BULLETIN

No. 298

OCTOBER

OTBR15
1955

PRICE DIFFERENTIALS SLAUGHTER HOGS

AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION ojUls. ALABAMA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
E. V. Smith, Director Auburn,

Alabama

CONTENTS
Page
PURPOSE OF STUDY__

-------

S---

METHOD OF STUDY_4--

----

___________.

BASIC ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS PRICE DIFFERENTIALS AMONG MABKETS Ce Local nalal arkets_______
___w_____6

-

4 5
5

____

Markets ---

DETAILED ANALYSIS AT THREE LOCAL MARKETS

M9

-

Differentials among Weight Groups ____9
Differentials Due to Seasonal Variationsll SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS---____ .
------_.___--__ _---- r-2

w__1
_17

APPENDIX

FIRST PRINTING

3M, OCTOBER 1955

Price. Differentials for Slaughter

Hogs in Alabama
MORRIS WHITE, Associate Agricultural Economist

differentials refer to the difference or spread between two related series of prices.' This report is concerned with two types of price differentials: (1) market price differential - differences in the price of hogs of the same weight between specific markets; and (2) weight price differentials - differences between prices of hogs of different weights at the same market. Both market price and weight price differentials change. Most of the hogs produced in Alabama are sold at local markets within the State, but prices at these local markets are influenced by prices at central markets outside Alabama. Therefore, knowledge of price differentials at both central and local markets would be useful to producers. This knowledge would aid them in selecting the most profitable place and time to sell each weight and grade of hogs. PURPOSE

PRICE

or STUDY

Hogs are an important source of income from livestock for Alabama farmers. Reduction in workstock numbers has resulted in more corn being available for feeding hogs. Increased specialization has resulted in larger enterprises and keener competition, which make knowledge of marketing more important to the individual producer. The principal objectives of this study were (1) to show, by time and geographic location, the variations in prices paid to Alabama farmers for principal classes and weights of hogs, and (2) to analyze these variations in an attempt to explain why they occur and how Alabama producers might adapt their operations in order to minimize the unfavorable effects of price variations.
1 Differentials are measured in terms of prices per hundredweight. where specified, price data apply to 180- to 240-pound barrows and gilts.

Except

4

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT

STATION

METHOD OF STUDY

The study was based on data for the 3 years 1951 to 1958 inclusive. Data for three out-of-state markets and eight Alabama markets were used. Price quotations for the out-of-state markets and one central market within the State were obtained from

government market news reports.

Data for the seven local

markets were obtained from sales records of the individual mar-

kets. Lack of adequate data at some points limited the analysis
to a small number of markets and to a limited number of weight divisions. Chicago, Nashville, and the Southeastern Area were the outof-state markets from which price quotations were obtained. 2

Local markets within Alabama were selected on the basis of
geographic location. Two markets were chosen in the southeastern section of the State, two in the south central section, and one each in the southwestern, northwestern, and northeastern sections.

BASIC ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS In analyzing hog price data, some assumptions are necessary because every lot of hogs of a given weight and grade tends to be slightly different from all other lots of the same weight and grade. The assumptions made in this analysis are: (1) Market price quotations are based on grading that is substantially uniform from day to day and week to week throughout the period for all markets; and (2), where prices are reported as a range, the price level is represented by the midpoint of the range (that is, a change in the midpoint measures a change in price by a like amount).
2 Chicago is the leading hog market in the United States. Changes in price at this market should reflect important changes in supply and demand conditions for pork. Price quotations at Chicago influence to some degree the quotations at other central markets. Nashville and markets using the Southeastern Area quotations (principally in Georgia) receive a large proportion of the hogs produced in Alabama. Prices at these markets influence prices that hog producers receive at Alabama markets. A comparison of prices paid at these out-of-state markets was made with prices at Montgomery, the only terminal livestock market in the State. However, a relatively small proportion of the hogs produced in Alabama are sold at Montgomery. The Southeastern Area quotation is an average of prices paid for hogs delivered at packing plants located in Albany, Moultrie, Thomasville, and Tifton, Georgia; Dothan, Alabama; and Jacksonville, Florida.

PRICE DIFFERENTIALS for SLAUGHTER HOGS

5

These assumptions have definite limitations. However, when results of the analysis are interpreted carefully, important relationships are apparent. PRICE DIFFERENTIALS
AMONG

MARKETS

CENTRAL MARKETS

Differences between central market price quotations may be due to demand conditions, to transportation and handling charges that reflect distances from producing areas, and to the trade's estimate of the general quality of hogs marketed in an area. When prices at the four central markets were averaged for the period 1951-58, those at Chicago were the highest, Figure 1. Prices at Nashville were very near those at Chicago, the difference being only 8 cents per hundredweight. During October, November, and December, prices at Nashville were consistently higher than those at Chicago. This probably was due to relatively heavier marketings at Chicago. The price at Montgomery averaged 90 cents below Chicago, and the Southeastern Area
PRICE ( Dollars per cwt.)

1

S

JAN.

FEB.

MAR. APR.

MAY

JUNE

JULY.

AUG.

SEPT. OCT.

NOV.

DEC.

FIGURE 1. Seasonal variation in the prices of 180- to 240-pound hogs at selected terminal markets, 1951-53.

6

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

quotation averaged $1.43 below. Price differences between Chicago and these markets were least in November and greatest in February and August. Changes in prices at Chicago were accompanied more often by changes in prices at Montgomery than at Nashville and in the Southeastern Area. A price increase at Chicago was accompanied by an increase at Montgomery 81 per cent of the time, at Nashville 72 per cent of the time, and in the Southeastern Area 69 per cent of the time. A price decrease at Chicago was accompanied by a decrease at Montgomery 84 per cent of the time, in the Southeastern Area 68 per cent of the time, and at Nashville 63 per cent of the time. The amount of change in price at one of these central markets was very close to the amount of change at the other markets. A change in price of 10 per cent at Chicago was associated with a 9 per cent change at Montgomery, an 8.2 per cent change at Nashville, and an 8.1 per cent change in the Southeastern Area.
LOCAL MARKETS

Buyers at local markets depend on central markets to establish a general level of prices. This general level is used by local market buyers in determining prices for specific lots of hogs. Local buyers, as well as local market managers, are familiar with price quotations at all major markets. However, each selects one central market and makes a practice of using the quotations from that market as a basis for establishing the local market price. The central market selected is not always the one nearest the local market. In Alabama, quotations used most often are from Nashville and the Southeastern Area. The average price at Nashville ranged from 80 cents per hundredweight above the price at the local market in the northeastern section to $1.44 per hundredweight above the price at the market in the southwestern section, Table 1. The price at Montgomery was above prices at four of the local markets and below prices at the other three local markets. Except at the local market in the southwestern section of the State, prices at all local markets were above the price quotation for the Southeastern Area. Data in Table 1 indicate that during the 1951-53 period average prices were higher at local markets in the northern part of the State than in the southern part.

PRICE DIFFERENTIALS for SLAUGHTER HOGS

7

TABLE 1. AVERAGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRICES FOR 180- TO 240-POUND HOGS

AT THREE CENTRAL MARKETS AND AT SEVEN LOCAL MARKETS IN VARIOUS AREAS OF ALABAMA, 1951-58
Location of local market

Amount by which central market prices were above or below local market prices
Nashville Montgomery

Souhea

-----Northwestern
Northeastern
_________+

Dol. per cwt.
__
.__

Dol. per cwt.
-0.57

Dol. per cwt.
-1.09
-

_+0.30

South central --- _____

South central ___--Southeasternm ,,,,,,-,,-,,,+1.31 Southeastern -----Southwestern______
_+1.88

---

+ .66 .-+ .91--

.21
+

.04
.20
-

.74
.33

---

.49
.09
.02

1.07

+ -11.44 +.___-__

+

4

+ .51 .57

+ .04

Since supply and demand conditions for the whole country are the factors that have the greatest influence on the general level of hog prices, some relationship should be expected in price changes at local markets within the State. This is true where hogs are sold on a competitive basis. An analysis of the data shows that price changes among local markets were closely associated; when the price changed at one market, there usually was a change at all markets, Table 2. Changes at local markets in the northern section of the State were more closely associated with changes at Nashville; changes at local markets in the south central and southeastern sections were more closely associated with changes in the Southeastern Area. Prices at central and local markets ware analyzed to deterTABLE 2. RELATIONSHIP OF THE MOVMENTS OF AVERAGE WEEKLY PRICES AT VARIouS MARKETS FOR 180- TO 240-Poi m HoGs, 1951-53 Percentage of price variation at central
markets associated with variation at local markets' Nashville Montgomery

Location of local market

Southeastern

e

Per cent
Northeastern_____-______________-Northwestern
___

Per cent
94 92

Per cent
92 88

96 96

Sot South centraL.-__

88
--

__ ---:_88

92 88
92

94 90
96

Southeastern--__---

Southeastern-----__ 85 90 90 Southwestern-----------------90 90 86 1Cefcet of determination multiplied by 100(r2 X 100). An r =.85 would
be sufficient to indicate that the association between prices at different markets was not due to chance.

88

8

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

mine whether the differences were significant. 3 Not all of the average differences shown in Table 1 were significant. Differences between prices at Nashville and local markets that were significant are as follows: 4
LOCATION OF LOCAL MARKET SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE
BELOW NASHVILLE PRICE

Cents per cwt.

Northwest South central
Market No. 1 Market No. 2

9
86 50

Southeast Market No. 1
Market No. 2

78
81

Southwest

90

Prices at only two of the local markets differed significantly from the price in the Southeastern Area. Those were at the northwestern and northeastern markets, where the significant differences were 15 and 49 cents per hundredweight, respectively, above the price in the Southeastern Area. Prices at local markets in the northern sections of the State differed significantly from those at markets in the southern sections. The analyzed data showed that the price at the market in the northeastern section exceeded prices at markets in the southeastern, south central, and southwestern sections by 47, 16, and 57 cents per hundredweight, respectively. The price at the local market in the northwestern section of the State exceeded the price in the southeastern section by 12 cents per hundredweight, and the price in the southwestern section by 22 cents. Price differences among local markets in the southern sections of the State were not significant. Relatively large differences may occur between prices at local markets, but this analysis showed that such differences exist for only one or two sales. An unexpected large increase or decrease in number of hogs appeared to be the most important factor contributing to a price difference.
SA significant difference is one for which the chances are 95 out of 100 that its occurrence is not to chance alone. These data mean that, if on a number of occasions prices at Nashville and the local markets were compared, differences at least as great as those shown would be found to exist in two-thirds of the comparisons made.

PRICE DIFFERENTIALS for SLAUGHTER HOGS

9

DETAILED ANALYSIS AT THREE LOCAL MARKETS Detailed records were obtained from a local market in each of three sections of the State (northeastern, southeastern, and south central). Hogs sold at the local market in the northeastern section were "hard" hogs, as were most of those sold at the local market in the south central section. Occasionally, however, a producer with "soft" hogs sold at the south central market. During the fall, "soft" hogs constituted a considerable proportion of total sales at the market in the southeastern section, and, since it is difficult to distinguish between "hard" and "soft" hogs on foot, "hard" hogs did not sell for a premium at this market. Individual producers' hogs were sold separately at the markets in the northeastern and south central sections, whereas selling in "pen lots" was the general practice at the market in the southeastern section of the State.' Available data were not adequate for determining what proportion of the lower price received in the southeastern section was due to selling "soft" hogs or to what degree the practice of selling in "pen lots" may have been a contributing factor. There were, however, other apparent differences among local markets in the three sections that influenced returns from the sale of hogs.
DIFFERENTIALS AMONG WEIGHT GROUPS

More than 80 per cent of the slaughter hogs sold at each market weighed less than 241 pounds, and over 50 per cent at each market weighed between 180 and 240 pounds, Table 3. At markets in the south central and southeastern sections, a higher percentage of the hogs sold were in the two lighter weight groups, whereas, at the market in the northeastern section, relatively more of the hogs were in the heavier weight groups. A comparison of price differentials among weight groups at the
8 When hogs are sold in "pen lots," all hogs of the same general class and weight brought to the market on a given day are penned together and sold to one buyer at a single price. Advantages claimed for this method are: (1) It saves time and expense, and (2) buyers wanting large numbers of hogs may get the number they desire by bidding on only two or three pens. Disadvantages are: (1) Many producers' hogs are grouped and all producers receive the same price, which is the average price a buyer is willing to pay for the entire lot of hogs. By this practice, the higher quality hogs sell for a relatively lower price and lower quality hogs sell for a relatively higher price than if high quality and low quality hogs were sold separately. (2) Buyers desiring only a small number of hogs cannot get them unless they buy an entire lot.

10

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

TABLE 3. PERCENTAGES OF SLAUGHTER HOGS SOLD AT SELECTED LOCAL MARKETS,
BY SPECIFIED WEIGHT GROUPS, ALABAMA, 1951-53

Weight group

Location of market

Northeast________ Southeast______South central_
' Heavies.

----

140 to 160 to 180 to 241 to 800 lb. :159 lb. 179 lb. 240 lb. 299 lb.' and over' Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent 5 10 68 9 8 100 14 18 59 5 4 100 15 19 55 7 4 100

2 Extra heavies.

three markets shows that the spread in price between the 180- to 240-pound group and the lighter weight groups was greatest at the northeast market; the spread in price between the heavier groups was greatest at the south central market, Table 4. The data indicate that buyers at the southeastern market were less discriminating among various weight groups than were buyers at other markets. At this market, the prices of hogs in the 180to 240-pound group differed from prices for hogs in other weight groups by a lesser amount than at markets in other sections. Price differences between the 180- to 240-pound weight and other weights vary, depending on the relative numbers of hogs in each weight group and season of the year. However, with similar quality, hogs weighing 180 to 240 pounds will generally sell for a higher price at all times of the year. Had the number of hogs in the 180- to 240-pound group been increased to equal 75 per cent of the total number of slaughter hogs sold, returns at the three local markets could have been increased as much as $18,000 at the market in the northeast, $16,500 at the market in the south central section, and $8,700 at the market in the southeast.6 An increase in returns, however, does not necessarily mean an increase in profits. A loss will result if additional costs incurred exceed the increase in returns. The data indicate that producers at the three markets were selling progressively higher proportions of hogs as weights neared the 180- to 240-pound class
6 These amounts were determined in the following manner: The number of 180-

to 240-pound hogs actually sold at a market was subtracted from the number equal to 75 per cent of all slaughter hogs. For each market, this difference in number was multiplied by the average weight of the 180- to 240-pound hogs sold at that market. The resulting number of pounds was then multiplied by the price differential of the weight group for which the price differed least from that of the 180- to 240-pound group.

PRICE

DIFFERENTIALS

for

SLAUGHTER

HOGS

11

TABLE 4.

AMOUNTS BY WHICH PRICES PAID FOR HOGS WEIGHING 180 TO 240 POUNDS WERE GREATER THAN PRICES PAID FOR HOGS IN OTHER WEIGHT GROUPS, SELECTED LOCAL MARKETS IN THREE SECTIONS OF ALABAMA, 1951-58

Location of market

140 to 159 lb.

Weight group 160 to 241 to 179 lb. 299 lb.

800 lb. and over

2.69 Northeast_ ...... ..--------------Southeast-------------__ 1.49 South central___________ 2.07

Dol.per cwt. Dol. per cwt. Dol.per cwt. Dol. per cwt. 8.82 1.30 1.32 .60 1.31 3.45 .96 1.71 4.28

and that they were selling over half within this group; the data also suggest that producers may obtain additional profits by selling an even greater proportion of hogs in this preferred group.
DIFFERENTIALS DUE TO SEASONAL VARIATIONS

Time of marketing is another factor that influences returns to farmers and one that they are able to do something about. Because of low production costs during certain seasons of the year, some producers may find that they can obtain greater profits by marketing at times other than when prices for their hogs are highest. Generally, however, the producer who gets the greatest profit is the one who sells when prices are at or near the peak for the season. The seasonal changes in prices were similar at all markets studied. Prices for hogs weighing between 180 and 240 pounds were above the annual average from April to October, and below the annual average during the remaining months of the year. Prices were highest in July and lowest in January. As indicated previously, prices at a local market might be "out of line" with those at other markets on a given day, but such a situation did not prevail over extended periods. Differences in seasonal prices among various weight groups can be important in marketing hogs. Producers can utilize knowledge of seasonal changes in deciding at what weight to sell their hogs. During some seasons as well as at some markets, it pays to hold hogs to heavier weights. At other times, more profit is made by selling light. In making these decisions, producers can compare seasonal price changes for successive weight groups. A hog fed an extra week or two moves into a heavier weight group. Thus, if the rate of daily gain is 2 pounds, the market price for a 170-pound bar-

12

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT

STATION

TABLE 5. VALUES RETURNED FOR ADDITIONAL WEIGHT DURING PERIODS OF SEASONAL UPWARD AND DOWNWARD PRICE TRENDS AT LOCAL MARKETS IN THREE SECTIONS OF ALABAMA, 1951-58

Period of

Location

Weight group

seasonal change in price Increasing price
(May-July)

of market Northeast
South central

170 to 200 200 to 280 230 to 260 pounds pounds pounds Dol. per cwt. Dol. per cwt. Dol. per cwt. 11.09 82.86 25.92
28.43 28.26 8.28

Southeast Northeast
South central Southeast

26.42 27.30
25.40 24.19

24.55 18.47
16.85 16.89

11.04 8.20
8.66 7.70

Decreasing price
(August-October)

row on August 1 is compared with the price for a 200-pound hog on August 15, a 230-pound hog on September 1, or a 260-pound hog on September 15. Three-year average prices for three weight groups at each market were used to make comparisons between successive weight groups, Appendix Tables 5, 6, and 7. These values show the gain or loss that producers received by holding hogs to heavier weights. Comparisons were made across weight groups and between periods of seasonal rising and seasonal falling prices, Table 5. In deciding at what weight to sell hogs, the data in Table 5 would have to be used along with two other factors: (1) the cost of putting on additional gain; and (2) the reliability of the seasonal price changes. A producer can calculate the approximate cost .of additional gain by using prices of corn and other feed. From his own experience he may estimate the quantities of feed required, or he can refer to published data on feed requirements. A U.S. Department of Agriculture report states: "Generally, it takes about 4.5 bushels of corn or its equal in other feeds to fatten a 200pound hog to 250 pounds. It takes around 4.6 bushels of corn or its equal in other feed to put 50 pounds of gain onto a 225pound hog, 4.8 bushels on a 250-pound hog, and 4.9 bushels to put 50 pounds of gain on a 275-pound hog, fattening it up to 825 pounds. Feed is usually about four-fifths of the total cost of fattening hogs."7 These data were used to estimate costs of 80 pounds of gain at different corn prices, Table 6.
"How Heavy Should I Feed My Hogs?" U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. AIS No. 78. November 1948.

PRICE

DIFFERENTIALS

for

SLAUGHTER

HOGS

13

TABLE 6. ESTIMATED COSTS OF PUTTING 30 POUNDS OF GAIN ON HOGS WEIGHING
170, 200, AND 230 POUNDS, AT SEVERAL ASSUMED PRICES FOR CORN

corncrneper per

Price of bushel

Total cost of gain1

Dollars
1.25

170 lb. fed to 200 lb. 200 lb. fed to 230 lb. 230 lb. fed to 260 lb. Cost of Cost per Cost of Cost per Cost of Cost per 80 lb. 100 lb. 30 lb. 100 lb. 30 lb. 100 lb. Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
3.91 13.03 4.06 18.58 4.22

1.50
1.60 1.70

4.69
5.00 5.81

14.07

15.68
16.67 17.70

4.88
5.20 5.52

16.27
17.33 18.40

5.06
5.40 5.74

16.87
18.00 19.13

1.80
1.90 2.00

5.62
5.94 6.25

18.73
19.80 20.83

5.85
6.18 6.50

19.50
20.60 21.67

6.08
6.41 6.75

20.27
21.37 22.50

SCalculated on basis that 2.5 bushels of corn or its equivalent are required to put 830 pounds of gain on a 170-pound hog, 2.6 bushels on a 200-pound hog, and 2.7 bushels on a 230-pound hog. To the cost of feed, 25 per cent is added as approximate costs other than feed.

Although the seasonal changes in prices were nearly the same at the three markets, there was a pronounced variation in the seasonality of marketing, Figure 2. The number of hogs sold was most uniform from month to month at the market in the northeastern section of the State and least uniform at the market in the southeastern section. The proportion of the annual total that was sold in any 1 month for the most important weight group (180 to 240 pounds) ranged between 6 and 11 per cent in the northeastern section, 4 and 13 per cent in the south central section, and 1 and 14 per cent in the southeastern section. During the 3 months when the price was highest, 24 per cent of the hogs were sold at the market in the northeast, 15 per cent at the market in the south central section, and 8 per cent at the market in the southeast. During the last 4 months of the year, 29 per cent of all hogs were sold at the market in the northeast, 47 per cent at the market in the south central section, and 55 per cent at the market in the southeast.

14

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

NORTHEASTERN

150

HOM: sale so
ae . ":

.

...... .....
::o/e"

....... .......
.:::::f

... .......
0...ao"

100
Nwm"" .Ne.." :/N""s Nl.sw NN "a www/ "N.."f ""NSS. ... w". tN"a1"

assett, Naw.. 08.00. of
......
asset. NNNa . "m . :. . " ". .aeag.a w"\. " .. e:eae " t: " Nees 0a.0"m" woo... .NeN. .N:N. /a":... www saN... "w.as mt"N :"1"/I .Nee.. N.. "NNN .:we :Isle ". "!olY: ."0;.; .. " ! .. Nee NNN .. .. toot .Nw" : N:.r" .Nee. w

.....
e. .N"" /. " " "N 0".

:::::::

w

N.aaa" "N"t1" "./: "."

-

.... :

".

Noss "."."0 iNe!" N...;. seems.

egg Ne.l N: NNNNI

.w:/"" oN.eae NNNt

.root::

..

s:/

/1.064

N":"a.a ::::: eNNN. :..Nag "www" N. w. .

see/.4 ::::::: "N:O.r" NwwN "N.NN

";aa"m " " .".":" NUNN .. m1 a :e:."Na NNNN aaa wee :::_::: N.N.m. "NNIs.

rse.wNl aeewre" N.N.NI Nww" Noooa.. NI .wee N.".: r.f ::::::i w.:..el :m...N : . l a. 0. ... woo1 .N.ea . ."se\/.: age:/:r a.a.w61 "wNN

::::: .. Nee "N::: .Na:" :i:::: ::::: rNw . :Ne:: a NS NNN ".Ye1o :Ness. .. Osseo "..Nm .N.... """ wNN e. se/" ... w. awN .sofa sese:: Nawe NNN .r/""" ;III/1 sNm: ;ra e/ "I.Ir "."""e a.laa N.N. NNN ltN:: ;Nlaa ON"w :11"t" :.:... ::

::::a::::::: ..... N.." .. .. N Na ag ".." ::: :::

HUM
.. 6" NlNN loo\... Naa.:. /sea... " "1tw. NNa.. "Nww .NNN Ns..\.

N

:seNN

sofa... :::::

"..N.e"

N.NN"

"Na"aa:

.*.owes*

N:em.. eeN.N tt"sea:

.m"::: N" a""\" NNN eo"N; N"w NN6"

:::::: .:e.. N. .NNN. e.o.: a.m .Os.a".s " aa"r"" .. NNN /NNw. "NNN" NaN.N ... " ia. of tl:..t "NNN" NNN" O "N.. {.. .rN ": N:."N" l.N.eee NN"N. .1"NNe *eases.. :.:Y:s:: ".o:e"." "...": ".000 NS N H ".ww.. N..mass o... a.:" N.N.N ;,,a ... a.:l." "NNN" .e.eN:. " .. ::..::". seN "NwN" '"...sees N.\"." NNN" ".wa. : "lw.." NNN" .. weN

50

tllNes "e"NN . eeN: NN"". eeea" s .wNN N..N" ".". Me "N N..."

S: MUN N.
.a""" I .N::. 0: :r ww." N/N.. .. :awe a N.w. N:N. .N. N. NNN" "t\"I.s N.NN N:wN NNN" N:NN

":so N..: w. N: aN"t" + laata4 NNw ." e4 t. N 4/sots s..N" NNSm ".t41e /O""l"" aeea0 aNra Nse. / /aaa. . H.: ii

aar"sss N""

NUM:
".NNN : NUM .N:N.. r ;aN"ON """N.. Nw w."N:a. I/a.1.." ":"sea.. "..m.a." .wwN: "NNw" a" .... eN /"..INe NN.N: N ;:.::{e" .w.lN ".aaae .. NwN

./"".." .NN:. ae/"st" NNN ..

Safe. 0.0.6
w...

Ngeg:m .... m.m NgN.. "aaiN .:.IeN .N"IN .NNN "..a:". "NNN "Iw : N :"a" "/Oa1:o ":s"ls. ;;..a.. It:/" e:t\"ge .. a:w.

.. .... rm:":.I 0: N.ae Nmw.. .NwN NgNN "NwN" NN Nw:.. :" ".Igo.s

.sew.. N.N.. "NNN .NNw a.. weelw NNN "N .wNN .I{l:": lms\".. NN Na..

"NNN .NN NNN" N..I." N s"neN N.N .".:.. "Os"/: NNN. NNN"

" .t1" I.Osl:" 11"NN

I"o""ae 1:::::::: 1 "11/

etas NOW: do-se
"..me" 11 NNw ""NoNe :Os. /INN a.tt,: :ft..: NNw iwwN NNN

0.00
goo

a;a"::" seas: .N\:1"

:....o Y..I.. .NNN .N asa "www "lNtee o...oN" eeo" NNN" Ilse.."

Os":\N"

"e"eNN

NN.."

pe"er :::::::: :::sf":::::::: :::: .4.4; .w" "" N"N". ea:Nmm ::W. eta.!

:::::::: 1: "::: iwwN aN.....

:::::::: 1::::::: ::::::: :aN:ea" N/". """.w." N..Nw N:.es.: wN:.." NNNN """

NNN" ".NS."

0

GAS AS.*4
...

..

sees/

NUM,
Nw

.e.:."a w.es

"NNN 1\. ss."

NUM ]IN

SOUTH 150

CENTRAL . .... ::: ....... ....... :::::::

:.Nees:

NNw:

-

"NeN N."Na

rN/" t" "t ""1"t"

...

else

a..Nag

"./NN

tltmll.I

:Y:..N"

100

rNNN woos... :NN." Ise...°/ ".N :" N.N.. :NeN..

s:as:N. .. """" .

""""w.. r..Dreg. "N..:"" "NNN" wNN" :....N /Nag.:" :w:."

N"N.\" "N."1." :::::::

:/"""":" ." :" Nse. N .. a

"NNN" NNN .. INse1.s "..:e/" N/\11a N;Y... IeN:NS 1\NNN INN:,. NNN. N"N :NeN.. .w.... :: N:. :1"N.. I//1,11/ " Nr"rN Newoo .w...I Nee ... a.r /a.f "OsNN ./NOs" . o sl. ....... .eae.:"1 o.N:al wN.N.Y :1 .\"" ."

N:1": NNN NNN "NNw Os..... :NeN. NN" N:N" ;

::r

..

:::

: N:::: :: N: .. aI,1 Ng " ea "e1"N.a N.a.... "..::"." fN11N

IN.NN 1a 1....a

"NNe.m NNNN 50 .:wNw NNNN w"aNaa "I:./".. r .t/s.::. "Os""... "NNN" N.NN. aN":s.m "NeN.. g"..N. .NN... a../::"

aNN" a... .:. N.. / ;N"at" wNSS "NwN .Nae/" .Neese weN/i sets/:. ON.IS" "NNN "t"ss." "NNN .IN::a a....." e:""":"

WHIN :::.a.:: .......
:"r N "..1 Ns"/1" "at""1./1 .... 1 1": ";". ".:"r NwN" "NwN N.N"/' NN:f"1 ::: ::i ""e. "f IorNN w:wN NNN" a.... N :" "NNr ,."se...l NWI .:n... NNNN ;NNN" .NeN. ;;;;IN. ;."t Na NNN ;:.aNaa "r:::::1 .News ;NN.:or /t"sf.. r""."..r :woos. Os/seN "w..Ir NNw" NNN. "N..m. .....

"1e"..""1 N:s:"ol NININI

;;N1.

::::.a::
N""\... a:" .... " ::.." If/sta. :::::::: ::::::" ; . Y.. NN{ roam N: ::: "NNN ... t.." NNN" :1"NN NNNY :NNN N:aa": 1 "e"/. w::" ; N/ae s""t" N :tag;::: IN" ........ _ :..:"":: 11""Nel :..:: NNw" ".":;." "" e/e" :...NO.

"s.."t" :a:"" ".N."

r " .:Y". N". "t ""1t" a.\.a"ea ":.s""s" :;Noses

.as ".:ate/" ase."&. seeNe "":.":.: e11I/..I

"t""N.

N"NN" NNN.. ".Os a... "" "t" " ." .. , " "NNN: sees.. .. NNN .. oN.l... :N.N.e NNN.. "NN.. ... s.. e :woo.Ya ........ " Na ;";.aa": .... m .... :N.

:::::::

wNw :NNN

:../Ip: """ .:eY..:i UNIN to......r /r...... sww:N lN..I.gl I.. :\"Ni. " " .... ". ".:":" "OsN 1:'."eI" .:.\i a1.1t" oases. i..1t" "N ""

.. Ir lrrr .:."t" NNN.. "NeN\. ar:/...: e too:.N" NNNN .. ".w.. .. NNN

0.6990.0
:::::::: NNNN .aNN\" ;;a1NN .. \""1" sews Nwweg "NNN" a""w.. " N.:... "..aN.. www .NNN at""1/g" ":." .11

.:.::i:

gas
aH...

.a

Nim

ease .... .so..
.t"/ai/. NwN". :NNN :0.0. Nww" e:NNea /:NSS.

":I....

:NNN :..Neer N.:r"N :::s:a:: wNN ".:.N.1 NNNar "".:N. N..r.. NN "".Nes:oNNwol N".se.r s 1aN:1 .. "NNN .:".N". "N" NNa... N.IS:.:r sa"o..e" ".:. .. :.;;.:"

of
.. ..

"NNN NeN." ":NNa al N.... {

"NNa." NNN"" ....... OsNN" .... see. :t1":N" w"Na/ :t"t""..

N.N./ {.ot"""1:"..m. .\/Os1. "./\""" 11!1/1. N .. m "l wm e"ION. NNN. "N.... .N..6 NNN

""." ."N.:

;:w.se N.Na

se"aN" NNN"

geese... I.I.w ". .o.1 N..N" :aea... "...e:" "...N" aw.s" NwN: :N:Na ee..N"

::: aN"N". .... IIII :I""t1" ":f"sees.. "..N:.. "t!"1" NNN\" .... N." """.... NUM: NNNN "" :::::::: :IIa:. N.e:" a""ga.a .weN. I/.aN er"r":.,11.11 .. 1":" r Ils.s:.aNN/: ""e": " t""11" a:.a" .lN.ge Na:. N.NN aN.N. a Nme "

.: N." N1sa" NNN" .1.::.

" N"la a"we.f "NNw .... N N.I"

II111/I .. "N. "..N.N NINet: , .a:ese a"t"":." NNNN "NeN. .. :N.g:

"...... ::":::.: :::oo:: N..N: ".li.a1 IwrN. eaNN. "11:foe .. aa.N

1s""to/" N " :a "e:e.1 NNNa

.NNN: NNa... "... N.r .. N

. of

.IN:I" .aN.""

"NNN sawN ease... NN"«a./ea

"N....g

"Niii .. ".:::

SOUTHEASTERN 150
a"aNa1" .N.NN N."w" .NNwe NI ""1".

......
NNN

_

.a....:
N.... {.assts "tY""t" .a.. o.: see""r "

.......
NlNoo .s.eeN ":."011 N...t" Na":./

"..Ima "e":"" "w... .Nee:

"/lees..

:NN:

"N":/:"

eNwe"

NNN Nl.NN NNNN "1""1!

N..1.e. NNNN

e.11g... NNNN

MUM
100

"wN"1" .. /: NIN...

wNN . N.NN NNN. III.I,/ _ .... !N.

weN"aa

Ga@
" Nse"e

NUM, .....
.N .N. NN" 1.1 " .. NNN o.: :1 ".N.. .NN":.

NN.Nt

N::"

"NNNe "/N." :.e0."" "t""

NNN N:..

NNN:

NNN" ." ... .tae .. " I: "m i" g; "NwN as N"r aNN.. "Nww" O:.....se:lses. N...N "gN:". .. a """" s "wN."" aa.. Nat ":N.. ea.:""t"

"eerN" NNN" NwN" "NeN" Na.1t" e.w.a" ::N... "NlNm

.o. " :.Nose ;.Nose :se"N: ".:.":" ;Na"1" .:"1s" /t""1s "t\e:".

".::sN sNiN: "N..Y. "s../1"

sewN"1 "......I ".""Na" N". \t"/ "Naa.:" :..N a.. N.N//"

.......
"NwN: "NNN" "\r"N" ":"""...

a1"/ ;"t"t1 ow.:1. "" saes N:..N. "t"wow "":.::" NNN"

:a""wa N".N" a/NN. N.aaa. "r:aae" "::"re" oases..

W.:
: :" I.""N, .a/\"..

""11""1" eel...."e :...

50

........
NNNN .wN. N "a"Na." NNNN NNIN. :NNNN .NNN" .NeN.. ."..NN e..NN" weN""" N..1"N .t1"": s

......

....... .......
.Nee.. .. woo/ NN" "NNN Na.!"" .sew.. NNw. .wee ." N " e"e.1 .:"..ei "NNN ":NeN

........ ........
":N:... N:".eN NNa... "N.NN

....... .......
".gN.. NNNa N:Nw

....... .....

.......
"Neww aaaarr" ."a:41" NNN" .. :"/: a .a" :"".... .NwN. goose. :r::::: .... aN Not.:: "NwN ..... a. .. :woo N.....

ate:N "N".e NNN NNw eN1.

MR: .....

::::::: "s1./ " :"""s. "NNaa "eao.N aNlee. ... a:"" ..

NN.."s NNN N ww... ...... " ... a.N.

:..N" "N:.. "NeN waN: ..... " /s/e "N.o:.

N."N" "N Nw : Nw.

.. ooN" ".""" ... N\" saa..:e :..NN

:".... ;"N". NINA ooNa." "":see:

Err

"::" .

at"""1" :NIN" .. N"." NNw" .gmN." Nlse.. ;; NN

N"s ::" :N.. :....... sea./." a.."""" 111":." e"Ne. e "..:."" "e.a/." . ".NN rw"..a "aN".:

Ise.: . /s"IN: Nwa\" "Os.NI INN: ewNaa :sea.\" NN::" ".:/,1. "..:N: 11"NI. "/"/o..

""l. .. /aoN." earse." w.NN N.ISSS :IeN""

... ... .,..... N.Nse Iw.":" ;aa..eo Nlo.m ... .«

."..

".aa.": eOs".."

NNa: N oo.... "aN.. ;;::N .""..N. IwIOs NN. .g:...." :.:11"" "."Nw /.:":"" N.aassl ":"\.N. N.a"11" gas/NN "ts"" "N"\N aNN./ mNN"" NN."s

asses:
asses:. aNN

sees

"w.e.a ees"1" sees... ase ":..":" ""t./.: :t1a.

Os..i\" N "\" ;NN. ae/":\" .1":" ...... " ws .:...a. """""\" /t":." aNN "a". "a. eo... aI.I". "..lass "1"\1\. :.N ":

"1""\1" "aNaas /:"sgI" "e:"::" """N." f.."N. af1""".olofeos rNaaa "1t"\"" " .. ew:: same. rtlwl: ""o"/:" es

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

0.

N

0

MONTHS Price

o

Number

FIGURE

2.

Index

of

seasonal

variation

in

price

and

number

of

180-

to

240-pound

hogs

sold

at

local

markets

in

three

sections

of

Alabama,

1951-53.

PRICE

DIFFERENTIALS

for

SLAUGHTER

HOGS

15

PRICE: DIFFERENTIALS for SLAUGHaTER HOGS

1

Except for minor changes, the variation among markets for other weight groups were similar to the variation for the 180groups to 240-pound group, Figure 3. Prices for the reached a peak 1 month earlier (in June) than did prices for the 180- to 240-pound group. The peak in prices for the heavier

lighter

index

NORTHEASTERN jindex 150 0 24t-30Lb,

1

50

.jSOUTH
CENTRAL

Index
'i

IVde
179 Lb.ii

Y.
-140-I159

501

i -160- 1II

1001

rb :
1i

$50 $00
50

Lb.

eraI

. Ii I I I ,
t

O
dex Ini Ind oI

l

SOUTHEASTERN Index % I,50
I~rI' 1
j

150 100

160-179 Lb.

-1

1

b

001
t e
% 0

50 0

501
I I I I
*rI.
J

f

O

I I 1 1I
J

J F MAMJAOND

F MANJ

A S ON

I

D

.. rce1

MONTHS

FIGURE 3. Index of seasonal variation in prices and numbers of selected weight groups of hogs sold at local markets in three sections of Alabama, 1951-53.

16

ALABAMA

AGRICULTURAL

EXPERIMENT

STATION

weights tended to come later (in August and September) than for the 180- to 240-pound group. Variations in seasonal marketing for the other weight groups were least at the market in the northeast and most at the market in the southwest. Various factors influencing the production of hogs in different sections of the State may cause a variation in seasonality of marketing among areas. An established uniform marketing pattern in an area will help in obtaining a higher annual average price and yield greater returns from selling larger numbers of hogs when prices are highest. Under the systems of marketing that were used, returns from the sale of a given weight of hogs would have been approximately 5 per cent greater at the market in the northeastern section than at the market in the south central section, and approximately 9 per cent greater than at the market in the southeastern section. These differences were due partly to more uniform marketing at the northeastern market and partly to the higher average price paid at this market. Returns at the market in the south central section would have been increased by 1.2 per cent and those at the market in the southeastern section 3.0 per cent had the seasonal pattern of marketing at these markets been the same as at the northeastern market. Had the average price at the two markets been equal to that at the market in the northeastern section and the seasonal pattern remained unchanged, returns would have been increased approximately 8.8 per cent at the market in the south central section and 5.5 per cent at the market in the southeastern section. These data show that, although both a change in seasonal marketings and in the average level of prices would have yielded increased returns to producers selling hogs at the local markets in the southeastern and south central sections, the increase in the average price level would have yielded the greater return. Two explanations may be given for these results: (1) There was a general belief among buyers that hogs produced in south central and southeast Alabama would yield "soft" pork, which could be moved through marketing channels only at reduced prices. At one time "soft" pork was common in those sections of the State. Today the practice of "hogging off" peanuts is no longer followed to any extent. Producers report that only a very small proportion of their hogs are fed on peanuts. However, it is felt that because of past conditions the "trade"

PRICE

DIFFERENTIALS

for

SLAUGHTER

HOGS

17

continues to discount hog prices. The lasting influence of buyers' beliefs illustrates how the "trade's" established opinion of a product from an area may continue to affect the price received in that area. Indiscriminate marketing of the small proportion of hogs that are fed peanuts now serves to perpetuate buyers' beliefs about hogs from those sections. Producers should realize that "soft" pork cannot be sold to consumers at as high a price as "hard" pork, and that buyers will continue to pay lower prices where they are not sure of getting good quality meat from the hogs they buy. Producers should realize also that the small proportion of peanut-fed hogs are marketed at that season when the greatest numbers of hogs are being sold, and that random selling of this small proportion can result in a generally lower price for all hogs. A good program for producers to put into effect would be to convince buyers that producers know the approximate quality of meat that can be obtained from the hogs they are selling. This would mean informing buyers when both peanut-fed and corn-fed hogs are being offered for sale. (2) The price for hogs in Alabama is closely associated with the price paid at markets throughout the country. If this were not true, the marketing of such a high proportion of the total as was marketed at these markets during certain seasons would have resulted in a very low price during those seasons. Likewise, the price would have risen to a higher level during the months when relatively fewer hogs were being marketed.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This study was made to determine differentials in prices paid for hogs during different seasons, at different market locations, and having different weights. The study was made also to ascertain whether knowledge of price variations might be used to help producers increase their income from the sale of hogs. Data were obtained for a 3-year period from a total of 11 markets. Four central markets from which price quotations were obtained were Chicago, Nashville, Montgomery, and the Southeastern Area. The other seven markets were located in various sections of Alabama. Price quotations at the central markets were obtained from government market news reports. Prices at local markets were obtained from sales invoices. Among the central markets, prices were highest at Chicago

18

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT

STATION

and lowest in the Southeastern Area. Differences between prices at Chicago and other markets ranged from 3 cents per hundredweight at Nashville to $1.43 per hundredweight for the Southeastern Area. Changes in prices were closely associated at all central markets. Statistically, prices at the local market in the northeastern section of the State were no different from prices at Nashville, but were 49 cents above prices for the Southeastern Area. Prices at the market in the northwestern section of the State were 9 cents below prices at Nashville and 15 cents above prices in the Southeastern Area. Prices at markets in southern sections of the State ranged between 36 and 90 cents below prices at Nashville, but were not significantly different from prices in the Southeastern Area. Prices at local markets were highest in the northeastern section of the State and lowest in the southwestern section. Differences among local markets ranged from 16 to 57 cents per hundredweight. Changes in prices at local markets were more closely associated with changes at central markets outside the State than with changes at Montgomery. Price changes at local markets in the northern sections were most closely associated with changes at Nashville, whereas, at markets in the southern sections, changes were most closely associated with changes in the Southeastern
Area.

Analysis of detailed data from local markets in three sections showed a difference among markets in the proportion of hogs in various weight groups. The market with the greatest proportion of slaughter hogs within the preferred weight group of 180 to 240 pounds was in the northeastern section, where 68 per cent of the slaughter hogs were within that group. The market in the southeastern section had 59 per cent, and the market in the south central section had 55 per cent in the 180- to 240-pound group. Lighter weight hogs constituted a relatively greater proportion of the total at markets in the south central and southeastern sections, whereas the proportion constituted by heavier weights was relatively greater at the market in the northeastern section. Price differences among weight groups were least at the market in the southeastern section. Differences between the prices for 180- to 240-pound weights and the lighter weights were greatest at the market in the northeast. Differences between prices

PRICE

DIFFERENTIALS

for

SLAUGHTER

HOGS

19

for the heavier weights and the other groups were greatest at the market in the south central section. Seasonal changes in prices were similar among all markets. Prices for 180- to 240-pound hogs rose approximately 25 per cent between January, the month when prices were lowest, and July, the month when prices were highest. Prices for lighter weight groups reached a peak in June; prices for heavier weights reached a peak in August or September. There was a pronounced difference among markets in the proportion of hogs sold during certain seasons of the year. During the last 4 months of the year, the proportions of 180- to 240pound hogs sold at the local markets were 55 per cent in the southeastern section, 47 per cent in the south central section, and 29 per cent in the northeastern section. Seasonal price and marketing variations among markets for weight groups other than the 180- to 240-pound group were similar to the variations for that weight group. Under the systems of marketing that were in practice in the three sections, returns from the sale of a given weight of 180to 240-pound hogs would have been approximately 5 per cent greater at the market in the northeastern section than at the market in the south central section, and approximaetly 9 per cent greater than at the market in the southeastern section. Conclusions that may be drawn from this study are: 1. Changes in the price for hogs at a local market are closely associated with changes at other local markets and with changes at central markets. Therefore, producers should familiarize themselves with what is happening in markets outside their local areas. 2. By producing hogs that yield quality meat and marketing them regularly at desired weights, it is possible for producers in Alabama to get prices almost equal to those paid at Chicago. 3. At least a part of the lower price received for hogs in the south central and southeastern sections of the State was due to marketing large numbers of "soft" hogs in these areas in the past, and to the practice of continuing to market some "soft" hogs. 4. Producers in south central and southeast Alabama might increase their returns from the sale of hogs at local markets by marketing them more uniformly throughout the year. 5. Feeding hogs to heavier weights when prices are rising and selling hogs at lighter weights when prices are falling will generally increase profits.

N APPENDIX TABLE 1. WEEKLY AND MONTHLY AVERAGE PRICES FOR 180- TO 240-PouND BARROWS AND GILTS AT SELECTED MARKETS

1951-53 Central markets Month Week no. 1 2 3 4 Jan. 5 6 7 8 Feb. 9 10 11 12 13 Mar. 14 15 16 17 Apr. Chicago 19.38 19.45 19.65 19.69 19.54 19.98 20.38 20.68 20.38 20.36 20.16 20.13 20.27 19.87 19.93 20.07 19.98 20.08 20.61 21.09 20.44 Nashville 19.39 19.34 19.80 19.93 19.62 19.93 20.40 20.60 20.12 20.26 19.87 19.92 20.01 19.75 19.75 19.86 19.72 19.97 20.22 20.76 20.17
gome

LO

Local markets in Alabama Southeastern Area 18.18 17.78 18.05 18.00 18.00 18.13 18.33 18.93 18.94 18.58 18.52 18.75 18.70 18.67 18.65 18.66 18.72 18.83 19.15 19.77 19.12 Southeast 18.10 17.73 18.28 17.57 17.92 17.95 18.53 19.24 18.84 18.64 18.79 18.75 18.78 18.61 18.83 18.75 18.84 18.98 19.97 20.15 19.48 Southeast 18.10 17.71 18.14 17.86 17.95 17.87 18.67 19.20 18.77 18.63 18.01 18.87 18.90 18.55 18.68 18.60 18.69 18.82 19.36 19.82 19.17 Market location in the State South South Southcentral central west 16.97 17.02 18.58 18.07 17.66 18.14 18.78 19.63 19.40 18.99 18.96 19.12 19.00 19.22 18.98 19.05 19.18 19.39 20.44 20.13 19.78 18.85 17.81 18.20 18.26 18.16 18.61 18.98 19.59 19.02 19.04 18.23 18.60 19.19 18.58 19.18 18.76 19.13 19.25 19.73 20.39 19.62 18.72 17.72 18.85 18.29 18.27 18.42 18.87 19.93 18.99 19.05 19.45 18.18 18.15 18.33 18.94 18.61 17.87 18.66 18.98 19.90 18.85 Northwest 18.64 18.77 19.15 19.01 18.89 18.87 18.90 19.63 19.58 19.24 18.98 19.16 19.41 19.13 18.91 19.12 18.91 18.79 18.89 20.15 19.18 Northeast 19.12 18.78 18.99 19.41 19.08 19.96 19.81 20.17 19.88 19.96 19.89 19.48 19.75 19.33 19.42 19.47 19.16 19.41 19.69 20.48 19.68
c-I
Ma

Mont-

gomery 18.75 18.39 18.87 18.43 18.61 18.42 18.68 19.42 19.38 18.98 19.07 18.97 19.19 19.29 19.14 19.13 19.27 19.28 19.78 20.24 19.64

jF

A

C II Ia m m rn

x z -4
-

-I1

(Continued)

O z

APPENDIX TABLE 1 (Continued). WEEKLY

AND

MONTHLY AvERAGE PRICES

FOR

180- TO 240-PoND BARROWS AND GILTS Local markets in Alabama

AT

SELECTED

C0
O O

MARKETS, 1951-53

m

LX

MA

Central markets

Month

Week no.
18 19 20 21

Chicago 21.65 22.17 22.81 22.58 22.30 23.07 22.42 22.67 23.34 23.52 28.00 23.68 24.18 24.40 24.19 24.11 23.13 23.47 28.64 23.01 23.31

Nashville 21.45 21.92 22.51 22.29 22.04 22.57 21.74 22.45 23.10 23.40 22.65 23.27 24.00 28.47 23.35 23.52 22.57 28.67 23.41 22.93 23.14

Montgomery 20.90 21.43 21.85 21.82 21.50 22.00 21.41 21.46 22.25 22.63 21.95 22.83 28.24 23.53 23.07 23.17 21.97 22.08 22.93 21.75 22.18

eastern Area 19.90 20.43 21.07 21.42 20.70 21.64 21.62 21.53 21.87 22.00 21.73 22.50 22.67 22.83 22.59 22.65 21.33 21.22 21.47 20.93 21.24

South-

South21.00 21.18 21.68 21.57 21.36 21.88 21.43 21.52 22.27 22.68 21.96 22.78 22.55 22.61 22.03 22.49 20.23 21.75 20.71 20.42 20.78

Southeast 19.90 20.85 20.93 21.45 20.78 21.67 21.40 21.54 22.37 22.47 21.89 22.82 22.48 22.48 22.05 22.46 21.08 21.75 20.82 20.57 21.06

Market locationin the State
South central 21.15 21.91 22.30 21.99 21.84 22.38 21.95 21.93 22.27 23.15 22.84 22.14 23.08 23.13 22.87 22.80 20.81 22.06 20.73 21.62 21.30 South central 20.46 20.93 21.48 21.64 21.18 21.94 21.91 21.90 22.99 22.51 22.25 22.44 23.34 22.99 22.11 22.72 21.01 21.77 21.44 21.03 21.31 Southwest 19.83 21.24 20.88 20.92 20.72 20.79 19.97 20.68 21.29 21.60 20.87 22.74 23.04 21.42 22.15 22.84 21.03 21.03 22.10 21.38 21.38

Northwest 21.15 21.12 21.46 21.80 21.38 21.89 21.11 21.73 22.48 22.56 21.95 22.60 23.75 23.39 22.88 23.16 22.00 23.08 23.20 22.43 22.68

Northeast 20.74 21.41 22.25 21.94 21.58 22.00 22.11 21.86 22.60 23.25 22.86 23.60 23.50 23.85 23.79 28.56 22.68 23.31 23.85 22.56 22.98

con

z
I

P"

c
-I

May 22 23 24 25 26 June 27 28 29 80 July 31 82 33 84 Aug.

z
LU

0 0

(Continued)

IJ

APPENDIX TABLE 1 (Continued). WEEKLY AND MONTHLY AVERAGE PRICES FOR 180- TO 240-PoUND BARROWS AND GILTS AT SELECTED MARKETS, 1951-53

Central markets Month Week flo. 35 36 37 38 39 Sept. 40 41 42 43
Oct. Chicago Nashville

Montgomery

eastern

South-

Area

Southeast

Local markets in Alabama Market location in the State South SouthSouth Southeast central central west

Northwest

Northeast

22.12 22.06 21.70 21.95 22.12 21.99 21.31 20.49 20.34 19.29 20.36 19.34 18.82 18.73 19.21 19.02 19.64 19.69 19.89 20.47 19.26 19.79
21.19

22.18 22.04 21.84
22.05 22.15

22.05 21.36 21.15 20.88 19.84 20.81 19.68 19.08 19.27 19.87 19.48 20.07 19.92 20.08 20.74 21.60 20.48
21.18 IW~nA

20.83 20.73 20.97 20.77 21.07 20.87 20.43 20.17 19.70 18.88 19.80 18.92 18.69 18.52 18.61 18.68 18.98 18.68 18.81 19.20 20.02 19.14
20.30 In.~-tz,

20.38 19.58 20.22 19.95 20.42 20.11 19.84 19.71 19.22 18.68 19.36 18.26 18.52 18.36 18.51 18.41 18.60 18.52 18.47 18.77 19.27 18.73
19.78 In_~L~T)

19.54 20.15 20.06 20.23 20.62 20.12 19.67 19.49
19.09

19.54 19.67 20.09 19.96 20.38 19.93 20.00 19.75
18.80

20.69 20.52

20.32 20.65
20.68 20.57 20.03 20.33

20.13 20.19
20.52

20.11 19.87
20.40

21.43 21.57
21.11

21.49 21.84
21.92

20.10 21.00 20.39 20.08 19.84
19.24

19.81 19.92 20.02 20.31 19.89

21.53 21.11 21.85 21.18 20.47
20.40

21.67 21.90 21.66 21.87 20.65
20.26

cr

w
cc cc

18.07 19.08 18.42 18.62 19.07 18.69 18.59
17.92 18.66

18.77 19.33
18.37

18.60 19.70
19.83

19.84

19.13 19.57 19.00 18.89 18.75 18.89 18.92
18.86 18.93

19.38
17.97

18.61 19.55 18.28 18.33 18.31 18.22 18.23
18.44

19.19 20.31

44 45 46 47 Nov. 48 49 50 51 52
Dec.

18.40 18.49 18.74 18.50 18.77
18.45

19.41 19.04 18..90 19.17 19.18
18.50

18.93 18.61
19.44

20.05 20.71
19.71

Ci

18.72 19.35 18.90

19.11 19.39 19.52 19.43 19.40
19.51

m

x
in

19.02 19.34
20.13

18.81 19.45
20.20

19.08 19.71
20.31

18.94 19.66
20.20

18.95 19.05
19.85

19.45 19.47 20.02 20.96'
19.87
20.51

19.63 20.03
20.81

z

19.00
19.86 IR~nT)

19.14
19.79 L r n~~~

19.36
20.22

19.82
20.10

18.90
19.72

19.88
20.86

Yearly
Average LL4

z

APPENDIX TABLE 2. WEEKLY AND MONTHLY AVERAGE PRICES FOR HOGS IN FIVE WEIGHT GROUPS, AT LOCAL MARKETS IN THREE SECTIONS OF ALABAMA, 1951-53 Weight group and market location Month
m
.. 0

300 pounds and over 241-300 pounds 180-240 pounds 160-179 pounds 140-159 pounds Week no. North- South South- North- South South- North- South South- North- South South- North- South Southeast central east east central east east central east o----- -Tcentral east east central east ---- east o-16.50 14.33 16.07 16.30 15.80 16.75 17.19 17.45 17.07 17.11 9 10 11 12 13 16.86 17.31 15.81 16.83 15.71 15.84 15.74 15.58 15.71 16.35 16.33 17.10 16.71 16.62 15.94 16.92 17.43 16.77
17.02

h-N

m

z
IIn

-1
loo .I-

Jan.

16.87 16.22 16.92 16.43 16.61 16.48 17.15 17.72 17.33 17.17 16.50 17.27 17.47 18.93 17.62 17.56

18.01 17.29 17.72 16.95 17.99 16.89 18.02 17.19 17.93 17.08

17.62 19.12 17.22 18.78 17.80 18.99 17.48 19.41 17.53 19.08

18.35 17.81 18.20 18.26 18.15

18.10

17.83

17.71 18.14 17.86 17.95

17.58 17.91 18.40 17.93

18.04 17.41 16.76 16.76 16.90 17.19 16.68 16.89 17.09 17.06 17.08 17.55 17.93 18.09 17.66

15.08 15.47 15.22 15.20 15.24

14.49 13.84 13.65 13.75 13.93

15.00 13.94 14.93 14.63 14.62 13.67 14.80 15.71 15.52 14.93 14.03 15.22 15.97 16.73 14.58 15.31 14.94 16.12 15.90 17.09 16.01

Feb.

18.34 17.74 17.38 19.96 18.63 17.33 18.17 19.81 18.96 18.34 18.70 20.17 18.63 18.34 18.43 19.88 18.64 17.94 18.17 19.95 18.20 17.49 18.27 18.04 18.11 17.79 18.40 17.74 17.79 17.83 18.15 17.78 18.36 18.31 18.76 18.20 19.00 19.39 18.80 19.24 18.73 18.79 17.53 18.40 18.45 19.78 18.37
18.51

16.98

Mar. 14 15 16 17 Apr.

16.76 16.82 16.98 17.50 17.84 18.06 17.59

18.61 17.87 18.93 18.67 19.59 19.20 19.02 18.77 19.04 18.63 19.39 18.23 18.01 19.48 18.60 18.87 19.75 19.19 18.90 19.33 18.58 18.55 19.42 19.18 18.68 19.48 18.76 18.60
19.36

18.58 18.02 18.40 17.33 18.75 18.09 18.50 16.89 18.55 17.58

18.18 16.59 16.90 18.23 17.20 17.72 18.70 16.69 17.64 18.10 16.99 18.55 18.07 17.89 17.18 18.26 17.07 17.60

15.20 14.42 16.08 14.61 15.77 14.44 15.81 13.70 15.71 14.29 15.72 15.36 15.82 15.01 16.23 13.57 15.39 14.18 16.36 15.91 15.90 14.81 15.77 16.73 16.46 16.08 16.26 15.66 14.11 15.30 16.36 15.36

0
m

0 0 In

16.64 17.43 17.40 17.73 18.34 18.38 18.60 18.83 17.74 18.10

18.35 18.42 19.07 19.53 18.84

19.16 19.13 19.41 19.25 19.69 19.73 20.48 20.39 19.68 19.62

18.69 18.06 18.82 18.14 19.82 19.17

18.84

18.76 18.45

16.66 18.28 17.52 18.38 17.71

17.67 16.79 17.27 18.38 17.53

(Continued)

NA

w,

APPENDIX TABLE

2 (Continued).

WEEKLY AND MONTHLY AVERAGE PRICES FOR HOGS IN FIVE WEIGHT GROUPS. AT LOCAL MARKETS IN THREE SECTIONS OF ALABAMA, 1951-53

Weight group and market location Month 800 pounds and over 241-300 pounds 180-240 pounds 160-179 pounds 140-159 pounds Week no. North- South South- North- South South- North- South South- North- South South- North- South Southeast central east east central east east central east east central east east central east 17.89 19.32 18.95 19.69 19.79 19.72 20.74 20.46 19.90 19.45 18.96 19.02 17.16 16.05 17.04 18 19 19.35 19.49 19.98 20.62 20.06 20.40 21.41 20.93 20.85 20.24 18.85 19.56 17.22 16.07 17.96 20 18.29 19.68 20.832 20.84 20.21 20.80 22.25 21.48 20.93 20.93 19.41 19.44 17.10 15.85 18.61 21 19.33 20.10 20.72 20.89 21.41 21.30 21.94 21.64 21.45 20.58 18.67 20.77 17.63 18.88 17.99 20.38 22 23 24 25 26 June 27 28 29 80 July 31 82 33 84 Aug. 19.65 19.99 20.73 20.32 20.63 21.28 21.50 20.89 20.51 20.37 20.69 21.06 20.95 21.69 21.75 22.16 21.93 22.28 22.41 22.19 21.86 21.22 21.92 22.13 22.54 22.87 21.99 22.24 20.27 21.84 20.55 21.59 21.12 20.78 21.94 21.91 21.90 22.99 22.51 22.25 21.67 21.40 21.54 22.37 22.47 21.89 20.30 20.48 20.20 20.63 20.66 21.41 20.67 18.97 17.57 18.88 19.43 19.44 21.56 19.88 19.70 20.28 20.37 21.35 20.41 20.12 20.49 17.28 17.85 18.29 18.09 17.85 18.59 18.03 18.32 18.30 18.32 18.90 18.46 16.70 16.85 17.30 17.88 17.82 15.54 16.98 17.28 16.82 17.74 15.49 16.83 14.75 17.28 13.81 17.41 15.81 17.90 17.60 17.84 17.61 16.98 18.67 17.74 18.52 17.98 18.50 17.10 18.02 16.48 17.34 17.95 16.78 17.183 > 18.73 19.84 19.98 20.22 18.72 20.21 20.01 21.25 20.85 20.80 19.66 21.14 20.59 20.39 20.54 20.67 19.38 19.57 20.50 20.15 19.90 20.46 21.30 22.00 21.00 22.11 21.12 21.86 21.93 22.60 22.00 23.25 21.47 22.18 21.63 21.55 20.98 21.59 22.36 23.60 23.50 23.85 23.79 23.56

May

a
c

21.23 21.93

20.51 21.80 20.91 20.93 20.41 20.65 19.75 19.57 20.39 18.35 18.93 18.69 17.39 18.84 20.61 18.23 19.00 17.90 18.17

22.44 22.82 20.91 20.25 21.24 23.34 22.48 21.79 20.59 19.58 22.99 22.48 21.20 20.57 20.91 22.11 22.05 21.38 19.22 19.29 22.72 22.46 21.08 21.75 20.82 20.57 21.05 21.32 20.75 20.88 23.57 21.21 21.60 20.16 18.39 19.27 19.57 19.28 19.13 20.26

r
m . 3

21.63 19.37 21.15 19.80 21.91 20.36 21.01 19.73 19.81

20.22 22.68 21.01 20.75 23.81 21.77 19.05 23.85 21.44 19.40 22.56 21.03 19.85 22.97 21.81

18.26 17.71 20.18 18.86 19.94 18.52 19.39 18.28 19.44 18.22

m -

18.82 21.42

(Continued) Z

APPENDIX TABLE 2 (Continued). WEEKLY AND MONTHLY AVERAGE PRICES FOR HOGS IN FIVE WEIGHT GROUPS, AT LOCAL MARKETS IN THREE SECTIONS OF ALABAMA, 1951-53

.m
m

Weight group and market location Month 800 pounds and over 241-800 pounds 180-240 pounds 160-179 pounds 140-159 pounds Week no. North- South South- North- South South- North- South South- North- South South- North- South Southeast central east east central east east central east east central east east central east
m

m

m z
-I

35 36 37 88 39
Sept.

18.69 18.79 19.22 19.10 19.02 18.96 19.27 17.67 17.97 18.01 18.23 17.18 17.04 16.70 17.02 16.98 16.89 16.96 17.60 17.43 19.33 17.64 18.18

17.07 17.18 17.62 17.36 18.49 17.54

16.78 16.88 17.42 17.42 18.15 17.82

20.16 20.15 20.89 20.06 20.45 20.24 20.08 19.01 19.08 19.07 19.31
18.48 17.96 17.51 18.23 18.15 17.81 18.47 18.92 19.59 18.49

18.91 18.98 18.88 19.10 19.67 19.10 18.80 18.85 18.20 18.07 18.35

18.48 18.27 18.88 18.80 19.30 18.65 18.82 18.67 17.75 17.92 18.29 17.65 18.02 18.17 18.30 18.03

21.49 21.84 21.92 21.67 21.90 21.66 21.87 20.65 20.26 20.05 20.71 19.71 19.11 19.39 19.52 19.43

20.13 20.19 20.52 20.10 21.00 20.39 20.08 19.84 19.24 19.13 19.57 18.93 19.00 18.89 18.75 18.89

19.54 19.67 20.09 19.96 20.88 19.93 20.00 19.75 18.80 18.77 19.33

20.14 20.34 20.68 20.59 21.04 20.56 20.74 19.82 19.78 19.25 19.90

17.87 18.21 19.29 19.34 20.25 18.99 19.13 19.21 18.50 18.54 18.84

18.53 18.76 19.20 19.05 19.95 19.10 19.30 19.18 18.70 17.47 18.66

17.90 17.63 18.20 17.65 19.40 17.54 18.37 15.86 18.44 18.01 18.46 17.34 18.70 17.55 18.08 17.75 18.02 17.18 16.83 16.23 16.55 16.72 15.84 16.23 16.03 15.93 16.98 16.20 17.18 17.68 17.16 16.16 17.08 14.68 17.01 16.19 14.84 15.68 15.13 14.70 14.14 16.94 16.29 15.44

14.22 15.46 15.19 15.90 16.01 15.86 16.82 17.55 17.03 15.63 16.76 17.22 15.65 16.98 16.43 16.57 16.30 16.16 16.69 16.51 17.32 16.60 16.43

r-

40 41 42 43 Oct. 44 45 46 47 Nov. 48 49 50 51 52
Dec.

17.15 17.85 17.48 17.57 17.19 17.22 17.53 17.89 17.34 17.38 17.09 18.34 17.85 17.95 17.81 17.59 17.50 17.36 17.76 18.96 17.84 18.03
17.43 17.88 17.82 17.78 17.78 17.68 17.20 17.42 17.67 18.97 17.79

m

0

17.69 18.54 18.39 17.97 18.03 18.15 18.13 17.72 18.21 18.72 19.23 18.40

18.87 18.00 17.96 18.25 18.40 18.24 17.79 17.92 18.49 17.99 18.65 18.18 18.74 18.89 17.18 18.20 18.50 18.28 17.89 18.14 18.34 18.82 18.34 18.80 19.38 18.74 18.36 17.48 17.51 17.06 19.19 17.92 17.75 16.90 18.32 18.67 19.58 18.24 18.67

yI

18.18 19.40 18.92 18.77 18.02 19.51 18.86 18.45 18.40 19.63 18.94 18.81 18.88 20.08 19.66 19.45 19.85 20.81 20.20 20.20 18.67 20.01 19.82 19.13

Yearly Average

18.80

19.57

19.14 19.19 20.87 20.10 19.79

19.55 18.39

17.05 15.87

Ul

APPENDIX TABLE

8.

WEEKLY AND MONTHLY AVERAGE NUMBER OF HOGS SOLD IN FIVE WEIGHT GnouPS, AT LOCAL MARKETS IN THREE SECTIONS OF ALABMA, 1951-53

Weight group and market location Month Week

no.

North- South South- North- South South- North- South South- North- South South- North- South Southeast central 61 50 44 30 185 41 68 35 46 190 80 41 54 82 32 189 39 21 70 48 178 east 77 69 64 89 299 62 82 63 70 277 73 64 71 40 54 802 40 24 21 22 107 east 48 17 26 33 119 48 41 41 22 152 82 48 55 85 40 210 61 48 41 48 198 central 88 85 41 55 264 46 42 30 38 156 57 57 35 58 43 250 44 42 52 38 176 east 93 73 84 71 321 58 68 76 62 264 78 58 71 48 51 806 34 81 88 20 123 east 11 7 21 24 63 24 26 21 16 87 18 85 8 20 19 100 15 17 84 15 81 central east 261 483 246 236 197 156 251 239 114 307 199 271 730 1,241 989 355 292 346 333 1,326 848 318 892 341 327 1,726 418 848 412 400 1,578 156 133 182 105 576 117 137 166 158 151 729 147 103 187 164 551 245 189 177 182 793 221 138 161 103 151 774 107 62 66 60 295 east 55 33 44 58 185 43 58 33 58 192 40 40 64 37 38 219 50 47 58 48 208 central 63 19 19 32 133 44 28 27 17 116 26 10 11 11 17 75 10 15 10 8 43 east 48 35 28 22 183 81 22 17 12 82 22 22 10 6 6 66 6 4 8 6 24 east 88 27 27 32 124 38 43 35 37 148 44 30 41 34 86 185 36 43 37 40 156 central 22 12 10 17 61 18 12 8 8 41 9 10 8 9 7 43 6 6 7 6 25 east 86 21 28 26 106 16 25 19 26 86 20 9 15 15 10 69
m

140-159 pounds

160-179 pounds

180-240 pounds

241-300 pounds

301 pounds and over

1 2 3 4 Jan. 5 6 7 8 Feb. 9 10 11 12 13 Mar. 14 15 16 17 Apr.

C
C

c
m

14 4 7 6 31

3:
Z

-

-1

(Continued)

APPENDIX TABLE 3 (Continued). WEEKLY AND MONTHLY AVERAGE NUMBER OF Hoes SOLD IN FIVE WEIGHT GROUPS,
MARKETS IN THREE SECTIONS OF ALABAMA,

AT LoCAL
m

1951-53

Month

May

Weight group and market location 241-300 pounds 180-240 pounds 160-179 pounds 140-159 pounds Week no. North- South South- North- South South- North- South South- North- South Southeast central east east central east east central east east central east 52 43 27 817 151 65 45 11 7 18 26 50 22 6 19 18 34 13 48 38 15 340 149 45 44 5 20 16 37 8 16 55 41 22 406 131 48 86 9 6 21 15 34 13 54 36 23 266 72 37 86 4 4 75 155 64 209 158 87 1,329 503 195 161 29 23 22 23 24 25 26 16 27 26 23 31 123 23 21 31 21 96 15 24 32 15 86 31 82 22 27 23 135 24 51 83 28 186 86 57 29 16 138 13 9 8 10 7 47 3 19 15 19 56 29 28 56 37 145 37 32 49 60 63 241 56 41 58 58 213 73 45 83 45 246 43 43 34 3388 88 191 50 43 89 47 179 43 45 63 50 201 7 372 19 285 7 253 9 294 8 296 50 1,500 9 178 13 294 13 216 27 232 62 920 40 30 77 43 190 273 260 844 280 1,157 47 77 82 82 71 359 52 119 82 79 332 106 117 127 141 491 48 41 23 17 13 142 27 38 19 43 127 87 114 135 146 482 38 31 36 26 47 178 5 9 15 5 4 38 12 11 10 9 42 18 8 18 5 49 5 1 2 2 4 14 0 4 4 4 12 6 10 6 9 31

301 pounds and over North- South Southeast central east 42 9 4 38 7 5 49 7 5 41 5 4 170 28 18 31 28 82 82 42 165 30 22 35 27 114 34 26 38 38 136 6 3 6 7 4 26 7 7 5 5 24 11 7 6 4 28 6 5 3 5 1 20 2 4 4 3 13 6 5 8 6 20
Z

m
z
0

June 27 28 29 30 July 31 32 83 34 Aug.

38
38 85 31 142 27 28 34 37 126

(Continued)

APPENDIX TABLE

8

(Continued). WEEKLY AND MONTHLY AVERAGE

NUMBER OF HOGS

SOLD IN FIeV WEIGHT GROUPS,

AT

LOCAL

MARKETS IN THREE SECTIONS OF ALABAMA, 1951-53

Month

Weight group and market location 801 pounds and over 241-800 pounds 180-240 pounds 160-179 pounds 140-159 pounds Week no.. North- South South- North- South South- North- South South- North- South South- North- South Southeast central east east central east east central east east central east east central east 25 6 12 18 9 18 96 222 85 74 262 67 59 35 21 39 29 5 10 28 11 9 73 251 170 263 40 41 63 77 36 26 80 11 18 24 20 17 88 259 181 225 66 56 56 37 23 45 38 38 54 44 57 101 75 240 238 253 28 14 23 28 12 12 39 9 47 58 88 80 84 263 180 255 29 20 12 32 11 16 117 40 41 42 43 13 23 16 18 70 44 45 46 47 80 86 12 13 91 48 49 50 51 52 19 28 24 19 20 110 1,099 225 31 57 26 62 176 60 58 88 81 237 47 86 42 59 44 228 2,172 276 56 55 35 89 185 52 29 56 88 175 51 82 59 48 64 249 2,182 273 26 52 32 40 150 20 33 40 3388 126 28 23 39 26 25 141 2,278 349 48 121 90 83 342 88 59 50 65 257 82 41 73 28 61 285 2,808 894 75 96 74 78 323 76 56 78 65 275 68 62 78 68 78 344 1,275 256 282 262 276 1,076 285 191 280 229 985 217 307 219 205 181 1,129 865 233 338 224 229 1,024 248 198 175 149 770 262 211 219 135 239 1,066 1,218 886 337 836 238 1,247 801 261 330 288 1,180 290 806 290 256 245 1,387 127 21 40 28 27 116 26 84 52 88 150 89 52 54 45 36 226 74 28 28 26 26 108 28 18 40 22 103 49 30 26 12 87 154 964 74 16 21 14 10 61 11 19 80 20 80 26 87 26 18 26 133 144 27 87 28 38 180 88 89 84 28 189 40 82 33 48 29 177 45 10 11 13 12 46 14 13 13 19 59 14 19 17 8 16 74 500 68 18 10 7 14 49 10 20 8 11 49 15 26 15 18 10 84 618 w

Sept.

0
C

Oct.

c 7

r
m m

Nov.

F -

2

Dec. Yearly Average

2,789 14,990 7,996

9,081 2,025

1,788 78833

5
Z

APPENDIX TABLE

4. INDEX

OF SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN PRICE AND IN NUMBER OF HOGS SOLD AT LOCAL MARKETS IN THREE SECTIONS OF ALABAMA, BY WEIGHT GROUPS, 1951-53

Month

Weight groups 300 pounds and over 241-300 pounds 180-240 pounds 160-179 pounds 140-159 pounds North- South South- North- South South- North- South South- North- South South- North- South. Southeast central east east central east east central east east central east east central east 86 93 92 96 111 107 113 109 104 100 93 96 72 99 113 93 87 140 108 98 119 79 85 107 87 92 93 99 109 114 113 102 97 96 99 99 103 105 105 98 86 74 71 76 125 98 132 127 91 94 96 99 109 114 113 100 103 95 97 97 165 153 168 59 35 27 31 80 153 102 97 130 92 95 93 96 105 108 113 109 100 99 92 95 63 80 111 104 110 127 112 130 144 79 66 74 89 94 93 98 106 115 114 104 97 96 95 96 113 67 108 75 68 82 70 86 150 147 111 123 91 95 97 98 107 112 113 104 104 95 94 97 142 117 135 54 38 22 27 84 174 143 122 142 91 96 93 94 104 107 113 110 102 99 93 96 79 106 138 126 107 120 74 93 102 86 79 90 90 95 93 98 105 111 113 106 101 97 94 96 110 87 110 83 75 54 47 74 130 154 116 160 91 94 94 97 105 111 118 106 105 98 93 97 165 105 107 89 26 19 17 64 162 166 157 173. 92 95 93 94 104 106 109 110 103 102 94 96 110 114 180 120 95 105 84 75 75 69 89 134 93 96 93 96 103 105 110 104 102 102 97 98 167 145 95 54 37 48 47 61 93 134 128 191 91 95 94 94 106 110 109 104 108 100 97 98 228 139 111 38 34 21 16 54 126 103 184 196 90 92 93 96 101 106 108 107 109 106 98 95 84 99 125 105 115 111 77 86 97 87 94 120 88 90 94 97 105 107 106 100 109 108 99 97 148 99 103 61 67 62 52 69 106 113 143 177 89 91 93 98 109 108 110 104 94 102 101 101 233 188 154 60 33 81 25 42 100 87 94 153

0

Index of price
January February

March

m

April
May June July August September October November December Index of number sold
January

z
0

H

February March April
May June

July August September October November December I~-rrlnv ~rrrmk~r ~+

ct~l~l

APPENDIX TABLE 5. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PRICES OF HOGS OF FOUR WEIGHTS AND VALUE OF WEIGHT GAINED BY HOLDING Two WEEKS, LOCAL MARKET IN THE NORTHEASTERN SECTION OF ALABAMA, 1951-53

o

Date

170-pound Value of weight gain 200-pound Value of weight gain er 100 hogs, per per 100 hogs, per d0 100 pounds lb. lb. 100 pounds

230-pound hogs, per

Value of weight gain 260-pound hogs, per per 100 100 pounds lb.

January 1
January15

Dollars 17.86 18.00

Dollars 8.04
9.16-.0.51

Dollars 26.80

Dollars 18.95 19.20

Dollars 6.26
7.32

Dollars 20.87

Dollars 18.95 19.20

Dollars 3.64
3.91

Dollars 12.13

Dollars 17.70 18.16

24.40

13.03>

February 1
February 15 March 1 March 15

18.48
8.62128.78
18.80 18.24 26.90 March8.07 18.2619.54

19 .8 8

19.8818.49
6.29 4.67 20.97
20.02

2.69 1.27
19.44

8.970
18.62

20.02

15.57
20.203.13 19.54

4.2
18.20 10.4 18.40

~ 19.44
6.06

c
c

7.54 April 1
April 15

25.13 19.29 8..627.87

5.29 6.38
19.5519.55

17.63 19.2918.06 21.27 27.67k 29.97
21.8320.58

2.02 3.70 4.70 6.11

6.73 12.33
18.49

18.08
18.88

9.12 May 1
May 15 June 1
June 15

80.40 20.6120.61 86.50
21.83

8.30 8.99

15.67 19.10 20.37

X
m
Z

19.24 10.95
20.73

20.79 8.62
21.00

21.97 28.73
21.98

21.97 61.61922.03
21.98

20.53 2.56 4.15 8.5
20.42

#A

10.14

.80

I

8.76

29.20

1:3Z8 (Continued)

APPENDIX TABLE

5 (Continued). RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PRICES OF HOGS OF FOUR WEIGHTS AND VALUE OF WEIGHT GAINED BY HOLDING Two WEEKS, LOCAL MARKET IN THE NORTHEASTERN SECTION OF ALABAMA, 1951-53

'O m

A

Date

170-pound Value of weight gain 200-pound Value of weight gain 230-pound Value of weight gain 260-pound per 100 hogs, per hogs, per pr10 hger per 100 0lb 30l. hogs, per e per 100 hos 30 lb.' lb. 100 pounds 100 pounds 3 b 3 b lb. 100 pounds

July

1

Dollars 21.72 22.04

Dollars

Dollars

Dollars 22.92 23.55

Dollars

Dollars

Dollars

22.92

Dollars

Dollars

Dollars 21.04

z

July 15

23.55

10

August 1
August 15

2234
21.39
1

23.57
823.0023.00
22.96

23.57I.

1.1 3.7

1 20.82
.2 2

0

September

21.46
20.16
October 1

22.96
21.42 22.40
0
4.17 13.9Q

September 15

.21.42
20.22 N21.80

9.9 31306.72 October 15 November 1
November 15

3-

21.80

18.62
12\1.35 4.3 4.50

20.26 19.04 18.75

~21.88 ~20.46
1988198

21.88 20.46 6.6 22074.52 15.07 N19.25 8.7 29206.26 20.87 19.46
-- -- - '19.46

December 1
December 15

17.74 18.19

19.25
Iw

21.3

APPENDIX TABLE 6.

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PRICES OF HOGS OF FOUR WEIGHTS AND VALUE OF WEIGHT GAINED BY HOLDING Two
WEEKS, LOCAL MARKET IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL SECTION OF ALABAMA, 1951-53

Date

170-pound Value of weight gain 200-pound Value of weight gain 230-pound Value of weight gain 260-pound hogs, per per 100 hogs, per per 100 hogs, per per 100 30eb. hogs, per 100 pounds lb. 30 lb. lb. 100 pounds 30 lb. lb. 100 pounds 30 lb. 100 pounds Dollars Dollars 7.86 Dollars 24.518.23 8.57 28.57 18.77 6.71 22.87 18.77 Dollars 18.08 5.77 19.23 18.23 4.04 13.47 17.68 Dollars Dollars Dollars 18.08 2.07 6.90 16.79 Dollars Dollars 17.12 17.04 17.54 Dollars 17.40

January 1 January 15 February 1 February 15 March 1 March 15 April 1 April 15 May 1 May15 June 1 June 15

8.78
18.34 "5.66 17.77 17.76 8.13 18.07

29.27
19.30 18.87 -3.77

6.85

22.83
19.30 12.57

2.3()
-. 45 18.42

7.67
17.49 -1.50 16.90

7.55

25.
27.10

18.42 18.88

6.58
-6.31

21.93
21.03 18.88 ,-1.51 19.16

4

470
16.84 5.03 , 17.28
C

0

19.16

8.26
18.80 8.88 19.52 9.22 20.14

27.53
19.49 29.60 20.42 30.73 21.20

6.51
7.99 7.92
7.72F25.73

21.70
19.49 26.63 20.42 26.40 21.20

2.47
3

8.23
17.90

rm

.71

12.37 18.67 9.23, 19.13 m
-5.50

2.77
1.65

9.34
21.64 7.01 21.57 8.83

31.13
21.79 23.37 21.90 29.43I

Z
18.12
-

21.79 6.79 6.22 22.63 21.90 20.7:3 .93 -. 30 -1.00 ·19.16 9.77O

(Continued)

APPENDIX TABLE 6 (Continued). RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PRICES OF Hocs OF Four WEIGHTS AND VALUE OF WEIGHT GAINED BY HOLDING TWO WEEKS, LOCAL MARKET IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL SECTION OF ALABAMA, 1951-53

M

170-pound Value of weight gain

200-pound

Date

hogs, per 100 pounds Dollars 22.34 22.43

80 lb. Dollars

per 100 lb. Dollars

hogs, per 100 pounds Dollars 22.75 22.89

Value of weight gain

30 lb. Dollars

per 100 lb.

hogs, per 100 pounds Dollars 21.75 22.89

230-pound

Value of weight gain

80

.

per 00 llb.

hogs, per 100 pounds Dollars 20.50 20.42

260-pound

M
m

Dollars

Dollars

Dollars

Z
-I

July 1 July 15
August1

?
C

8.97
21.26

29.90
22.55

6.08 4.10 6.07
21.24

20.27
22.55

-. 91 2.90 21.39 1.29
21.24

-3.03
19.90

6.64 August 15
September 1

22.13 30.6 20.16

13.67 20.23 20.16

-9.67 18.83 4.30
19.42

19.5821.39 9.19
20.04

September 15 October 1

18.94 8.42 18.96 2 076

18.04 .. 12.87 19.32

0

6.39 20.81

21.303.8 20.31

October15
November 1 November 15 December 1 December 15

19.24
18.28 6.98 17.88 7.48 18.46 18.05 24.93 23.27

20.54
19.54 4.69 19.03 5.50 18.94 18.84

2
15.63

20.54
19.54 2.51 19.03 3.60 18.94 18.84 .64 8.80 8.37

19.69
18.86 18.25 12.00 18.22 17.77
wa)

18.33

'

APPENDIX TABLE 7.

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PRICES OF HOGS OF FOUR1 WEIGHTS AND VALUE OF WEIGHT GAINED BY HOLDING Two WEEKS, LOCAL MARKET IN THE SOUTHEASTERN SECTION OF ALABAMA, 1951-53

Date

170-pound Value of weight gain 200-pound Value of weight gain 230-pound Value of weight gain 260-pound hogs, per per 100 hogs, per per 100 hogs, per per 100 hogs, per 100 pounds 30 lb. lb. 100 pounds 3lb b.poundslb.0 0 lb. lb. 100 pounds Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
17.90

Dollars

Dollars

Dollars
17.90

Dollars

Dollars

Dollars
17.08

January 1

17.42

January 15 February 1 February 15 March 1 March 15
April 1
April 15

17.64 17.78 7.73 18.56 5.33 17.96 16.91 18.12 " 18.36
18.74 7.86 26.20

18.00 18.28 25.77 18.98 17.77 18.44 28.03K 18.72 6.56 21.87 18.68
19.09

18.00 18.28 7.09 4.45 6.18 5.52 23.63 18.98 14.83 18.44 20.60 18.72 18.40_ 18.68
19.09

17.04 17.32 4.79 1.36 4.65 2.23 15.97 18.01 4.53 17.31 15.500 18.10 7.43 17.42
17.03r

c

7.50 19.86 8.33 20.89 7.81 21.56 6.26 21.47 8.63

May 1 May 15 June 1 June 15

19.62 8.48 20.60 8.10 21.30 6.73 22.43 21.06 904 0.13 27.00 28.10

25.00 k4.71 19.86 27.77 5.02 20.89 5.25 26.03 21.56 20.87 4.65 21.47_20.864 28.77 3.30

15.70X 18.70 16.73 19.50 17.50 20.50 15.50 , m m

11.0 (Continued)

z

APPENDIX TABLE 7 (Continued). RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PRICES OF HOGS OF FOUR WEIGHTS AND VALUE OF WEIGHT JAINED HOLDING Two WEEKS, LOCAL MARKET IN THE SOUTHEASTERN SECTION OF ALABAMA, 1951-53

BY

X
m

Date

July 1 July 15 August 1 August 15 September 1
September 15

170-pound Value of weight gain 200-pound Value of weight gain 230-pound Value of weight gain 260-pound hogs, per 100 hogs, per 3b. per ohogs,per 3 100 ounds lb. 100 pounds Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars 21.96 22.42 22.42 0.26

Z

7.7 2.77.26
6.0 2.34.75

24.2071.50
22.65N20.41 1.3 .3
42 15.90

.00
.

21.90

22.65

7.9
21.2622.221
20.482

4322261.6
.21

16

41
19.22

6.58 19.22
6.53

1.34.77

1.85 20,70
.85

Lh6,1m 19.66
2.83

20,70
21.77 3.6 x1227

W

18.38

_19.60

19.60 29.30

18.64 1.4 19.12 19.62

8.79 October 1 October 15 18.59 19.06 6.6 0.53

~20.02

6.85 20. 02 28.79
19.28

22.8k.6

6.4019 3.96

1322.0

November 1

18.21

19.282

.3 'N

18.94

November 15 December 1

17.78$
18.10

18.57
~1$.44N

IIIIIIII

1.N 8.5 7
18.44

~IIhIIIN.17.86
18.05
_

December 15

18.24

1~IIIIZIIhN~ 8.76 ''ZIhIhIIIIN 18.76 ~~~IIIIIIIIINN 17.98

~AG 23 ''6