TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION H. D. LEWIS. Director. College Station. Texas GIBB GILCHRIST, Chancellor our . 1 l" If“ lg ' Vfiifviiiobu: nu? .R08_Ell1’ unis". | I | n m‘ pqf-r; an’ an? {it Qgncdian ‘ Sims amour Ali's? will) “kiwi I . l ‘ j CR I-ISNEI a o uiu. CIULD . | I I _ - - ‘V ‘ “u; ‘L “C: nova "0"" "*5 5 “,5 0 | 1 1 I l'ron' i _ gnaw" '“" y I l ‘ i’ ‘ ‘» I: .1 l- —,, ,-—-.— ism» '* W 3w. cocua. nocncv w xc o 6K5 MW‘ ‘ i, E 1 | l l r i B I‘? i 1 v | \ . p ~ r- - ~ g i — ' vOuri6-""u ‘st _ » - ~ - mnoc i vonu rem" uun an n£~1\ N! v ‘5““- _ , I , , \ - ‘ . l j i l ' r- — = .. . » ~ > ’ ' :1 SYIPNE <,\ _q \ m.“ nfilw Mia?» "M" m“ "‘°‘ i - ~ \ l l ' ' I ' n l ' ‘ » a noon ~ _ - \--—~—y—** ' si'nlifll moans Anna mo ufuuL-Ihwhl" ""'-°" f‘ *" U‘ ~ l _ y - . , ‘g I I I 5 ' ' z * \/*"‘° ' t y / a *5! \5r<[L O 5 A I 0 t ‘r no ' "Lb , \ o I C, i l’ \ , , 1;; _ V V *1, — ~~< ‘v PlRiofi-nlvo c, sc s1 coat =v~~!w‘f»°l¢"‘" , ‘w’ ? ER ' “ . cuuznson ‘!\Qvm\ lwmx. I v‘ , / _ _ z l _ K s: 5 ' y ‘\»\’ ‘(wt r p Ugo‘ )4\ k ‘n; Emmi l) _ _ i . - [L1 an! . 1 , , ~ » 4 . i o mum‘ cnuz unou no»: z o“ —* ' y W‘ ‘ ° 6*‘ ‘ g "4 {$3 , s ‘more .3 on,‘ g é“; Q . ‘ /° / v1 i I P l l . A50 {nuosvzrn “i l c?“ i as \_\ ‘Z l" a A‘ B n * * ‘ l W _ _ .4_.-—— » -——y—— no Z cnocuuv $"\~“°"“ Pm‘ c / Q w, I . \ i: 9 O n‘ i _ ‘ _ I T K v“ / uflW" l ,s f Lfno" ‘fTma z 1 ‘ c \ ‘A \",v°&,_¢ \ n; X » ‘i few-m l l ""1jefi\fi?"‘ l I \ ‘ "Wt w- ‘ "We - _ / f»; , - ~ \ i ‘f 5fl\V‘I‘°“ " °° I‘ \ l P9, v _ _____A_~—~— "a '_ 4M‘. g / P n5 l 11H’! i - until?! _(D*l"95 "‘ r $95.? '~ n) ‘w t m, if’, , u ‘ . l, .7 ->\ q /\ "'~ c - - \ . 1 Fill. 9 \ y ~ \ 1 1 » x » 1 5 l§v t + l l v 040E"! _ g d» l g I‘ 1% / s‘ ‘A \ ‘o | l —-'~—" é" +~ J ' a, mink‘ ‘Hum; nzmvu 4 IQ‘, \°Q\v - v x * u, 7 “ IE5" \ T — V , x g \ w, 7* ‘v 4 ‘ _ i _ _ _ _ rdw \ a. w , 4y,» nnvlmcx llVALLl F "8 ‘QT (o ' \ \ ..> ‘ g C r: 1' '° \ l 4f’ <9" d‘ i _ __ _ 1 v c‘ J *w~m" 45s!“ .1 ‘n \ ' f 4' 1°‘ ’ A 8M ; o , .4 r y i v x / . 5,311,.“ lnnooxs Tfihibv .»0oa l ‘i v . . l _ i _ J E-I-nu l / v 5 Q ,9 F ulib Figure 1. Type-of-farming areas in Texas. The State ma.y be divided into 18 type-of-farming areas, in each of which the operation of natural and economic factors has resulted in a high degree of similarity in the farm enterprises maintained, in their proportionate combination on the bulk of the farms, and in the production practices used. Eleven of the major type-of-farming areas are further subdivided into 30 sub-areas because of differences within these areas sufficiently signi- ficant to indicate a break in the general type of farming. The 18 major areas are: 1, Panhandle wheat area; 2, Canadian River grazing are-a; 3, High Plains cotton area; 4, Rolling Plains; 5, High Plains and Trans-Pecos grazing area; 6, Upper Rio Grande Valley irrigated area; 7, Edwards Plateau grazing area; 8, Rio Grande Plain; 9, Lower Rio Grande Valley; 10, Corpus Christi cotton area; 11, North-central grazing area; 12, West Cross Timbers farming area; 13, Grand Prairie; 14, Blackland Prairie; 15, Northeast Sandy Lands area; 16, Piney Woods lumbering area; 1'7, Post Oak are-a.; and 18, Coast Prairie. \ /;\:’ v; s \ ~ ' k5 y , , x 1 ‘ x)’ ‘p. N P ~41 / V“. n ‘I K ‘ , V , "in q W“ ‘l ‘W; ’L_ :1 g , “a .9‘ 1- L: I Vi“, so~ .0 ‘Q0 ' '4 l: v 7 I ' 1 ‘\\ PREFACE Adjustments in agricultural production are continually under way. They are an inevitable result of an increasing population, a shifting demand for specific products, and an improving production technique. Texas farmers have mark- edly increased their production 0f grain sorghum, broilers and flax, to cite only a few examples. Outputs of many other pro- ducts have remained constant or even declined. One of the conspicuous examples of relatively stable production is hogs. Texas farmers produce fewer hogs now than they did 50 years ago. Yet Texas hogs thrive on the relatively limited grain supply available for feed. Other hogs are fattened on a ration of mast, garbage or Waste foods, and are sold at lit- tle or no discount over grain-fattened hogs. Texans are fond of pork. Farm and commercial slaughter of hogs produced in Texas provide a per capita supply of pork that falls short of Texas needs. Annually thousands of live hogs and millions of pounds of pork products are shipped into Texas from other states to meet this demand. This bulletin summarizes hog production and consump- tion in Texas. It shows the amounts of imports and the com- parative prices for hogs in Texas and out-of-state markets. These data summarize the present situation and indicate pos- sible adjustments in the future. No attempt is made to evaluate present techniques in Tex- as hog production. It is assumed that hogs can be produced profitably in this State. Each farmer makes his own decision as to the size of his hog enterprise. The data presented should be useful in evaluating the possibilities for profitable hog pro- duction. CONTENTS Page Preface ............................................................................................................. .. 3 Introduction .................................................................................................... .. 5 Areas of Hog Production ............................................................................. ._ 6 Distribution of Hog Sales ........................................................................... .. 11 Production and Inventory of Hogs, 1930-50 ............................................ .- 12 Volume o-f Marketings ......................... ...................................................... .. 16 Methods of Marketing ................................................................................. .. 19 Public Stockyards .................................................................................. .. 20 Livestock Auctions ................................................................................. -. 21 Local Markets ........................................................................................ .. 21 Outshipments and Inshipments of Texas Hogs ..................................... .. 23 Outshipments ........................................................................................... .. 23 Inshipments ............................................................................................ .. 24 Net Hog Movements ............................................................................ .. 25 Volume of Commercial Slaughter ............................................................. .. 25 Estimated Inshipments of Pork Cuts ....................................................... .. 29 Hog Prices and Price" Relationships ........................................................ .. 30 Relation Between Slaughter and Price ............................................. -. 30 Prices for Barrows and Gilts at Three Markets ........................... .. 33, Differences in Prices Paid for Hogs at Major Markets .............. .. 37 Economic Factors to Consider ................ __________________________________________________ .. 48 Summary ......................................................................................................... .. 49 BULLETIN 749 JUNE 1952 An Economic Appraisal of the Texas Hog Industry* John A. Kincannon and John G. McNeely** CASH FARM INCOME from meat animals in Texas in 1950 amounted to 581 million dollars. Eleven percent of this total, or 63 million dollars, came from the sale of hogs. Yet, accord- ing to the annual estimates of the U. S. Department of Agri- culture, there were fewer hogs on Texas farms on January 1, 1952 than on any January 1 from 1880 to 1924. Numbers of hogs on Texas farms have fluctuated considerably during the period since 1924 but there has been no consistent trend. Meanwhile, the population of Texas has increased great- ly. The combination of increased population and relatively stable hog production has established Texas as a deficit hog- producing area. Development of improved corn hybrids and increased pro- duction of grain sorghums in Texas permit increased produc- tion of grain-consuming livestock. Possibly the hog industry could expand and supply all or part of the State’s needs be- yond current production. This expansion will be dependent upon comparative returns from feeding hogs, cattle, sheep and poultry and upon the attitude of producers towards these al- ternatives. Some of the major facts bearing upon the hog situation are examined in this bulletin. These data show the extent of the deficit in current hog production, the amounts of inship- ments and outshipments, and the comparative prices in Texas and out-of-state markets. It is assumed that the Texas cli- mate is suitable for hog production since hogs are produced throughout the State. *This publication is derived from a thesis entitled “An Economic Analysis of the Texas Hog Industry,” which was submitted to the fac- ulty of Texas A&M College by John A. Kincannon in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, May 1952. ** Respectively, instructor, Department of Mathematics, and profes- sor, Department of Agricultural Economics and Sociology. 6 BULLETIN 749, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION AREAS OF HOG PRODUCTION Hogs are found in every county in Texas, but the U. S. Census of 1950 indicates that they are concentrated in the ma- jor farming areas of the State (Figure 1). The number of I hogs on farms as of April 1, 1950, ranged from 2 in Loving County and 12 in Upton County, to 21,000 in Llano County and 27,000 in Leon County (Figure 2). There were seven hogs per square mile in Texas, as com- pared With 27 hogs per square mile in the United States. Iowa Was the leading hog-producing state with 256 hogs per square mile. In 1950, Texas produced 2 percent of the United States corn supply and 2 percent of the hogs. There Were 11 counties with over 15,000 hogs, or 16 per- cent of Texas’ total hog population. There were an additional. DISTRIBUTION OF HOGS I DOT= IOOO HUGS Figure 2. Distribution of hogs and’ pigs on farms, Texas, January 1, 1950. U. S. Census. > ' AN ECONOMIC APPRAISAL OF THE TEXAS HOG INDUSTRY 7 39 counties reporting over 10,000 hogs, or 43 percent of the total supply, while 30 counties showed less than 500 hogs each. Nine of the 18 type-of-farming areas of Texas are im- portant hog-producing regions. These regions are discussed geographically. The counties within these areas are given in a descending order of importance, and the principal feed avail- able for hog productionis also given. The Panhandle wheat area in Northwest Texas is a rela- tively important hog-producing region. The important hog- producing counties in this area are Hale, Swisher and Castro. The number of hogs on farms April 1, 1950, in each county is shown in Table 1. ' The northern portion of the Low Rolling Plains area has only two counties, Wheeler and Collingsworth, that are of any significance in hog production. Grain sorghum is the prin- cipal hog feed grown in this area and in the Panhandle wheat area. The acreage usedfor the production of grain sorghums varies inversely with wheat acreage. This situation tends to cause hog production to fluctuate somewhat with grain sor- ghum production. The West Cross Timbers farming area in North-central Texas contains three relatively important hog-producing coun- ties, Comanche, Eastland and Erath. There hogs are fed, for the most part, on peanuts by salvaging field loss of nuts after peanut harvest. Farther north in this area and extending up to the Red River, are Wise, Parker and Montague Counties. Grain sorghums and corn are the principal hog feeds in these counties. South of, and contiguous to, the West Cross Timbers area, is the eastern section of the Edwards Plateau grazing area. The significant hog-producing counties in this area are Llano, Mason and San Saba. This is predominately a range hog sec- tion. In Central-east Texas, between the Trinity River on the west and the Sabine River on the east, is the Piney Woods lumbering area. The principal hog-producing counties in this area are Newton, Jasper and Tyler. Production includes many range hogs of mixed breed and very low quality, which are slow in attaining marketable size. The Grand Prairie area is east of the West Cross Tim- bers farming area, and extends from the Red River on the north to the Colorado River on the south. This is a very im- 8 BULLETIN 749, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 1. Hogs and pigs on farms and hogs and pigs sold alive by counties, Texas, 1950‘ Ho s & i s Ho s & i s Hogs & pigs Hogs & pigs County ongfarrrsf sold aliseg County I on farms’ sold alive“ Anderson 17,310 16,457 Concho 1,191 820 Andrews 355 412 Cooke 10,314 11,174 ~ Angelina 8,323 8,519 Coryell 5,613 5,314 Aransas 172 105 Cottle 1,687 1,644 Archer 1,134 1,206 Crane 22 16 Armstrong 1,353 1,226 Crockett 112 29 Atascosa 16,036 12,403 Crosby 6,291 5,225 Austin 7,552 5,516 Culberson 24 0 Bailey 5,066 4,701 Dallam 3,405 3,031 Bandera 1,827 1,559 Dallas 13,590 14,739 Bastrop 6,401 5,842 Dawson 3,141 2,835 Baylor 1,586 2,050 Deaf Smith 5,165 5,000 Bee 4,033 4,451 Delta 2,399 2,347 Bell 13,110 10,776 Denton 14,758 17,969 Bexar 14,705 13,308 DeWitt 8,954 7,938 Blanco 2,008 2,668 Dickens 3,607 3,310 Borden 677 565 Dimmit 1,651 1,594 Bosque 5,734 6,261 Donley 3,438 4,293 Bowie 10,216 10,013 Duval 933 582 Brazoria 4,771 3,317 Eastland 10,600 11,617 Brazos 6,150 6,966 Ector 37 34 Brewster 242 211 Edwards 1,420 956 Briscoe 2,777 2,800 Ellis 7,801 7,174 Brooks 346 242 El Paso 2,355 2,450 Brown 4,952 5,369 Erath 7,060 8,508 Burleson 10,706 9,906 Falls 11,136 10,169 Burnet 7,540 8,352 Fannin 13,820 13,983 Caldwell 3,521 4,060 Fayette 14,560 10,815 Calhoun 607 451 Fisher 1,829 1,832 Callahan 4,468 4,447 Floyd 7,979 7,991 Cameron 3,918 2,532 Foard 1,322 1,235 Camp 1,992 1,910 Fort Bend 7,704 3,435 Carson 2,342 3,301 Franklin 1,284 1,576 Cass 6,157 4,590 Freestone 18,870 18,347 Castro 8,629 8,640 Frio 9,198 7,750 Chambers 530 241 Gaines 1,781 1,348 Cherokee 6,245 5,399 Galveston 898 729 Childress 1,561 1,314 Garza 1,336 1,106 Clay 4,092 4,726 Gillespie 8,287 7,440 Cochran 1,702 1,321 Glasscock 243 181 Coke 704 583 Goliad 4,119 3,955 Coleman 3,480 2,676 Gonzales 9,047 8,408 Collin 13,469 13,118 Gray 2,239 2,217 Collingsworth, 8,146 9,336 Grayson 10,929 12,103 Colorado 5,158 3,626 Gregg 1,864 1,545 Comal 2,024 17,604 Grimes 8,324 7,093 Comanche 17,912 22,047 Guadalupe 9,121 7,988 ‘Bureau of the Census, U. S. Department of Commerce. 21950 hogs and pigs on farms is the inventory of hogs and pigs on farms as of April 1, 1950. “Hogs and pigs sold alive are for the calendar year 1949. AN ECONOMIC APPRAISAL OF THE TEXAS HOG INDUSTRY Table 1.—(Continued) Hogs & pigs Hogs & pigs C t Hogs & pigs Hogs 8: pigs County on farms sold alive Gun y l on farms sold alive Hale 16,360 18,933 Limestone 12,245 11,765 Hall 3,307 2,830 Lipscomb 1,408 1,590 Hamilton 7,658 8,488 Live Oak 5,617 4,986 Hansford 799 779 Llano 21,180 18,777 Hardeman 1,694 1,554 Loving 2 I 2 Hardin 4,955 2,262 Lubbock 14,828 12,028 Harris 12,631 11,570 Lynn a 6,340 4,052 Harrison 6,832 3,358 McCulloch 5,512 5,007 Hartley 1,228 916 McLennan 10,071 9,283 Haskell 3,169 3,743 McMullen 641 597 Hays 2,880 2,629 Madison 3,694 3,499 Hemphill 1,654 2,484 Marion 3,223 2,261 Henderson 18,486 22,689 Martin 1,468 1,532 Hidalgo 7,080 4,771 Mason 17,888 23,521 Hill 9,535 9,066 Matagorda 2,670 1,605 Hockley 5,374 4,302 Maverick 561 482 Hood 4,057 5,061 Medina 6,882 6,363 Hopkins 4,208 4,453 Menard 1,153 651 Houston 11,020 10,444 Midland 467 a 615 Howard 1,803 1,689 Milam 15,687 17,194 Hudspeth 300 115 Mills 5,226 5,454 Hunt 7,176 7,756 Mitchell 1,314 1,196 Hutchinson 776 582 Montague 5,676 6,924 Irion ~87 143 Montgomery 8,523 5,566 Jack 2,301 3,157 Moore 912 899 Jackson 2,872 2,468 Morris 2,599 2,331 Jasper 12,381 7,011 Motley 2,757 3,358 Jeff Davis 151 168 Nacogdoches 5,409 4,989 Jefferson 1,325 466 Navarro 7,739 7,673 Jimm Hogg 250 43 Newton 13,632 5,873 Jimm Wells 3,593 2,928 Nolan 1,814 1,972 Johnson 6,765 7,010 Nueces 5,820 4,725 Jones 4,563 4,275 Ochiltree 971 1,138 Karnes 10,062 8,427 Oldham 955 788 Kaufman 7,136 7,576 Orange 2,403 2,294 Kendall 1,530 1,600 Pale Pinto 3,460 3,047 Kenedy 65 4 Panola 5,584 3,660 Kent 1,763 908 Parker 5,610 6,522 Kerr 1,578 1,571 Parmer 5,177 4,414 Kimble 1,131 1,095 Pecos 577 281 King 482 344 Polk 6,141 4,123 Kinney 328 126 Potter 2,226 2,7 57 Kleberg 1,001 919 Presidio 201 60 Knox 2,601 2,394 Rains 2,726 3,703 Lamar 9,856 10,027 Randall 4,776 6,663 Lamb 9,381 8,244 Reagan 67 42 Lampasas 4,924 4,913 Real 1,074 1,236 LaSalle - 4,377 4,196 Red River 9,894 10,216 Lavaca 11,680 8,280 Reeves 443 173 Lee 12,527 12,955 Refugio 978 813 Leon 26,913 24,409 Roberts 332 445 Liberty 6,778 3,947 Robertson 11,318 10,667 10 BULLETIN 749, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STAT-ION Table 1.—(C0ntinued) Hogs & pigs Hogs & pigs Hogs & Digs H088 &,_Di8'$ County on farms sold alive County ' t 0n farms 801d all)? Rockwall 1,232 1,152 Trinity 5,872 5,033 ' » Runnels 3,553 2,710 Tyler 11,193 6,382 RUSK 7,530 5,919 Upshur 3,851 3,442 Sabine 4,268 2,465 Upton 12 0 San Augustine 3,424 1,829 Uvalde 3,209 4,645 San Jacinto 7,639 3,233 Val Verde 414 197 San Patricio 2,379 2,505 Van Zandt 3,953 12,054 San Saba 7,827 7,933 Victoria 4,126 3,222 Schleicher 666 385 Walker 3,197 2,867 Scurry 2,054 1,950 Waller 5,745 4,093 Shackelford 1,014 992 Ward 322 227 Shelby 5,090 3,490 Washington 10,720 6,801 Sherman 1,151 1,077 Webb 423 218 Smith 7,659 6,261 Wharton 6,746 4,047 Somervell 1,774 1,961 Wheeler _ 8,700 8,139 Starr 752 271 Wlichita 4,263 4,497 Stephens 1,664 1,691 Wilbarger 3,436 4,041 Sterling 67 19 Willacy 2,010 1,320 Stonewall 1,670 1,233 Williamson 14,920 12,182 Sutton 393 254 Wilson 14,133 11,098 Swisher 8,92'7 9,478 Winkler 76 20 Tarrant 16,230 19,001 Wise 8,466 10,012 Taylor 4,189 5,179 Wood 5,124 5,217 Terrell 68 40 Yoakum 823 775 Terry 3,786 3,660 Young 2,790 2,761 Throckmorton 542 565 Zapata 289 240 Titus 3,780 4,397 Zavala 711 825 Tom Green 3,019 3,069 — -—€-— Travis 6,351 5,152 Total 1,291,773 1,203,164 portant hog-producing region. The major hog-producing counties in this area are Tarrant and Denton. Corn is an im- portant crop in this region, and is the principal hog feed. East of the Grand Prairie area and extending from the Red River on the north to San Antonio, is the Blackland Prairie area. The heaviest hog-producing counties in this area are Milam, Williamson, Bexar, Fayette, Wilson, Dallas and Fannin. This is the leading corn-producing region in Tex- as, and corn is, therefore, the most abundant source of hog feed. East of the Blackland Prairie region, extending from Freestone County on the Trinity River, and stretching in a southwesterly direction to San Antonio is the Post Oak area. In the Post Oak region are some of the most important hog- cproducing counties in the State, Leon, Freestone and Lee. The corn crop, followed in importance by grain sorghums, pro- vides an adequate source of feed for hog production. AN ECONOMIC APPRAISAL OF THE TEXAS HOG INDUSTRY 11 The last region considered is the Northeast Sandy Lands area. Henderson and Anderson Counties lead in hog produc- tion but the production of hogs is relatively uniform through- out the region. Corn provides the necessary feed. The geographical distribution of hogs within the State reflects the relative availability of grains and mast, which con- stitute, for the most part, the necessary feed for hog produc- tion. It should be pointed out, however, that a large number of hogs in a particular county does not necessarily reflect a large supply of available grain, inasmuch as a large propor- tion of the hogs shown in the county could be garbage-fed. This is especially true in counties in which army camps or large cities are located. DISTRIBUTION OF HOG SALES Table 1 gives the sales of hogs by counties for the calen- dar year 1949 as reported in the 1950 Agricultural Census. Figure 3 gives pictorially the same information. Farmers in every county in Texas, except Culberson and Upton, marketed hogs in 1949. According to the Census, hog sales were cor- related closely with hog production in all the principal hog- producing areas except the East Texas Piney Woods lumber- ing area. The primary reasons for the considerably smaller than average ratio of sales to production in this area were the high pig mortality rates and the extremely slow growth to marketable size because of prevailing production practices. ' Thirty-seven counties reported sales of less than 500 hogs during 1949, and 58 counties showed sales of less than 1,000 head. There were 165 counties in Texas reporting less than 5,000 hogs sold, and 218 counties reporting less than 10,000. Twenty-four counties reported between 10,000 and 15,000 hogs sold. - Eleven counties reported sales of more than 15,000 hogs in 1949, accounting for 11 percent of the hogs sold in Texas. Sales in 4 counties were above 20,000 hogs. Leon County in the Post Oak farming area was the leading county in sales with 24,409. Mason County, in the northeast section of the Edwards Plateau grazing area, was the second highest with 23,521 hog sales. Henderson County, in the Northeast Sandy Lands area, was the third highest in hog sales with 22,689, and Comanche County, in the West Cross Timbers farming area, was the fourth highest with sales of 22,047 hogs. Hog sales in the principal hog-producing areas were an indication of the scale of production in those areas. Hog sales 12 BULLETIN 749, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION as a percentage of the April 1, 1950 Census inventory ranged from slightly over 5O to i100 percent. The percentages varied directly with the degree of commercialization in hog‘ produc- tion Within the major hog-producing areas. PRODUCTION AND INVENTORY OF HOGS, 1930-50 The production of hogs and consumption of pork products in Texas varies from year to year in response to changes in the number of hogs on hand at the beginning of the year, sows farrowing and pigs saved in the fall and spring, deaths during the year, inshipments, and finally farm slaughter and marketings. These items, as reported by the U. S. Depart- ment of Agriculture, are summarized in Table 2 for the per- iod 1930-50. DISTRIBUTION OF SALES IDIOT‘ IOOO HOGS Figure 3. Distribution -of sales of hogs and pigs, Texas, 1949. U. S. Census. AN ECONOMIC APPRAISAL OF THE TEXAS HOG INDUSTRY 13 Each year farmers of Texas find it necessary to make a series of decisions regarding hog production. The J anuaijv 1, 1930 inventory of 1,673,000 hogs represented the carryover from past production. It included breeding stock and imma- ture slaughter hogs. Spring farrowings of 141,000 sows in- dicated little optimism regarding price prospects since all other years from 1930 to 1950 had larger spring farrowings. Sim- ilarly, the fall farrowing of 130,000 sows in 1930 was the iow- est of all years except 1934. The spring and fall pig crop amounted to 1,563,000 head, but the death of 190,000 head re- duced the crop to 1,373,000. Inshipments of 12,000 head in- creased the hog population slightly but marketings and farm slaughter amounted to 1,518,000 head. Since marketings and farm slaughter in 1930 exceeded production, the number of hogs on hand January 1, 1931 was lower than a year earlier. Similar procedures can be followed for each ensuing year. The major production decisions made annually by Texas farmers, individually and collectively, involve the number of sows to breed for the spring and fall pig crop. These decis- ions are determined largely by an estimate of future hog prices, availability of feed, relative profit from alternative enterprises, and pressure by the U. S. Department of Agri- culture during critical periods to expand or contract produc- tion. . Spring farrowings from 1930 to 1945 (Figure 4) ranged from 141,000 sows in 1930 to 364,000 sows in 1943. Year-to- year changes of more than 10 percent were common, indicat- ing a considerable change in estimates of the future from one year to another. During the period 1946-50, by contrast, spring farrowings were stable at 200,000 sows. Fall farrowing were equally variable, ranging from 125,- 000 sows in 1934 to 323,000 in 1943. The changes from year to year were considerable and seemed to move in the same direction as the changes in spring farrowings. In only 4 years, 1935, 1941, 1945 and 1947, did fall farrowings change in the opposite direction from spring farrowings, and in each case fall farrowing increased while spring farrowings decreased. Fall farrowings had stabilized during the period 1947-50 at slightly below spring farrowings. This close relationship be- tween spring and fall farrowings is characteristic of Texas hog production. Pigs saved per litter in Texas usually average between 6.0 and 6.5. The national average also falls within this range in most years. Deaths range from .5 to 1.0 per litter in Texas 803388 38383388808333 8038383.? .8888s0.33.:3 883053293088 820333033? 6.3338333083803388 .80 333858282853 .w .5 fiuwfiosoufi 338.358.353.334 .80 580.385 .8o8_mc3fi8w 300388 003338389 14 BULLETIN 749, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 83.8 883. 3883 83 883.3 883 83.83 883 888.3 8883 838 888 8883 83 3.333 3.83 83.8.3 883 3883 83.2 888 888 8883, 3.8 83.33 883 . 3.883 82 888.3 832 888 888 8833 88 8833 883 833 883 888.3 83.2 888 888 883.3 88 888 883 883.3 883 8883 83.2 833. 888 883.3 88 8883 888 888.3 338 83.3.8 83.2 883. 888 83.8.8 88 8833 883 8883 888 883.8 3.3.2 883. 888 888.8 88 888.8 888 83.3.8 3.88 888.8 83.2 888 83.8 3.383 88 8883 888 8883 888 83.8.8 832 888 888 3883 833 83.8.3 888 8883 3.83 8883 33.2 888 888 8883 88 8883 883 83.33 3.88 888.8 83.2 838 888 8883 88 8883 888 8883 83.8 888.3 8883 888 888 388 38 883.3 883 8883 883 83.83 8883 888 888 3.88 83. 888 383 888 3.83 8883 882 888 838 888 38 8383 883 8833 888 883.3 882 888 888 883. 3.8 888 883 838 83.3 8883 882 82 888.3 8833 38 888 883 338 883 883.8 3.82 888 8883 8833 38 838 883 888.3 888 888.8 .882 888 8883 888 83 8333 883 833.3 888 8883 882 888 888 888 88 8883 883 888 883 83.83 3883 883 .888 838 83 3.88 883 888 33.3 8883 8883 883388833035. 883388833032. i 8©383883303~B _ 883338833035. _ 830358330FH 80338833049 8658833053. _ 8303888330339 i 83588330358 _ 0388 M53928 98388 383393.38 msfiwofi .3w.*3838._.3mw33w38 88338388388383 8338083833835 @8858 .830w .8 “WEN 8828 .3 858.33.83.83. 8.88% h _ 33883 85:38 3. s O 308.0853 .8935 E 8M0: .30 8.3033302; 33:8 330303310883 d 0338B AN ECONOMIC APPRAISAL OF THE TEXAS HOG INDUSTRY 15 and also in the United States. Since inshipments were of com- paratively minor importance, production is determined almost entirely by the number of? sows farrowed. Production of hogs is for the two major purposes of cash sales and farm slaughter for home consumption. Since the change in numbers of sows farrowing from year to year is usually less than 100,000, marketings plus farm slaughter are about equivalent to pigs saved less deaths. However, it takes about 6 months to fatten pigs to market weights, so the fall pig crop of each year is marketed during the following vear. Marketings are lessened in Texas by the large amount of farm slaughter. Farm slaughter in Texas from 1930 to 1938 exceeded mar- ketings and ranged from a low of 93 percent of marketings in 1934 to a high of 172 percent in 1935. From 1939 to 1950, the situation was reversed and farm slaughter, as an average per- centage of marketings, continued to fall for the remainder of the period. The United States farm slaughter was a much smaller percentage of marketings than was Texas farm slaughter dur- THOUSAND HEAD 3200- HOGS ON HAND 28oo_ JANUAILY l 2400 2000- I600- l200 “ 800- 4003-. ||r—r1|vru Il\r[II|IT I930 ‘I935 I940 I945 I950 Figure 4. Annual hog inventory and spring and fall pig crops, Texas, 1930-50. 16 BULLETIN 749, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION ing recent years. Texas farm slaughter, as a percentage of I marketings from 1946 t0 1950, was" 75.5, 71.0, 59.7, 59.0 and 50.8 percent, respectively. For the same years, the United States percentages were 21.4, 20.1, 19.8, 16.5 and 14.9, respec- tively. Marketings plus farm slaughter in Texas from 1930 to 1950 ranged from a minimum of 1,266,000 head in 1935 t0 a maximum of 3,312,000 head in 1943. Texas farmers obtain a large proportion of their home meat supply from hogs. This is attributable to the compam- tive ease of killing hogs and processing pork cuts and the de- pendable keeping quality of pork when cured. Other factors that may account for the high proportion of hog slaughter on farms are: the size of hogs compared with beef animals, the diversity of pork products, the higher dressing percent- age and the possibility of consumption fresh or cured. The downward trend in farm slaughter after 1946 came about because farm population had decreased and the practice of slaughtering hogs and curing meats on farms and ranches had declined. Furthermore, technological developments in re- frigeration, transportation and distribution of meat have dis- couraged farm slaughter. The rapid expansion in the number of public locker plants and home deep freezers, and the in- crease in mechanization and commercialization in agriculture have contributed greatly to this trend. VOLUME OF MARKETINGS The production of hogs for market is an important phase of Texas agriculture. It is not centralized in any area and, consequently, marketing channels have been established in all areas. The marketing channels for hogs are largely the same as those developed for cattle and sheep. The marketing structure is based on infrequent sales of small lots by num- erous small producers. These are largely fat hogs which are slaughtered for consumption in Texas by packing plants scat- tered widely through the State. The liveweight production and marketings of hogs in Texas, as compared with the United States, showed a fairly constant relationship during the period 1930-50. In 1930, Texas liveweight production was 2.3 percent of United States liveweight production, while Texas marketings were 1.2 per- cent of United States marketings. In 1935, Texas liveweight production was 2.7 percent of United States liveweight pro- duction and marketings were 1.3 percent of the United States totals. In 1944, Texas liveweight production was 3.0 percent AN ECONOMIC APPRAISAL OF THE TEXAS HOG INDUSTRY 17 MILLION POUNDS 9OO BOO - PRODUCTION —> 700 - GOO X 50o - f W 4OO - MARKETING-v k_ 20o _ IOO i O I ‘ ‘ q | fi I I I I I I W I f I I | I930 1935 |94o 1945 I950 Figure 5. Annual hog production and marketings, Texas, 1930-50. of United States liveweight production, while marketings were 2.5 percent. For 1950, the production percentage was 2.3 per- cent and marketings Were 1.7 percent. These data indicate the relative importance of Texas in the national hog produc- tion picture. The relationship between Texas hog production and mar- ketings varied greatly from year to year during the period 1930-50 (Table 3 and Figure 5). This relationship depends largely on the extent to which breeding stock is increased or decreased because of favorable or unfavorable hog-feed price ratios. Decreased marketings in one year are usually reflec- ted in increased production and marketings in subsequent years. In 1931, marketings experienced a decided drop from 1930 While liveweight production showed a pronounced increase. Both marketings and production increased noticeably in 1932. Liveweight production toboganned from 1932 to 1935, while marketings continued to climb until 1934 and then dropped sharply in 1935. These changes reflected the economic impact of the de- pression Which caused farmers to sell a large proportion" of 18 BULLETIN 749, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION their brood sows in 1932, 1933 and 1934. As a consequence, marketings increased slowly while this breeding stock was being liquidated. Government programs brought about “an increase in hog prices by 1935 and encouraged increased production and mar- ketings from 1936 through 1941. ' Following our entry into World War II late in 1941 came increased hog production in 1942 and a consequent increase in marketings in 1943 and 1944. Higher prices and an ever-in- creasing demand by the Armed Forces and civilians for meat supplies brought tremendous pressure for increased pork pro- duction by Texas and United States farmers. Utilization of existing surplus feed supplies brought a lessened demand for pork after 1943 and the production trend was downward after that year. Naturally this resulted in an appreciable decline in hog marketings in 1944. Hog production in Texas was relatively stable from 1945 through 1949 at about a half billion pounds of pork per year. Table 3. Disposition and value of hogs in Texas, 1930-50‘ _ \ Value of _ Produc- Market- Price per Cash home com Gross Cost of 1n- Year tionz ings3 100 lbs. receipts sumption income shipments l 1,000 1.000 1,000 1,000 1,000 l 1,000 pounds pounds Dollars dollars dollars a dollars 4 dollars 1930 343,495 153,765 7.80 14,525 14,277 28,802 112 a 1931 396,075 122,425 6.20 " 9,909 13,079 22,988 670 1932 501,050 189,140 3.40 7,838 7,935 15,773 49 1933‘ 476,618 210,400 3.25 8,599 7,807 16,406 432 1934 390,785 234,010 3.90 10,724 , 9,009 19,733 383 1935 296,510 93,200 7.30 9,651 12,410 22,061 299 1936 399,885 164,615 8.30 17,345 16,050 33,395 568 1937 387,605 170,800 8.60 18,569 16,915 35,484 413 1938 433,350 174,510 7.20 15,850 14,321 30,171 587 1939 524,962 220,272 6.20 16,643 13,017 29,660 505 1940 444,823 250,848 5.30 15,726 10,596 26,322 . 162 1941 436,773 233,478 8.40 22,993 14,737 37,730 1,063 1942 609,912 330,052 12.60 46,540 21,592 68,132 362 1943 809,280 537,380 13.40 78,029 26,243 104,272 779 1944 617,626 518,711 12.50 69,841 21,802 91,643 505 1945 507,459 333,739 13.70 51,482 25,106 76,588 419 1946 473,266 263,686 16.20 50,109 32,222 82,331 437 1947 473,615 265,400 23.50 72,448 43,935 116,383 784 1948 511,791 308,446 22.80 79,752 41,086 120,838 554 1949 488,098 294,008 18.70 62,092 31,007 93,099 249 1950 422,476 285,696 18.30 56,916 20,199 77,115 320 ‘Balance sheet estimates, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. De- partment of Agriculture. ‘Adjustments made for numbers shipped in and changes in inventory. “Excludes interfarm sales. "Includes government purchases. AN ECONOMIC APPRAISAL OF THE TEXAS HOG INDUSTRY 19 Similarly marketings did not vary greatly but ranged from a quarter to a third of a billion pounds of pork per year. It must be recognized that marketings lagged behind live- Weight production throughout the period 1930-50, both dur- ing rising and declining production periods. The gross income from hogs, which included cash receipts and the value of home consumption (Table 3), reflected the combined effects of changes in production, marketings and price. The gross income of Texas farmers from hog sales was maintained from 1945 to 1950 at a relatively constant propor- tion of the corresponding gross income for the United States. Texas income averaged 2.6 percent of the United States to- tal. Texas gross income from pork averaged $96,736,000 an- nually from 1945 to 1950. METHODS OF MARKETING Most Texas hogs are produced in small numbers on farms scattered Widely over the State. Farrowings extend over a long period and hogs reach marketable Weights at different times on the same farm. The result is that marketings are chiefly of small lots and there is little inclination to do a care- ful job of selling. From one to five hogs are loaded into a pickup or car trailer and transported to a public stockyard, to an auction or to a local hog buyer. In some communities, local buyers still come to the farm and buy hogs directly. The spread of livestock auctions has decreased this method of sale in other areas. Most of the hogs sent to the various markets are pur- chased by slaughter buyers. Each year’s pig crop provides barrows and gilts which are fattened to a Weight of 180 to 270 pounds. This takes a varying period, depending on the intensity of feeding. Some of the gilts are retained for breed- ing purposes. Sows usually produce one or two pig crops and are then sold. Occasionally sows with pigs or weaned pigs are sold through market channels when the hog producer lacks the necessary feed. These sales are relatively minor as compar- ed with the movement to market of mature barrows, gilts and sows. Choice of a market by individual producers is dictated by such considerations as the reputation of local buyers, distance to auction or central market, number of hogs to be marketed, time available for marketing, personal prejudices, equipment 20 BULLETIN 749, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION available for hauling hogs, and the Weather. Any one of many methods may be the best for a particular individual because of his specific situation. Public Stockyards The central livestock market or public stockyard was the earliest efficient channel for marketing hogs. The public stockyard was developed to meet a recognized need for a method of marketing livestock which permits buyers and sel- lers to meet on an equal basis with a reasonable assurance of a fair and equitable price. Prior to the establishment of public stockyards there Was no centralization of buying or selling and no Way to establish uniform prices. The public stockyard provides sanitary con- ditions for sellinglivestock, convenience for the stockmen and buyers, and insures competitive trading between buyer and seller. Public stockyard companies are service organizations. They provide facilities for taking care of the livestock from the time of arrival until it is sold and delivered. Hogs are consigned to a commission firm which arranges for feed and Water, performs the selling function and charges a nominal fee for its services. Purchasers at the public stockyards are usually packer and order buyers of slaughter hogs, and farm- er buyers of feeder hogs. All the public stockyards are operated under the regula- tions of the Packers and Stockyard Act of 1921. This Act placed all public livestock markets under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture and requires stockyard owners and market agencies to furnish adequate service at reasonable rates and to refrain from unfair or discriminatory practices. Texas has important public stockyards at Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio. They were organized primarily as markets for cattle and sheep but hogs are in good demand by packers and other buyers at each market. Fort Worth is eas- ily the most important of the three as a hog market. Since 1945, its hog volume» has averaged about 200,000 head annu- ally, While San Antonio had about 70,000 and Houston about 11,000 (Table 4). Receipts at these stockyards seem to be stable and rep- resent the proportion of all marketings that can- reasonably be expected to pass through this marketing channel. Some variations in annual receipts are associated With changes in AN ECONOMIC APPRAISAL OF THE TEXAS HOG INDUSTRY 21 Table 4. Salable receipts of hogs at Texas public stockyards by markets, 1946-50‘ l 1946 | 1947 | 1948 | 1949 1950 l Number | Number | Number I Number Number Fort Worth 153,657 209,085 224,326 221,562 237,385 San Antonio 55,139 72,155 79,184 68,445 78,462 Houston 9,854 13,514 12,818 10,045 7,823 ‘Production and Marketing Administration, U. S. Department of Agricul- ture, Livestock Market News, Statistics and Related Data, 1946-50. marketings. Location of the major packers at the stockyard cities insures the continued place of these stockyards in the marketing picture. Livestock Auctions Texas is a leading state in numbers of livestock auctions and in numbersof cattle, sheep and hogs marketed by this method. A few auctions were established before 1930, but the greatest growth has occurred during the past 15 years. On November 21, 1951, the Livestock Sanitary Commission of Texas listed 168 livestock auctions operating in Texas. Most of the Texas auctions, except those in theajPan- handle, sell hogs. Hog pens are usually located close tdthe sales ring to minimize the amount of walking required. They are usually roofed and have concrete floors. Hogs are custo- marily sold early in the sale. Buyers are usually present for slaughter, stocker and feeder hogs. The total number of hogs sold at auction in 1951 amounted to 611,346. This figure in- volves some double counting since many may be sold as feeder pigs and again in the same year as fat hogs. Disease is a serious problem in buying hogs at auctions. Some auctions have veterinarians present at sales but others do not. This matter of disease is extremely important be- cause of the numbers of stocker and feeder hogs sold at auc- tions. Auctions are popular with farmers having only a few head of hogs to sell. They are able to provide their own trans- portation to market, see their hogs sold and get their pro- ceeds the same day. Local Markets Hogs not sold through public stockyards or livestock auc- tions are marketed through local buyers or direct to packer buyers in the country. The origin of this system was the 22 BULLETIN 749, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION THOUSAND HEAD 45o __ YOUTSHIPMENTS 40o 350- ‘(INSHIPMENTSI 300- 250 \ . 7 200- I 50- |oo ' ‘\‘ _ E 5g) V l I l I943 I944 I945 I946 I947 I948 I949 I950 4 Figure 6. Annual outshipments and inshipments of hogs, Texas, 19 3-50. country buyer who drove from farm to farm, making cash of- fers for livestock and hauling them to market. Some of these buyers represented packers while others bought on their own account. The spread of auctions has lessened country buy- ing, and the development of farm to market transportation in the form of the pickup truck and car trailer has also been a factor in making farmers mostly independent of country buyers. . Most auctions sell only one day a Week but several auc- tion operators buy hogs throughout the Week. Other indiv- iduals also operate hog-buying stations. Most of these buy- ers have packer connections and buy on order. Local butchers or packers do some country buying but buy at auctions as Well. Practically all slaughter hogs are sold by Weight. Prices at all points tend to fluctuate in ac- cordance With prices at the public Stockyards. U. S. Depart- ment of Agriculture Market News Service prices at these points reflect what packers are Willing to pay. Hog buying is naturally decentralized because of the lack of concentration of hog production but keen competition tends to keep all types of markets close to the same prices. AN ECONOMIC APPRAISAL OF THE TEXAS HOG INDUSTRY 23 OUTSHIPMENTS AND INSHIPMENTS OF TEXAS HOGS One of the more complicated aspects of hog marketing is the annual movement 0f live hogs across the borders of the State. Thousands of hogs are shipped in While other thous- ands are shipped out (Figure 6.) The reason for these ship- ments is the existence of variable conditions of supply and demand, Which result in relatively favorable or unfavorable prices at different places at a given time. If prices are par- ticularly high in California, the most efficient movement of hogs might be from Texas to California, with a compensating movement from Oklahoma or Kansas to Texas. Any ship- ment of this type is based on an attempt to seek the most profitable market. Outshipments Detailed data on hog shipments are available since 1943. In that year, a total of over 450,000 hogs were shipped from Texas to points in other states (Table 5). Eighty-one percent of this total went to California, indicating the terrific war- time increase in population on the West Coast without a cor- responding growth in agricultural production. Table 5. Annual inshipments and outshipments of hogs, Texas 1943-50‘ | Inshipments Outshipments I Net inshipments Year I Number Number l Number 1943 358,920 469,041 110,121’ 1944 380,406 258,527 121,879 1945 326,684 114,357 212,327 1946 442,786 76,757 366,029 1947 233,781 71,587 162,194 1948 270,613 46,580 224,033 1949 183,522 15,996 167,526 1950 204,165 41,324 162,841 ‘Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture. ’Outshipments were in excess of inshipments. Shipments decreased rapidly in subsequent years, falling below 300,000 in 1944, just over 100,000 in 1945 and below 75,000 in 1946. Subsequent decreases brought the outship- ments to a low of less than 15,000 in 1949 and increased to 40,000 in 1950. This indicates that postwar prices in Texas have been relatively high so that prices elsewhere have not made it profitable to ship Texas hogs. California has been the major outside market for Texas hogs during the period 1943-50, taking about 65 percent of all outshipments on the average. Other important states in this movement are Missouri and Kansas. ; 24 BULLETIN 749, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION The seasonal distribution of outshipments varied from year to year (Figure 7). In 1943, the movement was heaviest from March through October. In 1944, the movement slack- ened by September, and in 1945 lasted only from March through July. The movement tended to be heaviest during the spring and summer. This indicates a tendency for out- shipments to be heaviest from the fall pig crop. THOUSAND HEAD uo-————————- IOO - 9O 80- INSHWMENTS 70-ouTsmPMENTs "I "1 O ‘IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIWIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I" ~- I I I I I | I I I | I I | I | | v | I v v | v | I IIIIIIIIIIIIIII \ \\ f‘ ‘x. r A "‘ - ”"~p' u": t k o, h“ I II-‘Q’ hm ‘ll I943 I944 I945 l946 I947 I948 I949 I950 Figure 7. Monthly outshipments and inshipments of hogs, Texas, 1943-50. Inshipments The number of hogs shipped into Texas was much less variable than outshipments during the 1943-50 period (Table 5). The movement was heavy in 1943, 1944 and 1945, and reached a peak of 400,000 hogs in 1946. Subsequent years showed a considerable decline, With a low of 200,000 hogs in 1949. AN ECONOMIC APPRAISAL OF THE TEXAS HOG INDUSTRY 25 The principal source of inshipments was Oklahoma in 1943 and 1944, Iowa in 1945, 1946, 1947, 1949 and 1950, and Kansas in 1948. Other states that were important in par- ticular years were Missouri and Nebraska. The months of heaviest inshipments were January, Feb- ruary, October, November and December. These were the months when outshipments were the lightest. Since the spring and fall pig crops in Texas are numerically about equal, these figures indicate relatively heavy consumption of pork in Texas during the colder months. The spring pig crops tend to be large relative to the fall crops in the major hog-producing areas, and hog prices average lowest through the fall and win- ter. This indicates that the heaviest movement into Texas occurs when prices are lowest. Net Hog Movements The net balance between hog inshipments and outship- ments has been in favor of inshipments in every year since 1943. These differences ranged from 121,879 in 1944 to 366,- 029 in 1946 (Table 5). In 3 of the last 4 years, the net has been from 160,000 to 170,000 inshipments. This indicates rel- atively favorable hog prices in Texas and consumption con- siderably beyond Texas production. Most of the hogs shipped into Texas are for slaughter rather than for breeding purposes. Packing plants selling ham and bacon under advertised brands bring in large num- bers of fat hogs to supplement the Texas supply during some seasons of the year. It would not be practical to ship hogs to Texas for slaughter and then ship the meat elsewhere for sale. Transportation costs prohibit shipment other than in the di- rection of greatest demand. The Corn Belt is a surplus hog-producing area. Appar- ently a major direction of flow is from the Corn Belt to Tex- as. By comparison, the flow of hogs ‘from Texas to the West Coast is comparatively minor because Texas is a deficit area during more of the year than it is a surplus area. VOLUME OF COMMERCIAL SLAUGHTER In 1946, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the. U. S. Department of Agriculture, initiated a monthly inventory of commercial slaughter by states, based on data from com- mercial slaughterers. These data for Texas show the number of head slaughtered by months, the average liveweight and 26 BULLETIN 749, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION the total liveweight. t": Since the average liveweight shows lit- tle variation from 220"to 230 pounds, Table 6 summarizes the numbers and total liveweight for the period 1947-50. Slaughter by months in 1947 ranged from a low of 71,000 head in August to a high of 205,000 head in December. Al- though the variation in size between spring and fall crops is relatively small, slaughter figures indicate that marketings are much greater from the spring pig crop. If a 6-months period elapses from farrowing to marketing under Texas con- ditions, then 10W marketings during the summer would indi- cate low farrowings during the period from December to March. Hog slaughter for 1948 showed a seasonal pattern similar to that for 1947, but an increase in numbers slaughtered from the 1947 total of 1,505,000 head to 1,621,000 in 1948. January was the high month with 192,000 head, while August was low again with 78,000. Average liveweight ranged from 225 pounds in July to 242 pounds. in December. Texas hog slaughter decreased considerably in 1949, drop- ping to 1,379,000 head. Months which were substantially lower than the previous year were January, April and May with a total decrease of 192,000, while August and September showed slight increases. July was the low slaughter month while December was high. Average slaughter weights were comparable with those of previous years. ‘In 1950, slaughter increased sharply to slightly above the 1948 level. Every month in 1950 except February had larger Table 6. Hog slaughter by months, Texas, 1947-50‘ Hogs slaughtered’ I Total liveweight Month 1947 1948 1949 I 1950 I 1947 I 1948 1949 1950 Thou- Thou- Thou- Thou- 1,000 I 1,000 1,000 1,000 sands sands sands sands pounds pounds pounds pounds Jan. 192 192 126 162 45,451 45,321 29,888 39,362 Feb. 167 127 123 127 38,909 29,632 29,135 30,035 March 124 145 140 156 28,058 33,422 33,036 35,314 April 132 172 113 135 30,007 40,050 25,749 30,224 May 114 192 109 135 24,250 45,070 24,903 30,134 June 90 117 93 106 20,706 27,080 20,982 24,376 July 75 88 77 86 17,316 19,825 17,215 19,609 August 71 78 88 99 16,651 17,721 19,536 22,128 Sept. 83 85 97 114 19,234 19,238 21,446 25,417 October 105 110 113 146 25,277 25,262 25,176 32,798 Nov. 147 156 142 179 34,719 36,688 32,616 41,310 Dec. 205 159 158 195 48,177 38,467 37,118 45,673 Total 1,505 1,621 1,379 1,640 348,755 377,776 316,800 376,380 ‘Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. Department of Agricult" e. 2Excludes farm slaughter. - ' AN ECONOMIC APPRAISAL OF THE TEXAS HOG INDUSTRY 27 THOUSAND HEAD 2 I 0- l I90 ‘ I70- ISO- I30 ‘ IIO- 90- 70 50- 1 O'/I|||||1||||| IIIIIIIIIII Illllllllll |||IIIIIII| I947 I948 I949 I950 Figure 8. Monthly hog slaughter, Texas, 1947-50. slaughter than the corresponding month in 1949. Slaughter weights were also slightly higher. July and August were the low slaughter months While November and December were the high months. The seasonal pattern of slaughter for the 4 years is sum- marized in Figure 8, which includes the monthly data from Table 6. In each year, slaughter decreased through the first few months, hitting a low point in July or August and recov- ering during the balance of the year. There was a further tendency for a decrease in slaughter during February of each year below the level of March. The most striking feature of Figure 8 is the similarity of the seasonal slaughter pattern for Texas hogs during the 4-year period. Variation in annual commercial slaughter during the per- iod 1947-50 was quite small. It ranged from a. low of 1,370,- 000 head in 1949 to a high of 1,600,000 in 1950. The range during the 4-year period is sufficiently low to indicate a ten- dency towards relatively stable commercial slaughter in Tex- as. 28 BULLETIN 749, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION THOUSAND HEAD TOTAL 2500 Q SLAUGHTER ER 2000 FARM SLAUGHT I500 IOOO COMMERCIAL SLAUGHTER TEXAS PRODUCTION /// \‘und INSHIPMENTS \ O | ‘T ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘Tl I I947 I948 I949 I950 Figure 9. Total hog slaughter by source, Texas, 1947-50. AN ECONOMIC APPRAISAL OF THE TEXAS HOG INDUSTRY 29 ESTIMATED INSHIPMENTS OF PORK CUTS Texas consumption of pork products includes a consider- able amount of cuts that are shipped into the State from pack- ing plants in the major pork-producing areas. These cuts in- clude cured hams and bacon and uncured cuts that are brought in for curing or for sale as fresh pork. Trade sources indi- cate that Texas has been a deficit pork-producing state for many years. Continued increase in population with no corres- ponding increase in pork production has made this situation inevitable. Precise figures on pork inshipments are not available since neither federal nor state laws require the measurement of this movement. Much of it occurs by truck and is difficult to measure. Estimates of these inshipments involve the as- sumption that the Texas per capita consumption of pork is equal to that of the United States. This assumption was checked With federal authorities and officials of the meat packing industry. Their information indicates that the per capita consumption of pork in Texas is at least as much as the national average per capita consumption. Total hog slaughter for Texas was calculated for the per- iod 1947 to 1950. This includes net inshipments plus com- mercial slaughter plus farm slaughter. Annual slaughter averaged between 2,000,000 and 2,500,000 head (Figure 9). The actual range in pounds was from 420,608,800 in 1950 to 485,191,360 in 1948 (Table 7). The Texas population figure for each year of the period was estimated, based on 1950 Census data and accepted pop- ulation growth curves. Annual Texas slaughter in pounds was divided by the Texas population by years to derive per capita Table 7. Estimated inshipments of pork cuts, Texas, 1947-50 , Per capita National , Estimated Commercial consumption per capita Estlmated inshipments Year and farm of Texas consumption Texa? 2 of pork slaughter‘ pork inof- pork population cutsa ___ l Pounds l Poun_dvs Pounds Number I Po_unds 1947 465,530,900 65.8 69.8 7,076,800 28,429,740 1948 485,191,360 67.1 68.4 7,226,800 9,121,760 1949 423,765,000 57.1 67.6 7,421,800 77,948,680 1950 420,008,800 54.8 68.8 ~ 7,677,800 107,028,840 ‘Average lard factor of 14 percent was subtracted from slaughter data. Meat Packing and Allied Industries, The National Provisioner, January 5, 1952, p. 24. “Estimated by Joe R. Motheral, Department of Agricultural Economics and Sociology. “Texas consumption at national rate less Texas commercial and farm slaughter. 30 BULLETIN 749, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION pork consumption figures for Texas. These averages were '66, 67, 57 and 55 pounds, respectively, for 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950. National per capita pork consumption figures for the same years were 70, 68, 68 and 69 pounds, respectively. Texas population figures were multiplied by national per capita pork consumption by years to estimate annual Texas consumption. An estimate of inshipments of pork cuts was made by subtracting Texas hog slaughter from Texas pork consumption for each year. The estimated inshipments are shown in Table 7. It is not likely that actual shipments range quite as widely as the estimates. It is noteworthy, however, that the average for the 4 years of slightly over 55 pounds an- nually agrees with estimates by trade sources of the annual Texas imports of pork cuts. The very slight difference between United States per capita pork consumption and Texas pork production is shown by Figure 10. This difference, while small, is sufficient to make Texas a pork-importing state. The inability of Texas pork producers to meet the demand for their product has been an important factor in keeping hog prices in Texas at a rela- tively high level. HOG PRICES AND PRICE RELATIONSHIPS Farmers in each state tend to produce commodities that they think will give them the greatest average profits over a period of years. In some areas, products which are well suit- ed from the climatic and other standpoints are not produced because no market exists and prices are necessarily low. ' The Texas market for hogs is good because the hogs are produced, slaughtered and consumed in the State. Texas prices are affected, however, by such factors as seasonal var- iations in marketings and relative prices in other markets. They are subject also to the effect ofthose factors which af- -fect hog prices for the United States as a whole. Relation Between Slaughter and Price Slaughter data for Texas have been available only since 1947 but they show a striking inverse relationship between slaughter and prices (Figure 11). Each of the 4 years shows a drop in slaughter to about 80,000 head per month in the mid- dle of the summer. At about the same time, hog prices reach- ed their seasonal peak. AN ECONOMIC APPRAISAL OF THE TEXAS HOG INDUSTRY 31 POUNDS - u.s. CONSUMPTION g TEXAS PRODUCTION»!- |94s 1949 |9so atCOMMERCIAL AND FARM SLAUGHTER Figure 10. Per capita pork consumption, United States, and per capita pork production, Texas, 1947-50. BULLETIN 749, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION DOLLARS PER CWT. THOU SAND H EAD 240 -PRl0E 200 I60 I20 IO v ‘ 8O SLAUGHTER 5 4o o 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 o I947 I948 I949 I950 Figure 11. Relationship between monthly hog prices and monthly hog slaughter, Texas, 1947-50. AN ECONOMIC APPRAISAL OF THE TEXAS HOG INDUSTRY 33 Hog slaughter in Texas tended to reach its high point to- wards the end of each year. Hog prices, 0n the other hand, declined at this season. It has been shown previously that in- shipments were an important part of the Texas slaughter and, therefore, affected Texas prices. The basis for these inship- ments is the relationship between prices in the major Texas and outside markets. Prices for Barrows and Gilts at Three Markets The monthly average prices per 100 pounds for barrows and gilts were compared for light, medium and heavy hogs at two Texas markets and one outside market for the period 1946-50. These data show the variations in prices paid for hogs of different weight. Quality was comparable in that prices for all weights at all markets were for the Good and Choice grades. Price variations at Fort Worth are summarized in Figure 12. On the average, it appears that the highest prices were paid for the medium-weight, 200-220 pound hogs, and the low- est prices were paid for the light-weight, 160-180 pound hogs. Medium-weight hogs sold at a substantially higher price than other weights at Fort Worth during July, August and September of 1948, 1949 and 1950. At most other times, the differences in price were negligible. ' On a few occasions, light hogs sold at substantially lower prices than heavier hogs. This was especially true during the first few months of 1948 and 1949 and to a lesser extent early in 1950. Under Texas conditions, it is frequently difficult to obtain sufficient grain to finish hogs to heavy weights. The Fort Worth price data indicate that the price premium paid for heavier weights is insufficient to warrant purchases of ex- pensive grain to feed hogs. Hog prices by weights at San Antonio exhibited much the same relationship as at Fort Worth (Figure 13). Light-weight hogs sold at a slight discount while medium and heavy-weight hogs brought almost identical prices. Differences were great- est in 1947, 1948 and 1949, and smallest in 1946 and 1950. As a whole, prices of all weights rose and fell together. Prices by weights at Chicago showed considerably more variation than at the two Texas markets (Figure 14). Prices for 200-220 pound hogs were highest on the average, and prices of 270-300 pound hogs were lowest, particularly at a 34 BULLETIN 749, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION DOLLARS PER CWT. 3| so 29 200- 22o L815. as l‘? 26 25E l|llr|llr|llu|u|l|l I1I| 24 23 270-300 LBS. a,“ '5 I946 I947 I948 I949 I950 22 l60—I8O 2| 20 I9 I8 I7 I6 I5 I4 |IIItI]III|I|IIIII]I‘III 1|1‘I|I]I|I|II1]'I' Figure 12. Prices of Good and Choice barrows and gilts by Weights, Fort Worth, by months, 1946-50. AN ECONOMIC APPRAISAL OF THE TEXAS HOG INDUSTRY 3| 3O 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 2| 2O l9 l8 I7 l6 I5 l4 l3 DOLITARS PER CWT. ZOO-ZZOLBS l60-l80_L_B 270- 3OOLBS. IIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIII lllllllllflllllllll Ifllllllllllfllll]! Ill] I946 I947 I948 I949 I959 Figure 13. Prices of Good and Choice barrows and gilts by weights, San Antonio, by months, 1946-50. 36 BULLETIN 749, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION DOLLARS PER CWT. I I 3| 30 I I | n I 2 2 I zdo-zzo LBS. 2s I I 2e 21 26 f n 25 24 23 ‘a 22 2| 2o vac-saunas, I W I9 I8 l6048O BS I6 IIIIITIIIIIIUIIIII IIIII|I|IIIII|IFFII I|III|IIIIIIIIIIIIT III] I5 I4 I3 I946 I94 I948 I949 I950 Figure 14. Prices of Good and Choice barrows and gilts by weights, Chicago, by months, 1946-50. AN ECONOMIC APPRAISAL OF THE TEXAS HOG INDUSTRY 37 few periods. There were occasional periods when 160-180 pound hogs were lowest in price. The medium-weight hogs were especially high in price relative to other weights in the mid-summer of 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950. Heavy-Weight hogs were especially low in price during the spring of 1947, 1948 and 1949. Light-weight hogs were lowest relative to other Weights in the late sum- mer and fall of 1949 and 1950. Chicago receives a relatively larger proportion of heavy weight corn-fed hogs than do the Texas markets. Whenever these heavy hogs make up too large a proportion of total re- ceipts, they are sold at a price discount. Even at Chicago, the prices of the different weights are quite close during most of the period. This indicates no great premium for any partic- ular Weight of hogs. The medium-weight hog is always pre- ferred but the other weights are not discounted unless their supply on the market becomes too great relative to the de- mand. Differences in Prices Paid for Hogs at Major Markets Hogs produced for sale in one market are often shipped » to other markets because of existing price differences. More hogs are shipped into Texas than are shipped out, which indi- cates that Texas hog prices are favorable relative to those paid in other areas. A complete analysis of hog movements would necessitate comparisons of prices paid for the same weight and grade of hogs at all markets. Since there are so many markets, only the two major Texas markets, Fort Worth and San Antonio, and one outside market, Chicago, are com- pared. Chicago is usually considered a price-setting point in the livestock industry. Chicago and San Antonio market prices were considered as deviations above and below Fort Worth market prices. Fort Worth is the principal hog market in Texas, and San Antonio ranks second in sales receipts. The Fort Worth market is as- sumed to be the price-basing point for Texas hogs. Fort Worth market prices are affected to some extent by Chicago prices, and the San Antonio market in turn is affected by Fort Worth market prices. Monthly prices for each market are available from the Market News Service reports of the U. S. Depart- ment of Agriculture. Comparisons were made for barrows and gilts only and for 7 weight groups. The Weight limits considered were 140- 38 BULLETIN 749, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 160, 160-180, 180-200, 200-220, 220-240, 240-270 and 270-300 pounds. Only the Good and Choice grades were considered since this includes the bulk 0f slaughter hogs. Normal price differences at various markets are attrib- utable largely t0 costs of shipping hogs between markets. These costs include freight, shrinkage, death loss and other minor factors. Before the extensive development of truck transportation, railroad rates and service were the major fac- tors that determined the location of markets and the routing of hogs to these markets. Important livestock markets were located and developed at principal railroad centers, but truck transportation made it possible to use nearby markets and largely determined the sphere of influence of smaller mar- kets. The extensive development of hard-surface roads, trucks, market news and radio, and increased knowledge of livestock prices on the part of Texas farmers, contributed greatly to the growing importance of diversified methods of marketing hogs and the decentralization of central stockyards and pack- ers. Cost factors must not be construed as the only causes for price differences between markets. Additional causes are seasonal gluts and shortages at individual markets, the un- certainty regarding the total number of hogs available for market, the extreme sensitivity of prices of farm products to changes in local demand, and general imperfections in the price-reporting practices at the various markets. The interaction of national and local supply and demand factors cannot be determined with any great degree of accur- acy and, consequently, the price relationships among markets are constantly in a state of flux. This analysis of price differences between markets in- cludes only the 5-year period, 1946-50. The three markets are compared for each weight group. The first weight group con- sidered is the 140-160 pound hogs. There was no definite price pattern for the Chicago or San Antonio market above or below the Fort Worth base price for the entire period (Fig- ure 15). In 1946, San Antonio and Chicago prices varied above or below Fort Worth to a smaller extent than in the 4 suc- ceeding years. Chicagoprices for the 140-160 pound hogs were generally above the Fort Worth prices, falling below Fort Worth prices only in the fall. This situation was per- haps a reflection of a greater supply of hogs offered on the Chicago market in the fall relative to Fort Worth and San Antonio markets where fall and spring farrowings are rela- tively equal. AN ECONOMIC APPRAISAL OF THE TEXAS HOG INDUSTRY 39 CENTS PER CW1’. +400 n CHICAGO H300 +200 mo k I1 ALA 11 i 11 . w SAN ANTONIO —2OO —3OO 11111111111111111111111111111111 111111111 11111111111 I946 I947 I048 ‘I949 I950 Figure 15. Price differences for Good and Choice barrows and gilts, 140-160 pounds, by months, 1946-50, based on Fort Worth. 40 BULLETIN 749, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Chicago prices were comparatively closer to the Fort Worth prices in 1949 and 1950 than in 1947 and 1948. Chicago prices exceeded Fort Worth prices t0 the greatest extent in February and March of each year, reaching a maximum dif- ference of $4.00 per 100 pounds in February 1949. San Antonio prices were, for the most part, below Fort Worth prices in 1947 and 1948, except in February 1948, at which time San Antonio prices were nearly $1.00 above Fort Worth prices. Paradoxically, San Antonio prices were nearly $2.00 below Fort Worth prices in the same month of the pre- ceding year. San Antonio prices were above Fort Worth prices in 1949 and 1950 by an average of about 75 cents per hundred weight. Drouth conditions have undoubtedly lower- ed the hog population in South Texas, causing a shortage on the San Antonio market at times. The Chicago price pattern of the 160-180 pound hogs was similar to that of the 140-160 pound hogs, except that the deviations above the Fort Worth prices were less extreme, reaching a maximum difference of about $2.00 per hundred weight in February 1948 (Figure 16). However, Chicago prices fell below Fort Worth prices only three times, and this occurred in the fall of 1946, 1948 and 1950. The demand for 160-180 pound hogs was not quite so variable as was the de- mand for lighter hogs, but Chicago prices were above Fort Worth prices more consistently. San Antonio prices were below Fort Worth prices as con- sistently as Chicago prices were above Fort Worth prices. San Antonio prices were above Fort Worth prices in the spring and fall of 1948 and during most of 1950. This reflected fur- ther the deficiency of hogs in the San Antonio area. Chicago prices of 180-200 pound hogs showed less ex- treme and more irregular deviations from the Fort Worth base price than for the lighter hogs. In each year, Chicago prices were below Fort Worth for one or more months (Fig- ure 17). The Chicago price differences above Fort Worth were about twice as great and of longer duration than the price difference below Fort Worth, except from June 1949 to December 1950 when the Chicago prices averaged as much below as they did above Fort Worth prices. Chicago prices of 180-200 pound hogs were usually above Fort Worth prices in the late fall and early winter and below Fort Worth prices in the early fall and late spring. San Antonio prices on 180-200 pound hogs showed a very similar pattern to San Antonio prices on lighter hogs, except that of being considerably above Fort Worth prices in 1949. ’ AN ECONOMIC APPRAISAL OF THE TEXAS HOG INDUSTRY 41 CENTS PER CWT +400 +300 +200 0HmA$0 +100 f5 C, "\ 1 40o , - l - SAN ANTONW -200 -300 Jllllllll llllillllll HHIIHUJ HLHLHHI llllllllill I946 I947 I948 I949 I950 Figure 16. Price differences for Good and Choice barrows and gilts, 160-180 pounds, by months, 1946-50, based on Fort Worth. 42 BULLETIN 749, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION CENTS PER CWT +400 +300 +200 » HWAGO +IO0 A -IOO v\\SAN ANTONIO -200 -300 lllllllllill HHHHH] lllllllllll illHllllll llllllUJ |94s |941 194a 1949 |95o Figure 1'7. Price differences for Good and Choice barrows and gilts, 180-200 pounds, by months, 1946-50, based on Fort Worth. "AN ECONOMIC APPRAISAL OF THE TEXAS HOG INDUSTRY 43 Chicago prices on 200-220 pound hogs were above Fort Worth prices during most of the period, with a difference ranging from about 25 cents to slightly over $2.00 per hun- dred weight (Figure 18). However, Chicago prices on 200- 220 pound hogs were noticeably below Fort Worth prices in the fall of each year from 1946 to 1950, which was not the case for any of the lighter hogs. The 200-220 pound hogs commanded an average annual price at Chicago more nearly in line with Fort Worth prices than did lighter hogs. San Antonio prices for 200-220 pound hogs averaged about 50 cents below Fort Worth prices for the entire period, rising noticeably above Fort Worth prices only in the spring of 1949. This seemed to indicate that lighter hogs were in relatively greater demand on the San Antonio market than were hogs of medium weights. Chicago market prices for 220-240 pound hogs were slight- ly over $2.00 above Fort Worth in August 1946, and again in March 1947 , but, for the remaining time, the prices oscillated above and below Fort Worth prices by smaller amounts (Fig- ure 19). The relationship of Chicago prices to Fort Worth prices was much less sensitive and more stable than was true for the lighter hogs. However, Chicago prices were above Fort Worth prices, more than they were below. San Antonio prices varied from almost $1.50 below Fort Worth in August 1948 to slightly- above Fort Worth in the spring of 1949. San Antonio is evidently not as good a market for heavier hogs as it seemed to be for lighter weights. For 240-270 pound hogs, Chicago prices were above Fort Worth prices in August 1946 and March 1947, but were below Fort Worth prices more than they were above for the remain- i ing time (Figure 20). This reflected somewhat lower prices on heavier hogs on the Chicago market relative to Fort Worth prices, while San Antonio prices were very similar to the prices for 220-240 pound hogs. During the last 3 years of this period, Fort Worth was as good a market for this weight hogs as was Chicago. The Chicago price relationship for 270-300 pound hogs was similar to that for 240-270 pound hogs (Figure 21). This indicates no great distinction at the market between these two weight groups. The San Antonio market, on the other hand, paidrelatively higher prices for 270-300 pound hogs than for 240-27 0 pound hogs. There is no known explanation for this preference for the extremely heavy weights at that market. 44 BULLETIN 749, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION +400 +300 +200 +100 -I00 ‘zoo “$00 Figure 18. Price differences for Good and Choice barrows and gilts,‘ csurs PER cwr“ 1 1 ' 1 l CHICAGO V Vr-SAN ANTONIO 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 I946 ' I947 ‘~ I948 ' I949 I950 200-220 pounds, by months, 1946-50, based on Fort Worth. AN ECONOMIC APPRAISAL OF THE TEXAS HOG INDUSTRY 45 +400 +300 +200 +I00 —lO0 -200 -300 CENTS PER CWT. CHICAGO V\s1m ANTONIO Hillllllll IIIIIIIIIII IllllIllllI lllllllllll lllllilllll I946 I947 I948 I949 I950 Figure 19. Price differences for Good and Choice barrows and gilts, 220-240 pounds, by months, 1946-50, based on Fort Worth. 46 BULLETIN_ 749, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION CENTS PER CWT +400 +300 +200 ~—OMOAGO ‘H0O SAN ANTONI V -200 -300 llllllllllll lllllflllll lllllllllll llllllllill Illllllllll 194s n94? 194a |949 1950 Figure 20. Price differences for Good and Choice barrows and gilts, 240-270 pounds, by months, 1946-50, based on Fort Worth. AN ECONOMIC APPRAISAL OF THE TEXAS HOG INDUSTRY 47 CENTS PER CWT. +400 +300 +200 L-w-CHICAGO o .A/\ Mo, V -|00 \ SAN AN1FO‘NlO-—- -zoo -aoo llHlHlHiiilHlUlHl hlHlHlH HliHlHlI1lHiHlHl I946 I947 I948 I949 I950 Figure 21. Price differences for Good and Choice barrows and gilts, 270-300 pounds, by months, 1946-50, based on Fort Worth. 48 BULLETIN 749, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION San Antonio market prices were very close to those of Fort Worth in 1946, below Fort Worth prices, for the most part, in 1947 and 1948, above Fort Worth prices in 1949 and below Fort Worth prices in 1950 for all weights, except for 160-180 pound hogs. This weight group reversed the pattern of other groups by being below Fort Worth prices in 1949, and above the Fort Worth prices, for the most part, in 1950. Indications were that, as the weight of hogs increased, the San Antonio and Chicago markets showed a marked ten- dency to pay the same prices and had less violent fluctuations above and below the Fort Worth base price. This price be- havior was perhaps a reflection of a variation in the demand for lighter hogs as feeders in the vicinity of the three mar- kets. ECONOMIC FACTORS TO CONSIDER Data summarized by the U. S. Department of Agriculture indicate that nationally about 40 percent of all feed grain is fed to hogs. If 40 percent of Texas feed grain production was similarly utilized at average feeding rates, and hogs were fed to average slaughter weights, the 1950 hog production in Tex- as could have been doubled. Actual expansion is determined by relative profits from alternate uses for grain as feed or for sale outside the State, and by the attitude of producers towards hog production. Currently hog prices in Texas compare favorably with prices in other states. Production in excess of Texas needs would tend to lower prices to enable Texas pork to compete with other exporting areas. Consifierable expansion could take place, however, before reaching a production surplus. Dur- ing the period 1947-50, net inshipments of live hogs amount- ed to approximately 160,000 head in each of 3 years and 220,- 000 in the fourth. These hogs could be produced in Texas if the proper quality standards were met, and if farrowings were timed to meet the seasonal demands for out-of-state hogs. The major months for inshipments are January, Feb- ruary, October, November and December. A considerable volume of hog slaughter occurs during the seasons of lowest prices. Slaughter is lowest during the summer when hog prices are highest, and slaughter reaches its peak late in the year when prices are lowest. Hog producers should consider these seasonal price vari- ations in establishing their schedule of farrowings and sys- tem of feeding. An attempt should be made to have hogs ready for market during the period of highest prices. AN ECONOMIC APPRAISAL OF THE TEXAS HOG INDUSTRY 49 SUMMARY Cash income to Texas farmers on sales of hogs amounted to more than 63 million dollars in 1950. Hogs are produced in every part of Texas, but greatest concentration occurs in the principal grain-producing areas of the State. Texas ranks ninth nationally in hog production. Spring and fall pig crops have been of about equal size and together have totalled from 2 to 2.5 million hogs in most years since 1935. A substantial part of each year’s pig crops is slaughtered on the farm. Farm slaughter ranged from 93 to 172 percent of marketings from 1930 to 1938 but has declined in import- ance since that time. Hogs available for marketing were fur- ther reduced by death losses, which averaged a little less than one pig per litter. Hogs that live to maturity and are not slaughtered on the farm or retained for breeding purposes are marketed for commercial slaughter. The major marketing channels are public stockyards, livestock auctions and local buyers. De- centralization of meat packing accounts for a relatively high proportion of sales through auctions and local buyers. Slaughter figures differ from marketings because of movements of hogs across state lines. The number of hogs shipped out of Texas declined steadily from 1943 to 1950. California Was by far the major recipient of Texas outship- ments during this period. With an increasing Texas popu- lation and no substantial increase in hog production, outship- ments have become relatively less profitable. Inshipments were relatively stable from 1943 to 1950, coming primarily from Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri and Ne- braska. Inshipments were heaviest in the months of great- est slaughter and lowest prices, while outshipments were heaviest in the months when Texas prices Were highest. Texas hog production plus net inshipments of live hogs does not provide enough pork to meet the Texas demand. Trade sources estimate that Texas consumption is supple- mented by annual imports of pork cuts averaging 55 million pounds. Prices for light, medium and heavy-Weight hogs generally rose and fell together on the Fort Worth, San Antonio and Chi- cago markets during the period 1946-50. Light hogs sold at favorable prices relative to heavy hogs on the San Antonio market. Considering all three markets, medium-weight hogs 50 BULLETIN 749, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION sold for the highest average prices. The average seasonal pattern of hog prices had a minor peak in March and minor 10W points in May and June, a major peak in August and Sep- tember and a major low in December and January. Hog price differences for the various weights at the Chi- cago, Fort Worth and San Antonio markets were fairly small in 1946 for all weights. After 1946, San Antonio was below Fort Worth most of the time except in 1949 and 1950, partic- ularly for light to medium-weight hogs. San Antonio prices were down to Fort Worth prices for heavier hogs. Chicago paid a premium for hogs weighing 140-180 pounds in 1947 and 1948, as compared with the two Texas markets, while weights above 180 pounds were priced close to the Texas markets. From 1947 to 1950, prices at all three markets differred less as the weight increased. Generally, Fort Worth was the better Texas market for hogs, while Chi- cago prices were slightly higher than either of the two Texas markets, but the difference was too small to encourage any substantial movement of hogs between markets. More Details Available Detailed price information used in preparing Figures 11 through 21 are available in a separate mimeographed re- port. Copies of these tables may be obtained from the Publications Office, Texas Agricultural Experiment Sta- tion, College Station, Texas.