Agr. Exp. 
Sta.Library
State 
College, 
Miss.
Progress Report Series* No. 29 
October 1946
AGRICULTURAL 
EXPERIMENT STATION
of The Alabama Polytechnic 
Institute, Auburn, Ala.
* * * M. 
J. Funchess, Director
SIGNIFICANCE of HOG-FEED PRICE 
RATIOS in ALABAMA
ROBERT L. TONTZ, Agricultural Economist, Bureau 
of Agricultural
Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture
ALBERT H. HARRINGTON, Associate Agricultural 
Economist, Alabama
Agricultural Experiment Station
Feed is the chief expense item in hog
production. Thus, cost of feed materially
affects profits.
The decision of whether to increase or
decrease production of hogs, therefore,
depends usually on the relation between
the price of hogs and the cost of feed.
Price ratios, which have been computed to
show this relation, represent the relative
number of bushels of corn or hundreds of
pounds of peanuts it would take to buy 100
pounds of live pork.
Various studies(I) have shown that
variation in the hog-corn ratio is the
chief cause of subsequent changes in hog
supplies from year to year.
In 1933, Wells(2) concluded that the
same general type of analysis that ex-
plains the variation in total hog produc-
tion in the United States would also ex-
plain the variation in hog production
within an individual market district, a
state, or a broad type-of-farming area.
ikhen the sectional changes in hog produc-
tion were studied, however, certain dif-
ferences in response to price ratios became
apparent. In the South, for example, the
response during the period of 1921-1932
was found to be directly related to the
acreage of corn, and indirectly related to
the price of c ctton.
In order to fet a more complete expla-
nation of farriers' response to specific
hog-feed pric ratios (hog-corn and hog-
peanut) in Alabama, the relationship be-
tween hog-feed price ratios and commercial
pork production has been analyzed. 
The
hog-corn ratios in Alabama are typical of
the low ratios that prevail 
in other
Southeastern States.
HOG ENTERPRISE in ALABAMA
The quantity of Alabama pork (live-
weight) used for farm home consumption
during the 21-year period of 1924-1944
averaged 98.5 million pounds, 53 per cent
of total production. While pork used annu-
ally for farm home consumption has varied
little over the past two decades, produc-
tion for sale, on the other hand although
upward in trend, has varied considerably,
Figure 1.
The size of hog enterprise and extent
to which it is commercial vary among areas
of the State. About 31 per cent of the av-
erage pork production in the 1937-1941
period was produced in the 12 counties of
southeastern Alabama. The 12 northern
counties of Alabama represent the second
heaviest section, producing 24 per cent of
Formerly Mimeograph Series
Transferred to U. S. Dept. of Com.
*** Resigned.
(1) 'Warren, G. F. and Pearson, 
F. A., The
Agricultural Situation, Economic Ef-
fects of Fluctuating Prices, New York,
1924; Wright, S., Corn and Hog Correla-
tions, U. S. Dept. of Agr., 
Bul. 1300,
1925; Haas, G. C. and Ezekiel, Mordecai,
Factors Affecting the Price of Hogs,
U. S. Dept. of Agr., Dept. Bul. No.
1440, Nov. 1926; Elliott, F. F., Ad-
justing Hog Production 
to Market Demand,
Ill1. Agr. Expt. Sta. 
Bul. 293, 1927;
and Russell, S. W., Forecasting 
Hog
Production and Marketing, 
Journal Amer-
ican Statistical Association 
(M. S. 165
A) (Sup.) 1929.
(2) Wells, 0. V., Farmers' 
Response to
Price in Hog Production 
and Marketing,
U. S. Dept., of Agr., 
Tech. Bul. No.
359, April 
1933.
~ I~r II I ~ I i I I I I II ~ I r 1~1
~I L -
POUNDS of PORK (LIVEWEIGHT) USED for HOME CONSUMPTION, SOLD COMMERCIALLY, and
TOTAL PRODUCTION, 1924-1944, ALABAMA
POUNDS (Millions) 1 -
300
260-
220 -
180
140
100
60
20 -
1924
FIGURE I. Pork produced for home use in the past 21 years has varied very little
from year to year. Variations in t8tal yearly production were primarily
the result of variations in production for sale. The upward trend since
1934 is the result of increased feed production, particularly corn. This
is also reflected in the higher-than-average hog-corn ratios, which gen-
erally prevailed from 1935-1943 as compared to the lower-than-average ra-
tios, which were generally typical of the 1924-1934 
period. (Data from In-
come Parity report, Agricultural Statistics, 
and Meat Animals, Farm Produc-
tion and Income reports, U.S.D.A., R.A.E.)
HOG-CORN PRICE RATIOS, ALABAMA 
and CORN BELT, 1924-1944
RAT10
I0
16
1 -Average 
13.1
FIGUE. ...- ,....4...........s inthepas
_____ yer......V~itlos nt~
6 h Ieul Ii Iaitosi p A......i
FIGURE 2.
1924 1930 1935 1940 1945
Yearly hog-corn price ratios in Alabama and the Corn Belt States fluctuat-
ed similarly from year to year. The Alabama price ratio on the average has
been less than two-thirds that of the Corn Belt. (Ratios calculated from
farm prices of corn and hogs reported by Crop Reporting Service. U.S.D.A.)
(2)
Alabama's total pork *supply in 
the same
years. In most of the other areas, 
produc-
tion for home consumption has been 
the
dominant feature.
'Corn, the chief feed used for hogs 
in
Alabama, is produced in all areas of 
the
State. Peanuts represent an 
important
hog feed only in the Southeastern 
part,
where approximately half of the feed 
used
is hogged peanuts. It is estimated that in
1939 (a year of low yields) approximate-
ly 29 million pounds of pork (12 per 
cent of
the State's total) were produced from
peanuts.
RELATIONSHIP of RATIOS to COMMERCIAL
PORK PRODUCTION
uring the 1924-1944 period, the hog-
corn ratio in Alabama fluctuated similarly
to the ratio in the Corn Belt states,
Figure 2. (3) The Alabama hog-corn ratio
averaged 8.4; the value of 100 pounds of
hog was equal to 8.4 bushels of corn. This
ratio was consistently below the Corn Belt
ratio of 13.1'
The Alabama hog-peanut ratio averaged
2.0 during the period, 1924-44; in other
words, the value of 100 pounds of hog was
equal to the value of 200 pounds of har-
vested peanuts. The direction of year-to-
year changes in hog-corn and hog-peanut
ratios was generally similar, Figure 3.
Although year-to-year changes in the hog-
corn and hog-peanut ratios were generally
similar, commercial pork production in the
following year reacted slightly more to the
hog-corn ratio movements during the periods
in which the two ratios differed, Fig-es
4 and 5. This seems logical; hogs in most
of the State are fed largely on corn, and
in the peanut section, if two litters a
year are farrowed per sow, only one litter
can be fed to any extent on peanuts.
The amount of commercial pork produc-
tion (total production less that saved for
home consumption) was closely related to
shifts in the hog-corn ratios. A hog-corn
ratio above average in one year very gen-
erally was followed by an increase in com-
mercial pork p )duction the following year,
Figure 4. (') On the other hand, a hog-corn
ratio below average generally was followed
by a decrease in commercial pork produc-
tion the following year, Figure 4. (')
uring the 1924-44 period, hog-peanut
ratios averaging 2.0 or above were general-
ly followed one year later by an increase
in commercial pork production. Ratios be-
low 2.0, however, were generally followed
one year later by a decrease in commercial
pork production, Figure 5. (5)
Shifts in the hog-corn ratio have given
relatively good indications of changes one
year later in commercial pork production.
Yet, at a hog-corn ratio of 8.4, costs
would not be covered. About 8.0 bushels of
corn are generally required to produce 100
pounds of live hog, and the value of 2 to
3 bushels of corn in addition to feed
costs is usually considered necessary to
pay the other costs 
of labor, investment,
and losses.
The response of Alabama hog producers
to hog-corn ratios during the 20-year per-
iod is shown in Table 1. Average produc-
tion of pork for home use one year follow-
ing the different ratios varied little. On
the other hand, production of pork for sale
one year following above-average ratios was
approximately 115 million pounds comparea
(3) The Corn Belt includes: Ohio, Indiana,
Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minne-
sota, Iowa, Missouri, 
North Dakota,
South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas.
(4) Hog-corn ratios were above average in
10 of the 20 years shown in Figure 4.
The above-average ratios in 8 of the 10
years were associated with increases in
commercial pork production in the fol-
lowing year, Figure L4.
In 10 of the 20 years the ratio was be-
low average. The below-average ratio*
in 6 of these 10 years were associated
with decreases in commercial pork pro-
duction in the following year.
(5) Hog-peanut ratios were average or above
in 13 of the 20 years shown in Figure
5. The average or above-average ratios
in 10 of those years were associatec
with increases in commercial pork pro-
duction in the following year.
In 7 of the years, the ratio was below
average. The below-average ratios were
associated with decreases in commercial
production the following year in 5 of
the 7 years.
(3)
INDEXES of
INDEX
14C.
120
I1C0
80
60
1924
ANNUAL ALABAMA HOG-CORN and HOG-PEANUT PRICE RATI.OS, 
19241~9f4
(1924~-1944 =100)
1930 1935 1940 1945
FIGURE 3. The direction of year-to-year changes in hog-corn 
and hog-peanut ratios
was generally similar during the period, 1924-1944.
HOG-CORN PRICE RATIOS and COMMERCIAL PORK PRODUCTION, 1924-1944, ALA-KAiA
RATIO
12 Hog-Corn 
Price Ratio,-Alabama
106 
4
Av. 8. 4
PRODUYCTION _ __ I(Mi 1, Lb
(M. b
4
~Commercial Pork Production
160 s
120
100seaa0
80-A Mas.. 6
60441-
20 jj!::::X j-X X:X-Xv:0w
1924, 19a 93X14
FIUR* . aios GV096 aaa0 gneally0sociated 
wtanraeincmeca
pork prductio0oneaar atr0weeaaato blo0veaegeeoeerl
FIUE . 'Rtosaoe vraeweegeealy associated-with decrease in commercialpokrdutnoeyarle.
(4)
HOG-PEANUT PRICE RATIOS and COtMERCIAL PORK PRODUCTION, 19241,94 ALABAMA
RATIO
3 Hog-Peanut Price Ratio, Alabama
2-Yr. Av. .. 0 0aa a"o 'Jr
PRODUCTION
(Mil. Lb.)
180 Commercial Pork-Production
160 
a 0
120
100b as s
80 e 0 000
19211 a9301935a94019.:
FIGURE05. aoXofaerageoraboe aer gnealyassociatedwith:ince*assi
commerialporkprouctin *oe-yar atr wera rtosbeo aveag
weregenserallyassocated ith dcreass in ommerial prk.prductinon
year00*06later. 0.:
TABLE I. AVERAGE. PRODUCT ION OF PORK FOR HOME USE 
AND FOR SALE
INDICATED PRICE RATIOS, 1925-19441, ALABAMA
Average production
of pork f or home use
one year later
ONE YEAR FOLLOWING
Average product ion
of pork for sale
one year later
Below average 10 6.7
Above average 10 10.0
Average 20 8.11
1,000 pounds
97,7911
99,951
989668
1,000 pounds
60,396
S111,778
87,9587
(5)
_ I _ -T,- ---r- -~~
9~g+ ~U C L L dLL;~r~~I~ ~ ~ - - L
Phmsrre rr i a 1 n~rk mpnnrrpit inn nRR VAar later
with about 60 million pounds in years after
below-average ratios, Table 1.
The production of pork for sale might
be explained in the 10 years in which the
ratios averaged 10.0. The producer would
receive the value of about 2 bushels of
corn above feed costs. In the other 10
years of this period, however, the producer
had little incentive to produce pork for
sale. The ratios in those years averaged
6.7, and indicated that he did not receive
enough from the pork to cover even his feed
costs.
The production of hogs for market in
years in which the ratios indicated that
cornercial pork production was unprofitable
needs further investigation. Unless this
situation can be explained, the ratios,
except for their use as indicators of fu-
ture production, lose significance as
guides to the profitability of feeding or
selling feed. The explanation requires ex-
amination of the factors affecting hog
prices and feed prices in Alabama.
FACTORS AFFECTING ALABAMA HOG-FEED
PRICE RATIOS
Hog prices. The average price received
for hogs by Alabama farmers, 1924-44, was
PRICES of HOGS PER HUNDRED POUND
H
OGS
12 Corn Belt -
6
3
FIGURE 6.
$7.79 per hundredweight. This was 82 cents,
or 10 per cent, less than the $8.61 per
hundredweight received by Corn Belt farm-
ers. Although Alabama hog prices averaged
slightly lower than Corn Belt hog prices,
yearly changes in Alabama and Corn Belt
hog prices generally have been similar,
Figure 6. In northern Alabama where a large
quantity of commercial pork is produced
from corn, hog prices averagedsabout the
same as those of the Corn Belt. In south-
eastern Alabama somewhat lower prices re-
flect a discount for soft pork.
Corn prices. In contrast to 
hog prices,
Alabama corn prices have generally been
considerably higher than Corn Belt prices,
Figure 7. The explanation of the low level
of Alabama's hog-corn ratio, therefore,
lies largely in the corn situation.
The similarity 
in fluctuations 
of Ala-
bama corn prices to those of the Corn 
Belt
and of the United States indicates 
that
Alabama corn prices are largely dependent
upon the corn situation in the country as
a whole. The level of feed grain prices in
the country as a whole is largely determin-
ed by the relationship between feed sup-
plies and livestock numbers and by the
general level of business conditions. Dif-
ferences in prices between areas are large-
S, ALABAMA and CORN BELT, 1924-1944
Yearly hog prices for Alabama show similar fluctuations to prices in the
Corn Belt, although Alabama prices generally are lower. In years of low
hog prices,, the difference between Alabama and Corn Belt prices almost
d isanoears,
(6)
PRICES of CORN PER BUSHEL, ALABAMA and CORN BELT, 1924-1944
CORN
(Cents per
bushel)
I
-120 
% 
*Alabama
90
-- ----- -- -"'-
60 Corn Belt 
\ !
30
192L 1930 1935 1940 1945
FIGURE 7. Yearly corn prices in Alabama show similar fluctuations 
to yearly corn
prices in the Corn Belt States, although Alabama prices are higher.
ly cost items involved in transporting corn
from surplus to deficit areas. Prices are
lowest in areas of surplus feed supplies
and highest in deficit areas. Alabama has
been characteristically a deficit feed
area. From 1924 to 1944, Alabama corn
prices averaged 95 cents per bushel, com-
pared to an average of 67 cents per bushel
in the Corn Belt. The difference in 
the
two regional prices during this period
averaged 28 cents per bushel. This is 
2
cents above the current freight rate from
Chicago to Montgomery of 26 cents per
bushel in carload lots.
Although prices of corn in Alabama have
fluctuated in a pattern very similar to
the fluctuations in the Corn Belt and in
the United States, the difference between
the Alabama price and the United States
price is not constant from year to year.
This difference is closely related to Ala-
bama's supply of corn per animal unit 
in
relation to the country's supply per animal
unit. Since the bulk of the country's sup-
ply is in the Corn Belt, data on the United
States supply would reflect the Corn Belt
influence to a large extent. From 1926 to
1944, the Alabama corn price averaged 
22
cents per bushel higher than the United
States price. In the 8 years in 
which the
Alabama corn supply per animal 
unit was
considerably smaller than that of the
United States, the Alabama price averaged
31 cents per bushel higher, Table 2. 
In
the 3 years in which the Alabama supply
per animal unit was greater than that 
for
the whole country, the margin averaged 5
cents higher per bushel. Year-to-year
changes in the difference in corn supplies
and in the margin of prices between Alabama
and the nation indicate that as Alabama
becomes more self-sufficient in corn 
and
other feeds the price difference narrows
and largely ceases to exist, 
Figure 8.
To assure an amount of pork needed 
to
supply family needs, there is a tendency
for corn to be fed to hogs regardless 
of
the relationship between the price 
of hogs
(7)
TABLE 2. FARM PRICES OF CORN IN ALABAMA AND THE UNITED STATES AND CORN SUPPLIES PER
ANIMiI IINIT INALABAMA AND THE UNITED STATES, FOR SELECTED PERIODS, 1926-I944*
Relation of Alabama
corn supply per Supply of corn per Farm price-of
animal unit to United Number animal unit.corn
States corn supply of United United
,per animal unit years AlabamaiStatesiDifference Alabama StatesiDifference
(Bushels) (Dollars per bushel)
Below normal' 8 164 21.8 -5.14 1.0L4 0.73 +0.31
Normal
2  
8 18.8 20.6 -1.6 0.80 0.60 + 0.20
Above normal
3  
3 20.1 15.9 +4-2 0.87 0.82 + 0.05
*Compiled from Agricultural Statistics, U.S.D.A., and Alabama Crop Reporting Service.
1-.3.0 or more.
20 to -2.9.
3
a bove 
0.
RELATION of DIFFERENCE in CORN SUPPLIES PER ANIMAL UNIT to the
FAR M PRICE of CORN, ALABAMA COMPARED WITH UNITED STATES,
(BUSHELS)
Differ- 
+
ence in
supplies 
0
of corn0
per ani-
mal unit
(Alabama .5
supply
minus U.S.
supply). 
-10
DIFFERENCE
1926-19144
I N
(CENTS
PER BU)
+LQDiffer-
ence in
f arm
4+20 price
of corn
(Al a-
0 bama
price
minus
20pri ce).
1926 1930 1934 1938 1942
F IGURE 8. In 1928 Alabama had 5 bushels less per animal] unit than the 
U. S. average,
while the price difference was 10 cents a bushel greater for Alabama. In'
19341 and 1936 Alabama had around 5 bushqls more corn per animal unit than
the U. S., while the price difference was practically 0.
(8)
and the price of corn. For commercial pork
production, however, price relationships
between the price of hogs and the price of
corn become important. If the value of the
100 pounds of pork is no greater than the
value of the 8 bushels of corn, it would
pay the producer to sell the corn rather
than feed it. In addition, the Corn Belt
producers require a margin above feed costs
to pay other production expenses. As a re-
sult, when the hog-corn ratio falls below
11.6, pork production (hog-marketings) in
the Corn Belt declines. Although in Alabama
the ratio has seldom been as high as 11.6,
commercial pork production continues.
The question arises whether the report-
ed Alabama corn prices are representative
of actual prices that the producer could
receive if he chose to sell his corn. On
the basis of the average hog-corn ratio in
Alabama (based on reported prices), it
would pay farmers to sell their corn rather
than feed it to hogs.
Apparently reported prices of corn for
Alabama and other Southeastern States are
higher than the actual prices that farmers
could obtain in the event they choseto
sell their corn rather than to feed it to
livestock. This conclusion is based on: (1)
the small quantity that commercial corn is
of total corn producel; (2) the large por-
tion of commercial corn that is used for
human consumption; (3) the small quantity
of feed purchased by farmers; and (4) the
lack of adequate storage facilities at
market points. (6)
Corn prices reported for theSoutheastern
States have been based on a sample of sales
considerably smaller than for the Corn Belt
states. For example, only 8 per cent of the
corn produced in the Southeast was sold
during the period, 1920 to 1943, as com-
pared to 22 per cent in the Corn Belt,
Table 3. A detailed analysis for a select-
ed Southern State (Alabama) and a selected
Corn Belt State (Iowa) during this period
revealed these same relationships that
characterized the two regions.
Another factor affecting reported corn
prices in Alabama is that corn sold to
food manufacturers for meal and grits has
been, for the most part, selected high
(6) Schultz suggested that Alabama and oth-
er Southeastern States might have a
situation for corn somewhat similar to
the two-price system for barley in the
Northern Plains States, where in most
years there are in fact two prices for
barley: (1) barley that can be used for
malt and (2) barley that enters feeding
channels. Malt barley of good quality
at present returns 20 to 25 cents more
per bushel than barley for feed. (Cor-
respondence with Dr. T. W. Schultz,
Professor of Agricultural Economics,
University of Chicago.)
TABLE 3. AVERAGE ANNUAL PRODUCTION AND FARM DISPOSITION OF CORN PER STATE FOR THE
SOUTHEASTERN STATES* AND CORN BELT,** 1920-19431
Farm
household
Reaion Production use 
Feed & seed So
Southeastern States*
Corn Belt**
Southeastern States*
Corn Belt**
30, 584
1544,481
(per cent of total)
100
I00
* Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina.
**Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas.
I Farm Production, Farm Disposition and Value of Corn, 1909-41, Dec. 1944, U.S.D.A.,
B.A.E., Crop Reporting Board; Agricultural Statistics, 1944, U.S.D.A., B.A.E.
(9)
)O bushels]
2,593
130
25,589
119,683
2,402
34, 668
84
77
8
22
quality ears, and therefore would bring a
higher price per bushel than would 
the
farmer's entire crop of corn. 
(7)
Although imports of feed into Alabama
are large, purchases of feed grains 
are
made by only a small proportion of Alabama
farmers. Largest purchases of feed per farrr
in the 1929 Census were reported 
by dairy
farmers. On dairy farms feed expenditures
averaged $1,739 and consisted largely of
commercially-mixed high protein feeds.
Poultry, animal-specialty, and stock-ranch
farms were also relatively large feed pur-
chasers. In contrast cotton farmers 
who
constituted more than three-fourths of
those reporting, bought feed valued at only
$57 per farm.
About a decade ago, Inman(8) discussed
some of the limitations of marketing corn
in Alabama. COne of the most important was
the shortage of storage space for bulk
corn. As a result, only a small quantity
of Alabama corn, chiefly from northern
AlaLama, was used Ly manufacturers and
that was used during the six-months period
from October through March. Other factors
were weevil damage, crosses between white
and yellow varieties, and lack of grades.
Changes have occurred in the last 10
years, particularly with respect to an
easing of the storage situation. Yet, in-
sofar as these conditions do continue to
be limiting factors to corn marketing, they
prevent the reported pr.ices from reflect-
in8 the average farmer's actual opportunity
to sell c6rn.
Because farmers in Alabama buy or sell
little corn, hog-production would seem to
depend not on the hog-corn ratio, which
reflects reported corn sale prices, but on
the supply of corn available on the indi-
vidual farms and on the comparative prof-
itability of feeding such corn as is
.available to hogs, chickens, or other live-
stotk. The fact that fluctuations in hog
production in Alabama correspond to fluc-
tuations in the hog-corn ratio is signifi-
cant. However, the general level of the
reported hog-corn ratio is limited as a
direct guide in determining whether profits
can be maximized by feeding or selling for
cash.
Peanut prices. The hog-peanut price
ratio has been calculated from the report-
ed farm prices of hogs 
and of harvested
peanuts. The price received 
for harvested
peanuts reflects very largely 
the demands
of consumers forpeanut butter, 
peanut candy,
salted and roasted peanuts, 
and the quantity
of peanuts available for 
this edible trade.
The use of such a peanut 
price in the
calculation results in a hog-peanut 
ratio
that does not accurately 
reflect that price
ratio between hogs and 
hogged peanuts.
Peanuts are not hand-fed 
to hogs as is
corn. By hogging-off a field 
of peanuts,
the expenses of digging, 
stacking, and
picking are eliminated. 
Hogged peanut prices,
however, are unavailable since 
they enter
the market only indirectly.
The use of prices of harvested 
peanuts
in the hog-peanut ratio 
makes this ratio
at best a crude guide in determining 
wheth-
er it would be more profitable 
to dig and
sell peanuts or to use them 
as hog feed.
For example, from 1924-44 the 
Alabama hog-
peanut ratio averaged 2.0. This 
means that
200 pounds of harvested peanuts 
were equal
in value to 100 pounds of 
live pork. Since
300 to 360 pounds of hogged 
peanuts are
required to produce 
100 pounds of live
pork, the producer seemingly 
would find it
more profitable to harvest 
and sell the
peanuts, provided harvesting 
and other
costs were not too high.
In order for the value of 
100 pounds of
pork to equal the value 
of the peanuts
(at harvested prices) 
required to produce
that pork, the producer would need 
a ratio
of 3.0 to 3.5. Yet in only 1 year 
in the
35-year period of 1910-44 has 
the Alabama
hog-peanut ratio been as high as 
3.0.
The decision to dig or to hog-off pea-
nuts, therefore, is only indirectly 
affect-
ed by the relative prices of hogs and 
of
harvested peanuts. There are limiting
(7) Available data indicate that a size-
able portion of the commercial corn is
used for human consumption. Forexample,
from 1935-41 approximately two-fifths
of Alabama's 5 million bushels of com-
mercial corn was used for human con-
sumption, whereas the remaining three-
fifths was used for feed and seed.
(8) Inman, Buis T., Purchases of Feeds and
Grains in Alabama, Alabama Agricultural
Experiment Station, Cir. 77, 1937.
(10)
factors that may in some instances influ-
ence the farmer's decision to dig or to
hog-off peanuts, more than will the price
ratio between hogs and harvested peanuts.
The problems of fencing and watering,
as well as of obtaining enough hogs for
the peaiut acreage available, prevent com-
plete flexibility of shifts from digging
to hogging at harvest time. Late season
shifts. in plans from hogging to digging
are handicapped by the problems of obtain-
ing Labor for harvesting and of disposition
of unfinished hogs on hand.
The higher average yield of peanuts
relative to other concentrate feed crops
iin sotutheastern Alabama is probably the
meajor reason accounting for the large quan-
tity of pesnuts that hogged in this
area as compared to other aeas of Alabama.
Total poundsr of digestible nutrients (after
deducting seed requirements) produced from
an aern of peanuts during the 
5
-year per-
iod, 1,93741i, averaged 704 pounds, as com-
pared to 507 pounds from corn. Peanuts,
th.reore, prxltced over a third more feed
per a -re th n ctin. Although corn produ
less feed pEwr acre, it is essential for
hand feeding the pigs-before-the-peanuts
are thvailable, and in some cases for fin-
ishing the hoos tis well.
As 11t hogs nunst usoally beld frot
corn, in adixtion to other feeds or pur.
chat ed concent ates, until the perinixtia r e
readyfcr ogg'g-ois, the supply of corn
avalable Jis the area. would 
logictil).. in#1
fluence thin number of sows farrowed and
thusx the sutmbor of pigs on hand. Since the
supply o corn for the following. year is
fa)'rrly well known at corn harvest time,
the decisionm rewarding the breeding of
sowsO ar(I problably made soon afterwards.
T'oadeetions are reflected in the num-'
bar~f e aon f arms the next sprin n
siummers The number of these hogs would
logically influence the acreage of peanuts
planted for hoggfing. However,, the, r~action
to expand thho g'business is limited by
the availatbility of feed, and the decision
to cut down on the hog business 
must con"
Coastal Plains of Alabama were $62.25 as
compared to $35. 10 for hogged peanuts.
After deducting estimated total.expenses
for dug peanuts and hogged peanuts, (in-
bluding fertilizer seed, labor, machin-
ery, and mule workS net returns per acre
for dug peanuts were $25.80 as compared
to $13.67 for hogged peanuts, Net returns
for dug peanuts were, therefore, 89 per
cent greater than for hogged peanuts.
CONCLUSIONS
The reported Alabama hog-feed ratios
are considerably lower than Corn Belt
ratios. However, the similarity in fluctua-
tionsofAlabama ratios and Corn Belt ratios
indicates that Alabama is a part of the
general hog and feed situation.
The low Alabama hog-corn ratio results
from using reported corn prices that seem
too high to indicate actual prices obtainable
by the farmer for feed corn. Reported priLce
of corn for Alabama and other Southeastern
States are based on a small part of the
State's corn supply, since only astriail por-'
tion of the production normally enters mar.
keting channels. In addition much of the
corn sold is used for human consumption and
is of better-than-average quality.
The hog-peanut ratio is also too low to
serve as a direct profit gulide in decidinig
whether to feed or sell. This rasul from
using prices of harvested panuts (used
chiefly for edible purposes)f since hogged
peanuts enter the market only indirectly.
Obviously, these ratios do not reflect
the farmer's actual feed situation and -do
not serve as direct guides to the producer
in determining whether or not he could
make more profit from feeding or from m@11,4
ing his feed*
However, if conditions and reiation'
ships in the future continue as Wn th
past, the direction of future shifcf? 14.
hog production in the tate may generall1Y
be determined a year in 
advance from @xt,
isting rati'os. Such forecasts 
of the di;r
(11)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are indebted to Professor
B. F. Alvord, Head of the Department of
Agricultural Economics, for his construct-
ive criticism of the manuscript and to Dr.
T. W. Schultz, professor of Agricultural
Economics, University of ChicagO, for his
helpful analysis. Appreciation is also
extended to J. C Downing and 
F. L. Langs-
ford of the U. S. Bureau of Agricultural
Economics for their beneficial suggestions.