A $Y‘UE7‘FY 6F WEMW MARKETENG iH LERAWEE AND MLLSDALE COUN'?EES WETR EMMASQS 9N ENFORMATEON 'fHAT A DSSTRECT MARKETMQ AGENT CAN USE ‘50 HELP FAREERS ENCREASE TREK WEE”? {HCGME Ffiéfi MARKETENG BVES’fOCK Thuisfwthchogmdms. MICHGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Harvey J. EEEi-ofi' 1960 L. n‘ LIBRARY Michigan Stave University A STUDY OF LIVESTOCK MARKETING IN LENAWEE AND HILLSDALE COUNTIES WITH EMPHASIS ON INFORMATION THAT A DISTRICT MARKETING AGENT CAN USE TO HELP FARMERS INCREASE THEIR NET INCOME FROM MARKETING LIVESTOCK A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Economics by Harvey J. Elliott 1960 ABSTRACT The District Marketing Agent is a relatively new position on the staff of Michigan Cooperative Extension Service. The first agent was hired in July, 1954. This study is one of several being made at Michigan State Univer- sity to provide a broad background of information that might assist a District Marketing Agent to help farmers solve marketing problems. Efforts were made by the author to provide some of the background information that would help a Livestock and Grain Marketing Agent in the Lenawee-Hills- dale district to analyze and solve marketing problems in the area. This thesis was devoted to livestock marketing information which could be made available to livestock pro- ducers. It was divided into seven parts: (1) Importance of livestock to the area, (2) information sources available to the area, (3) when livestock should be marketed, (4) where livestock should be marketed, (5) how livestock should be marketed, (6) the costs of marketing livestock, and (7) the net return from marketing livestock. A budget analysis was used to find the marketing costs and the net returns to livestock producers. Hypo- thetical examples of a large and a small producer from a ii iii five mile vicinity of Adrian and of Hillsdale were used to test six markets in the area. The study included shrink- age losses as a cost of marketing livestock. Shrinkage is a considerable charge to marketing whether or not a producer realizes its importance. The reader must realize that the net returns are those at the time the analysis was made and with the assump- tions presented by the writer. Those who may wish to re- test the markets may do so by substituting the current mar- ket prices of the class of livestock being marketed. The cost of marketing data will be usable until changes occur in the direct charges at the market place, in the trans- portation rates, or in shrinkage loss as might be deter- mined from new information. The author would recommend the budget analysis as a means of testing alternative mar- kets to determine the cost of marketing livestock and the highest probable net returns. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author wishes to express his sincere thanks to Dr. Robert C. Kramer, under whose leadership, inspira- tion, and unfailing interest this study was undertaken and completed. He is indebted to Dr. L. L. Boger, Head of the Department of Agricultural Economics, who provided finan- cial assistance to secure information in the counties and the areas involved in this study. He is also indebted to Michigan State University for sabbatical leave to complete this study. Deep appre- ciation is eXpressed to Paul A. Miller, former Director of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service; Noel P. Ralston, present Director; and A. A. Griffith and Bohn Musgrave, District Extension Directors,for their encourage- ment and cOOperation. He is further indebted to several members of the resident staff of Department of Agricultural Economics for their interest, assistance and objective criticisms. The writer expresses sincere thanks to Mildred E. Bender, Ida B. Jones, St. Joseph County Extension Secre- taries, and to Arlene King, Secretary, Department of Agri- cultural Economics, for their assistance in typing the iv original manuscript. And finally, he expresses gratitude and appre- ciation to his wife and children for their patience, en- couragement, and self sacrifices. NOTE TO THE READER This thesis was started in 1955. The informa- tion secured from farmers regarding where they received their livestock marketing information and where, when, and why they marketed their livestock as they did was secured by personal interviews with farmers during April and May, 1955. Due to employment and family situations the author was un- able to complete the thesis as planned in 1955. The information used in analyzing the marketing problem was brought up to date in May, 1960. This was done by visiting the markets to secure the current marketing charges, transportation rates, and livestock prices. The author was unable to make a new survey of farmers to determine the changes that may have occurred during the five-year period. The information secured from farmers and how it was secured is presented in Chapters I, II, III, and VII. Forty—eight cf the 76 farmers interviewed in 1955 had television sets. Recent surveys indicate that approximately 95 per cent of Michigan farmers own television sets. However, the author believes that television still ranks lowest in importance as a source of livestock informa- tion for farmers in southern Michigan. vi Chapter I. II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O A. B. INFORMATION ON LIVESTOCK MARKETING AVAILABLE Purpose of Study. . . . . . . . . . Description of Lenawee and Hillsdale Coun- ties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Importance of Livestock in the Area Nature of the Problem . . . . . . . Sources of Data . . . . . . . . . . summary 0 O O O O O O O O O I O O 0 FOR USE BY A DISTRICT MARKETING AGENT . A. B. C. Market Information Used by Farmers. 1. Radio . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Newspapers. . . . . . . . . . . 3. Magazines . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Television. . . . . . . . . . . 5. Individuals . . . . . . . . . . 6. Special Market Reports. . . . . Market Reports Available to Farmers summary 0 O O C O O O O O O O O O 0 WHERE TO MARKET LIVESTOCK . . . . . . . A. B. Where Farmers Sold Their Livestock. Description of the Markets. . . . . 1. Detroit Stockyards. . . . . . . 2. Lugbill Producers, Inc., Archbcld, Ohio vi Page CDU‘IU‘l-(hI-J 10 ll 11 12 13 13 13 14 14 19 21 21 22 22 23 . ...l||.l| I‘ll IV. V. VI. VII. 0. vii 3. Adrian Livestock Sales. . . . . . . . . 4. Goldwater Livestock Commission Auction. 5. Hillsdale Auction Company . . . . . . . summary 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 WHEN LIVESTOCK SHOULD BE INLARKETED e e e e e e e A. B. C. Seasonal Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Price Cycles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Short-Time Price Fluctuations . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIVESTOCK SHOULD BE MARKETED. . . . . . . . Meat-Type Hogs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feed Cattle and Lambs to the Optimum Weight for the Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Veal Calves versus Deacons. . . . . . . . . Handling Livestock. . . . . . . . . . . . . summary 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O S HRINKAGE O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 0 O O A. B. C. D. cattle. . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O HogSe O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Sheep 0 I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O summary 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O WTING CHARGES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O A. B. C. D. Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yardage O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O 0 Feed. 0 O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O weighing 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O 23 24 24 25 26 26 32 33 34 36 56 57 58 38 4O 42 43 49 51 52 55 55 58 58 59 I. viii Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . National Livestock and Meat Board . . . . . Commissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Service Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . smary O O C O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 VIII. NET RETURNS TO FARMERS . . . . . . . . . . . . K. Net Returns from Choice Steers for Farmers in the Vicinity of Adrian . . . . . . . . . Net Returns from Choice Steers for Farmers in the Vicinity of Hillsdale. . . . . . . . Net Returns from Cutter Cows for Farmers in the ViCinity 0f Adriane e e e e e e e e e e Net Returns from Cutter Cows for Farmers in the Vicinity of Hillsdale . . . . . . . . . Net Returns from Choice Veal Calves for Farmers in the Vicinity of Adrian . . . . . Net Returns from Choice Veal Calves for Farmers in the Vicinity of Hillsdale. . . . Net Returns from Choice Lambs for Farmers in the Vicinity of Adrian . . . . . . . . . Net Returns from Choice Lambs for Farmers in the Vicinity of Hillsdale. . . . . . . . Net Returns from No. l Hogs for Farmers in the Vicinity of Adrian. . . . . . . . . . . Net Returns from No. l Hogs for Farmers in 59 60 60 63 63 65 68 74 76 79 82 88 89 92 95 the Vicinity of Hillsdale . . . . . . . . 101 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 IX. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . 108 BIBLIOGRAP HY. O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 114 APPENDICES LIST OF TABLES Table Page I. Livestock Numbers on Farms January 1 and Sows Farrowed in Lenawee County for the Eleven Year Period Beginning in 1949. . . . . . . . . 6 II. Livestock Numbers on Farms January 1 and Sows Farrowed in Hillsdale County for the Eleven Year Period Beginning in 1949. . . . . . . . . 6 III. Indexes of Seasonal Price Variations of Major Michigan Farm Commodities. . . . . . . . . . . 27 IV. Per cent of Shrink for 60 Fat Cattle Between Each Check Weighing During a 200 Mile Truck Haul O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O 4' 5 V. Per cent of Shrink for Choice Steers, Hogs, Lambs, Veal Calves, and "Dry" Cows Related to Length of Haul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 VI. Relationship of the Length of Haul to Shrink- age or HogSe O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 50 VII. Truck Transportation Charges for Hauling Indi- vidual, Medium, and Large Lots of Cattle, Calves, Hogs, and Sheep to Markets of Various Distances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 VIII. Transportation Distance to Market Livestock for Two Producers Living Near Hillsdale and Adrian O O O O O O O O O O I O I O O O O O I O 67 IX. Price Per Hundredweight for Five Classes of Livestock at Six Markets, Week of May 16-22, 1960 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 68 X. Marketing Charges for 1000 Pound Choice Steers from Large and Small Producers in the Vicinity of Adrian, Week of May 16-22, 1960 . . . . . . 69 XI. Net Returns from Marketing 1000 Pound Choice Steers for Large and Small Producers in the Vicinity of Adrian, Week of May 16-22, 1960. . 70 ix XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XXII. XXIII. Marketing Charges for 1000 Pound Choice Steers from Large and Small Producers in the Vicinity Net Returns from Marketing 1000 Pound Choice Steers for Large and Small Producers in the Vicinity of Hillsdale, Week of May 16-22, 1960. Marketing Charges for 1000 Pound Cutter Cows from Large and Small Producers in the Vicinity of Adrian, Week of May 16-22, 1960. . . . . . . Net Returns from Marketing 1000 Pound Cutter Cows for Large and Small Producers in the Vicinity of Adrian, Week of May 16—22, 1960 . . Marketing Charges for 1000 Pound Cutter Cows from Large and Small Producers in the Vicinity of Hillsdale, Week of May 16-22, 1960 . . . . . Net Returns from Marketing 1000 Pound Cutter Cows for Large and Small Producers in the Vicinity of Hillsdale, Week of May 16-22, 1960. Marketing Charges for 190 Pound Choice Veal Calves from Large and Small Producers in the Vicinity of Adrian, Week of May 16-22, 1960 . . Net Returns from Marketing 190 Pound Choice Veal Calves from Large and Small Producers in the Vicinity of Adrian, Week of May 16-22, 1960 Marketing Charges for 190 Pound Choice Veal Calves from Large and Small Producers in the Vicinity of Hillsdale, Week of May 16-22, 1960. Net Returns from Marketing 190 Pound Choice Veal Calves from Large and Small Producers in the Vicinity of Hillsdale, Week of May 16-22, 1960. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Marketing Charges for 90 Pound Choice Lambs from Large and Small Producers in the Vicinity 0f Adrian, Week 0f may 16-22, 1960e e e e e e 0 Net Returns from Marketing 90 Pound Choice Lambs from Large and Small Producers in the Vicinity of Adrian, Week of May 16-22, 1960 . . 77 78 80 91 93 94 XXIV. XXV. XXVI. XXVII. XXVIII. XXIX. xi Marketing Charges for 90 Pound Choice Lambs from Large and Small Producers in the Vicinity of Hillsdale, Week of May 16-22, 1960 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 96 Net Returns from Marketing 90 Pound Choice Lambs from Large and Small Producers in the Vicinity of Hillsdale, Week of May 16-22, 1960 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 97 Marketing Charges for 200 Pound No. 1 Hogs from Large and Small Producers in the Vicinity of Adrian, Week of May 16-22, 1960. 99 Net Returns from Marketing 200 Pound No. 1 Hogs from Large and Small Producers in the Vicinity of Adrian, Week of May 16-22, 1960. 100 Marketing Charges for 200 Pound No. l Hogs from Large and Small Producers in the Vicin- ity of Hillsdale, Week of May 16—22, 1960. . 103 Net Returns from Marketing 200 Pound No. 1 Hogs for Large and Small Producers in the Vicinity of Hillsdale, Week of May 16-22, 1960 e e e e e e e e e e e s e e e e s e e e 104- LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Seasonal Prices of Hogs, Veal Calves, and All Beef Cattle in Michigan, Pre-War (1933- 42) and Post-War (1947-54) Periods, Compared 28 2. Seasonal Prices of Wool, Sheep, and Lambs in Michigan, Pre-War (1933—42) and Post-War (1947-54) PeriOdS compared e e e e e e e e e 29 xii I. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM A. Purpose of the Study Farmers of Lenawee and Hillsdale counties and Michigan State University have recognized a need for increas- ing the income of livestock producers of these counties through an improved marketing program. A District Market- ing Agent has been employed by the Cooperative Extension Service as of June 1, 1955, to work with the farmers, the marketing agencies, and the news disseminating services to fulfill this need. The purpose of this study is to determine through the use of primary and secondary data what some of the real problems are, how and where farmers market their livestock, why they market as they do, the source and kind of market information farmers receive and use, and what a District Marketing Agent can do to help farmers receive a higher price or reduce the marketing costs for the livestock to be sold. B. Description of Lenawee and Hillsdale Counties Lenawee County is located in the southeastern, part of Michigan on the Ohio state line. Hillsdale County lies adjacent to the west and lies next to the Ohio and Indiana state lines. There is a great variety of soils ranging from the very heavy soil types of Miami, Brookston, and Hills- dale, to the very lightest Plainrield, Fox, and Bellfon- taine. There are isolated muck areas which are of no great economic importance.1 A comprehensive county drainage system has been established in the level, poorly drained, heavy soil areas. much of the farm land of Lenawee County is tile drained. Adrian is the county seat of Lenawee County. It has a population of 18,000 persons. The county popula- tion is 65,000. The population is 21.1 per cent rural farm residents, 38 per cent urban, 41 per cent rural non-farm (village), and 14.9 per cent rural non-farm non—village.2 Hillsdale is the county seat of Hillsdale County. It has a population of 7,000 persons. The county popula- tion is 32,000 persons. The population is 41.4 per cent rural farm residents, 22.9 per cent urban, 19.1 per cent rural non-farm (village), and 16.6 per cent non-rural non- village.2 1J. o. Veach, Soil Survey Map, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Bureau of Soils, in cooperation with the Mich- igan Agricultural Experiment Station, revised, 1953. 2Anon., How Does Your County Rate? A county breakdown of statistics from census reports and various other sources. Prepared by the Dept. of Land Use and Water Conservation, Michigan State University, July, 1954. o. .p..- L. G. Hall3 stated, “This area of the state was one of the earliest settled for farming in Michigan,” and, ”the farm population has become fully Americanized and it is quite easy to find natural leaders in the community." D. G. Leitch4 stated, "the peOple have a rather heterogenous background as far as nationalities are concerned," and "there is no group or community that sets itself apart from the rest because of national heritage or religious beliefs.” Michigan is divided into 17 type-of-farming areas based largely on sources of farm income and prevailing kinds of crops and livestock. Hillsdale and Lenawee Counties make up the greater part of Area I classified as a General Livestock and Corn Area. The most important source of farm income for Area I is from the sale of livestock--mostly cattle, hogs, and sheep. The other sources of income in order of importance are dairy products; field crops--mostly wheat, sugar beets, and soy- beans; and poultry and poultry products. On some farms, truck crops such as tomatoes, sweet corn, squash, melons, cabbage, and potatoes are important sources of income. The area has adequate railroad services and the state and county roads are surfaced to such a degree that the means for transportation 3Louis G. Hall, Annual Report of Cooperative Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics, Lenawee County,1954, page 4. 4'Duncan G. Leitch, Annual Re ort of Coo erative Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics, Hillsdale ounty. 954, page 2- 5E1ton B. Hill and R. Mawby, T es of Farmin In Michigan, Special Bulletin 206, second revision, Sep- em er, 9 4, page 30. n-“- of farm products is favorable. Its close prox- imity to the Detroit, Toledo, and Cleveland in— dustrial area lends to the ease of marketing and the advantage of favgrable price levels for all farm products grown. 0. Importance of Livestock in the Area During the 11 year period 1949-1959, the number of cattle and calves of all ages on Lenawee and Hillsdale farms on January 1 increased from 85,800 to 91,000. The two counties had 4.9 per cent of the state total of 1,829,000 head. The number of milk cows decreased from 50,500 to 37,600 but still totaled 4.5 per cent of the 820,000 milk cows in the state. The number of stock sheep increased from 21,800 to 26,000 or to 7.7 per cent of the state total of 336,000. The number of sows farrowing decreased from 28,070 to 16,500 which was 9.1 per cent of the state total of 180,000 farrowings.7 A comparison of livestock on farms by counties on January 1, 1959, shows Lenawee ranked 4th in the number of all cattle and calves of all ages, 17th in the number of milk cows, and 3rd in the number of stock sheep. Hills- dale County ranked 12th in the number of all cattle and 6Louis G. Hall, op. cit., page 3. 7Michigan Agricultural Statistics, Michigan Dept. of Agriculture, Bureau of Animal Industry, Cooperating with the United States Dept. of Agriculture, Agricultural Market- ing Service, 1949 through 1959. .-._-- calves of all ages, 11th in the number of milk cows and 10th in the number of stock sheep.8 Lenawee County ranked 1st along with Cass County in the total number of sows farrowed. Hillsdale County ranked 6th. There are 83 counties in Michigan.9 The eleven year trend of livestock on the farms of Lenawee and Hillsdale on January 1 and of the number of sows farrowing by years is shown in Tables I and II. D. Nature of the Problem The problem is primarily one of determining what livestock marketing information is available to farmers in the area and how it might be used by a District Market- ing Agent to help farmers increase their net earnings. E. Sources of Data A personal interview of seventy-six farmers was conducted in Lenawee and Hillsdale counties. A random list was prepared by taking the name of the first two full- time farmers from each page of the county directories. The names of these farmers were then arranged by townships. 8Ibid. 1949 through 1959. 9Ibid. 1949 through 1959. of Agriculture, 1949 through 1959. Table I. Livestock Numbers on Farms, January 1, and Sows Farrowed in Lenawee County for the Eleven Year Period Beginning in 1949.* Jan. 1 Livestock Numbers on Number of Lenawee County Farms Sows Farrowed (year) All Cattle Cows, 2+ Stock Spring Fall Total and Calves for milk Sheep Dec.1- June 1- June 1 Dec. 1 1949 46,100 26,500 12,000 9,000 6,810 15,810 1950 47,200 22,400 14,000 8,070 5,890 13,960 1951 46,600 20,000 15,900 8,600 10,000 18,600 1952 41,800 20,000 17,000 8,400 7,200 15,600 1953 53,000 23,900 15,700 5,400 8,200 13,600 1954 55,000 23,000 15,600 6,500 8,500 15,000 ‘1955 45,000 24,000 9,800 5,400 3,500 8,900 1956 38,000 20,500 11,000 4,100 3,700 7,800 1957 59,000 19,100 11,800 4,100 3,800 7,900 1958 38,000 19,300 10,000 3,400 3,200 6,600 1959 41,000 19,500 10,000 3,000 3,900 6,900 * Source: Michigan Agricultural Statistics, Michigan Dept. of Agriculture, 1949 through 1959. Table II. Livestock Numbers on Farms, January 1, and Sows Farrowed in Hillsdale County for the Eleven Year Period Beginning in 1949.* Jan. 1 Livestock Numbers on Number of Hillsdale County Farms Sows Farrowed (year) All Cattle Cows, 2+ Stock Spring Fall Total and Calves for Milk Sheep Dec.1- June 1- June 1 Dec. 1 1949 39,700 24,000 9,800 6,980 5,280 12,260 1950 39,800 22,500 9,800 7,530 4,920 12,450 1951 44,700 25,600 11,700 5,700 4,300 10,000 1952 44,700 23,800 11,700 4,900 3,400 8,300 1953 48,000 21,700 11,100 4,500 3,600 8,100 1954 45,000 24,000 10,600 5,400 3,500 8,900 1955 55,000 23,000 15,600 6,500 8,500 15,000 1956 50,000 18,500 15,000 6,000 4,600 10,600 1957 48,000 19,000 14,500 6,600 4,600 11,200 1958 46,000 18,000 13,000 5,300 4,000 9, 300 1959 50,000 18,100 16,000 5,100 4,500 9, 6 00 * Source: Michigan Agricultural Statistics, Michigan Dept. There was an average of 12 farmers per township. The County Agricultural Agents of the two counties were asked to select two names from each of the townships. The basis for se- lection was to secure at least one farmer who was making the sale of livestock one of his main sources of income and one farmer who was making the sale of cash grain his main source of income. The author interviewed thirty-six farmers from 10 Carlton the eighteen townships in Hillsdale County. Dennis, a graduate student working on a related problem in grain marketing, interviewed forty farmers in Lenawee County. Dividing the interviews this way it was possible for each interviewer to secure the information needed for both problems with one call at the farm. Information regarding livestock market news that was being provided to farmers from radio and television stations in the area was requested by mail. Marketing charges and volume of business conducted was secured by a questionnaire, a personal visit, or a telephone call, from all the auction markets and terminal markets serving the area. The author visited the auction markets at Hills- dale and Adrian to interview truckers, farmers, and auction personnel. 10The survey form may be found in the appendices. E. Summary The District Marketing Agent is a relatively new position in the expanding program of the Michigan State University Cooperative Extension Service. The agent must be a pioneer in this field of service dedicated to help farmers solve their marketing problems in Michigan. There is much information available for the agent to use. There are years of experience in working with people in the ex- tension service that should be of help. This thesis was developed to assist the livestock and grain District Mar- keting Agent in the Lenawee-Hillsdale district. Primary data were secured through a survey of farmers living in Lenawee and Hillsdale counties. Personal interviews with personnel in the marketing industry were also conducted. Two farmers were selected from each of the thirty-eight townships in the district. The seventy-six farmers gave basic information as to where they were mar- keting their livestock and why and what marketing informa- tion they were securing, from what sources, and how they were using it. Information regarding the markets, livestock transportation, and sources of information in the area was secured through correspondence and personal interviews with people in the livestock industry. Secondary data were secured from the Michigan Agricultural Statistics, County Extension Agents' reports, textbooks, bulletins, and miscellaneous special studies covering phases of the problems. II. INFORMATION ON LIVESTOCK MARKETING AVAILABLE FOR USE BY A DISTRICT MARKETING AGENT In this chapter information that has an important bearing on the main problem of determining the farmer's marketing costs and his net returns is discussed. It will include what information the farmers have, the information available to them, and information that should be consid- ered in making decisions regarding when to market livestock, where to market livestock, and how to market livestock. F. L. Thomsen 11 says: Many farmers can contribute to more effi- cient marketing by doing a better individual job of marketing their own livestock. This means a more skillful job of deciding when, where, and by what method to market. This requires (1) familiarity with the various mar- ket outlets which are available, (2) use of market news reports and other information in following current market conditions, for the purpose of taking advantage of temporary market strength at or about the time the livestock is ready for marketing, and (3) use of outlook information in coordinating the farm production program with marketing so as to take maximum advantage of seasonal, annual and cyclical changes in commodity prices. 1 ‘ In the Lenawee-Hillsdale area, the importance of when to market livestock is illustrated by the responses 11F. L. Thomsen , Agricultural Marketing, McGraw— Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, Toronto, London, 1951, page 427. 10 .--.0- ~ - c~vocr¢ , 11 in the interviews of 76 farmers. When asked how they de— termine when to sell their livestock, only 26 of them used seasonal price and outlook information in deciding when to have their livestock ready to sell. The others raised the livestock, sold when it was ready for market or when they needed thennney. Only 49 of the 76 used daily market quotations to assist in determining when to market their livestock. Seventeen started their livestock to market when ready or convenient. Some sold when their trucker or commission men indicated they should. A. Market Information Used by Farmers Ragig. The most important source of livestock market infor- mation was radio. Sixty-four farmers of the 76 interviewed gave this as their most important source, seven made it their second choice and three their third choice. Forty-nine farmers received market news from the morning program on Radio Station WJR in Detroit and twenty-one from the noon program on this station. Marshall Wells, commentator, is very pepular with the rural people. His programs are presented between 6:00 a.m. and 6:30 a.m., and 12:15 p.m. and 12:30 p.m., every day except Sunday. Market quotations are from the Detroit and other mid-west stockyards. Nine farmers followed livestock market reports 12 from Radio Station WOWO, Fort Wayne, Indiana. The commenta— tor is Jay Gould. Fifteen farmers, mostly in Lenawee County, followed reports from Radio Station WABJ, Adrian. Other radio programs mentioned as valuable to six or fewer of the farmers interviewed are as follows. WTVB Coldwater AP News Wire WKAR East Lansing AP News Wire Detroit Market News Wire Michigan Livestock Exchange, Michigan Livestock Auction Report WPAG Ann Arbor Michigan Livestock Exchange, Detroit, and AP Wire WSPD Toledo, Ohio UPI Wire CKLW Windsor, Can. Ridley Commission 00., UIP Wire WMAQ Chicago, 111. AP and UPI Wire WLS Chicago, Ill. Chicago Yards WGN Chicago, Ill. Chicago Union Stockyards Newspapers. All the farmers interviewed subscribed to a daily newspaper. Seven farmers indicated newspapers as their most important source of livestock market news, forty- five made it their second choice, and twelve their third choice. Twenty-eight farmers living in Hillsdale County depended upon the Hillsdale News. Forty-four depended upon the Adrian Daily News. Other daily papers were the Tglgdo Blade, chkson Citizens' Patriot, and Chicago Daily Drovers' Journal. 13 The weekly newspapers were unimportant as a source of market news. There were fifteen weekly newspapers being subscribed to by the farmers interviewed. Only one was reported to carry livestock market information. Magazines. Magazines were listed by the farmers interviewed as the fourth most valuable source of livestock marketing information. In contrast to radio and newspapers where current price and market receipts were of value, this source was used to learn trends in price, production, movements of livestock, and the outlook situation for producers. Television. Forty-eight of the seventy-six farmers inter- viewed owned television sets. Only ten rated it as important, one as most important, five as second choice, and four as third choice. The popular program was from WSPD, Toledo, Ohio. . It is largely a participation program with interviews fea- turing County Agricultural Agents, Home Demonstration Agents, Specialists from 0.S.U. and M.S.U., FFA, FHA, and 4-H Club members, and farmers. The livestock quotations are from the Cleveland and Chicago markets. Unfortunately for the Michigan farmers the program starts an hour earlier when Ohio changes to Eastern Daylight Time. Individuals. Forty-two farmers looked to other people for help in making their decisions. Twenty-two farmers consulted 14 with their truckers as to when and where to sell their livestock. Ten farmers consulted with commission men, eight with livestock buyers, five with their neighbors, and one with his County Agricultural Agent. Most farmers indicated individuals of third importance after radio and newspapers. Special Market Reports. The U.S.D.A. Market News Service, Michigan Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, and private news services were considered as least important by the farmers interviewed. Nine farmers followed market news from their bank newsletter, four received the Michigan Livestock Exchange Bulletin, five received livestock market reports from the U.S.D.A. Market News Service, and five received the livestock reports from the Michigan Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. Most of the latter group were c00perating reporters for the service. The survey brought out the fact that farmers know little regarding what special market reports are avail- able, the type of information that they contain, or where and how they may be secured. B. Market Reports Available to Farmers Price and livestock movement reports received -daily by radio and newspapers by farmers may be supplemented N” 11’ 15 by mail from U.S.D.A. Market News Services located at terminal livestock markets. Two regular reports that some farmers could use advantageously are: ”Detroit Livestock Market Report." Agricultural Marketing Service, Room 204, 6750 Dix Avenue, Detroit 9, Michigan. Reports Monday and Thursday, Free. -- Report of receipts and prices for livestock by classes for Detroit Market, some information on trends and other markets. "Livestock Market Report from Chicago." Agricultural Mar- keting Service, Room 301, 999 Exchange Avenue, Chicago 9, Illinois, Free. -- Two reports weekly of receipts and prices by classes of livestock and brief statement on market con- ditions. -Some information on receipts or other markets. Special cattle on feed and pig crop estimates frequently made available on back of this report. The Agricultural Marketing Service of the United States Department of Agriculture, Washington 25, D.C., releases regular and special reports on production, slaugh- ter, prices, and outlook that are available free to farmers who request them. Information is received from state statis— ticians, news analysts at the terminal markets, farmers and others. The State Statistician of the Michigan Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Lansing 4, Michigan, releases information that applies to the State of Michigan within- 16 one to three days following the USDA releases. These re- leases present Michigan conditions as compared to the United States as a whole. The author believes the Michigan releases are of greater value to the farmers covered in this study. Following are the Michigan livestock, feed and market reports and their approximate release dates. Commercial Livestock Slaughter, cattle, calves, hogs, and lggbg, last day of each month. Cattle on Feed, middle of the month, January, April, July and October. ' Sheeponggggg, middle of the month, January. Stocker and Feeder Shipments fromfiPublic Markets, monthly. January lst Number of Livestock and Poultry on Farms, Feb- ruary l4. Calf Cro Re ort, middle of month, February. Wool Production, February 25 and August 4. Lamb Crop Report, middle of month, March, may, July and November. Production Shorn Wool, early August. Pi Cro Re ort, June 24, December 24. Sgggggy of Auction Market activities, each Monday. Other market reports offering information to help farmers decide when, where and how to market their livestock are as follows. The description includes where II". s -q . u . “-‘, ." t q O A .- .0 17 the report may be secured, when it is released, how much it costs, and the type of information it contains. "Livestock Market News - Reviews and Statistics.” Live- stock Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington 25, D.C. Weekly, Free. -- Current price and supply information for livestock, meat and wool as assembled from all the major markets. Brief articles summarize important factors af- fecting current market activity. . "The Livestock and Meat Situation.” Market Information Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, Washington, 25, D.C. Published 6 times a year, Free. -- Provides an analysis of supply and demand conditions affecting live- stock and meat prices. Forecasts of expected market trends are made. I "Stocker and Feeder Report.” Market News Office, 760 Live- stock Exchange Building, Zone 2, Kansas City, Mo. Weekly, Free. -- Provides a summary of local market conditions for the week on stocker and feeder cattle, hogs and sheep, plus statistical tabulations covering State destinations of shipment, numbers and average prices. "The Wool Situation." Marketing information Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, Washington 25, D.C., 4 times a year, Free. -- Current information on the wool market, trends and outlook. _ ' V V ' . ' L O l . a - on «- , . - . .. .. - . . , , _ p -_ _ _ ._ . t . .. ‘ - " w’ I t v.- -— 18 "The Feed Situation.” Market Information Division, Agri- cultural Marketing Service, USDA, Washington 25, D.C., Monthly, Free. -- Provides an analysis of supply and de- mand conditions affecting price and utilization of live- stock feeds. "Marketingpand Transportation Situation." Market Informa- tion Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, Wash- ington 25, D.C., Monthly, Free. -- Contains tables showing food marketing charges and farmer's share, consumer incomes and expenditures, recent trends in the retail food trade and recent improvements in transportation equipment and services. ”Mid-Month Farm Commodity Prices." Michigan Crop and Live- stock Reporting Service, P.O. Box 1020, Lansing 4, Michi- gan, lst of each month, Free. -- Average prices of commodi- ties sold by Michigan farmers. "The Demand and Price Situation." Marketing Information Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, Washington 25, D.C., Monthly, Free. -- Contains summary of general business conditions, world commodity prices, farm cash receipts, and commodity outlook information. "Michigan Farm Economics." Agricultural Economics Dept., Room 38, Agriculture Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, Monthly, Free. -- Provides articles on marketing and other agricultural economics subjects. Reports l9 indexes of prices paid and prices received for Michigan farm products. "Chicago Daily Drovers Journgl." Union Stock Yards, Chi- cago 9, Illinois. Published daily Monday-Friday, $7.50 a year. -- Carries livestock market reports and other timely market information on livestock. Also gives market infor- mation on grains, feedstuffs, poultry and eggs. C. Summary The seventy-six farmers that were interviewed indicated many sources of information were available. Each farmer was asked which radio and television programs he preferred for market information, which newspapers, maga— zines, and special reports he received, and whether or not he consulted with individuals for-marketing advice. Radio programs were found to be the most important source of livestock market information. The daily news- papers ranked second. Individuals, especially truckers, commission men, livestock buyers, and neighbors, were third in importance. These were followed by magazines, special reports and television. Farmers expressed preference for the market re- ports from Radio Stations WJR of Detroit and WABJ of Adrian. The Adrian Daily Telegram and the Hillsdale News were the 20 important newspapers in the area. The weekly newspapers were not important as a source of market news. There are many market reports available to farmers which are not being used. Several could be of value to farmers in their areas of specialized interest. Others might be of more value to the District Marketing Agent in his need to keep up to date in the total marketing field. III. WHERE TO MARKET LIVESTOCK Farmers can market livestock at terminal markets, livestock auctions, packing plants, local butchers, locker plants, country dealers, and to other farmers. They may also slaughter and sell direct to the consumer. A. Where Farmers Sold Their Livestock In Hillsdale and Lenawee Counties many of the better-grade cattle were sold through the Detroit Terminal Market or at Lugbill Producers, Inc., of Archbcld, Ohio. About one-half of the farmers sold their lower-grade steers and heifers, cows, and calves at local auctions at Arch- bold, Adrian, Hillsdale, and Goldwater. About 40 per cent of the farmers sold their lower-grade cattle and calves at the Detroit Terminal. Ten per cent of the farmers sold to country dealers. Practically all the deacon calves were sold at auctions, a few were sold to dealers. Half of the sheep and lambs were sold at Detroit and the other half were sold at local auctions. About 45 per cent of the farmers sold their hogs at the Detroit Terminal Market, 30 per cent to livestock dealers, 20 per cent to local auctions, and 5 per cent 21 22 to packing plants. Feeder pigs were sold at local auctions and to other farmers. B. Description of the Markets The six markets selected for this study were those at which most of the farmers were selling their livestock. One local dealer market was selected to represent all deal- ers. The author does not in any way want the reader to feel that the packer, butcher, locker plant, and other buy- ers are not desirable markets for some farmers for some classes of livestock. Detroit Stockyards. The Detroit Stock Yards were established in 1882. Livestock may arrive by rail and by truck. At the present time, ninety-two per cent of the salable live- stock arrives by truck. The Stock Yards also receive and handle livestock shipped direct to packers and for further shipment. When all livestock receipts are considered, 75 per cent arrives by truck. The bulk of the livestock is hauled by truck from a radius of 75 to 80 miles from Detroit. The Detroit Stock Yards is a posted market. It is owned by the New York Central Railroad System. The United States Department of Agriculture supervises prac- tices and regulates charges. Facilities for buying and selling, feeding and watering, veterinary inspection, sorting 23 and classifying, receiving and delivery, weighing, record— ing and accounting for sales, and collecting and remitting proceeds of sales are provided. The Ridley Commission Company and the Michigan Livestock Exchange are the two registered agencies that represent buyers and sellers on the market. About fifty packer buyers purchase the slaughter livestock on this market. Livestock are consigned by the farmer, trucker, or Stock Yards Company, to one of the two commission agencies upon arrival. When they are sold, they are weighed, and moved to holding pens for the buyer. This market is recognized as a good calf and cattle market. Lugbill Producers, Inc., Archbcld, Ohio. This is a cor- poration auction market owned by Lugbill Brothers. Ten to twenty packer buyers, two to three order buyers, as well as the corporation buy regularly at this market. Sales are conducted Mondays and Thursdays start- ing at twelve o'clock noon. The corporation buys directly from farmers daily. The average weekly volume is 600 to 700 head of cattle, 275 to 300 calves, 850 to 900 hogs, 200 feeder pigs and 500-600 sheep and lambs. Adrian Livestock Sales. This market is about twenty years old and is privately owned. Sales are conducted each 24 Tuesday starting about 1:00 p.m. The manager purchases livestock direct from farmers on Mondays and Thursdays. The average weekly volume of livestock is 250 head of cattle, 200 calves, 700 hogs, 1000 feeder pigs, and 300 sheep and lambs. The livestock are penned upon arrival, sold, weighed immediately after selling, and put in buyers pens after the sale. Goldwater Livestock Commission Auction. This market was noted as a good hog market by the farmers interviewed. It is operated as a partnership. Sales are held each Thurs— day starting at 1:00 p.m. The auction does not buy livestock at the sale or directly from farmers on other days. Hillsdale Auction Company. This market is privately owned. It is known as a farmer's market. The buyers are mostly farmers who are looking for dairy cows, feeder cattle, calves, and feeder pigs. The volume of slaughter animals is small. Sales are held each Saturday starting at 11:30 a.m. No direct buying is done by the management. This is one of the oldest auctions in Michigan, starting some fifty-five years ago. The auction sells everything from potatoes, hay and rabbits, to furniture and farm equipment. 25 0. Summary There were many places available to farmers for marketing the livestock produced in Lenawee and Hillsdale counties. The interviews with farmers indicated that most of the livestock was sold at the Detroit Stockyards and local auctions. Some was sold to countqrdealers, direct to packing companies, and to other farmers. The five markets at which most of the livestock was sold were selected for this study. They were the De- troit Stockyards, Lugbill Producers, Inc., at Archbcld, Ohio, Adrian Livestock Sales, Goldwater Livestock Commis- sion Auction Company, and the Hillsdale Auction Company. In addition a country dealer near Adrian and one near Hills- dale were also used in the analysis. The country dealer, referred to as the local market in this thesis, would be one within close transportation distance to any farmer with livestock to sell. The five markets plus the one dealer available to the producer comprise the six outlets or markets used in the following parts of this study. IV. WHEN LIVESTOCK SHOULD BE MARKETED This chapter will be devoted to livestock price movements and the application of this information in making decisions as to when to market livestock. Seasonal price movements, price cycles, and short-time price fluctuations will be discussed. A. Seasonal Prices All agricultural commodities are characterized by some seasonality of production and marketing. An index of seasonal price variations over a period of years will show the time of year that prices will generally be higher or lower than the average price for the year. See Table III for an index of livestock prices for the ten year period (1947—56). The index may change over a period of time due to changes in production, feeding, and marketing practices by the farmers. This is shown by a comparison of the sea- sonal price patterns of the pre-war period (1933-42) and the post-war period (1947-54). See Figures 1 and 2. The typical seasonal price movement of all beef cattle shows the seasonal peak to be in July during the post-war period. In the pre-war years, May was the month of the seasonal peak. See Figure l (C). The difference is not significant for reasons discussed in the next paragraph. 26 27 .mnnoppmm Hssomsom msflpmfinm How pdfiooos Op UumShUm meB .mgom .Dfiw MPHHG 9% mBOHme .HOM mmunmdfiH moOHsm Heapos mo mOHPsH one mo some one mH Apnea some How Nousfi ona Hso> was pang mm um Om mm mm mm em mm HOH ¢OH .ommnobs msH>oa upsoslmH s 09 usOHPspsmaoo .o0H>som msflpnomom moso obapdhomooo ssmHQOHE on» aosm Oosflspno cams moossm so am mm mm Om Hm OOH NOH Hm mm mm mm mm mm OOH HOH OOH mOH HOH OOH Ham. mum .Hnmb .mfl4 scam cosfimpno ohms moofism Moopmobfln omSOHno OOH mOH mm HOH mm OOH mm mOH OOH ¢OH mum NOH mOH mOH um Om mm hm MOH #OH OOH mmw MOH MOH OHH hm NOH rm HOH ¢OH NOH hm Haw OOH OOH OHH mOH NOH mm mOH MOH mm em OSO mOH ¢HH mHH OOH OHH OOH NOH HOH hm Om “mm OOH OHH NOH #OH POH mm ¢OH mm mm mm mmw mOH mm mm mOH ¢OH HOH nOH hm mm hm Hos OOH em mm mm mm Hm hm mm OOH OOH mm OOH mOH new *OmOH op FHOH cases one son sees no Ocaom sooammsHH HO zOHHHHmas mOHmm Hazomamm so mmHmnzH «moosdom * mnadH OmsOHno Afiooelommv .mBom oOMoHno Atommnoomv .mPHHw s msonssm emoOHsO AaOOsuOOmv .msoopm Hocoom omeOHHO .spHHHps .aeoo me>HsO HMo> apHHHpO Ossusspm s doom ooHono oafinm omsowno .mnoopm HepnmssHm HHHOcaaOO .HHH mfimda 28 Percent HOGS 120 ' 110 — ...... meg, 1933-42 A P 1947-54 100 - o .5 u u 90 - 8O — (a) Percent VEAL CALVES 120 110 ~ .g, 1947-54 , “' ,,,,,,, 90 h a,“ ................. V 1933-42 80 ' l I 4‘ L I I I I L _L _I_ I (b) Percent BEEF CATTLE 120 5 110 - 1947-54 1933-42’07 ............. é; .- . lOO - 9O - cot I i I I I I I I I I a L, J F M A M J J A S O N D Figure 1. Seasonal _pri;es of Ross, “Neal Calves”, and All Beef Cattle 4m 1‘4A1n-IMA“ “won “'22 A’)‘ hint: “At-I4- \ “nu-I AA.— AA-unm- 29 Percent 110 r ‘;:?'l933-42 lOO - 9o - " 1947-51. Percent SHEEP 120 - 110 b 100 - ......... 4 90 ‘ 1947-54 80 _ (13) Percent LAMBS 120 - 110 r A 1947-54 100 — _ 1933-42 9O - 8O * I. J J 1 L in I Al. I -'J I I J F M A M A S 0 N D F' e 2. e sonal rices otf Wool J(cShee and Lambs, in Michigan, $33.-.. (Ema 3-42IP211 d nost -war ('1947 -5‘4’) periods compared. 30 The seasonal pattern for all slaughter cattle is somewhat complicated because it includes classes of cattle which have seasonal characteristics of their own. Table III shows the seasonality of slaughter steer prices at Chicago. The peak for prime steers was the month of January following a high level period from September to January. The seasonal low was during May and June. The peak for choice steers was in September and the low was in May. The peak for good and standard steers was in July and the low was in February. The peak for utility steers was in May and the low was in December. The peak for utility cows was in May and the low was in November. The peak for feeder steers was in May and the low was in December. See Table III. The typical seasonal price movement for veal calves has a high in February. The price drops rapidly in March and levels off until prices rise again in January. See Table III. The post-war years (Figure l (b) showed another peak in September and October with an extreme low in June. This was due primarily to heavy spring and fall freshening of cattle. The expansion of the fluid milk program in recent years has caused dairymen to adjust or level off their calving program to maintain uniform milk production. The seasonal movement of hog prices results from 31 the nature of hog production. The bulk of the pig crop was farrowed in the spring. The seasonal peak was in June following the marketings of the smaller fall pig crop. The seasonal low was in December when the larger spring pig crop arrives most heavily at the markets. The advance- ment of the peak from September during the pre—war years, (Figure l (a) is contributed to the farrowing of the fall pig cr0p earlier and to improved feeding practices. The spreading of farrowings throughout the late summer and early winter has virtually eliminated the spring peak of February and March that existed in the pre-war years and the early post-war years. This is shown in the most recent index of seasonal prices. See Table III. Farmers who can econom- ically adjust their building facilities, breeding programs, and feeding practices should plan to sell more of their hogs during the months of May, June, and July. 12 in 1953 showed A cost study made by Harold Riley that it usually paid farmers to feed 200 pound hogs to heavier weights during the months of seasonal price rises especially during May, June, July and August, before the price break in September. The present recent index, Table III, would indicate farmers could profit by feeding to 12Harold M. Riley, What Is the Mo§t Profitable Weight to Market Hogs?, Extension BuIIetin 32I, Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan, August, 1953. 32 heavier weights during the months of April, May, June, and July. Lamb prices reach a peak in May and a low in November. See Table III. Three types of lambs influence the lamb prices, spring lambs fattened largely on the ewe's milk, grass lambs that are marketed between August and November, and grain fed lambs marketed in January, February, and March. The higher price of lambs in the spring results from fewer market receipts and also from the fact that a large portion of the lambs carry full fleeces of high quality. During the pre-war years the typical price move- ment for sheep showed a peak in March and a low in November. (See Figure 2 (b). In the post-war years the high occurred a month later. This may indicate farmers are shifting their marketing earlier to take advantage of the rising market price. B. Price Cycles Recurring movements of prices over a year in length is referred to as a price cycle. Cattle usually have a period of six to nine years of rising prices and a similar number of falling prices. The hog cycle is about five years in length with a two to three years of rising and two to three years of falling prices. The sheep cycle 33 averages five to seven years from peak to peak or low to low. The length of time required for expansion of produc- tion depends upon the length of time required to build up livestock numbers. Hog numbers can be built up very rapidly whereas it takes much longer to build up cattle numbers. The farmer should know what causes the lengthen- ing and shortening of cycles. Drought can change the feed situation and cause cattle to be marketed earlier, at lighter weights and in greater numbers. A change in the corn supply can result in shortening or extending the hog cycles. War or depression can change the demand for meat and lard and prolong the production and price cycle. C. Short-time Price Fluctuations Three factors are mainly responsible for short- time price fluctuations. Variation in receipts at the markets due to weather or farmer reaction to price change have an effect on day-to-day prices. Temporary fluctuations in consumer demand for the available supply will also affect day-to-day prices. The consumer is influenced by weather conditions, the price and availability of substitute prod- ucts, and the amount of money available to spend for meat. The livestock buyer may be the third factor in that he is engaged in the process of discovery of price and supply-demand 34 conditions. If the buyer finds he is buying too easily, he will lower his bid. D. Summary In a general statement it could be said that farmers should plan to market their livestock when the price is the highest. However, if all farmers planned to do this in any one month of the year based on the previous year's history the price would not be high due to the in- creased supply. Many farmers can adjust their livestock feeding programs, improve their feeding efficiency and management, make some adjustments in their housing and breeding programs and still send their livestock to market when the price is stronger at little or no extra cost in production. Use of seasonal price information can aid in making the adjust- ment decisions. Cost of production must be considered by each farmer before making changes. If he can produce his live- stock at lower costs in relationship to the market price, he may receive a greater net return by receiving a lower price. Some of the factors to lower production costs might be to secure feeder stock when the supply is greater and the price is lower; to farrow pigs in late spring or early 35 summer; to reduce housing and labor costs; and, to use more economical feeding practices. Farmers who have more than one livestock enter- prise may shift emphasis from one species to another when the price-cycle favors doing so. Farmers who specialize can use price cycle information in determining when to expand or contract his volume of livestock production. Farmers should observe short-time price fluctua— tions and attempt to market their livestock on a rising or peak market. The price fluctuations and price levels be- tween markets should be observed so that the farmer can get the best price for the grade and class of livestock he has to sell. Sources of market price information were discussed in Chapter II. V. HOW LIVESTOCK SHOULD BE MARKETED Livestock should be marketed in a manner that would assure the farmer of receiving the greatest possible net returns. This involves selecting and breeding animals that will produce carcasses that the consumer demands, feeding the animals to the weight and grade to which the animal can be most profitably fed, and handling the ani- mals in such a way to avoid loss of weight due to injury or excessive shrinkage. Some examples are presented to show how livestock should be marketed. A. Meat Type Hogs Fox, Wheeler, and Randell13 found in a study carried on at two cooperative meat packing plants that meat-type hogs are worth two to three dollars more per hundredweight than other hogs of the same weight. They found difficulties in detecting these values in the live animals and reflecting them back to the producers. In spite of this handicap, they found conclusive evidence that the most valuable hog for the producer is one that 13R. L. Fox, A. E. Wheeler, 0. G. Randell, Meas- uring Marketability of Meat-Type Hogp, Bulletin C-152, Farm Credit Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., May, 1953. 36 37 combines high carcass value with high dressing percentage, plus economy of production. Miller and Turmanl‘ explained two ways open to farmers for producing the meat-type hog. Limited feeding of the present day hogs gives the quickest results. This method requires more than six months for the hogs to reach the market so it is not the most practical. The better method is through selection and use of a meat-type bear on the present sow herd. B. Feed Cattle and Lambs to the Optimum Weight for the Grade At certain markets buyers desire certain weights of finished cattle and lambs. Farmers should set up their feeding programs to have their cattle and lambs finished properly at those weights. Farmers who have good and choice feeders usually should feed them to good and choice finished grades. Greater net returns can often be made by raising the grade; lower grade cattle may not warrant the extra feed. It is usually wise to maintain at least the potential grade that the animals have in their type and breeding. 14s. 0. Miller and E. J. Turman, Shall We Produce g Meat-Tips Hog? Economic and Marketing Informa on or iana armers, Lafayette, Indiana, November 27, 1953, page 1. "'\. 38 It is questionable whether it pays to feed cull dairy cows after they are no longer of value to the dairy herd. Jim Moorun15 felt that the cost of feed over the feeding period necessary to raise the grade will not prove profitable under normal price conditions. 0. Veal Calves Versus Deacons The decision of whether or not a farmershould produce and sell veal calves depends upon the comparison of the additional income from the sale of veal calves and the value of the excess milk plus the costs of raising the 16 led veal calves. A study made by Vincent and Roberts them to believe that in 1955 the expected returns from selling excess milk through veal are not enough to allow much for labor, housing, inconvenience and risk. Knowledge of the value of surplus milk at the market place as com- pared to its value when converted to veal is important for making a decision as to whether or not to sell deacon or veal calves. D. Handling Livestock The loss caused by injury and bruises in livestock 15Jim McCrum, Former Cattle Salesman, Michigan Livestock Exchange, Battle Creek, Michigan, Oral communi- cation. 16Warren Vincent and Phil Roberts, Feed Excess Milk to Calves Or Sell It? Michigan Farm Economics, Mich- Igan State UniversIty, East Lansing, Michigan, No. 146, March, 1955. . . K e a . I . . . .V . . . a _ . A _ . , I. . t H .u. \. O . .y t.. .. .. . L rt . I . . . \ 7‘ I I. g u z t. a v 1 x . . _ .n. . ,s. . t L c v . L I I h I .H a , _ . a ., - I» . . . . .1 a . . I I r . Q I»! . . . C . 17 o .. I v. . . I I . A r . y , . . , . . -~.-O 39 hauling is a marketing cost. It was not considered as a marketing charge in this study. However, it is a serious loss to many individual farmers by receiving a lower price at the market. Swift and Company17 reported injuries and bruises amount to one to two per cent of the total cost of market- ing. Their survey showed one out of ten hogs came to market with bruises with an average loss of $1.80 per injured hog and one out of every fifteen cattle marketed was bruised with an average loss of $6.00 per animal. It showed 62 per cent of the hogs were bruised by canes, whips, clubs, and by kicking and prodding, and 38 per cent by forks, nail punctures, and other causes. Crowding, bumping and rushing caused 66 per cent of the bruising to cattle and the other 34 per cent was caused by trampling, horns, whips, clubs, and other causes. Rough handling, lifting by the wool, inadequate loading and unloading facilities, and poor bed- ding caused 60 per cent of the injuries to sheep. The other 40 per cent was contributed by crowding, trampling, and suffocating. 18 Ten ways to reduce losses: 1. Outlaw clubs and whips, use canvas slappers. 17An0n. Easproes It, Swift and Company, Agri— cultural Research Department, Chicago 9, Illinois, pages 1-6e 18Ibid., pages 7—15. 4 _,. O s .. . . k \ .. . .A t I e V . .. .. g, A ,. , _ __ . ' ‘ —-. _.- 2. 3. 4. 5. 10. 4o Eliminate protruding nails and broken boards in pens, yards, and chutes. Remove machinery from the feedlot. Remove horns. Bed trucks pr0perly, sand for cattle, straw for hogs and sheep. In hot weather use sand for hogs. Check the trucks for nails, broken boards, narrow doors, low rods, low decks, and improper ventilation. Load livestock carefully. Use loading chutes with steps. Load livestock wisely. Don't crowd. ~Partition off extra space when loading few animals. Consider class of livestock-~sex, size, and age, amount of fill, con- dition of truck, road conditions, distance to market and weather conditions. Protect livestock from weather. Provide proper venti- lation in hot weather and cover in cold weather. Drive carefully and avoid sudden stops. Careful handling, exercising patience, keeping the livestock quiet and unexcited will not only reduce bruising losses but will reduce the amount of shrinkage occurring between the farm and market. E. Summary This chapter was devoted to a few specific ex- amples to point out how livestock should be marketed. Care in handling all livestock will reduce losses and net returns. Farmers should market in a manner that will assure 41 them the greatest net returns. This starts from the time a farmer selects and breeds the animals until the offspring are sold. It is most practical to grow meat-type hogs. They will feed—out more rapidly and economically than hold- ing back fat hogs by limited feeding to keep them lean. Cattle and lambs should be fed to the optimum finish for their grade. The grades of cattle and lambs selected should be of the type that will be finished at the weight and grade best suited to the market at which they will be sold. Calves should be sold as deacons unless the farmer can realize more for his excess milk by produc— ing veal. VI. SHRINKAGE Shrinkage is the loss in weight during transit between the point of origin and the destination of live- stock. There are two kinds of shrinkage, excretory and tissue. Excretory shrinkage comes from excretions of feces and urine and is usually referred to as the elimi- nation of fill. It makes up a large percentage of the total. These excretions have little or no commercial value, but may be a source of loss to individual farmers. Research studies have found that excretory shrinkage occurs at a rapid rate during the early part of the transit period and increases at a decreasing rate until the fill is elim- inated. Tissue shrinkage is loss in the body weight re- sulting in less dressed carcass weight. Tissue loss is a real loss to farmers. Tissue loss has been found to begin early in the transit period and to continue until the animal reaches the plant for slaughter. Where long hauls and delays in marketing occur, tissue loss may be reduced by feed and water. The amount of shrinkage in hauling animals is determined by many factors. Some of these are the kind 42 43 of feeds fed on the farm, the amount of fill, the time the animals are in transit, the weight of the animals, the temperature, the method of hauling the livestock in transit, the type of transportation used, the method of handling during loading and unloading, the kind of handling animals receive at the market, and the class of livestock. Shrinkage is an important cost of marketing to farmers. The cost is often not known to farmers and may not be given the recognition it should have when consider- ing the price at the market and such marketing costs as transportation and commissions. A review of some of the research studies apply- ing to shrinkage is cited below to show where the author secured information pertaining to shrinkage losses for use in determining the cost of shrinkage as needed in this problem. A. Cattle Studies have shown that the principal shrink takes place in the first 10 to 25 miles of any trip. The conclusion is that a long haul or short haul makes little difference in shipping cattle to market if fed at the market. Mr. Fitzgerald19 cited a study of 15 prime steers 19w. Lyle Fitzgerald, Cattle Valugs in the Live- stock Market, Union Stookyards and Transit Co. of‘ChiEago, 135:: page 9- 44 hauled 200 miles to the Union Stockyards at Chicago. The cattle started at a weight of 16,091 pounds. At the end of 65 miles they weighed 15,800 pounds. The load shrink was 290 pounds. At the stockyards, after an additional 135 miles, the load weighed 15,590 pounds. Only 210 addi- tional pounds of shrink occurred and the distance was twice as great. The cattle were fed and watered at the yards. By the next day they had regained the 210 pound shrink which occurred during the last 135 miles of the trip. This amounted to a recovery of 15 pounds of shrinkage per steer. In a conversation with Mr. Fitzgerald, he reported that records kept on 45,000 head of all grades of cattle received at the Stockyards showed an average recovery of 16 pounds of shrink lost in transit, when the cattle were fed and watered on arrival. 20 in 1951 A study made by Abbenhaus and Penney also shows that shrinkage is larger during the first part of the trip. See Table IV. These figures indicate that almost one half of the shrinkage took place during the first 25 miles of the 200 mile haul. About two thirds of the shrinkage took 20Gerald R. Abbenhaus and Roland C. Penney, Shrink Characteristics of Fat Cattle, Chicago Union Stock— yard and Transit Company, Chicago, Illinois, page 7. 45 .mHosHHHH .omsOHno .hssmaoo PHmsmsa one monmhxoopm nOHsD owsoHnO .hoHSom .o OsSHom use mannnonn4 .m OHSHoO .> omen a.mMosha an Oopsommnwsa oprso Pam mo mOHpmHHoposHsnO MsHsnma "ooHSOm m.m m. >. m. m.H mmmH mH sundom OONH Ho>o H.e a. m. w. O.H OMHH em menace OOHHIOOHH H.e n. m. m. H.m OmOH OH nuance OOOHIOOOH m.m m. m. h. m.H emm HH musdom OOOH nouns O.n O. O. a. m.H mmHH OO mangoes areas Assoc somVAvsoo HomVApsoo HoMVApsoo somv umsHo some psoo Hem OONIOOH OOHIom omumm mmlo panoB sH Owen mommsHo pnmwoa Haves mmanmHeB smospom uoHobmna moHHS omeno>< Ho nonsdz Apnea ham OOH aHeaOm eamHoe HmaHa< Hepoav .Hsom Hosea oHHs OON a meagre mnHHmHoe HooaO scam nooeaom OHpan was OO ace HsHaam to pace mom .>H oHraH 46 place by the end of 50 miles, or one fourth of the distance. "Dry" cows, no longer milking and sold as feeder or slaughter animals were found to shrink an average of 6.4 per cent without feed and 5.9 per cent with feed after arrival. The shrinkage ranged from 3.5 per cent for 4 hours in the yard to 9.5 per cent for 24 hours in the yard. The average transit time was 6.3 hours.21 This shrinkage was compared to other classes of cattle as follows: "When shrinkage is computed on the difference between loading and sales weight, cows accumulated the highest shrinkage with an average of 6.4 per cent, next were feeder steers, 4.4 per cent, calves, 4.3 per cent, and feeder heifers, 3.5 per cent."22 Donald Starkz3 gave the author information on veal calf shrinkage that he secured when he was General Livestock Agent for the New York Central Railroad. When his study was made, the shrinkage of veal calves averaged 5 per cent from farm to market. Veal calves do not usually take feed and water. The 5 per cent shrink was based on arrival one day and being sold the next. 21Glen R. Purnell, Economic Analysis of Cattle Shrinkage. Unpublished thesis, Montana State CoIlege, November, 1953, pages 33-36. 22Ibid., page 42. 23Donald Stark, Extension Specialist in Agricul- tural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. a; A. 47 Table V was developed from estimates by the author to show the relationship of the per cent of shrinkage to length of haul from the farm to market. The purpose of this information was to secure comparable data on the amount of shrinkage between species and classes of livestock hauled to market for use in this thesis to determine a marketing charge for shrinkage. The shrinkage of choice steers not fed on arrival at the market was estimated to average 3.0 per cent of the farm weight between 50 and 100 miles, 2.0 per cent or two-thirds of the total shrinkage between 25 and 50 miles, and 1.5 per cent or one-half of the total shrinkage between 0 and 25 miles. The shrinkage on cows was estimated to be 4.5 per cent of the farm weight for distances between 50 and 100 miles, 3.0 per cent for distances between 25 and 50 miles and 2.3 per cent between 0 and 25 miles on the same basis. The shrinkage on veal calves was estimated to be 5.0 per cent between 50 and 100 miles, 3.3 per cent between 25 and 50 miles, and 2.3 per cent between 0 and 25 miles. Because of a lack of shrink information, it was estimated that approximately one-half of the shrinkage would be regained when the livestock was fed upon arrival at the market. 4a O.m n.N O.N m.H m.H N.H a a com #02 com H mmom .oz .mOD .135”: fig .HOSPm man sH crunchesm spam «meadow O.m m.m O.m m.e n.m O.n m.H OOHuHm m.m >.H n.m o.m m.H o.~ o.H omumm m.m m.H m.m n.m m.H m.H m. mmuo a a a a a a a Ooa eoz Ooa Ooa eoz sea eoz Ooa Ora eoz Ooa spawn nomeo msoo whoopm cmHobssa oOHonO Hoes ease. ooHosO ooHHs .Hssm Ho npmsoH op OopmHom msoo .mobHoO Hso> .mnssq .mmom .msoopm oOHono no“ Mannm Ho pace hem .> oHpsa 49 B. Hogs The length of haul has a definite effect on the amount of shrinkage of hogs. The rate of shrinkage is greatest in the first few miles of the trip. Wiley and Cox24 showed this in their farm-to-market study of 38,303 hogs. Table VI shows the results of this study of shrinkage for hogs fed and not fed at the market as it relates to length of haul. The shrinkage averaged 1.06 per cent of the farm weight at the end of the first 5 miles. Thus 40 per cent of the shrinkage took place during the first 5 miles. For hauls 66 to 75 miles, shrinkage aver- aged 2.76 per cent of the farm weight of hogs not fed at the market. For hauls up to about 45 miles the data indicate that it is not economical to feed at market if the hogs are to be weighed to the buyer soon after arrival. These conditions can usually be met for hauls to local markets and for some nearby hauls to the larger posted markets. But for nearby hauls to the larger posted markets, when hogs arrive several hours before they can be weighed to 24James R. Wiley and Clifton Cox, Economics and Marketing Information for Indiana Farmers, Purdue Univer- sity, Lafayette, Indiana, February 26, 1955, page 1. ‘4‘— I. -. .o--4, v---- ' --——-—D. .‘- K..~ O. 0 . 4 l.._ -- 50 the buyer, and for the hauls 40 miles and longer it seems to be sound practice to feed hogs at market.25 In this study the author used estimates of 3.0 per cent shrink for hauls between 50 and 100 miles, 2.0 per cent shrink between 25 and 50 miles, and 1.5 per cent shrink between 0 and 25 miles. For the hogs fed upon ar- rival at the market, the estimates were based on the assump- tion that one-fourth of the shrinkage would be recovered. See Table V. Table VI. Relationship of the Length of Haul to Shrinkage of Hogs. 1,132 Lots - 38,303 Hogs Miles Hauled Shrinkage Not Fed At Market Fed At Market Per cent Per cent5 16-25 1.39 1.24 26—35 1.75 1.51 36-45 2.06 1.79 46-55 2.50 1.99 56-65 2.68 2.03 66-75 2.76 2.08 76-85 2.14 86-95 2el6 * Sufficient data not available. Source: "Economics and Marketing Information for Indiana Farmers," James R. Wiley and Clifton Cox, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, February 26, 1955; 25Ibid., page 2. 51 C. Sheep Research studies show that shrinkage in sheep takes place at higher rates than for either cattle or hogs. A study made by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics,26 U.S.D.A., based on data from 19 packing plants located in the Middle West and in the East for the years 1929 and 1930, show that for distances of less than 100 miles, the shrinkage of 6,300,000 sheep averaged 8.9 per cent of the weight shipped. There was little change in shrinkage be- tween 100 miles and 450 miles indicating that feed, water, and rest replaced the loss in weight after the first 100 miles. In a study made in the North Central Region27 of six shipments of lambs between Montana ranches and Chi- cago, Illinois, shrinkage averages ranged from 5.1 per cent to 7.5 per cent. Differences were attributed to method of handling at the ranches or origin and the time of wean- ing. There was an additional trail shrink of 1.99 per cent to 2.5 per cent to the loading points. This study does not differ greatly from the early study if we assume that most of, or all of, the shrink occurred during the first 26A. A. Dowell and K. Bjorka, Livestock Market- ing, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., London and New York, 941, page 243. 27V. John Brensike, Marketin Feeder Cattle and Sheep in the North Central Region, Station Bulletin 410, North Central Regional Publication 25, University of Ne- braska, College of Agriculture, Lincoln, May, 1952, pages 52-53e . . g -.p.. 52 100 miles and that feed, water, and rest replaced the loss in weight after the first 100 miles. Kammlade28 stated "The percentage of shrink on lambs shipped under good conditions a distance of 250 miles will approximate 5 per cent." In this thesis the author used estimates of a 5 per cent shrink for hauls between 50 and 100 miles, a 3.3 per cent shrink between 25 and 50 miles, and a 2.5 per cent shrink between 0 and 25 miles. For the lambs fed on arrival at market the estimates considered that one-half of the shrinkage would be recovered. See Table V. D. Summary Two kinds of shrinkage occur when marketing live- stock. Excretory shrinkage comes from elimination of feces and urine. Tissue shrinkage is loss in body weight result- ing in less dressed carcass weight. Some of the factors affecting the amount of shrink- age that occurs when moving livestock are the kind of feeds fed, the amount of fill, the length of time in transit, method of hauling, the type of transportation used, the 28Wm. G. Kammlade, Sheep Science, J. B. Lippin— cott Company, Chicago, Philadelphia, Neinork, 1947, page 243. 53 method of handling during loading and unloading, the kind of handling at the market, the temperature, the weight of the animal, and the class of livestock. The research on shrinkage was reviewed. There was a decided lack of uniformity of information due to the many factors influencing shrink. Very little information was available within the 5-100 mile range, especially re- garding cattle and sheep. Shrinkage is an important cost to farmers. The author believes that it should be recognized as one of the costs of marketing. By use of the information available and some as- sumptions, shrinkage losses were determined on a percentage of live weight basis for short hauls in the 0-25, 26-50, and the 51-100 mile ranges. Research data show the average shrinkage of 1000 pound steers to be about five per cent at 100 miles. About half of the shrinkage occurred in the first 25 miles. Veal calves averaged five per cent from farm to market. Dry cows were about twice that of calves. Lambs averaged five per cent at 250 miles. Half of the lamb shrinkage was recovered on long hauls when fed at the market. Hogs averaged about 3.0 per cent shrinkage at the end of 100 miles, 1.5 per cent at the end of 50 miles and 1.2 per cent at the end of 25 miles. When fed at the market they recovered about one-fourth of the loss. 54 The author assumed that veal calves, dry cows, and lambs would take one-half of their shrink in the first 25 miles. He also assumed that two-thirds of the total shrinkage would occur in the next 25 miles and the remain- ing one-third during the next 50 miles. It was also as- sumed that steers and dry cows would recover one-half of the shrinkage if fed at the market. VII. MARKETING CHARGES This chapter will be devoted to the direct charges or costs involved in the marketing of livestock. The author will point out which of the charges apply to the six markets considered in this study and explain how the charges were determined and used in this study. A. Transportation Livestock of the area is generally hauled to market by truck. The author found that about 15 per cent of the farmers hauled their own livestock to market, an- other 5 to 10 per cent hauled some of their livestock and 75 per cent to 80 per cent hired all of their livestock hauled to market. Many truckers are available in the area. The trucking charges are predominately on a hundredweight basis. The truckers will haul livestock by the load, by the head, or by the hundredweight, whichever the farmer prefers. Trucking costs to the farmer figured out about the same for a particular lot of livestock to be hauled a certain distance regardless of the trucker hired. Truckers feel they must have a minimum of $4.00 per farm stop in picking 55 "I 56 up a mixed load. Individual veal calves, hogs, and lambs are hauled for $1.50 or $2.00, depending upon the distance to market and the ease of loading. Rates per hundredweight vary from 25 cents to 50 cents depending upon the distance from the market. Some truckers will take a full load at one farm to local markets for $10.00 and $15.00 and to Detroit for $30.00. Full semi-trailer loads are quoted from $35.00 to 365.00. All truckers hauling for hire must be licensed through the Michigan Public Service Commission. Most truck- ers carry transit insurance on animals carried from the time they are loaded until 48 hours after they are unloaded. This protects the truckers and the farmers against loss due to injury or death of livestock other than by natural causes. Some truckers were found not to carry this insur- ance. The commission firms at the Detroit Stockyards make a charge to all consignors for transit insurance. This was a decision of the Detroit Stockyards Company, the truck- ers and the commission firms. Table VII was prepared from information received after talking with farmers and truckers. The table shows the most common charges used by truckers for various species of livestock, considering the distance to market, size of the load, and the minimum charge for a farm stop pick-up. 57 Table VII. Truck Transportation Charges for Hauling Indi- vidual, Medium and Large Lots of Cattle, Calves, Hogs, and Sheep to Markets of Various Distances Class of Distance Charges Livestock (Miles) _—Sifig1e 511 Head Animal 2-10 Head & Above (Per (Per (Minimum Head) Head) Per Farm Stop) (th) Cattle 0-25 3.00 2.50-1.00 5.00 .25 " 26-50 4.00 2.50-1.00 5.00 .25 7’ 51-75 4000 ZeSO‘leOO 5.00 025 " 76-100 ('5cht) 2.50-1.00 5.00 .30 Calves 0-25 2.00 1.50—1.00 3.00 .30 ” 26-50 2.00 2.00-1.00 4.00 .30 .9 51-75 2e00 2e00‘1e00 4e00 e30 " 76-100 2.00 2.00-1.00 4.00 .30 Hogs 0-25 2.00 1.00- .50 3.00 .30 " 26-50 2.00 1.00- .50 4.00 .30 '1 51-75 2000 1.00- 050 4000 030 " 76-100 2e00 leOO" 050 4000 030 " 26-50 2.00 1.00- .50 4.00 .35 " 51-75 2.00 1.00- .50 4.00 .35 ” 76-100 2.00 1.00- .50 4.00 .35 Source of Data: Interviews with truckers at the markets. .‘ ‘0‘--- 58 B. Yardage The livestock auctions do not charge for yardage in this area. The Detroit Stockyards Company charges a yardage rate on a per head basis. The current rates were made effective December 1, 1959. Bulls (900 pounds or over) $1.50 Cattle .95 Calves (300 pounds or under) .46 Hogs .35 Sheep .20 Horses and Mules 1.25 C. Feed Livestock sold at auctions, to packers, local dealers, and others, except for the Detroit Stockyards, are not usually fed. The farmer may order them to be fed or not fed at the Detroit Stockyards. The commission com- pany assigned to handle the livestock will use its own judgment regarding feeding the livestock if the farmer does not give instructions. The current schedule of feed charges which in- cludes handling charges were made effective September 2, 1958, as follows: Hay $2.00 per cwt. Corn 2.23 per bu. Straw 1.35 Per cwt. Feed charges used in this problem were computed at fifteen pounds of hay for each steer and cow, four pounds 59 of corn for each hog, and three pounds of corn for each- 1amb. No feed charge was assessed against the veal calves. D. Weighing No markets in this area have a weighing charge for weighing livestock to be sold at the market. Weighing service is absorbed in other charges. E. Insurance All markets reported having insurance to protect owners of livestock against loss due to fire, Windstorm, cyclone, and tornado. Lugbill Producers, Inc., charged five cents per each head of livestock sold. The Detroit Stockyards Company charged one cent for each two head of cattle, each three head of calves or hogs, and each five head of sheep or lambs, or fraction of these numbers. Coldwater Livestock Commission Company and Adrian Livestock Sales reported insurance as included in their service charge. Hillsdale Auction Company reported in- surance was included in the sales commission. All livestock consigned for sale at the Detroit Stockyards Company is covered by transit insurance. This charge is deducted from the consignor's sale by the com- mission firms and forwarded to the insurance company. 60 The schedule of charges is as follows: Number Cattle and Calves Hogs Sheep and Lambs 51-75 e18 e14 010 101-125 .24 .18 .12 176-250 .30 .22 .15 251-350 .33 .26 .17 Some truckers reported that they carried no transit insurance. No transit insurance charge was made by the Auction Markets or by the truckers delivering livestock to the auction markets. F. National Livestock and Meat Board A collection is made at the Detroit Stockyards for the National Livestock and Meat Board. The charge is a two-third cent for each hog or calf, two-fifth cent for each sheep or lamb, and two cent for each head of cattle. The collection is entirely voluntary and will be refunded if the shipper requests it be done. Livestock auction markets in some areas of the United States are cOOperating with farmers and the National Livestock and Meat Board to make collections. None were doing so in this area. G. Commissions Livestock buyers who bought directly from farmers 61 (did not charge farmer commissions. Agents selling live- stock for the farmers did charge for the service of selling. Following are the commission charges made by the markets studied in this problem. Detroit Stockyards Cattle: One head only $1.70 Two head only 2.80 for the pair Three or more head 1.40 each Calves: (300 pounds or less) One head only S .80 Two head only 1.30 for the pair Three or more head .65 each Hogs: One head only 3 .60 Two head only .94 for the pair Three or more head .47 each Sheep and Lambs: One head only 3 .55 First 50 head .38 each Next 50 head .33 each Next 50 head .28 each Each head over 150 .23 each Lugbill Producers, Incl, Archbcld,_0hio Cattle, Calves, Sheep, and Lambs: 2 1/2 per cent of the gross sales of $1,000 or less plus one per cent of sales above 31,000. Hogs: 2 1/2 per cent of the gross sales of $500 or less plus one per cent of sales above $500. 62 There was a fifty cents minimum.charge per sale. Coldwater Livestock Commission Cattle: $2.25 each for first ten head 1.50 each for all above ten head Calves: $1.25 each for first eight head 1.00 each for all over eight head Hogs: 3 .40 per head Sheep and Lambs: 8 .50 each in a lot of 39 head or less .45 each in a lot of 40 or more Adrian Livestock Sales Cattle: $2.00 each for first five head 1.50 each for second five head 1.00 each for all above ten head Calves: $1.00 per head Hogs: S .35 per head Sheep and Lambs: 3 .25 per head Hillsdalegpction Company The commission was five per cent of the total gross sales with no minimum or maximum. ". an .Qp a... 63 H. Service Charges Two auctions had a service charge to cover in- surance and other services such as yarding, sorting, tag- ging, weighing, incidental to the handling of livestock at the sales. Goldwater Livestock Commission charged three- fourths of one per cent of the gross sales. Adrian Live- stock Sales charged one per cent of the gross sale on a single animal and one-half of one per cent on the gross sales of two animals or more. I. Summary There was no uniform charge for hauling livestock to market. Truckers charge by the load, by the head, and by the hundredweight. Individual animals are assessed charges from $1.50 to $5.00 each, depending upon the class of livestock and the distance from the market. Charges for truck-load lots are usually figured by weight with a range of thirty-five cents to fifty cents per hundred- weight, depending upon the distance from the market. Par- tial load charges range from fifty cents to two dollars a head to provide $3.00 to $5.00 for each stop in making up a load. Table VII was prepared to show the charges most often used by truckers. There was no uniformity in the selling and the 64 service charges at the markets. Lugbill Producers, Inc., and Hillsdale Auction Company based all charges as a per- centage of gross sales. Detroit Stockyards Company, Adrian Livestock Sales, and Coldwater Livestock Commission based their charges on a per head basis. Lower per head charges were established for some or all classes of livestock as the consignment size increased at each market. Per head charges on cattle changed for the second animal at Detroit, for the sixth and eleventh at Adrian, and for the eleventh at Coldwater. Per head charges on calves changed for the second at Detroit and for the ninth at Coldwater. Per head charges on hogs changed for the second at Detroit. Per head charges on sheep and lambs changed for the second, fifty-first, one hundred first, and the one hundred fifty- first head at Detroit and for the fortieth at Coldwater. Adrian Livestock Sales and Coldwater Livestock Commission had a percentage charge on the gross sales to cover costs incidental to the handling of livestock but not included in the selling commission. Detroit Stockyards Company was the only market to provide for the feeding of livestock. It was also the only one to make collections for the National Livestock and Meat Board and for transit insurance. At the other markets some livestock is not protected for loss during transit. VIII. NET RETURNS TO FARMERS Prices at alternative markets and marketing charges must be considered in arriving at the net returns a farmer might expect to receive for his livestock. The amount of shrinkage, as discussed earlier in this paper, is very difficult to determine. Likewise, the marketing costs due to shrinkage are difficult to determine. The author believes that farmers can use a budget analysis to determine which market they should use. This budget analysis would test the markets and avoid disappoint- ments and financial losses. It is much cheaper to make mistakes on paper. Hypothetical examples, using prices and market- ing charges as they existed at the time of this study and under conditions that the author found in Hillsdale and Lenawee Counties, may be illustrated as follows. First, however, the reader should keep in mind these comments. (1) Truckers were discretionary, and often arbitrary, in determining their transportation charges. This has been discussed. (2) The prices used in these examples are those quoted by the U.S.D.A. Livestock Market News Service for the Detroit Stockyards. The prices at the other markets were given the author by managers of the markets. In some 65 66 cases the author believes these prices are high averages based on the personal observations he made at two of the auctions. (3) The best information available to the author was used to determine the cost due to shrinkage. There are many factors which have been discussed that could in- crease or decrease this cost in the examples presented. In this problem all livestock except veal calves was considered as fed upon arrival at the Detroit Stock- yards to recover part of the shrinkage loss. The livestock taken to the other markets were not fed. See Table VI. These examples were limited to large and small producers marketing five classes of livestock. The large producers were assumed to sell in lots of twenty choice steers, two cutter cows, three choice veal calves, thirty No. l hogs, or twenty choice lambs. The small pro- ducers were assumed to sell in lots of five choice steers, one cutter cow, one choice veal calf, six No. l hogs, or six choice lambs. The problem required that the distance to the markets be considered in order to compute transportation and shrinkage costs. The producers of these examples were selected near Hillsdale and Adrian, the center of each county included in the study. The author prepared Table VIII to show compara- tive distances to the six markets selected. The local 0 :V I 67 buyer represents dealers, order buyers, local packers, butchers, or locker plant Operators within a radius of 5 miles of the producers. Finally it was necessary to establish a price that farmers would receive when the livestock was sold. In computing gross returns, the prices used were the average prices being paid by buyers at the Detroit Stockyards as quoted by the United States Market News Service at Detroit for the week of May 16-22, 1960, and the prices reported by auction managers and local dealers for the week of May 16-22, 1960. They are summarized in Table IX. Table VIII. Transportation Distance to Market Livestock for Two Producers Living Near Hillsdale and Adrian. . _ Miles to_Market Producer from Producer from Market Adrian Hillsdale Detroit Stockyards 70 95 Lugbill Producers, Inc. 40 4O Coldwater Livestock Com. Auction - 55 25 Adrian Livestock Sales 5 35 Hillsdale Auction Company 35 5 Local Buyer 5 5 H I - a -- - . . 6 , ‘ -. . I- . O , -- .. l . H-.-H .. o -0 . . _ _ , . o o c ,.-d-—- . Io--' " 68 Table IX. Price Per Hundredweight for Five Classes of Live- stock at Six Markets, Week of May 16-22, 1960. Class of Market Livestock Detroit Archbold Coldwater Adrian Hillsdale Local Ch. Steers 27.50 24.50 26.00 25.00 24.00 24.00 Cutters 16.50 17.50 17.00 17.00 15.00 15.00 Ch. Veal 32.50 35.00 37.00 35.00 31.00 31.00 Ch. Lambs 24.00 23.00 24.50 24.00 22.00 22.00 No. 1 Hogs 17.40 17.25 17.50 17.25 17.00 16.75 A. Net Returns from Choice Steers for Farmers in the Vicinity of Adrian Detroit Stockyards. The average price for choice steers at the Detroit Stockyards was found to be $27.50 per hundred- weight. Assuming the average shrinkage is l.5 per cent, Table VI, and the distance is 70 miles, Table VIII, the total marketing charges for a lot of 20 choice steers would be $186.15 or 93 cents per hundredweight. See Table X. The next returns would be $5,313.85 or $26.57 per hundred- weight. See Table XI. For the small producer selling a lot of five choice steers, the marketing charges would be $46.66 or 93 cents per hundredweight. The net returns would be $1,328.34 or $26.57 per hundredweight. 69 seat seahorses ass fi personage 38 .useom poo: use xooamosaq HO¢OH¢O2 .mu0H assoc so hwsnsH now owns mm: omssso oz 08.90“ t. .m .H Hansen :38 .3 cache mm. - mm. - OO.H x OO.H \ NO. O1 HO. - NO. x 3. \ OH. x H. x O OI £5 com Heaacoeoefi HO. HO. m3 m3 ma. S. OO.H SH SH SH ma. ma. anemones IImIIIIIII Om.Om OO.~NH OOOa 8.9% 3.3 OOH: Omé. 8&3 OO.HO OO.HHN OO.O: OH.OOH no .85 Hate m«.O oo.mm m~.m oo.mm smudge ooH>som 8.8 8.9a 8.2 OO.H OO.HH Omém 3.5 8.6 8.1. 80“ eounHasoo OH. on. was O5 32 mNe 80H ”He mNe mogafi OMOH goo 80% ms.: oo.mH owevssw OO.OH OO.H 8.4a 8.3 OTOH 85 8am OO.OmH OO.HN 8.3 3.8 8.2 owoxfinnm MI , 8H 48% 1 8n AT BE OOH Ba ma com .25 OO.H OO.Om OO.H OO.Om OO.H 86m OO.H OO.Om OO.H 86m OO.H 8.0m Heoaceficanesae Home: OH; O Om m ON m Om m . ON m ON O OO mo .02 O gm HHOOH EaOmHHHr zaHmOa @2288 Scale: eHOmeOO muses .823 so .353» on... us chansons HHS can .33 39c 88.6 838 carom 80H 8.... commune goose: SH .373 has so soon .Nnmnm4fi v.33 ll!!- . _ O b. . .. 3‘ . I en! '1 a o .. o o C '03 30 I 3 3 II 3 . u . . O . e 7:33 -03 030 0 I. I It o . . . o A. .10 u--. .t u . I"! O . . . _ luv-ll. 3 333.040.0033.». ~ _ . _ . . I _ I00! .0 a .0 p.|. I III [3.13.0I. . A. . '73] |Iu 1330.3 . c 0" l1333o.‘ (n.0- 333|Il . O . e _ 3 133l 3 3|. III II 0 0 I-l3 . . O . O.‘3hl I 1e. — 5 I o . ll — I .. I3 0.. u I n 333! 3 0.330 ,s I. I : I333o3e .3 III 333' 3 3‘..Ien. I n. 13 0. 03's A we‘lee -3- 333 c.3030! .No it. ... . .gf . I u v I l}.'ronl a “304. .o. a In. t . he»... 4 0.3 o... I Mercy}: nonsense . sleddge' . . . . A. . . . |.. e u . . _. I. .3 a... . size; A .. . a c . v. .u. .eh lee. . p e..r-0|| gel... 9 I. 9‘ u c O A . -3- 3.. 3|- ‘3 '33.". i‘--.i-‘3 "3 vii it ‘0"3I3*0vl I .. J . "a a . u . . . I A r a . A . . ’ J 3 . O 0 0 130 e 3 ill I 0 I on. '9 I 0 3 00.5 v 3'3 IIIII aw b .h 0 u 0 no .3333 out 3033'. '30'31033-t33 e O . . . v 4 ~ \u. .. o s e e e H _ e ._ 2f .r. m s t I v I 3|- .0 II. o e I I. 3 III I I0 3 .1 3 0 33 ‘333031 1' I 0‘ .03311003 .3 . .. I... 3.!“ 331 3. n I e. 4. .9. . . 2 _ . . . . . . . . . .. -A e . C. . u u a x . n . C e m D O _ 4 C C e e 0 la _ O l J .ea «- . _ . A . . l A. 0.0 II. 0 I [I0 0 0 .3 l: inane-I 3" J3 e301|§33 0030...! v3 e3l‘eI—303h 9:01:03! ‘03: 30.0- 33 III- e I .. .. .. - . . A .. q q. . . .. . . O a l 9 :J W . . . Id‘llu lea... ll'- e I I I p .l .31” .300. e a I It .19333eerllji O 1 :30": Otl‘3.3 0.3.E3u :3 III .133 33033 330033: ‘30:") .c\v1-:|. no . t P o _ . . . . A 9.. .. . . a s - . . . . . ~ . w . .A .e. . w s 3 l . * a — A _ .1. . H 1 ~ . O A. .. . I ~ .t. O '00 333 o v 0.03! III-“31 I343! .2. .3330 3:33. 0330.. . c . . A _ __ A a. . . A . s . . e . v a s e t A e . e H .. . A A . . a _ e e o . e o e . o c a ‘ .. _ A. . . .. ' . 3’ I - I o . . . ‘ . . . g . . . . O .- 3 3 3 i: 3’. -."I -I' 3‘ '3, . “' I- ‘3 i i C "3‘ 3“ 3.. I 3‘ '3'.--I l3 ' I‘dl’. ‘3- 3": ‘l ‘3', 3.3.3.3.."I 3, . A. L .. . . . . A l -"‘sel w . I a . O a W . . c . I3 0 .-.Ill( 03.0.30 ' 33' I. I. n else’ 3:. A 3'33: I33.ul0u 36. .303 n 3.5. n q 0 3. 33.305" ltt3v3333 -L33 ale II 33333.3..." 303 3 I cal - . . . . A _ A. - . . _. . , . .. . L _ o . .. . . . . a A a O . e . . e : e A o . 7 . m1... . — . . D 3 N h.- .8 v. 03.. 3 '1- 3 3' I30 , :53. II 3 e3 ~03| Ie31u‘3 ll -eeln- . 351030335333 33 33333.3.30c33e 3:. I3. 3 3‘0 .333l 0- 0 I3 03 . w. _ . . . .. . . H _ . . . A . .A s e e . .. . t... a . A ~ A .Ues 5.0.... \ . q .ltel 37.4. 33:33.31: 3 1" 413 .1. 032-- ,. \I .0... 'l I! Ike .4 .11 as...) ’0... .3339! lien-id to .H "e... flanges "0113...“,0 muff-104. Sonia"! Ill-9.,un . 9.. .- I..r , I _ . x . labia «mi. 0 l -. 3..-t..-Jle.3 3.0 3ln— : 0"]- !331- .el3'3n I . ne 33‘r|.3e13'33103o:.e30.l 3.3. L3 03313L3‘33'n.lt. l|s|.3 0'33 ‘tyte . .H.m0 HQL gtfimh.h.a gnaw“.- .v “he...“ .H me an»: echmm He . I O 3 ‘w r ‘ M -v I .. ’1" J . t P *- ‘w ’1‘ I ~ e - .JJn/w‘. a. .h 6 I... .hvspm wnwpmxnma 00:» ca vopcmmoua 0009 «00858 * 0.00.53 Edmund. 00.0- 00.0r 00.0- 00.0. 00.0- 00.0- 00.0- 00.0- 00.0- 00.0- 0 0 0>000 .030 000 000000000000 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 .030 000 mannpmm pmz 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 magswmm 00.00 00.000 00.00 00.000 00.00 00.000 00.00 00.000 00.00 00.000 00.00 00.000 0000000 000000002 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 00mmwmw 0 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 000mm; 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 030 0000 mmwB .203 5000.2: . .. 24.qu . 50.55.50 3005000. 5909.00. A ooaam oowa 000000 00050; 000 00 0.88080 0.020 000 00.8.0 .30 0.00000 00030 0.58 0000 00300.3: not 00.3000 002 #0000 .0000 0.2 00 0003 .0023 00 .Hunuamdfi .I III. .-II..II 0‘: r I! 0'... II . licll’. _ .00 y I I ,....I, [III . I: - qul " .I‘l,l .IJ . 1.0. ‘udn. I. I09... .- Il . I- I- I I! .‘.I.I.l‘ 1.! t“..;. .. '5 :I a . . . ,. II . I‘l‘a. .Ia...’ l .17-. . I.J.... I‘I‘Io .I .1 u .. . d . O 0 . 0 .II'! . 1' ‘ I I! IOI I. OOII I I , 1 -010" 0“ I‘ I. I I. ‘ w I 0 — ’ . — . _ . . lain" II I III I 0.0! . 1.. : .10...II-./-Io.\ . o .I n u o O 9 I I... II I 090 0. l ..Io0 Ll! I \\ $I .. III In 'Ilgtli‘ .' - A . . . A o o O 0 .I . . . . .u. v I l 1...... .l..... i . I .IIIIII m 0 n _ . . , c u . C , 0 I0. ‘33. ll ‘r .. I Q _ a . o 0 I’ll IIID’.‘ I ..‘| cllio Q 'OI-OI.1.O... .wn... .6! I. I. . 7. If.’l‘r..i| I. .. u. . 0’. r. . . . n I! l...’ .l. . I I . . L .. C . I ll.- .IO... I I . A 1 . Iuv. . I A- I '0 A - .ll ' It. -0 0 . . . _ L . O 1'." L0 00... I ~. . Il , O . I . . . . . .a .V . . l r"sau|,ll a . u 'I.0.I .IOA‘ .- 01.. 0 . o I 1|. . I u q . 0-390..- II ' 0 Q ’ I. ’0. C . ’ .II 0“. V-I|. .Jl’- II |-..r“01 . _ .. r (In . .lclll . 0 2. ’I'AI‘I. I...» .‘..!. A 075-0 ‘.II '05. 0“... 0 a : o I all. I.-. II....I:'I..I. I. .0" I’IIIII . -100 .- V‘.’ 0 0 U I -‘C‘ ‘!3' -.ll|0“lln I "‘ 'l‘lll ‘ 0i ‘ 1 a I -0: "‘ I .1 ‘la ..I'.l ‘ I Ural]: .I. loll ' . . . . . . II: I s . . ‘ a .. . .. . o .0 n .. x , 0 ~ , .r . . , 9 f . 1 . I . .. ’. .. .1. w; . I. .0 .. . .. 0 .0. I. . 0.x 0 .‘u U . . 0 . o . . . . . .. n . I. A. o . 0. . H . . at u l ' I C 1 — c . I 4 0 . - c. .. 1'“: V' , FI‘!‘" ' . 1| . . n . E. . I...I .39.. I... I- ._ . . r .I . .. .9.... I . . . L . A . . 0 0 . u. g. . Icl‘l ll 0 II I I 1.. . . 0 71 Lugbill Producers, Inc. The average price for choice steers was found to be $24.50 per hundredweight. Assuming an average shrinkage of 2.0 per cent, Table VI, and the truck- ing distance to be 40 miles, Table VIII, the total market- ing charges for a lot of 20 would be $213.00 or $1.07 per hundredweight. See Table X. The net returns would be $4,687.00 or $23.43 per hundredweight. See Table XI. For the producer of five choice steers, the mar- keting charges would be $64.50 or 31.29 per hundredweight. See Table X. The net returns would be $1,160.50 or $23.21 per hundredweight. See Table XI. Compared to the Detroit Stockyards, the marketing charges for the large producer would be 14 cents per hun— dredweight greater and the net returns would be $3.17 per hundredweight less. For the small producer the marketing charges would be 36 cents per hundredweight greater and the net returns $3.35 per hundredweight less. Coldwater Livestock Commission Company. The average price for choice steers was found to be $26.00 per hundredweight. Assuming an average shrinkagecf 3.0 per cent, Table VI, and the trucking distance 55 miles, Table VIII, the total marketing charges for a lot of 20 choice steers would be $282.50 or $1.41 per hundredweight. See Table X. The net returns would be $4,917.05 or $24.59 per hundredweight. See Table XI. 4w- 72 For the producer of five choice steers the mar- keting charges would be $72.50 or $1.45 per hundredweight. See Table X. The net returns would be $1,227.50 or $24.55 per hundredweight. See Table XI. Compared to the Detroit Stockyards, the marketing charges for the large producer would be 48 cents per hun- dredweight greater and the net returns would be $2.01 per hundredweight less. For the small producer, the marketing charges would be 52 cents per hundredweight greater and the net returns $2.01 per hundredweight less. Adrian Livestock Sales. The average price for choice steers was found to be $25.00 per hundredweight. Assuming an average shrinkage of 1.5 per cent, Table VI, and a truck- ing distance of 5 miles, Table VIII, the total marketing charges for the lot of 20 choice steers would be $177.50 or 89 cents per hundredweight. See Table X. The net re— turns would be 84,828.5O or $24.11 per hundredweight. For the producer of five choice steers the mar- keting charges would be $47.50 or 95 cents per hundredweight. See Table X. The net returns would be $1,202.50 or $24.05 per hundredweight. See Table XI. Compared to the Detroit Stockyards, the marketing charges for the large producer would be four cents per hundredweight less and the net returns $2.49 per hundred- weight less. For the small producer, the marketing charges 73 would be two cents per hundredweight more and the net re- turns $2.51 per hundredweight less. Hillsdale Auction Company. The average price for choice steers was estimated at $24.00 per hundredweight although none were sold through this market. Assuming an average shrinkage of 2.0 per cent, Table VI and a trucking distance of 35 miles, Table VIII, the total marketing charges for a lot of 20 choice steers would be $386.00 or $1.93 per hundredweight. See Table X. The net returns would be $4,414.00 or $22.07 per hundredweight. See Table XI. For the producer of five choice steers, the mar- keting charges would be $96.50 or $1.95 per hundredweight. See Table X. The net returns would be $1,105.50 or $22.07 per hundredweight. See Table XI. Compared to the Detroit Stockyards, the marketing charges for both the large and the small producer would be $1.00 per hundredweight greater and the net returns $4.53 per hundredweight less. Local Buyer. The average price for choice steers was esti- mated to be $24.00 per hundredweight. Assuming an average shrinkage of 1.5 per cent, Table VI, and a trucking dis- tance of 5 miles, Table VIII, the marketing charges for a lot of 20 choice steers would be $122.00 or 61 cents per hundredweight. See Table X. The net returns would be 1‘ 74 $4,678.00 or 823.39 per hundredweight. See Table XI. For the producer of five choice steers the mar- keting charges would be $30.50 or 61 cents per hundredweight. See Table X. The net returns would be $4,678.00 or $23.39 per hundredweight. The marketing charges were all based on weight. Compared to the Detroit Stockyards, the marketing charges for the large and the small producer would be 32 cents per hundredweight less and the net returns would be $3.21 per hundredweight less. Summary. The marketing charges were greater per hundred- weight for small lots as compared to large lots at Archbcld, Coldwater, and Adrian. They were the same per hundredweight at Detroit, Hillsdale and the local buyer market. At these latter markets the charges were made on a per head, or a per hundredweight, or a per cent of gross sales, or com- binations of these methods. The differences in the National Livestock and Meat Board and the insurance charges at Detroit were too small to affect the total charges and returns. See Table X. The net returns for the large and small producers were greater at the Detroit Stockyards. See Table XI. B. Net Returns from Choice Steers from the Vicinity of Hillsdale The analysis of marketing charges and the net 75 returns from steers marketed from the vicinity of Hillsdale was made in the same way as from the vicinity of Adrian. Assumptions regarding the amount of shrinkage of choice steers fed and not fed are those estimated and reproduced in Table VI. Assumptions regarding the distance to the various markets are those reproduced in Table VIII. The estimates of price at the markets are the same as those used in the previous section. Marketing charges were least when selling to the local buyer. See Table XII. The charges were 37 cents per hundredweight less than those at the Detroit Stockyards for the large and small producers. The marketing charges were the greatest at the Hillsdale, $1.81 per hundredweight for both large and small producers. The charges were 83 cents per hundredweight above those at the Detroit Stock- yards for both the large and the small producers. The marketing charges were the same per hundred- weight for the large and the small producer at the Detroit, Hillsdale, and the local buyer markets. The marketing charges were 22 cents more per hundredweight for the small lot at Archbold than for the large lots. The difference was four cents at Coldwater and seven cents at Adrian. See Table XII. At the assumed prices prevailing at the alterna- tive markets, both the large and small producer received 76 greater net returns at the Detroit Stockyards. The large producer would receive $4.33 per hundredweight less at Hillsdale, $3.13 less at the local market, $3.09 less at Archbcld, $2.53 less at Adrian, and $1.54 less at Coldwater. The small producer would receive $4.33 per hundredweight less at Hillsdale, $3.31 less at Archbcld, 33.13 less at the local market and $2.60 less at Adrian, and $1.58 less at Coldwater. See Table XIII. C. Net Returns from Cutter Cows from the Vicinity of Adrian It cost 95 cents per hundredweight for large producers to market cutter cows at Detroit. Compared to Detroit, the charges were 50 cents more at Hillsdale, 42 cents more at Coldwater and 23 cents more at Archbcld, all because of greater shrinkage and higher commissions. The cost was the same at Adrian. The local market cost was 35 cents less due to less shrinkage, less transportation, and no selling charges. The cost of marketing cutter cows for the small producer was $1.20 at Detroit. It costs 40 cents more at Hillsdale, 32 cents more at Coldwater, and 17 cents more at Archbold due to greater shrinkage and higher commissions. The cost was 22 cents less at Adrian mostly due to a lower trucking cost. A lower trucking cost, less shrinkage and no commission resulted in a 45 cent lower cost at the local 77 .83» 38.31.35 939 5. 8353.8 33 3938 x. .88m use: sss 83823 48882 .m .33 4388 .3 has?“ you mums we: omega oz 4.. . - . - . . . . . . . . £638 .548 .8 22:. R R mm x mm x 04 x no \ 8 81 so \ 4m x 8 x o o, .8 .8 438238 3. 3. S4 S4 84 404 84 84 84 84 8. 8. 8.388 8.8 8.84 8.8 8.88 8.8 8.88 8.8 848 8.5 8.88 84.3 m4.84 $8780 438 mud 00.3 3.8 8.8m empano mayhem 8.8 8.08 8.04 8.8 844 8.8 8.8 8.3 8;. 8.8 848488 04. 3. mm: s8 32 mm. OO.H a.m. MN. OOEHECH 84 8.8 88 ma.s oo.m4 owssss» 8.8 8.8 8.84 8.8 8.8 8.84 8.84 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8838 ms 8 mg 8m 84 8; ms 08 84 8.4 mi. 8m .34 8.84 8.8 8.84 8.8 8.84 8.8 8.84 8.8 8.84 8.8 884 8.8 48338888 8 8 m 8 m 8 m 8 m 8 m 8 88% = m8m§o 88 .284 848444: 2488 5.4.4238 8888 S888 pwmmwm: $84 .884 has no to: €ng no 8.4508 23 s4 msooseoum 4418 use 8.3 39¢ stopm 8.88 83m 88 3.... 28.38 weapons: 4H n83 n I c It ‘IOI _ Ar. 4 .x A r. . OI II.“ I. t I I _ I l f. I I. I . I I l! I . I 'I n 9. | _ a llq. I. 1...... .sln.i\. I I I '8 \I. -.I.I I II. I.N I 4 I. . I . , I it I «o 0.. r Al'r. It! - .11-! I. III I I I . I1 . I Q . ‘ I. I . . . I I . . I. II a If... . . L7 Q I. .II- I I. I 1-. .- o I l‘ ‘0 c I I 'Iu I (II I. I . .l I .0 II n I II . I I . III III IrIsriI .I I I.lIO I... .7..II.I-II .II III I! I III! 32? I I I. II I . III I . I. II v u . l . . I i I . . . u c I . . I I. .I .. 'I I p I I . , I I I. C I It a . .9 I . v'? . I I0- I . I L. d I . . I I! . I . . - — . I .. . i _ _ . .I C . I I , ; . a K _. o I. I I I . I.. I. I I.. . .I - .. ..| .IIII‘. I . . vii .1 I , . .,. II. I I I . . . . . i I 0 u . ! . o 4 o o ._ \ , . . , , I _ . .5 . - I. .\ _ o I I .. . - I IV... I. . I .I I ..I-.. II II. I It. - I . .3 . I. II. A. . I o _ . I a I I . I . . ~I . o . a . t . o . o .. I . . . . I n ,. I. 1 A . n . I o (I I. u b I. I I . t v. a I ‘- l|-. I .l I II I w I . . I . y _ I . . O . o _\ , ,. I .- . l e . . . . . . - .. .. I I. - II.J.. I I I I ‘.. I I: if... .OI .I.Y!I.l .- -. .5 III. I I I I I . o. . . ~ _ . - v D 1 I n. I . O . . a I I I ’I .a a I s .9 In! I c I c. I I n. .I? \II .. .I r I u I. I. I I - I I I! I v 7.1.. . .- v . H s o o s c . i . . . I . v I 0| .0... I I I .‘l I‘II I... I? II I. II I'I’I- I L! Iir u. I -In (I I I v, II II. t I IIII v I I II . . . u- _ t n . . i I .o . . I I . I. . a II. I I; I II I... coil! I. I .I a I It I III I .IIIIIIII. I I I . I , I . . o . . . . I I I I.. O s O . u . C ' O . I. I II}! [I ‘0 ‘ It I. IIIIuI-I u‘ a... l.-II .0 ‘:| I ‘ ...9I 1.. GI!!- II fl. I I I II’III, III. I I: I a . .. . a . . D O I . s ' .I. I I I . . .I. I t 1...! \ I I .1 I 0 d .. v fin 1‘. .I .w I! .n. I -.II ”IE-III»; .1 I I th In .- 1- I- orl.II» 3.1 v . . o I o ‘ «I . I o u o a o _ o ,, . r I I II I . I I -I I It. I-. I... .1 0 Ir a I II; ,O‘III- I,» I): I. ‘ - I I o . . . I I v 4 a I O u 0 D 4 . . .I -. . I. .. .. . I. In. .- w. I. _ . . .:-.-I. -.I.- ...- .. ..I - . _ .. . I. _ . I o .o F . r. I IIL .. . .1... . . _. o o I. o . I. . , . . .-.I, .. In .1 - I In I c | I I II. .1 I I . 01.1. .l 0.. I II. OI 'I .0 II b e - I 0.. I l a a . . _ . n . I . , . - . . I . I . I .s . I . _ . .. C by I u ._ I.- I I . It. I v: I I. I , .m U I. . I . .. a y . . 8. I4 . . , . I L . I. a. 1.. 7.? . Iv . I .I. I I .. . n I n I. I .l. . . I a V I . A .r. I. . I n. ... O \I 5. , I I N . s I r .I. \ . y b \ I I I - I . 4' . I. . u. Ibusum mcwpmxnma mung cw 3.3393 3.3 «mo-30m .x. IacuwuaIzaauquq- 9.? 3.? mm.:I mmAI 8.? mm.~.. 3.? gm? .8? 8.? o o 263. :50 amp.- HIHpIIIIMMIQ mm.m~ mm.m~ ma.- mH.NN mm.m~ mm.m~ am.:~ mm.:~ H~.m~ m:.m~ ~m.o~ mm.o~ .pxo Mom waspmm pmz om.moaa oo.m~oa om.moHH oo.mm:: mm.oaaa. om.~m~: oo.~:~a om.mmma om.ooaa oo.~wo: 4m.muma mm.momm mcnswwm om.om oo.-a om.om oo.~om m~.mm om.~o~ oo.mm om.:o~ om.ao oo.mam 0H.m: ma.oma I Immgmso mcapmxgmz oo.ooma 00.00m: oo.oo~a 00.00m: oo.om~a oo.ooom oo.oomH oo.oo~m oo.mmma oo.oom4 oo.m~ma oo.oomm mammwmm m ow m om m om m ow m om m cm oo.:~ oo.:~ oo.m~ oo.o~ om.:~ om.~m g8 #08 3.5... . .- 72-.- 2 massage Sam-5% { ISma .NNIQH has mo x8: .oaémam no 332$ In» 5 maggot 3 8. I33 .5... 283m 838 8:8 83 manta-=2 83... 3.33m pox .HHHH mama. . . I . . . b r . . I. I ‘ n. . I. .I Ofu‘fl I III! s.‘ v . u I . o I I l. o I w I . u. v . I I I .I I I I on p .I . . . . . I . . I u _ I .. Q1: . . I b In . _ .x . . . . . . _ ,_ . _ _ . _ I . » n L n p .. III'.I I ... . ..o.‘.'lI It a -‘ . . .Id .... rI. .oIIau ‘ I . . I cl I II... cull o’..... I- 5* ‘ . I (A! I {v . II . .. I I . «if . . . 7‘... '0')! .II riv, I I I .I I cl . ill. I III ’71.. I It: . I - -1 T-.. . I I . . I . . .I I . . . ‘ . ,.n a II III .o.|. . . . I . . I o . I .- II. I . . . . . s. . . ~ 4 n v C. I u . n H . . . . I I o . o I Q I 0ft! 3 0. ...1I . I" .f.‘ 0 II. A: 10!...‘4! . a. a . In. I {u 9. er . I ....II I |Invn .i.. . . . vllil. .It II .pl 0 c‘II. 3’. .t«..; -. .I‘. o . I. - Ii. II(II t n .I I ’0. . 4 .31 0.. 3.3!. vInc II .t.' .‘uIDI . Ci 4.. IO U l '0 y n O ‘1' ‘.‘I III "h A v I ‘ U. U ' _ . . . . I o. . .l . i . .. a . n s I u a .. O I ,0 ul’ I. (I... 'kl . I o .7. .I'I . . 'A I IIDIqu‘\Iu.. pI I) 0.40... ..->. «fly. \I . II? II I funicfll I}. § .- .t.n..ll.l.0.|. . . . I ‘. .tl’. I. I. . II. V I..... . .. o CIIIn'...Iu PAI c . II- I .vaO‘ I o v I I 4 0a.. I. , . ; I. .. . w J . f . . ' . . . ‘ . . i .. _ v — , u . _ n I . . . o I o I o . , c ‘ a a D a .v 0 o .!.a 1;...l0. v0.0] . I. IIIIII,VI‘ ‘, I0, 11 t.;' 1‘ .I ,I. , I. I Iou‘l ‘Id)a...'.u It 41.,I I. ll .1. ..—I.I In!!! ., .. .A -.v. Inon. a». . I IIIIuI I! \ ail! I: II . . !.qu. ! .II. 0.1!! . ‘20...- 'II- (87"..-. 'n. I. to. . .0 . I. l n .- . . . . , . . . . . I . . . . . . .a . ‘ . . . o . . . l o O O 0 o O O , o d .1 ‘0 ~ Inln If. on: v.! 5 - . I. . I I - t \I .I..\ .n I lulu . I- i I I.-- II.—\ ‘1'! In I l . n. ,l. ‘ .‘c . I V.II . . . U 1. ..OI. . I. . J. . (11' IL .1 v P II I II", I'.’ . . . 1.1 I .I -I. In... I 1..0 A... I - .‘tl. . .1. . (.1 . nu . l. 0' . Col | s . w n o In . . . a . . . I I _ l o , O O Q c I. O I a O . O O I. I .7 a- a I! I‘..: I» 10 4 I '00- ‘ul-«. I .0 , a ll . 5! lo .. cl 9 I O. n... o‘.’ I t .J; l . I I Q .. I n I .. I...I.u ..l ‘o .. o y . .. .Itv - ti. I .‘3. r. du...‘ IV .I .lo‘...) 3| I'O.I I. 3‘. I: I: a I. o. n no . . I A .. . .VXI'I . .. u: . o ' c . . I I O a o ) . O a u o a 1 0 OJ"- . .140 I I. I D- |.l {IOAIII a... d. . I. u I I“ IIVJI. {II :21: .O‘ I, .I .‘II..II It‘l. ..|.. g.- .IIII. I. . .III. .. o! . .. 4., I I, . I call} .3 .9:.,... O,I 7| I J O n all \n q. I «7 II ‘00 q o. I I: 1 u I‘- . c I V A ‘0..- . I a I . IA .1 u a a .- 0 v . o s o o . . .k . . . , . . . . . . _ n . . . I. o . . r t V I v I . . v I. I v I I I I II. I I . n . . v u ‘h‘. I g . . h I o .1‘ I I l .. 79 market. See Table XIV. The net returns for the large producer was 315.55 per hundredweight at Detroit. The higher price was the primary reason for receiving 73 cents more at Archbcld, 52 cents more at Adrian and 8 cents more at Coldwater. Net returns were less by $1.15 at the local market, and $2.00 less at Hillsdale because the price was lower. The small producer's net returns per hundredweight at Detroit was $15.30. For the same reasons presented for the large producers, the net returns were $1.00 more at Archbcld, 72 cents more at Adrian, 18 cents more at Coldwater, $1.05 less at the local market and $1.90 less at Hillsdale. See Table xv. ' D. Net Returns from Cutter Cows from the Vicinity of Hillsdale The large producer's marketing cost was 95 cents per hundredweight at Detroit. It was 40 cents more at Hillsdale because of a higher selling cost. The cost was 35 cents more at Adrian and 27 cents more at Archbold because of a higher selling cost and a greater shrinkage. The cost was about the same at Coldwater. It was 55 cents lower at the local market where there was no commission charge, yardage, or insurance. It cost 20 cents more per hundredweight for the small producer at Hillsdale due mostly to the higher com- mission. Greater shrinkage accounted for most of the 25 cent 80 :83» gators. use 5. seasoned 38 noossom * ogdom 9.00: fig xoopmm>fi1m HSOfinvdz ON .30." space so has?“ no.“ some 33 omega oz 2” sweats :38 .8 22: m4... mm... 9.:N om.\ NW: «of «mi «4.x 3.x mwi o L0 .930 pom H3953 E. 8. 84 EA aw a. I N? R4 R4 NNA 84 mm. N t has 0 om; Rd 8.3 8.NN 2N N3: 3.3 mmgN 8.2 RAN and” 8 3 E33 H33 L mm. ONOH ”NOH mmoN 0WHJ£U Oogmm 80h Somfl 80m 89..— MNON owe; one: “New ONOH OQON QOHmflflgOD r NO. 40. Nmi 65 32 mo. OH. 0H. 0H. oogaflH on. 8. 8mm mm. om...” $.3th 8.: 8.0 8.: 8& RA N3 mi 8.3 mN.m 8.2 8A mm; omsaNBm B on on n me a R B nu ms in 8a 8.m 8.: 8a 8A 8.m 8.: 8.m 8.: RR 8.m 8.0 Hgfipmfiomofiég A N N w H N N N A N A N Jaw: magic No .02 EB .38 SaamflHm so: gagfioo 385$ Eczema Matti :83 .NNIoN an: .3 to: 53.64 No hfifiog 03 5 9326on H28 Ba omen noun 2.8 .538 venom 83 .8.“ 3mg 9.33.5 .5 an: u 7 .I. |. . .t‘l .o.‘l II to . o ..b- . . . ..t\ . I. I. I I... .. I. . Iv.¢.. .V .. , I Int! .u.- ,5 I1. 1"...- . .140 . . a D .. I.c...‘...‘l-.| .0 l.- ..‘I . .‘l.vl i V I . . . .- ..- .l... N. a. . _ . o . . . . . . u A . . . . . . . W . -. ~ . . .o. o . . ., . . . . . .. e. .. 1:... u... 4 .v -u-.- - ; rs. In. .o.ln. . . . . 4. u. . r. . . . . ...u-. .-. v.. . .x . . . N l c v . . o.» C n at r . .t. L f ., .‘u 2.. ui u .. v... . .. .. r. I . . . .. lvl. .1 . c. To... ....-Inl . .,~ I u: 0. .. .1 . . .. .3 I- I ..\-.C. 5:... .u703t . . {ll . .*. I-w..-n .(l, .. s. I. . . . . l. , .t It I . I. . v .. .. IA . .. . . . .n. .. . .l‘ . . t.l:.. .;| ill -10- ... .. . . .I .. . .l ...ll.1.l. ,..n o .. lol 3 }. . in 1 1.. u n _. . . _ . a . . . . u . . . a . r u . J. .r. .. I. . . . .1: l . 1 ; I . ‘ 0- i . . a .. v 1.1. 141. .III‘ . . . ‘ci.l .13 o I - 1 . . . A . . g . . . . . . N. . I .. . _ . O O . _ . . -I .‘I \ ‘13 I In- . a: . o . v . . . . . . It. .I q . I .t . . q! l . .I. 1 ti: S vll -u..-.| II; A o 5.5., ’1- 0 u... 5.] tl..|.|. Iglai’ ‘ui .Q."..,I,O i.... .1. 1.0 ,’A 0011‘. . , . u _ ‘ . . . .. . . N . l _ _ V O I Q 11 .I 3. .9... .111. o. \....D. . 1| . . , . I r- a! ..- . . . La. 1 .I.l. .. . I .3. 9.. J ,a‘ ... ..I-. I. 21.... In. 3. 11 lL-vbl; I .v til-II .I 7.1.? .J .- . LO. .I,IID A“. . .. .- .v'-.ln ul t c . n I p . . . . . . L . ‘ n v 1 . . . _ b a .. . . .<. . A . n9 .. . .0 \ ‘.llu...,..u\.~..t..l .. I .u. I...» ,. I. I .I d..- ..l..u.l ’.. . ,II I ulul 1‘1. .lrl . D ‘. Ir ......1.|o .II 1. ...Ic, . ll IIIO. .bl < r.. . . . .l. 0.»... .n . 'I1l|. v.‘ u . . . . c u . A , ._ a . _ . . u n n o C G I o l 9 O I . 0 C _ II. o ... I 3.....- . .n 'c -00.! . I . . -Atclulc -9. .o .3 . . . ... t . I, 3.-. «V, 11!.» . .ril. 11‘. .Iln..l..:.n- ...-...bcll 3.1.. .. .l... .. . .II II) . . - . l.)‘.lt..tl\]1. O. o u . i I .l o 4 o O . _. . . l'tu .1 .5 6:... ..I,..§\..... ll. 2 It... . r .a. o... u . .1 5 n. .41.. . . . .r A. . ...l\l.f (7. ..n... . . .b...II-J.1 . . . a... ....J« .l.\ .Jqu. . I. ....,.... .44 .. ‘2 . rl..v. 0.. I I n u ..l t. .1 I I. l . . c D .l u . 1" I o A . 1! IA. .. | .. . . .I l.'.o . . .c .. I .1. :..o.¢l. I..l ..Ol A. s. . n I}! . 02-3.. 1.. , .ttII..|JIa . I U a In...) I . _ . . . . N « p . » v u D C C b c O . n 9 I I . ‘ o , . . . q . a . 1 a an... nl . . I a. . . . 1 I ..| , . . .2 . . . . . . . - n .4. run. 4..- .. A. .3. -I I ‘UIP. .. I-|... .. . - - u . . A. .7: .. 1'34 «3. . .i . a . . .. _ . . . l -\ Q: 4 _ . . . . n u .... . » u N C I N. . . , .v. ...I. .u. . .. . u . Ix .! .l . 'Iiui o . .1.» [1 . .I\ . ... .nl...'...0.0u. 1.- ‘Z. I . t 3330 mcwpotha 0.23 5.” 03:83.3 .0qu «00.38 2. 328483340. moé- 3.3- 0.3- 8.N.. NN. \ Nm. \ 3. x 00. x Q... . x S. x 0 0 263 .030 8N - 33008330 3:: 00.3 00.3 $53 No.3 No.3 3.3 8.3 3.3 0N.3 8.3 3.3 .030 SN 088.3 002 8.23 03.03 8.03 8.35 3.03 3.3% N033 m0.NHm N033 m0.mNm No.03 $6340 8.3me 0.02 0mg 00.3 8.3 8.0N 3.,“ Nm.3 3.3 mméN 00.3 RAN 83 30.3 0me20 030332 8.03 8.80 8.03 8.8m 8.03 8.0% 8.0: 8.30 8.3% 8.0mm 8&3 8.0mm 08:80 000.5 3 N H N H N a N a N H w 8.3 8.3 8.: 8.2 8.3 030 0880 3000 3 Ed... . .. .meN . 5.93.080 000%63 0.3.050. .3303 23 fl 9888..." 32.0 Ba 00.3 N8 260 .838 058 083 0303.8: 28a 3.32m 0% :83 .NN..3 has no x8: .384 N0 .bH an. IIIJ.‘ . . . . t . n .. u] o . . .10.! u . .0 . Y‘ ‘I no I u . I . v .. n . I- l . o ‘ . b I n A. ' . .. I“ I. . \ ._. w. . . . . . . . .. n . . .. r . . . 3 . .. l . . . - .o k f p . . . . . . n . v .H J v u ( :Y. . .. . u . . . . . . ..: . v . .. .. . .. l‘nawnln Iv . I . . T‘in‘a .. ‘1'! i I I .4: v‘ . 0v .1 1. ol. . .v 1. .' ‘1‘... .tl.u .. 0 ul . . .I. 30". .(clul .L ..o O A _. 33‘ ..\, :0 a v. u . . . . Ib.o.. u... . . .o. '1 s..‘..# it. r . . . . .3..|.1l . .1. II; n . u ‘1 of. a . . u . .. ,u . .- . . o . . . . _ - w . . O .0 . I O r v 0 r . o. .2..." .... g Q... . . . .. ‘I.l..: '....f 0.. , .a to. too-.10"! ..f.i£ .3. «. 3|}.ot. . .. .. .u 0 p 0.. 3... o . . I .so 0. 0 o. .3 .0. i... -. ..15f. ‘3 y... .33..- a ,il L .8. ... pl Y. .. ...\ .u. \...“u..&‘. .3. . .C ..(. 4.3.. to... . t. 92.. . III) . . ._ . . . J p - 0...-- o v n n v. . . . a. . .. .- . . . c. . .. s. ». 313..-...111. a... .11... 3“... . t 1"... I. i t»... : . :1 i .r «a . \ . 3.3.8.51... .. ac...:....§ll..vc....nv.. 2. . . - .o. . .- ¢- ! \ . I r30! .: . 0 . a o. It. I 1 - - . . . . . . .. . N J . .- . . . n . . a h o . n . a . o . .. M . ._. a N u a . n . r . 1.. v A .. . .. i. ...ducI_v_ ..lO..6!-|q!‘- .3... . .. 1:1 n‘...‘ '11.: .. U... 0‘... .I u. o. l‘lblcul. - 3. .‘v‘0 3-.. A0 I .’ 5t.r..|.. ..t:“§lo o n : l I,» n). ..¢).II)9..’..IT .. . 1.1.r; .. .. a... y.Lh.I..NI._I. »' 1......01. Ill. -. ”I ......'t t I k all.“ f.!‘.. I . . .. Q .0 C . . . . _ . . s. . . . . A v , . . . o u . . a a Q .. c o h I .. . C O . .4 I .A I... I. 00 .V .tlliun .0. .3 t at. .031 ..1.c£.. ‘u . . . :1... J In. |.. 1,70,...8 . ‘0' .I. o .I'l- . t! - .. |lto.|n.. It: u..‘. .1. . V I'.I' .1. a ‘fpl’o. I 1.. Q... Oriya V. I -ulu- v.' hafili~ .- ,.| 1 CA”. . I I I «z... .ulfi o. «I- u . . a w s c Q . . a. . . u h . . I . o .v . o . v . . g h I c r o a . u a o . ..l.,..\.... I‘..$:....¢I 1...... 0.1:? a} u!!! ‘3ivl:t \.r ..,ia\.. 1.1:. 1‘.i.!§ .1... . o..- IID- ’v .¢.v.. o. .. . .f.¢!-.‘..|s.o of! PI...’.~?.I . o \b.. .15 .v‘.oV.Lrh. 30.9.“. .......$..... .. ...i..l. .. S. x... iii. ‘ t. ‘8 - t .I v a n — a . t .0 - ~ .g — O . O . _ . n O O 0 . C t I D r . l . 0.... . . I I _ 1 4 v 1‘ .1 t u I. ifi' 1: I. D 1 ..I! cut. u..I..I A: I'QCOf‘- I; l I..- ... .vllu.. . . . I .. .I’ - l.b..‘ I I. I. .. n. . . a . “¢'.Il..|:t. .nuol..ll .l..I.o. f.cl.l.. 1.‘!Ju‘l'fl1.~v.0'h In J v.1 c . .- . v... ‘u q .«u I‘ “In, I. 01. . I..Illclr). (In 0 . v r . . . . . . .. ., .. . sl t A l 0 . . o o o o o u . . a :4 o .I . .1. . u I . . . . - . I. .. a . . . .. . . . p 4 . . . f . -- . . .. r . . . . _ . . . u. o . . . ..... a. . . . WK 0. a. .. . v. . . L r U ;. . b I n. 82 greater cost at Adrian. It cost 16 cents more at Archbold due mostly to the higher commissions. Service charges and commission at Coldwater increased the cost over Detroit by 17 cents. The cost was 45 cents lower at the local market because there was no selling charge and less truck- ing costs. See Table XVI. The net returns for the large producer were $15.55 per hundredweight at Detroit. The higher prices received at Archbcld, Coldwater, and Adrian were primarily responsible for 73 cents, 46 cents, and 15 cents greater net returns. The net returns were $1.15 and $1.90 less respectively at the local buyer market and at Hillsdale due to the lower price. The small producer received $15.30 net returns at Detroit. They were 73 cents more at Archbold, 66 cents more at Coldwater and 25 cents more at Adrian, mostly due to receiving a higher price at these markets. Lower prices were mostly responsible for receiving $1.05 less at the local buyer market and $1.70 less at Hillsdale. See Table XVII. E. Net Returns from Choice Veal Calves in the Vicinity of Adrian The large producer marketing choice veal calves had a marketing cost of $2.86 per hundredweight at Detroit. It was 86 cents more at Hillsdale and 53 cents more at .hvdpo mawaoxnms can» as coacomona dawn "condom * .unwom ass: was xoopmosaq choapaz .N .uuoa spams no hushed now cums an: owawgo oz .H 83 2- m..- .2 .2 m3 m2 .2 .3 E i o . 8.83% E. 8. 93 RH EH om.H 6H 8. RH NN.H oN.H mm. snags om; 8.HH RAH 8.8 8:: 8.8 3.3 NNWNH 3.2 mmsN RAH 8.3 33120385 mm. o~.a mm.a . mm.N omnago ooH>Aom om; 8.mH 8.N 8.: mN.N 8.4 8.4 36 RH 8N 83388 No. 8. Nmz s5 32 mo. OH. 0H. 0H. 85.253 on. 8. 8mm mm. om.H omsugsw om.: cm.o m;.m om.o mo.N om.mH Hm.m NN.N mN.m om.oH om.m mm.N ommstssm mN 3 mN mm 8 8 mN 3 on om mN 2 .BH 8.m 8.m 8.m 8.m 8.; 8.m 8.m 8.m 8.: 8.m 8.m 8.0 $3888.53 H N H N H N H N H N H N solemn amass gm 488 EH83: 5.23 mmeéfioo 385% 889.8 wuss.“ :83 .NNéH as: No to: .38de .Ho 8.ng m5 8.. stances Has sea 8.3 5h 38 .838 H58 83 you 8»qu Epoxy! .Hfi mama. IIII- II II a . . I I I 'I t. I O l: bl . o x II I I 3. III]. I I 1.... I II. ‘0..- .I .II I. O C I II. III . V I u Q. I (a- ...II..6I...ID .IuvoIfIII I .. I (In . .III I. I I I II a I I u . _ a I I .I. II ' I II II: I I '3, III I . _ I I. I II I. I II o. .. I‘ . I n t o 0 n O . D Q] I I It.lI. I IIJTI or .09 I I. . . I V . . . I O O O In I 4 Ila.)II-uv . I I .I. .. . I I I I . i . , . I , Iitl -I; '16.. II, I III I I I l I I II . .. . _ , - . It‘ll. .44 .I.- qul...td. v: I 7 II III I...! I I A . t . not I — III. . . . c I .. — u I. . . .. .Ii '1‘ IL! I IIII‘II II I III I. 0511‘...» I ,i .I. u I... c. ‘1 0.. . 5 I. L c . I 0- .III :5. l I! I I IIIIVI . I. o. I-.INI.IIIIII.III II II I I. . - I . . . I . II I o P... .. .. II. . M c '- u . O o c o t I II 0.! . I I.’Ic 1". i . In--. P. r v I. I I I! . I I . I I. I l I . . I. .vl't El“: 5.1! c I.lln '2‘. IA 0 I . g I . x ' cho'. I.‘- V #1.. -- n on . Q . k . ‘ .l I a I 076.1: V _ .I I I. . . I . . _.I I. . _ O n 4 I . II I. I tlsrl II'V‘I P I. l \ I 1 I II ‘I’ .IV '0! Iall I D Ilo‘d .I-IIVI II- III- _ Iri- 9. . . I: I'I - O . _ I I . . I. . I I I. .I . .~ I U 4 O . ' a . I Hi I a 0 III I! a o I I ~III.¢/ I. a. I1. I tI I,I,4fl.I.II II ,o III . I I I. I1". I . I. l\ 1\ I In . I . II . I v F . .. . O o I 0 I . I. 0 O .tlsflI iIOJ I V I III II II‘O‘ I (‘1 I.L\I '* . ‘ ’l I. t . I ‘I. O I. .06.. II I II 51? Ill' ‘5. III 0 II oI . b «a .I O .A I. .V I '4 ' III . I .I I I _ u I I II... I II III: I I. I N I c I . . .0 III- I -3: I I I It.» I In. I I U I . i . I I. . .I. .I. I I . I III.1.I I IIYIO II . a .I.. u I I! I . . l .' .VI '.I I . . .I 119.1.- .I. . . I...‘ I. » ,... I I I . III, an .I.. I .I..- O I ..I. (I III... III.. t I I . r I II I IIIFIIOI. Id 1 .I. . IOIII‘IIIII I. III I I‘I I. II . . . . . . . 1. . . . I . I .V. I . I. . I u .I-, II- It 01 0" I III. II "I .I I a .I IV}: I.‘ ll - u . III. In..- . II. I; .I.. I. I I.. c I . . . I I I I .- ., , III-‘ I l .i.. U’ I 1“: if (.I.... 1. . u. . I . _. v r, o ,J o O . I II .II — . . \ I. .,I .l a; II I I _ ‘ C d . II III, III I. .I. I- I {Iv} I. O l. I 4 a . . .. .. . . I. I I . I .IIIII‘IIOIIr III. I II I016 .I.-.7145 .I.:. .~ {I II: 1 V... _ .. - . . . a . Q a 4 o n .I. .I.!IIII ,.l.1|I. .III «I I 1 .I I If...) . 0 O ‘IIIIII.I1I .- .OIIILIII \I. -I.. I.9I 6.51.3: l'.. . . o O . b . . . 1.. I. III. III] I; I- a I 11“. I. «L I . . I... II . L. .I.... I . I. «I. ”I . I , . c , O O I . c 'I ('1 I III I o .I.. .I 1!- ale-1"..I .IVII 3...... AID!» II- n . . I I I I .._ IIJI!‘ . IOQI‘..|II.I. u .3 I I Ion-I“... I‘DI' l.‘ I I n» I III ‘ ,. .. I: _ b .. v v . II. I Q I II II I. «ISII.I¢.2II .. Q; . I .. v N I . .. .. II. . n ‘ n I.‘ I . _. A I . (I. It... (I. I A l I I . J D . v v Q I o . I c .| I . . . L s — A I . . II .r. I K ’HIB I» . L .. . . In cl .w .I I v | I ..‘., *3. ,I . I. _ . . . v . L. . .I .031. ..VO|I ‘ .huapm mcflmxuma was» 5 3330.3 3.3 3930a g. fiofimqa MOOHI mIHoIHI ONIOHI ROI—”U mNo\ mHo\ 000‘ 030‘ MNOX mpo\ O>OD< 0&0 HQ“ HmanmNINHHo mNéH 3:: 8.3 3.2 mm.mH oN.mH 93H HoéH mHéH mNéH om.mH mm.mH :Eo 3m 9550a 32 om.NHH 3.me mod? OHéN om.mmH 842m 3&3 2.on Nm.HoH mo.mNm 8.mmH Hdem Ifiswwm om; 93H 32 8.8 8:: 8.8 fidH $.mH 8.2 RAN mmHH 8.3 $330 mfipmfimz oo.omH oo.oom oo.omH oo.oom oo.oNH oo.o:m oo.oNH oo.o:m oo.mNH 00.0mm oo.moH 00.0mm mcMMpmm O H N H N H N H N H N H N 30m. I .3 .oz 8.3 8.3 8.: ooéH oméH 8.3 fiwomwm EB .53 33¢.sz . .- 2%qu Eeséoo 38:92 .5933. 81 flamfia 63H .NNIoH has no x8: .oHacuHHHm no .333; I5 5 Isa—BE HHIam 9:. $53 you 38 .838 8:8 82 583.3. 3a 3.93m poz .HHE Mama. II . u . I I I I ... I. .-I o . - I 0.. 9. VII I. I II.. I . II J I . .! ... I.I I I- -I. I ill- I i . I - .II I I I _ . .... . o . I. . .L ..u .0 b . ._ .. .. .. . ......) _ .. .... .... .. ... .. ... q p h. s. ., . ... A . I. . ... n. . I. m . . . w .,. . . . l I I. I ....u . .I. I . o; I. I ,1 I I I. f I . .I. U . . . . .I I . .IIIII ...I. I.. .. 7.0.5.. III.. IorIIIQ.-.. .r. f .Lrl . I.I . 1.5.10! IIIIII.II.I III). 111’... '..-I.;.l.:.s.l.. ..IIII‘ . I. . ....III .I.. u ....or.....Ii.h.g.d..f...r......|b...l.u..1"... I:IIIKI..I III; III. .... ,I .3. .I ..IliII I . I. Ib.IIIII ..II. I . I .. O . . . . . . . I ... I I I . . . .. . . .. \ I I a ._ . H _ a .. . . . _ . .. . I . I . 0 . . O . . . _ a \ . . .. . . .. .o . . . I. u .I. . .. . . .....IS ....I v. Ix. ....itt. b§.l X . . L . .I... I .I.-.. fIIIIoI I I III lioirv.!1. I .... .q 5 .I.......I.- 3.33%. :3: .. .....IJ....I.I.III"..4.HI .IH .Iaa. II.IO. JI/IIII...II.(I-III.I..III.. ...IItI .I Ill-II .I.! . IIII. . I! . . . . I . . . . . .. d o . .. ~ . h n s. . a C .. I _ .. . n .. . _ I . . . .. .. . {VI-.I.! II. I’ru...’ H. a I... o 54. ‘r . it-..“ t'o'tht b‘ .I It. .I'l II . I. III-‘ "t‘OII ‘II. I". . I I. " ... I IIII: I I1 . not! I‘, Lain... , I , I... . I...“ I... .I I..- .II Itfill' ’..~I'II,O'II' 5" II, II... It I! .I. I .II a I II! IV I. I I 9 (III I III . . . . I . . n l . .I . . C . .- I . . I. a .I .I. a“ .. . . .. . .. I .I . I . . . ._ I I. l I . . I 0 O O I I D A . Q .. I . O . . . < ...IHII. . I.II I. ....III 01... 0,. ... . .nu III. or ‘7‘..." III... i!‘.f.t I; I I III .‘l‘bft .-.tILI I... .. III .6}... .... s . . I. I . \I . ..II I ..II.‘JI slalIII'I In. .I Hula-WP!- .I ... In...” I. ..ul II t u I. .6: I 0. .II .45-... I I it. .I I. . ...I.Illtc -YII’II.8’I' .I. {II-II..." III I . . ..-. . III ‘I . . I . .. ._ . . k ... a. . ... I. g I . . . .- .I . . . . .. . A. . .. . I a . a I _ O I . O . a o ... l o . . . . . I ... . I III ,I- I . "It Or ., 4 I II . III IIIO. III. I .I. u , I'll . .fi' .Ill' .I -.. V 53...! I. I. I I...’ .I. I. ..I..’ 1 " ll‘!‘ 1 u..\nA‘JI‘1I‘.o-I II) 0'. Jun-... . II. 0‘”... IIHI'I I a '”.IIO.II'.II. . III-I‘ll ...... I.,.' I! I d ..I'rwhlu. IIIIIIIIIIIII P I -4! I It....f.l¢‘.ihlil I. I _ V ,. . . I L _ o s o r . — v . g . . _ o . . . . I — n a I . O . o “w I O ._ o . O . o . I 4 . I . . I . . . I. IILI .. .‘I. I. .I.. I. II .IIIII“. I MI. ..I.‘.-.IOIII I 'II' E... .II ..II.I.I‘|\£ IIIII I. ‘rIDI99 ,II“-I I IV’I I ‘.II"..I III IQL|SIIr I .I'IIIII .I.-1.10“ ...-L.f.\‘. 0"“! -l -....lI-I. I! l... ...]. III-IIIII‘ ' I I. I. I'IIII .I.» 3.4!. I . . . . I I . . . II I . o ... . I . I . y . . . . . , .. _ . c c . . . .II m . . fl . . .. I I. . . . ‘ . I . a. . _ ... . , I . . , . I . 0 v a b n .. i ,. I o o . o I ,. . I I I o , II . D I I“. .. I ... .. .I . I . I II . I ’ll"tl|;l.ll .. I ..I. IIII‘II'I II.". I .QIIICIIII' ‘. 1"; VIII... .... o’JT if .310 ‘4.) .. . .I.. I. ..II ,I .. I. ..l. .....I.II... .III .I..I ., “I.I.. .OIIII'IYI... ..IIII'. . .I.!I...’ IIIIII . III: ,.I pull. ..IL - . .I'I!l..’| . . I. I ... .. .. I. .. 1 I . U . I . . _. i I I r.l I . I I. I ._ . . 5 k 0 l. . C D II D ‘I C o U . c O - C _ II I . . . I ‘ . . . . . . . . I ... - . . . II A O ‘I I o a. I I I ‘ c I.» .II If. I A A l I h IF I ..III I . . LI \ . \ n n o . . I. . H'- ~.\.. II . I I . v c. or . t I I. b I I I I 85 Coldwater, due to higher commissions charges. It was 15 cents less at Archbold because of less shrinkage. A lower transportation cost and less shrinkage lowered the cost by 71 cents at Adrian and 31.52 at the local market. Marketing costs per hundredweight for the small producer at Detroit was $3.55. It was 72 cents more at Hillsdale and 39 cents more at Coldwater because of higher commission charges. Less shrinkage reduced the cost by 29 cents at Archbold and 50 cents at Adrian. The cost was $1.48 less at the local market. See Table XVIII. The net returns were $29.64 per hundredweight for the large producer. A higher price brought $3.97 more at Coldwater. A higher price and a lower marketing cost brought $3.21 more at Adrian and $2.65 more at Archbold. Net returns were $2.36 less at Hillsdale due to higher mar- keting costs and the lower price. Returns were about the same at the local market. For the small producer the net returns were $29.15 at Detroit. They were $4.11 more at Coldwater due to the higher price. Lower marketing costs and a higher price brought $3.00 more at Adrian and $2.79 more at Archbold. Net returns were $2.22 less at Hillsdale due to higher marketing costs and a lower price. It was about the same at the local market. See Table XIX. .hvsau msHpoxnms wasp :H vou:Omoaa upon .«ooasom * .vumom poo: cam x00pm0>aq chOHumz .N .umOH sumac no Busnna now come mm: omamno oz .H OJOHI NmoH-I NF.‘ 000‘ om... gel mmo‘ mmcx QNQI “Hal 0 o PWHOHPOQ gHOm NO 0894 SH :3 8.: «3 m3 m3 :3 «3 8a H3 m2 . was ‘ 1 lad..." mma m3. £2. H~.H~ Nam m~.~H H3. «TmH Hwfi 13.3 R6 oméH m :5 H32. 50. OO.H mm. mm.a 1wmssgo oofi>Hom E3 .23 oo.H 8.... EH mtm $.H 93 8. RH aOHumHaaoo HO. NO. i mm: 65 ”HZ: mo. mHo NH. NH. Gog-Rafi 8mm 3. RH swam m3 $3 23 R5 m3 ma as a?“ 03 owe a.“ 2.5 «Hagan m m m m m m E o bw m E 8.“ 8...” 8.~ 8.; 8.~ 8A 8.~ 8.: 84. 8.: 8d 8.; HnoHpmfiomufia. H n H m H m H n H n H m comm,“ magma 5am .203 E483: 322 @2338 3852 Sofia tag 33H £3; .32 .3 x8: .534 ...6 5353» 23 5 utgeofi HHfim new $3 3h 358 Ha: 2:26 988 RH you 33.8 53.3: .35 Eng . _ . .q u u . I o ‘C L | .. . . I .. o . - . . . its. . .0 0. ... . ... ... . _ v ,i . .u l .I .-c . III... 7. . .tt' . .... u 1.... .. . ... L . . . . . , . V I‘ l I v _ . . u I , . o . . . _ . . . r . _ ,. , . .. : fl . . . .. . . . . . . - i o l V n . It... c ‘ I a .O .I . .v ‘ b . t I o I: . . n1- . . ~ I v - . a . . . . . . ..- . a o . ‘ . f .. . . , ....._ -. .-- .. .. 2...... . : .- L .- -I.: .... Z , H ,v _ .. 7 ~ . v .. m . . . m o o O o o O O a I. _ d . . . u ,. v. . . . o v .1 .y .. A. . , ..I . ... , . . - .0. .n . I: ~: . tn. .\ . v ... . . . . , . O . . , _ . . i . . a o O . u 0 I O . a o I I . O . I: o... :\ u a I .I-. . .c A y y I . l 4 . . o . v . . . I . c J. t 4.1.. 2 . I . A .. . v . p . . . . b . . l . . . J . D . .o~.l...!ll.l , a I I.. - .I .J. - -AI. ..1 .. l . .... , .. - ..l . .1 I. )n. u I H . . u . . L . . 3 . . w , .. O A . . . . . C. .A. n ' .I'.:" . 4.1!... a . 0. 1 .. .vv 0 . C . In... c .I....l v... .9 4 4 . . .l. I .o.«:. .I. a. ... 1 .1. u d. .a u . L3,... .. . Fl . ..003 T I. , II. . ), ,9¢ . . . . . . . ,r A . . . .... .. . . 9. o s . . o . v ..‘_ I... ..II.. . , - . .i... .. ..l, .f‘ u. .1 v .I........ \I .uu ,I .o, 9... .....- . tn I-..o.c(f a: . . ..l 3. ...o. .. Lo :1 v, 5 . . . . 1 . . . . l a . _ . . ., . O o . I a . . .4 . ..' 0' I .... ..I. - «Paint ., . . .v ,x 1.1. .9 u. I I .~ I -..|- l . Y . cl .' I. a. IL41 . ., ... I .Jl.. .IIIWII o .. OI . u ‘atlll’ v . «.t v . I 1...!- ... .u.1.l , . _ . . . .. . . . . i _ o . o O . . I, I . v . O o O O O I . t c On . I . . .II . .0 ll. .. .9 (a .‘ II’:II.. i 3 o ... .. . .. ..ta. ! ... 5 ,v ...-u .3 9.1 p . q .... . r . \. .. k .. ... ... o 0...? . . . ‘i I! .I.! 9. ... ... I. . I U . .v ‘Iil . .. o . . i a . . u o. o . . t. . w! . ... y D r. C O . c . . ‘ . V . a .11.... . . v. . -I....f. .‘ , U: .1153... .I. .. . . ... H... 1i. it... . . . . . . . s¢ «£9 Nu .. ,. Y .I., 2... . ., ..I . . . A... . -5 A .. H. .... ,y . i _ . . T I . a . o . . .. o o I . c ; o . I o N . . .. .6. I . . .. u!» . . «7.1- It... .... - 2 I. .... o , . fir .- .u . . .. lrl.[l I .... -. .... ... ..I .- .I.Il.lO|.- .I I o . a v . f 1|. It I ‘1 . :51 | II V .u f O O C C C . D o n u r p . | , v . . n. q. .I A. . . .I. .l .y . u. Al. 1 ... I .. 00. At 1'... I..“l. . .I -... , I . O .l ... . . . A. an . .1 . t to v n . n. .1 . . C a. . . . . . \I .i .. . O p .u . «a o. . . ~u . \- . . .H a n . n .. . a . c n n n [I . i. , . ; . . . ... .. ... . r . l . . . . ,. I ‘0 .... s» . t r . . . . . c . _ . 87” .huapm msHpmxums was» :H oopcmmoaa dawn «condom * ”32% mo. - No. \ «a.m- om.~. oo.m\ H~.m\ HH.;\ ”a.mx m~.~x mo.~\ o o opona .pzo nmm HaHpemnoumHa mH.mN oo.mm mm.o~ m~.~N mH.mm mm.~m o~.mm Ho.mm Hm.Hm mm.~m mH.m~ so.m~ .szo com antenna poz mm.mm mo.moH 0H.Hm m;.mmH mo.Ho m~.~mH :H.mo mm.HmH mo.oo oo.:mH mm.mm mm.moH manswwm mm.m mo.~ :~.~ H~.HN ~:.m m~.~H 0H.~ mm.mH Hm.m 4:.mH ~m.o om.oH newsman qupmxumz om.mm o~.opH om.wm o~.o~H om.oo cm.mmH om.o~ om.0H~ om.oo om.mmH m~.Ho m~.mmH mamwwmm H m H m H m H m H m H n swam oo.Hm oo.Hm oo.mm oo.~m oo.mm om.~m mmwam HaoOH assHm .- - ma . magazngao mqommome. qumema. _ 33H .mmuoH .3: .3 x8: .N 53.64- no .933; on» :H staged HHS.» e5 amps 3h 85.3 H25 838 3.8 8H 33on and 3.30m $2 .NHNnmumdfi . . I OI II 1 v I II I ll .‘ a o' I L. .9 I \ t ol I. n . A I II t l I Y I i I b I I I - I5 ’ 4 4 . o . . I . a .. ,. ‘ I . . L . a . .. . . . I . . . . . . o I . , . g . I . I ._ o In . u . .I., .. _ . $N. I . . . _. . . . . I .. . . I . . . - . . H h . . . .. .. .... .r . r L . ,. :4 .. ..r......._ .... .. . . .. . . .. . .l . . . . . III (TOBOIII .4 . ..Ifivr I‘ 0...! .5". .... . . I. ...:IQOI\rZa .Lt.’ ‘tl ills . lo. a- 'I.‘ ‘.IIAIIII... .KI l. I . 3 . I... Incl... -..I. I .v I l... 0“. II . Ii I. .I. .I- I . I .I..19. .I.. .l .q M... . oHI v I;'..II.OI.I .J’anip.q..obbl ... 1‘ o! . I... .I. I .I.... I ‘-I’.|'.II. . p . t I In! . 0 .-Ir ..-! ...II . .. o. . A J“ I I I .. . ... . . .I I . . ._ x . .. .. . . . . . . . a . . A , ... ... .. .. . I . . . . . .. _ . f . . . ... . . . . 5 . u . . .1 F t . 0 . . O _ . D . . 0 . C . u. I. w . . . . . I . $1.: ., ...... . .I . .I.: . ... I .. . I- .1... ..I O a uh. I . .I'Ia“. O’CIth "O..Oo.‘.a 0 ..r I I I ...l I . Ida‘l ..‘IIII. all. '1: \- .O (til I‘.-Ca‘ I ‘II‘.NI-: I I6 .. It. . .. .... ..I . I'HIJ. .. . t DIV-”'1'“. I. .II. (Illilf IIO'II‘III- ‘l .I.. I I... .I.-.141. ... I .‘U!. -II".III.‘. III . .II.‘ .. . . . . . . on o . u. . . I . . . ... . . . . I o . ...m. I . - _ . u ‘ ... . .. . . . _ u m . fix 0 . I o I. o . ~ I . . . . . . . . . R ... . . . .. o I... . . .. , . . . . .I . 1. ... sI . “I. I . . I." . .I.. I I. a ...-l .n‘l ’1 .1 .II‘ IQ! .- I‘DII'I I II... '0' 'O.*HO IIIIIII IC'I'I ....I w.. '2 Or I." ....'u ..l I‘ 9 I. (l,.’ I.. ' . . I. I. ..4 . '6‘ ..- .I .. du-DI! .I.-1J4“...- Jo .II-lli Ir. oil.l 1. .0 .I. III"-.. ‘0 I I ’I- .II ‘3lI ..11.1 I. II. III! I'. I .-I‘Il _. .I.. .IUII III . A . . . . I , . . . .. , o. . . H I n. I” h u . . .. .. . m . -. . .. .. _ . H . .. . H . . .. . . I. J. I. . .— . u a o a o a u o a . o S \ o . I ... . . . . IOnO’. .0 Fitwv.oa.fil.obon:t. 0.. I IlopIII .. n 10.... . I .... . {.IO. I IDs-'0‘... a I .. II...'I,II. \l. .I....- II. Isl-... 5., I... t I ‘I .. p I a... . .\. . 5‘31; .0 .... ..I. I'. ..II .I. .I . 17--.... ..., -.. '4. I. .Q .I . ‘.I. II L flu... .I.! I: 10 I1. I . ISO." 000$. Icoctli. I. .I.! '..o’ .I . . . . . . . . . I . I - . m . . . u . r . u .. u. a I . . . J . n . . .. .— _ _. - . o .. o o .. o o .. o . . o o .v H . . . “3:-..‘r. . . I. It,» .I . It I. ...I. (It. I . «II . I .. . ......JI .I I It... I b i. ‘. I... |. I .- .35.]...1’.-. turn. .IIT‘.-.. III. 0. I. .I... III. 1JI. .J‘. .sz . .u I 6‘ ..I‘IJIIWINIII.“OI.. \Io..\If.DI-..‘I. .....Itll.‘ -I. I.) I” III ,II. . .b. ..II. I'll. I I" .I'IV. II I - .9 {’3 Olin. a .II‘III . I-.. o . . . . . . I . . . _. . . . . - o _. . c . . o . . _ . u- u . .. . . ... .. . . . .. _ . . . . . . . .. o . o o 0 . u L , n o . o . o _ I o _ —' in. .I F .....Fn.‘.0 .I.... fifi. II or .. r . .6 II . I .II. II. . In. .I. o It'll- . .l 3'10. I .01 ......Ialo a u L ...Ir .0. i .I. . VI." ‘1 l‘- .an.‘r no ~ ...! -.-d‘. I . .... 1. .I..-. . . .. . .Iv\ --.s. JI- .i'ill.’ IIIIJtI. f I, "3' 7.! . l . 0...!" ---II". .131. I i. ,l. .I.. ..I‘Iob. I. . II . _ _ ... . . . . . . . . . . _ . .I.. . . . . r ... - - . .. . . — . .. . . cs . . . . o a p u o I i . O O . o . O . o n . , .. . K - . a _ a 05.. . . ‘l. 3 1 I 1"! E] I .I. .6 II .'I n- .. . 1». .... F" O . . . I‘. I v. I. g. .. .0 .(. -' ...ibu0'0-0 ll. ‘0’ 1,". ...:I‘. \I I. I, . \‘1-‘ .I.." It»: III‘OiO'ui’IJIJ. o I iluf .JI. J"...III. I v I .I.. i‘IIIQI'N II ..I II . Iv: cowl.r.l-. ...-I. o I .. J 1i. .I. "I . up -.w ..OOIOII’I O. I . I If... I . . . . . . .. I a . , ~ .. . _ . .. I . _ Ll . .. . S ... . . ID ’ ll . D I . I A I O I C O . I . O In C I . .0 .10.. . I. p O . ‘ a - ’1 I O ‘ . . O. I 1‘ . I v - - - - ..p - . - . . . r _ .. s I luv I I. I. . IIIIIIII .9'. I’II - .P’. ‘1’ v . . a» ‘ at ‘ v . O . + . .uI 88 F. Net Returns from Marketing Choice Veal Calves in the Vicinity of Hillsdale The cost of marketing choice veal calves by the large producer was $2.86 per hundredweight at Detroit. It was about the same at Hillsdale; it was 15 cents less at Archbold, 35 cents less at Adrian and 42 cents less at Coldwater due to less shrinkage. Because there was less shrinkage and transportation charges and no commission charge it was $1.52 less at the local market. The marketing cost to the small producer was $3.35 per hundredweight at Detroit. A higher commission charge made it seven cents more at Hillsdale. It was 31 cents less at Adrian, 29 cents less at Archbold and 39 cents less at Coldwater due to less shrinkage. Because there was no commission charge, less shrinkage and a lower transportation cost, it was $1.52 less at the local market. See Table XX. The net returns for the large producer at Detroit was $29.64 per hundredweight. It was about the same at the local market. It was $4.92 more at Coldwater, $2.85 more at Adrian and $2.65 more at Archbold due to a higher market price and a lower marketing charge. It was $1.53 less at Hillsdale due to a lower market price. The small producer received net returns of $29.15 per hundredweight at Detroit. It was about the same at the local market. Due to a higher market price and a lower 89 marketing charge it was $4.89 more at Coldwater, $2.81 more at Adrian and $2.79 more at Archbold. Net returns were $1.57 less at Hillsdale due to a lower market price. See Table XXI. G. Net Returns from Choice Lambs from the Vicinity of Adrian It cost $1.73 per hundredweight for the large producer to market choice lambs at Detroit. The cost was 75 cents more at Coldwater and 45 cents more at Hillsdale because of greater shrinkage and a higher commission charge. The cost was 38 cents less at Adrian due to a lower commis— sion charge, no yardage, insurance, or feed charge. The cost at the local market was 83 cents less than at Detroit due to less shrinkage and no charges for yardage, insurance, and commission. The cost was the same at Archbold. Yardage and feed charges at Detroit balanced out the greater shrink- age and higher commission at Archbold. It cost $2.13 per hundredweight for the small producer to market at Detroit. The cost was 58 cents more at Coldwater, 44 cents more at Hillsdale, 55 cents less at Adrian, $1.00 less at the local market and the same at Archbold for the same reasons affecting the larger producer's costs. The charges for the small producer were higher per hundredweight due to the higher transportation cost per lamb marketed. See Table XXII. .hvsam weapoxums wasp ca concouonn spam no .vnwom poo: new xoopmo>aq choapwz .mmoH 38808 no hushed you cums on: omuano oz Ohm—0m #- .N .H pHOAgmo zoaom no o>0£4 9O 3.? $4- 8.x 8.x Hm... mm... 8.. ~:.- 8... ma... 0 o .25 n8 $38382 $4 :3 ~:.m $.N :o.m HTN 93 ::.~ 86 gm mm.m £3 pom m use men s; as 3.2 as 0?: as 3.2 as in as 3.3 .2230 was no. OO.H mm. om.H omnagu oow>nom koN awom 80H 80m MNOH mfiom 30H mac: om. mmoH GOHOMHEEOO Ho. «0. mm: was qu mo. mHo NH. NH. mosh—ma 8mm 0:. mm.d omnuuww mm; 3.: mm; 3.: 03 one 3.: mm.m 03 03 93 £5 08:530. m E ma 8 3 ma 3 m E .25 8.~ 8.m 8.~ 8A 8.N 8.: 8.~ 8.m 8.~ 8.: 8.N 8.: Heoflmfioamfié a m a m a m a m H m H m “03%: magic g8 .28: 8:83: 558: 52:38 38:8: 8898 pwmmmm .3833 on... a: 3088s“ 326 can 8.3 8h 858 83> 385 88m 03 you «8.85 333."! :83 Jung as. no :83 6.2839 so .NN MAMdH 8' JI" I .I.. a C C o . .I. I .- .IIZ I I I‘ll.- II..I.I I I'I- I . XII I. I Illil' ..II' I‘I ' I-|Ii- I'l"o‘|0'.l'.l- ‘0- I .I III! II'IIII III-I IIII II. III" II- IIII’II‘II II I l I 0" III~IIIIIIIIIIIIII III-II“ II I. III! I I‘ll. I.II III II I .v I I 0! il IIOIIIIII.‘ I . . . . . II .. . : — .. Q” . .Il .. I k .I . u _ - . .. I ... {1...}. .I.... 1 IHQ.AJ I. 2 I. a I . . . . I.“ I. “J .H I . I... 1‘ I big; I. II . o . . I.“ I. . . I o . I I .I . I II I 5.. .o I II. .I. . IFHV‘I‘P .... . 5 . I a ... Irih. II a . ... C :- o . .... - I..I. I... .I I . . . ' III-.III I .I I I I 0‘ \. .I~ . .. I If .I.. IIII I .0 I. I I I'll IIII 'IIIIIIII IIIII IIOIUIIII’I .‘I. .I. 1““..0 III I. III I I 9 .II I I II I- . .I ...... IIIIAII.II’ III-III IIIIII It..u. \ ‘L L.. .- . ‘ o . . _. o . . . . ~ . I .II . - r u o - . . V- .. I I 1' o . I I . . I I. o . . I o . ... .I s a .I I. II . II o I I I I .. I. I I .~n . \ . I . . I. . III I 9 III ‘I'IIIIII‘IIII, I IIIIIII'. ’III III I II. 4 I- .I. 'II 0 IliI-{I‘IOIII I II II- . .III III-III 0.-.-ka III.-- I I I D I III. I hIIIII‘ I- III IM .I'. II I. III III. I- I. ID .I.] I .9 I I. I o . .— _ u “ .a .- . o. - . . I I . .0 . . . .. “ uw p . a . ... .. . . r . I . . I .\ I .I.I I u! \ o C . . O I I .I I . o f . O . . a. ... .I I .. .0 .. . I . .a. I; L I...”..2..I .-. I I C 0' . I.I II . I I I III II I... I O IIII'I I II'IIIII'III ‘ . I.IIII. I I .I I I'I‘-.‘II-II94I III II II III.” III! III. III‘II! III '- . «I II I... II.- ‘II.I .II II-II . + II III II . I I I II .I I l I (I II c v . . r . . u . . . . 3 . . I I . I I c — O . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . I . I . o . .0 I I a o . I .. I .. .....I . .. I .... n. .. ......J . . . In — . I I I . II‘ I I I-I.II.II III III! I- III IIIOIII III I III- II III I..- III I. II I .IIIIIII' IIIII‘uId "III-I III-II I ‘III I II II. .I. II. ..I'IIIIII .I h I O . II I I’IIII I . . I‘II I II M} .II IIII II. I I I I II‘ II III .I IIII I . III . . . . . _ .. .. . . . . .. . a k _ . Q. . - . . p. . . _ —. o m. g I . .I. o a ‘ I I ...: I o . ~.. . . I — .0: . a I I . . . . I I. . I I II. II' I ' IO‘III I .I. - In. 1...... ..... 4|! I. I‘ll. -IIOI ‘II‘III- III I III, I I. Efflaflul OI IIIIII: I I c. I 0...! III I‘M—I'- IIIIIIIIIIIIII ..... I‘I’IlfIiI I III‘IIIII'I'IIIIIII I I I .II I 'I I I II .IIII. I I . . . w .. . . _ . .~ I ~ . .. .. _ . S I. I n . o r . . . o I .w I I III-.- . I I I. I . h . I I II I I I ILA- 'IIIII Id'II’ I ..- - I II-” III. IIIIIIII (I'Ii‘II- II -..I. InlIIl I I’D. III-II. I .I. I II III ”II-III -..-II. III'II .III I .III'III'III‘I I! i'l...‘l III-63!. I II II Ivil i II... II I .I II- IIIII.I I I II .I . - . I . — — . . .. . m. P M . .I _ . u .. I I c .— . . I . .u . _ m .- .. . . — I. I. . I I 0 ~ . I.- .I ‘.II.II. . . . ”I. “- .I.“;J Ira IIII I IIHII It” ..IIIII‘III III... 1.4-4-- I'll IOIITIIIQ... IIi"..t§If‘III III ‘I”I’il~¢!“l‘..l I..-I-II. II..- III. I'IIII II II. .I.!II'IIII'II o III‘II II'IIIIIII IIIIII I I I I a . . . . . P . A . . . w (I . o . .c n. . - ‘ \I I p I g . . . I . a I I 'I I . I C I u I. .I.” c . . I . . . a I . . . . . . I a . I. . I Iii I .Q‘IIII III! I--- I II i I. t! j I- IIOI‘IIIII 'III.-'- ...n- ."I‘ ”'2'... NI-Ibl't I..II.II. III I III-.. I .II-‘ I III I L I’ll. - IIII II III‘C'I I {III I. - i 0.1. I ' III .I I I. - III I I . i . . . . h . . . . . A . . . .. .. . I. . o- . o. .. o w L I Q \ _ ¢ . ‘ _ C . . C I p . . . O . I . O . .II I .c’i.’ II In... I. .I..‘II I I a. ‘s I D VHJ h . I. . . . . . . I . . I. II . r o I II III I: III-II I...IIII'.II|IIII.I. ' !.III'+III.III I I II I- III III: I... IO'EOFIIIII' III--. -IIIIIII III III IIIIII. ..FIIIIIII 'II'I II I‘---‘ .I. 1.1 ‘I I II.-- .I.-I ‘I‘IIII’I I‘ II I I I II I . - o n . .. I I w. _ v. . . ... . ..n I . o I m . . r... .. . . I . . . O O . O . U . . I.I(..I- .lsll' V...*.IJ II .I II ”t II ‘4 I.o I III. III-.I. III'I'!IIIIIII4.II'I III... . 2i¥05 . .. . II . .I . I I . o . I I . . 101$. III‘WIEI. I IJ’I‘HII’II’I ...fi . II. .II . I III I III .I.-ht. .. "Ha. III-s 1.4.. - I .I . .I. I ...... II n. . . .3. A 1'2L . In. . I .. . a. . ¢ . . . . i . . . . . . .I ..n . c a . I I ” o .. u .o I . - I o . . I . o . 10....-. ..IP .... . C . ... ... .- I I III. I IIILI IIIIIIIIIDIIIII I I . II.-II‘I1.I'1I'|)|IIII 91. I'll II I -I.. I III Idl‘f.fIIll..Vfll..II ..W'm-I. I I II I...I .IjII Ir. . I III. ".I.- II...- IlIl. III.- . ‘IIIII. .Iu I’IkII'IIIIIIIII III III-I" I I6. .... IIuII I . VIII? .I,I.I~. III.. ...IIIHI V I .. o . I . . 1M :. a — I . A 3 . . . . . . . . a . . O o I . O o . I . O I O I § 0.. . o D .I n . i I N!!f3.u§l.-rn.u~nn-. . . . . w I: I . zit-.I.. I . h .. ... III: 434...... 2,19..- .I. ...?I..DIIII..I§ a .1. ... ..II I. .11...» ... PIP“. .12-.. IRVIIFII..h.. tr IT}. ..I ... I . . .. . . III... L....l. I.-. _ J. . I .I It . .I. u. ..I no -I.! . . nay-nu 1...... . . «4 I): In...“ “.0.ng I Altai oI.. . III “I"...OLHJIIIIILPI...J ,. ... . . I . I I ‘ I o . , .Ia I \ II. . i . . . . m .8...r an ... :7..- --. o ‘ n I. . I. I II II I . I I I In . a I. I I. I . a . o h. . o . I . I .I I a . . ... . . n . . . . .. . .. :43.“ ”A..- .. . .- I I III II . III‘I III-III I‘lI IIIIII‘-‘I. ‘I IIHI I.I"‘I’. --..IIII1 {OIL III..'.II' IIIII (It I.I I: «I IIIII .I III I. I I I.I II- I’ll". I’IIII' III»!!! ..IIIII'IIIINIV'I ...-”*MIIIIIIRIIII ”I“. 0. twin..- (“0.1 C a I “I ... . . . . p. .. . . . . . . ..u . . . . .. x . .m Ch .....5- 4.": ..-. .. .... ; .4 3...: u . . ..H .. l 1 CI a .. . . . .. I .. . n . OJ. 7 .fl I NI .I \.+.AI. BL h a I .h 0 "J U.”--’ . O . D l ' . .- ... .- ..I.:v ... 4. Q?- . ..r . .. (Inna n. u... m. . . :83» mfipovfig 3.83 5” 3953.3 3.3 «3.38 x. 1 flag 8. .. 8. \ RH- mm.H.. H93. 35. $41 «mix a.mx 3.9. . o o gmflpmwmwmmm. HEN 8.3 3.5 48 23m. 3.3 6.5 3.4m . 53m QR 3.3. 6%. ufiwfiw “Mm mm.mm mo.$H 3.3 3.02 2.8, .8.me $.40 2.63 3.8 8.33 «a.mm mméH magnum“. m3 m3 8.... 2.3 Rem 03H «.3 8.9 H? 44.3 2.... 03H whmwflggm a.mm 2.6: 3.3 2.pr omde. 8.93 9:2 865 8.8 3.23. 3.8 3.3: ”sumed” H -m .. H m , : H . . m H m H m H m - 84m 84m 8% 8.3 FIN-mam 8.2 as .3 ER .253 g .. .. H2 . £238 38:92, S953. 2: 5 ufioéoum HHS...» Bu owns 5a 258 H8» 0326 358 RH 3333 sch 3.39.3 pom I83 .NNIwH mu: .8 x83 .oHquHHm ...8 £50: .5 H.549 II I I is I . l. I, . w . . . I I . . D I III . II .1. ...! .I.... .I..a'.. s. IIP.II I .. I I I I III I I. I . II I I 4 I I II 1 I I. ' D O I. . . I .. ‘0' I III .I.! . a o . . H II I I, ~ I I . . U o 2 I V a . l . . I . I . It _ I _ . . . _ I . . . . . . _ . ._ — , . , . . I I} ‘ I I H .. .I.... .I. II'PI .r . , "I.I - I. v .I L . . I II In... . I.-I I‘ll II. III I It. I-I‘r CID I’I.“IIIO II I III" II 0 n.‘ -I.III I I . . . . . II III..-II'.\II III! I. .. I 0 (II I... ...! .I .I- II II 'III I .I II I I I I n I. .I.. . I. .I . II. . . . . . III . . . I I _ . I . . . . . O I .. I O I. . I . . I I I I . . . . I a. I . EI’I I .I {I .I I I I II II II I LII I. rI ..¥.LI701 ‘ I’II‘ 1..)1‘.‘ . I I II III I II ..I I I t. I II 0 it! v I .I. I‘III‘II I I III III. .. III II I... III-... III . II‘I‘III'II I I I II . I! I c H . I. I . I I I I I II I .. r I . I . g . I . . _ .H I .. . . . . J . I . a. . . ‘ 0‘... III'IIII III. ..I. . .QIOII -I o . . ... .. .III ." I, I I I I‘III. . I.I II I .I.. ‘I.~Ir~ II 9.1! .. I O. I‘l.l I‘ .1 I J... I. I .III «.I. I. II. I... I I II. I. III I I H .II. .I III. I I I III. .III'. II II OI 'I. I II. ’I’. I IEI IIII.II II II. . . I IrIII o .I.)...II . . I‘l’l II... .II. I v I . .. I I . _ . a. a . I II I . I I a- n .. _ o . I. o I O _ fl _ \ ... G ‘ . C . l 0 . I I. .I .I’.,.O'II..OI I I . m ~ A . . . . . ,, ...!III II I... I .III \ .1 II I IIII...II ... II I. III. I VIII? .‘1 I -.-!I I‘I I‘D-IIII‘III. IIJI. "1.0n .I.. . . .I... .I,’I II .IJ. III. .II .I I IIIII. . . I tIIIIIII .IV ..IIIII Ir III. I ’II‘ ‘III I... I ... I. I . I II ... . . I [It I I I . . . .I.... . . _ —. 4 . . _ I. I . I . I . . .. O O O l O . O .. . n O O O __ . l ,_ 2 . 1.. I. . .... .. . . 'I .I. I. III- I . .I . O I II II I. ... I . I III. III II II I». h .. ...-a .71. a. .‘II‘ ..I Q "..I III” II. . ..IIIII jrqIIII. I .III I... .u .‘I.I'.'III II.l II I," I I II.III.II O'IIII 1" . I. I... II . IIIII o ...O. I.. .I. I . .. I. .. ..I II'.‘ . .I . u. .. I . .I a o « .- _ . . . I I I J I I. o . n I . I O I I . . . I . I. I .11. III I... I L. I III! I ‘III .II I.- III III. PI‘ I I. I ‘Q‘ I. QI .I. .Is] .10.- II III'I‘ I I 15.4.. I III .. .I.... III :III' II... II IIIIIIII'II .I., I I I I III: 0“ III... II .I. . . I . . .I‘IDII I . . ’ - OIII . . .I.... . 0 I0. .100 ‘ ...-o. I. . . . . . . I . I . I I . . I . I a o. f I I I . a O I . O O I .. l _ O . 9 O . .- I“ I ' I o I .I. I’ll - "I III ' I .I- \I'.¢'I|- I‘ It I. V ‘6'. I‘ Iiil‘ I I‘ll: II .,I \ 'I‘ .' It I- III ' ' I I ..‘I. '1‘}; .C .‘ .I-. I .' III. "1 . illit’ .II I I .. - . a . .. . . . . . . I. . I .I w.. . I I 0 o I I .. o I I . I _ .~ I.J ., ‘ . I . . I I I. I8 I . v I \ O O o .....o .+ I. , . I u r . . . I I. ..K I r . . .I .I..“ .I I IIIIIIE . .. -‘II .. II II I III .I II I . v ... . . I.“ _ kanb F9: ... ,I II. I I. . .. _ . ...... .. .. III I.I.II'.II."I I III II n. I. . I «45‘ .I . I a II .o .I . .u . 5....- \ o. ..I .II. (III-l IILIIQ IIIIIJII III .I H .. .. s 1 v «. ~ I. w m _ .m . r... l ‘. \II‘IO I.’ I O 0‘... I III ...IIJ‘III'III. . II II -II IIIIDII r’:. .I. II IIIIII- .I I. III]... ..I. .‘I. III‘IIIII.I. .I «III . ..I.‘.' I QIIOI'IK III IIIIIIIIIII I I I . I u y I. ‘ . . C'.'l" .I.. II III _ ‘ .. flu . I‘ '~ ... w y I 92 The net returns for the large producer were $22.27 at Detroit. They were 38 cents more at Adrian because of the lower marketing costs. Net returns were 25 cents less at Coldwater due to the higher marketing charges. They were lower at Archbold by 31.01 due to a lower market price. The local market brought $1.17 less because the lower market price was greater than the lower marketing charges. The net returns were $2.45 less at Hillsdale due to higher marketing costs and a lower market price. The small producer received $21.87 per hundred— weight at Detroit. Net returns were 55 cents less at Adrian, eight cents less at Coldwater, $1.00 lower at Archbold and at the local market, and $2.44 less at Hillsdale. See Table XXIII. H. Net Returns from Choice Lambs from the Vicinity of Hillsdale The cost of marketing choice lambs for the large producer at Detroit was $1.73 per hundredweight. It was about the same at Archbold and Coldwater. It was 19 cents less at Adrian due to a lower commission and 83 cents less at the local market because there were no selling charges. It was 27 cents more at Adrian due to the higher commission. For the small producer at Detroit and at Archbold the cost was $2.13 per hundredweight. Due to lower trans- portation and commission charges it was 19 cents less at .33» 933an can» 5 @3533 33 30.38 x. 6.30m an»: and x3333 18....qu .m .33 3.33 no Sufi go.“ 3.3 mm: owuano oz 2n 84- 8.- a: max mm... 8.- mm.\ m5. o 8.». o o 8.2qu 3H8 .8 268 3..“ cm. R8 28 34 RA. 2.8 38+38 £4 9:0. mp; «3 8.3 8.2 :8 a.» 3.8 8:: 3:3 omfl 8.8 «mi 2.: 3 m0. QHoN Gm. HMoM OWHJJO ooyhom .88 8.3 84 8.m 8.m 8.3 .38 8.3 88 84. Bflugo no. 8. «ms 23 32.. on. SA ca. «a. 38.35 . S. 88 88 ow...” 8.: oqgw 8..“ 8..“ «fin 8.2 .88 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.: 8.3 88 8.2 88:28 98 omé 00.: om6 5M3 3%: 83b onéom 8.... end 8.: and £3 aggmfiomuaaafi o walla fl» 8 8a a om 8 dm 8 am. HUME naming EB .33 8.3de8 25.88 @8338 38:22 8898 6x3; :83 Jul: .9: ...6 x8: .9384 we 8:50; 3.... 5 @8888 3.5 8.. 8.3 .88 3.3 0398 8:8 8 8.... 88.85 gauge“: .HE 3mg I. ‘III V.-. U II‘.III'.I ' II .I. -IIIII . I III. I .IIIIIII I I3! IfIfJ. .I.! I .‘ III . .Tr I . I. 1 1.7; ‘1: IxII.‘ ’r..‘.. I . .II ' II . ‘.Ill.<. II. I.,| IIIII III C .4...I., I. . .II. I. I .I I I. I. . I II .I. ' ’I II a . I u o .. . . . . . - .. . . - . . . . . . _ . . . . p o . . . . . . . I. II ... _ . _ . I . .. ob . . I i c :7. I a . . I I. II II I. . I I III I. I II I I I2 I. . I: I I ... .I . I I I III III I I I: I9 I. II. I. III III. . III I I I] I I I _ . W . —- i ‘ \. C 8 . v ... _ . . . a . — l p c u . . I v . I . I I I I. I4 II . I I I I. a II I III. I I a! II II I I I I... ,z ‘ . I IQ. co 1‘ I I . . I . III I I. I I. I I o I I I . w _ . . . a I . a A _ v . , 8 .. . I ~ ., v o c o I D I O u I u . o . . . I IV I ., . . . ‘II .I . I II. . .II I I .. I I. I. .I. ..'I. . . I , . II. . v . J. I II . ... 1.. . I . I I I +Iu.‘.ll.‘\n..I. I I II . I... I. II I . . . . , o _ I. u. - . I ... O D I . 0 d _ O , O O O O l I r . . I .. III- 5.... II I. I. III I.\ . I . I . .I .II. . ...o I ... I .I .. I .. IIIIII . . ., I II II .... I . . I . II. I. I. I. . I ...,I r T I I II I II 7 . _ . I O D u \ . —I, I l l I I I . II II .II I III II III I. .. .I I Iii-I . I . n. I . I II a r. a “I a} II II - II. I II I .I. III- I I I I g 5 II II . IIIII III I \I I) 1'. I I. r .. . . .. . . .m . . h ‘ o r I .. . . . 1.4 fl . I . . O C . O O . . I . I. ..II b r I I.I .I.... .I I.II.I.I.I.I II.,.. IQ II I. 9|.I,I .IIII J- IIIIII.I .I.!!JIIQI I..c.. III! I.. .I‘I.II.II... ( a .II. I . ..III I . I. .4:. I. I. I III. . II (III III ..I oi.‘ I. I. I .I .I i III-III .. _ V . I — a . . . . _ . J I ‘ I I I I u I ' III1.I.II‘ .I II. II . v I. . .I .I. i 4!.(IIII.I. I I. .I.-II. II . I‘. I I I I P. I. .I.. III II I I I .I I I- a I II. II! I I. III. I» I I. . . I I III .I‘I . I I. Iab. II I I . v\’lla0 I J L l I. . I ?II I IICII III I I I . . . ~ “ . . .. , . a . , . . , . , . A .. . . . . . . ' . . . "I A . . . It .U’II .I.... V.U.1 “10' lo ,QirI IIII ..I'YII. Ora ; 1.. lo! I I I .. J I - ..- I.. I 1 lkV.-. ..u .. . I TI .. ‘ Ir . a It... 4..“ i J .I. . .. ., .. r. .I It .I. IPI #1 II a . I I‘ .I . I III I r I I I. .I I I . . I . , \ . . .. ,. _ . § . I ’ h o d I a O c . a . o I a D . . . I I. . . . . . § . . . . , n--- a- .I.... a . ... . .. .-.. .I.. .. .. .I. .I I. :91 I; . - .. R .... ...III I..-.... . ., . ..I. I. . ..I ..--..I. . z . . --I. .. .13. .I {Skin-(l .....I 1 .I- 44...... .. .I. . 4. .fi. 7-... . .. -I I . , . . _ . . . . .. . . . I . . 4 C . . I u. . a». . . I. _ . . . I II q I: II . . . o a . n C . d .- U ; . I _ . . . . . , I g n 0 ~ I I .I. Io l I III! I I II I II III. II I '0. II I III II II I III.) I Illl I I I ¢ . I I..I . III .IJ' I I?! I. II I .I II . u _ \- Il-U I. . 5 . I. I I .I If. I! . II ,II III I..\ I. I I I I .. I I T . s. I . 4 . I . . a . . . I . I . I . , ..I ‘ . o .. . ... . u . .... . .. ... x . .. I . I .I v I. u ,I n I . . .. . .33.... mcfipmvima 3:3 5.. «Enammca 33 «338 .... £23 26.2 .25 ,8,” 84. SA- .13.. 3.? mm. x mm. x 8. .. mm. .. 8;... 34- 0 ”3989838 :50 3m squ OHIHN mafia." «a.m.—n NJINN mcomw $.28 NO.NN NQION ONIHN bet—N NNINN ogpmm p.02 @93me 3.32” 8.3m €18”. 3.0mm 00.3..” £38: 3;: and? Quad“ moémm 8.8..." 5.84 I 0.02 mNMAmso .. «.3 8.3. 8.2.. 5% £6 «NAN 6:: 843 8.2 9.4m mméa 24m 238%.: mfispom 8.3” 8.8m 863 . 8.8m 8&2 8&3 8&9 84.3 8.43 8.43 8.92 8&2 896 o 8 o 8 e 8 o 8 o 8 o 8 8.8 8.3 8.8 A 8:3 8.3 8:3 SB .203 a .. zsmad . $2848 3885. $898. 8% .33 max go 383 .523 .8 b.3533 2:. 5 nausea 38a 98 ~33 3% mg 835 958 8 mfipoxfiz 32a nah—pom poz .HHHMH an. . . o u a - I I I I I. . I I , c . . I . I. . I.III.I. .. . I I I ~ I. o . v I . . v . . I II . I ...1 . . I I u .I. . . . » I . . - I. . . . J . . u I a. I . I . . . I ~ . . O 1 a n I I f U. I u .I . .I. I . 5 . II I I-ICIIIIIII a u. . o I o O I u l‘ .l I . . v u a I ‘ - I l ~ J c o . . . . I u .. . . . . . . . ... _ . . - I , I II. o .-. . . I L . . In I I . I . , . I. . . I. I r v I‘ll'IIII I NI. It . [1.19-4.I5. . ...(IQOIIII 11.0.0. It I .-. I. . ...II o. I‘m-DO, .I.. I. I0. .cllll I .I. II VII. IIII’ .0.- I . ,. I .. I. .0: n. .. 0.1!- ...-.‘:II.. II I III-II 1 IiiI. III. I... .‘I III. Ill-I I I'll . . . I . . ,, OI . .10... .). . n. c 6. . .0 ..II . OI. . I .. ...I I c. o . I I ... o ’.n.'|.tl. ‘ql. I ...! . I I o r . I u .. . . ~ .. u . .I. O .. . o a . . ¢ . n o I . . I . v. s _ n q . . U 7. ~ I I‘ . III ...I IIIIIK'. I III-...". . ...:II: II I IQI . I I. II... III) [.00 It I. «III Idil .. - . Iii: Illb -.Iy .I.--. I! I v I 1. .I0 I II I. I II. I I III. .I. III? I. I IJII ( I... I. 5: I51 I .‘O [I l I 6 “ . .I.! I. 11.11 . |. I on .I I A . a It . . r . .. v .I . «a.m.‘ul. .I‘ - . > .I .... a I ..I I r1 . I A.I!I . .I I: .» 2 l . n A .. . a R N . a O .. . . .v a I . .. . . a I a . _ s . . ... . . . . n ‘IICO' .I-. I I. It. . .I.. DII.II .. I I I ..lll I II! I'. . 3“ III-’Iu . I .r .I-. ..u II I.l.~WuI I.-. I. . D . .0 I It! II III!!!- Oalx .\‘l . I . o I I. I . 1.: . . I. III! .IIII .. 0 III... I J I. I II.-. . I I..IOIII - . .. . I . I! a I . I I. a. n . u . a I . .‘..I‘". ‘50,. I I'JAp '5 fl- sn’n’. I. II I I III I. I I ‘1' I II .I . \II . .I . . . . . . . . n I . . I o O . o 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 1 . . o I .. I ~ .. .. I . .l t I 3 vl5“ .I . ,I ,‘ I I I .3111. tr . x. II-Illc. '6'. ’I".". ..- «'Iu aQI o I luv ‘tlo IOI'OII‘.I l I. 1"! ill. I ‘0. I'IIII. .II t. 0“... .... r c, . I . OI. .. Ir. Il.. . I. III I I .. .. -I. .115. 0 ‘II .‘I't‘IOQII . ... II. I . - So I‘ "III‘... ...-Iii 'v f I I P. .r . . . . ‘ . . . I I . . Ga ...... . In. I. ’ . ... I: . l . ..l‘ a r I a. 'I o I . Icon. 1 I I . a Cro. I lot. .- I . D I .. . fl. . . V n . o — V . . . ._ . . . . r . .\ 0“].0 c- I I I I I '0 I F I I I . I I II. I III-k .|\ . I. I . III-1.. ' c I .I 0.1.... .0 .I.. III..I I .91.‘. I. 3.10 0|: .IIII . I !.II I all I -. ‘c .I.. ‘ It“: I .l . O a ..I .. I ...-0’!" I III.- .. .I.- C .. AID . .: II... I. IIIII'AII . . . c a! a ‘II . u . ul-‘I ’- I“ I o a III--..- a- I I . I on . . u . d n o I o \ o, .- no ‘ I .. u r. . . . . . .- J . a O . o O g 0 .. O O . Q. I s o t G u . . u . .u .00.! I .I. ,III 1. . I..- I I I . III | I . ‘1': . I’IUAI-tv by- I .I. I I I .1 1.... v: . .IIIII .- I Ir .I. II I'l'uyt II s .9! l.’ II III I I! on... y I . . I. 1'1: I .l I all I I5 I I I» VII.) . ..In I .I-- .I..l.|| - U n. I II I‘ll}. I I ...-‘0‘ . . . . . a. l . I I I h . I |.. .... I .u -.. l.‘ .. .1 .II... ,.I. I .I” v . . . .o I . I ._ .. I I I I I! . o .I . .. . . . .. .x . . o u a n a O . o .. u w. a a .. c I 9 n . . .. . . . c. . I ..vt-II .I.. I II -.II. I I . I.~Il I. ...I o .. .t «.I.... -I III. ... ‘0 I In 0 II, I I U l I, .l‘c. III «I. la I II In... I I [I I I.‘ I0... '4 III II .I." III]. III II ..I . .I- 7].. I III. .0 ll oI‘lA.l'.-n. . .I I. . )3 ’VII III- I '. u-’i" -I.. Cl '0 .I‘ I'll: I‘fln ID. I i. .. . . . . w . v . .. t . . ‘ H l . .II . n V I. . n . t «I I I . o o . o a . II I I ,t n n v a o . . I .. . . _ a. . .. . . . I . . . C . a a o . v . L. I V I I, U D. I . l I u . .. . . I I! c c I I I c It . o I I I v on I. I 9| II I II ' I I I . Q . . . a n . I . . I :I Y . I ' l . I I Q 0 m v _ . I4 . V. _ a o ’ ..I v I . . .I I . g . . . I p 95 Coldwater. A lower commission charge resulted in 20 cents less at Adrian. It cost $1.00 less at the local market because there were no selling charges. It was 10 cents more at Hillsdale due to the higher commission. See Table XXIV. The net returns for the large producer at Detroit were $22.27. It was 53 cents more at Coldwater and 19 cents more at Adrian because the price per hundredweight was higher. Due mostly to a lower price, the net returns were $1.01 less at Archbold and $1.17 less at the local market. At Hills- dale a combination of lower price and higher marketing costs netted $2.27 less. For the small producer net returns were $21.87. They were 69 cents more at Coldwater because of a higher price and 20 cents more at Adrian because of lower marketing costs. They were $1.00 lower at Archbold and at the local market and $2.10 lower at Hillsdale due to lower market prices. See Table XXV. I. Net Returns from No. l Hogs Weighing 200 Pounds for Farmers in the Vicinity of Adrian The marketing cost was $1.19 per hundredweight for the large producer at Detroit. It was 30 cents more at Hillsdale due to the higher commission charge. It was about the same at Coldwater. Due to less shrinkage the cost was 37 cents lower at Adrian and 22 cents lower at Archbold. 96 383% 3.33qu 35 5 63.833 .33 "conga n. .anm .182 e8 .18333 183% .m .30.“ space so 5.39:" no». onus ms: amass». 02 2n 84.. mar 3.x 4M4 fix. 3.. WW... 8.- o 8.x 0 o irate 33m .8 $22 :4 fidiuafidirmiajflldfllfllfllfll E emisswwwmwo «do 8.3 8.3.. 8.3 3.3” 24% 3.3 alumni! a A Imwflm 24m mmmmflo $89 wmqlljj mm. a emacgo oofirnom slum 8.3 omé oo.m 8a 8.0wllflawllwmqmw 93 8; 83358 no. 8. am: He flz on. 84.11.01? Nam. 35ng Mo. mm.m comm Cain comm $.3an s3 22 Rd Qua 5.; 8...: Ra 8.: moan 8.2.. ANA 8.3 A ommxfiém mma m... m: 4mm mma 3 mpg mum one 38 one 8.: end EA 8.0 8.: one 8.; one Heoflmfioamfié o 8 o _ 8 o 8. o 8 o 8 o ow. comm“ mgéo EB #08 343.32 532 $911338 Bommoma Sagan Wmfim :82 £3: E. ...6 “so: .0335 ea $3.39 on... 3 usoseok H36 Eu ems not 333 0398 e58 8 you confine usages: .BHH mama. o u; . I . . ulnl‘. "O’. .I.? . .l fl: 7". ‘11.. .‘ln I Qqul‘ .-I...:.§IIII.IJI.V' III .. o I .O"- I. t. I! Q .' .p I. . u. I». J. .I. .. I. vs at..lll.. ‘l u u . an ‘0. |‘. I. InII. I .t I .. 40‘: I .III .01.!9J...‘ I..II. l..|..HI9.I e. . _. an I . . o . . . . . . a s a . p. .o 4 1.. ...... ... . . . . q. . . r . - . p . . I} ll . 1. _ . ... p. ... n . o. . _ .I.. .Lr. . I c r . I o . .. . If . o. . . I. I , . I ..I. III- .II ...I . '1 . .\‘ ..A..O0r'n. . . . . . , in o-.' o .0 ... I . . .IIIo. 1 . .. l .. I'll) ..Q. 3.... .I.. . 4.00 1. . o 1.. vI .ws. II. o. .. a . . .. . . . _ . . . u. . ..I. - :IL I... I .II.... 1..- .. .. .' A -. . f ... .I.. ..- .I .I.- .u . a... - o I. {7.1. ..l‘... . .. I . . MN...» .I.“... l r . . . g _ .r . . . C 1 . I D n . l . a 8 I . 0 Q . 9 I I O .. . . , . . . .... I .7 I I II.-. .I ..I . u ..‘c. . .I. ... u .. D1 1.. .. . ... . ...I I; .. o ,3! v . II . . . n J «I ...... I . . : ...ltllll ... . . ...... . I. ‘l. v. I . ‘ . . , . . . . . , a . . . n . x 2 _ . _ I 0 I O C I V O a . ... . . . d a .I.. 1 II 0 i. . .I. .— _ .o r a . u I I . .v .n I .v-. A o .- . . .- .r . “71‘ . ...J .J . u I v .. . _ . . .. . . . f o . .. n . _ . . a . a ., U - I ..- . 3 .. . ....+... 1..-..- .--......l... . . .- . ... -. ..- .. -.- .4. L.......f..I...-.I.....Z. .-. v .. . -....mvflh'... ... ... . .r ...I -..: . — . _ .. w . . .m. . u. .. . _ _ _ . — . Q. 3 . .- . . . . . . _ . I 9 «I II . . . v. , . II! I. .a. ..I*. . II 5|. .' 1!. . u. n.. ... ..u . . . .3. . . .. . .I .I . ‘92.! u! .I III. a . . .. . II. .2. . .I. I ....1‘1: 1:... .. -95. IJ. .-I‘.‘J .l .b n ...v I... .- _ . . . . . . . w .. . g c. .... o O u . o . u I 1 c r . l 1.! I... . .-..l? . 1.....- 1.. .I.]..Ilf L. rt. . - $91.11! .o C I... .f u. . a 90’.-.’ Jolt. It. It a .I. 9:51.... t.. I .I. .A . . . .. ...... ... I." It‘l- 34 a9. 1 (to... I...I:. ... . ...! I n. - . . o . . . . .W . a . . a . A . I . . . , . I , _ . r ~ . . . 1 . . .I O 1 v . .. a . .l v. . Y: .I ~.'ul.n...| ... I Q . II. .... .. i. turil .... L.. I. III I .I .‘.1.'..? .l I .. .. . s .1. VIII. . . .. . u t . 6 . no a I‘- 3t.‘¢b‘ I! \,*.l.1ll.rn¢—I—a. ”r‘- I. . . _ .. c c . ,n .. n . . .. .r n , , - w — p. p. n —. b _ . . a v _ O O u 0 . . , O . o , 1 .. a a .. . O 9 . L! .. lire. . 0. ll .n.~ln1 0 ‘II . . OIIII-‘ Iv...’ .00.....¢..,-I... ..-: . \uctII I..1'I... 4.1-.-.lel. I. . . .I. . I... ... . .ll'u.‘t. $- .\ .1. ..r. -... ..ll..4-"I'n..’..‘.ilv I.u.1 I r . .. . . . . A . . . .. V .. . . c. . .. ..a . . . . . . z .. . . .. ¢ s l i .. ... o . - . i. . . D . I .. l O r ;. U . . , . 1.5.01... 9. I. ...-QI- s 7: t.‘:§v t c. .6 I. 1...... y . ...-p)... ...... a. ...... ~ : Prusfi \ . 4‘1}... .... . fl... 5‘. ‘44): .... .. k1,.th. . ....t .. uofi d 111'. . up.c .I.-....riuu‘rwot-n. . . ... 1.. ...: o ...... J . . I. ...|.. . 1 . u . . . .. . . p _ . . " ... . ~ . . u . n . m u . o I o o . I _ t. o F o .m d o . . . . . . .I . a u \ I. o .5». _. .. . 01 u I. .I. I ... . v. .’I Is: .. a . .9 . . .... ..F 10,. .I......... a :r .. u. . ..-. -I.}..I . p1. .. 3.": a .0. .3 Ollr .. .....lf 00.1.21...“ V.JI..PII&.. : . I...§.I . . g . . . . . . . . . . . . . O. . — - u . . v . .w m . _ . , . .. . . _ . . . .. . i ...! a " .... . . -3... .-.- .....-t... . ...- -, -....-.. .. .. a . -. .1 a ..-. .9 .. ... .. . . . .. A o . I- H . . . . Lu..- 1. . . .. . . .L F J . .1. n . cud-Ra...” #1 .. .. .uII. .. n .. 3.1.8.1 ....o..... .. 03.3%.“. «4.11.31... .. 51311 ....»u..1....d‘o..6fl... ..r .-.. A... .. n; ... 1.1 _ . . .. _ e . r . . .n . . .. . . _ . w . . u a . .I. A .. — . I. Ila ,o I. . 0. fl A . o O , O. o . a . o o . 0.. v. .v «a t .1, 1. .I 1:11!" .I.. l. . .. .I.‘ . ..I... 3.... . I .I. .I...- .. I. . .vl v.I|I . nil.‘ .‘ n . .l .I . . A... alllo.1tn:~0nlln . ..I..v. . -I- I. I1 0 ( .I‘o 1. a ‘. n . N A .. . ... J 5...“; H: . .4 M. .. :4 .. . C. a 0 D! a. . c t ’. v- I In ... . bi . b . w . . s .. . . . . . r. . . . . , l . ’ ‘\ Dir.“- . .~ P-HHW. ’ O ... . e a v a a I p. o I . u. ..\ _ . ..A.r. ... ..1 4 a. .. n .. y D . . s . $ P ~\ n has . .. .. . lw \v ..., v ,1 .. . ...... a u . . o .n u I .» . . ..-. .... .353 mcwpoxums 9.23 5” 39.533 3.3 «monsom a. 4? £23 . - . - . - . - . . . . . - . . o>on< .pzo sum 00 H as H 0H a pm m om .\ as x as x mm \ co H Ho a o o Hmflpamnmcmfia 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0&30 .Hom so am oa Hm as ad 00 om so «N o: mm mm mm am um am On om am am Hm am mm nauseom soz mo.maa ow.m~m :p.ooa oo.oom mHJmHH m~.:oa mm.H~H mm.oas. oa.~HH mo.mmm mo.maa No.00: manswmw O O O O O O O O O O O o ammngo NH 0 om ca . oo.~a oo on .m: as «a pm m: ca so on om Ha am an mm Ha ma Hm massaged: ow.maa oo.oam omuwaa oo.mmm . oo.mma oo.~m: om.~ma oo.a:: .o~.:~a oo.:a: mammwmm 0 ca - 0 ea s cm 0 ON 0 cm 1 oo.- oo.- oo.s~ om.:~ oo.m~ . illi Lila meson gangs naumqumuflln. ngmungw. .aazngoo gnommoma. .330; 3... fi 2033.... 32a 98 owns sch 3.3 @326 288 om massage: sch museum $2 :83 J3: an: ...6 x83 .ofiouam no .5 as TI . I I o .I It .u.l II I I I... II . ... o I Ii . II I . I l . .. ..II III I .I I I v I I I I I r- I . a .. ‘.1 - l 4. I | I . 1 Q C _. I f. c . 4 a. . . . s .. _ . - _. s: .. . . ... . . . . ..o . . a . . u . . I‘ .. . . . . . u . . . . . . b .4 . . V w .I . . U . I . I! I . V. ;, . v c . . . — ~ \0. b . u . . . I . \ . . Ila.- - ., . .I I. . .. . I I‘ ......u. ‘.~..I1.I I... . u‘IIIII II.‘ ‘0! .I ..al ...| I'I- I- o \F‘ I! . ill"... I o ‘l‘ll I: .I I. .. I . ‘10..-." III-II ‘IaQ. .I Ir! 0 III . l. I III. - s... .5201 Oil... rs ‘II, I I'ld I ' ‘0- 0’ II | -_ . I . . ... c . . u .- u . . . ; . . . d . . —. I . ,I ,I ..I.. ~ . ....on‘ ..-...) . . . . .\ I I . . I. , . fl . .. , . .I.-II. . . I X I w . 9 _ 0 .... c . o H H 6 .. _ . .. . . . L p .. I \.\0> , I ..I5 ,Ivlpll .. la IJI'DI. o| I'I‘IC!I“.'!I 0:..- I. | . JEI’ I I. It .II.‘.-I.I. .l‘ull II...“ .I. . .‘II I .I ......" I: olt.'\\“.'l‘ 7.. ID. III..." I-‘."l. onlf't. I , ‘..I". I ol'l.‘ " .mtrl I ..D .l 6. D o .I . .ll .. . . _ o . - Q .. I . . a \. I . .. u n .‘ . ...?o. . I. . .. .I.!lu. ...: o. . . g . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .- .. . . . . . \ w . d .v .. o ,7 In. I! I n u u‘.‘ I. n .1. ... . u‘ .. . a. H. . ‘0. $ . . . H .. lin- - II... 1.1 oil- I‘ . III I lllDIf '. -.....l.‘ I I I! I ¢ . ’ I a. " I. ... 1 ll |.I.. .- ..II ‘ .‘I' a...- .’ ..a. ..-. I ;,I I . .IIo..'.. -‘ul‘. 0. cl Iv .' .I . {It‘llIQQ o“. -I.-I I, 'U‘ I. .I.. ' all IQ}. .I." 0.. I‘ll. I.. -I. I. I . I II . . _ .. . . ,n I I _ .. ... v .0. . .r c! a, o o I O. o . .5 I a . r . I . . a .m . g ..p ' I I .I .. Ia . u I...’ U s I . . . . . a I . . . . I . I o o a o . a A o w o . 0 .. o o I . . . . '. .I. I‘I'I I It}. I I I II I'l.‘ o .D -'.\I .I-... 1‘ In. -I.! . .. O ... a . 0 l u! I.-. o. . 0"‘gu ..Is. I. . I I...III‘I I11 .I.-ll. I . II I .‘ V...!-, . 'I 0.. cl... 5‘-l\.n ‘0'. II'~.‘I’II.I' .... .. . I ,o1'0.l! It. ’ 0.. I..- «.II- .....‘tt.. I . . £‘.‘.'.. . . g , . ..bo- I..l.. I- ..-. . . y . I I. I I . 'I o ... ...-.. O I, .I\.‘V'0. .I . . .p . 'I... .... . u. e ’ . . O I n .I .. I. ‘II ..‘I - e 4- .. u . to n . . . I u . . . . - . _ . . . . . a. I 0.. .. I . n . . .. .. u p o 0 ~ 9 a O l I ~ 0 O .. O O .. O . ‘ . . . lo.§lI.‘D. I. It. i I I. I II I b o - DALI. III I '- IQID U c’ ..... . I'll .I.. ' "II.I. - .I.: II I I I. D. I‘. I’D .I-.. ...-b "if’ .. -I. 'I..-‘ l‘. I. [ti-DI. o .-I‘I I I v .o ‘1 but... .‘ III I.‘ It- .0) III.‘l - ‘OI I l' _ I ’ I9. I.“ . v. , . In . a. .. . . . . . . . o «T . . Incl I . . .. . .o a . a 1.-. .0105. . . . . 0 ~ .. \ I ...IO. ... u . . . .u. I. .l.II . In. . . a . . . I n I I \o ‘I . c . all a .I. .~ _ . . o a a . o d . v o a . I . a J 0 . O . . . . ~ . I.‘II'|.0I. II 9 I I... I . . ' ply. . Q . o.‘-.\ .I.-... In..-— I. . I. ill .. ...-II .I . III II: It. I .- ... .. In. I '1‘ I I. .. .| It'd; . 0" -II\ I I ‘0‘. .I I .IOI.II ...!!I. 04.0" ..ullo. II. II.‘ I..o.:o I .a (.I.-b 'I. 1” In]! . OCIII l l 0 9.. I . . g . .. v . . ofoi. o 04’ . . . . . .. . ..a . .Io.‘l‘.lo 51.1-. . Ill. l.|.0 ..v-’uu.ca - oil-‘0' - ..II n .e ...I I . . a. r . . . u. I... . \I . .. .9 0,;- o'IIU..I. 0. O u. . . _. b . . I. .I .. v. . . o a o o o _ o . n O ._ o . O c . o . . . . . . , C .I ...I It.. ...! .II IIIV III-III} ..o... .I- - ..--‘I‘I ,I|-. . I II III‘. 'I'l... _ . ......IIOI . . .III . I ICC-Int .I. .. 1|.l II.I.O.II.\IvII-I.I‘ II.O‘I .i{ i...’- .....I-II'I... I! £50.! .IUJt‘IOJ-Il ’l... ’.'U. " -‘II . A. . _ n . ., . . ..I.. _ . .....O. .. . . g . . I . ...! (a! .. . .. Ii . .O'o'l-‘ . ....I’ ..I . 0 .v . . I ~ . u .. . — . a . .u'.',.’ - .Il- .II: .. . . sic . c o. .' v c ,. e I . I. . n .. e . I. . I . .l . .. . I I 4 O o o a . O . . O a . O . o .I. .. I ’ . c I. \ . a _ . . . ~ I w . p r I I: I. I . . I . . - . n v I I9 -I . f . II. . I I - II a . — a . . I4 . I 1.. I I I . . a . . . . I w _ . e s I .l .. I. I. I . ... I n r. I . . f . I.» III 98 It was 64 cents less at the local market because of less shrinkage, and no commission charge. The small producer had a cost of $1.24 per hundred- weight at Detroit. It was about the same at Coldwater. Due to the higher commission charge it was 28 cents more at Hills- dale. Due to less shrinkage it was 42 cents less at Adrian and 10 cents less at Archbold. The local market was 69 cents lower. See Table XXVI. The net returns were $16.21 per hundredweight at Detroit for the large producer. They were about the same at the local market. They were 22 cents more at Adrian and seven cents more at Archbold due to lower marketing charges. A combination of a higher market price and lower marketing charges netted 13 cents more at Coldwater. Net returns were 70 cents less at Hillsdale because the market price was lower and the marketing charges were higher. The small producer had net returns of $16.16 per hundredweight at Detroit. Due to the lower marketing charges they were 27 cents more at Adrian and four cents more at the local market. A higher market price and the lower marketing charges netted 15 cents more at Coldwater. They were five cents less at Archbold due to a lower market price and 68 cents less at Hillsdale because of both a lower market price and the higher marketing charges. See Table XXVII. :33» 83338. 33 3 80.833 33 ”condom * .vnaom on»: new xoonmo>aq Hanowuaz .m .umoa snmou no “Hanna now owns um: omaano oz .H 99 mo... .3... 8.x 3.x «...- 3.- mo... no... 3... 3... o o pwfiomomofipfih§< mm. mm. «3 2:.” S. «QJ 3.3 3.3 3.3 a. 3.3 13.3 Eu .3 omafio 3.8 8.2 8.3 3.3 .3... 3.3 8;: 3% $3 8.3 £3 2.: 3 6.3 3.m 3.3 3;. 8.33 828 3.3 8.3m 3.~ 8.3 33 8.3 3.m- 3.3 $3 3.3 83338 a. 3. we; as 32 On. om.H an. «N. condusmaH S. 23 Ba 3.~ 8.3 03.23 83 8.3 8.: 3.3 3.m 3.3 36 8.3 3.: 2.3 5.: 8.3 883.30. 83 8.3 8.: 8.3 83 8.3 8.: 8.3 8.: 8.3 8.: 8.3 3833308531 w on . c on e on o ow c on e on mg @838 gm .23 33843; 533 33:38 33:8... 3053 a»: :83 69.3 has ...a 38: .523 no 333» 2..., 3 asoauoh 33m 23 8.3 83 «mom 3 62 88m 8m he .3on mfipoxg 353m: . n \ O huh o . p I \.. I Q Q. .1 a. Q I u a .. n I .... . o... .n an coff.‘ . I .. ...—.— m-Ftr . I I .s I b I H u s- u I III. III .I. I I! ...f‘ .-vI IIIIIIII II. ..I A! -t I II III. ..I I I. l I‘l’r. i. . I 'II ..III. ’1 III. I ..I . I ... 1:0)... .I I:- .III: I I ......t. .I, -.I I I. I. I III-i II JICIIIII 1"; 'Iu\. I I. a IIIII. I!» . x . . . I u . I. II .I.. . . . . . I I .. I . n . Q . . t . . _ . . fl. . ‘ _ I . .. W _ .. _ . . —. . V . ~ . u ._ in a o. r . . . r, .. a. . «J I I. .o . .....l I Ir. \ . .Iw I u: c {.IO.’ .I . II.v a.- I. . .II. . pr... ...I u , .8 . ..I... I I . Io II I 1| .I.).l \u ’Ilnqcl’uiir' AtniI.-. ..IIIIU .IlII...Il.I I ... I I-II..I I I.V.I I. r I .0 I. I I I I.’Io .I. I .I . . .6 1".) II . . I . . . . i q I. a . _ . _ . _ .. m. c l u a .. .I. i I. -0 .|: .I...‘ .r v- .I I! . I . - III... I}! I. III I. I. . r .I.. .V .I. I .I.. o I I . . II I .I I I 0.8(1 I a . . . It -I 7 . ... . I. . . . ~ on.-. I . . i ,. . . _ q ; ~ . w . ., I. . - V , . a I .~ ‘ o o o q . O o u o a ; o o o _ . .4 I !I II I I Ii. I... IIIal. cl. I i. . ..III .3. I! I,l.. II 'I b ..- ....I t». I . ... I I I ... .|\ I p O krill. l I. I II II I. I I s ... I .»I .ID.SI. O . ..l l- l;.. I no: I. I .I. II. o . . ,. . . . . n . . . . .. . . . . ._ . . _ v 0 a v a o t . O _ l a .. 0 I . r . . . . . . ._ . . I II I I . -I. I; I C. I vii-I I . . III . I II I . I I In II. . 5.. . I. . . 'I v 0.. I I I... .. I r I. i I I . . c .I.-I ‘IIIIIO I .. . . . . ’ . C 1 . u. . f . . l _ _ . a . . . I. I . I n . . , . _ . . . II II II « .... I .I -.. II I. ..I. - II. I. I I...) . 1.61.-. I lay... ,.l.. . 5.4- D | ‘3) I'll, . v o u I. u I. ll .0 cb-‘t‘n-..I 00.50.. lilo.tI-I I I. I I I. . _ . . . r ‘ u k . . .- a .. . A a I p a .4 n . . ., . v. u 4 q I .l I ...-II. 1 > I I .I.... I’AIL. . n It I.-. I71 I I I... J I. ‘ 7 ‘II' L . II II I. ..I I I. I II t r. I I or . I n I .III .I., ~ . ‘. ‘I ....‘ll’.‘. O nOiI’I) II p . I II I. . . . . ~ . , § _. ‘ Q . . n. . _ ‘ I I . C . . . n F I . u I. . I ‘III II II. .I .I. I I! Go 1.--! I {...II I I I. 5’3 .~ .11.... -..]!!! IOIII.I.I I - I'ILII .II III... 0.: .L I. IV: I .I. I III! -.. . l I. I .I.. I .I II. III I... I .. IciO'.¥I? I I I I I. ... 9.]. v . . . 3 . n . . . . . , v . , . . p. , A . .n . . . _ r .. A . n . . c . . . , . ~ — - F . I I . I .II.» . I ....-III.'~.II....V..1 . ||.I.II I I t‘ .11. .. III...IP. o ... I II . II'I . I I}. -I.. . .I ...I I... . I 8 I III: IA‘IIOI‘IIO .I.-... O .4 .‘I‘ c I I!!! . u * l a .. fl . r . t . . , _ _ a . . . - u C ‘ O . . J O . .. I . . . I O .. . .c . .. _ . a . . u . I II (I . .I I .I. .. II ..I. v . ..- .I-ZIIIIIII: ..II" .I..|.I. .I.!I {till I‘\ I. .I‘I O! -I. 10.? . I I I I o. . . -I- II‘I 0L IOIIIITI ..I . I) . I III I . I'll-II. oil. 00’! I . rte-ll .IIa.II . u ..Isv. I I..- _ _ . . v .. . . o k . _, . . ~ . . d . m . I . . . v o I . o _ _ n . .. , . . . . - . I . I, .I .16.... II. I .ol'..I-I. I .I.: II. ..wf.I.-I.IOII O. .217 l afitltno.’ .VIIII. 1:...» . v. 0.... . a .... t‘» .,I [.1 t .3: I I.. ... a .I . . 6. . . . 1’ ...C.‘ ...II‘Ifioii . .5. I. I I I EITC—Idl a; .I. .9... I p . III..I0 .I . .c i , I Is. .I.I I . . . . _ . 2 . . . . ... . . .. . . A “ .. . a . 4 . l . . . O 0 . v . U a o o O O .— 9 O . . . . .II I . I I I .I.. .... I . III III-I'LIID. I 0.. I III .IvI r..u .I..I'..IIOII I II. .I I I IIII I. I m... ..I II . . II\..O'..u .. . uu‘. I .t IIIIII .- .o’o’.II’l... . I. ... I I. .I. I 3 ..I I01.' I .- . . l . . . . w .. . — u Q. . u . . 0 Q . U o o . o . a u o o . a . . . ~ . 1 u..1 ...I I 145.! O . ‘Ir I . I I I A. . , .I. I . II. I I . n I. I .. . I . . II 7 .I- . . I 5 w 0» I .‘I I I I .Jh1 . h. It“ fl... «.0 I} II? I .. I0 I ,h. Iv”... IN In". ‘ayv *1: In} I I. .1. I‘ I... I . .I.! o. ..\ Uln-.-#.. . hr. III... r... ...W. I.. I. A. J1..‘ .I.“... . ..I. .Q... , - v . . . V . 1 ~ . . , .. u \ . .1 I . I‘ I III Il| I n I 0 . O 0 O O a a . a I . . I ,I . I . . .I. I III. I‘I II. III I. c IIFII‘.‘ .I I. I 1 II I-.. . I I I III! a .01 I- . I.‘II"III.CI (I A... ...40. \I .I: II. II I II I . II .I.. - I III a .. .I.;qu'l. Ol’.“;‘¢.. I I I LI; 1 I I . I . II I o . x .I . 9 . .. .I _ .I v . VI. ; , . , h r 8r- 1 u . ..- ‘. R . .I o I . .I I It I I n . . \I . . . I \ I .I) . u m . r. I l . .. ... I I II . I I I I I . .- I.. o | It: .I II I ... a. 9 .I . ... II III ‘. I. III . I ... l a . o u. \ O— . k I I. . I . . . . . . r I. I I I. o a. .7; . f I; . u I. . . I I . In I I I . . , . . . . o . . , w . ) . .. .buapm mcwumxnmu m3» 5 33393 3.3 «moaaom .x. ”Hang ac. x Ho. - mo. - oh. - pm. x «a. x . ma.x ma. x mo. - No. x o o o>MMMpmwnwmmmm o~.oa o~.wa m:.ma Hm.mH na.na m:.oa Hm.oa 4m.wa Ha.oa m~.oa oa.oa H~.wa ocuwwnm “Mm mm.:ma ~m.a~m «a.mma 00.0mm oa.~ma «p.mwm «p.mma No.0mm mm.mma mm.o~m :m.mma Hm.-m I, anuswwm. No.0 mo.mm m~.oa oz.mm aw.m H~.m; mm.aa mm.mo mo.ma mo.wm ow.aa m:.a~ mammwmmmm OO.HoN oo.mooa oo.;o~ too.o~oa oowpom oo.mmoa oo.oa~ oo.omoa oo.~o~ oo.mmoa om.mo~ oo.:4oa ..ucumwww w on e on c on c on c on _ o m~.oa oo.~H m~.~H . om.~H m~.~H .mmwsm Adoog ,Imquamqqmm..- .Aamugq¢. IIAwmmmmmwx. mmmwmmm¢. aHamama. 4 :83 33.3 .92 «o x8: .523 no .3335 23 5 ufigvoum 33m Ba 0mg sea 50m a .02 958 8a gamma: 55 2.53m pom .HE Ema. I I I... . o v O Q I I .. _ . y Q A w . . I. p Q . a . . . I . . ... I .IO‘IIc .I.. III .\ . ...HI. .I. (I.I.‘Co. . :1. x1 . . II . 'I\ II. 0.0 ..I.’ . . . . o . _ A I‘ . I ..L. r . . a . . . u. I .I., .l .. 11.. 1. I I . , I . I . . .. . .. .1 _ I I I .. . .... .. .a a. .. ..I. . 1 I . . In In! I . I I I I0. 51".- o. .. .- ....nl. . III- III... . I... '0 II... II. ‘II. .IIII l \|I .II. 13...: I. ‘ s. I I u. . . l o - . . . {...-l . . I. . . - . .0 . .. c I . O .— < a. u 4 I 30.9 I 5‘... 1 I. . . .. I l .. I I‘Il"“o \T'n." c‘n" 1...! 1'”. ..‘I IIIIII I.I .... Iv . .I.... I ' ~ I ...--9 III. I. [.1 . '0. . 1‘ I. u . . . u c I i tin-.I- .\ u ._ . . . , . . g ‘ .. .. .h . . - I . ' ..- . i I .- .. .. . ..I... 1‘3!!- ..IIu'CILIIIIIII....I.1 . It... ...... III ... . .Ir.-. .. .. I . ..Il . I .. I . .I. u -..! .I‘I‘I-D. 5. ~‘ . II .I .I.. . .I. . . .- w . _ .. 1 I I I . I I .. O — . . . . .I u. p I... .IDII ..II. I C! I-.. ‘3 ....-.nl ...... . luaoll I‘ll-‘1-.. [III-.I. . .....o‘; ‘I x. I . I... III . o .I . . no ..’-I: .. . . . I g I DI a . . o _ O . u . u r a o . o n O . . .. . I. I‘ IIIIOI . . .n . l . a .‘I I. I! II '1 .,. I I I I ...-II I. .0 .I.. Oo.\ t ' . I .‘l- I- I .. ...; .l I I. sit ‘.I .I...\4I..O. I . ....)~. .I. 30"! I! I _ «I . I It. -. .-. .a I I A o . . . . I . u . . . . . . . O . I O a O . . I . . .. -...l-lobih O u. I..... I I . Iv I )IA‘I ...IIO‘. l .’ .\I.. [.III: 1. . .1... t. O. .I.; ..-" ‘. ‘ «4.101 I 0.5 ..‘bl‘. . . o . . .' I 11 I ...lt'. .15... -_‘uu 1's. I o . .bI. . n I n v I .n . .- . . . A . i o u C . 4 . . . . !III.I. \ .‘U. I’l-u| c II ‘ ... It 1'! l .I- l- .I I I I I ...VII II a... I Ilcl .0, . ... . I a . II. Co"-....ll I-..'I..~ II I . I . I w o 1 . _ . . . I. -I , . ..l s . I u 0 l U a . O I . . . - ‘ I .u I- I I I I I . r a I . , I .II. ..flnz'aalll o ..o‘.l 1.. l ...IO 0.. 0 acct I! I .§0.o O t z I . ‘ I ......II..I.I .... . ... . ”I. .t I. I a ... ‘— . .-‘.. I III i'-’ I... ..I: . — ... ......IIif II’IIIB ...!‘vla .I It: I .I.. .b C 1. O .I.? . (T .- o . cf. I I a! C ......‘II .. ...Ixn, .I..- 1OIOI . . . I a O b".-. 1 1“! u! a .I I O .0 u 1‘!!! IIl“ . t I O I (I . .l a i '1..I I, 1' ..‘I II... .I. O . l 0". III'IO.{ .I.. .I.“) II I - u I .0 I D 4 c .— I .. . . I. U, I . .. m . _ .. . , .u c . y I . . I .1 . . I l ‘x‘l,’ l I ‘ . . . . . , I . _ C. _ I .1 m . CI 1‘! I... . ‘1 O. - 1 x o . I- I. ‘31", ..IQIII’ . . . . I 0‘ . ‘ 31 I. r. I .....1: L ‘- I - .I.. ‘1. l‘.|f”tvl 5"...) ‘I li..|l'..' 1' |.OI III. 101 J. Net Returns from 200 Pound No. l Hogs for Farmers in the Vicinity of Hillsdale The larger producer had a marketing cost of $1.19 per hundredweight at Detroit. It was 17 cents more at Hillsdale due to a higher commission charge. Due to lower shrinkage it was 30 cents less at Coldwater and 33 cents at Adrian. It was 22 cents less at Archbold due to a higher commission charge and less shrinkage. It was 64 cents less at the local market because of less shrinkage and no commis- sion charge. The marketing cost for the small producer was $1.24 per hundredweight. It was 17 cents more at Hillsdale because of the higher commission charge. Due to lower shrinkage the net returns were 31 cents less at Coldwater and 30 cents less at Adrian. It was 10 cents less at Arch- bold due to a combination of less shrinkage and a higher commission charge. The local market was 69 cents lower because of lower shrinkage and transportation costs and no commission. See Table XXVIII. The large producer received a net return of $16.21 at Detroit. It was about the same at the local market. It was 45 cents more at Coldwater due to the lower marketing charges and a higher market price. Because of the lower marketing charges, it was 13 cents more at Adrian and seven cents more at Archbold. It was 62 cents less at Hillsdale due to higher marketing charges and a lower market price. 102 The net returns were $16.16 per hundredweight at Detroit for the small producer. Due to a higher market price and the lower marketing charges they were 41 cents more at Coldwater. They were 15 cents more at Adrian and four cents more at the local market because of the lower marketing charges. They were five cents lower at Archbold due to a lower market price and 57 cents lower at Hillsdale due to both the lower market price and the higher marketing charges. See Table XXIX. K. Summary The net returns that a large or small farmer might expect for his livestock were determined by a budget analysis of the prevailing marketing charges and market prices for the week of May l6-22, 1960. The writer selected what he thought would be typical examples from the many livestock producers and classes of livestock. A large producer would be one sell- ing 20 1000-pound choice steers, two 1000-pound cutter cows, three 190-pound choice veal calves, 20 90-pound lambs, and 30 ZOO—pound No. l hogs. A small producer would market five 1000-pound choice steers, one 1000-pound cutter cow, one l90-pound choice veal calf, six 90-pound lambs, and six ZOO-pound No. l hogs. A charge was made for shrinkage, a cost often overlooked by farmers. It was based on assumptions explained e. .. . u c A\ . . ~ y . .. . . . ~ .. _ 0 v . a . . , . . ‘ Q u o . . . . . , . . ._ . . , \ . . . A l 1 l h A x . v , e V . . K\ a l | V ‘ I, L . _ . . ' v. . . . . t _ .- . . h _ l 0 O . I O r r _ A . i . _ V , . . w . n . . \ U I h , a ._ u\ , s . .Q \ L . . , . . . . . p ‘ y i . v — . .husao Maegan: 35 5” voucononn span "season x. 6.30m use: was xoofiobfiq Hugogez .N .33 mason no bans.“ .8.“ some as: smudge oz 4 103 .. .. . . 1... .. .. .- , .. .. £038 :33 .3 26.: as 6 Ex fix on R a on ”13 «a . o e n :3 .5 H383 H mm. mm. 34 24 a. a. a. 3. :3 a. :3 a3 .2 m was J ludillll, 3.0 8AM 3.3 033 «um 8% 2.3 3% 8.3 3.8 22.: 3.: m use 33 . 60H ”Hem ”mo-H +w®oh OWQJJO GOEGW 8.2 8.3 0.3 8.3 23 8.2 mum m9: «2 0.3: 83358 n ,. .30. ON. Nmz 9.3 32 on. cm; fl. 3. oofinafi 3. 93 some 3. N 3.2 assess“ 8A 8.3 8A 9:3 8.; 3.8 mg man 43 2.8 $3 8.5 mega. 8.m 8&3” 8.m 8.3 00.: 8.3” 8.: 8.3 8.: ooéa 8.: 8.3 agapmfiomusena o is. . s cm s on e R s on e on e on team mamas EB .33 Gamma 2.52 @4338 385% $8.55 3x3: 393 .313 he: no use: airman ...S 338; 23 fi usages..— 3 use case 39d 30m H .oz Beam 8“ no.“ mango manages. .58 mama _ O I . . 0 i . I I .I ' I I! .II .t‘) I. I III I I... [I I; III. III. .I I IIIO’II‘OI .Ill I‘I,IIVII. .I. | IQ. II I 5.1 I I .I-! D I $\I¢ ‘ II I I. b. II IIFI. II I I l .I .k I I. .IIIIII IIII III. I 0 III I III .II I I II ‘I I .I. a . I‘ol . .IIII I I . I I I .I. . . .Io H. .I. . .10. I 4 I. . . . I. .I I 4 I. . J I . . . _ .I . I o I .. I . . . v . . I . l I I . . I I \ I II - I . A . I . 1 .. -Lg ......I..- - . I ... - .I. . m.. .. .I v I I I I II I I I I . .III I It I III?! I I I I I I III I I .. I II . I I".II I I I I .I. I . .6 I. . .e III I I I. I. I I I I .I.... I. . II. I .III. I I III . .I 5' u I— .... I-n p< 0 I I - I I I — I . I. \ I _ . ~ a . . _ . . . t I I . w 1. . I L . I I. , I I 9" II I. . . ‘.‘I I . I \!.I (III I ...IIQII. I.II.. I I. I4. I .I I . ..II.¢!III\I II 20‘ III. l!I IIIIIIVI ... I » I ... II I I..-» II~JI All... .. I .1 III . . I I .. I I I w. I. I I I I I o. v 4. . . . .. . . I . n : . .. .. I n . I . Is. I I .— . _ . . . i . I. . l a ... e I o J . I I n e H U I . t e L L ...I. I. .I I II I. I .I III I. ..I l I . I III! . . .I. . . .\.I.I I .II I I .II'. .IIIIlIII III. 1 our“. ID. I ..Y . .I.u’1.).I o I . I 0.: I. II .I. II vol III. IIr . I IIIIIL .I I k I. .‘l K A . .. I , I . . s . . O I — _ . .. .. _ . 6 . 1 4 n4. . a n O o . e O o o n o o . v , . l A n a . I | I I I I I...I I: _ I I III .-.! I II II Ila, 0.. II .II.I(. ...OII I \.‘III I! I .III I t LI I9 I. I I I .I I III} II I I . I \ . I I d I I- . I. I ,I I I I . II I;..' I . I ..II . . . . . . . .. . . . . . I . .. r _ n r . . 7 . I X . u . I - -. _ .. . . . _ . .. . .. . _ . , .. _ . . . ‘I I . . h I. .i . .. . I I I .I I I ‘I I I. I- I I. II I I h I.-. I III IIIII I III.- '10 0--.! II... . .I.} I I I4 I . III, II I! w III I. I .otzv' II. I I I I II. I . I .II . I . I I . I I I .. ...-l . I. I . I . I - um . J I, I I I I. I u .. . _ T . . I _. _ n. I . . n i . . I. .. i . . , . C o . . .. . _ v . . _ . . u . I _. . ~ I ..IIII a v .I..) r I. .J III . I. I I. III. I I. II. .11: c I "II II! I . IL: I _ I. 5 II I X I II III; .II I! .1!D..irIl.lF. .hI — . l I II . u v .I II I I .” II I .l I . I! I I v . I‘ . .. T . . . . . I . . .I.! 0.17.. I .l. I . . . H . . . . . a. V I I II - I N i . , ., . .. . i . u a .m c . w I . ... I . .. a . . .. . “ . I: I I .0 I'. I I II | I I III I 9.0!. I.-. I. .VI.III it ‘IIIIQ . I . 0.. .l' DIIIII' .I--(ll III" I III‘IO I.l I I I v ‘.\ I III- I I. I! II. III I“ 0 .I. 2....- II I.II_iIII .4”. "III“! . lrl II I III ‘ _. I II 1 I. «I. I I I I II . II I I I I. . . . I II I u . I I III . . . ._ _ . . U . . . . . — .. . . v . . .I. .. . M I . . . . . , I I . _ . . . u a v I I .I I I .II' I .l I I ...-I II. I . t. ‘I It, I III. .. I I I. I1 '. . III I II III II . Q . I. < 9 ... I III I II II I ..- II I I II ‘“I . «I. .I I . I; I III .I.. . .m a I . .I I . I .I.: II I III I I ll III . ,I p o I. tel. .67.. .I-II.’ .II.. n. . ._ . .. , ‘ _ . . . _ ._ . . u . I u . . I. n . . . . . o . o . t. I I 0 . o o . a _ I . v . I . . I . i I u . . I III I II..- I VIII. I II III ,III..I .‘I'..I,I.- IIIIQI ‘l,'III .0 .II’I.".| IIIIIIaIII’ .III -I.!IIII‘IT III....I.I. I I I I iI I. O I III,- I|.r III. I .I.- 31....HINOIOII I. PIC. .. I .... III. III-I .. II.III.’II II III I I . I . IIII.“I! t...‘II',I.I. . . . V. I o. g A a — I .5 . .e v .. . .. In ..a. . . I . . . J I . _ . . . I . I . I . .I I . . O b O U D I I p . . . u . . . . I . . . I. I _ . I II ’ I ‘l I I II III OI! 'Io I‘IID .III‘IIO .’Ia.n-e,. I .I....II. ‘.00.I'II ..- 'IA . . III. .I. ...h, .IJ.II.. ~Iu. III-'V’..1..Il ...I.J I a ll. 1‘.» .. .. ._ .. ...“ .n..‘JJ...: ... ... I unwmr.‘ u . .0 p I I .m.. .I I I I .I . . I III.I‘I4.III‘ ’u I . IV I . . ... . t 1.. . ‘r . .I.:IC . I. . .. . . ... ,. u . . h . . . I. . I . . a . . _ . . _ .. . Q ‘ C I I C O . I . C l l . J _ r . . . . .. . s . . . . . I .. I .I. I I V II . II- I I | I 1Il II . I '1 II. I 'II‘III I III. . II. II. I II). I. . 1. I I III. I rI I I ‘. ...I... I II I II II IIIII III II .I ..I .I.-Ia.“ IIIII. ‘.,’,I.IIII..'.-.IIDIIII I'IIIIIl_I .. II..,I I... L. ..- I I .II II I'. I . .I“Q,c.sll I' I II I H. . . . _ . . .. . L . .. . n I_ U I J . v . . . a u I e a .. ..o u o e I o . a I I . . . . . II I a . . a . r I: .. l. IIIIIII .I...III IIVIIII I. . .. .II . .. .I. (III I04 l.. I. .I .. .. . .. .p . . . . , . . I . II. .. o I I. . I I I. If; N 1'. I I. I I I "L I I I I II ‘- ..fl . ’I .I. . I.. II: . . .. I. . .I. II I .... I .I I. .I .14 I I I I .n _ . I I s I I. #15 3. $4.11» 3.31.? z . -.. . .4. . . .- I . , . . w . . . . .I V . r w . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . I . I. I I i 1 . ,r . t . . . I . . I. .a _ I . ' - Q l 1 In. ’ I l. . o . n I I . . o I I I a I a ' o . .. _ I . . l r I I I I I I I I_I I I I .I .- I IIQIIII I .I‘Ill‘ II. I II I VII! VIII»: .1 '8'. III II I.|I .. 'I‘III I Ll ‘ II III; .IUIIIII l IIII‘III' O1IIUIII..1~IHIII III I I . I I I 0' I‘.’ I I. I I .. I Q olIIa I w I \ fi I ... .7 W W . III . n . I ...“ \ . I .I I .. I I/ i I _~ . I n I ..I. . I II ... I ... I h I . c ‘ hp . b. a I . I .I.. . . I , a I . I .. ,I I I s Q u v v . n I 1 .I. I I I . V . . I u- I. I . . . . I. . Ia . . . e . .. . II I .. . 9 I I I III 0* r... II... _ ....W"; . . . I . I 2 Ir . I ,. I t I c ’ u I . .. I . o I I v N. ’1 II. ..IwInJe I «I. I . J I . r..~ . «a .c . 1 I .I- ..I m .. v\l.o V I... - I . .I. , . I I O I u I 55.5 83829. 3.3 5 fipfimfla 38 «0038 .x. agonauQIzaauqua. O. HO. I N. o I N o I H. MIN. 0 o o .l NO. 0 O O>OD¢ 09.30 90% a x m o m x x 3 x m: \ mo \ aflfifimmfia 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 3.3 8.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 8.3 3.3 3.3 ...:5 Ion Igpom $2 843 83R 3.53 ofmmm 233 8.8a 5.83 56mm 8.93 mafia .333 R88 Ifisfim 8.0 8.2 £3 8.5 3.: 3a 2.3 Sam 8.2 8.3 8:: 3.: 33...... . mfififimz 8.8m 8.m83 8.18 8.83 8.8m 8.33 86.8 8.83 8.8m 8.33 858 8:33 mummwwm e on c on c on o 3 e on c on 30m, no .0 3.3 8.3 3.3 8.3 8:: 3.3 253.7 II L $58 38a mg 8 :E . . 5..-.3 . 5.838 38:84 38.38. ooaum coma page .333» 23 5 muooacoum 3.8 Ba 8.3 no». 88 3 62 83m 8N 8.33.3: 39G Ignaz .32 1 I83 .813 .3: Mo Moo: sigma: no .NHNH mumdfi I." I I I r h o ‘ p I : II I I I 'I II I II! D I I I n S u . . _ Ir f . . I. 3 J4 I .) I’ I . I A . I . a w n . I . I p. . .I . ._ a. H . , .. . . . o . _ . . a . 4 .. o I . . . . u. . . . I'll.“ II . I. . o . I I . A v — V! I a . l u . .191 III I I I.I\..II‘ItIl-I II ..-ooul.n ’I II‘. I II. .D . ‘I‘ol' I .K I :2 .I \IO.J-/ I‘. I I- I in. 4 .3 7‘: -..III I .. IIP- ill!!! I II. -1, .ll I.I pl .- l ' ..IIII' O. I o I. II.".. I'I'III.‘ I. 1 .. I Y .. . . . . _ . . . V . . . I. . . . . ...III. . . .. . . 4 . . . . I . . . . . . . l . . I . . . . a . . .. . I . v . .. a Q .. I ) . . (I u v.- III..z- , .AI . .I I I a I ..I . I.‘ .3 i . , F. v I v 0'“ I. . V ..‘ I I v I f A . I Q .I I . . IDOI . . ., ‘0 1i'.\ 1 It. '..ID.II III .5 .I. .93. . .I..II Y! 06) II . .. I|‘,-|Z. .I.-..-IDII.’ ..‘II.’ a ll. '1IIl.-I III III- .I .I.. I! i‘II‘I’I! ll. . I .III”! IOOI‘III I .7 .I‘; .I. 'Ii. I. ‘ g I .- H “I .A . . u . u. . . ~ _ P . u I n; V . . . . A - 1 . n . ‘ . — I I _ . ‘ . . . . . .. . I I I III-.I. ..l. III. . . 11.1.. I. . .s ... . u ‘ .Ilt I! O .0 -ylcls. . IIV .I.. III... {II -. 311.! I5. III I. III.'...I.‘ I'll J K I. -I . o... v 1". .I . III-II: ...].t O. . ,,vlil.ll. ,Ilull .I I .II .II .Itlol III-II, .3, I... C . II. 'L.'I.I.II’II Ir! .-.IA. . ..III‘.’ .3! '. 1. . .. III I ’I. .. . .I . . . . _ .. e . o \ . r .. . . i . ... 1 . . . . I _ ._ _ .. . . _ . _ I . . . 4 c v _ O I n o . a T o u. . . V O . . . . a .. . .o., . . IIITI'..IQDI . Ill"!- ..‘. 3!, ‘1. X‘... Y ‘. I. ‘ _. . O O . . I . .. I . . . "n.3,-.ll. l. {I . ...l‘ I. IIL .. . I . .0LQ.’ ‘U .I.... 0... 0.10.1! 5:02! . o 0. NJ... 0.6; II... ....- 0‘ like: ..o- no.0 . . l‘tIIic... f In ‘i..\0. .‘II. .I. I.-. I...) .1 ... f3. ‘56 I SI Itd‘. -..... O'II. . 115:2: .... t 1 . I .II I. ...}.I‘ I... .I.. ..IITO. ' ' U I I n I f“. 1 ... I — . . . . . I _ ‘ . . ‘H . . . ~. _ ¢ . .. . . - . I a a O l C . . . . . I u I. O o ..- III-I .0. .-O I... v a..-” u I I) P I}. I. v C. L I Q _ O D . u 0 ‘ . V< .I. -I VII D‘II . ‘.uv ' .. IRA. 0.. .4.» I; . . 0... V: 01.I.\'-I'. s ‘. .I....‘c .0. .I. I: ...I OI Ill I.I. -I. . ...3» I.. 5’. '1 IIIV'I‘ '. 4 IL. .' .L .I. I ... 'IIIIOII... .‘I-I" 0‘ I' In. a 1 I-.. III. .I.! tit-9.. \c . .I I. t [-I.] I. I. ._ . . I a I . . o~ - I .- n- . q 1 _ .I.. . a . s a II . .. . * . . ' t . I'.ID'I I. ... . -0 In .0 v a I U I U l . . I . ~’ I!" I I I I I- f I ‘III. I I 1’0IO .1: '0I II I} I i o ..I. I I I. I I IIIIIO -I .I.! o I (III. I-I‘I OI n It! I fit... 0 I I. I II II ... I Us I l .' -.IIII‘ .0 II. .‘II I. I! I D - I ‘ .I.. u n I I u . . o . . T . . . . . . . I. ‘ . a o a O 0 ¢ 0 . c . .I Q - I . , III . I 0 . I . 'I I. . ....OI..I‘.I...I'.».QIJ ’u...n I. 0. lg. . .. Q g r . . A .I . . I . I . .I. . Q- . .I. .I.. In; . §. ‘ ‘.I.I 0!.\r.¥...l.lt-; I. I AllI 0.... III a. ... I't- I r ..1 i-.l”l?l um . , .l I I ‘. . . I ...-.-- . .. out}: .. I... II. .l ..I F» , . y . IL. I" I, Iii! .V I. I»! - ..... I. II «I. . .A ‘ I (I . . .. . .- . u . ‘ I p v . U! . . . OI . g In I I .I l U | l. n O D O O 0 l2: .0. t I v ‘ ..‘I ‘| . ... O .. d I I .- I I o a I! I l . I . . . . a . , v _ I . - - - I- _ , I I l I, v t t I I ‘ I I It I! 0.. l!- g Q I I I . . o v I II 1 . .w I I .. _ . 4 a . . I . I - h I U I In _ l I. F k N A I l I .v C ‘ l ' t | I 105 in Chapter VI. Another assumption was made regarding the distance the livestock must be transported to the market. This was necessary to determine the cost of transportation and the amount of shrinkage for each lot of livestock sold. See Table VIII. The direct marketing charges were those being used at the present time at the markets and presented in Chapter VII. The market prices for each class of livestock sold were the averages paid to farmers the week of May 16-22, 1960, as reported by the markets. See Table IX. Marketing charges were found to be the highest at Hillsdale for all classes of livestock marketed by the large and the small producers with just two exceptions. It cost more at Coldwater to market 20 choice lambs from the vicinity of Adrian due to the greater shrinkage and a relatively high commission charge. See Table XXII. It cost more to market a cutter cow at Adrian from the vicinity of Hillsdale because the shrinkage was greater than if the cow had been taken to Detroit and fed. See Table XVI. Marketing charges were the lowest in all examples at the local dealer market because there were no charges for sell- ing the livestock. Marketing charges per hundredweight for the large and.small producers from any one vicinity were the same for all the classes of livestock at Detroit, the local dealer 106 market, and Archbold, except for the choice steers sold at Archbold because all the charges were based on a com- bination of a weight,per head, or a percentage of gross sales. Archbold has a reduced commission charge on sales over $1000 on cattle, calves, sheep and lambs and over $500 on hogs. Only the sales from the large producer of choice steers and of No. l hogs exceeded these gross amounts. By coincidence the lower commission on the 30 hogs sold at Archbold from the large producer offset the larger trans- portation charge for the six hogs from the small producer. The marketing charges were less per hundredweight at Cold- water, Adrian, and Hillsdale for all classes of livestock for the large producer than for the small producer from any one vicinity due to combinations of lower transportation charges, commission rates, and service charges. With two exceptions the market having the highest market price for the class of livestock being marketed gave the highest net returns to both the large and small producer from the vicinities of Adrian and Hillsdale. The net re- turns were higher at Adrian for the large and small producer of choice lambs from the vicinity of Adrian due to the lower marketing cost even though the market price was 50 cents per hundredweight higher at Coldwater. The net re- turns for No. l hogs were higher at Adrian for both large and the small producer from the vicinity of Adrian due to 107 the lower marketing charges that more than offset the 25 cents higher market price at Coldwater. The highest market price and net returns for choice steers were at Detroit, at Archbold for cutter cows, and at Coldwater for choice veal calves. By the use of the budget analysis of marketing costs and net returns to livestock producers in the vicinity of Adrian or of Hillsdale, it has been shown: (1) that the market with the lowest marketing costs did not give livestock producers the highest net income, (2) that the market with the highest market price did not always give livestock producers the highest net income, and (3) that the highest net returns for all classes of livestock were not at the same market. An examination of market prices and marketing costs is necessary to determine where to market livestock for the greatest net returns. IX. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This thesis was devised to provide information about livestock marketing to assist the livestock and grain District Marketing Agent in the Lenawee-Hillsdale district. The Michigan Cooperative Extension Service employed its first District Marketing Agent in 1954. There are now eight. District Marketing Agents are pioneers in the field and must answer questions and help farmers solve problems pertaining to the marketing of their products. The Lenawee-Hillsdale district is the most con- centrated livestock production area of Michigan. On Janu- ary l, 1959, it had 4.9% of Michigan's cattle and calves of all ages, 4.5% of the milk cows, 7.7% of the stock sheep, and 9.1% of all the sows farrowing. Lenawee county ranks let in the number of sows farrowing, 3rd in the number of stock sheep, 4th in the number of all cattle and calves, and 17th in the number of milk cows. Hillsdale county ranks 6th in the number of sows farrowing, 10th in the number of stock sheep, 12th in the number of all cattle and calves, and 11th in the number of milk cows. A survey of seventy-six farmers was conducted to determine where farmers secured their livestock marketing information. Radio programs ranked first in importance. 108 109 Farmers expressed preference for market news reports from radio station WJR of Detroit and WABJ of Adrian. The daily newspapers ranked second. The Adrian Daily Telegram and the gillsdale News were the most important newspapers. The third most important source of marketing information was from individuals--especially truckers, commission men, livestock buyers and neighbors. These were followed by magazines, special market reports, and television. One of the duties of the District Marketing Agent will be to gather and disseminate marketing information. Sources of marketing information that might be used by the District Marketing Agent were gathered and described by the writer. The agent will need to evaluate and localize much of the information available. He will need to disseminate information through the media farmers are now using. This can be augmented by developing a following through person- alized contact, such as the newsletter, public meetings, and newspaper columns. The successful history of COOperative Extension Service programs in this area will be of help. The survey of farmers indicated there were many places available to market their livestock. Most farmers indicated that they sold their livestock at the Detroit Stockyards and at local auctions. The auctions most often mentioned were at Archbold, Adrian, Coldwater, and Hillsdale. Some farmers sold direct to packers, to country dealers, and to other farmers. 110 Two chapters were devoted to when and how to market livestock. Long and short-time observations should be made to take advantage of price fluctuations and season— ability of livestock production. Production of the meat- type and the efficient growing livestock is important for greater returns. Selling at the optimum weight and grade for the type and class of livestock being marketed should be a goal of each farmer. Careful handling, exercising patience, and keeping livestock quiet and unexcited will reduce shrinkage and bruising losses. Shrinkage was found to be one of the larger costs of marketing livestock. It is an indirect but an important cost to farmers. It should be included as one of the costs of marketing livestock. Research on shrinkage was summar— ized. Some assumptions were made by the author to deter- mine the marketing costs due to shrinkage since there was a lack of sufficient information, especially on the short hauls of livestock. Many direct charges were found in the process of marketing livestock. There was little uniformity in the charges. Transportation charges were by the load, by the head, or by the hundredweight. Truckers usually charged by the hundredweight, except for individual animals. They usually had a minimum charge of $4.00 per farm stOp if two or more animals were picked up. The Detroit Stockyards Company was the only market in the area to have a yardage 111 charge. It was the only one to make collections for truck- ers' transit insurance and the National Livestock and Meat Board. It was also the only market to provide feed for livestock to be held for later sale. The Detroit Stockyards and Lugbill Producers, Inc., were the only markets that had a direct charge for livestock insurance. The other markets included the insurance in their commission or service charges. There was no uniformity in the commission charges. Lugbill Producers, Inc., and Hillsdale Auction Company charged a percentage of the total gross sales. Detroit Stockyards Company, Adrian Livestock Sales, and Coldwater Livestock Commission Auction, based their charges on a per head basis. All except Hillsdale had lower commission charges on larger lots for some or all classes of livestock sold. Adrian Livestock Sales and Coldwater Livestock Commission Auction deducted a percentage of the gross sales as a service charge to cover costs incidental to the handling of livestock. A budget analysis was used to determine the net returns for a large and a small producer from the vicinity of Adrian or Hillsdale. The market prices and the marketing charges that prevailed during the week of May l6-22, 1960, were used. The analysis was limited to five classes of livestock sold at the six markets reported by farmers as receiving most of the livestock sold from the area. y . y, ‘ - - . ~. 112 The budget analysis revealed some important in- formation regarding where a farmer might eXpect to receive the highest possible net returns from the marketing of livestock. The highest net returns for all classes of livestock was not at the same market. The market with the lowest marketing charges did not give livestock producers the highest net returns. The market with the highest market price did not always result in the highest net income for livestock producers. Within the assumptions presented, and with a knowledge of the prevailing marketing charges and the market prices at various markets, it is possible for a producer to determine which market is most likely to give him the highest net returns for a particular class and grade of livestock. Where to market livestock for the greatest net returns will require much diplomacy on the part of the District Marketing Agent. He should not tell any farmer where to market his livestock. Cooperation and support from the marketing agencies would be impossible were he to do this. He should explain to the livestock producer how to determine his best market by analyzing the marketing charges and his probable market price. He should tell him where the markets are located, and either supply him with or tell him where to secure the necessary information on marketing charges and market prices. 113 The purpose of this study was to provide live- stock marketing information in the Lenawee-Hillsdale county area that a District Marketing Agent might use. The study has shown the importance of livestock in the area and the production trends. It has described the markets of the area, the marketing charges, and how one might determine the possible net returns from the mar- keting of livestock at the several markets. It has given the sources and kinds of livestock marketing information that farmers receive and use. The author sincerely hopes that this study will be of much value in its intended use. BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbenhouse, G. R., and R. C. Penny. Shrink Characteristics of Fat Cattle. Union Stock Yard and Transit" Company of Chicago. p. 7. Anonymous. How Does YourCountngate? A county breakdown of statistics from census reports and various other information. Department of Land Use and Water Conservation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, l954. Anonymous. Public Livestock Markets. Detroit Stock Yards, 675 OD Dix Avenue, Detroit 9, Michigan, 1950. pp. 5- 300 Anonymous. When HandlingLiyestock--"Easy Does It." Agri- cultural Research Department, Swift and Company, Chicago 9, Illinois. Bull. 20. Brensike, V. John. Marketing Feeder Cattle and Sheep in the North Central Region. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Station Bull. 410. May, 1952. pp. 52- 53. Dowell, A. A., and K. Bjorka. Livestock Marketing. Ed. 1, McGraw—Hill Book Company, Inc., New York and London, 1941. pp. 240—260. Fitzgerald, W. L. Cattle Values in the jLivestock LMarket. Union Stock Yard and Transit Company of Chicago, 1954. p. 9. Fox, R. L., Anna E. Wheeler, and C. G. Randell. Measuring the Marketabilityof Meat-TypelHogs. Farm Credit Administration, United States Department of Ag- riculture, Washington, D.C. Circular C-152, 1953. Hall, L. G. Annual Report of the Cooperative Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics. Lenawee County, Adrian, 1954. p. 3-4. Henning, G., and M. B. Evans. Market Hogs Can Be Accurately Graded. Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, Wooster, Res. Bull. 728, 1953. 114 115 Hill, E. B., and R. G. Mawby. Types of Farming in Michigan. Michigan Agricultural Experiment Statibn, East Lansing, Sp. Bull. 206, 1954. Kammlade, W. G. Sheep Science. J. B. Lippincott Company, Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, 1947. p. 243. Leitch, D. G. Annual Report of the Cooperative Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics. Hills- dale County, Hillsdale, 1954. p. 2. McCrum, J., Former Cattle Salesman, Michigan Livestock Exchange, Battle Creek, Michigan, oral communi- cation. Michigan Agricultural Statistics, Bureau of Agricultural Industry, Michigan Department of Agriculture Cooperating with the United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. Eleven annual reports, 1949 through 1959. Miller, E. C., and E. J. Turman. Shall We Produce A Meat- Type Hog? Economic and Marketing Information, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, November, 1953- p- 1-30 Purnell, G. Economic Analysis of Cattle Shrinkage. Mon- tana Agricultural Experiment Station, Bozeman, M1110. Cir. 76, 19530 p. 33-36, 42. Riley, H. What Is the Most Profitable Weight to Market Hogs? Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, East Lansing, Bull. 321, 1953. Stark, Donald, Livestock Marketing Specialist, Michigan State University, oral communication. Thompson, E. L. Agricultural Marketing, ed. 1. McGraw- Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, Toronto, Lon- don, 1951, p. 427. Veach, J. 0. Soil Survey Map. Bureau of Soils, United States Department of Agriculture in cooperation with the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, East Lansing, 1954. Vincent, W., and P. Roberts. Feed Excess Milk to Calves or Sell It? Michigan Farm Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, No. 146, March, 1955. "O 116 Wiley, J. R., and C. B. Cox. Hog_Shrinkage--Farm to Market. Economic and Marketing, Purdue University, Lafay- ette, Indiana, February, 1955, PP. 1-2. APPENDICES Auction Centreville, Michigan may 23, 1955 Dear Sir: I am working on a thesis at Michigan State to help farmers in the marketing of their livestock. It would help me know more a- bout the auction markets available to farmers of Hillsdale and Lena- wee counties. Your cooperation for the following information will be appreciated. I. Ownership: Ownership ; Partnership ______3 Corporationh_m__ II. Sale Days: Starting Time: ____ III. Charges: - Commission Yardage Service Charges 1 O ...-.. By Gross Max. By Gross Max." ’ Head Sale Head Sales J Cattle é Calves E Feeder Calves ==T Hogs Feeder Pigs Sheep Lambs Feeder LaMbs IV. Gross Sales in numbers for 195D. (If actual figures are not available, use your best estimate.) Total From Hillsdale & Lenawee Counties Beale £3133. Feeder Calves Ifiogs Harvey J. Elliott Co. Agricultural Agent Radio Station___ Dear Sir: Centreville, Michigan May 28, 1955 I am.working on a thesis problem at Michigan State College to help farmers make more profit from.marketing of grain and livestock. A part of the problem involves market news. following information.from you. We would appreciate the 1. Do you broadcast grain market reports? Yes No 2. Do you.broadcast livestock market reports? Yes No._____ 3. Description of programs: :3 A. Time to . {3 Check days: Mon _, Tues _, Wed _, Thurs ____, Fri _, Sat ___J Sun.___. Grain Livestock Both Ej Sources of quotations p g, Commentator _ Sponsor Other Comments: B. Time to . Check days: Mon _, Tues _, Wed _____, Thurs _, Fri _____, Sat ___J Sun.___. Grain Livestock Both Sources of quotations Y Commentator _x_li Sponsor Other Comments: Thank you. Harvey J. Elliott Co. Agricultural Agent o l. O I .4 . o- I vi. a L n . h 1. . a v . p .. . I! a ..f . I ‘ I. u 4 . o I I ‘§ 5. la 2. Name 'A. B. A. B. IENAWEE-HILISDAIE lxiARKETING QUESTIONNAIRE 1955 Address To what newspapers do you subscribe? (Mark with A) Which of these are a source of market quotations or other market information to you? (Mark with B) Daily papers Weekly papers 1. Adrian Daily Telegram l. Litchfield Gazette 2. Hillsdale News 2. North Adams Advocate 3. Toledo Blade 3. Reading Farmers Advance 1:. Detroit Free Press 1:. Reading Hustler 5. Detroit Times 5. Addison Courier 6. Chicago Daily Drovers Journal 6. Blissfield Advance 7. Jackson Citizen Patroit 7. Clinton Local 8. Hudson Post Gazette 9. Morenci Observer 10. Tecumseh Herald What farm magazines do you receive? (Mark with A) Which of these are a source of marketing information to you? (Markwith B) 1. Michigan Farmer 1:. Michigan Farm Economics 7. Prairie Farmer 2. Cappers Farmer S. Boards Dairymen 8. B otter Farming 3. Farm Journal 6. Successful Farming 9. Indiana Farmer's Guide ... . . I.‘. 'II ‘Iv'v...r“~ v - - u. w .4 .. o < n- I I 'e t ‘ ' ' ’ «— ..‘ a J . , .I . . a . A Q 1 ' .- ‘ U ... ...-Lou a . . I - tu'. O . 4.. . a - .' o . g v e. . ‘ i ' I .I v) .. n .' . . .. ' a O '0 . v ' ‘ . . ‘ . I" 5". I . . .. .- .. . . ‘ . 4 -. go a ‘ . “. . -- . O I ~ ‘5 """,.O'- *- b\' I .'. ‘ s.‘. .' 51‘," A. A , - - - .-c.-v~o .- u a . '\ . ' l I I ‘ . t“ u . u . ‘. O 3. ,— ‘ V o v eel.c~u. 4. a 01-. ... . a.‘ ...,- Q J \‘ ' . o .’I...-. ...- --o---'n‘0-~. -- - oo- .... .- -¢ . . 0" v Inc. v. . ‘ i § ’ O. O . .9 '. ‘ .... . .. . ' A. t ._ , 0' a . . 'N ,. .7 . - -|-- on. u/l".-I ... “ “ ' z’f Jr. .. . '.-' a ~ I ,. 'I . . a A ' I .‘~ . ya. .5... ... . . . a H u .. . a ’. ‘ : ‘ 1" I . . e a g .. a . , \ O O . ‘-~. ,.’,- ...: ‘ a 3. h. S. A. B. A. B. -2- What radio programs do you find of value in securing Livestock Marketing Information? Mark A. What radio programs do you find of value in securing Grain Marketing Information? Mark B. 1. WJR Detroit 8. WONG Fort'wayne 2. WTVB Coldwater 9. WKAR East Lansing 3. WJOE Hillsdale ‘ 10. WMAQ Chicago h. WABJ Adrian 11. WLS Chicago 5. UIBh Jackson 12. WKZO Kalamazoo 6. WPAG Ann Arbor 13. WSPD Toledo 7. WWJ Detroit 1h. WTOD Toledo Do you receive market reports on television? YES __ NO _. Station Program Time Do you have a television set? YES NO Do you look to other sources of infbrmation regarding when to sell? (L1, 2,3,-Livestock; Gl,2,3, - Grains) Individuals Special Market Reports 1. Neighbors ___ l. U.S.D.A. Market Reports 2. Truckers 2. Mich. Crap & Livestock Reporting Service 3. Elevator managers 3. Private News Service h. County Agr'l Agents h. Other 5. Livestock buyers 6.- Commission men 70 Others ..- v‘.‘ r... . "0 er- “cl-u . .-., ... .~ .~’ ‘ 7. 9. .3- Of all the sources of marketing information available to you, what are the three most important ages in order of preference. (Indicate, l,2,3,) 1. Newspapers 1:. Tele vision ,1. 2. Magazines 5. Individual 3. Radio - . 6. Special Market Report How many head of livestock did you market in 19Sh? 1. Beef Cattle h. Swine 2. Dairy cattle 5. Sheep & Lambs 3. Calves 6. Feeders A. ‘Where do you market your wool? B. 'Why did.you select this market? Where did.you sell your livestock in l95h? Market Name and Location 1. Beef cattle ‘ -- «so—apt!- 2. Dairy cattle _ 3. Calves 11“__ h. Hogs AA 5. Sheep & Lambs 6. Feeders 7. Others Key T-Terminal A-Auction OB-Order Buyer D-Dealer Tr-Trucker P-Packer B—Butchar L-Lockerplant Cy-Concentration Yard FaFarmar O-Other -7- u.“ 1" - ...... 10. ll. 12. 13. Why did you select the above markets? fer each livestock class. -h. Livestock 1. Beef cattle A. 2. Dairy cattle B. 3. Calves C. h. Hogs D. 5. Sheep & Lambs E. 6. Feeders 7. Others What other markets are available Class of livestock Indicate first choice by AGSSQP- Key Higher price F. Convenience G. Less shrink H. Habit (custom) I Price knownh , befhtsgselling. J. to you? (See 10) Type of market Name or Less Trans. cost Confidence in buyer Confidence in selling agency Don't know Other location Why haven't you sold at these markets? Indicate first choice by number for each livestock class. 1. 2. 3. h. S. 6. Price too low Too few buyers at market Transportation costs too great Owns & sells small lots Don't know Other Do you truck your own livestock? YES ___, NO . .I." " -. .—.. 1h. 15. A. B. C. lg. 17. 18. -5- How do you determine when to sell your livestock? (Rank 1,2,3, in order of importance.) 1. 2. 3. h. S. 6., Check dain price quotations Use outlook information Use seasonal price information Sell when livestock is ready ‘When market agency say they are ready Other Did you purchase feeder cattle in 195i? YES __ NO _ Did you purchase feeder pigs in l95h? YES ___ NO Did you purchase feeder lambs in 1951.? YES __ NO From what source do you secure your feeders? Commission Firm Auction Direct from range Other 1. 2. 3. Cattle Pigs Lambs Why do you purchase feeders where you do? 1. 2. 3. 1. l. 2. 3. Convenient h. Lower cost 5. B etter quality 6. 7. More uniform grade Freedom from disease Faith in seller Other How many bushels of grain did you produce in 195k? Corn bu. h. Oats bu. 5. Wheat bu. 6. Barley bu. Rye bu. Soybeans bu. ~-.. 0'.- u ‘ I as w o lo. ‘ O ' ' I c o» o. u . ... . . “ nu- - p~en ‘ , o-- . . . - ...-.- ...nd. - .~ I .— .o . v i a . ck. l n l . n . l . . . us.-. . . ,. . ~ I u _- u a .. .... o [\- ... . . .. J o - -- .-.. e \ a 5- . . ‘ ' ..dfi‘u—D--11.uu~.. ‘1 I .' . u n '. | u a u . “-~.. .Aeh' .I. .v r»..- . -, u ' " 'hcu. .. . ' I e . v “' . I'.‘ .0. . . m» . -.- . .ae- . 1 ,4. u . . . ‘- 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. -6- How much of this has been sold or will be sold as cash grain? 1. Corn bu. h. Barley bu. 2. Oats bu. 50 Rye bu. 3. Wheat bu. 6. Soybeans bu. Do you store grain on your farm other than the amount you may need fer livestock? YES ___9 NO . About how pany bushels in excess of your normal livestock needs could you store in your present facilities? 1. Small grains bu. 2. Corn bu. Where did you sell your grain in l95h? Mgrkgp Name of elevator, terminal, etc. 1. Corn Egg 2. Oats F-Farmer 3. Wheat T-Terminal h. B arley L-Local Elevator 5. Rye G—Government 6. Soybeans ______ M-Miller I." Is there a special reason for selling at the above place or places? 1. Corn Key 2. Oats A. Convenience E. No reason 3. Wheat B. Higher price F. Don't know h. Barley C. Less dockage C. Other (write in) 5. Rye D. Custom (habit) 6. Soybeans . .- ..~. . - i s I v I I . o I . . D ' ‘ 4 ,a g ‘ . . u a. -- ~ .... a . , .. . a . . ' .3 t 3 ~ .1 ,. ‘ . ' . _ - . . l‘ . . . I . — \l . . ' I ‘. L. . ~ . ~ . I ' O ‘ _ - .-P ‘ . "‘ e a n .' _ - ._ . . -. -.... p—.-..:,- z- - ‘ u . -. -‘- ._ . . ~-¢ C. I \ .. .. . . .. '- Hvou ~— . ...-... - . . . .- ..-. - ,. . 7 .-.. n r .7. .a.~ . . _ . e \ , I ._ ' l- . . . . n h .I I . ’ 7 . . - - . n . n . . .0 I 2h. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. -7- (Answer only if the answer to No. 22 is other than at the local elevator) Is there a special reason for not selling at a local elevator? 1. Have to wait too long __ h. Elevator won't buy (explain) __ 2. Price too low 5. No reason 3. Too much dockage ‘ 6. Other Questions 25 through 28 apply only to those selling grain at a local elevator. How would you rate the service that the elevators of your area give when buying grain, especially during the harvest season? 1. Good 2. Fair 3. Poor How long do you have to wait to unload wheat at the elevator __ hrs. Do you feel that this wait is too long? YES __ NO ___. Do you feel that the local elevator prices paid for grain are in line with the other grain buyers in the area? YES __ NO _. Do the elevators in your community ever close because of lack of storage Space? YES __ NO ____. Do you feel that the grain handling and storage charges at the elevators of your area are reasonable? YES NO . How much have you increased your farm storage facilities during the last five years? Corn _____bu. , Small grains _____ bu. In your Opinion, what change in marketing of grain & livestock would help farmers increase their income. Grain Live stock ' ‘ s O . - r’n . « ' . .‘ , . i n ‘ ‘ r h I-" ~ I —.‘P-‘. '1 In .. . - .a‘au.~.. . 3. . .. . ‘ ‘ l . . . I..‘ V‘ . . . t - ‘ n r I 3 . I . a! 'I e - . r 0 .- 0 0 a o ." n. ‘ v- . 1 .. ',‘ .' . . ,- u ‘ fi . v n..-.,<-,.-. . ..-. ..."... “-.r .— a .o.-. -.. . , ... .... -..—.Iv. .. IQII‘ . .I.. . . ‘ -""‘--‘ .- .Ia... an‘... ‘l l L ' I O --.| \ . ... . . IO‘. . 3 ,. ., Z 7 9' ;>. ~' . ., . .- I a ' . r. t . I. . C , ; . . '§ ' , ~ ‘ _ . . I- l I 4 . u c t. . a. ‘, '. MICHIGAN STATE UNI IVE R8 IT TYL l IHJJI lHllI HI! HLIIHIIIII