FYI? MW WW I U Q.,'V"“,‘.¢ 0 :V'l'.':' '::.2 ' '.:':.' ‘:.‘ O I'. V I w. :i 9 l: U ' '9:".":'::' I O Q.” U I 0"" ‘1‘]. '0' . O I 7 I '0 O c ‘ I 0.1 ' O y g ‘ ' ' 0": '.:H"'I'II'I I I III II I I ‘ III-no! V I I I ".Omll:‘!"vl‘ I Um .: I u l.'.l. I I II. 01" I'V':.:.:IOV 11' 1" 5'QOCULOUI IV!!! “a II.“O‘ l’ ..’Hm""llllfi “.IIIII MW law: 0 fig. 5. Q! ‘V'IOQIOIHOOJIG 39:. I‘- “I Hi!) ‘01". '. Ia'IlI\v|-I‘J . I."f‘ . 3, _ ,‘I n' . - , -'"",$‘ I t . .v .‘.' v . “ "' ..” 'I‘I,a.I'r.....I:5:II .0. ‘ o AI:.WIII'I°III I W"Plltlllt.fi It. 1 .0. I 90” a" ’;'::‘5:‘" “‘ .0 I '5 1;:‘IHOIJ :‘2 1'9 “ .2'9 1’ Wli?!’!'_:di !1I.’5i”4 I I l ‘vc-oon‘ “‘MJIHII' 99924.11: I I our “:9 0 tn 1 WIIQ. :91, “l 1 Ili‘IIII J‘Zoac'm ‘QII‘HYIV.L§ ' ‘tlm 33:11:?) ':°.'. .m” IMO. J‘a‘III I'v'I‘II .u.lyt‘"‘l!.tloo‘;‘ ' I‘II I I: I'I c 1‘11 I“ . 0A..':‘Q 52:: :‘:’:.l:-:I:I.n . “:O'd. . T, I ‘ H. O c " 5 ”O . U ‘ - . . ‘ ‘ s'I I't ‘1‘:::':“v' 0' "Q I I I ‘I.I o lllljiflflljmlflfflfl'fllillll I 10608 1841 MSU LIBRARIES .—,—- RETURNING MATERIALS: PIace in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES wiII be charged if book is returned after the date stamped be10w. This is to certify that thesis entitled "Marketing Michigan Livestock: A Survey of Transportation Trends and Market Outlets" presented by Fordyce A. Voes has been accepted towards fulfilment of requirements for I. A. degree in Economics [17 14 gm // / A7 ‘d’ 4/§ZQZ;Ié/[§$;mr MARKETING MICHIGAN LIVESTOCK Survey of Transportation Trends and market Outlets by Fordyce A. Voss A THESIS Submitted to the Graduate School of Hichigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial ful- filment of the requirements for the degree of J U H] U C: ARTS f MAS Department of Economics 1940 TH ESIS ACKNCWLEDGKEKTS I wish to express grateful appreciation to the Detroit Stockyards Company, the Kichigan Live Stock Exchange, the Detroit Live Stock Association, the Detroit Packing Company and the livestock truckers and producers who so willingly furnished the primary data for this study. I also wish to acknowledge the kind c00peration of the New York Central, Grand Trunk and Pere Karquette Railroad Companies in furnishing the basic data on livestock movements. Grateful acknowledgment is due Mr. R. V. Gunn, Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Michigan State College, for his advice and assistance in the preparation of the manuscript, for without his aid this study would not have been possible. The writer also wishes to thank Dr. H. S. Patton, Dr. G. N. jotts, and Dr. 0. U. Ulrey, Department of Economics, Michigan State College, and Er. '. H. Stark, Livestock Marketing Specialist, Michigan State College Extension Service, for the reading of this manuscript and their constructive criticism. 1293.26 Lei ETIHG MC ITIGAN LIVESTOCK Survey of Transportation Trends andT Lar1:et Outlets I. II. TABLE OF CONTENTS CLASSIFICATION AND LOCALIZATION OF MICHIGAN LIVESTOCK Principal Livestock Producing Areas of Michigan. . Number of Livestock on Michigan Farms . . . . . . ' OattleProducingAreas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . GelfProducingAreas............... SheepsndlambProducingAreas . . . . . . . . . . HogProducingAreas................ Principal Livestock Producing Counties of Michigan Economic Importance of Michigan Livestock Industry Pam Prices of Michigan Livestock . . . .‘ . . . . Movements of Michigan Livestock . . . . . . . . . Shipments from Michigan Counties . . . . . . . . . Shipments to Michigan Counties . . . . . . . . . . Leading Counties in Livestock Movements . . . . . TBETERMINALMABKET................ nioTermlnalMarkOt............... Selling Costs at the Terminal Market . . . . . . . . Receipts at the Terminal Market . . . . . . . . . Total Receipts of Meat Animals . . . . . . . . . . Relative Volume of Four Classes of Livestock . . . CattleReceipts......... ........ CalfBeceipts.............. ..... SheepandLambReceipts . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv OQOOF m 11 ll 14 17 l? 19 21 26 26 28 28 30 33 35 38 38 III. IV. V. TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Hog Receipts O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Transportation of Livestock to the Terminal Advantages of Truck Transportation . . . . . . Result of Increased Volume of Truck Shipments Advantages of Rail Transportation Out-of- State Terminal Markets Advantages and Disadvantages of Terminal Marketing COOPERATIVE MARKETING AGENCIES Livestock Shipping Associations Cooperative Packing Company . . . Cooperative Commission Agencies OTHER MARKETING AGENCIES . . . . . ThOPackingHouse... eee es Livestock Auction Markets . The Concentration Yard . . . Sales to Truckers . . . . . Local Livestock Dealers . . Local or 'String' Butchers . UTILIZATION OI' MARKETING AGENCIES BY MICHIGAN LIVESTOCK O PBOWCERS 0 e e e s s e e e s s e e e e e e e e e O 0 e Sales at Individual Outlets factors in the Selection of s. Market . . . . . . . Suggested Changes Relating to Truck Shipments Suggested Changes Relating to Rail Shipments . . . Suggested Changes Relating to the Livestock Marketing System.............. ”It" 59 59 63 63 67 68 70 7O ’73 '78 '79 80 81 62 82 84 91 93 94 TABLE 03' CONTENTS (Continueg VI. WANDCONCLUSIONS................. 96 Classification and Localisation of Michigan Livestock . . 96 Thereninaluarket................... 97 Cooperative Marketing Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 0therMarketingAgencies................ 99 Utilisation of Marketing Agencies by Michigan Livestock ’mmor. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C 100 mn‘ C O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O 0 O 0 O O O O O O O 103 mus O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O 1% n ‘7, § Table 1. 10L. 1].. 12. 18A. 14. 16. 17. LIST OF TABLES (Tables lettered A will be found in Appendix A) Page Rstimated Number of Livestock on Michigan Ferns. 1920-89. 4 Distribution of Livestock in Michigan Counties, by 013.....1985eeeseeeeeeeeeeeeseeeee10‘ Leading Ten Counties in the Number of Each Class of LivestOCkglgsseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeoeo 11 Annual Gross Income of Michigan Tanners, 1924-38. Vith PrincipalsouICOI...............o.oo.107 Annual Index Numbers of Michigan farm Prices. 1924-38 . . 16 Leading Ten Counties in Carlot Shipments and Receipts of Livestock. 1937 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Carlot Shipments of Livestock from Michigan Counties, 1937 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 108 Carlot Receipts of Livestock in Michigan Counties. 1937 . 112 Balance of Carlot Movements of Livestock. by Counties. 19370000000000.eOesoeeeeeeeseOIJ-B Marketing Charges at the Detroit Stockyards . . . . . . . 118 Seasonal Index of Receipts at the Detroit Stockyards. 1926.3? 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O C 28 Total Receipts of Meat Animals at the Detroit Stockyards. byMonthl.19m-38.o................o 32 Annual Livestock Receipts by Truck and Rail at the Detroit Stochards. by Claeees, 1920-88 . . . . . . . . . 119 Total Receipts of Cattle at the Detroit Stockyards. by Months,1926-38...o..............oo. 37 Total Receipts of Calves at the Detroit Stocmm. by Months,1926-38..o............oootoo40 Total Receipts for Sheep and Lambs at the Detroit Stock- . yardl,bylonthl,19%-38..o..........3‘.o 42 Total Receipts of Hogs at the Detroit Stockyards, by MODth.,1926-38eeeeeoeeeeeeeeeee-eee 45 vii C Q 0 O I ~ . ' ' o O O O O O O O O Q t . \ e O O 0 s e o O f s o I e I I g' I O O O 0 e o s e ‘ I 0 e O i‘ I O I Q 0 I e I . ‘ ' . O I I O ‘4 1. lei A! (A Table 18. 19. 30A. 31. 32. 33. LIST OF TABLES (Continued) 2% Percentages of Annual Livestock Receipts by Truck and Rail at the Detroit Stockyards. by Classes. 1920-38 . . . 48 Advantages of Livestock Trucking as Indicated by 219 “Lehigan Prodnderl e e e e e e e e s e e e e e e e e e e 51 frequency of Trips to the Terminal Market by 93 Michigan Trucker. e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e s e e e e e e e e 52 Charges for Transportation of Livestock by Truck and E11. by 613339. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 54 Effects of Increased Motor Truck Marketing on Michigan L1'°.tOCkIPr°dnct1°n e e s e e e s e e e e e e e s e e e e 57 Advantages of Rail Transportation as Indicated by 43 M16h153n.PrOdnB.r. e e e e e s e e e e e e e e e e e e s e 58 Destination of Carlot Shipments of Livestock from Michigan, by States. 1937 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e s e e e e e e 120 Sources of Carlot Receipts of Livestock in Michigan. by State.. 1937 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 121 Location of Livestock Shipping Associations. by Counties. lgsomdlggeeeeeeeeeee00000000000122 Sales of 211 Michigan Producers. Classified by Proportion of Livestock Marketed Through Shipping Associations. 1937. 66 Isles of 199 Michigan Producers. Classified by Proportion of Livestock Marketed through Cooperative Commission rir... 1937 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e s e e e as 68 Location of 103 Packing Houses. by Counties. 1939 . . . .. 124 Marketing Charges at Michigan Auction Markets . . . . . . 125 Percentage Distribution of the 1937 Sales of 244 Michigan Livestock Producers. by Agencies Patronised . . . . . . . 83 factors in the Selection of Livestock Marketing Outlets by Michigan.rr0dnn.ri e e e e e e s e e e e e e e e e e e e 85 Sources of Price Information Used by Michigan Par-ere . . 86 Effect of Distance upon the Use of the Terainal Market by'“1ah1"n.Pr°dncer. e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e O 87 vi ii LIST OF TABLES (Continued; Table 22.69. 35. Proportion of Marketed Livestock Trucked by the Producer by‘ 31’06. ka‘r. ”a. shipped‘by 8811 e e e e e e e e e 88 36. Proportion of Producers Who Instruct Hired Truckers Regarding th. Market to b0 Patronized e e e e e s e e e e 90 3?. Suggested Changes in Truck Transportation . . . . . . . . 93 38. Suggested Changes in Rail Transportation . . . . . . . . 93 39. Suggested Changes in Marketing Michigan Livestock . . . . 94 ix \...!!.Il. .. l ‘ullll’ \f 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. gsggr FIGURES Page Distribution of Livestock Producers and Truckers Contacted in this Study. by Counties . . . . . . . . . . xiv RypOOfrarmingArealinMichigan.. eeeeeeeee 2 Rstimated Number of Livestock on Michigan Paras. 1920-39 3 Distribution of Cattle in Michigan. by Counties. 1935 . 5 Distribution of Calves in Michigan. by Counties. 1935 . 7 Distribution of Sheep and Lasbs in Michigan. by Counties, 1935 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 8 Distribution of Rogs in Michigan. by Counties. 1935 . . 10 Leading Ten Counties in the Number of Rach Class of Lifostock.1935.................. es 12 Annual Gross Income of Michigan farmers. 1924-38. Uith Principa180urces................... 13 Annual Index Numbers of Michigan Para Prices. 1924-38 . 15 Carlot Shipments of Livestock from Michigan Counties. 1937.......................... 18 Carlot Receipts of Livestock in Michigan Counties. 1937. 20 Balance of Carlot Movements of Livestock. by Counties. 193? I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 22 Monthly Shipments and Receipts of Livestock as Percentages ofthe1937Totals................... 25 Agencies and Channels Available for Marketing Michigan L1'OCtOCkeeeeeseeese eeeeseeeeeee 27 Seasonal Index of Receipts at the Detroit Stockyards. 19%‘38000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 29 Total Receipts of Meat Animals at the Detroit Stockyards. byMonths.1936-38................... 31 Annual Receipts of Each Class of Livestock at the Detroit Stockyardl.1920-38.................. 34 \O \ ' LIST OF FIGURES (Continuedl figures 21. 22. 27. 28. Total Receipts of Cattle at the Detroit Stockyards. by Months. 1926-38 s e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e Total Receipts of Calves at the Detroit Stoclqards. by Month'. 1926-38 s e e e e e e e e e e e e e e s e e e e Total Receipts of Sheep and Lambs at the Detroit Stock- yard.. by'Month., 1926-38 s e e e e e e e e e s e e e 0 Total Receipts of Hogs at the Detroit Stockyards. by "03th.. 1926-38 s e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e Percentages of the Annual Livestock Receipts by Truck and Rail at the Detroit Stockyards. by Classes. 1920—38. Percentage of the Annual Receipts of Inch Class of Livestock by Rail at the Detroit Stockyards. 1920-38 . . Sources and Destinations of Carlot Shipments of Livestock to and from Michigan. by States. 1937 . . . . . . . . . Location of Livestock Shipping Assocations. by Comties. 1930 and 1939 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e Location of Michigan Packing Houses. by Counties. 1939. Location of Michigan Livestock Auction Markets. 1939. . xi 36 39 41 47 49 60 64 71 75 INTRODUCTION Purpose Act the Study; This sway of the localization of livestock production in Michigan and of the sources and destinations of market movements was undertaken with a view to presenting. in statistical and graphical form. the significant changes of the last decade and a half in the shipping and marketing or the various types of livestock produced or finished on Michigan rams. A parti- cular objective of the study has been to examine the extent to which producers make use of the marketing outlets and agencies which have deveIOped as alternatives to direct consignment to terminal markets; and to analyze the comparative advantages and limitations of each or these methods of livestock disposal as indicated by producers and shippers. Scppe and Sources of Data. Statistics presented in Section I on the numbers or different types or livestock in Michigan counties are from the 1935 Census of Agriculture and from the Annual Livestock Summaries issued by the United States Department or Agri- culture. Those showing carload shipments of livestock to and from Michigan counties (for the year 1937) were obtained from the records or the New York Central Systan and of the Grand Trunk and Pore Mar- quette railroad companies. Comparative data on gross income of Michigan ramers by principal sources are taken from annue. sua- naries of Harm Values, Gross and Cash Income from Form Production," issued by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Indexes of Michigan farm and livestock prices. used in this section, are from published xii compilations by Dr. Orion Ulrey of the Economics Department,'lichigan State College. Data presented in Section II. on receipts of livestock by rail and truck at the Detroit terminal market. were furnished by the Detroit Stockyards Company and the Michigan.Livestock Exchange. These ‘were obtained over a sufficiently long period (1920 or 1926 to 1938) to afford a basis for determining and analysing significant trends, both.by types of livestock and by mode of transporation. The main portion Of the study, dealing with the actual marketing practices of Michigan livestock producers. is based on in- formation obtained directly by the writer from producers and truckers, covering Operations during 1937. Questionnaires (See Appendix B. Exhibit II) were mailed to some four hundred producers (whose names were supplied by county agents). and replies were received from two hundred and fortybfour of these. .A separate questionnaire was pre- pared for livestock truckers (Exhibit I) of whom ninety-three were interviewed by the writer during the period of April-June. 1938. Of these. twelve per cent were producer-truckers, who trucked only live- stock raised on their own farms, two per cent Operated entirely as dealer-truckers. and two per cent exclusively for hire. Of the re- maining eightybfour per cent who did not confine their Operations to any one Of these classifications, about onenhalf represented a combination Of two types. and the other half. a combination of all three types. ‘lhile the livestock producers and truckers contacted ‘were representative Of all parts of the state. they were rather largely concentrated in the area lying south of the Bay Cityzmuskegon line. (Rig. 1) xiii fig. 1. Distribution of Livestock Prodncers and freshers Contested in this Study. by Counties ”J‘T'fifij au—Im-zu m' Tar: .... .. '...:,-.'..—‘L.-=..— +M+mefim -HTHiemi r -.J. rrr - . 1 fiéj- :I."l%r.?i:: e... . ‘27 +WW {3:2, - xiv The lists of livestock shipping associations (Operating in 1930 and 1939). of packing houses in the state, and of livestock auction markets, together with much of the information regarding activities Of these and other marketing agencies, were supplied by Mr. D. H. Stark, Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist in the Department of Economics, Michigan State'college. cr—aIfi-w-rxr v r" JCCTTT'MPO'VWT :13 L0: mus-[\qv p“ Y r A???“ .'. ‘9 ‘P 7.7:" fi"."77 VL‘OQU-~-UQ--.‘V-~ '1 77‘ , H$U~A~a~¥-s y.- .'¢ Rina; :‘b-‘ u‘b“ ‘Vu‘g It: a stud? of he {:1in sting; of ivestcck in I.-chi.~_;::r it is necessnrv to consider first some of the more general aspects of the industry within the state. These factors include the localization of the indus.ry, the reasons for this localiz tion, the relative economic importance of livestock end its products, and the reverents of livestock to and from the various n rkets within toe state. Areos in Elenijan. A study of tLe vo.riptir. in the tfge pf agricult"re found in different secti of Micki en indicrztes t:w.t the bulk of tne livestock production in fins to the south of a line passing th‘01gh nocie*on Crznd naoids, Lansing and Detroit (Fig. 2). Smaller areas are shown in the eastern part of the "Thumb" arcs, in T» .n just west and north of Ssginew 23y, end in the extrene d 0“ CD ’1 '0 re t—JO NJ eastern ycrt of he Upper Peninsula. Livestock is, of course, found in prectic ”l v a 1 sections of the state. but it is in the above mentioned that a Lager pert of the lrnd is used for this purpose. ‘4'. ‘ Trenrs in the Punter of Livrstock on miffl;fifl Ferns. The trend in the nIImber of ivestock on b-I c i- in f‘rms has varied greet the past twenty yea s (Fifi. 3). The nunber of cattle Gecreesed from 1,536,000 in 1920 to .391. 000 in 1 30-3 I and “as since increased to a new high of 1,675,000 in 10?”. The variation in the nunoer of sheep 7.- CCI, very- (a «1' and lambs has been less than for t?_e ctner clz‘sses of live- V «D twenty-year period, C". s. (1 (9' 1925-39. The number of hogs has flvotd- {a () *1 ’2) E p. {a O ...J ‘1 Il'ig. 2 TYPE OF FARMING ABEAS IN MICHIGAN ‘ Ila ural Line Basis J U 2 'S Area Name ’3“ . Corn and Livestock J" __ _. -....- Small Grains and Livestock ’ °r M Southwestern Fruit and T . I 11* True}: Crops _-_____ ________ . Poultry, Dairy and J3me}: “ , ““1“” Crops 1 1:12 13 Dai . and General Farming . _ ' ._ _, . wig and Cash Crops ‘5 ”“7?" m" ' Dairy, Hay, and Special ' L Crops — - ~ - - - . Beans, Sugar Beets, and Dairy ' 9. Cattle, Sheep, and , ___L_.___' ...2'- Forage I c- w- 10. Central Potato and I (10 l was 3a“? ' __l - «m / . 7 ll. l'orthern Z‘ruit and Dairy FW"“ "”°’ . 4-: mm»: 0. Nmkfl e m <1 21% 2 r i 12. Torthern Potato and Dairy . ' g 13. General, Self-Sufficing, _ " aim and Part—Time "1', . 5 1h. cattle, otatoes and o°lf~ ___1- E15. Catéfilcéig and Soring “a" Tajwv rm:mr lwmn, | E Grains ‘ h 516. Dairy and Potatoes -L] .1. +35,- Jam”? 17. Potatoes, Dairy, and ' I Part-Tittle 3 , n i i . Principal Livestock Areas ' I .mum' I Outlined in Red 2 2 ' 1 ' mu... ° Basie map prepared by Farm Management Department, Michigan State College. I m s .‘»=:lle'-‘fll w .flm’mufluflflufl .- i a . 852: PS: .2:— A. I..lny\.Ol .b .1 .OH re‘l- d Jun-Du! : I; :1 TE. ==: :2 :u :_ \ «L ’\ than the other classes of livestock, the estimated number being 1,150,000 in 1923 and only 512,000 in 1935 (Table 1). Table 1. Estimated Number of Livestock on Michigan Farms, January 1 of Each Year, 1920-39 Year .All Cattle Sheep and Lambs Hogs Thousands of Head. 1920 1,586 1,209 1,106 1921 1,536 1,113 1,060 1922 1,506 1,002 1,100 1923 1,460 1,052 1,150 1924 1,420 1,052 1,143 1925 1,406 1,066 855 1926 1,420 1,173 820 1927 1,406 1,314 845 1928 1,420 1,314 862 192 1,463 1,380 759 1930 1,391 1,304 630 1931 1,391 1,234 542 1932 1,433 1,288 661 1933 1,516 1,300 793 1934 1,544 1,240 730 1935 1,518 1,165 512 1936 1,548 1,306 594 1937 1,594 1,315 701 1938 1,626 1,309 666 1939 1,675 1,290 713 Cattle Producing Areas. It is of interest to comQare the major areas in which each class of livestock is found with the general livestock regions previously indicated (Fig. 2). The number of cattle per square mile varies greatly over the state. The area south and east of the Bay Citybmuskegon line contains the greatest density of this class of livestock, which is quite evenly distributed over this entire region (Fig. 4). 0f the first ten counties in the number of cattle, as reported in the 1935 Census of.Agricu1ture,seven lie wholly or in part within the general 11g. 4. Distribution of Cattle in Michigan. by Counties, 1935 ...—Jun.“ . I 'o' . . . ... ' Q . n .u . I.. . . ' ,go‘. - LM‘UI . wwth-m1om' ‘5‘“ ~21! TM . . . e . _. . . . _ i C ‘ g ‘ ' _ 1:434:11! war-mg MI. W 0600M! - . e a . a . . I ' . . ... o. _ . :“lo M. will: . lum‘r “m 5:44,”:n 7:";‘5 n . u . a J_ 1 1m, 2,. sfl {...-Ii” ...: ' Sv:._':'_::.” ...l“. ,. 1 Dot = 500 Cattle _._J___ J__ _J ‘-':'-'-"-'Z' First 10 counties in number of cattle outlined in red. County figures in red represent number of head in thousands. livestods areas shown on the type-of-farming map. The number of cattle in these ten "cattle counties" varied from 50,502 in Sanilac to 29,020 in Lapeer, with an average of 34,340 (Table 2A).1 These counties lie within “the milkshled'l of the major Michigan cities of Detroit, Grand Rapids, Flint, Saginaw and Port Huron. In most counties of the state the number of cattle is quite evenly divided between dairy and beef. However, the dairy types tend to predominate around the metropolitan areas, both on the large dairy farms found in those areas and on the small farms of the part time farmers. Calf Producing.Area . All of the ten leading cattle counties, at the time of the 1935 Census of Agriculture, except Lenawee and Washtenaw, were also among the first ten in the number of calves (Fig; 5). The largest numbers of calves are usually found in the dairy areas, while the heavy beef producing areas, such as Washtenaw and Lenswee counties, purchase most of their feeder stock. Seven of the first ten counties in.this group lie within the maJor livestock areas previously outlined. An average of 7,571 calves were recorded in the ten leading counties, with the number in individual counties iranging between 14,164 in Sanilac and 5,576 in Ionia (Table 2a). ‘§heep and Lamb Producing Area . The distribution of sheep and lambs (Fig; 6) shows that the heaviest concentration of these animals is found in the south central portion of the lower 1. Throughout this study, an EA" in a table number indicates that the table is in Appendix A. Hg. 5. Distribution of Oelves‘in Michigan, by Counties, 1935 ' m nut ~wl=liaufrm '- "in:'::” I: AM ALIA“! .wT-rw1o:_moa' A150:- le m’Tw . I TUNE! V‘INJ ‘.:IW—l 11-w|.mn::—l'la:;o. :i... a e a , v e 0 ' c - . - .. - _L . . l— . use” “It oxuu mat ' “An-«w annuc . u o g - ‘ a o O ' ' ‘ , . . . ,. l Dot = 500 Calves First 10 counties in number of calves outlined. in red. County figires in red represent number of head in thousands. Fig. 6. Distribution of Sheep and Lambs in Michiganby counties. 1985 ‘p - . I - '.',.,,., WH'wmm .' . Alums—A ovum" OJ—moe: Axel-\- .. ~21: '1‘?“ ‘ ' . ' .. swat-rt iaur‘ufj. ' mun-«.1 omlosnuw '59“ U I s n, I I I ' I .. l Dot = 500 Sheep and Lambs First 10 counties in number of sheep and lambs outlined in red. County figires in red represent number of head in thousands. peninsula. Nearly all of the ten leading counties in this classification are included in the largest livestock area in Michigan. This is a deversified area with many farms capable of producing large quantities of alfalfa and enough corn to fatten the lambs. Two of the leading counties in the number of sheep and lambs (Lenawee and'Washtenaw) are also in the first ten cattle counties, but Eaton is the only county in the group which is dupli- cated in the leading ten counties in number of calves. Variation between counties appears to be much greater for sheep and lambs than for cattle or calves. The first ten sheep counties range from.88,005 head in'Washtenaw County down to 39,793 in Calhoun (Table 2A). The average for this group of counties is 53,633 head. Hog Producing Areas. The distribution of hogs is quite uniform.over the southern half of the lower peninsula (Fig. 7). It appears quite comparable to the distribution of calves. Inspection “Will show, however, that only one of the first ten hog producing counties (Saginaw) also appears in the list of counties leading in the number of calves. Eight of the ten leading counties in the pro- duction of hogs are found along the southern tier of counties where the corn belt "overflows" into Michigan. Berrien, van Buren, and Kalamazoo counties are not included in the group since they are given over to the raising of fruit rather than corn. Saginaw and Gratiot counties, while outside of the corn belt proper, are in the Saginaw valley where conditions are favorable for the raising of corn. The average number of hogs in the first ten counties in the production of this class of livestock is 18,555,wdth.the greatest number (33,106) in Lenawee and the smallest (13,776) in Gratiot Counties 10. Fig. 7. Distribution of Bogs in Michigan, by counties, 1935 - s N 2.le I m . ' Rhea: "km... ' "I" s v -T I mzf::L1a1~7_[M7_rw'i:1uTo-'TJ- .Nl/f W Widen—In... 1,— a; I: _ '.J_'. O I O ‘ we; at: am can: °u:m‘¢ 41:34:: e . Nu” U - [A :4 firm 1:51:90: “I.“ IM‘ MD ' ‘ E‘IILLI: 1 Dot 2 500 Hogs l'irst 10 counties in number of hogs outlined in red. County figures in red represent number of head in thousands. 11 (Table 2A.) 0 Principal Livestock Producing Counties of Michigan. No one Michigan county leads in the production of all four classes of livestock. Lenawee, Saginaw, and'fiashtenaw, however, appear in three of the four classifications, while Allegan, Branch, Calhoun, Eaton, Hillsdale, Huron, Kent, Lapeer, St. Clair, Sanilac and Tuscola are found in two classifications (Fig. 8 and Table 3). Table 3. Leading Ten Counties in the Number of Each Class of Livestock, 19351 Cattle Calves Sheep and Lambs ‘Hogs a a §snilas 'Eashtsaas Lsnssae EEEQE £2229 immense Monroe. Allegan Tuscola Ingham. flillggglg §aginaw Allegan fiill§dale Cass Infiflfllé. K223 Livingston 'Hashtengg Lgnagee Lgpeer Clinton Saginaw Zient St, Clair Jacks on Branch. St. Clair Eatgn anc Calhoun 'Hashtsnas §asiaafl' 22223 St- Joseph Laoeer Ionia Calhoun Gratiot l. Counties found in three classifications are underlined in red, those found in two groups are underlined in black. Economic Importance of Michigan Livestock Industry. The relative importance of the various classes of livestock in the agri- cultural economy of Michigan is indicated in Figure 9, which depicts the changes in the gross income of Michigan farmers during the period 1924-38. Also shown is the derivation of this income from.(l) meat animals, (2) all livestock and livestock products, and (3) cash crops. The first impression is likely to be that the income from the sale of meat animals is relatively unimportant in Michigan. It is true that, compared to the income from cash crops and from.all Fig. 8. Leading Ten Counties in the Number of Inch Class of Livestock, 1935 \\ g: a . Lm_.,,.m ' _! Jig—L, N... La. * , . ' I ' . ' {Milli-£71147 mm” s ! ! A s . ' oattl. ('5 :Ej Calves 0 E Sheep and Lambs D - Hogs «’A /- uunu. s “.1“. co n v Imf‘usns .. . . v hull! inch, lmh Ilna heavy. III A 10 to th UAJI IN n. ma. 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 19 l4 livestock and livestock products, the amount received from the sale of meat animals is small, ranging from 15 per cent to 20 per cent of the gross farm.income (Table‘flfi. The income received by producers in western states who ship livestock to Michigan markets for slaughter is, of course, not included in the estimates under consideration. Al- though this income is not received by Michigan producers, its existence should be recognized when one attempts to evaluate the importance of the livestock industry in Michigan. Income from the sale of livestock and livestock products constituted from 55 per cent to 65 per cent of the gross income of Kichigan farmers during the period from.1924 to 1938. A portion of this income arises from.the sale of dairy cattle through agencies which were developed primarily as marketing channels for meat animals. This is another factor which increases to some extent theenonomic importance of that portion of the Michigan livestock industry under discussion in this study. Farm.Prices of Michigan Livestock. The gross income received by the producer depends upon the two factors of the farm.price of the product and the volume of production. various aspects of the produc- tion of livestock in Michigan will be considered later in this study. It may'be well at this point, however, to note the fluctuations which have occurred in Michigan farm prices since 1924 (Fig. 10). ‘While the indices (Table 5) of the prices of (1) meat animals and wool, (2) feed crops, (3) cash crops, and (4) twenty farm.products,follow much the same general pattern, there is a good deal of variation in the four series in the degree of fluctuation. It is significant that the index of the farm prices of meat animals and wool does not fluctuate as widely as that for cash crops. This indicates that the )0 x no w m.- hull mm, mm um heavy. I‘AJI IN U. I. A. uunu a (It!!! co.. n. v. umfim-u 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 A 16 the producer may be somewhat more certain of an expected return for his livestock than is the case with cash crops. Probably more imr portant is the fact that, while the ratio of the index of the farm price of meat animals and wool to that of feed crops has varied greatly during the period since 1924, there has been only one year (1934) in which the index of feed crops was above the index for meat animals. There is, of course, a high degree of correlation between the trend of farm.prices and the trend of gross farm.income which was presented in the preceding section. Table 5. Annual Index Numbers of Michigan Farm Prices, 1924-38. meat Animals “fienty Bari? Year and Neol Feed Crops2 Cash Crops3 Products4 1910-14:100 1924 128 ‘118 130 137 1925- 149 107 161 153 1926 156 114 190 163 1927 150 109 162 155 1928 161 110 174 163 1929 163 109 179 165 1930 133 106 162 ~ 144 1931 93 88 . 87 94 1932 64 53 51 64 1933 61 56 76 73 1934 72 101 99 89 1935 118 95 79 104 1936 126 76 126 120 1937 136 93 138 132 1938 116 67 81 102 17' Ineludes cattle, calves, sheep, lambs, hogs, wool. 2. Includes corn, oats, barley, alfalfa hay. 3. Includes wheat, rye, beans, potatoes, apples, clover seed. 4. weighted 3regative of:meat animals and wool, feed crops, cash crops, poultry and eggs, and dairy products. *Bource: 0. Ulrey, “Farm Prices In& Costs in Michigan.“ Quar. Bu1., Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta., Vol. 2, No.2, Nov. 1937. a..- l7 Movements of Michigan Livestock. The discussion of the movement of livestock in and out of Michigan counties will be confined to that carried by the New York Central Lines, Grand Trunk, and Pere Marquette Railroads. Consequently, the analysis will tend to overemphasize the importance of those counties which are served by these lines and will place at a disadvantage those counties in which the producer ships and receives most of his livestock by truck. As shown on the attached railroad map,1 the counties in the "Thumb” area of the state, as well as most of those north of the Bay Citybhuskegon line are at a considerable disadvantage in the matter of rail service, owing to discontinuance of certain branch lines and to necessity of indirect routing in reaching Detroit livestock terminal. This is especially true since many of the railroads in the areas can reach the Detroit livestock market only by way of other terminals. Shippegts from Michigan Countieg. There is a considerable variation in the number of carlots which were shipped from any one Michigan.county'during 1937 (Fig; 11). It may be assumed that, with the exception of Wayne County, most of the shipments are consigned to a terminal market or directly to some packing house in Michigan or farther east. Shipments from layne County may be properly divided into those shipments of livestock consigned to an eastern market and shipments of feeder stock which are shipped to Michigan producers for fattening. Of course, the last mentioned group would then reappear at a later date as being shipped from the producer to the terminal. With the exception of Wayne County, all of the ten counties (Table 5) which led in carloads of livestock shipped during 1937 _I; Inside back cover. fig. 11. Carlot Shipments of Livestock from MichiganCounties. 193'? .1 . . .m m i... moi—J" , ~ a | WI"!!! WA l Dot = 5 Carlots First ten counties in total earlots outlined in red. 18. 19 are wholly or partially included in the south central livestock area (Fig. 2). Producers in these counties make extensive purchases of good feeder stock (lambs and cattle} from the west. It is known that a large proportion of the fattened animals are shipped directly to the Buffalo market. Small shipments, of course, go to Detroit. A comparison of Figures 2 and 11 with those showing the distribution of livestock by counties (Fig. 4 - 7) indicates the result of the difficulties encountered by northern Michigan and "Thumb" area producers wishing to consign their livestock by rail. The number of carlots shipped from.these areas is much smaller than would normally'be expected,since the proportion of producers favoring rail shipments to the terminal market increases with the distance from.that market. Substantiation for this statement is found in the answers given by numberous producers when they were questioned as to their preference of rail or truck shipments to the terminal market. Shipments to Michigan Counties. The distribution of carlot shipments of livestock 39, Michigan counties (Fig. 12) differs from the distribution of the shipments,£ggm.Michigan counties in that the ten counties receiving the largest number (Table 6) of shipments are less concentrated in the south-central livestock producing area. These counties may be divided into two groups. Lenawee, Clinton, Jackson and Ingham countieszeceive shipments of feeder cattle and lambs from the western states. The other six counties (Hayne, Saginaw, Eaton, Ionia, Genesee and Oakland) are important because they have the best facilities in the form of markets and packing houses for the disposition of the livestock. 20. Fig. 12. Carlot Receipts of Livestock in Michigan Counties, 1937 F " i. .i— —i- (M Q _I— - L”... \‘\ Lam ' PM” L...— i 7 -..—L! “W \/r’”" ales:— v“ m t ...... “Wm—t“ tw @fl'fi' I‘J T‘W .... 954%.“ -. a+-m—ilsm Wififi'flfi: . I e i o O . . (L lsmr'aw Wm? . . ' :7”? . I . s "7““- _ v r O . O 0 0.0: e: .0. // 1.0 . . ... .... . . . . o. . I! :£'| ' l Dot a: 5 Carlots nag-L}:- . .. unfosTv'rsZA-mlctt? k—thm—Heu.’ .. __L__..L_.__L. LL' First Ten Counties in Total Carlots Outlined in Red. 21 Leading Counties in Livestock Movements. The leading counties in the volume of shipments and receipts of livestock are shown in Table 6 which indicates that Clinton, Eaton, Ionia, Lenawee and‘Wayne counties rank high in the volume of both shipments and receipts. Table 6. Leading Ten Counties1 in Carlo Shipments and Receipts of Livestock, 1937 Carlots Carlots County Shipped County Received ‘Hayne 1091 flgyne 8170 Leagues 417 Lflnfiflflfi 286 Calhoun 260 Ingham. 120 Clintgn 253 Clinton 117 St. Joseph 246 Saginaw A 75 Wagon 238 Jackson 51 {ent 231 Ionia 49 Branch 188 Oakland 45 Tonia 155 Eaton 32 Hillsdale ' 119 Genesee SO I. Counties appearing in both groups are underlined. 2. Comparable figures for other counties are given in Tables 7A and 8A. Branch, Calhoun, Eaton, Kent and St. Joseph counties had the greatest net surplus of carlots shipped over those received (Fig. 13 and Table 9A). This reflects the presence of the concen- tration yards at Battle Creek and Marshall in Calhoun county and of active shipping associations in the other counties. The Grand Rapids Packing Company is an additional influence in Kent County as it ships surplus purchases of livestock. It is likely that part of the surplus rail shipments from these counties come in from the surrounding terri- tory by truck. In the case of the deficit counties, shown on the same chart, two explanations may be offered. ‘Wayne, Oakland and Saginaw are no doubt deficit counties because of packing house g 3'15. 13. Balance of Carlot Movements of Livestock, by Counties, 1937 22' . ' “new": “It: . 1L «ac—L ' fl . I UNIFP‘ VA m . O o _e .W 6.001! I , O t . tum am I an. MA! ...-c 1,”: , . M-I'Jrfiifio'lm' Tm:- W‘&r17’;‘;0._i=&“77 1—m-l-gmg-r—l-fi . _L. - , eunurizamm :V M .1! - “tn—1m 177% e21 ! , ! _L 1 Dot 2 5 Oarlets Surplus receipts shown in red and surplus shipments in black. The five counties with greatest surplus outlined in each case. 24 operations in their metropolitan centers. This does not apply so “well to Arenac and In;ham.counties as they do not have major pack- ing plants. However, they are conveniently located to the plants in the other deficit counties and the livestock is no doubt trucked to these centers. A considerable seasonal variation is present in the live- stock movements over the three railroads (Fig. 14). Since the volume (Tables 7A and 8A) of Wayne County shipments and receipts is very much larger than that of any other county, a comparison is made of the seasonal percentages both including and excluding this county. It is interesting to note that an inverse relationship is present between the number of carloads being shipped and those being received by Kichigan counties at a.y one time. For example: The month of August is the low point for shipments from the counties and September is but slightly higher. In spite of his fact, September is the high point for receipts, if Whyne County is included in the analysis. If this county is excluded, the high point in receipts is not reached until October, during which month shipments are substantially higher than in August or September. This phenomenon of high receipts at the time of low shipments indicates the movement of feeder cattle and lambs from.out of state sources. By late August or September the farmer can predict his corn crop pretty well and thus can purchase ‘whatever quantity of feeder stock he can handle in any given year. Thus his stock, especially feeder cattle and sheep, comes into the State during September and October and is ready for market about sixty days later - which accounts for the high shipments from Iichigan counties during November, December and January. .< .I .3 2. 10¢) ,. . $3... .55. :2: .5521... :3 3 2 .< i d s e s x L e 2.33.92 i .z :00 (be: a it): b SECTION II TIE TISRIII HAL MARKET Having considered the volume and distribution of live- stock raised on Hichigan farms, we shall now examine each of the various marketing channels or agencies used by Hichigan producers in terms of the function, importance and peculiarities of the separate outlets. It will be apparent from an inspection of Figure 15 that there are a large number of different routes which livestock may follow on its way from producer to consumer and that it would be quite possible for animals to "travel in circles," as from.the producer to a trucker at the farm, to a local dealer, to an auction market, and back to another producer. The cooperative agencies are treated separately on the chart since, while they are outlets through which the marketing of livestock is accomplished, they are made up of groups of producers rather than of "middle men" proper. The Terminal Harket. The first of these agencies to be considered is the terminal or central market in Detroit. he bu k of the livestock business in that city is conducted in a single stockyard owned by the Detroit Stockyards Company - a subsidiary of the New York Central Railroad Company. Livestock is consigned by the producer to one of four livestock cammission firms. These firms sell the animals to packers, butchers, eastern terminal buyers, or, in the case of feeder stock, to other producers. In return for this service, the producer pays yardage, feed, insurance, and commission charges. 26 an 27. m “85300 B... 333% Panason— H603 \ - aflpgrfi \ » .\ Moons 02.3 . on \ 9v! «\ .- mm H . pom xte‘r‘p _ Moog 05.3 \ am e T !!!!!!!! . >’ \ .l E maL/ III... . W o . . . a u o x.“ """"" gflsaoaooo .Nmuo ’ IIIIIIIIIIII / 2 llllll booster” 18”an s ”east. .../’1, / \fl / , / \. 33m wage!” / (I, 30332 dedpond . \\\\\ 32: .fl/ Sasha \\\\ \\ \\ I 33.32 gasped \\ / \ / . ehwpsuomooo _“\\ / \\ .l llllll L_ lllV\lllll / ._H _l 33963034. llllllllllll ... 93.35 .303 _ - Fill Inuit. g a.“ #\ when—2.5a aootopfl amass": 39.3.3: .3.“ $335 38530 was .3233 .3 .wE Selling Costs at the Terminal Iarket. Yardage and insurance charges are paid, through the commission firm, to the stockyards company (Table 10A). This charge is for the use of the yards and for feed, water and care up to the time of the sale. Commission charges are also paid to the commission firm and are retained by it as compensation for its service in bringing together the producer and the purchaser. It should be emphasized here that these firms ordinarily do not purchase livestock for them, selves but act merely as the agent of the producer. Receipts at the Terminal Market; Since the volume of receipts is an indication of the relative importance of the various marketing agencies, they shall be considered in detail in those cases in which figures showing receipts over a period of time are available. In the case of the terminal market, these receipts are marked by great seasonal fluctuations (Fig. 16 and Table 11). The peak months in total receipts are October and November. As pointed out in Section I, one of the important reasons for the Table 11. Seasonal Index of Receipts at the Detroit Stockyards, 1926-571 Total Month Receipts Cattle Calves Sheep Hogs January 119.1 106.2 106.0 156.8 105.0 February 94.8 95.1 99.6 98.4 88.2 march 84.0 95.6 105.5 64.6 100.6 April 88.4 97.9 118.6 65.5 109.2 may 80.6 94.5 125.8 47.4 102.4 June 62.9 95.5 115.7 24.2 79.9 July 55.8 95.9 100.8 25.2 58.5 August 70.4 100.1 78.0 64.2 62.0 September 107.9 104.9 67.5 120.2 112.8 October 148.2 116.0 87.8 189.6 155.7 November 165.2 111.0 98.2 216.6 158.8 December 124.5 95.4 98.4 149.8 110.5 "17' Based on Henthly Averages .< .n .3 z. ‘2: .A>I.x. Ala: .32 it... :5. ...: 3 2 . :— Con-3‘ .02 .> .8 :00 we... 4 4.5.3.8 Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. May June July Aug. ,.bo I”. lpr. Jen. 30 increased movement of livestock from.xichigan counties during the late fall months is found in the relationship between the corn crop and the livestock industry. By August or September, the producer will have estimated the amount of corn he will have available for feeding purposes and can order his feeder stock accordingly. This is par- ticularly true of purchases of feeder cattle and lambs from.out-cf- state cources. ,Allowing about sixty days for finishing the livestock, it is then ready for market sometime in October or November. Since farm work normally decreases during the late fall and winter months, many Michigan farmers, who do not specialize in raising livestock, find it practicable to feed a limited number of head without materially increasing their overhead expense. Since the volume of carlot shipments into wayne county (Table 8A) is highest during August and September, when producers are ordering their feeder stock, rather then in the later months when the stock is being marketed, it is apparent that the railroads play a more important part in transporting the feeder stock from the western states to Detroit than they do in returning the finished animals to that terminal. The seasonal variation is greatest in the receipts of sheep and lambs which, due to their large volume, exert considerable influence on the total. The variations found in the other classes of livestock are much smaller and tend to be of someahat the same magnitude for the three classes (cattle, calves and hogs). Total Receipts of Heat Animals. A study of the monthly variations which have occurred in the total receipts at the Detroit stockyards since 1926 (Fig. 17 and Table 12) emphasizes the high seasonality of the state's livestock industry. In fact, the 19" 193.5 _ 1955.. . 1957— m teem Mo 35.3523 id .2 z. mm; .2332 .3 than? 553E . gnu—uni .02 .> .2 :00 fiaummw d Junk)”: 51. 32 Table 12. Total Receipts of Heat Animals at the Detroit Stock Yards, by months, 1926-38 Mbnth 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 January 92747 117363 109348 152341 138878 February 76381 102550 121135 96985 85972 March 82800 111760 71230 73461 72612 April 84015 100925 88597 108542 87648 May 84889 90390 95331 70747 57589 June 77329 77286 57019 59054 51313 July 43443 43665 55360 58235 49916 August 46035 72136 45002 55704 63973 September 100079 100899 85353 101444 90630 October 125164 144857 175319 180228 162906 November 144932 208276 171257 166100 166307 December .150266 115145 129542 103370 142104 Average 92340 107104 100374 102184 9748? Month 1931 '1932 1933 1934 1935 January 99723 87741 84013 102276 92145 February 80446 79540 35776 74253 60436 March 58912 79276 66606 61546 53588 April 76365 68069 64717 69927 52427 May 53081 57116 80892 74201 63851 June 45825 57520 46845 52294 41694 July 53429 43742 43248 47570 45280 August 74521 74110 78698 74676 45120 September 136163 94288 122373 80152 66208 October 129804 119232 100419 137997 101648 November 132235 173326 152935 116695 87044 December 127621 93301 82964 95845 75054 Average 89010 85605 79957 82286 65375 Month 1936 1937 1938 January 89533 100342 87901 February 67636 84159 76621 March 77679 96021 83955 April 74254 81474 69551 May 69841 71151 70709 June 49458 72992 56479 July 53680 48152 39524 August 52193 51312 59075 September 78216 84982 60919 October 88894 90715 87935 Novemberv 102319 96912 _111867 December 114721 100763 61890 Average 76535 81581 72202 fluctuations from.month to month in this case are so great that any attempt to analyze the changing importance of the terminal market must be based on some statistical device such as the average receipts for each year or the long term trend line1 rather than on the monthly data. A study of this trend line reveals increasing receipts up to July of 1927. A very gradual decrease to July, 1932 may be attributed to two factors: (1) a gradual increase in the number of small marketing agencies being made available to the producer and (2) the slight decrease in the number of livestock on Michigan farms during this period (Table l). The volume of receipts remained fairly constant from the middle of 1932 through the first quarter of 1934, during which period few new markets were being opened due to the general business depression. The increase since 1935 is due to an increasing production plus a gradual swing back to the terminal market by many producers. Relative Volume of Four Classes of Livestock:' The period since 1920 has been marked by great fluctuations in the volume of each class of livestock received at the Detroit terminal. we shall presently consider the monthly and seasonal fluctuations in these receipts together with their long term moving average or trend, as was done in the preceding paragraph for total receipts of meat animals. The variations which have occurred in the annual receipts of each class are indicative of the relative importance of the four classes in terms of the total number of each marketed in any given year (Fig 18 and Table 13A). These data emphasize the great volume of sheen and lambs marketed as compared with.the other classes together A 1 I b l. The trend lines in Figures 17 and 19-22 are 12-month moving averages of the data in Tables 12 and 14-17. 34. mmoa hnoa mama mmmH wnma mama Nmma . u . -- ”f - - ..- Hmma Omaa mNmH wNmH 5. Iran .37.. . > £6 .3 1. SEC; 55: :2; .....E 3:; ...: .3 i I i . ’- ..DJ Jam ( ... ... (Ken;- I Jill-DH‘ a , amma omma mmma mmma mmma «mam HNQH Omma .- . . T111. _ OOH omH 00m 0mm 00m 0mm 00¢ 0mm 00m 0mm 00m ‘w;t" t‘: -ZI';*' e nxiich 1U“S ttf-€n 45 ', '_ ~r 2:772, f“ 11. “‘ 1 1r C" ‘ _s 8613 ¢~““ “if an the tafflfi’l nark‘t. T"n Peer? ee cc¢*““ad rincijsily in tic L "1" from 1:2”—32. cattle neurip‘t. T7: de;rt- cl flu ‘““t _ f”vnd ’“ *‘e usrt‘l" recei'ts of C'ttle rt the IetrJit :5 E ; :35, (F';. 1: 5rd Tc‘le 1%) is x‘uch ls;:.iM.1 so t‘”“ fix‘t f ‘rxl it "" 1:2 13 IWX‘EEJ- ":TL_CE (:Tar. ‘7). In fzc., as x111 presently be shswr, t‘e;c “e"e“"ts f” ct ct: 15:5 t'nn those of :ny cf he other t rte clogs:n of livestock. it c n ‘e seen -:*, a strip 01 the 13“? tern t“““d line this the rims'r of crttle sold "t t.e Detroit stoch ”t.ts wrc v r" nrar‘y cerstant tit g' Lie fPPrvyT r period from July 13 EC t3 Jul" 1:32, the aver" e n ethly 7.1K": far tTCse years varying only from 10,396 to 11,073. Receipts tier Carthaged As a lever level (between 8,030 31a 5.090 r m nth) WIiCh €1t“"339 from AVQVSt 13:1 through Apiil of 1933. These years csincide with tie law nrried of tie gs .e 31 cattle fire . ctien cycle far this country as a whale, whic‘ 1: turn ,. . ‘ a ,. ~ .1“ , - 1: 3 ~. . in: .. 1-.. ~1 , .v. was ptrtly caused by “he plastic occiine in 11\*'tcck Liica‘ Int th gen 131 A .3 ‘. e ‘- 4- . s1 ‘r-,.(~ A ‘\~ - q,’ .-,..- economic Lit*asion wish resultant radioed Conan“ r c’ a,/. 3 1 ~v ~u . ~ -1, '. 1 r~ “I; m! ~ ~’~ 1‘75 Since 29‘) +.e ine‘enre “' ‘Cc“ Qv‘ 9 T”’#3 »53 bLLC +JJ/ cattle receipts at Detroit have been ltrgrr than {C an? tine in the pcst. Q This increase reflects one reneral u~"aid trend of hangers of cattle on ‘9 farms (Table 1), ingroved consum r dc and wit resultcnt hi; 9 A ctr p“ices, and the A.A.A. nro 5 ans rlong with the emergency mnrketing periods followin‘ h.) the drouths °f133u and agrin in 1330. T38 past sever 1 years have 8150 been mrr'ed by a frvorable relationship betwgen the Prfcns of feed craps and meat animals (Fir. 10), whien ha"e tended to maintain he vclvwe of ITORICti n or” xrrketinr. It is interestir? to note that the 9 livestoc l 5 .‘:I ( ‘f P“ \J 3 C 3 1 . _ .1- \ .2 3-- ,,,- . :- 1n. . -. : :- ran 8 of t: LC menth-; flue . no appear to be 1-. €erFg w1ta v.9 grswir annual volume of receip s. 110 100 90 o deem mo mcfim 59E 0 4 .( .w .3 z. ma<£ £5.52 .3 mcstv 5:359. 1 gov—mafia .02 1> 12 :00 sUMWU ..- JUKEDU! 20 HEEL— 19_5_5___ 19.5.L 1957— 195.8— 11 19 21- . 1928.... 1929.; 19.5(1 19:51 1952 56. Table 14. Total Receipts of Cattle at the Detroit Stockyards, by months, 1926-1938 Month 71926 71927’ 1928 71929 '1930 January 11255 10374 8838 13190 14612 February 10862 10254 11661 9641 10992 March 14019 10899 7884 9770 10971 April 10935 9338 9272 13396 12015 May 10176 8948 10434 8663 7947 June 9790 9187 8000 9107 9608 July 8155 6962 12444 11555 8752 August 8376 12500 10521 9649 8106 September 12060 10290 11175 10528 9618 October 11737 12183 14501 15231 14365 November 12059 15502 12782 11958 11405 December 12374 9512 10456 10206 14254 Average 10983 10496 10664 11075 11054 Month 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 January 10405 7712 6774 11883 19037 February 8827 6457 8074 10710 14261 march 8147 9270 6783 9888 12825 April 10611 8993 6480 10758 12714 May 7538 7580 10518 12547 15579 June 7515 9818 8017 10829 11659 July 9039 8054 7672 11114 13780 August 8614 9998 10429 13983 12710 September 10485 7669 8383 13977 15054 October 9098 7611 8631 15232 18129 November 8374 10039 11915 12356 3265 December 8991 5491 6455 12029 12237 Average 8970 8224 8344 12109 14271 Month 1936 1937 1938 January 14294 16664 12572 February 10892 13940 2287 march 12828 20229 17696 April 12960 17896 14440 May 13314 17040 13794 June 14897 22536 16669 July 16990 16632 12817 August 15981 18883 16879 September 20103 21835 13686 October 15980 16231 15217 November 13872 14800 17261 ~ December 16077 14741 12281 Average 14849 17619 14633 Calf Receipts. Not a great deal need be said in regard to the receipts of calves at the Detroit yards (Fig. 20 and Table 15). The decrease from an average monthly volume of 18,332 in 1931 to 10,381 in 1938 may be attributed largely to the increasing importance of the auction markets and interior packing houses. This decrease 'would probably have commenced earlier in the decade had not the period from.1931-33 been unfavorable for the marketing of cattle which resulted in them.being kept on the farms for breeding. Consequently, the volume of calves marketed during these years was larger than at any other time during the period covered by this study. Since 193:, the producers have been selling a larger proportion of their cattle and the volume of calves marketed has been smaller. The monthly fluctuations in the volume of calf receipts are of greater magnitude and regularity than those present in the case of cattle. Sheep and Lamb Receipts. The greatest monthly fluctuations found in the receipts of any class of livestock are found in the case of sheep and lambs (Fig. 21 and Table 16). In fact, these variations are so large that it is necessary to use the average monthly receipts together with the trend line as being indicative of the increasing or decreasing importance of the mutton and wool industries in the state. The magnitude of these fluctuations apparently increases during periods When the long term trend is up and decreases when the receipts trend line turns down. The trend is generally upward during the first half (1926-31) of the period covered by this study with the average monthly volume reaching its peak of 48,190 head in 1930. Since that time there has been increasing activity on the part of he various local livestock outlets and the number of sheep and 1932_ 19:13— 1934_ 19.35— 1936__ 113]— 1938— a 1L 19.28— 1929_. 19.5.0.__' 0 .0st mo mcfimsone O 4 .< .m .3 2n ma .Z ..00 «ummu d gunman! 39. \ J \l Table 15. Total Receipts of Calves at the Detroit Stockyards, by Eonths, 1926-1938 Month 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 January 14260 14115 13558 17143 ' 20872 February 13327 13638 16907 13946 16434 March 17019 17078 12404 13665 15481 April 15914 16665 15661 19028 22201 May 17858 17867 19350 15398 18616 June 20403 18657 14050 14289 15815 July 11874 11541 13904 14530 16761 August 9348 11496 9203 9951 11638 September 9863 7660 8645 8926 10102 October 10637 9909 14573 14877 16608 November 12489 15667 13789 14069 15341 December 17630 12764 13088 11747 21237 Average 14219 13921 13761 13964 16759 Month 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 January 18282 16386 14574 18850 16973 February 17895 16709 16081 16164 11866 March 16424 21003 14584 15822 13037 April 25475 20820 15637 16998 14169 {ay 21637 19930 20044 22441 18592 June 19197 22207 14991 18430 14809 July 18742 14273 13288 17195 15864 August 12497 15235 13670 15629 9523 September 15080 12637 10151 9976 8054 October 15945 15314 12278 14722 10352 November 16674 22664 18716 13378 9134 December 21938 15327 15187 13467 8353 Average 18332 17709 14933 16089 12561 Konth 1936 1937 1938 .January 11075 9970 9088 February 10106 11835 9059 March 14415 15469 12370 April 12687 14168 12765 May 13929 15428 ' 13290 June 12328 18621 13500 July 14408 12776 10119 August 9062 10059 10583 September 9083 11162 6927 October 8280 9223 7751 November 8993 9513 10843 December 11020 10763 8273 Average 10608 12416 10381 Fig. 21. Total Receipts of Sheep and Lambs the Detroit Stockyards by Months, 1926-38 Thousands of Head m~2mL # 0 cm: 15‘ K: .3 )2; 23-6 :m5 0:5 U3) >2: 30 ’3.( :32 «0:5 Us 4E-1 a w h. a 3 U x 20 A 10 Q 41. Table 16. Total Receipts of Sheep and Lambs at the Detroit Stockyards, by Months, 1926-1938 Tenth 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 January 33504 56170 41501 68972 . 72232 February 25082 48172 41904 41234 38252 March . 16110 36659 14251 21691 26147 April 21770 29095 23101 34515 28963 May 17371 17716 20063 16424 13692 June 9372 12224 7416 9932 11769 July 5684 5810 9194 10930 14316 August 11439 23600 14500 19027 33103 September 41850 41796 36632 50545 48984 October 66341 64480 92142 96995 97952 November 69831 100420 86939 97429 109648 December 67675 43666 58821 53053 83226 Average 32169 39984 37205 43396 48190 Month 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 January 56219 53911 50186 49354 38941 February 38208 43786 43380 28233 24837 March 18900 27460 24567 17292 17739 April 17249 18388 22191 23440 15241 May 9204 11223 25414 20195 17352 June 8433 10830 7766 8979 7746 July 16973 12443 10659 10752 7657 August 43263 34438 36263 33457 15316 September 84729 56116 50957 42968 35826 October 78597 76036 60014 85984 59342 November 84847 116434 93070 72103 51891 December 79994 59116 47561 53182 42306 Average 44718 43348 39336 37162 27850 Month 1936 1937 1938 January 48881 54326 45808 February 35290 40578 40370 March 34016 35777 35957 April 32715 24572 27656 May 27100 17777 28488 June 7562 10521 10027 July 8369 4996 6258 August 16084 10820 18849 September 31622 35056 26429 October 46134 46253 48396 November 60543 51389 61249 December 61854 49518 27206 Average 34181 31799 31393 lambs marketed at the terminal has decreased. The monthly average was lowest (27,850) in 1935 and has since 'aried between 31,393 and 34,181. Fog Receipts. The trend of hog receipts at the Detroit market has been generally downward for the period of our study (Fig.22 and Table 17). Highest, (42,701) in 1927, the monthly average decreasei sharply to 16,324 in 193 , recovered somewhat. during 1933 and the first quarter of 1934 and then dropped to its lowest point in 1935 at which time the average monthly receipts were only 10,693. The very marked increase in September, 1933 can mainly be attributed to the AAA purchases of small pigs and breed SOWS'which'were slaughtered on government account as an emergency method of reducing the national surplus of this class of livestock. The trend was upward in 1936-37 but the 1938 receipts were smaller than in either of these two years. he monthly variations, though fairly large, are irregular and present no particular pattern with the exception of a high point which is found in the last quarter of most years, and to a lesser degree during the second quarter of many of the years. This long time decrease may be largely attributed to the falling off in the number of hogs on Iichigan_farms from 1,150,000 in 1923 to 512,000 in 1935 (Table 1). Although this number has been increasing since 1935, it was still only 713,000 in 1939. Other factors affecting terminal receipts have been the growth of direct marketing methods and an increasing number of interior packing houses. Transportation of Livestock to the Terminal. The period since 1920 will, in the future, be noted as the one in which the motor f 3% mo 8 0 ms m some .< .m. t: I. WG<§ £5.52 .3 £5» 3:2; 1.54% ,0! .> .2 :00 IUMOH e .5525: 19.55-___ 19.5.5— 19_55___ 19352 . 1958. _ a 1927— 11213— 1929— 19_39_ 19.33... 1932— Table 17. Total Receipts of Hogs at the Detroit Stockyards, by Months, 1926-1938 Month 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 January 33728 36687 45451 53036 31162 February 27110 30486 50663 32164 20294 March ‘ 35652 47124 36691 28335 20013 April 35396 45827 40563 41603 24469 May 39484 45859 45484 30262 17332 June 37764 37218 ‘ 27553 25726 14121 July 17730 19352 19818 21220 10087 August 16872 24540 10778 17077 11126 September 36306 41153 28901 31445 21926 October 36449 58285 54103 53125 33981 November 50553 76681 57747 42648 29913 December 52587 49203 47177 38264 23387 Average 34969 42701 38744 34575 21484 Month 1931 1932 1933 1934\ 1935 January 14817 9732 12479 22189 17194 February 15516 12588 18241 19146 9472 Harsh 15441 21543 20672 18544 9987 April 23030 19868 20409 18731 10303 Nay 14702 18383 24916 19018 12328 June 10680 14665 16071 14056 7480 July 8675 8972 11629 8509 7979 August 10147 14439 18336 16607 7571 September 25869 17866 52882 13231 7274 October 26164 20271 19496 22059 13817 November 22140 24189 29234 18858 12758 December 1669 13367 13761 17167 12158 Average 16990 16324 21511 17343 10693 Month 1936 1937 1938 January 15283 19382 20433 February 11348 17806 14905 March 16420 24546 17932 April 15892 24838 14690 may 15498 20906 15137 June 14671 21314 16283 July 13913 13748 10330 August 11066 11550 12744 September 17408 16929 13877 October 18500 19008 16571 .November 18911 21210 22514 December 25770 25741 14130 Average 16223 19748 15796 45 A6 truck largely replaced the railroad as the conveyor of livestock. This trend holds good for all the markets, but only in the case of the terminal yards are reliable figures available which show what has happened in this respect during the past 20 years. Since 1920, the proportion of total receipts represented by rail shipments has declined from 96.1 per cent to 9.3 per cent,in 1938, while truck receipts increased from.3.9 per cent to 90.7 per cent of the total volume (Fig. 23 and Table 18). The trend from rail to truck'was most pronounced in the years between 1924 and 1933. This period probably also marks the era of most rapid improvement in the trucks themselves as well as in the highways upon which they operate. There was a very slight swing back to the railroad in 1934, but after that year the trend reversed itself again and the truckers have since been transporting an increasing percentage of each year's marketings. Of course, the annual increase in the proportion trucked has been much smaller than was the case during the late twenties and it is highly improbable, if not impossible, that the railroads will ever lose all of this business. On the other hand, present conditions give no indication that they will ever regain a larger proportion of the livestock transportation business than they now have. The 1920-38 decline in the percentage of each of the four classes of livestock carried by the railroads has been about the same (Fig. 24 and Table 18). The percentage of cattle shipped by rail increased over 12 per cent between 1933 and 1936 before resuming its decline. This may be attributed to the fact that during that period, a larger proportion of the cattle was coming from a FNmH mNmH mmma wmma mmma Nmmfl Hmoa Omma Am. . . . . . . , .. 2.. . ....v . , \.. .p .7.., .7.‘ Lit? .(.0 .3 I. Ufiq} .1525: ....c: .2:— .:...: ...... :2 3 3 .. .2 "Tea; .0! > .2 :00 :52». 4 3.4.3.1.: OH ON on on 00 A-A-u-A- Oh 0m 00 OOH .dnfi oanse ma nobflw spew esp 80am chSQGOQ chos.mcwspnoohom enema .H b.0w m.om m.ow m.m H.m m.oa m.m w.ma mmma w.mm m.>w m.m> m.ma m.m .m.HH m.ma m.mm bwmfi o.mw 0.0m m.mm w.mH m.o H.¢H o.wa b.0m owma o.mm m.¢m ¢.ws 0.5H m.oa o.sH e.mH o.mm mmmfi H.0s o.Hw o.oe s.oH e.wa m.om o.mH o.¢m emma >.oe o.Hm m.Hw «.ma m.ma m.mm H.mH ¢.wH mama H.eo s.mm o.we N.mm ¢.mm m.mm m.>m o.mm mama e.oo m.mo w.mo m.sm «.mm m.mm m.em m.>n Hmmfl e.mm m.Hm m.mm m.m¢ o.m¢ m.m¢ H.ww m.s¢ Omma o.m¢ m.m¢ m.m¢ 0.0m H.um o.mm m.om H.om mmma e.mm m.mm m.mm o.mm w.mw w.mm m.mm m.mo mmma H.mm H.5N o.mw H.me m.oe m.oe m.m> ¢.>m emofi m.mm m.mm m.mm ¢.we e.ow m.ms m.>s H.>e mama m.mH m.aH ¢.wH ¢.mw n.0w m.om w.mm onaw LmoH a.¢a w.0H w.HH m.ww 0.0m m.mw m.om m.mm emafl ¢.ma e.w m.oa m.oo o.mm o.mw m.Hm ¢.mw mmmfi m.e o.m o.» o.mm ¢.mm w.mm «.6m «.mm mmmfl mum m.w w.m o.mm n.6m >.ma m.mm o.¢o Hmma am.» he.» we.m ad.em am.em um.mm we.ao mo.no cmma measq was mcbaeu appso Haves mmom mbfidq one mobasu oapwdo macaw moomm ‘LIMmsmm,hp¢eoo you, Hasm hp[fiaoo hem asmw mmuomma .mommsao an .measaaoopm phoneme on» pa Madge was HM m an mpmwoocm Moouwobflq Haqu4 mo momspnoOHom .wH manda 49. l .I .3 I. ‘01} .213. in: 52 .52.: :1. ...: 3 S 1 2 3.35.6: i .x :00 tern: a 4:33. 50 western points, beyond a convenient trucking distance from Detroit, than is ordinarily the case. On the other hand, the proportion of hogs received by rail has been decreasing at a more rapid rate than is the case with calves and sheep which have leveled out somewhat from.their rapid decline of the twenties. The reasons given by various livestock men for this change from rail to truck shipments of livestock are numerous, and seem.to depend to some extent on the person who is making the statement. It is, of course, possible to indicate such general factors as improved motor trucks and better highways. The best approach to the underlying causes of this rail-truck shift is an analysis of the reasons given by individual producers for using the service which they do. Of 202 producers questioned on this point, over 76 per cent stated that they preferred truck shipments, 17 per cent favored.rai1 transportation and 6 per cent varied their choice from time to tim.. All of the last group stated that for short trips they used a truck, but for longer hauls, such as to the Buffalo, New York, terminal, the railroads were better. Many of these producers gave several reasons for selecting their particular transportation. It is interesting to consider the various reasons given and to attempt an analysis of at least the more common ones. Advantages of Truck Transportation. As indicated in_ Table 19, the best "selling point" for truck transportation is its convenience for the average producer. The producer has only to 51 Table 19. Advantages of Livestock Trucking as Indicated by 219 Michigan Producers Producers Factor Reporting Percent Convenience 97 44.3% Faster, more direct delivery 56 25.6 Less shrinkage 28 12.8 Lower cost 19 8.7 Has own truck 8 3.6 Stock arrives in better condition 7 3.2 Can watch market more closely _jg 1.8 Totals 219 100.0% contact his favorite trucker who comes to thefarm, usually loads the livestock himself, and takes it to market. In most cases of shipment by rail the stock must be loaded into trucks by the producer and taken to the railroad loading yards, where it must be reloaded into a railroad car. 0n hauls of any distance, the producer must often accompany the load to take care of it enroute. Another factor to be considered under the heading of "convenience" is the fact that the average producer can usually fill a truck when he is ready to make a shipment. Thus, he finds it easy and profitable to market his livestock immediately upon its reaching its best weight. In contrast, many producers do not have a sufficient volume ready for market at any one time to fill a railroad car. Because of higher rates on less than carlots, they are forced to wait until a neighbor has enough stock ready for market to complete the shipment. This means carrying livestock on h farm.after it has reached its best weight, with a resultant increase in production costs. Of course, member- ship in a cooperative livestock shipping association takes care of this problem for many Michigan producers. Another important factor in the convenience of truck shipments for the producer is the averare number of trips made to the terminal market each week by the truckers (Table 20). The average for the 93 truckers in this study Table 20. Frequency of Trips to the Terminal Harket by 93 Michigan Truckers ‘rflfimber oquFips number ’ “forcefit 5 trips per week 2 2.1fi 4 " " " 7 7.5 3 " " " 17 18.3 2 n n n 28 30.2 1 " " " 26 28.0 2 " " month 3 3.2 l I! " ll 3 3 . 2 Less than 1 trip per month ._1 7.5 Totals 93 100.0% is 1.87 trips per week. many of them stated, however, that in the peak months they make as many as 10 or 12 trips per week, as time permits. "Apparently, truck service is more valuable in reducing the average interval between irregular shipments than in permitting shipments with regular frequency."1 Instead of being restricted to the train schedule in planning his shipments, the producer is free to start a load to market at almost any hour of the day or night. This permits him to take advantage of the cool nights and also to time the arrival of the livestock at Detroit so as to sell it the same day it arrives, thus effecting considerable savings in yard charges. Second only to convenience is the item of fast and l. Motts, G. K., Hotor Truck Iarketing of Xichigan Livestock. Ag. Expt. Station, Kichigan State College, Special Bulletin 53 direct delivery to Detroit (Table 19). Iany producers stated that, given the same starting time, it would often reguire several times as long for livestock to reach the market by train as it does by truck. Since most livestock men agree that time enroute should be kept at a minimum, this item is understandably significant to the producers. This, of course, involves the third most common reason for preferring truck shipment--that of "less shrinkage." Another stated advantage of truck shipments, that of "lower cost", appears to be very questionable since this reason is the most common one given by producers favoring rail shipments for preferring that form of transportation (Table 23). A com- parison of the relative costs to the producer for truck and rail shipments of livestock is given in Table 21. The rate per hundred weight for rail shipmentsisconsistenthless than that quoted by the truckers contacted in this study for trips of 30 to 140 miles. It appears from this that, when the producer is able to take advantage of carlot rates, the trucking charge is less than the comparable cost of rail shipment only in exceptional cases. Since most calves are trucked for a charge of $0.75 or $1.00 per head rather than by weight, this class of livestock is omitted from.the tabulation. Although the average clarge for trucking the various classes of livestock to the terminal market increases with the distance to that market, this increase is far from regular and there is often considerable variation in these rates within a small area. For example, the average charges per hundredaweight for transporting .eappso how eboos ne>flw epsa esp ms ease ex» ea ewe: use moors moot mansoe you spay exp mmpoaade Meet camcfim how one .eepmhn Uneawmsm Heapdeo uaow how 039 mp.demmfl:asm one? Sofia? .mepea enema .H mm. am. mm. on. ma. ow. oealama em. on. Hm. mm. we. mm. QmHIHOH mm. mm. om. mm. mm. mm. ooanam Hm. mm. ma. mm. mm. «m. omnam m. mm. ma. mm. mm. mm. owuas ma. Hm. NH. an. an. m. outdo ma. om. ma. mm. mm. mm. oouam sfi. ma. ma. H». mm. Hm. omuaw ma. 5H. ea. mm. mm. mm. owuam mmom morass 3t 8 anon speed 338 Imus Meeflm dud meegn mpso pom emasmo Hflsm .rso Lem empamo xosae ewsam>¢ emsoawz memmefio no .dem was Moshe he Aoopmo>flq mo soapspaommasaa pom momasgo .Hm manna 55 cattle, sheep and lambs, and hogs from the 40-49 mile zone to the terminal market are higher than these asked by truckers operating in the 50.59 mile zone. In explanation of the wide and erratic variations in livestock trucking rates, reference may appropriately be made at this point to the following observations from a study of "Motor Truck Marketing of Livestock in Michigan", made by G. N. Motts in l 1932. "One of the most important reasons for the wide variation in livestock trucking rates in Michigan and for the severity of competition among the truckers is the fact that many truckers do not estimate their costs accurately. Although the expenses often referred to as “cash outlay" or ”cash costs” are quite well lmow, there are the fixed costs which must also be paid if the trucker is to continue to operate. The cash costs include gasoline, oil, tire and truck repairs, and wages. The latter in most cases is not charged as part of the expenses but is considered to be whatever is left after all the cash costs of a trip have been met. Such accounting neglects the fixed expenses of vehicle taxes, insurance, depreciation, and interest on the investment. "The total operating cost per mile varies with the size of truck, the loads carried, the character of the roads traveled, the condition in which the truck is maintained whether the truck is used for hire or not, the number of years it is driven, its cost, and the number of miles driven per year. For these reasons, an exact figure cannot be given here for the total costs per mile, but according to about 10 per cent of the truckers, their total costs per mile range from 15 to 20 cents per truck mile. The truckers who base their rates upon their cash costs, may appear to be breaking even or making a small profit: but over a period of time their full costs must be met if they are to continue to operate. Wages at 80 cents per hour are included in these estimates. A recent study by the transportation division of the United States Depart- ment of Commerce indicates that operating costs of 1.5 ton trucks were at least as large as 20 cents per truck mile in 1.931.'I 1 Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Special Bulletin No. p. 12. 56 The last three advantages of truck transportation listed in Table 19 - - ”own truck",“'stock arrives in better condition", and ”permits closer watch of the market“ - - obviously vary with the individml producer. Since they were listed in a very few cases, it is believed that they are not sufficiently important for detailed discussion at this point. The advantages of motor trudc shipment as noted by producers in this survey, may be compared with those discussed in Dr. Motts' bulletin under the following captions: (1) less time in transit, (2) more frequent shipments, (3) live- stock picked up at farms, (4) condition on arrival, (5) lower costs in some cases.1 Result of Increased Vglume of Trud: Shipments. In connection with this analysis of the increase in the trucking of Michigan livestock, the resultant changes in the number and kinds of stock raised, as reported by the producers, are given in Table 22. It is apparent that, although a few producers have sought to improve their economic position by making changes in their production schedule, the coming of truck marketing of livestock has not prodmed, as yet, any great changes in the production of livestock. Whether or not the few changes reported 1 Ibid., pp. 14-15. 57 are really attributable to the increasing prevalence of trucking or are merely coincidental with it is probably debatable. Table 22. Effects of Increased Hotor Truck Karketing on Michigan Livestock Production Producers Effect Reporting Percent No change 169 95.73 Increased amount of livestock 5 1.7 Change from dairy to beef cattle 2 1.1 Better selection of feeder stock is possible 2 1.1 Decreased amount of livestock 1 .6 Production of cheaper grade of livestock 1 .6 Produce heavier hogs 1 .6 Decreased marketing of calves l .6 Totals 150 100.0 Advantages of Rail Transportation. Since the proportion ’by rail of livestock marketed/is much smaller than that which is transported by truck (Table 18), it is natural that even the advantages most commonly claimed for this type of transportation should appear less frequently than the reasons given for favoring truck shipments (Table 19). It should also be remembered that many of the producers who favor rail shipments state that most 0 their sales are made at the eastern terminals such as Buffalo or Hewark. many of the advantages listed (Table 23) are colored by this fact. The most common reason given for favoring rail shipments is "lower cost." This is to be expected since it has been previously indicated that in all but a few exceptional cases the cost to the producer for a given shipment is less by rail than by truck. The second most common reason for preferring rail shipments is "better condition on arrival." In the case of long hauls, the convenient water and feed stops, together with somewhat less "bouncing around" of the livestock tends to produce this result. The third reason, hat of a "definite arrival time," is also to be expected since, over a long distance and under varying weather conditions, it is easier for a railroad to operate on a definite schedule than it would be for a trucker. Table 23. Advantages of Rail Transportation as Indicated by 43 Michigan Producers Producers Factor Reporting Percent lower cost 17 39.5% Stock arrives in better condition 9 20.9 Definite arrival time 4 9.3 Terminal used is too far for truck 3 7.0 Make shipments too large for truck 3 7.0 No reason 3 7.0 Feed in transit privileges 2 4.7 Less shrinkage 1 2.3 Convenience ._l 2.3 Totals 43 100.03 It will be recalled that one of the commonly mentioned advantages of truck transportation is the convenience of the truck for small shipments over a short distance. Reasons 4 and 5 in Table 23 present the reverse side of the picture, indicating that some trips are too long, or shipments too large, to be handled with a truck or semi-trailer. As with the producers favoring the truck, several reasons for favoring rail shipments were mentioned which do not appear often enough to be of significance in this analysis. They are included in the tabulation in order that it might be as complete as possible, but need not be considered individually. Out-of-State Terminal Karkcts. Attention has been given thus far only to the Detroit stockyards. To round out the picture, note should be taken of certain relationships of the Michigan livestock industry to various eastern and western terminal markets in the states to which Michigan livestock moves and from which the out of state receipts arrive. In 1937, there were ,534 carloads of livestock shipped from.Hichigan points to other states over the New York Central, Grand Trunk, and Pere Marquette Railroads. An examination of Figure 25 and Table 24A reveals that over half (59.4%) of these shipments were to the state of New York. New Jersey (24.4fl), Pennsylvania (5.3%), Ohio (3.8fl), and Hassachusetts (3.1fl) followed as the chief purchasers of Eichigan livestock. The balance of 4.0 per cent was divided among some six other states in varying quantities. For the same year these three railways reported arrivals in Kichigan of 7130 carlot shipments of livestock from.western states (Fig. 25 and Table 25A). This represents a surplus of receipts over shipments of 3596 carloads. This livestock came from seventeen states, with nearly 70% coming from a group of five cities. These shippin points were 3 Chicago (32.8fl), Indianapolis (13.5%), Omaha (11.6%), Kansas City (6.57;), and Oklahoma City (5.0;3). Advantages and Disadvantages of Terminal Marketing. .Ameng the advantages of marketing through the Detroit terminal listed by Hichigan livestock producers and truckers may be included: 1) More active buyer competition. Of course the producer 60. J .a @433 seam 33009" 93.30. 0 .x. 38.5% «333: on» If ..) Imo pan: bondage» Eon.“ Rowan." oado .(.(.\./ 1 no.“ couscous non 30.730 who f ..pqaoa Haaea>aeua cu eoaaeouo 3%... I/ won and». Baum aaoamunm O flié I. I/. . o . . . . ...c G ”$36... .— _ .3 z . .s. ....... a o . . m, a 55. (.Jt.|.\ ..u . up . n _. _ . .\ 22 TN . . s \ .| IR ...||.|l .I ..... In ‘ .|||. \ ll.l*..l I ..\. \. 1341.3»! ./ aw 2S _ .. .. an». 35 _ . .. _ $10“)... Wu . r . a..s. .. s .142}... )(. Jewish... flu {u .2. aav |.|. m‘wo . x : x ... 4 liiJ a :: {fivi Mw,%_n@c?. ..... Lffly r a . a. we. _ _ air, e... .. iii}? . ~ A M nx _ \ . VG hi .qfiv...’ (Ir . . a Van. ....... .1 . ~.:::.L MlulloI.ll. .... .m.OH\\D MICK-W —. O), ‘ _ ..xaa Ho .paoaa«nu peanao no .aoaaaaaa..n ens .oonuou .nm .uan 61 is competing with more sellers of his commodity, but the producers of good or average grades of livestock will probably get a better price at the terminal market than at one of the smaller markets n the state. The large scale operations of the terminals tend H- to result in all producers receiving the true market value for all grades of livestock. 2) All commission firms are bonded to assure producer of payment for stock and otherwise protect the interests of producers. 3) Ease of transportation to and from the market since most railroads converge in Detroit and the city may be reached by direct highways from nearly all sections of the lower peninsula. 4) More adequate facilities for the care of the livestock prior to selling. 5) The presence of a c00perative commission firm.for the use of its members and other cooperative-minded producers. Such an agency tends to improve handling and selling practices and other- wise protect the farmer's interest. This is, of course, not inherent in terminal marketing as such, but comes rather from.the presence of a cooperative agency in the terminal under consideration here. 6) The location of the yards in the state's largest business and industrial center (which provides a broad outlet for meat products) is an advantage for those producers and truckers who ‘wish to transact other business on their marketing trips. (For example, many truckers haul various commodities purchased in Detroit back to their home localities on the return trip.) 7) For those producers interested in feeder stock, the livestock arriving at the terminal from the west offers a better selection.and more uniform grades than.can ordinarily be secured elsewhere. There are also certain disadvantages to trading at the terminal market which were mentioned by the producers and truckers. These include: 1) .A longer haul is usually necessary than if the producer patronized a home market. 2). In the case of railroad shipments, espeCially where switching between lines is required, quite a long time often elapses after the livestock reaches Detroit before the car is ”spotted” at the yards. 3) Close grading of livestock may react to the disadvantage of the seller of poor grades of livestock. 4) Somewhat higher selling costs exist here than are charged at other markets. 5) Once a consignment is on the terminal market, the producer or trucker is inclined to sell regardless of the condition of the market. This is because transportation and yardage charges will be collected whether a sale is made or not. In addition, once hogs have been unloaded at the yards, state regulation forbids their removal from the yards without vaccination. SECTION III COOPERATI’S EARKBTIHG AGEICIZS A considerable proportion of the livestock sold by Kichigan farmers is marketed through cooperative agencies. As indicated in the preceding section, these outlets are slightly different than the others considered in this study since they exist on a cooperative basis rather than for private profit. The relationship of these cOOperative outlets to the other agencies is indicated in Figure 15. Livestock shipping Associations. The first of these agencies to be considered are the livestock shipping associations. These are organizations of the producers in a given area which are designed to furnish a way of transporting the members' live- stock to a convenient market--usually to one where it may be sold through another cooperative agency. The number of these associa- tions in Hichigan, as well as in the surrounding states, is known to have been declining for a number of years. Indeed, the number of active associations in Hichigan declined from.143 in 1930 to 27 in 1939 (Fig. 26 and Table 26A). Some of the reasons for the rise and fall in the number of these associations are indicated in the following excerpt from a recent publication of the 'University of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station} "Before the shipping association movement began, farmers vvith less than carload lots commonly sold their livestock to the _gfiocal dealer, who assembled full carloads for consignment to a J“. Dowell, A.A. and'Warrington, S.T., Livestock Shipping Associa- txions. Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Hinnesota, Bulletin No. 339, November, 1938, P. 24. 63 64. lie. 26. Location of Livestock Shipping Associations. by Counties. 1980 and 1939 o. r”. w. . a.“ mu”. 0 . a... O Associations active in 1930 . “”ciations active in 1939 65 convenient public market. Under these conditions many farmers believed that the dealers were exacting undue margins for their services. The local cooperative livestock shipping association enabled the individual farmer to ship his livestock, regardless of number, at full carload rates to the public market where th—y could be sold separate y. This arrangement appealed to producers generally as indicated by he large proportion of Kinnesota farmers using the shipping associations when this movement reached its peak. Viewed in retrospect, it appears that the local associations performed much-needed services for producers during this period. "S,ortly after the'fiorld War, a number of new developments began to affect the activities of the local associations. The mileage of hard-surfaced roads and the number and efficiency of motor trucks for the transportation of livestock increased greatly. In many cases, producers were able to ship their small lots of livestock to market by truck, and hence did not need to rely on the local shipping association to supply transportation facilities. Grade standards were improved and market news was made available through the medium of the telephone, the radio, and the press. These developments not only brought the individual farmer in closer touch with his former market, but in many cases made available additional outlets. As a result, large numbers of producers dropped out of the local assOciations and marketed their own livestock through other channels." In the face of this wide—spread decline in the number and activity of local shiwping associations, it is not surprising v" A:- ”66 to find that, of 211 Kichigan producers contacted in this study, only 7 per cent marketed all of their livestock sold in 1937 through such an association (Table 27). Conversely, 84 per cent of these producers made no sales through this agency. As shown in the table, most producers sell either Table 27. Sales of 211 Kichigan Producers, Classified by Proportion of Livestock Karketed through Shipping Associations, 1957. Percentage of Individual Number of Producers Frequencyf' Producer's Livestock Sold in Each Class Expressed as Through Local Cooperative a Percentage Shipping Associations. 100;: 15 7.175 $30-99 4 1.9 80-89 1 0.5 70-79 3 1.4 60-69 0 0 50-59 3 1.4 40-49 0 0 20-29 5 1.4 10-19 2 0.9 l- 9 2 0.9 O 311 84.0 Totals 211 100.0 all or none of their livestock through an association, since only 19 out of the 211 producers indicated that they sold a fractional part of their livestock by this method. The principal advantages claimed for this method of marketing are (1) decreased marketing costs and (2) use of large scale rail shipments to distant terminals by farmers who raise only small quantities of livestock. One of the disadvantages of this form of marketing 67 is the necessity of the producer timing his shipments of live- stock to correspond with the marketing schedule of the shipping association. Of course, in the case of the larger associations which ship several times e week, this disadvantage is not of great consequence. Probably more important to the producer is the fact that in order to market through the facilities of the essocistion, it is usually necessary for him to transport his livestock to the shipping point. Cooperative Commission Agencies. As brought out in the ebove paragraphs, numerous Michigan producers who formerly marketed their livestock through seeperstive shipping associations are now transporting it to market in other ways. However, many of these producers, together with other farmers who market their live- stock in Detroit, continue to make final disposition of their stock through a cooperative agency. The Michigan Livestock Exchange and the Detroit Packing Company ere the two c00perstive agencies which are eveileble to these producers. The Michigan Livestock Exchange was first organized in 1918 as a State organization to assist the local shipping associ- ations in the solution‘of their legislative and transportation problems. It was not until 1922 that the Exchange established s sales agency on the Detroit Livestock 'Market. Its original oper- ating capital was furnished by the member shipping associations and the Board of Directors. In the period extending from 1926 through 1938, the Exchange handled e. total of 5,146,913 head of stock (on average of slightly less then 400,000 head per year) valued at about $74,329,000. 68 The Michigan producers contacted in this study tend to use this outlet for either all or none of the livestock which they sell at the Detroit stockyards (Table 28). Forty per cent of the producers contacted in this study sold all of their Table 28. Sales of 199 Michigan Producers, Classified by Preportion of Livestock Marketed Through Gosperative Commission Fine, 1937. Per cent of Livestock Sold Frequency at Terminal which is Sold Number of Expressed through Michigan Livestock Producers in as a Per- Me AEach Class centege 100% so 40.2% 90-99 1 0.5 80-89 0 -- 70-79 0 -- 60-69 2 1.0 50-59 9 4-5 L0~L9 1 0.5 30-39 1 0.5 20-29 I. 2.0 10-19 5 2.5 1- 9 I. 2.0 o _9_2_ 56.3 Totals 199 100.0% terminal-marketed livestock through this firm, while forty-six per cent did not patronize it to any extent whatever. It may be seen from a comparison of Tables 27 and 28 that at present there is very little relationship between the preportion of livestock sold through the local shipping associations and that marketed through the soaperative emission firm at the terminal. From the same group of producers, only 7 per cent sold all of their livestock through the local association, while [,0 per cent disposed of all of their terminal marketed stock through the cooPerative commis- eion firm. This may be due to the fact that members of disbanded 69 shipping associations have retained the 'cOOperative idea“ and are, consequently, Operating through the producer owned com- mission agency on the terminal market. The Producers COOperative Commission Association is an organization similar to the Michigan Livestock Exchange. Located on the East Buffalo, New Ybrk terminal, it serves as an outlet for the livestock of producers residing in that portion of southern Michigan which is served by the New York Central System. ‘Many of the local shipping associations in that part of the state are members of this Commission Association. Approxi— mately 20 per cent of the deckload receipts of this firm between 1930 and 1938 originated in Michigan. The advantages and disadvantages of terminal marketing as given in Section II will, in general, apply to these commission agencies. Association members will, of course, benefit ’frm what- ever patronage dividends are distributed by these firms. The Michigan Livestock Exchange refunded $140,000 in this manner be- tween 1922 and 1935, but has made no refunds in the last five years. The Detroit Packing Company:, This organization is a farmer owned and controlled corporation which acquired the assets of the old Detroit Packing Company in 1933. This was made possible through a loan from the Central Bank for CooPeratives at Washington, D. C. while figures indicating the volume of its receipts were not obtained for this study, it is known that this institution is handling a substantial volume of livestock. It is located near 69s the Detroit stockyards which is a convenience for those truckers who sell part of their load at the parking company and dispose of the balance at the terminal market. Several truckers were observed to be consistently engaging in this practice. The principal advantage of disposing of livestock at this agency is the reduced marketing cost. Since the animals are slaughtered very shortly after being unloaded, the charges for yardage and feed which are made at the terminal market are not col- lected at this outlet. In place of the usual selling charges, the packing company retains a certain.amount per head which is credited to the producer's account. .At the end of each year, certificates of interest are issued to each producer. These represent the accu- mulated savings in marketing charges. The only disadvantage observed in connection with this institution was that during the rush hours of a morning, it is occasionally necessary for truckers to wait somewhat longer in the line to the.truck dock than is the case at the stockyards. SECTION IV ”1"?“ 7"'-.'1""r"""'-‘ ,‘TN ,‘fi 1‘? I'f'n .LlLSJLi -.(gsJJLLJL ..iJ l1‘-f..'1.'dC 1.“) Attention'will now be given to the various marketing agencies other than the terminal yards. Some of these, such as the packing houses in the larger cities, have many of the same characteristics observed in the case of the Detroit markets. Others, such as the community auction markets, concentration yards, local dealers, and butchers are distinctly leewl and vary greatly in their characteristics. The first of these agencies to be con- sidered are the packing houses which are to be found in various cities of Hichigan. The P ck‘ng House. A packing house may be classed as a .I’H local or terminal’establishment depending upon its location. "Terminal" packing houses are those located in the large livestock receiving centers such as Detroit or Grand Rapids. Smaller establishments serving a limited area may properly be classed as "local" packing houses. With the return to direct marketing, which has occurred in recent years over a wide area in the livestock pretucing regions of the country, the number of both classes of packing houses has increas-d somewhat. Livestock sold to these agenci38 is slaughtered and the meat products sold to wholesalers and retailers, both for the Iichiéan and eastern marke's. These agencies may be distinguished from the local or string butchers, discussed later, chiefly on the basis of the extent to which they engage in wholesale operations. There were 103 of these agencies in fiichigan in 1959, (F’g. 27 and Table 29A). They are so located that one or more may be conveniently reached by a majority of the livestock producers of 70 71. Location of Michigan Packing Houses. by' Counties, 1939 Fig. 27. . I a- LN!) aim! T 4M! a. ¢ _ m L”! m MI W ..WL “Wan... _ Mi -II‘ .I ..L \ 72 the state. Many of these institutions maintain buyers at the teminal and other important markets who purchase a large portion of the receipts of their company at these markets. In addition, traveling representatives of these packing houses are present at all important community and private auctions bidding in such grades and quantities of livestock as they may desire. With the exception of packing houses located in the larger cities, the bulk of the receipts of these agencies are transported by truck, due to the fact that as the size of a city decreases, the advantages of truck services tends to increase in comparison with rail service. In the case of the numerous packing plants located in small cities and towns off the main railroad lines, it is apparent that a satisfactory method of transporting livestock to them depends upon the use of the motor truck. When one considers that the terminal packing plants are not likely to receive a larger percentage of their livestock by rail than does the terminal stockyards (Fig. 23). the statement that these agencies receive most of their livestock by truck is given additional substantiation. Another factor influencing the transportation of livestock to these agenci es is that many of the smaller ones often can not conveniently use livestock in carlosd lots and so prefer to purchase the smaller truck loads. Advantages which may be gained by selling livestock directly to packing houses include: 1) Lower transportation costs, since most livestock pro— during areas have one or more conveniently located institutions Of this tYpG. 75 2) The usually shorter haul results in less loss to the producer from.shrinkage. 3) Lower selling costs due to th absence of feed and yardage costs. Livestock purchased by these agencies is slaughtered almost immediately and consequently requires little care after arriving at the packing plant. Disadvantages encountered in selling to these agencies include: 1) The absence of buyer competition, such as is found at the terminal yards, generally makes for slightly lower prices than can be obtained at the terminal. Many producers and truckers state, however, that this diiference just about equals the increase in transportation and selling costs which a sale through the terminal usually necessitates. ‘2) Some of the smaller plants maintain rather inadequate truck docks making it necessary for the truckers to wait in line during the rush seasons of marketing. Not only is this a source of inconvenience to the trucker, but it occasionally results in the loss of livestock, especially hogs, from.over-heating. Some of these plants fail to grade animals properly and this sometimes results in a financial advantage for the producer of the poorer grades of livestock. Conversely, the producer of top grade animals may occasionally receive a lower price for his livestock than if they were sold at another market. Livestock.Auction harkets. During recent years a new type of local marketing agency has been developing in Kichigan. These are the local, or "community," livestock auction markets which have been 7h Operating in certain states, such as Iowa and Nebraska, for quite a number of years. These agencies provide a local outlet for the producer wishing to sell a few head of livestock as well as a local source of supply for butchers, packers, and producers who wish to purchase stock. They are usually operated as private enter- prises with the management receiving either a fixed fee or percentage commission for the sale of each animal (Table 30a). Sales are handled by an independent auctioneer with the livestock being sold to the highest bidder. Sales may be either by the head or by the hundred weight. The livestock is generally trucked to the auction by the producer or his agent and from the market by the purchaser or his agent. The twenty auction markets operating in 1939 were located chiefly in the lower half of the southern peninsula (Fig. 28} since this is the area within which the major portion of the state's livestock is produced. Some of the markets are quite close together (Gratiot and Sanilac Counties each have two of these agencies), thus competing for the same livestock. It will usually be found, however, that the various markets in a given competitive area operate on different days of the week. Since most auctions hold sales only once a week, it is possible for producers, auctioneers, and buyers to be present at a number of sales each week. These agencies are particularly important as a market for calves. This is reasonable since many calves are purchased by farmers, who keep them.for fatteninr as well as by local packers. Another o! factor is the relatively high cost of trucking a calf from.some 75. Fig. 28. Location of Michigan Livestock Auction Markets. 1939 ‘ g I I Kid: 1"! flfl . g a ..., n .l m V“ am | . . ([0074! A?” atom" “-35! “can 70"};6’0’10 ..m&. 17.27%: 17- ...-3.7.7.2.“?me ... L. moi an“ 'loiuu m '3‘wa Tina: I'.‘ . 'V'v’rw w7/¢ :......—l;.:.... gsrf. .351".' I I." 58:;“443 Mel ...... "M 513""«~22+L€:H H527; .Ovono ' ‘13! d _L Jimmie: .,—..,.l .... ...... ‘ V Z"?! .ertxr/otfe MJJIHTAW ca 1w!mu~ raw-w rut“ uv: L'Ana_l;oo_r—I ' mk- —i;::...m jM—Z Fla: liar—[.515 _J_.i_.:£ {”1___' 76 sections of the state to the terminal market. The advantages claimed for the auction markets include: 1) A shorter, easier haul resulting in less expense and less shrinkage. It may be pointed out that the transportamon of livestock to these markets is accomplished almost entirely by meter 'truck or trailer. This is due to a combination of factors including the ordinarily short distance, the odd-lot consignments, and the frequent lack of rail facilities at the markets themselves. 2) The absence of feed and yardage charges (Table 30A). 3) The presence in some cases of representatives of eastern markets. This makes for a degree of competition not found at some of the other local marketing agencies. 4) Auction sale to the highest bidder, with the seller being allowed one bid for the protection of his interests. 5) Immediate payment on the day of sale. An additional factor which has assisted in the development of these institutions is the fact that, aided by the ever present cafe or hot-dog stand, they have come to be a sort of social meeting place for the farmers and, occasionally, their wives. It is not uncommon for farmers to attend these sales on days when they have no intention of either selling or purchasing livestock. he chief disadvantages found in patronizing these markets are: 1) The spreading of such diseases as sheep scab from one :farm.to another through contacts made at the auction.market. Some £tttempts are being made at regulation by the state, but as yet most (If the effective precautions must be initiated by the auction managers 77 themselves. Many of them are working diligently to prevent the spread of disease, but the few that have been negligent at one time or another have brought discredit upon auction markets in general in the opinion of quite a large proportion of the producers and truckers contacted. Coincident with this problem is the one of regulating livestock truckers who engage in trucking betwen neighboring states (such as Ohio where sheep scab is quite prevalent) and Hichigan. 2) The failure of some auctions to have uniform selling charges for all patrons alike. 3) Some auctions do not carry ample bonds for the pro- tection of their consignors. 4) Regularly tested scales and impartial, bonded weigh- masters are not always found at these markets. 5) The failure of some auctions to provide capable and honest auctioneers who have no financial interest in the stock sold <>r bought or in the auction company itself. 6) Some auctions do not require buyers to post bond, c:onsequently payment for livestock purchased is not always assured. 7) The practice of some auctions in using other than sictmal sales and weights in.published reports of their sales. An additional disadvantage mentioned by some producers WNELS that of "low selling price." Of course, their opinion may well 118376 been based on one or two unsatisfactory sales. In any event, if: is doubthI whether or not the higher terminal prices would have any more than covered the increased marketing costs encountered ““1911 selling through that agency. A comparison of the marketing charges at the Detroit stockyards and six auction markets (Tables 10A and 30A) reveals that it is noticeably less costly to sell small consignments of stock'through the auction market than through the terminal market. The auction markets handle all grades of livescock but probably receive a greater proportion of the less desirable grades due to the lack of the type of grading which is found at the terminal markets. This condition reacts in favor of the producer of the poorer grades of livestock and against the producers of the top grades. It is gossible that auction markets may eventually specialize in serving the producers of the less desirable livestock. The Concentration Yard. Another local marketing agency is the concentration yard which is found in a few cities, such as Battle Creek, harshall, and St. Johns. They may be defined as central points, outside of the terminal cities, at which small quantities of livestock from numerous sources are purchased for carlot shipments to the packers. Advantages gained by the producer in selling to concen- tration yards include: 1) The convenience of a shorter haul than would necessarily be made if the livestock were sold at the terminal market. Due to 'the short haul, most of the livestock is delivers to these points 'by’truck. 2) Lower marketing costs. 3) Less shrinkage. The disadvantages of selling through these agencies are that particularly numerous. They include: 1) A slightly lower price. Since the concentration 73 yard manager will often hold liVOSUDCk lor a day or two, while accumulating enough to warrant a large scale shipment, he must protect himself against declines in terminal narkc prices between the livestock. In addition, he C0 the time he purchases and sell bears the expense of such items as yardage and feed'while the animals are in his yards. Consequently, the price received by the producer from.these outlets tends to be som'what lower than the terminal price. As noted above, part (often nearly all) of this difference is lower selling costs and the resultant loss is not as great as would be indicated by the differential in market prices alone. 2) The lack of grading found at these markets. These agencies purchase all grades of livestock since the most of their shipments are direct to the packers. Sales to Truckers. A small portion of the livestock sold by the producers included in this study was sold directly to truckers. The purchasers in this case are us‘ally speculative dealers or travel- ing representatives of packing houses or butchers who ordinarily purchase and load snail quantities of livestock at the farm. This method of marketing is advantageous to the producer in that: 1) It eliminates much of the expense of the usual marketing 2) It represents the ultimate in "convenient marketing". There are, however, several important disadvantages Channected'with this type of marketing which hare served to keep Brest producers from.making more than occasional use of it. These 80 include: 3 1) This service is not always readi y available when 'wanted. ‘lling price is largely the result of bargaining N V F] :JJ 0 Co 0 carried on between the producer and the dealer, rather than being determined by the supply and demand of many producers and buyers as is the case at the terminal market. In this contest of wits, the man who raises and sells a fer head of livestock each year very often finds himself no match for the dealer who devotes his entire time to the livestock marketing business. Consequently, the sale price is often considerably less than the terminal price would warrant, transportation and other costs considered. This is especially true then sales are made "by the head". 3) The highly transient character of many of these dealers and the occasional bad check losses suffered by the producers. Local Livestock Dealers. Another market outlet for Zlich'gan livestock is that furnished by the local or community J.ivestock dealer. This method of marketing was formerly used 1:0 a.conside:able extent but its popularity'has been declining 2111 recent years. These dealers make speculative purchases of livestock lfrfiam producers who usually have only a limited number of animals Jreuady-for market at any given tine. Through a canvass of the ENlIurounding territory such a dealer makes up carlot or truckload Stripnwnts of such grades and classes as his consignees wish to Inlrfiehase and ships then.to one of the larger markets. ‘ The advantaves to the producer in this case depend largely upon whether or not the dealer picks up the livestock at the farm. If he does, the producer gains in convenience and decreased marketing costs. However, if the producer must truck the stock to the dealers location, he loses much of his advantage. In any case, the first haul in this marketing process will almost certainly be made by truck, while for larger shipments to the central markets, the dealer may elect to use rail transportation. The principal disadvantage of this type of marketing is that at which the producer usually places himself'when attempting to determine the selling price by bargaining with the more experienced dealer. A number of producers commented that they had used this outlet for their livestock for a time but had decided that, on the average and all costs considered, they could do better at the terminal yards or some other large Larket. Local or "String" Butchers. Local or "string" butchers Ziurchase enough livestock for the needs of one or two local meat ' ordinarily do not engar- in wholesaling operations. ‘ m Esnops. lhe U L The advantages and disadvantages of using this outlet for lgivestock are about the same as in the case of the local dealer exxcept that the producer probably does not find himself at such a égzreat disadvantage whelbargaining to determine the selling price 0 f the stock. ‘ 'TI’ “1' T K3LJCLJ-(4LH J UTILIZATION OF fAfiKET KG AC7"CIE SBY IICXIGAN v wdm 1_*1'-g;.~lvxnz~1n LI ..‘JUL' J 1.x 4. ..Udu‘un'lu iaving considered the seven agencies which are available for the marketing of Kichigan livestock,a attention will now be given to the proportion of livestock sales which is made through each of these outlets. This analysis is based on the 1937 sales of 244 Michigan producers. Sales at Individual Outlets. The common belief that the terminal market serves as the hub of the livestock marketing system in Michig an is substantiated by the fact that a representative group of producers marketed over 70 per cent of their livestock through this agency in 1957 (Table 51). In this total were 56 per cent of the cattle, 39 per cent of the calves, 73 per cent of the sheep and lambs, and 56 per cent of the hogs sold by this group of producers. The percentages of each class which are sold at the Detroit yards serve as an inverse indication of the proportion of each class which is handled by the smaller markets over the state. For example, the high percentage of sheep and lambs sold at the terminal indicates that only a relatively small volume of this class of livestock is sold through the other outlets. On the other hand, a large proportion of the calves are marketed through the local out- lets and a smaller proportion of the total are taken directly to the terminal. Next to the terminal market, the most popular outlet in 1937 was the community auction market. These institutions handled 82 o.ood a.H m.a m.H e.m m.a H.m w.oa mflxpoa 0.00H e.¢ m.e m.m m.m m.HH o.mH s.mm mmom 0.00H m. m.a a. «.0 m.e o.m m.ms sheen ens momsm to.ooH m.e s.m o.m m.m m.om N.e m.wm mm>fieo vo.ooH mm.m Mo.w wm.m mm.a wa.a am.afi We.oo mappso whosopsm mcofisem Egan pd mwhsw newp mpexpdm memsom poxpmfi Moopmebflq mflhpmm \Hhooq \Hhooq mpmwwppm neupdoocoo coaposd wnwuodm Hfiflflflpoe Mo mmeao womfleoapmu mewonmus maflpoMAdm Mn .maoosmopm Aoopme>wq nmmHSOflm ewm mo meaem umma one we soapsnflapmwd evenneohoa .Hm manee D 84 7.3 per cent of the animals sold by this group of producers, including 8 per cent of the cattle, 51 per cent of the calves, 5 per cent of the sheep and lambs, and 12 per cent of the hogs. It is interesting to note that this outlet handled nearly as large a proportion of the calves as did the terminal market, there being a differential of only 8 per cent. The local dealers, with 7.2 per cent of the total sales, anked just below the auction markets in popularity. They handled 9 per cent of the cattle, 10 per cent of the calves, 7 per cent of the sheep and lambs, and 6 per cent of the hogs. Next in line were the packing houses and concentration yards with 6 per cent and 5 per cent, respectively, of the total sales. The packing houses, of course, did the largest part of their business in cattle and hogs, while the concentration yards received a larger preportion of calves and sheep and lambs than of the other two classes of meat animals. Least popular outlets were the local butchers and the truckers at the farm. The producers contacted in this study sold laetween l and 2 per cent of their livestock throufih each of these agencies. Factors in the Selection of a Harket. 'What factors siven producer will U dietermine which of these numerous agencies a Else? A tabulation of 222 replies received from.hichigan farmers in allswer to such a question reveals that price considerations are of Ehlramount importance (Table 32). This is to be expected since it is Inltural that the producer of any commodity will attempt to dispose Of‘it in that market which gives him the greatest return. However, Table 32. Factors in the Selection of Livestock fiarketing Outlets by Michigan Producers Factor Number Percent Price Considerations 81 36.5 Convenience 62 27.9 "Best liarket"l 65 29.3 Selling for Breeding Purposes 2 0.9 Habit l 0.5 No Particular Reason ll 4.9 ' Totals 222 100.0 1. See text for explanation. only 36.5 per cent of the answers indicated that the price factor served as the sole guide in the matter of market selection. The other two most often mentioned reasons were convenience and, for lack of a better term, "the best market." This factor is probably a composite of"convenience" and "best price" supplemented by what may be termed the "producer's best interest." The term was used by those producers who, while desiring a top price from a convenient market, selected those agencies which, in their opinion, would best serve them.over a period of tine and consequently were deserving of patronage even though the use of a different outlet mighzbe indicated by the factors of price or convenience alone. Since such a large percentage of the producers reported "price" as a prime consideration in selecting a market, Table 33 showing the sources of price information utilized by Hichigan farmers may be noted at this point before considering the other factors listed in Table 32. As it would be natural for the producers to use the price information service provided by their favorite agency, it would seem that this breakdown might serve as somewhat of an indication of CO 0) Table 33. Sources of Price Information Used by Iichigan Farmers Source __ Hunber Percent Central Market Prices 175 54.2 Local Packer Prices 17 5.3 Concentration Point Prices 40 12.4 Local Auction Prices 42 13.0 Local Trade Offers 4 26 8.0 Estimates of Hired Truckers 21 6.5 None 2 0.6 Totals 323 100.0 the long term preference of Nichigan producers for certain markets. Of course, the lack of published statements of local prices in newspapers or elsewhere will tend to cause producers who 3811 through the local markets to follow the published terminal prices as an indication of what they might expect from the smaller local outlets. This accounts for part of the preponderance of the farmers who obtain their price information from.terminal reports. 'With the exception of price considerations, the most common reasons (Table 32) given by a producer for using a given market were "convenience" and "best market" (which in some cases involved "convenience"). "Convenience" should not be interpreted as "shortest distance" for there is little relationsnip between the distance which various producers live from the terminal market (Detroit) and the percentage of heir livestock which is sold at that market (Table 34). This may be attributed to the fact that those producers living at a distance from the terni.al are, in many cases, also at a considerable distance from other markets and it is often easier to get good train or truck connections to Detroit than to other points in the state. One must conclude from this that, Whatever other influences may be present, distance is not of prime 87 mmm mu m m mH m a m m 0 mm mHepoe N H H eemuomm H H mealmmm e H H m «maloom H H mmwumum o H m ewmuomm m H H memummm w m H m emmloom m H m H H mmHlmuH mH m H m u delomH OH H m m m melmmH me a m m m m m e H Hm melooH me n H H H N m 5H mm Imp he Hm d m m H m H m m we now on NH H w H H HH me Imm HH m H H H H ¢ em :0 mHepoe OOHIOQ imnow melon mmaow mmuow owuow owlom omlom aHIoH ouo omaoHHm poxamz HmnHEhoe xmsohflp Umpoxaam MoopmobHH mo ouepnoopem QHAH meadow mementoau QanSoHu hm poxadh HenHSpoe exp yo emu as» dog: consumHo mo poemmm .em mHan 0" O 3 CO consideration in determining the proportion of livestock sold at the terminal market. however, it is probable that the distance factor is of considerable importance in influencing consignments to the various smaller markets in the state. For example, while 150 miles is no great distance when shipping in fair sized lots to Detroit, it would be a considerable item in selling only a few head through.the medium of an auction market, local butcher, or small packing house. The personal opinion of the trucker is another important factor in determining the agency to which livestock is consigned. In analyzing this factor, it is possible to divide livestock con- signments into those shipments trucked by the producers, those trucked by a hired trucker, and those sent by rail (Table 35). It Table 35. Proportion of Karketed Livestock Trucked by Ehe Producer, by a Hired Trucker, and Shipped by Rail (Based on the 1937 Sales of 231 Hichigan Producers) ‘fercentage fiTrucked by Trucked‘by a ‘Shipped of Individual the Producer Hired Trucker by Rail Producer's Stock Number Percent ‘Kumber"lercent ‘Eumber Percent 100 (all) 47 20.3; 89 38.5; 10 4.3% 90-99 9 3.9 4 1.7 3 1.3 80-89 '2 0.9 1 0.4 1 0.4 70-79 7 3.0 4 1.7 3 1.3 30-39 5 2.2 4 1.7 1 0.4 50-59 5 3.5 12 5.2 4 1.7 40-49 2 0.9 3 1.3 1 0.4 30-39 2 0.9 4 1.7 0 0.0 20-29 5 2.2 10 4.3 4 1.7 10-19 3 1.3 10 4.3 2 0.0 1- 9 1 0.4 5 2.2 0 0.0 0 (none) 140 30.5 pg. 33.0 202 37.3 Totals 231 100.0% 231 100.0% 231 100.0; 1. Exclusive of livestock sold to truckers or dealers at the farm. 89 is significant that 39 per cent of the producers marketed all of their livestock through hired truckers and that an additional 20 per cent trucked all of their livestock themselves, wnile only 4 per cent of the group reported that all of their livestock was shipped by rail. Conversely, GO per cent of the producers reported that they personally trucked in none of their stock, 37 per cent stated that they shipped none with hired truckers, and 83 per cent stated that they shipped none by rail. It may be seen from these figures that a very large part of Michigan livestock is being marketed by means of the motor truck. while it is true that in many cases the trucking is done by the producer himself, it is likewise a fact that enough of the total livestock marketed is handled b1 hired truckers to permit attachi.e J. O nal preference for one marketinr O considerable importance to their pcrs , I outlet over the others. This may be empaas1zed by noting that the 93 truckers questioned reported that (on the average) they did 69 per cent of their trucking directly for the producer, 29 per cent for a dealer (who was usually the trucker himself) a-d about 2 per cent for cooperative shipping associations. Of the livestock which these truckers owned, 38 per cent was raised on their own farms. To this extent they were performing the same function as the producer (who did not otherwise engage in trucking) does when transporting his livestock to market. In addition, 59 per cent of the trucker- owned stock was purchased directly from some producer on his farm, 'while about 2.0 per cent was purchased at a livestock auction market ‘A- and a like amount from the various other local shipping points. 90 In the light of the above facts, it may be seen that another factor in the selection of a market is the extent to which ,, producers instruct the hired truckers as to the" outlet to be used. Slightly less than 70 per cent of the Hichigsn producers contacted indicated that they designate the market to be used (Table 36). It Table 36. Preportion of Producers lho Instruct Hired Truckers Regarding the Market to be Pstronized Producers Number Percent Instructing truckers ' 111 694% Not instructing truckers 29 18.1 Giving truckers some degree of choice 13 8.1 Varying their practice I 5.5 Totals 160 100.093 is significant tint in 18 per cent of the cases, the truckers have canplete freedom in deciding to which agency a given livestock ship- nent will be taken, and that in an additional 8 to 12 per cent of the cases, they have at least some influence in the choice. When s number of livestock truckers were interviewed on this problem, they indicated that shout £0 per cent of the producers gave definite instructions regarding the disposition of livestock. The truckers also stated that an additional 15 per cent of the producers knew where their livestock would be taken, in the absence of other instructions, and approved the practice. This leaves s balance of approximately 1.5 per cent of the producers who, according to the truckers, give no directions either explicit or “by consent" as to the agency they wished to patronize. The discrepancy between the replies made by the producers and those of the truckers may possibly be attributed to the feet that most producers do not like to admit giving no instructions to the hired truckers, plus a desire on the part of some truckers to place extra anortance on their own Opinions. 0 5 J_: ‘ r~. .‘ V _0 V r -0 A. Con31 era ion has oeen o.ven to tne various narhetinb p agencies available for use by hichigan livestock producers, the degree to which the producers avail themselves of these facilities, and the factors considered by individual producers in selecting a market. It may be of value at this point to indicate some changes which various livestock producers and truckers recommended as being beneficial to the industry. These will be considered from the viewpoint of improving truck transportation, rail transportation, and the marketing system in general. Suggested Changes Relating to Truck Shipments. The most frequently made suggestions concern changes of one type or another in the Iichigan Public Service Regulation (Table 37). This law, which licenses individuals to perform trucking services for hire, has numerous provisions. It protects both the trucker and the consigner against loss from accidents by making it mandatory for he trucker to carry cargo insurance as well as normal insurance covering the vehicle. The law contains additional provisions arainst such evils as overloading. Under another provisions, the trucker may'be made to use certain highways in making his normal run. As indicated in the table, the truckers are divided in 'their opinion of this regulation. The thing to which the greatest number are opposed, however, is not the lav itself but the "red tape"- filling out of application forms, periodical reports, trips to the conmdssion offices, loss of time in "check ups" on the highway -- all 92 of which compliance with the law now necessitates. Table 57. Suggested Chan:es in Truck Transportation Times Suggested Change By Producers By Truckers 1. In Michigan Public Service Regulation: (a) Less "red tape" 15 (b) Enforce or abolish the regulation ll (c) Enforce the regulation 10 (d) Abolish the regulation on light farm.trucks 2 9 (e) Eliminate the "40 mile exemption" 2 (f) Eliminate the license for coopera- tive trucks 1 (5) Lower "cargo insurance" rates 1 4 (h) Less regulation 1 2. In Charges in trucking rates: (a) Sta-dardization 2 17 (b) Decrease - 7 3. In Method of loading stock at farm. 3 4. Better identification marks 3 5. Centralized loading points for truckers l 6. Advance notification of trucker by producer 1 7. here truck shipments hrough local cooperatives l 3. Better racks and covers for protection of livestock 2 9. Bond truckers against loss from bad checks l 10. Trucker to select market in all cases 1 ll. Eliminate undesirable truckers l There are two distinct groups of truckers as regards their stand on the law itself. One group believes the regulation desirable and wishes to see it strictly enforced. The other group concedes that the regulation "may be all right if it can be enforced," but insists that it should be abolished if the enforcement is not completely inclusive. The other changes suggested in regard to this regulation are largely the result of personal inequities suffered 'by truckers under the law and will not be discussed in detail. 93 The second group of changes concerns trucking charges. The producers, of course, would like to see the rates lowered as much as possible, while the truckers wish to see a standardized set of charges, probably on a ton-mile basis at or above their present level. 7s Suggested Changes nelating to Rail Shipments. Some of the producers also made suggestions in respect to the problem.of improved rail shipments (Table 38). These suggestions are about what might be expected since they reflect the general desire for better conditions for farmers. They will not be discussed in detail except for the third item in the table. The matter of the "spotting" of cars at the Detroit stock yards is especially important to those producers who ship over lines other than the flew York Central, because there is a definite period of each day set aside by the various railroads entering Detroit for the switching of cars from one Table 38. Suggested Changes in Rail Transportation Change ‘ Timesfiéuggested 1. Lower rates 6 2. Lower minimum weights 5 3. Faster "spotting"of cars at yards 3 4. Faster service en route 3 5. Better facilities for small lots 1 6. Kore frequent service 1 7. Here cooperative shipments l 8. Permit to drive stock down railroad right of way 1 9. Better loading 1 line to another. Livestock reaching Detroit before this period is quite promptly switched over to the How York Central tracks and then to the stockyards, but should livestock reach the city at a time just following this period of the day, it is possible for the livestock to remain on a siding for quite a long time before reaching the market. 313 es ed Changes Relating to the Livestock Yarketing System. Finally, it is interesting to notice the suggestions of Michigan producers regarding desirable changes in the marketing Table 39. Suggested Changes in Marketing Michigan Livestock Change Times Suggested 1. Regarding the terminal market: (a) here general use of this market 17 (b) Lower rates and handling charges 17 (c) More cooperative activity 13 (d) More accurate grading of livestock 3 (0} All feeders to be purchased at the terminal 1 2. Regarding the packing houses: (a) Less direct buying (b) All packers should pay Detroit prices (c) more opportunity to 8611 direct to packers NNC) 3. Regarding auction markets: (a) Kore auction markets desirable 10 (b) Fewer auction markets desirable 6 (0) here supervision of auctions 4 (d) higher average prices at auctions 2 (e) fiore accurate grading of livestock 2 4. Regarding prices and price information: (a) Loss seasonal price variation 7 (b) lore and better information regarding changes in the demand for the various classes and grades of livestock 4 (0) Less spread between retail and farm prices 2 (d) Establish market prices on the basis of a larger portion of the total production 1 (e) Unionize producers so that price determination will pass from purchaser to producer 1 (f) Less publicity given to probable annual production 1 e. Iiscellaneous Recommendations: (a) All shipments by rail (b) Bring truck and rail charges closer together (c) Prevent middle men from buying poor cattle and reselling as prime beef 1 FJFJ 95 system.as a whole (Table 39). Kany of these recommendations do not wa rant detailed discussion as they largely parallel the previous discussion of the individual outlets. However, from the group of most frequently made su; estions, it is apparent that the"avera3e" producer contacted in this study favors a return to the terminal market with increased cooperative activity and decreased selling charges at that agency. To a lesser extent, more community auction markets are believed desirable. In addition, less seasonal variation in livestock prices and more information regarding changes in the demand for various classes and grades of livestock would be valuable to the producer of livestock in Xiehigan. F! \ a, '"1”“‘T .. UsLJJL—L \‘1..i VI SCZZLiY KID COICLUSIOKS Classification and Localization of Kichigan Live- stock. The greatest concentration of livestock in hichigan is found in he southern part of the lower peninsula, centering in Lenawee, Saginaw, and fiashtenaw counties. The number of cattle in the state has increased slightly during the past twenty 1 years. The sum is true of sheep and lambs out the number of hogs en lie} 1igtn farms has decroas ed nearly f’ifty per cent during this period. Alth ou h the portion of he fara income in Iichigan hich may be attributed to the sale of meat animals is much sriallc r t}1an tiat derived from ca 51 creps, it still accounts for 15 per cent to 20 per cent of the gross f‘arm income. When all livesteel: and livestock products are cor sidered, the picture is quite different as this income has constituted from 55 per cent to 65 per cent of the gross farm income for each year since 1924. Since farm pri ice 3 of meat ani nals fluctuate less widely than those of the cash crops, it would can that the farmer may antici- pate a somewhat more stablezeturn from livestock and its pro; iucts ‘than from the other commodities. In addition to livestock bred in Iichigan, there is a considerable volume of animals shipped into the state by rail. 'Varieus Iichigan counties also s mr e as the source of considerable olivestock shipped to out of state points. Clinton, 3aton, Ienia, Inenauee and'Wayne counties Iank ni ;h in the volume of both shipments 96 97 and receipts. The Terminal Harket. The principal terminal n.8r} :et in ”‘4- Michigan is the Detroit stockyards Company. Livestock sold at D this malwlet is consi ned to one 01 four commission firms. These firms sell the animals to packers, buyers, or representatives of other markets, for which service the producer pays yardage, feed, commission, and insurance char; es. Receipts at this outlet are marked by wide seasonal fluc- tuations with the largest volune in October and November. This variation is much larger in the case of sheep and lambs than for the 0th qer classes of livesuock. Al though the volurie of hog receipts ”as declined considerably in recent v are, the total number of animals received at the steckvrrds has been increasing slowly. During the past twent3r Jvewx s, the proportion of the total receipts at the Detroit market represented by truck shipments has increased from less than 5 per cent to more than 90 per cent. This change may be most 10 icallv attributed to in mireved trucks and highways and the added convenience and speed which this form of 1 transportation offers the producer of livestock. 0n the other “and, the advantages of rail transportation, with the e: :ception of lower shipping costs, appear to be limited to those arising from long distance shipments of livestock. Host of the producers contacted in this study indicated that rail trans- portation was desirable for trips in excess of 200 miles. It may, of course, be argued that, during periods of reduced farm income, the lower cost of this form.ef transportation is ofrgreat enough MMH‘I “Cl “M -.' m‘lor importance to make rail shipments fully as it lUfllle to the producer ,2! ,t :as the more convenient truck shipments. Among the out-of—state terminals to which rail shipments of Kichigan livestock are consigned, those in New York and New Jersey are the most important. Over 75 per cent of the 1937 ship- ments over the New York Central, Grand Trunk and Per Karquette Railroads were consigned to markets in these states. The most important sources of livestock shipments to Hichigan are Chicago, Indianapolis, and Omaha. The principal advantage of sellinc livestock at a large terminal market comes from.the increased buyer competition for properly graded animals. As a result ofkthese~faetors, the producer usually receives the true market value of his livestock. Of course, the fact that these outlets are operated with bonded commission firms and adequate facilities for the care of the livestock provide them with additional "selling points".' The greatest disadvantage of 4‘his form.of marketing is the increased selling costs arising from.the longer haul and the yardage, commission, and other costs which lust be met after the livestock is actually at the terminal. Cooperative harketing Agencies. The principal coopera- tive outlets available to Kichigan livestock producers are the ‘various shipping associations, the cooperative commission firms, and the Detroit Packing Company. The two commission firms (The hichigan Livestock Exchange in Detroit and the Producer's Commission Comtany in Buffalo) are probably the most important from the standpoint of 'the number of animals handled. Forty per cent of the producers contacted in this study stated that they sold all of their terminal znarketed stock through an agency of this type. 99 Although the number of shipping associations in Michigan has been decreasing in recent years, these associations are still ., quite active in certain sections of the state. However, less than \ ten per cent of the producers indicated that they made extensive use of such agencies in disposilng of their livestock. The producer-owned Detroit Packing Company offers an outlet for producers who wish to sell their livestock directly to e pecking house, thus avoiding some of the selling costs associated with other forms of marketing. While figures showing the extent of its activities were not secured for this study, it is known to be handling a substan- tial volume of livestock. The principal advantage of marketing through a soaperetive packing company is a reduced selling cost, as indicated above. Shipping associations permit the producer to take advantage of carlot rates for smaller quantities of livestock, while the commission firms, Operating on a cooperative basis, can refund to the producer-members the profits made on this marketing service. Other Marketing Agencies; In addition to the terminal market and the various cooperative agencies, there are a number of other outlets available for the use of Michigan livestock producers. These include the packing houses, suction markets, concentration yards, and the local dealers and butchers. With the return to direct marketing by many producers, the importance of both terminal and local packing plants has been increasing. One of more of these outlets nay conveniently be utilized by most Michigan producers, especially when shipping the stock . . . . . ‘ . a. . .r . 4 A .... I . . .. . v u I . v. . i . . M .V\ a... 4| o. 2 . . a r. t \ t . s n .V J. . u . . , ,. ... I .k t x . . :1 .v . . .u .. . . . \ A a. . ..1. f. u . Ii . . . .v. . 3 - y. A . a u . .l. l v; . I. r: . a . . A . W .. a . x 4 . an I .v 1 r . .. . ... . .X . n. L .. . .H . . . . . t . . . a. . a .. C .I . . v v . x » I l i X . . ... \ r .. c e . . . < . . ... c. ,. t O . . . l _ r} v .J ' ~ '1 ¢ .1 .u . .r . 4.x In P_ a t . ”A , . r. C J . . .. r _ .1 ... . . A y n . .r! . . .y . A ._ x . . .L . x . 24 . . ... .. I . . u . m s» y C .. . , . . . _ .L .L . - ... . I u. u: u. u a . . ... r a . , . ., . . . _ e .. . n. .r. ,l 1 . . .-. . . . . , . J a I. . .9. u s. r . .— v. V I u ... l r . . V . .1. . ll . J . . . ... I .... J .. l . . .. . . , .1 . a : . . v . _ u . \ .r. 1 y o a , I I V A r o . u A . . . . . . . .. . 7 . . . , [I1L I O III." A 1‘ [9‘ w k 47 It I | V I h? A-4 ‘ 'I-I'I|.‘ II V ‘ilir L . ‘ ‘Lr . u g J y L Ii n . 1 .. a . m . . A n. «I x l g ‘ «4 .\ a A C I My , i l a A . 0‘ . . o 7. a. .1 ‘ \ Q A o. v a. 4‘ I. o. ..r. . 0‘ «A o I 100 by truck. The principal advantape of this type of marketing is the lower selling cost which.may be attributed to a shorter haul and the absence of feed and yardage costs. The producer usually receives a somewhat lower price than that being paid at the Detroit stockyards but, considering the lower selliig costs mentioned above, this differential is probably not significant. The recently developed livestock auction markets are also of increasing importance in some sections of the state, especially as an outlet for calves. The twenty markets operating in 1939 were organized both as cooperative and private enterprises anc, ordinarily, held sales once each week. The principal advantage of selling live- stock through an auction market is the same as was given above for the packing house-«decreased selling costs. The principal disadvantage arises from.the lack, in some cases, of proper precaution against the spread of such livestock diseases as sheep scab. In addition, questionable practices on the part of some operators has hindered the more rapid development of this type of marketing. The principal advantages of disposing of livestock through such local outlets as the concentration yards, other local dealers or truckers, or butchers are the convenience and low cost of such operations. However, the price received for the livestock is usually the result of bargaining carried on between the producer and the dealer. As the producer is often unable to match wits With a dealer who devotes most of his time to livestock marketing, the price is occasionally somewhat less than the terminal price would warrant. Utilization of Larketing Agencies by Hichigan Livestock Producers. In 1957, a representative group of Kichigan producers lOl marketed over 70 per cent of their livestock through the terminal market in Detroit. It is apparent from this that that institution serves as the hub of the state's marketing system. Ranking below the terminal market in th proportion of stock handled were the auction markets (7 per cent), the local dealers (7 per cent), the packing house (6 per cent), and the concentration yards (5 per cent). Least popular were the local butchers and truckers at the farm; the producers contacted in this study selling only from 1 to 2 per cent of their livestock through each of these agencies. The principal factors considered by Hichigan livestock producers in the selection of a marketing arency are price considera- tions, convenience, and "best market"--a composite of best price, convenience, and the farmer's best interest. Convenience, as such, should not be interpreted as "shortest distance" in the case of the Detroit terminal, although it is probable that the distance factor is an important influence upon consignments to the smaller markets in the state. Another important factor in the selection of a darket is the preference of the livestock truckers for a particular :narket over the others. In regard to possible changes in the Kichigan livestock Inarketing system, the livestock truckers are most concerned about the lfichigan Public Service Regulation. The truckers are almost Iananimously of the opinion that, if such regulation is to exist, is should be uniformly enforcel and the necessary amount of "red 'tape" should be reduced to a minimum. The producers are, of course, interested in anyth'ng that till enable them to market the livestock more easily and at lower cost. lmny'of them would like to see a stand rd scale of charges for truck 102 shipments. In this desire, they are joined by a large proportion of the livestock truckers. The two groups, however, do not fully agree as to what would constitute a fair level for such charges. In regard to rail shipments of livestock the principal suggestions made by Xichigan producers were lower rates, lower minimum weights, faster and more frequent service, and better facilities for the transportation of small lots of livestock. The "average" hichigan livestock producer also favors a return to the terminal marks with increased cooperative activity and decreased selling costs at that agency. To a somewhat lesser extent, more community auction markets are believed to be desirable. In addition, Hichigan farmers would like to receive more information regarding ch nges in the demand for the various classes and grades of livestock. .s‘ ‘ APPENDIXA 103 ran. 21. Dietribntion of Livestock in Michigan Conntiee. 1935 Calves Sheep under and Count; Cett1e 1 1;. :gnngg: Hog: illoona 6.822 2.436 9.574 1.047 Alger 3.649 1.243 360 364 Allegnn 33.636 6.965 7.769 10.941 Alpenn 9.785 3.204 6.685 1.999 Antrin 9.087 2.512 1.145 1.937 Arenas 10.236 1.946 4.066 2.184 Barns: 4.670 1.050 349 295 Barry 17.837 3.938 31.641 9.223 Bay 19.112 3.398 2.694 8.449 Bangle 3.808 1.169 432 948 Berrien 18.542 3.166 3.970 10.599 Branch 21.025 4.239 44.806 15.800 Calhoun 24.853 5.558 39.793 15.397 Cele 15.358 3.840 14.961 16.722 Charlevoix 8.539 2.940 2.607 2.106 Cheboygan 7.558 2.438 2.050 1.687 Chippewa 11.675 2.990 4.189 1.531 Clare 7.536 2.020 15.723 1.689 Clinton 21.976 3.823 46.021 13.692 Crawford 917 274 662 123 Delta 10.268 2.207 1.035 1.307 Dickinson 3.797 829 321 355 Eaton 24.412 5.651 41.655 10.313 Emmet 7.751 2.275 1.606 1.636 Geneeee 23.547 5.007 24.869 11.281 Gladvin 11.404 2.479 13.686 2.095 Gogebio 3.517 1.135 322 161 Gd. Traverse 9.560 2.571 1.174 2.667 Gratiot 24.077 4.981 29.018 13.776 3111:6310 25.471 4.977 48.117 18.236 Honghton 10.398 2.257 841 756 Enron 40.030 10.673 8.156 12.388 Inghan. 21.752 4.524 59.492 10.565 Ionin 24.050 5.576 34.530 12.826 Ioeco 6.157 1.740 10.346 1.287 Table ZL (Continued). County Cattle Iron 5.189 Isabelle 20.903 Jackson 23.648 Kalamazoo 16.616 Elke-h 3 . 991 Kent 31.481 Keveennw 430 Lake 4.187 aneer 29.020 Leelenan 7.334 Lenaree 31.852 Livingston 17.779 Luce 1.534j Mackinac 3.835 Meoonb 21.493 Manietee 8,833 Marquette 5.485 Mason 12.043 Mecoeta 15.032 Menominee 17.976 Midland 13.919 Mieeaukee 9,160 Monroe 21.237 Montcalm 22.780 Montmorency 3.331 Muekegon 10.672 Reverse 17.129 Oakland 21.576 Oceans 12.878 Ogemaw 8,956 Ontonngon 7.222 Oeceole 14.347 Decode 1.899 Oteego 3.621 Ottawa 27.850 Calvee Sheep under and 1 1;. glenhgi Hog! 1.408 1.117 445 4.798 14.470 6.328 5.550 45.724 10.202 4.312 20.342 9.688 1.111 256 876 6.778 11.483 8.349 73 64 9 1.142 1.664 873 6.693 26.758 7.959 2.055 694 2.520 5.062 76.279 33.106 3.702 46.434 5.183 467 129 463 1.040 558 652 3.120 5.621 7.201 2.406 725 2.182 1.301 263 594 2.466 1.448 3.011 3.739 5.071 2.910 2.833 1.547 2.893 2.891 9.867 3.689 2.395 7.915 1.935 2.691 13.924 24.279 5.499 8,628 5.447 989 3.194 695 2.456 1.125 1.731 4.371 2.443 5.946 4.211 20.519 6.120 3.936 2.509 3.470 2.139 11.915 1.320 1.899 867 586 3.043 11.015 2.298 501 6.684 285 1.219 271 940 5.126 3.142 7.397 105 Table 24 (Continued). Calves ifieep under and Coggty Cattle ;;;zg. Lambs Hogg_ Presqne Isle 8.854 2.326 6.748 2.754 Roscommon 940 246 833 88 Saginaw 33.570 5.664 12.439 16.337 St. Clair 31.177 6.421 10.133 7.333 St. Joseph 14.870 3.429 25.883 15.374 Sanilac 50.502 14.164 16.970 8.619 Schooleraft 2.704 570 198 525 Shiawasee 21.002 3.895 37.355 7.424 Tusoola 32.959 7.127 11.917 11.046 Van Buren 19.795 4.223 7.479 8.175 Nashtenaw 29.176 4.949 88.005 16.520 Uhyne 9.321 1.288 1.174 5.145 Vexford 8.409 2.555 1.752 1.660 Totals 1.241.329 276.308 1.100.218 488.966 107 Jone-hem camoaop cacaobow e333 near“ 3.43..“ .a m.mm m.ma oam.av~ amn.mm mmn.vma moa.m¢ www.ma mem.¢ moo.mm mmma m.mu o.om mma.amm aom.moa www.mma mma.mm mmn.¢m nma.m omo.mm mama m.mn n.ma oaa.nmm mma.moa amm.ona mam.m¢ m¢¢.am 034.3 nam.ma mama o.mo a.ma o¢¢.omm amm.nm mom.mna mam.mn nam.ma mmm.¢ nm«.ma mama u.mn 5.3a «mm.oma amm.um aom.oaa maa.mm mnm.ma mam.» omn.ma «nma m.mm a.na amm.mma mma.am mmm.mm mma.¢m amm.m «ma.» nmm.aa mama o.mm o.ma amm.m¢a mmm.vm mm¢.mm mwm.am mum.m mmm.m mam.oa mmma m.mm 3.3a omm.mma «so.mm mmo.maa mm¢.mm mua.ma «ma.» moa.¢a amma 4.3m o.ma 04¢.emm nmm.om mmm.moa mam.o¢ mom.ma moo.m amm.am omma m.mm _ m.ma om¢.man mmm.maa amn.mma mmm.mm amm.mm vam.m amo.mm mmma «.mm a.ma amm.mon mmm.maa mmm.mma mmm.«m oma.nm mmm.o anm.mm mmma o.am o.ma www.mmm mum.¢aa mmm.mma moo.mm mmm.mm mom.m mm¢.mm mama «.om o.ma maa.mom mmo.ama mmo.nma mam.mn noa.an en«.m om~.mm omma o.mn m.ma onn.mon mma.ona mmm.nma om¢.mn m¢m.mm nmm.n mna.mm mmma mm.mm mm.ma mom.mmmm mmo.anam oma.moa« n¢m.mm» mmo.mmm mom.¢» amm.mam mama agaom .8933 No 905359.: own-moon...“ e353 lama—ea nacho 336on a aflom mpg :58 baled” nooamopaa a anon undue ammo aoopaopaa 4 «so: and and Macauopaa nuoomopaa annoy macaw oaaamo .uanJamemmmmmmmnmwluc. H308 33.5 no “:80qu .Haeohvou Hauoahm 5.; .mnmdlvmma ...aeludh ago“: no 08003 :95 .2234 :3. 0.3.09 108. m 8m mm an ma m m ma on ma aa aa asu1an 3‘ ‘3. % arm N H J's-4 .... H H N M 3' N a. a ma a n m n a mm m uaomzeao doaaaao cacao enemmano nuuhopono «a 83.85 N gm undo 5310 £88 neauuen cannom 3m human awaken ascend aauaqd daomdd nameadd nomad snooaq .38 .25 .25 $8 .38 j». £14m: .34 .3. ....oh .8” haqugw Rma .8358 3823: 3.: x8233 no £5338 aoauco .1. mafia 9‘ - C in. t . I! e 0 II... . . .... 10 .. ... ‘ I . 0V If e. 4 u . it... I . 4 4 Is a s - lo.-‘ 5 109. euauaoon ma a a a a a m a m m : noomca mm m ma oa m m m a g g m a : ouua _asaeeneu amm ma am ma ma m aa ma ma mm :m mm mm «new uxuuxaua n n ma ma ma mm oouuaaauu m m m z m nomaoau : defiesuen noun r— r! ‘99. m No-Im cocoa a w ma odnoa on aa aunwua nondm novnwnom mma ma ma ma ma p m an 0H p OH H H rut-no M so HMKD maa m mm :m m m m a m oomoqom aoaaa mmm an :m on :a m m ma ‘m ma ma ma mm magma nooaaxoan uaaon aa m m a m m m aa :m om ma oaucaaaam m aoaaanm : m m m m m m m m o.uo>ana .am capomom ma m z a a nayaaam r1r«u> N .33. Jon #8 9.60 Adam 1134 Hana. .86 3.. 1.3a. «mama 1.5;. 35mm AcosnapnooV as magma 110. m H aa pa: mm am w H H HH m m a. m m mm .2 mm .aS ca .25 .25 $00 .993 $3 Lama. HH m 2. fl. .8330 owowvo scoouo : dHoeoeo nowaaouno awe aeoo undHMdo N ombwtoz nonoxuafi haugnoz H.733: H 3.302 033.3 a a: .3332 coda-one: .3030: :H some: 338.82 a 03.2.3: 233: 93.93: no.5 a ascents 3w confine.” 5% j .3: Lanna .3. 588 333333 1. mafia 111. gunman one x0300»: no 00003250 :0 00.503 090 .a0.a.a0 0030a... 0» H0000 0H 600.00 0005 0a 000.: 0003 3.09000 00.33003 05 mo .30» .3550 033 on» 0.05. “00.09% @500. 0.0 000.393 0.3: 00.33025 30.309 30.5 000060.30 0002.00 .0502: 0005 00.? 0.00a n.0a n.0a m.» m.: m.m 0.: a.m m.» 0.m m.aa ~.aa «.ma .0000: . .3 ngoaom moon 00m mom m:m mma 00a aua nma mam aam a:m 0mm mm: .00 000»: ..oa auaoa 0.00a m.m m.0a m.» :.: 0.: m.: ~.m ~.~ m.m 0.~a n.0a 0.:a .:0002 .3 agoaom mmo: :mm mm: mnm waa mma mma . mam mmw m0: mm: mm: mam .auaoa m a a aaoauua amoa mm .0ma .00 a .0: 0mm .6 ..mm 2. :ma ..ama mm 00a 33. ma 0 a n a . m 0 008333 maa aa ma ma a a m m 0 ma 0a 0a ma nuuen 0:» m n 3830 m: : m m m : a m m m n a m ooumuzaanm aaauoaoqaom ma m m a a ouaaqum 0:0 .am on 0: ma 0a a aa :a mm mm am mm :ma.ou .00 uamao .am 0 m :aaawam 005.0003 0HOH eduuoam 0309 .009 .002 .000 :3”! .3 Hanan 08am “Wm—W: ..amfid 4.3: 0.5m 50%! 1Hai§0b Acouuaaaoov a» manga 112. m , m vuomauuo HHH n 0 H0 HH mm mm 0H m H H m m 0338 H H oudHo 030mmHAo 80.3..30 NHoboHnuno N H H 0000 mH H H m m H : H quonHuo 0 m H m non-um H H 00Huu0n 3.3.: 0H H H H m m n m H . H 0.0 H H hauam umducm mm H m : m m H m : H 88.2 m H H .IH0004 dqode H H auw0HH4 u0wH< 0n00H4 H0000 .80 .32 .000 $13.... .mmm NHE. 05:. .3. ...me :8: .000 .52. H0560 22 .3358 5.03on 0H x8233 .Ho .0308: 03.80 .40 £000 113 . 000303 N N 00003 0&3 0000033 0 H m m H H H 000M 8.3210 0000003 Hm H m 0 m 0 : : m m H H : 08:30 0.30900 H 00.0 H H H 000 0H m 0 H. m m : 38H 0 m H m 0H H : m augwuH H H 000:0 00000.03 S H w 0 m H 003.38 m H H 00:80 00.000009 .3 03.08 00.30 on m H mm m m H H 0000000 003 n H N H 030a 0000308” 0309 NJ-f r-IH n tn :1" .0- n N H0009 .08.. £02 .000 .098 .34 an 003. Iris .094 .00: .poh .000 3000.0. 30.003003 4w 03.09 114. 8 H n m H H H H $030 00..00 008.0 3880 000000000 m H m H m H H 3.000 N 000000 H n H 0. 053.0 N Omhgz m H H 0080x002 :l-m :3 h000000000= IHuoanox 000002 coauuunHz m H 000H0H: :Hm HHM 000H0000z N 000000: 00002 0au0uuuux H 0000Hnux MHJ’N N H H H H H 0080: 83x8: .03 m H 0 «3.03.3 HH H 3 8:83 .3 H H m H N 000 HH mm mm 3 0H m 0 3h... H300 .08 $3 .000 ...:Hom jn 33. .34 :8: ......H .80 nafimw I‘ll AcoduHunoov 4w 0H30a 115. 0.00H m.m 0..» p.00 0.0H n.0H 3. 0.0 H.H H.H 0.H 0.0 0.H .500: ha. 000003 002 HH mm $0 08 HMH 00 2. 0H mH HH 00 0H .8 8b; :3 H300 0.00H 0.H. m0 0.0H 0.HH H.HH ......m m6 0.m 0:.“ mam H.H... H.w :08: hp 000000m 800 m2. 9:. .000 009 $3 H00 02. 0? H00 00m Hon HS .0300 02.03: 050 000 Maw 03 ~0HH mHm 0:. 000. RH EH 00H 05 me. 30.5 0.0 m H. m H 0 m 383...: n H H H 8.30 00> H0 0 m H H m H H H m m 0 3830 m N m H N 000003030 00.003030 0 0 8H3 m H H H 00.30 .8 H H .330 .3. .e. m m n H mH mH m m m n H n 320.0 00030003 m H N H H 0HOH 00000.8 H300 .80 .52 .000 .000... .30 .50 j 103: .000 .000 NH0.350 2.0003003 4m 0309 | I. ' vi .9 Table BA. Balance 01’ Carlot Shipments of Livestock, by Counties. 1937 Surplus Surplus Surplus Surplus County Receigts Shipgents Cognfty Receigts Shigentg Alcona Iron Alger Isabella 7 Allegan 11 Jackson 25 Alpene Kalamoo 101 Antrin 2 Kalkaska home 26 Kent 223 Bax-age. Keeveenav Barry 28 Lake 66 Bay 7 Lapeer 14 Dennis Leelanan Ben-ion Lenavee 131 Branch 180 Livingston 4 Calhoun 245 Luce Cass 41 Mackinac 1 Charlevoix Macomb 3 Cheboygan l Manistee 4 Chippewa Hargnette Clare 3 Mason 66 Clinton 136 Necosta 2 Crawford 9 Menominee Delta Midland l Dickinson Missaukee l Eaton 206 Monroe 6 Immt Montcall Genessee 22 Montnorency Gladvin 23 Muskegon 7 Oegebic Nevaygo 21 Gd. Traverse 37 Oakland 41 Gratiot 1 Oceana 2 Hillsdale 104 Ogemaw 30 Houghton Ontonagon 1 Huron 2 Osceola 69 Ingham 32 Oecodl Ionia 106 Otsego Iosco 2 Ottawa 8 ¥ 116. Table 91. (Continued) 117. Surplus Surplus Surplus Surplus Beceipts Shiggents County' Receipts Shipgents County 2. Isle 5 Shiawassee Boscommon Tuscola Saginaw 73 Van Burren St. Blair 1 Vashtenav St. Joseph 243 flayne Sanilac 10 Hexford Schoolcraft Totals 41 18 110 9 7079 2 5167 Table 10A. Marketing Charges at the Detroit Stockyards YARD CHARGES ON RAIL STOCK ARE AS FOLLOWS:- Yardage on Cattle 30¢ per head Yardage on Calves 25¢ per head Yardage on Hogs 12¢ per head Yardage on Sheep or Lambs 8¢ per head YIED CHARGES ON STOCK DRIVEN OR HAULED IN. SAME AS ABOVE RAIL IARDAGE, WITH FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS:_ One Cattle 50¢ per head Less than Four Calves 35¢ per head Less than Three Hogs 22¢ per head Less than Six Sheep 14¢ per head COMMISSION CHARGES ARE AS FOLLOWS'— Single Double Carloads Deck Deck Cattle {30 head or less) $20.00 (Over 30 head, 50¢ per head additional; maximum $24.00 per car.) Hogs 14.00 $20.00 Sheep, Lambs, Coats or Kids 14.00 20.00 Calves (300 pounds or less. Stock Yards Classification to Govern) 14.00 20.00 Mixed Small Stock 14.00 20.00 0n mixed cars of livestock containing cattle, the commission charge shall be the trucked-in charge for cattle and small stock, provided the maximum charge on each kind shall not exceed the minimum carload charge for each with a maximum charge of $24.00 for the car. Two single—deck carloads billed as a double-deck car, the commission charge shall be for a double-deck car. Railroad billing t9 govern in V 'L. gll_case_s._ . ‘ t Y .4 f A. 1. . A ,— __ . ~. Ahfifaérloa montages 1.2+ bounces: 1s?é::t°~s‘be consiaéseiaess 4.3? - ~ than carfbad lots; over 12,000 pounds;“carload rates to govern:~ x. Truckedrin -- Driven-in -- or Less than Carloads, Commission: Cattle - $1.00 per head for the first 20 head and 8d per head for the balance of the consignment. Hogs — $ .20 per head. Sheep, Lambs, Goats or Kids - 20¢ per head for first 50 head; 15¢ per head for next 50 head, and 10¢ per head for balance of consignment. Calves - 35¢ per head for the first 20 head and 35¢ per head for balance of consignment. (300 lbs. or less, Stock Yards Classifica— tion to Govern.) Commission Charges on Speculators and Yard Traders Stock: The commission charge for handling stock, viz.: Collecting Accounts or Selling for Speculators or Hard Traders, shall be: Per head Cattle 50 cents Calves 17% cents Sheep, Lambs, Goats or Kids 10 cents Hogs 10 cents No transaction shall be made where commission charge is under 50 cents. Truck shipments arriving in time for any one day's market to be considered one consignment. 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 Cattle 111103 100018 116027 113237 113282 110353 102235 84978 81611 75118 62157 40092 21756 18440 35692 43991 54002 49736 24209 . X ;" Table 13A. Annual Livestock Receipts by Truck and Rail ah? ‘ — By Rail - - By Truck - ' Calves Sheep Hogs Cattle Calves Sheep Hogs 96063 286772 414443 7652 3006 9429 16420 E 118755 87240 323858 333307 5748 4079 14435 20060 8.105766 116662 316685 399653 9535 ‘7000 26121 28377 . 125562 122970 249335 486657 13364 11671 38539 42359 126601 136742 323761 497257 15103 16558 56015 51463 ‘ 128385‘ 136872 293940 372495 24883 28448 69620 59010131135236 132250 296998 340323 30293 38372 89685 81437!;’132528 121760 339935 392088 41055 45322 139185 120243.; 126033 110672 284481 311763 47537 55817 165264 156030 V-129148 95964 291218 233030 58867 73848 238411 174807 5 133985 94779 262074 113368 68574 102370 304332 138397 333;.30731 82084 211090 68115 67658 138318 326089 136005 .3107750 57872 170658 49612 76936 154669 349523 146271 ‘1 98692 32519 110156 34428 81793 146682 361872 223576 ‘1100233 36938 94025 30032 112778 A157713 355132 174530 tw14§470 23619 57298 13559 128028 126863 280593 115036 173019 18770 56762 13313 122059 114966 346397 179662 .3176061 18662 42653 12538 161663 130325 338689 224440 1321;399 11513 38845 5790 151369 113055 337868 183946 ‘3175578 99069 91319 123662 134641 153300 165320 170622 167082 166489 169812 197149 ‘220402 212541 179201 194651 150482 133736 148987 124568 ~‘; — Total Receipts - 'Q.§W Tcattle Calves Shee . Hogs 1, 296201 338293 342806 287874 379776 363560 386683 479120 449745 529629 566406 537179 520181 472028 449157 337891 403159 381342 376713 430863 353367 428030 529016 548720 431505 421760 512331 467793 407837 251765 204120 195883 258004 204562 128595 192975 236978 189736 Total by Total by Grand Rail 908381 844423 949027 972199 1071042 913660 871806 938761 788527 695330 532378 401381 299898 195543 196687 138467 142847 123589 80357 Truck 36507 44322 71033 105933 139139 181961 239787 345805 424648 545933 613673 668070 727399 813923 800153 650520 763084 855117 786238 Total 944888 888745 1020060 1078132 1210181 1095621 1111593 1284566 1213175 1241263 1146051 1069451 1027297 1009466 996840 788987 905931 978706 866595 120 .ntonxqs.uek aaosaHmo no sodpceaaeou Honda ouch: condo ea obopo douuHH cop-pa oesHoeH.hoaAHV fimoeo can» nooHe o.ooa anon mmn Hon emu ana mud use ama mam can mm: man How nausea a.m am a m a a a a a ma Ha ma m :H haveeeeeo o H H :HonOOmHB m.m mma ma ma 5” :2 ca 3 m ma mm mm a” ma eaeeeasessem m.m mna a m a aa a ma m aa a sa om ma ease :.mm mmom cam wmm Na Na mm ma Hod and 0mm Hmm mam mum see» 6.2 2.4m mmm aoa me am mm an mm an mm mm mad an and season use a.o : m m «assess: o H H daoooaaHz H.n oaa m ma m a m m m m om m an .eeeesnoeeee: m.o Hm m a m m m a : eeuaaeea 4.0 4H m a a a z m .«eeaaaa H.o N m o «soupooccoo tmwooaom ewmpce. econ .>oz .poo .umom .mad hwmhrloqsh aw: .amd .ucz .QWh. .uun opepm . amma .eeeeem an .eeManoas scum xoopmobaH no moaoamHnm pOHumo Mo osodeeHamon .4dm oHme Table 25A. Sources of Carlot Receipts of Livestock in Michigan, 1937 Shipping Point Jan. Feb. Mar. A r. M June Jul ‘ . Se t. Oct. flygv. Dec. Totalg__ggggggt Colorado , h 0.1 All Points 2 2 Illinois Chicago 269 202 163 169 162 142 161 139 214 176 193 267 2337 32.6 E. St. Louis 11 2 32 1 16 an 0.9 Other Points 16 17 16 12 6 6 5 6 10 35 20 17 172 2.4 Indiana Indianapolis 70 51 73 91 76 106 72 97 139 54 66 ha 959 13.3 Other Points 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 h 3 9 3 3O 0. Iowa Sioux City 32 5 33 13 6 3 12 20 66 46 72 25 335 6.7 Other Points .2 3 1 3 1 10 12 5 37 0.5 Kansas 111 Points 2 6 u 12 0.1 Kentucky All Points 12 6 1 u 46 59 73 no 7 3 1 256 3.6 Minnesota St. Paul 12 u 7 9 5 1o 15 25 25 21 16 151 2.1 Missouri Kansas City 3 in u 7 26 16 103 63 66 39 107 the 6.3 Other Points 2 1 1 u 2 in 16 26 23 19 12 124 1,7 Nebraska Omaha 35 32 New Mexico All Points 774 j~ 1-1-- —' ' ”vs-77"” ‘3.“ . ,. ‘ ,t u _sz ’. ‘1‘ .1 i ' ‘ y ii“... ,‘41'3333813971&62593.' ; - 4"?" ‘, ' “ ‘111 Pointst'=’ 77’s. '" North Dakota All Points 2 2 . Ohie 111 Points 46 23 26 13 2 11 9 2 12 Oklahoma 5 5 9 3 166 2.6 Oklahoma City 1 2 5 9 56 66 79 6O 6 2h 20 Other Points 2 1 3 36; 5'2 South Dakota Sioux Falls 6 3 6 3 h 2 6 12 2 1 Texas 33 3 1 25 134 1.9 All Points 1 1 5 7 0.1 Wisconsin All Points 2 2 o 111 Other Point31°20 17 20 39 55 59 50 65 116 122 571 9,5 Totals 561 362 375 394 366 561 605 767 1063 764 7130 100.0 *Less than 0.05%. 'May include additional shipments from points listed above in cases where it is impossible to trace loading points. Greatest percentage of these shipments are from west of Missouri River. I ' 122. Table 36L. Location of Livestock Shipping Associations by Counties. 1930 and 1939 Count: Town County Town Alcona: Mikado Baton: Believers Charlotte Allegan: Hamilton'l Eaton Bapids HOpkine Grand Ledge Martin Mulliken Plainssell Sunfield Arenac: Sterling Genesee: Flushing Barry: Delton Gladwin: Glad“! Doster ”Wort Gd. traverse: Traverse City Hastings Middleville Gratiot: Ashley Nashville‘ Breckenridge . Forest Hill Branch: Batavia‘ Ithaca Bronson" Middleton Goldwater St. Louis Quincy‘ Hillsdale: Allen‘ Calhoun: Albian Hillsdale Battle Creek Litchfield Homer Montgomery Marshall Forth Adans‘ Telnnshe. Pitteford Prattville Cass: OassOpolie Beading Davagiec‘ Valdson Jones Marcellus Huron: Bad Axe Caseville Charlevo ix: Char-level: Hinds Ovendale‘ Chippewa: Rudyard Bigeon‘ . Sault 8t. Marie Ruth Clare: Glare Ingham: Haslett Farewell Holt Harrison Mason Veb‘oerville Clinton: Elsie Villiamston" Fowler Riley“ St. Johns fable 26A (Continued). 123. ‘Cghnty T9333. Countx: Teen Ionic: Belding' Montmorency: Leviston Clarkesville Ionia Nesaygo: Fremont Lake Odessa‘I White Cloud Besamo Portland Oakland: Ortinville Saranac Dam-as: Prescott Icsco: Vhitteaore Mist Branch! Beal City“ Osceola: lvart‘ Isabella: Mount Bleasant Hersey Shepherd Leroy weidman Marion‘ Reed City“ Jadkson: Concord‘ Perms Otto's: Holland Kalamazoo: Schoolcraft Saginaw: Chesaning Hemlock‘ Kent: Lovell Merrill Sparta. St. Joseph: Burr Oak! Lapeer: Metamora Centerville Constantine Lenauee: Blissfield Sturgis Deerfield Three Rivers Hudson White Pigeon Onsted Sanilac: Crossell Livingston: lowlerville Decker Deckerville Luce: MCMillan Marlette Minden'I Mason: Scottsville Snorer Matertown Mecosta: Remus Stanwood Shiauassee: Laingsburg Lennon . Morrice‘ Midland. Coleman Owasso Montcalm: Amble Perry Butternut . Carson City Tuscola. 3::32. Green'111. Cass City Lakeview Calling Stanton Uhionville Trufant Vickeryville washtenaw: Manchester Hyman *Associations existing in both 1980 and 1939. uAssociations existing in 1939 but not in 1980. C. O. .0 124. Table 29L. Location Of 103 Packing Houses. by Counties, 1939‘ ‘— _C_9_u_nty Town County Town Allegan: HOpkins Lenawee: Blissfield Plainwell Hudson Mayland Marquette: Marquette Bay: Bay City - 2 Mason: Ludington Berrien: Benton Harbor Buchanan Menominee: Menominee Hiles Monroe: Milan - 2 Branch: Goldwater Monroe Calhoun: Battle Creek Muskegon: Muskegon - 3 Clinton: Bath Oakland: Bent iac Maple Rapids Ovid Ottawa: Grand Haven - 2 Holland - 2 Genesee: Benton Zesland - 4 Flint Saginaw: Chesaning Inghen: Holt Saginaw Leslie St. Clair: Smiths Creek Iron: Iron River St. Joseph: Sturgis Jackson: Hanover Three, Rivers Jackson - 3 Shiawassee: Owosso - 2 Kalamasoo: Climax Perry Xalanasoo - 3 Vicksburg ' Vashtenaw: Ann Arbor - 2 Kent: Cedar Springs Wayne: Detroit - 27 Grand Rapids - S " Data from Bureau of Animal Industry, Michigan Department of Agriculture. -4 ‘ . o . e C e . O O . . O O '0 n : C . C . e I . . ‘ e ' e O 0 e an O o . e . C . O n C I O a C .1 O O O .- . ‘ . — e . . e - 7 c e O. Table 30A. Marketing Charges at Michigan Auction Markets Auction Auction Auction Auction Auction Auction Item D E F gggggg§g§_ Hogs, Per Head .25 .25 .25 .25 . .25 .25 (Under $5) .15 Sheets & Feeder Pigs Under 60# .15 .15 .15 .15 (Over $5) Shoats & Feeder Pigs Over 60# .20 (Over $50 at 2%) Sow & Pigs 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Bears. Bred Sows .50 .50 .50 .50 .50 .50 (Over 300#) Roughs & Stags Over 350# .50 .50 .50 .50 .50 .50 .50 (Under 300#) Roughs & Stags Under 850# .25 .25 .25 .25 . .25 (Over $20) Cattle, Sold Singly 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Cattle, Sold 5 or more .75 .75 .75 .75 .75 Cattle, Feeder, Under $15 .50 Cattle, Feeder, $15 _ $20 .75 Minimum—4%, Basic Cow and Calf _ 1.50 1.50 1.25 1.50 1.75 1.50 Veal Calf .50 .50 .50 .50 .50 .50 .50 (Under $5) Deacon Calf .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 (Over $5) Deacon Calf ‘ . Minimum-4%, Basic Dairy Cows 1.50 .. 2% when Bulls . 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 over $50 1.00 Sheep‘knd names; per Head .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 ~ « .25 .25 Herses, Up to $100 - ' 57’. 5% 5-7: 55?; l -ifloaner , _LOO ’ ll 501-.2. 5.00 5.00 5.00 ._ ., . ‘ < ‘75:" ,. I“ p . k “'V ~ 9, ‘5 .... d, A v—--- ‘ ~‘ ‘ ~ - ~50 * ," - r. “ * . 5- , , Single Deck Carload - HOgs 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 12 50 Double Deck Carload - Hogs 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20 00 Single Deck Carload - Lambs 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 12 50 Double Deck Carload - Lambs 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20:00 Car Cattle 18.00 18200 18.00 18.00 18.00 Miscellaneous Items* 3-10% 3-10% 3-10% 3-10% 3-10% 3-10% Insurance of Stock & Guaranteed Payment %% %% éfi %% %% %% *Varies with time necessary to sell. 125 . ‘v.\ c Lx.’flw O,I.\1l!! APPENDIX! 126 127. EXHIBIT I. Truckers No. name , P.O. Address County 1. No. trucks__. 2. Men per truck_____. 3. Producer—dealer-trucker___._ for hire trucker . Volume of each if 2 or more 4. Tone rating value . 5. Years engaged in trucking livestoch__ Months of operation during year 6. Method of obtaining business______ 7. Other work - f of income from F trucking;_ 8. No. of trips per week to each of following markets and.best days at each: From to terminal From to auction From to concentration yards From to Detroit packers From ‘ to Interior packers ' Drom__ to others(name) 9. IPic]: upI ares 10. If trucking for self: Cattle Calves Cheap Hogs % bought at ten % bought at local shipping points % bought at other places where 11. If trucking for’hire: Cattle Calves Sheep Ho s r__rs Rate Basis Charge to markets reached as: Detgoit St. Johns Others (name) c-o - . — . o _ s . I h . . « . .f . . O . a . . I o q n a I . o \ i i . . a . . . . e i . . i . u v ‘ o e » . . e . _ n n . . . u . 12..Average miles per round trip % of mileage empty What commodities are hauled on return trips? EXHIBIT I (Continued) 128 . 13. Kinds of stock handled and estimated volume of each per year: Cattle Calves Sheep Hogs 14. % of hauling done for each or the following: 15. 16. Why do you.use the outlets indicated above? Cattle Calves 5""1 Producers miles-....— Dealers Co-Operatives Others (name) % sold or delivered to each of the following: Cattle Calves Sheep Hogs Local Dealers Co-Operatives Interior packers (wholesalers) Terminal packers Detroit, Chiggo, Toledo Terminal COOperative Cgmmiggign 31:2; Terminal Independent 0 i n n_ Auctions Concentration yards String Butchers Others (name) i of farmers which instruct you thrggh whom to sell 17. Losses in transit (% of value or amount per year) 18. Causes of loss in transit (death and cripples) 19..Lre stock fed.before loading how long before loading O o - o — , --- , . . ,‘ . u . e . -.. - . . -. . - l - , l , . - . - . , . . - .. .. - . c . v . . , _..-.-.-.. , .. ,. . , , .-. .- Odes. .. . .- .- n“ .7 - ., ,. .-.-.-- ...- .. -..-.. -. .— -. . 7“... .- u . . . \ 4 A .r - . . . -.- - - .. .... .-. g u e , . - l . .. f' s . A s A .. . . . .. . .‘ - , -.. ._. ., _ ,g..... ’4’". . .. .- . e . . . . ... , . . , - .- . ... .- . a - .. . ... 4.- ..A. -. , .. ._ . - e . . ‘ - -. .. .. . l - . DvO .. ......“ . . - . . - . , .. --.... ‘I -... o sew. .. . - , . .-. ... . . . .... -— . . l I . --. , -, _ ‘ ,. . - - .... _ , . o - a -. s- . o-r . . . r . I. 7 ea ‘ ~ .---a.. - - , v ' - e - - ~ I - e ’ . _ l , e- . e. 129 . EEIBIT I (Continued) 20. Chief difficulties in trucking each kind of stock: Calves Cattle Sheep Hogs Others 21. Suggestions for improving the facilities for truck delivery at various markets 22. What other changes in livestock trucking or trucking in general would (A benefit you? 28 . Additional comments EXHIBIT II Producer Questionnaire No . Name Address County Size of farm you operate acres. No. of acres in hay and pasture . 1. t: Cattle Calves She H s No. of head sold past year % sold thru Terminal market % sold thru Auction market % sold to concentration yards 7% sold to local dealers $ sold to truckers at farm i sold to packers direct % sold to local butchers 2. Why do you use the outlets shown above: 3. Number of miles from farm to terminal market :Auction market : Concentration Yards___: local dealer :packing house—local Butcher___. 4. What % of livestock do you ship through local Cooperative Shipping Association 5. What ercentage of the livestock you sell at the terminal market (Detroit is sold through the Co0perative Commission Firm! (Michigan Livestock Exchange) 6. Percentage of livestock trucked to market by yourself___: Percentage hired trucked to market____: Percentage shipped by rail___ . 7 . Do you direct hired truckers as to which market and commission firm to use for your livestock? . If not. do you allow then complete freedom to take the livestock where they wish? . 8. On what price information do you determine the probable sales value of your livestock? (Check one or more of the following: Central market prices__; local packer prices__; Concentration point prices—3 Local Auction prices__; Local trader offers__; estimates of hired truckers_; None__. 130 . 4 c . e . , a 0 - O . “-. v - 131. mm IT II (Continued) 9. Do trucker buyers buy your best, med m. or poor grades of livestock _, or all grades . ' .- . 10. How does price by truck W02 comparedwith . - ' .. . price! ' 3‘ If comparison is made with terminal other than Detroit. specify which: Toledo, Chicago, Buffalo, (Other) . ll. Indicate below the number of head of breeding or feeder stock you you usually purchase per year and the agencies from which you buy it: Cattle Sheep— Bogs 12. Do you prefer truck or rail shipment_____. Why l3. Ihat changes in truck or rail shipment would be valuable to you 14. Has livestock trucking changed the number or kinds of stock you produce . If so. what changes 16. Can you suggest any changes in the marketing system which would be of benefit to you. 6. Additional cements ---a— --u" -» 0‘ RI. Lie E" .' ale]. ill" lo... Iti.! Ell. "I7'1?11111111711115