize the importance of the supply

of feed available. The new corn crOp in the cornbelt is hardly avail-
able for use until the late fall, and in the spring the available
supply is becoming low, thereby encouraging economy in its use. Dur-
ing the summer months, if corn is available on the farm there will be a
tendency among the farmers to utilize it in order to make room for the
crop that is to be harvested. 0n the other hand, dealers are not so

inclined to feed inasmuch as they have to purchase all feed used, and

they have found by experience that

precautions should be taken to avbid loss through overheating. As
stated before, it is during this season that the greatest prOpnrtion
of dealers' shipments receive no feed.

Table 12 is a summary of the data showing the amount of feed
per cwt. given to hogs in car and en route by farmers and dealers dur-
ing the different seasons and according to the length of time in trans-
it. It is apparent from this table that farmers feed more heavily in
car and en route than local dealers. This is further corroborated by
averaging all the data for each class of shippers according to time in
transit but without regard to seasons. Such an average shows that for
any given length of time in transit farmers use more feed per cwt. of
hogs than dealers. It also shows that as the length of time in trans-
it inc-eases the difference between the amounts fed by the two classes
of shippers increases. Stating the pr0position somewaat differently,
farmers and dealers both increase the amount of feed given to hogs en
route as the time in transit increases, but farmers increase the
amount in the greater prOportion.

Both classes of shippers use the least amount of feed in
the spring and fall, farmers feeding the maximum amount in the winter
months. There is not much variation in the seasonal quantities used
by dealers until after shipments are in transit more than 30 hours.
Where shipments are in transit more than this length of time dealers
feed more heavily in the summer months.

It is very evident that both farmers and dealers take the
length of time in transit into consideration in deciding on the quan-
tity of feed to provide for the hogs while en route to market. For
instance, in the shipments on which data were collected for Table 12,
it will be seen that increasing the length of time in transit for deal-

er shipments in the winter months from an average of 11 to an average

r'0l." -i

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
  
 
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

II.-. «alligulumm {4: we! : IMMMI me ms . e "sameness.
as.e ” mam " osm.om " as H s . was as .. as ”
ov.m " saw " non.oa " mm H a n bow H mm .H on 1 mm "
om.m ” mam u www.ma " mm H OH H mom H mm N am u Hm " H
wa.m ” new " oma.wa " so H mm ” nnm n ma H om n ma ” enhance "
sm.a ” Nomi!» noo.ma " mo . om . and . ca uh+naeaLHLN1 " u
«as u dam ” 313" mm H n3 n as "a. an n. n. .. ”
lmwwn “.mam “inmoqnd n om " as " mms “ as H mm a an"
mo.n u arm " ssm.oa " as n ma " has u mm u an a an H ”seesaw
em.a " How " bmv.ma “, on u me “ own “ mm H mm u Hm “ ”
ms.a ” mam " non.ma u me u me “ 0mm " ma u om a as " newsman .
us.a u wwm " mam.ma u mm H mm " mod “ oa ” ea u w u u“
v 34 I“ saw 1 Soda “ melalmmy " saw“ an m as .‘.de b sad
Hw.m " How ” sao.oa " we " oa ” man u an n we a on u
ma.m " owm " www.ca " mm ” m " one u mm " em a am " escapes u
no.a " nwm..u msm.ma " .mm n ea " sea " ea ”aémw.w ea " H
| mmélu 1" amm " finds... lam “ w. h n _. m mails n ..
n n n n u u n H n s
«mum " SN " s83: " ms ” at... n cos" S. H mm .. an ” “mamas
mm.a u saw ” wmm.sa " me H mm ” 0mm ” em u on u am 0 n
mm.a ” Ham " smm.ma “ as u me u was " as " om a as “ unmaeen "
em.a u mam " mma.oa n me n as P nma " ma " .Nwluos " Wt:
1:: Innis " 41% n deeds " 13. H .mm. "ELM? mull”? .. Hg 1
mm.n “ «mm u memema n as n ma " one u on u me u mm H “
no.m “ mam " non.oa " as H ma ” cam " mm H on 1 Hm “ “
mm.m “ ram “ www.ma ” as u n " sea “ ya " om n ma " escapes “
m¢.a " mam ” oms.sa " as .n m u as n ma ” we s Ha " “
acd " ham. “ 3de ” [3.111.01me n loom H mm: :lelfiwau e u .
1 hm.m. muddmwlw1nmn.ma " mm ” as u mme n ooa ” sad: we u "
mb.m u mam u www.ma " as u we " mom u on n we I an n u
mo.m " mam " sb¢.ca “ up ” Nm " wmn ” mm ” on I am " maoaaoo “amps“?
mm.a " Ham " mmw.oa “ as u mm " ooa ” ea ” on n ma u “
en.a u mam Pvmao.oa " as " mm., ” wm “ Ha "visa u w u 1 ".1
.mnmvwmawcm u amen ”use has u see u maven" heads " u 1w. in
no .930 0 Mo ” psmfics" has n so "ca Haas" ” n ”
non sash "pamHos" mcaomoa“ smog u mason mo ” .mp4 ” emsam " hocom< ”
omcmm>< rlumwm " .mpm, ”mmHuM>.u .okw" npmscqmmmmsmhy hm masow_mwmmmmmrm " somscm

 

.mpouhaa soafiaappsco on mcaggfinm ca escapee was maoaaoc hp endow no use use as amen
op cobam seem.mo meanness so panama» as asap was common mo sesame mnflsosm hphfifidm n ma mqm<e

 

of 17 hours, increased the quantity of feed per cwt. of live animal
0.55 lbs., or 41 per cent. Increasing the time from 11 to 39 hours
increased the feed used 1.44 lbs. per cwt. or 107.5 per cent. How-
ever, when the time in transit was increased to an average of 100
hours the amount of feed used was only slightly greater than that for
39 hours. There was an increase of 0.34 lbs. per cwt. or 22 per cent
in the quantity of feed used by dealers from an average of 12 to an
average of 17 hours. When the time exceeded 30 hours the increase
in feed amounted to 0.7 lbs. per cwt. or 45 per cent, whereas in the
case of farmer shipments the increase was approximately 0.8 lbs. per
cwt. or 48 per cent. Dealer shipments made during the summer receiv-
ed approximately tne same amount of feed per cwt. for an average of
10, 18, and 23 hours; when the time was increased to an average of
33 hours, the avera~e quantity of feed given was increased by 1.45
lbs., per cwt., or 71 per cent.

Dealer shipments in transit an average of 73 hours received
94 per cent more feed than those in transit an average of 10 hours,
Farmer swipments in transit an average of 12 hours during the winter
months received 1.45 pounds of feed per cwt. of live animal while en
route to market. when this time was increased to an average of 17
hours, the amount of feed was increased 100 per cent, and when it was
increased to an average of 36 hours the feed was increased 172 per
cent. During the summer season farmer shipments in transit an average
of 10 hours received an average of 1.57 pounds of feed per cwt. of
live animal and in addition of 8 ho rs to this time increased the feed*
supply en route by 36 per cent. Those shipments in transit an average~
of 35 hours received approximately 78 per cent more feed than those
in transit an average of 10 hours, and when the time was increased
to an average of 78 hours the amount of feed was increased 202 per cent

Feed at Destination

The data relative to the amount of feed fed to hogs after
arrival at the cermralized markets indicate that there is little
uniformity as to the amount of feed given, and it is very evident
that shippers differ in their ideas as to the amount of feed needed
to put the stock in the best condition for sale. The extreme range
in the amount of feed fed to hogs, according to the records collected,
was from 0.57 to 6 pounds per cwt. of live animal. A summary of 152
consignments containing 13,898 animals showed that an average of 1.95

pounds of corn per cwt. of hogs was used at destination.

Shrinkage of Hogs in Transit to Central Markets.
The data obtained on shipments of hogs were sufficiently
complete to make different comparisons to ascertain the effect of
various factors on shrinkage in transit. The factors which were given
consideration in this report are length of time shipments were in
transit, size of load both from standpoint of number of animals loaded,
size of hogs, seasonal conditions, shipping agency, i.e., farmer,
dealer, or cooperative live stock shipping association, and treatment
as regard to feeding en route and feeding and watering at destination.
Altho these various factors bear a close relationship and should be
considered togetuer as much as possible, in order to determine what
influence they have on shrinkage, it is necessary to study them
separately because of the complexity of the problem when an attempt
is made to consider them as a whole.
Relation of length of time in transit to shrinkage of hogg.
Tables 13 and 14 were compiled to show the effect of time

in transit on shrinkage. In constructing these tables the data were

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

  

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ms.e u u - “ mmw.sa " mne.oa “ no n an n omsao>< "
an.¢ n ” an.¢n u 000.0a “ 0mm.0m “ n . ms [w u
m0.¢ a mm.a+. " 00.Hu “ nm0.0a " 000.0H " b u on u "
00.n n mm.wL. m H0.0u " anm.0a u vn0.0a u 0H " mm H H
00.0 a 00.v+ ” 00.0L. " www.ma u 00H.0H “ mm n ma u opossum ”
Rim .0 .1. n o. " «morn: “ 80.3 “ [om " 2 u a
BS .. shale " _ " Essa " 3mg: n 1M3 ... as ” swans: i
00.0 n om.d+. " man»: " 0mm.oa u n00.0a " Ha " as n n
00.0 : 00.HLn " ma.nu " sma.oa " bs0.pa “ ma . an n n poESSm
mm.m a w¢.H+. ” H0.mu H sma.0a ” smv.ma " as H mm " macaeon “
00.0 u 0m.w+. " ¢0.an ” 000.0a u non.ma u me n ma “ "
mm.m u mHJbJ u.Hm.Hn " .menuwH»" nHm.mH,u nm " 0H u 111 "
mH.m I mm. L. n ..o n .0 » Do...“ u 0“ » mw " ommhoba. n
m¢.m n ma. " 00 an " nab.0a “ sa0.0a 0 0H ” an n "
0n.a a em.n&| u ne.0? " 00m.0a ” www.ma ” n ” mm “ upofipdh "
E... ems... "13.0.. " mks. "r mswéa " as u S 1" "
8:er " EH. " sows. u Emma." HS H mm " swans: u Haas
00.0 n 00.0: " 00.m- ” www.ma “ snm.0a " ma " pm “ u s.
m0.» u sn.er " Hm.au " mmm.sa ” 0mm.sa “ mm H em “ “ msflaom
fine .. 3.: " smé- " momfia " $93 a me u S u 2330 H
Hews- E... " mam- " Selfish Sims ” 3 u as: u w
semi. nbfifi " 32101 " www.mH n. whet: “ an " em " mange."
mm.m n 0¢.mL. " 00.0. " smo.ma “ www.ma " ma “ on u "
0m.m u nn.n+. " 00.0: " 00m.0a " www.ma " ma H 0m " smashes”
mm.a n 00.0L. " bp.0u ” oam.0a ” www.ma " n " pa ” "
BA .. EXT: " 3.0.. ” memes ” 81>.le ” um? “ 1 S u _
Path- shah H Sam. a mains“ “ spasm i am H mm ” oneness
00.s u 0s.mu " am.vu n 00¢.ba u www.ma u 0a " 00a ” n
00.0 n sw.޴. " 0n.mu " www.ma u www.ma " we " an n H
As.w u mm.ah. " aa.an " mom.0a " ss¢.0a ” m0 " mm ” maoasoa H sass“?
0H.m n us.w+ " sm.au ” 0mm.0a " www.ma " mm H be u "
Email. F3 " Woman u winters " 1306a “ Imm " a a???” u l
u u cmwambw u .ws< ” axons " omeao>< » u 1

I: emcem " omwao>< ” pmmfics " .93 was "no mass nuances» u hosomw ”

.mna .pso nom.aawwiwo mmmxcahnm "moans amh unseen pmo mlmm1sz "gm masomflmmcfimmflnm " seesaw

.mpoaasfi was“
campuses op maosham use mpoaeos hp commfinm cons mazes so so has as seem op mmooom
mmfi>sn amen mo omexcdnnm so passage as asap saw commas Mo ooomme msfisonm huaEESm n ma mmm<a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wwwmII 0>.¢+n mm. In m0a.0a " .mmm.0au Ha I” 0a " oweao>< n
00.0 I 00.0+n 0b. In mnm.sa ” vs0.sau 0 “ Hm u n
0m.m.nimmupkm sm.pww, mw>.¢H,n 000.0H" m._ n .P, u macspsh “
H0.0 I 00mm+n amnmI" Ipbm.¢a " mam.0an 00 u 0H u omeue><uuosssm
v0.0 I 00.0In me.qu 000a0a ” 00m.0an s ." em . .
00.0 I 00.w+" 00.miu 00m.0a " >00.0au 00 ”u ea " macason “
Hm.maw mm” In .mn“ ossmmH " wmufihmuII 0m. " 0H " IIm
mommiw mm. . 00.9..H Im¢0.0a u 000.0a" 0a “ 0H u ommgo><u
me.o I mm.eawI no.0au 0mm.sa " m00.sau m u an n .
00.0 I ma.w+h on. “ m0m.0a n 08.3H s " pa " mscsuem
mMuH I mmnwku DWaOI" ommwbH," IhmwwisHh 0H " IIMH “ Ilh. Hash
mad I 8.0.: 2...?" ranked u. semen an n 2 u mangoes “ a
mv.s I na.o+h mm.qu sse.0a " moo.0au OH H mm " “seesaw
00.0 I H0.phh H0.HI" ma0.0a " s0>.mau 0a ” pa " upwaeoo ”
mm.mlhlbbhbhm mm.HH" mnbsmfi," .mmbisan HHI " Ha " III"
mm.a I wm.a+n No.0ou www.0a ” www.0am b n ma "mpmsnsh m
I00.0 IIanmm" sens-" mm0.sa " Imam.smn Isva" ea 2. ” smasssa “
00.0 I 00.HI" 00.0I" 00H.0H u 000.0Hu 0 u me n “
sm.e I 00.HI“ 00.qu omm.0a " 00m.msu 0 M mm H u
m0.e I sa.oan Ho.qu ses.ma " moo.sau as .u as H mamasso “saunas
mm.e I.so.s¥“ 0e«Hnu Hmmmms," www.mau mm “ HHI.. “ n
u " Immaho>< u omsso>< " execs" mmsso>< u "
omcdm ” omsuobw ” unwaos u .03 mg“ "no nnroupfimcsup 2H 0 hocom< u
.mna .pso homIaaam so omaxcfihnm "modem ham "HDWOH man u 90 .0?” amnem "mCHgaHSm “condom
.mpmxaes soafiaesscao
on uncanny 0cm encased an somnwzm moss canon so so use ca snow on mucous mcfibss
no: smog mo omcxaaagm :0 passes» as asap use common we assume msaosnm zuasESm I we mqm<e

Table 143 - Summary showing by data collected the average
miles per hour of the movement of live stock
to the Cleveland market during the month of April

 

 

 

1917.
Received via 30. Hours Kiles Average Miles
Railroads cars Enroute Traveled Per Hour
.C.C & ST. L. RY. 61 2724 10506 5.9
.Y.C. R.R. 2 1855 7605 4.1
.Y.C. & ST. L. R.R. 68 2652 15176 4.9
enn. Co. 52 868 5501 5.8
. & L.E. R. R. 26 985 4714 4.8
. & O. R. R. 16 611 1755 2.9
rie R. R. 10 259 847 5.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

grouped according to whether or not the animals had access to feed en
route, whether the shipper was a framer or a local dealer, the season
of the year, and the length of time in transit. The hogs in the ship-
ments on which data were used in making Table 13 had access to feed
either in car or en route, while those on which data were obtained for
Table 14 received no feed from time of loading until after arrival at
market. The quantity of feed given the hogs on which the data were
obtained in Table 13 is shown in Table 12. The shipments were grouped
according to time in transit as follows: fourteen hours and under,

15 to 20 hours, 21 to 30 hours, 31 to 50 hours, and 51 hours and over.
No distinction was made as to weight of cars or number of animals
loaded per car. A study of Table 13 reveals that shipments made by
farmers sustain a less net Shrinkage than those made by dealers. In
fact, some of the groups of farmer shipments show a fill instead of a
shrink, while in every group of dealer Shipments there was a loss in
weight instead of a gain. The shrinkage on the dealer shipments was
greatest during the summer months and least in the winter, the loss in
weight on shipments made during the Spring and fall coinciding approx-
imately with the average shrinkage for all seasons. Farmer shipments
with access to feed en route sustained the least shrink during the
Spring and fall months, the maximum shrinkage being recorded in the
summer on those shipmerms in transit more than 20 hours. Farmer ship-
ments made during the winter months showed little fluctuation in the
average shrinkage, the percentage being approximately the same for

any given length of time in transit. In both farmer and dealer ship-
ments there is little f uctuation in the shrink until after the ship-
ments have been in transit more than 20 to 30 hours, after which per-

iod the loss in weight increases more abruptly. The number of farmer

shipments shown in Table 14 without access ot feed on route were not
sufficient to make a fair comparison with this class of shipments.
In this group all shipments made during the spring and fall showed a
slight gain instead of a loss in weight. Shipments made by dealers
without access ot feed showed a steady loss in weight as the time in
transit increased.

Summarizing the facts brought out in Tables 15 and 14, the
most striking features shown are: that the use of feed en route does
not appear to influence materially the shrinkage of hogs in transit,
eSpecially on all shipments en route less than 30 hours; that farmers
ship hogs with less shrink than dealers, that after the first 20 to
30 hours en route the shrinkage increases in direct ratio with the in-
crease in time in transit. that during the first 20 to 30 hours the
average shrinkage fluctuates very little, ranging between one and two
per cent for dealer shipments and from a slight gain to less than one p

per cent with farmers' shipments, and that the average shrinkage for b
both farmer and dealer shipmerms does not exceed three per cent until
shipments have been in transit approximately 50 hours or more.

nelation of Size of Load based on number of Hogs per car in
Shrinkage. Tables 15 and 16 were constructed to show the relation, if
any, of size of load, based on the number of animals per car, to shrink
age, in shipping hogs to centralized markets. Table 15 contains data
on hogs having access to feed, either in car or en route, while Table
16 contains data on those shipments receiving no feed in car or en
route. The shipments were grouped according to the number of animals
per car as follows (all cars considered as single decks): 60 hogs
and less, 61 to 70, 71 to 80, 81 to 90, and 91 and over. It till be

noted that in practically every instance there was a decrease in the

average Weight of the hogs, as tne number loaded Per car increased.

 

 

 
    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
  

 
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on.mu ” HHm ”omnqu" OHoqu” nH " H u n no u “
Ho.o+.uu+mmm .sHH.sH. mHH.sHu asH “ 0 ”ms 1 ms” or " assays ”
No.0: m Hnm tome wH. onm.¢Hu w u H u n no u u
I $0.0: " mom u 00. w . 0H.¢H" o u n v" memrw “sassdm
mm.Hn ” assH ”moo 0H" www.mHu «TmH “ o "NOHu Hm" no u "
bm.Hu “ :msH unwm.wHu Hao.mHu sH ” pH .00 u mm" uwm " u
oo.nu " ume “www.mH" omH.mHu amH " m .0m 3 or" we "msmHmen u
mo.nu rg.me noon.mHn 0mm.mHu umH " Hm nob a Hm" now u "
ow.Hu u snow "www.mH" " 0H wen u mm" now u u
mH.Hn u anm "mmousHu “ m "mm 1 mm" no u u
no.0: "Lrwmm .nmn.sH. " s How u Hs" \rss 1 n
$4.? $3. 02. 3 u w 2:. .. as" +8 “33st ”
wo.Ha ” u m ”on n mm“ Jam " " HHas
mm.Hu u ncH moon 0H. u a ”mo n van umOH” " é
22m- " 03 .50 S. u e ”we .. a" +3 ” ”madam
om.Hu " Hmm “nHm.oHn ” mm “as u ms" :ms “useHeoo "
Hw.mu ” 0mm "www.mH“ " w nos 1 we” _ two " ”
‘mm.nu u “owH.mHu omn.mHu mm H v ”mm n emu m.sm " “
¢N.H ” soH "ova sH" oms.an nH ” H u ” om ” "
mm. on u anm .ows.mH. www.mH” H u n ”on a ma" ms " mhmsnsh”
mo. Obflw Imam .OHe wH. someHm. :wH ” m now I mmw 4‘ {mm H H
mm. as " mmH imam mH. www.mH" uo.mH “ s ”onHa mm” .NOHn “smcha
vw.mn " mom mom pH. mom.sHuiro.wH n vH uom u HmH -.o.mw " ”
no.Hu “ivon ”on.oHn www.cH“ no.sH H mH How 3 Ha" n.ms H “
mm.Hn " mam "bmm.¢Hn www.mHH‘TOHmH " mH "we a He” :hc.nm ”msoHsec ”
m¢.mu H nowm Hs¢¢.nHu oms.nH. m.mm ” w "on n on" o.sn " n
u u " .oms samba. H u u ”
.uMdso>< ” awomlwm>m.psn.mbs.ps.pHmssse.mssou ” u u
.pao sea HHH%.go .psu moHsmnmsHusoH" :H m Mo. emssm“ om;so>< " Aosommu
mo omsq ;:Hs£m .><u use" smmw. endow" oefi use mufllimoz so .osumsHmaHzmnscmmom

 

.mpmxsse souH
uHsupsoo op mazes so so has sH poem op mmooos psoans awe: msHmQHsm sH omwstnnm
cu use has mHmsHss Mo assess so semen usOH Mo ouHm Mo :oHpmHms msHsonm hasssdm u mH mqm<e

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mono-" oH.n " mHm " oso.om " shalom ” mm "In, H soH- Ho 1 om ” "
oo.ouu wH.m “ 0mm u soo.oH ” Hoo.mH n.L.oH ” o " om I mm H mm H H
moo?" Ho.H u Hana " moss; " 30.5 " LoH " 3 " om .. He n no u ”
HHeont om.m u 0mm ” oso.oH u mmo.oH " oH " mm H or u Ho " so ” msossom”
oo.o+n mm.m " now " on.mH " www.mH “ oH " HH " on u mm " as u n
u u u u u u u u “ ”possum
er H u u H " mnoqu.ui.omo.mH " .vos a s “ «w.u4Hmlu mm H ”
0H.m " mm.H " mom " onw.eH " Hmm.sH “ son ” mH " 00 u Hm ” mm H .
mw.H " no.m " vmm " oms.oH " mso.sH " \rnm ” so " om u Ho u or u .
om.H " an " anm u NOH6H " vaoH " Liam " on u on .. Ho ” mo "oponon ”
nH.n ” so.m u i.oom ” oHo.aH " nmo.nH " am " em a oo . so u no u “
om " HM coma” omo.oH " noo_oH " on "In ” om u‘leu no u u
os.Hn" H¢.m " mam “ oom.oH " mvH.sH " .er u v u as 3 Hs " ms “ ”
no.0n" om.H " mom u omo.mH " www.mH “ now “ oH " On I Ho ” we " msossom“
mH.onn ow.H " mom u ems.nH ” mos.nH " on u o " oo n Ho " on u ” HHom
" n u n u n n H u u s
om.m u.leaH u omH " moo.mH " oom.mH " :.om H m " Odds Hm u so " "msHssm
vo.H " oo.H " How " moo.sH " msn.sH “ .TmH " om u cm s mm H on u ”
mm.H " mo.m " mHm " wso.oH " man.oH " .+mm " om " om a Ho " no n "
so.H " ms.H " mam ” www.mH ” www.mH " -oH “ on " os . Ho " oo "msmHeeo ”n
nw.m " oo.m “ now " www.mH " oem.oH " om " 0H "11 00 u Hm " mm w in- ”
mw.o&w wo.n " wsH " omo.oH H www.0H " om " m ” nOHn no “ om ” ”
om. u" mm.m " mmH u nOH.oH " omm.oH " ivmm " m u so u Hm ” mm H u
on. u" mm.m H smm " www.cH " nwo.sH " tram ” nH " on n Ho " no u ”
.om.o-u oo.¢ " mom " Hmo.oH " HoH.oH " mm " s u so a Ho " no “opossum "
ms.mnn mw.H " mom ” mHo.vH H pH.mH " ‘vmm " o H 00 u on u on n u
u u n n v "9 u H. n " "sopsHB
om.H " em.m “ ooH “ smH.mH H oos.oH ” use H Hm . «HH- Hm ” so u "
om.H ” Ho.m “ .vaH ” smn.oH U who.sH ” _+mm “ om . oo - Hm ” no N H
ms.H " Ho.H " omm " son.oH " nno.oH " .amm “ om oo u He “ ms “eastua ”
sm.H " nH.m ” com " omw.mH " mHm.mH " lam " ow q ob s Hm no N "
.Ilbmhb u mo.H " m, u . . wwH " umH, “ mH u 0o u we on trawl: ”
be .pscu .930 u n u u u u u n H
mm HHHm" som.>summon no" amassed" ow so><anmsssoumseou " n u
no omouepSOaso“ psmHos” psmHms" .ps .sH” sH " mo" omssm nauseo><n mosem< "
uMsth" omomnomsho><umoHom smouuosOH use" omdom" .ozuhoo sop smog mo..ozuwcHssHancommam

.mpmxsoe couH
nHwnpsoo 09 cases so no use sH comm op omwoow :uHs omen mananm :H ommxcHsgm
op use hem oHsfiHGs mo mamas: so comma cmoH ho msHo mo soHpmHos msHBoxm hhofiasm s 0H mHm<e

For this reason the average car loading-weights did not vary as widely
as the fluctuation in the number of animals per car would indicate.
Where cars were loaded with less than 60 hogs, the average weight of
the animals was much greater than where 90 or more hogs were loaded.

A study of the figures in Tables 15 and 16, showing shrinkage or fill
for the different groups, does not reveal facts which will allow draw-
ing very definite conclusions. While there is considerable variation
in the different groups in the amount of shrinkage, there is no posi-
tive evidence to indicate that the size of load based on number of

hogs per car exerts any material influence on the amount. There is
some indication that the minimum shrinkage takes place in those ship-
ments where the average number of animals per car approaches 75, and
that as the number loaded decreases from or increases to 75, the loss
due to shrinkage tends to increase. In five of the six seasonal group-
ings of dealer shipments this tendency holds true and this would appear
to Justify the assumption that the maximum number of animals to load

to a car to reduce shrinkage to the minimum would be approximately 75.
However, much would depend on the weight of the animals, inasmuch as
extremely heavy hogs or very light hogs very often show extreme fluc-
tuations in shrinkage, and definite conclusions es to the effect of the
size of load based on number of animals loaded, are not Justified.

The data in Tables 16 and 16 apply to the same shipments which were
used in compiling Tables 15 and 14, therefore, it is apparent that
these tables would show the same differences between.the amount of
shrinkage sustained by farmer shipments and the amount sustained by
dealers shipments; that is, farmer shipments shrink less than those

made by dealers.

Relation of Weight of Load to Shrinkage tf Hogs in Transit to

Centralized Karkets.

 

Tables 17, 18, 19 and 20 were constructed to show if the
weight of load had any effect on shrinkage of huge in tranist to mar-
ket. Tables 17 and 18 contain data on dealer and farmer shipments
having access to feed in car or en route, while Table 19 contains data
on shipments receiving no feed until after arrival at market. Table 20
is a summary of the data on shipments consigned by c00perative shipping
associations. With the exception of the data on winter shipments, this
table did not include a sufficient number of consignments to warrant
conclusions.

Although there is considerable fluctuation in the averages
for the different groups, the figures in Tables 17 and 18, showing av-
erage shrinkage or fill indicate that as the weight of the load increas-
as there is a general tendency for the hogs to lose weight proportion-
ately. The least fluctuation in the average amount of shrinkage through
out the year took place in dealer shipments weighing between 15,000
and 19,000 pounds. The lighter loads of dealer shipments showed the
least shrinkage during the winter months, while those loads weighing
more than 18,000 pounds showed the greatest shrinkage during the cold
weather.

Dealer shipments receiving feed in car or en route showed a
more uniform rate of shrinkage than those not receiving feed. healer
shipments also showed less fluctuation in shrinkage than shipments
made by farmers. The shrinkage on dealer shipments with feed en route
ranged between one and three per cent of loads of all weights. The
figures showing averaga shrinkage on farmer shipments receiving feed

en route ranged from a gain in weight of more than two per cent to a

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

m¢+0| H {mow} H tomw+Qdm.qan+leflIIIMd4Ni H lam H mo H ma Howeno><
onpmry H snm H onanwuldachm H n¢.m H on H on H m H
Hs.Hn H new H oom.sHH oom.oH H vn.H H :mH H or H o H
mn.ou 9 com H oon.sH* omn.oH H Ho.H H mH H no H OH H
oo.o+. H oom H Hos.oHH omo.oH H Ho.m H oH H nno H o H possum
on.on H onm H ooo.oHH ooo.oH H on.m H m H oo H nH H
no.o+. H mom H ooo.oHH oooH¢H H om.H H nH H on H w H
on.w+ H omm H oos.HHH Hmo.HH H mo.m H unH H Ho H o H
nnuo: H 1w H H sccooH H do.m H om H no H om Homupo><
moral H “mew H chHHaoH nominfi H HonaH H gtwnv H mo H o H
wo.Hn H oom H oon.sHH Hoo.sH H oH.m H om H oo H o H HHom
oo.dL. H ovm H oso.oHH noo.oH H Hm.m H om H oo H n H a
36+ H mum H mosJHH mHoéH H mo.m H mm H so H o H 32%
oo.H+. H mom H mHm.nHH nso.nH H om.H H cm H no H o H
.NMrot m wa H «mmwwHthsman H so.m H om H {No H H ono><
7mmIQII H [How H onwamHntho.oH H QHAN H om H Ho H s H
on.Hn H wow H oom.>HH mooHsH H oo.n H on H o H o H
oo.os H onm H OHo.oHH woo.oH H on.n H mm H Hs H OH H
ov.ou H ooH H noo.oHH ovo.oH H om.m H om H soo H o H sopsHB
oH.o+‘ H moH H mmw.wHH son.¢H H ww.w H on H no H o H
mo.Hn H mam H ooo.mHH omoHHH H mn.H H mm H on H N m
.mpH H .opH H .mpH H .mpH H .mQH H manom H H H
H H H H moon on H H H
H H H H .pso anH H H H
H mwon moH panosH panosH pHosmspH uHmsospH poo souH HH
.pso hon H pSmHoa H oonm H msHohOHH 2H H sH H moo: H osoo H
ommM¢Hn£m Hmono .wew Hhmo .mdesmo .mkHHooow .mdeofimp .w><H .oszsdrmmHoz H condom
.opdos so so use sH oooo op mmooom ans opsoEQHnm mosses .opox
sums ooNHstpsoo op owes mo owsstsnm :0 oon mo panos mo pooomo wsHson hamsssm u oH mnm<e

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o¢rmIIH|IIIw3HIIIHI 3: H mm H mo H on omouood
viodbnilH mwm H www-0H H vamu+mH H manH H oH H mo H HH
m¢.mu H mom H omo.$H H ooH.oH H mo.H H mm H no H HH
oH.mn H com H wnH.oH H mHo.oH H oo.m H on H no H nn
no.m- H onm H on.oH H Hoo.oH H no.m H mm H mo H on
oo.H: H onm H nvm.oH H nowHoH H no.m H mm H no H wm
oH.nu H nHm H HHm.¢H H ooo.wH H oo.H H oH H mo H o
no.ms H Hom H owo.HH H oHo.HH H Ho.m H oH H on H nH
{moral m Hmm m momvoH H \aHmHoH H oo.Hl H Hm H no HoH .umwuuuo
lemtnT,. Inna H mmmmeHH moova H HquH H [om H mo o
on.m- H mom H noo.oH H Hoe.oH H oo.H H mH H oo o
oo.mu m oom hH ooo.oH H oom.oH H oo.H H mm H oo o
oo.H: H mnm H moH.oH H moo.oH H oo.H H nm H no vm
nn.Hu . nHm H oom.oH H ooo.oH H oH.m H om H oo nm H
Ho.ma m oom s mHH.HH H ome.nH H oo.H H Hm H oo HH H
oo.mc H mom H oHnHoH H ooo.¢H H nH.m H oH H no o
on.Hn H ooH H wonHNH H ooo.mH H oo.H H oH H oo oH
«mpdl m mHm m vmoHHmH m mmmvod m mo.u H .IQNI H oo wmm Homoso><
Hwnrmr H rwm H [mooted H cmo.om H nqu H Hon H no «N H
no.mu H onm H ono.oH.& How.oH H nH.m H nn H oo oo H
Ho.Hn H onm H noo.oH H oon.oH H oo.H H om H oo oo H
oo.H: H mom H nom.oH H ooo.oH H on.m H Hn H oo om H
om.Hu H ooH H mom.nH H on¢HoH H oo.m H om H mo nm H
oH.Hu H oom H omm.wH H cow.wH H oo.H H oH H 0o on H
oo.H: H ooH H nmo.mH H woo.mH H oo.H W IlMH H HuWIIrIImH H
.mnH H .mpH H .mQH H .opH H .opH H H H H
H H H H woos ooH H H H
H H H H .930 sosH anaem H H H
H owes moH psmHos H panos H pHosoupH pHmsoansoo mcsH H
.pBo mom H pngos H moHom H wsHoooH H sH H sH H moon H osooH
omwwcHsgm Hhono .mpstwo .m>¢ Hume .m>< nomoMIHmstofiwp.mka.om.mr¢nwm .ozH Common

.cpSoa so so poo sH comm op mooooo apHs mucosmHSo hOHsom .opoxaos
oosHHoupsoo 0p smog mo omwstsnm so oooH mo panoB mo poommo msHsogo opossum n oH mnmdn

 

 

- 00 o. .0 o. o. o. 0.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
 

 

 

 

 
 
 
  
 

 

 

 
  

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

gHH 7,340.an {ma H AN H gumbo.
“mowdn . ,oomllldlnndqum.nwm+mHH HNH H no H m H
oo.H- H mom H on.oHH moo.oHH vH H No H o H
oH.on H onm H oom.oHH oon.oHH oH H so H o H
oH.on H mom . oon. oH. ooo.oHH oH H oo H H H mamanesH
oo.H+ H «om H ooosoHH non.oHH oH H mo H m H H
oo.Hp. H oom H ovo mHH mom. nHH oH H so H n H H
rmthnutH ona m H -»wHH \sH H H:r H on. HnmsaesoH
H H -m.-NH¢chHcmH Had, H oo H H H H
oo.H- ” mom . oon.oHH ooo.oHH oH H so H nH H H HHos
oo.H- H one H ooe.oHH ono.oHH HH H oo H o H H a
oo.H- H oom m nom.oHH ooo.oHH oH H om H o H HmcHsom
Ho.mu H ooH H omo.oHH coo.oHH nH H so H H H whonooH
oH. on. H moH H moo.eHH nHo.oHH mm H oo H m H .
on.m- H ooH . ono.HH. oHo.HHH m H mo H o H H
H m m H H .mo H 1N1 H wwssopaH .11
first H [solidi 3 H H H H
oe.on. H on H mop. oH. moo. oHH NH H Ho H m H opossum
ow.os. u on H own. oHH oon oHH o H no H H H
oo.on H mom H ooo.mHH moo mHH oH H «o H n H H
mo.un, m onH H H H H oo H on H Hrumwuuflq
wotlelonm h HlHofiwaH cNo.mNH oH H on H o H H
Ho.ma H omm H oHo.oHH ooo.mHH oH H no H o H H
bHoHl m WNW " QNOHFHH wnHHMHFHu DH " mb “ w n "9092.“wa
mH.H- H on H ooo.oHH nno.oHH oH H oo H oH H H
oH.H- H mom H oom.oH eJo.oHH mm H as H e H msoHaeoH
oo.nu H ooH H HHH oHH «mo eHH om H as H o H H
mo.m- H HHm H moo. mHH noH.nHH cm H No H oH H H
.mpH H .pr H .mpH H .mnH H oppom H H H m
.pao hog H mmos H p£.oHosH ppmHosH pHosoLpHsoo somH H .
HHHM so Hmo psmposH moHom HmsHomoHH sH H omen H osoo H hommm< H

.oH.o><H Mo .05. wngch3Hsomsmo

5....

omsxsmpsm .mpw Hmonm.m><Hpmo.m><Hpoo.mbmHosHp.m>4

 

.opsop so so use sH comm op omooom poosppa opsoEmst soapom one soHooQ .opox -
nuns ooNHHospsoo op owe: Mo ommstngm so owOH mo psmHoB mo poommo msHBosm hhwsssm n oH fiHm<e

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm.on H Hum H nna.wH H www.mHH wH H on H HH H oume><H
mm.o- H mum H mp0.wH H www.mHH om H mm H w »« H
$0.0: H mmm H www.mH H onm.mHH OH H mm H m H H
mv.on H mom H omoHQH H omp.mHH w H an H H H H
Hm.ou H mom H movaH H mmw.wHH ma H 0v H m H mgmfigmkH
mp.an H com H ovFHNH H mpm.mHH OH H on H m H H

H H H - H H H H H nQéBm
Rum: H mom HH 05:3 H me.mHH 3 H HH. mm 63.83. H
oo.mu H nmm H wbm.wH H nub.mHH mH . vp . m H H
Ho.nu H owm H HnHHHH H momeHH 0H H Nb H HH H H
wo.nu H mmm H mmm.oH H nop.wHH mH H or H HH H H
mm.mu H wmm H omo.mH H nmemHH «H H mm H m H H
nH.Hn H mbH H wwa.¢a H onn.wHH «H H om H 0H H mHonmoH
oo.H: H me H Nn¢.HH H v¢m.HHH NH H vm H ma H H
.mnq H .mpq H .mpq H .mpa H mhsom H H 1- H H
.Hso H mMos no H panog H pgmfiwt H pHmsmeHHmo poQH H H
hwm HHHH HoH panma H moaam H mcHnmoH H :H H mMos H muse H hounm< H

mmanHaam .m>«Hmonw.m>< pro .m>< Hume .m>< HmEHp.m><Hoc .m><Hmo .oz HwanmHgmH commom

 

.oPSoh no no Hwo :H vmom op mmmoom paospHs mucoEmHsm “magma cum umHmmp
uamnpqmo op mwoz mo ommMQHnsm no dmoa Mo panwB mo powmmm mnHBoSm hngESm

.mpmtha uwufi
.uoscHHnooumH mHm<e

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In!!! 311.1.-- 3..., I..." m.m.....n.un:{nl . Immcmi " HmWHHsusw. 3 .33 Miami .. ” umm ” - .S. H mapei.
" mm.au " mmm " omm.oa ” mam. pa “ me u m H
" wn.an ” mum " n>o.ma " omm .oa " cm H w u
” Hm.wu " mam H cum.ma " cm wa H me u m n pmeesm
” no..- ” mom " con.aa " cam.aa H mv ” m H

l " mono: -u mmm - -n. .b.o.n-..m..a ".I.m..a.m!..mm....i “ HTS. "11 m- “ mmwpmi
” 5m.9+ ” amm -n Onm.ra " coo ma ” wr ” m H
" e¢.cu " mum H oma.pa ” oam.va " rm ” a " Hamh
" on.an " mam " maa.ma ” onw.ma u up H v u d
” po.o ” mod ” oma.ma H ona.ma ” @n u H ” mcfipam
" NH.H " Hbm ” om¢.¢a ” vac.wa ” wm " a u

-a --qrr:m mm.a- " ,|,¢Hm s " wau.ma-.:me-bmmumw ” - ofi HHH” dd J wMapapq
" mm.a: " mwm ” mam. ma " www.ma H or u m n
" vm.an u mmm ” boo.ba ” ‘mm..ma ” on n m H
u wm.au u mwm " mma.ba ” oww pa “ up " wm ”
" mu.aa ” ANN ” mma.ma " www.0a H ob ” um ”
" ma.a- ” mma “ mmm.na ” non.nd ” mu n ma H umpcfla
" am.ou ” mma " o¢¢.¢a u 0mm.wa " n§ ” a u
u mm.mu " and u mm¢.aa " nwb.aa H as u m n
" .wnq H .mmw m .mpq . -memwaomr uwo me‘u - ”II;
n ” mMom mo ” pnmflm» ” aflwamz. " mmom ” mhmo ”
” .pao hwm ” pmmflma " mcamm " mgficwoa " .ob .m>m "we .ow " cowmmn
I ” de4dMMC- " moamm .o>:. ”Immb.LW>4 H mmb.u%$m ” “u ..m. n.

 

 

.mpmthfi umMHHmppcmo 0p woos
yo mpsmEqHQm m>prummooo mo mMmmcame so uwoa Mo pnmflma Mo uomgmo mcflaorm mpwafism u cm fiqm<e

loss of like amount, a total range of more than four per cent. Deallr 1
shipments without access to feed showed a range in average shrinkage of .
almost four per cent, those loads averaging slightly more at the
market than at loading stations. The data on farmer shipments without
access to feed en route were not sufficiently somplete to show any
uniform tendency as to effect of weight of load on shrinkage. An av-
erage of all the data on dealer and farmer shipments without regard
to season shows that feed in car or en route appears to exert little
or no influence on shrinkage or fill. Hogs shipped without access to f
feed in car or en route showed greater fluctuation in shrinkage than
those with access to feed, the latter showing a more uniform tendency
to lose weight in pr0portion to the increase in the weight of load.
Farmer shipments below 17,000 pounds in weight showed a shrinkage which
increased sharply as the weight of load increased byyond 18,000 oo.nds.
Dealer 8 ipments showed uniform tendency to shrink from 1% to 2% per
cent for loads of all weights. An average of all the data by seasons,
but without regard to Shipping agency or feed in transit, snows tuat
the least shrinkage with hogs took alace during the spring and fall
months, and the greatest on extremely light and ertremely heavy loads
in the winter months. Loads weighing betwe n 14,000 and 18,000 pounds
did not exceed two per cent, and loads weighing more than 20,000 pounds
did not exceed an average of more than 2.6 per cent.

The data covering cooperative shipments wer 00pied from the
records of the managers of the associations and it was not possible,
to obtain information relative to the amount of read the hogs receiv-
ed en route. With the exception of the group of extremely light loads,
the data on the winter shipments indicate that as the load increases

there is a tendency for the net shrinkage ot increase. The average

on
Shrinkage on 000perative shipments was slightly less than that

dealer shipments but more than the average of farmer shipments.

Effect of Size of Hogs on Shrinkage in Transit to Market

 

, In order to determine if there be any relation in size of
hogs in the amount of shrinkage resulting in shipping these animals

to market, the shipments were segregated into three groups, according
to the average Weight of the hogs in each load. These groups, with
their respective data on shrinkage, are shown in Table 21. It will be
noted that the minimum shrinkage was recorded on those loads contain-
ing the lighter weight animals, the average for this group being 1.09
per cent, the heavy-weight hogs, averaging 277 pounds, sustaining a
shrinkage of 1.77 per cent. With the exception of the weight of hogs,
the conditions as regards hours en route, distance traveled, and feed
supplied, were approximat@;y the same.

The conclusion drawn from the data shown in table 21 is that
the increase of net shrinkage is directly proportional to the weight
of the animals.

Summarizing all the data on shrinkage of hogs in transit
to central markets, the most striking features brought out are that
farmers ship hogs to centralized markets with a less shrinkage than
that sustained by local dealers: that the shrinkage on local dealer
shipments is more uniform for loads of all weights and for the dif-
ferent seasons: that feed does not affect the amount of shrinkage
materially. That as the weight of load increases there is a tendency
for the amount of shrinkage to increase, and this continues until the
loads exceed 20,000 pounds in weight, whereupon the amount does not
appear to be affected by weight of load: that as the Weight of the

hogs increases the net shrinkage increases proportionately.

Shrinkage of Hogs Shipped Direct to Packing Plants.

’ t
Data were collected on shipments of hogs consigned direc

 

 

IO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m ss.a u yqdm.¢ " 0mm " ww pm saw ,mdde-mnmyu com
u. om.a H mm.e ” mmm u on " mmm "nwmumma ” men
" oo.H " oo.m " mom ” mm " ama unmaamna " mma
II:n. n 1tllw@:50m . mUQNdMWuimilmawwiw" m&5d: n deZOm n chMdm «a
H H sac cm cam ” H n u .
n ” mvamh pm “ u u u u
u " awos mo awe“ . ” pflmcmap u u ”
" .p30 are " pea meow u Hams mo" QH ” deams¢ H omsmn "
” cmmMSangm 902 " .m>< Hrpoe ” gumsmm " mafia .m><.n dem.wo pmfimaa H when .02
.mamfificm mo omfim on we“
uchooow mpcxnms UoNfiHMppsco op mmom mcammflSm CH MCHPHSmos cmwxcfissm cMmpmpc mcfiaonm n am figmmp

to packing plants for the purpose of comparing the shrinkage resulting
in such shipments with that resulting from shipping to centralized
markets where stock are allowed to rest and are given access to feed
and water before weighing. When a shipper makes a contract with a
packing company to consign a load of hogs direct an agreement is made
as to whether they will be weighed as they are unloaded from the cars
or whether they will first have access to all the water they can drink.
In this report shipments sold under the first plan have been designated
as "no fill at destination" shipments, while the others have been
termed "water fill at destination" shipments and the grouping has been
made accordingly.

For purposes of comparison the data have been compiled on
the basis of weight of load and on number of hogs per car. Table 22
is the compilation on basis of weight of load, while Table 23 shows
the data compiled with regard to the number of animals per car. In
studying these tables it must be remembered that practically all con-
signments direct ot packing plants are hauled relatively short dis-
tances by rai, therefore they are no subjected to the various factors
causing increased shrinkage brought about by a long haul. For this
reason it is not surprising to find that the shrinkage on this class
of shipments is relatively low as compared with the shrinkage on ship-
ments sent to the centralized markets. It will be noted also that the
average amount of shrinkage is rather uniform for the different groups.
There is little to indicate that the size of load from the standpoint
of weight influences the amount of shrinkage; also the tabulation based '
on number of hogs car car shows little relationship between the number
of animals loaded and the amount of shrinkage. The heavy loads in the
"no fill" group shrunk the least while in the "water fill" group they

showed the maximum shrinkage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

” oo.H: " Ham u ndv.ma " ommqu:u [bra " r n u H ” cmmhc><
u sm.mu " bwm " baa.om u wmmwom ” mod N mm H o n
" mo.mu " mom " moa.ma " www.ma ” and n me u o u
" nr.au " mwm U" ooo.wa " www.ma ” mma ” we " mm H
H mn.an ” mwm ” mmm.ba " mo¢.ba " and n me n on u
” m¢.aa " nmm " H¢N.oa " omw.ma u oma ” we " mm H
“ mr.an ” mmm " mom.na n www.ma " mma ” mm " cm “ aafim
.u bo.aa H wmm . Ham.wa ” mom.va " nma u no u m " popes
" mm.aa " 0mm " nma.ma " www.ma " bma " mm " 04 u
n 8.7 " mmm u Hands km 93.3 " {om}: " HM. .“ 2.1%-.. 9.4.2.98...
u na.oa " onm " www.ma " msm.ma " on N Hm " ma u
n 05.0: " mum " msm.ba ” ¢H¢.sa u mm “ me N am u
” om.an ” mmm " moa.oa " oov.oa ” mm .n as in ma ” Adam
" mm.au " now u. ana.ma in www.ma N we H as " OH " oz
” mm.au H mam " wso.¢a ” mom.¢a " we u no H o N
" mo.an u mmm H" wwo.ma " bro.na ” Hoa “ mm H m u
" .mpg ".mnA mmom ” .mpq .pa ” .mnw .93" mcHHS u who on " "scflpmchmcr
" .pso pom " mo pzmacs" modem puoumcwewoa are" Ham: mo ammo; .oz " memo u um
" ommxswpgm " omwacsm u omeac>< " cmeac>< “newcoa .>4 ” cmmnmsm ” on " escapee»?
.mpcmam mmwxoma op pomhfid mmon mummgfizm Ca owe
uxcfiagm no aafim op whammy mm psoapwoap cam pwoa mo pnmflos Mo pommmm mcflsonm humsSSm n mm mam<e

 

 

 

‘1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“ ee.an ” mam " coo.ea " .nem.ca ” cm i n ” ommv me u es " Hana "
" sm.a- ” How " omm.oaum amo.ea " as u o u on u on." me " oz "
.. u u n 11.1..” 1...: "1 u n u u " Essen
” om.nu " one " mes.oa “ mma.ea " «am ” m u em . mm u do "sane "
" mm.a- u mam " mom.ma u ses.ma " mmm " m n as . om " so "Hana "
" sm.n- " mom " mom.e " oma.m " wed .” m u an - am " an " geese.
” oo.H- ." mam . oem.sa " oeo.sa " HHH " m ” mm - as " mm H” .u
.u as.a- in mam " omo.ea " omm.ea ” ms in m u be . me n me " Hana"
" em.mu .0 saw " ooe.oa.u ome.oa ” nos u n " oe . an n so ” oz "
u u u u u . u u u n " Hash
” ne.m- " ems 1” sealed n qum.mw " Hoe -ma‘m " anew me1u1wdwnn " a
" am.a- ” mam ” msm.sanu www.cH “ new in m H mm . am." as u " schema
m" am.a- in one " sso.sann snm.sann nae H He ” om - Han” ms "sage "
" ma.a- H mam u ena.ea " Hme.ea ” eoa .u om ." as u as H so "Hana "
" em.au ." Hem u” www.mauu mmm.oauu com in m H" mm . on.” on "hopes .
" em.o- H" ems . mmm.wa " oem.wa H ea “ m H" com in com." rtnmya. _
n" as.ou H" wow u" mms.oanu eam.oauu an n me u as I am ” mm H u
“ ne.on " mum " emm.ea ” meo.sa " me n as " om - as u as " sane "
u 3.0 " mam H $0.3 " 3mg: u 3 u m u as .. as u so “ oz "
" HH.H- “ com " mea.ea " non.ea ” me n ma " on u on u on u u
u. ee.m- ” mom " nam.oH u ecm.sa M1wwwl ” s n as . Hm “ mm " " gauche
" om.a- " mam . mno.sa " cam.sa " flea " on " om . as u as "same i
" oo.a- “ new " www.ma " som.ea " mom ” as u as - no u me ”sane "
" oa.a- 0. new " Hmn.wa " sme.ea ” can " OH H mm - on u no "hence "
".mnq.><.psc " .mpA " .mna .><u .mpa .><u mcafla " u 1w n Haah "
” son HHHH " H “swaps” unwacsuasmn mo" mane “ owns u.m>< " no u
u no " mmon no u modem” mcaecoau spmsmau mo mace Lemme on : ” scam " condom
11:: " mmcMCaanm u.us .e>¢ " use u see " .>m_m .02 u my .02 n H
.mpsmam msaxowg op pccaflu mmos mcammfimm mm ommmsangm on Adam Mo usfix
6cm .nmo mom mamsflcm mo gonads so deems .vaoa yo mama we soapmaca mmHSOSm hpcsfizm n mm Egm<s

The features in the two tables winch would cause the great-

est interest are the uniformity in the average weights of the hogs
and the difference between the percentage of shrinkage of the two
classes of shipments. The uniform average weights indicate that only
the best grade hogs are consigned direct to packing plants. It is very
probable that packers contracting for hogs delivered at their plants
specify very carefully as to the grade of animals that will be accept-
ed.

There is no way to account for hogs receiving no feed or
water at destination shrinking less than those having access to water.

It is true the difference in the amount of shrinkage is not great, but

the data shows that such a condition exists.

 

 

 

«mm us 0va

m:
R0...- I??? u 2'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

. . , _,, . , .. . . .. .e
. _ .. . . . . . .. . . . . .r .\ K.
. . . . . e . . . .. .

 

I
uh“?

Ill!

1m .Vr/
mummy.

.’.. .95... .

. J; . ..
arcane... . . E
«2;. .

, L. .r, V... ..
u. t L. i .,
4.... .9. . .- .mmku?

ill II

1293 0319

.5; .r
l. $.qu
. . VI.) .14.

2! .w
v

.w
5,,

.r, H 3...... . . .1
. .. .I/n . . . . ,...,.§~...»....x .
(unmade .1 .

”.7:

a,“

a. #3 we}... . . , .741 .

)4 a.

, Add:
:71 V. 1: . 3.“
Wuhan}?
I} . . Arkwfimflaflmmu 4.
.. . . . . ., .. . . .
n .. . . , La...
. - . . ., , . . 4 L
.6971, my. 5.. .w.
1.? u , . 2H7.
.; 4n". . . . .. .. .v . .52.
:4. .A 1.3.7.... ..,}
. . . .4} . 14/. 4., :7 , . . .
«Hafiz .w 5...»...
hurrah, . . ,1
.m. 5
row

.37...
r .
J

.

.,
-4

T...

an... .
_ fan. , , x55

.5 ....
8,7;

.3. u
1,

. . ,,
h; r . .
#27.

1
.5, }.
.1 I...

. .

 

. 2.. ,
......_r
. .33....