Muddy Chips

Citation preview

PURDUE UNIVERSITY

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION

bt

Raiaon W ils o n

ENTITLED

"The Eastern Packer Market for Indiana Slaughter Hogs"

COMPLIES WITH THE UNIVERSITY REGULATIONS ON GRADUATION THESES

AND IS APPROVED BY ME AS FULFILLING THIS PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF

Doctor of Philosophy

Professor m t C h a r g e of Thesis

H

ead of

S c h o o l ,o r D

epartment

TO THE LIBRARIAN:----THIS THESIS IS NOT TO BE REGARDED AS CONFIDENTIAL.

PROF ESS OE m

GEAR. SCHOOL FORM B—3 - 4 0 —1M

Cl

THE EASTERN PACKER MARKET FOR INDIANA SLAUGHTER HOGS

A Thesis

Submitted to the Faculty

of

Purdue University

by

Ramon Wilson

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

of

Doctor of Philosophy

June, 1950

ProQuest Number: 27714120

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is d e p e n d e n t upon the quality of the copy subm itted. In the unlikely e v e n t that the a u thor did not send a c o m p le te m anuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if m aterial had to be rem oved, a n o te will ind ica te the deletion.

uest ProQuest 27714120 Published by ProQuest LLC (2019). C opyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C o d e M icroform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author expresses his grateful appreciation to his wife, Ruth W« Wilson, without whose assistance and encouragement this study would never have been undertaken.

To Dr. G. B. Wood and to Professor J. R.

Wiley under whose direction this study was conducted, and who gave freely of their ideas and encouragement, grateful appreciation is expressed. The author also expresses his thanks to the various members of the Department of Agricultural Economics clerical staff who helped in the prepara­ tion of this thesis, especially to Mrs. Helen Gahler.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ....... ......

i

INTRODUCTION........................................

1

Eastern Shipments Important to Indiana The Problem .

.......

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

Method of Procedure

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

THE EASTERN M A R K E T ..... ............................

1 3 6 9

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

9

General Characteristics of Eastern Packer Operations .......... .................... ..

9

The Market Area

Indiana Hogs Important to Eastern

Packers ........ 10

Weights of Hogs Bought by Eastern Packers

.....

11

Most Packers Desired Light Weight Hogs ...........

13

Hogs Slaughtered in 1948 Heavier Than Pre-War ••••

ll#.

Long Bodied Slaughter Hogs Preferred ...........

l6

Packers Want Little Fat on Hogs . . . . . . . . . . . .

18

Grading of Hams, Bellies and Loins . . . . . . . . . . . .

19

WEIGHTS OF CUTS BOUGHT AND DESIRED Choice of Market To Be Surveyed

........

21

.....

21

Fresh Loins

21

Fresh Butts *..............................

2lj.

Fresh Picnics «•••..............................

26

v

Fresh Hams ... .... . ................

27

Cured Hams

30

Cured Picnics «.................................

32

Cured Butts

34

....

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued Page WEIGHTS OF CUTS BOUGHT AND DESIRED - Continued Slab Bacon

........

3&

Salt Pork ...

3&

Some Heavier Cuts Bought and Desired by Chain Store Buyers ... ..................... SALE OF PRODUCTS

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

Sale of Processed Products Increasing ••••....... More Skinned Hams Being S o l d .................

4° 4° 4°

Sale of Fresh and Cured and Smoked Hams Decreasing . .................... More Cured and Tenderized and Boiled Hams S o l d ............................

43

Few Packers Sell Canned Hams . . . . . . . . . . . . .

44

Sale of Smokehouse Cooked Hams Increasing..*#

45

Sliced and Packaged Bacon Popular ..........

4&

PREFERENCE FOR EASTERN DRESSED PORK AS COMPARED TO MIDWESTERN DRESSED PORK ............ Eastern Dressed Pork Less Perishable

........

48 48

Perishability Most Important on Fresh Pork ..

4&

Perishability Also Important on Processed Pork ......

49

Eastern Dressed Pork Has Better Appearance ......

49

Fresh Pork Has More "Bloom” .•••..........

49

Appearance of Sausage Most Important in Processed Pork .............. Quality of Eastern Dressed and Midwestern Dressed Pork Similar .............. Fresh Pork Quality Little Different

........

51

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued Page PREFERENCE FOR EASTERN DRESSED PORK AS COMPARED TO MIDWESTERN DRESSED PORK - Continued Processed Pork Quality Similar ...

51

Price of Eastern Dressed Pork Higher .• ....... PROBLEMS OF EASTERN SLAUGHTER

52 «

Procurement Presents Many Problems

.....

55 55

Shrinkage Averaged More Than 7 Percent .... .. ..

55

Death Loss Showed Variation

58

......

Cost of Hogs at the Plant .......................

60

Indiana Hogs Yield About the Same as Other Hogs .

6l

Carcass Yields Show Little Variation Among Markets

63

Other Problems of Eastern Slaughter of Hogs .....

71

High Shrinkage, Bruising and Death Loss . ...

71

Freight Costs Higher for Live Hogs . . . . . . . .

72

Buying Presents a Constant Problem

....

72

Other Disadvantages Are Important . ........

73

WHAT OF THE FUTURE?

.......

Significant Trends

79

.....

79

Shipment of Carcasses

79

Improved Refrigeration and Transportation ...

82

Other Trends Adversely Affecting Eastern .............. Slaughter

.

82

Trends Favorably Affecting Eastern Slaughter.

83

Is Continued Eastern Slaughter of Midwestern Hogs Assured? .... ............... ••••

84

What Can Indiana Farmers Do?

86

BIBLIOGRAPHY

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

89

LISTS OF TABLES AND FIGURES List of Tables Table

Page

1#

Destination of Re shipped Indiana Hogs, 1940 and 194? ...............................

2

2*

Hogs, Federally Inspected Slaughter, North Atlantic States and Total U. S.Slaughter

5

3» 4#

5* 6» 7*

8#

9* 10#

11.

12.

13*

Source of 1,122,800 Slaughter Hogs Bought by 25 Eastern Packers, by States,194° # » *#

10

Destination and Average Weight of Out-ofState Shipments of Indiana Slaughter Hogs, 1940 and 1947 ..........................

11

Average Weight and Range in Weight of Hogs Slaughtered by 20 EasternPackers, 1940

13

♦

Weight Groups of Slaughter Hogs Desired by .... 25 Eastern Packers, 1949

14

Comparison of Average Weight of Hogs Slaughtered by 25 Eastern Packers, 194® and Pre-War ...........

15

Trend in Slaughter Hog Weights Expected by 24 Eastern Packers During the Next Five Years, 1949-1954 ......................

16

Type of Slaughter Hog Preferred by 25 Eastern Packers, 1949 ♦ ....

17

Ratings by 20 Eastern.Packers as to Depth of Back Fat Needed on Hogs of Different Weight Groups, 1949 *• • ..... . .... ...

18

Weights of Fresh Loins Bought and Weights of Fresh Loins Preferred by Philadelphia Retailers* June-August, 1949 . . . . . .

22

Weights of Fresh Butts Bought and Weights of Fresh Butts Preferred by Philadelphia Retailers. June-August, 1949 ...... .

24

Weights of Fresh Picnics Bought and Weights of Fresh Picnics Preferred by Philadelphia Retailers. June-August, 1949 .........

26

List of Tables - Continued Table 14*

15.

l6 *

17*

18.

19*

20.

21. 22. 23. 24# 25# 26. 27*

Page Weights of Fresh Hams Bought and Weights of Fresh Hams Preferred by Philadelphia Retailers. June-August, 1949 ..................................

27

Weights of Cured Hams Bought and Weights of Cured Hams Preferred by Philadelphia Retailers. June-August, 1949 ..........

30

Weights of Cured Picnics Bought and Weights of Cured Picnics Preferred by Phila­ delphia Retailers.June-August, 1949 ••••

32

Weights of Cured Butts Bought and Weights of Cured Butts Preferred by Philadelphia Retailers. June-August, 1949 *.....

36

Weights of Slab Bacon Bought and Weights of Slab Bacon Preferred by Philadelphia Re­ tailers. June-August, 1949 *# » *

36

Weights of Salt Pork Bought and Weights of Salt Pork Preferred-by Philadelphia Re­ tailers. June-August, 1949 ............ *

37

Ratings by 25 Eastern Packers of the Trend in the Sale of Processed Products in the Last Ten Years. 1949 . . ........ .

4°

Percent of Hams Sold as Skinned Hams by 25 Eastern Packers, 1948 .............

41

Percent of Hams Sold as Fresh Hams by 22 Eastern Packers, 1948 ........

42

Percent of Hams Sold Cured and Smoked by 22 Eastern Packers, 1948 .............

43

Percent of Hams Sold Cured and Tenderized by 22 Eastern Packers, 1948 ............

43

Percent of Hams Sold as Boiled Hams by 22 Eastern Packers, 1948.. ...

44

Percent of Hams Sold Smokehouse Cooked by 22 Eastern Packers, 1948 ............

45

Percent of Bacon Sold Sliced and Packaged by 66 Eastern Retailers,1948 ............

48

List of Tables - Continued Pag©

Table

.

28

Percent of Bellies Sliced by 22 Eastern Packers, 194*8 ....

4*7

Ratings by Eastern Retailers aad Packers of the Relative Perishability of Eastern and Midwestern Dressed Fresh and Processed Pork ».***.* +..

4*8

Ratings by Eastern Retailers and Packers of the Relative Appearance of Eastern and Midwestern Dressed Fresh m d Processed Pork es. .......

50

Ratings by Eastern Retailers and Packers of the Relative Quality of Eastern and Mid­ western Dressed Fresh and Processed Pork *

$1

Average Price Per Pound that Eastern Dressed Fresh Pork Was Above Midwestern Dressed Fresh Pork, New York City, July, 194-9 ..................... January, 1950

54-

33.

Shrinkage of Hogs Purchased by Three Eastern Packers, by States, 194-8 .........

56

34.

Average Shrinkage of Hogs Purchased by Three Eastern Packers, *194*8 .............

57

35.

Shrinkage of Hogs Purchased by Three Eastern Packers from Terminal Markets, 194*8 ......

58

Death Loss on Hogs Purchased by Three Eastern Packers, by States, 194-8 *...............

59

Death Loss Per Thousand on Hogs Purchased by Three Eastern Packers from Terminal . Markets, 194-8 »................ «........

60

At-the-Plant Cost toan Eastern Packer of Hogs Purchased from Different Areas, 1948 ....................................

6l

Source and Number of Lots of Hogs Used in Cut-Out Tests by Selected Eastern Packers, 194-9...........

62

Analysis of Variance. Comparison of Yields of Cuts of Hogs Purchased from Indiana and from Elsewhere .....

63

29.

30.

31.

32.

36. 37.

38.

39.

jjO.

List of Tables - Continued Table 4.1e

4-2•

4-3•

44-•

45*

46,

47*

48*

Page Analysis of Variance, Comparison of Car­ cass Yields of Hogs Purchased from Indianapolis with Carcass Yields of Hogs Purchased from Temninal Markets

64-

Analysis of Variance, Comparison of Car­ cass Yields of Hogs Purchased from Indianapolis with Carcass Yields of Hogs Purchased from Indiana Local Markets (Lafayette, Logansport, and Washington),

66

Analysis of Variance, Comparison of Carcass Yields of Hogs Purchased from Indianapolis with Carcass Yields of Hogs Purchased from Kentucky Local Markets (Bowling Green, Russellville, and Glasgow) ,,,,,,,

66

Analysis of Variance, Comparison of Carcass Yields of Hogs Purchased from Indianapolis with Carcass Yields of Hogs Purchased from Tennessee Local Markets (Nashville and Paris) ..

6?

Analysis of Variance, Comparison of Carcass Yields of Hogs Purchased from Indianapolis with Carcass Yields of Hogs Purchased ....... •••• from Local Markets

68

Analysis of Variance, Comparison of Carcass Yields of Hogs Purchased from Indiana Local Markets (Lafayette, Logansport, and Washington) with Hogs Purchased from Local Markets in Illinois, Kentucky, and ......... Tennessee

69

Analysis of Variance, Comparison of Carcass Yields of Hogs Purchased from Local Markets Compared with Hogs Purchased from Terminal Marke ts . . . ............

70

Ratings by 25 Eastern Packers As To Whether or Not Continued Eastern Slaughter of Midwestern Hogs Is Assured ..........

85

List of Figures

Figure le 2# 3# 1*.# 5* 6. 7. 8.

Page Reasons for Preferring Fresh Loins of Weights Indicated in Table 11

...

29

Reasons for Preferring Fresh Butts of Weights Indicated in Table 12

29

Reasons for Preferring Fresh Picnics of Weights Indicated in Table1 3 ..........

29

Reasons for Preferring Fresh Hams of Weights Indicated in Table llj. .......

29

Reasons for Preferring Cured Hams (Light) of Weights Indicated in Table1 5 .......

35

Reasons for Preferring Cured Hams (Heavy) of Weights Indicated in Table 15 .....

35

Reasons for Preferring Cured Picnics of ....... Weights Indicated in Table l6

35

Reasons for Preferring Cured Butts of Weights Indicated in Table 17 •*.....

35

.........

THE EASTERN PACKER MARKET FOR INDIANA SLAUGHTER HOGS

(Abstract of Thesis) by Ramon Wilson

Large numbers of slaughter hogs are produced in In­ diana#

The bulk of these hogs is consumed outside of the

state.

In I9Z4O less than one-third of the hogs marketed

from Indiana farms were slaughtered in the state.

Approxi­

mately three-fourths of the hogs re shipped from Indiana and adjacent markets were slaughtered in eastern metropolitan areas. Because of the importance of the eastern market to Indiana farmers there has been much speculation concerning it.

Some have believed that farmers in Indiana should

cater to the highly selective eastern market by producing hogs of the desired type, weight and finish*

Also, Indiana

is in a favorable competitive position with respect to the eastern market. Some point to the trend away from eastern slaughter and believe that pork cuts rather than live animals should be shipped to the eastern market* Because of the importance of the eastern market, and because of the divergent views concerning it, this study was undertaken.

il

Eastern Packers Desired Hogs of Lighter Weights The eastern packers have traditionally purchased closely graded hogs largely of the lighter weights#

This was still

true in 194® when the bulk of the packers said the average weights of hogs slaughtered by them ranged between l80*-2l|0 pounds*

Eastern packers desired hogs of these weights from

which they could get the weights of cuts desired by their trade*

Eastern Retailers Desired Pork Cuts Prom 180-240 Pound Hogs « A survey of retail pork outlets in Philadelphia showed that the hogs purchased by the packers were meeting the re­ quirements of their trade *

Generally, there appeared to be

little difference in the weights of cuts bought and weights of cuts preferred in Philadelphia, either by areas or by types of stores*

Chain store buyers, however, bought and

preferred heavier pork cuts than the Philadelphia area as a whole*

This can be partly explained by the lower price of

the heavier cuts and the faster turnover of the chain stores as compared to the smaller stores* The weights of cuts bought and preferred come from hogs weighing l80-240 pounds*

Fifty-six percent of the packers

desired slaughter hogs in the 180-220 pound weight group*

ill

Eastern Consumers Want Little Pat Consumers want cuts of the lighter weights with as little fat as is possible consistent with quality*

Con­

sequently packers desire hogs that are finished enough to yield quality cuts, but no more*

Most of the packers be­

lieved hogs should have an average back fat depth of not more than 1*0 to 1 *5 inches to yield quality products*

Eastern Slaughter Declining The eastern market for Indiana slaughter hogs is a specialized one.

The packer slaughtering in the East sells

products in competition with those shipped in from the Mid­ west*

This competition is keen*

Over the last quarter of

a century the federally inspected slaughter of hogs In the North Atlantic States has shown a continual decline*

In

numbers, the decline has been from 6,799>000 in 1920 to 4,740>000 in 194®*

As a percent of the total United States

slaughter, the decline has been from 17*9 percent in 1920 to 10 percent in 194®* This large decline is considered to be significant*

It

has taken place over a considerable period of time and shows a definite trend away from eastern slaughter.

Factors Affecting Continued Eastern Slaughter Disadvantages There are many disadvantages of eastern slaughter*

iv

Among tto.© most important are high, shrinkage, bruising and death losse

These disadvantages, coupled with high freight

costs, mean greater at-the-plant costs for hogs purchased by eastern packers compared with those in the Midwest# Basically these disadvantages result from the distance the live animals have to be shipped east# Advantages There are advantages which have enabled certain eastern packers to obtain a premium necessary to continue slaughter­ ing in the East# 1#

The main ones center around:

Freshness, which means better appearance, longer

shelf life aid quality products for manufactured items, es­ pecially sausage# 2#

Greater, more personalized service given by the

eastern packer, and 3*

The ability to adjust quickly to changes in con­

sumer demand# These advantages offset the disadvantages to a great extent# Although eastern slaughter is declining there are no reasons for expecting any sudden changes#

Shipment of carcasses,

coupled with faster transportation and improved refrigera­ tion may have far reaching significance in the future#

What Can Indiana Farmers Do? The eastern market is of major importance to Indiana farmers and will continue to be#

The state is in a favorable

V

competitive position*

Pork product yields of Indiana bogs

compare favorably with, those of hogs from other states* Indiana is the surplus hog producing state closest to the eastern market* Even if eastern slaughter would decline rapidly, In­ diana would still be in a favorable position*

Shipment of

hog carcasses or of cuts would not reverse this position* Over half of the eastern packers1demand is for light hogs weighing 180-220 pounds with 1 *0-1 *5 inches of back fat*

Generally a premium is paid, for light weight hogs es­

pecially if they have adequate body length and are not too fat.

It appears that it is and will continue to be profit­

able for Indiana farmers to produce hogs of the weights and finish desired by the eastern packer*

TFTR EASTERN PACKER MARKET FOR INDIANA SLAUGHTER HOGS

INTRODUCTION

Eastern. Shipments Important to Indiana Indiana is one of the most important hog producing states, having more hogs on farms in 1949 than any of the states with the exception of Illinois and lowa+i/ Hogs have long been of vital importance to Indiana agriculture*

They have constituted the principal source

of cash farm income to Indiana farmers since early in the history of the state Although large numbers of hogs are produced in Indiana, the bulk of them is consumed outside of the state*

In 1930

a sample of hogs purchased showed that 68 percent was shipped out of Indiana to be slaughtered*

Of the 68 percent

shipped out of the state, 28 percent went to New York City, 27 percent went to Ohio, 22 percent to Pennsylvania and 12 percent went to New York State* other areas# 3/

Eleven percent went to

1/ "Livestock Market News Statistics and Related Data, * U»S* Department of Agriculture, Production and Marketing Ad­ ministration, Livestock Branch, 1948* Preliminary estimate* 2/ Buts, E* L*, "Hog Prices in Indiana*" Purdue University, Agricultural Experiment Station, Lafayette, Indiana, Bulletin No* 487, July, 1943* Page 3* 2/ Unpublished data* Animal Husbandry Department, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana*

la 19I4.O, nearly three-fifths of the hogs sold at mar­ kets within the state and at the three adjacent primary posted markets were shipped to packers in other areas for slaughter*

Approximately three-fourths of the Indiana hogs

re shipped from Indiana and adjacent markets were sold to slaughterers in eastern metropolitan areas during 194° (Table 1) *

One-third of the reshipped hogs, or about one-

sixth of all slaughter hogs produced in Indiana, were sold to packers in the New York City Area.

When Eastern Penn­

sylvania and Maryland are added to New York City, the area took half of the re shipped hogs, or nearly a third of all the slaughter hogs produced in Indiana*^/ Table 1*

Destination of Reshipped Indiana Hogs, 194° and

1947*37

Destination New York City Area Eastern Pennsylvania and Maryland Area Western Pennsylvania and Upstate New York Area New England Area Ohio-Michigan Area Chicago Area St* Louis Area Southeast Area

Percent of Hogs 1947 1940 34 17

20 25

l6 8 16 7 2 *

28 5 7 12 3 *

J. R., “Marketing Slaughter Livestock in Indiana*” Pur­ due University Agricultural Experiment Station, Lafayette Indiana, Bulletin 522, July 1947# Page 17* *

Less than one percent*

4/ Henry, D. L. and Wiley, J. R., "Marketing Slaughter Live­ stock in Indiana*" Purdue University Agricultural Experi ment Station, Lafayette, Indiana, Bulletin 522, July, 1947* Page 17*

The number and. destination of out—of—state shipments of Indiana slaughter hogs were obtained for the year 1947 for 1,309,233 hogs (Table

1) •

As in 1930 and in 1940# the

eastern market for Indiana slaughter mary importance.

hogs was still ofpri­

New York City, Upstate New York, Penn­

sylvania, and Maryland together took 73 percent of the outof state shipments of Indiana slaughter hogs in 1947# The 1947 data indicate that there have been some shifts in the percent of the hogs shipped to the different areas.

The New York City

hogs in 1940 took only 20

Area which took 34 percent of the percent in 1947*

During the same

period the percent of the reshipped hogs going to the OhioMichigan Area declined from 16 to 7 percent.

The Eastern

Pezmsylvania-Maryland Area, the Western Pennsylvania-Upstate New York Area, and the Chicago Area took a larger percent of the Indiana hogs in 1947 than in 194°*

The Problem For many years interested parties have looked at the eastern market for Indiana hogs and have drawn various con­ clusions*

Some have felt that since the eastern market is

a premium market, Indiana farmers should cater to it by producing hogs of desired weights and finish.

Others have

pointed out that the trend in the last few decades has been away from eastern slaughter.

Because of this trend they

feel that continued eastern slaughter of midwestern hogs Is not assured.

k

Tîie quality of fresh pork products is best immediately after hog carcasses are chilled and processed.

The appear­

ance of the pork is also best immediately after slaughter, and fresh product is needed in sausage making# Eastern packers cannot obtain enough slaughter hogs from local sources.

The Midwest has long been important to

them as a source of supply#

Indiana is the nearest state

in which production of hogs exceeds pork consumption#

In­

diana has long been looked on with favor by the eastern packers because of its relative nearness to them#

Also,

climatic conditions in Indiana are favorable for producing two litters of hogs a year, and there is an abundant supply of feed grains#

Because of the two-litter system, Indiana

farmers can market the year-around supply of hogs required in the fresh pork trade, especially at those times of the year - late summer and early fall, and early spring - when the numbers of hogs marketed from other areas are normally the lowest# During the last few decades, the trend has been away from eastern slaughter of hogs.

Federally inspected

slaughter of hogs in the North Atlantic states, as a per­ cent of U# S. total federally inspected slaughter, de­ clined from 17*9 percent in 1920 to 10 percent in 194^ (Table 2). Faster transportation and better refrigeration mean that pork products from midwest slaughtered hogs get to the

Table 2.

Hogs, Federally, Inspected Slaughter, North Atlantic State si/ and Total U. S. Slaughter#

Year

N.S* Total Thous ends

1920 1921 1922 1923

38,019 38,982

Î925 1926

P $ 5 2,873 40^63!

ïïju 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940

{{4.*266

|i

6,799

7,120

Î5.1

Z :S 9,099 7,370 6,733 7,276 7,978 7,295

S :1

i:il? 1:111

26,057 36,0% 31,642

69,017

8:13

17.2

ïl:l

1 6 .7 1 6 .0

15.0

I

16.7

8:1 15.1 13.3 11.7

à6 : !

&$& f&XB.

92

North Atlantic States Thous ands

Total Ü. S, Slaughter Percent

11.1

1:81 7 ,2 7 2

10.3 10.3 10.5 11.%

m 1: 7#

11.2

9.8 10.0

1/ Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvanla, Maryland, Delaware and District of Columbia. Source "Livestock Market News, Statistics and Related Data," U.S.D.A. Production and Market Administration, Livestock Branch. August, 1949 and previous issues.

6

©astern market in better condition and with, less shrinkage than they formerly did*

Further improvements in transporta­

tion and refrigeration could be the foundation for slaughter­ ing plants in Indiana and the shipping of either carcasses or only the desired cuts* Some claim that the price spread between pork products dressed in the East and those dressed in the Midwest and shipped east for consumption is declining and will become a thing of the past*

The bright appearance of eastern

dressed pork, or the ”bloom" as it is called, is believed to be a factor of declining importance* This study was undertaken to evaluate the specialized pork trade of eastern packers; to appraise the problems encountered; and to determine the finish, type and weight of hogs bought and desired by them*

Method of Procedure The data obtained for this study cover four general phases*

In the first phase, the destination and average

weight of 1,309,233 hogs shipped out of state by representa­ tive dealers in Indiana were obtained for the year 194-7• The eight geographical areas used by D* L* Henry and James R* Wiley in their study of hog marketing in 1940 were again used in this study to facilitate comparison**^ %/ New York City Area, Upstate New York-Western Pennsylvania

Area, Eastern Pennsyl vani a-Maryland Area, Southeastern Area, Chicago Area, Ohio -Mi chig an Area, New England Area and St. Louis Area*

In the second phase, data concerning pork purchases, preferences and sales were obtained from eastern packers. Supplemental data were obtained from the hog purchase books of selected eastern packers on death loss, shrinkage, yield and other factors*

Transactions for every fourth week of

the year 194& were taken* In the third phase, a survey of retail pork outlets was made in the city of Philadelphia*

This was done to de­

termine consumers1 wants as reflected in purchases and de­ sires of retailers in Philadelphia, an important market for Indiana slaughter hogs* The metropolitan area of Philadelphia was divided into 5 geographical areas: Philadelphia*

North, East, South, West, and Central

In each of the 5 geographical areas the re­

tailers were classified into the following groups:

super

markets, chain stores, self-service markets, semi-selfservice markets, large independent markets, medium meat stores, and small neighborhood stores*^

The sample was

selected on the estimated weekly dollar volume done in each group and weighted accordingly*

In this way, a cross sec­

tion of metropolitan Philadelphia was obtained.

More than

150 stores of all types were visited* Data were obtained on the weight of cuts bought last (*/ For purposes of analysis the types of stores are

classified as self service (self service will include super markets, chain stores, self-service markets, semiself- servi ce markets and large independent markets), medium meat stores, and neighborhood stores*

8 and weight of cuts preferred*

Weights of cuts bought and

preferred by areas were tested by chi square against the weights of cuts bought In the entire Philadelphia area* This was done to determine whether or not there was a sig­ nificant difference between the weights of cuts bought in each area and weights of cuts bought in the entire area or between weights of cuts preferred in each area and weights of cuts bought in the entire area* Weights of cuts bought and weights of cuts preferred by types of stores were tested by chi square against the weights of cuts bought in the entire Philadelphia area* This was done to determine whether or not there was a sig­ nificant difference between the weights of cuts bought in each type of store and weights of cuts bought in the entire area or between weights of cuts preferred in each type of store and weights of cuts bought in the entire area* In the fourth phase, yields of Indiana hogs were com­ pared with yields of hogs from other areas•

Selected east­

ern packers made cut-out tests on lots of hogs purchased from Indiana and from other states*

The individual primal cuts

were tested by analysis of variance to determine whether or not there was a significant difference between the yields of cuts from Indiana hogs and hogs purchased elsewhere*^/ j/ Both chi square and analysis of variance tests were made

at the 5 percent level. When the differences are reported as not significant, it means that there are at least 5 chances out of 100 that the differences which occurred could have arisen merely through chance* When the dif­ ferences are reported as significant it means that there are less than 5 chances out of 100 that the observed dif­ ferences were due to chance alone*

THE EASTERN MARKET

The Market Area The eastern packer market is considered to be a semi­ circular area between Baltimore, Maryland on the south and Boston, Massachusetts on the north*

For purposes of analy­

sis, the out-of-state packers were divided into eight geo­ graphical are as *2/

The important ones for this study were

the New York City Area, the Eastern Pennsy1van!a-Maryland Area, the Western Pennsylvania-Upstate New York Area and the New England Area*

General Characteristics of Eastern Packer Operations Eastern packers operate in a manner different from the typical midwestern or national packer.

The national packer

has his plant located close to the source of supply and buys all weights of hogs that are offered*

Distribution is made

over a wide area, with the best possible outlet sought for his product*

The eastern packer is located in the East

close to the consuming public but far from his source of supply*

He buys selected hogs from a wide geographic area*

The eastern packer is a local packer and caters to the particular demands of consumers in his own trade area* These are basic features underlying eastern slaughter and are essential to an understanding of the situation* 8/ Table !{-.

10

Indiana Hogs Important to Eastern Packers Indiana plays an Important part In the supply of hogs to eastern packers and In 194& supplied lj.7 percent of the slaughter hogs bought by 25 major packers (Table 3)« Table 3#

Source of 1,122,808 Slaughter Hogs Bought by 25 Eastern Packers, by States, 19^8*

States

Number

Indiana Illlnols Ohio Missouri Kentucky Maryland Virginia Pennsylvania North Carolina Michigan South Carolina West Virginia Tennessee Iowa Minnesota South Dakota Nebraska

525,551 161,82k iL.3,096 62,030

8:8 29,500 25,372 15,990 12,662 10,1^00 10,k0p 8,654 7,017 5,8k5 2,560 2,485

1 .122.808

Total

Percent

47 14 13 6

1

2 1 1 * » « * #

* *

100

Illinois and Ohio were next In Importance to Indiana as a source of slaughter hogs*

These three states furnished

71). percent of the total number of hogs slaughtered by these packers.

Hogs purchased In other states were comparatively

unlmportant * Hogs were bought over a wide area, coming from states as far west as South Dakota and Nebraska and as far south as Tennessee*

11

Weights of Hogs Bought by Eastern Packers The eastern packer has traditionally bought closely graded hogs of the lighter weights and without too much finish•

In 1930 the average weight of hogs shipped from

Indianapolis was only lÔij. pounds.

The average weight of

slaughter hogs varied among the different areas receiving hogs for slaughter. The average weight of out-of-state shipments of Indiana slaughter hogs in 19^0 was 207 pounds, heavier than the l81|_ pound average of 1930, but still light.

The New York City

Area took the lightest hogs both in 194° and 194? (Table 4) * Table 4»

Destination and Average Weight of Out-of-State Shipments of Indiana Slaughter Hogs, 1940 and

./

1947 3

Average Weight 1940 1947

Destination New York City Area Eastern Pennsylvania and Maryland Area Ohio-Michigan Area Southeastern United States Area Western Pennsylvania and Upstate New York Area New England Area Chicago Area St. Louis Area All Areas

179 197 213 219

191 227 269 32Ô

227 245 259 27b 207

240 281 281 299 2J8

Livestock in Indiana." Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station, Lafayette, Indiana, Bulletin $22, July, 1947 • In 1947 the average weight of out-of-state shipments of Indiana slaughter hogs was 238 pounds and was heavier in all areas than in 1940•

This was partially because hogs

12

were fed to heavier weights and partially because eastern consumers are becoming accustomed to heavier cuts»

Eastern

packers expect weights of slaughter hogs to remain about the same In the next five years.

This Indicates that the eastern

market will not swing back to the light weight hogs of pre­ war* Prom 1930 to 1947 the Indiana hogs going to the eastern packer market have not been heavy hogs, and it is this mar­ ket that takes most of the Indiana hogs*

Of the Indiana hogs

going to the eastern market. New England took the heaviest hogs with an average weight of 2Ô1 pounds in 194.7*

However,

in this same year only 5 percent of the re shipped Indiana hogs went to New England,

The New York City, Eastern Penn­

sylvania and Maryland, and Western Pennsylvania and Upstate New York Areas took 73 percent of re shipped Indiana hogs in 1947•

In none of these areas was the average weight of hogs

slaughtered greater than 240 pounds.

This shows that heavy

hogs are not desired in the eastern market. Eastern packers were questioned as to the average weight of hogs slaughtered by them in 1948*

The average

weight ranged from 175 to 280 pounds (Table 5)*

Only three ^

packers bought hogs of an average weight greater than 222 pounds*

Not only was the average weight of hogs slaughtered

by individual companies light, but the range in weight was narrow* range.

Most packers bought within the 18O-240 pound weight

13

Table 5*

Average Weight and Range In Weight of Hogs Slaughtered by 20 Eastern Packers, I9I4.8 *

Sumber of Packers

Range in Weight

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

180-220 220-270 200-240 110-200 130-200 160-220 190-230 180-220 190-220 220-24.0 ■— 180-220 200-240 220-240 180-240 140-450 180-270 190-3ll0

1 1 1 1

Average Weight **

175 190 208 210 210 210 217 218 219 220 221 222 232 24O 280

Prom a national packer point of view there is a market for all weights of hogs#

From the point of view of the

eastern packer with a restricted, highly selective trade this is not the case*

Eastern packers bou^it closely graded

hogs of narrow weight ranges in order to obtain hogs of the type and weight that give cuts of the quality and weight desired by their customers#

Most Packers Desired Light Weight Hogs Forty percent of the packers was of the opinion that the hogs received were of the desired weights, while 36 percent was of the opinion that they were not#

Sixteen

percent said that hogs received were not always of the

i4

desired weights*

The remainder expressed no opinion*

Of those who said the hogs received were not of the desired weights, 1|.6 percent said some of the hogs were too heavy and 46 percent said they were unable to get a close enough sort. Table 6.

Weight Groups of Slaughter Hogs Desired by 25 Eastern Packers, 194-9 WeiRlrfc Group •

Packers Percent

180-200 200-220 220-21*0 21*0-270 270 over

26 28 20 20 k

Fifty-six percent of the packers desired weight groups of hogs within the 180-220 pound range (Table 6).

Twenty

percent wanted weights of 220-240 pounds and the same per­ cent wanted 240-270 pounds* Packers preferred hogs of the lighter weights because they provided leaner, light weight cuts which the trade de­ sired.

Also hogs in the indicated weight groups yield good

quality products and can be used for boning and processing. The reasons were similar for each weight group.

Hogs Slaughtered in 194$ Heavier Than Pre-War The average weight of hogs slaughtered by eastern packers has changed since pre-war.

Seventy-five percent of

15

the packers said the hogs were heavier in 194.8 than pre-war (Table 7) •

Twenty-five percent said the average weight of

the hogs they slaughtered was the same as pre-war*

None

slaughtered hogs of average weights lighter than pre-war* Table 7*

Comparison of Average Weight of Hogs Slaughtered by 25 Eastern Packers, 194-8 and Pre-War* Average Weight of tiogs Slaughtered in 19G.8 Compared to Pre-War__________ Percent Heavier 75 Same 25 Lighter________________________’ __________ 0

The reasons given for slaughtering hogs of heavier than pre-war weights varied*

The reason given most often was

that hogs had been fed to heavier weights and light weight hogs were unavailable•

Other reasons were that the trade

has become accustomed to heavier weights; that hogs of the weights slaughtered in 194*8 were of better quality than lighter hogs; that chain stores were leading in buying heavier, cheaper midwestem products; and that more pro­ cessing, boning and canning are done which permit the ef­ ficient utilization of heavier weights* Eastern packers were divided as to the expected trend in slaughter hog weights in the next five years (Table 8)* Fifty-four percent expected the weights of slaughter hogs not to vary in the next five years*

Thirteen percent be­

lieved that the trend would be toward heavier hogs, while 33 percent thought the trend would be towards the lighter weights of hogs such as were slaughtered before the war*

16 Table 8*

Trend In Slaughter Hog Weights Expected by 21*. Eastern Packers During the Next Five Years# 19I4.9 -1951t.# Expected Weight Trend

Percent

Heavier 13 Same 54 Lighter__________________________ 33 _ Those who expected the trend In slaughter hog weights to be toward the heavier weights in the next five years gave as reasons that hogs are being raised to heavier weights and that consumers are educated to heavier pork cuts# Those expecting weights of slaughter hogs to be the same in the next five years as in 194# did so because the weights of hogs slaughtered in 194-8 gave the cuts the trade desired#

Some expected the weights of slaughter hogs to

remain the same because they could see no trend# In summary, theaverage weight

ofhogs slaughtered in

1948 as compared topre-war was heavier

and most of the

eastern packers interviewed expected weights in slaughter hogs to remain about the same in the next five years# Long Bodied Slaughter Hogs Preferred Forty percent of the packers preferred long-bodied hogs and this was the type of slaughter hog most preferred (Table 9 )•

Almost two-thirds of the packers preferred

either medium-to-long or long-bodied hogs#

Other types

of slaughter hogs were preferred by some of the packers but not to any great extent # ' Reasons for preferring each different type of

17

Table 9*

Type of Slaughter Hog Preferred by 25 Eastern Packers, 1949# Percent

Type ot Hor Short Short- to-medium Medium Me dium-to -long Long Hot sure No preference slaughter hog varied*

h

E d 24 4g 8 12

More lean and less fat and greater

loin and belly yields were the most Important reasons for preferring long-bodied hogs*

Also packers stated that they

were not as fat as short hogs; that they have lean bellies less fat over the hams; and greater cut-out value* Fifty percent of those who preferred medium-to-long hogs did so because they believed such hogs have less fat than short-bodied hogs at the same weights*

One-third of

those preferring me dium- to -long hogs did so because they have greater yields of loins and bellies*

Another reason

given was that they have higher primal cut yields* Packers preferring medium-bodied hogs did so because they thought that these hogs had less fat and leaner cuts and that they were the best all-around size*

Short-bodied

hogs were preferred because it was felt that they yield plumper hams and fuller loins at lighter weights*

Short-

to-me dium-bo died hogs were preferred because it was felt that long-bodied hogs do not have the needed thickness* Hogs of all types, from short-to-long-bodied were pre-

18

feyre4 by some packers but the majority ot them preferred either me dium-to-long or long-bodied slaughter hogs*

Packers Want Little Pat on Hogs Eastern packers want as little fat as possible con­ sistent with quality products*

In three cases out of four,

packers stated that hogs in the 16O-I8O pound weight group needed 1*0 inch of back fat (Table 10) *

In the 180-200

pound weight range most packers were of the opinion that 1*0-1*25 inches of back fat were needed*

For hogs weigh­

ing 200-220 pounds most packers said hogs needed from 1 *251*50 inches of back fat*

In the 220-2lj.0 pound weight range,

packers thought 1*5-1«?5 inches of back fat were needed* Table 10*

Ratings by 20 Eastern Packers as to Depth of Back Pat Needed on Hogs of Different Weight Groups, 1949 • 160-lBd lbs*

Depth in inches

1*0-1*25 1*0 1*0 1*0

Weight Groups 100-200 200-220 lbs. lbs. 1*0 1.0 1*0-1.25 1.25 1*25 1*25-1.5

1*25 1.25 1.25 1.25-1.5 1*25-1.5 1.25-1.5 1*25-1.75

i:l

220-240 lbs. l.§ 1 .5 1.5 1.5 1.5-1.75 1.5-1.75 1.75

The bulk of the opinion was that hogs weighing l8021*0 pounds need 1 *0-1*5 inches of back fat to yield quality products without excess fat*

Three of those interviewed

19

had no estimate of the depth of back fat needed, and two of them said the hogs needed as little as possible#

Grading of Hams, Bellies and Loins Most eastern packers grade hams and bellies for quality. Of the packers grading hams, 57 percent said they graded on the basis of quality.

Representatives of national packers

said they graded according to specifications of the company and mentioned fat thickness, firmness and general quality of meat as considerations#

Eastern packers mentioned bruises

and conformation, skin cuts, softness, leanness, and general quality as grading factors#

In general, packers stated

that since they buy good quality hogs there is little need for quality grading except for bruises# Bellies were graded for quality by packers.

percent of the

Firmness and thickness were the most important

bases used for grading#

Others mentioned, in order of fre­

quency, were leanness and color, finish and conformation, quality of lean, and seediness.

Again the basis of grading

for the national packers was the same as for their companies as a whole# Loins were graded by 96 percent of eastern packers on the basis of average weight#

Sixteen percent said they

graded for defects such as result from splitting a carcass# Softness and oiliness was given as a basis for grading loins by 12 percent of the packers, as were quality and fat

20

thickness» and color*

Other reasons mentioned were trim, conformation,

21

WEIGHTS OP CUTS BOUGHT AND DESIRED

Choice of Market To Be Surveyed In view of the Importance of the consumer, a study of retail meat outlets was made In the city of Philadelphia to determine what the consumer

w a n t s

*2/

Philadelphia was

selected for the study because It was an Important market for Indiana slaughter hogs»^/

It Is a large city, having

an estimated population In the retail trading area of 4-#060,700 in 19^6»

In the same year there were 10,lip.

grocery outlets In this areaȟ/

Fresh Loins Fresh loins weighing 10-12 pounds were most In demand, being mentioned by 59 percent of the retailers as the weight of loins bought last (Table 11) * 2/

Loins weighing

Retailers were asked the weights of cuts they purchased last and the weights of cuts they preferred.

10/ Acknowledgment Is given to Mr. Wells M. Hunt, President, and Mr. Walter Phelan, Secretary, J. J. F elIn and Company, Pork Packers. Mr. Hunt was Chairman of the Advisory Committee of the Eastern Meat Packers Associa­ tion. The Advisory Committee was established by the Eastern Meat Packers Association to act In an advisory capacity on this project. J. J. Felin and Company, under the direction of Mr. Phelan, had just completed a survey of all the retail meat outlets in Philadelphia. Both of these men gave freely of their time and experience. 11/ 11Philadelphia Food Facts.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 194-7 *

22

12-14.pounds were bought last by 20 percent and loins weighing 8-10 pounds were bought last by l4 percent of the retailers. Table 11.

Weights of Fresh Loins Bought and Weights of Fresh Loins Preferred by Philadelphia Re­ tailers# June-August, 1949* Weight Group feought Preferred" Pounds________ Percent of Retailers 8-10 14 11 10-12 59 64 12-14 20 24 14-15_____________ J__________ 1

Reasons for preferring weights of loins indicated in Table 11 were varied.

More chops per pound was given as a

reason for preferring light loins by 35 percent of the re< tellers. Less fat and waste was given as a reason by another 28 percent#

These were the most important reasons

although several others were given (Figure 1)# No significant differences were found between weights of loins bought or weights of loins preferred in each of the five areas of Philadelphia and the weights of loins bought in the entire Philadelphia area#12/ 12/ Chi Square Analysis. A# Areas - Weights of or Loins Preferred of Loins Bought in

Fresh Loins# Loins Bought Last and Weights by Areas, Tested Against Weights the Entire Philadelphia Area.

Ëought 5 Percent signif5 Percent SignïïArea Last Level leant Preferred Level leant Chi Sauare Chi Square Mo South 2*45 No 3*55 7782 No 7782 2.28 North 1#97 7*82 No 2# 28 7*82 No 7 .8 2 .48 No West 6# 57 7*82 No #48 7*82 No 7.82 No Central 6#25 7.82 7*82 No #33 7.82 No •33 No 1.29 East 1.84______7.82 7.82 No______1.29______7.82 No

23

Weights of loins bought by each type of store were tested against weights of loins bought in the Philadelphia area.

Self-service stores and medium meat stores showed no

significant differences in weights of loins bought.

Neigh­

borhood stores bought significantly more light loins than did other retailers in the Philadelphia area. Weights of loins preferred by each type of store were tested against weights of loins bought in the Philadelphia area.

No significant differences were found. Generally, retailers were getting weights of loins

they preferred.

There was little difference between weights

of loins bought or weights of loins preferred, either by areas or by types of stores, when compared to weights of loins bought and weights of loins preferred in the Phila­ delphia area as a whole#

12/ Continued _ — B. Tvoes of Stores - Weights of Loins Bought Last and Weights of Loins Preferred by Types of Stores, Tested Against Weights of Loins Bought in the Entire Philadelphia Area. Type of Bought 5 Percent Signify 5 Percent Signii*Level leant Preferred Level leant Store_____Last C M Square Sauare No ■7^2 No 6.58 Self37S*T service No 7.82 No 7.82 Medium 6.10 4.54 meat No 7.82 3.72 Yes 7 .8 2 Neighbor- 11.93 hood

2k

Fresh. Butts Fresh butts weighing I4.-6 pounds were by far the most popular, being bought last by 78 percent of the retailers* (Table 12# ) Fresh butts weighing under I4. pounds were bought last by 13 percent of the retailers#

Other weights of

butts bought last were a relatively unimportant part of the total»

Fresh butts weighing l(.-6 pounds were preferred

by 79 percent of the retailers# Table 12#

Weights of Fresh Butts Bought and Weights of Fresh Butts Preferred by Philadelphia Re­ tailers* June-August, 1949* weight Group Pounds Under II 4 -6 6-8 Over 6

Bought Preferred Percent of Retailers 13 78 7 2

13 79 5 3

The reason mentioned most often (36 percent) for pre­ ferring fresh butts of the weights indicated in Table 12 was customers1 desire#

Less fat and waste was given as a

reason by 34 percent of the retailers (Figure 2)#

Light

weight cuts were preferred by 15 percent of those con­ tacted because of high prices of pork# In South Philadelphia, butts bought and preferred were significantly heavier than butts bought in the

25

Philadelphia area#"^

In the other four areas there were

no significant differences between the weight of butts bought in each area and the weight of butts bought in the entire Philadelphia area. There were no significant differences between the weights of butts bought or weights of butts preferred by types of stores and weights of butts bought in the Phila­ delphia area. It Is concluded that generally retailers were getting weights of butts they preferred. 13/ C M Square Analysis. A.

Fresh Butts.

Areas - Weights of Fresh Butts Bought Last and Weights of Fresh Butts Preferred by Areas, Tested Against Weights of Fresh Butts Bought in the Entire Philadelphia Area,

bought 5 Percent Signif5 Percent Signif leant leant Preferred Level Last Level Chi Square Chi Square 7 .0 2 Yes Yes South 1 1 .3 7 0 .2 3 7 .8 2 (heavier) (heavier) .6 6 No 1 .0 6 No 7 .3 2 7 .8 2 North No No 2 .1 6 7 .3 2 7 .8 2 1 .6 0 West No No 7 .3 2 7 .8 2 Central 1 . 1 6 1 .1 7 No No 7 .3 2 7 .8 2 . 6 h East .jl 32 . Area

B. Types of Stores - Weights of Fresh Butts Bought Last and Weights of Fresh Butts Preferred by Types of Stores Tested Against Weights of Fresh Butts Bought in the Entire P M 1 adelpMa Area. Type of Store

ll

Bought 5 Percent Signif5 Percent SignifLast Level leant Preferred Level leant Square Chl Square

Selfservice W 7 Medium meat 1 .2 5 Neighbor­ .6 0 hood

7 .8 2

Ho

.9 6

7 .8 2

Ho

7 .8 2

Ho

.7 8

7 .8 2

Ho

7 .8 2

Ho

.11

7 .8 2

Ho

26

Fresh Picnics Fresh picnics weighing I4.-6 pounds were most popular, being bought last by 8l percent of the retailers (Table 13)# Fresh picnics weighing 1^-6 pounds were preferred by 90 per­ cent of the retailers •

Less fat and waste, mentioned by 4-0

percent of those contacted, was the most important reason for preferring picnics of this size (Figure 3)«

The next most im­

portant reason was customers1 desire, which was mentioned by 29 percent of the retailers*

Another reason given was lighter

weights because of high pork prices* Weights of Fresh Picnics Bought and Weights of Fresh Picnics Preferred by Philadelphia Retailers* June-August, 194-9 • Weight Group Pounds k-6 6-8 8-10

Preferred Bought Percent of* Retailers 81 17 2

1 1OO

Table 13*

There were no significant differences between the weights of picnics bought and preferred either by areas or by type of store and the weights of picnics bought in the Philadelphia area as a whole 14/ Chi Square Analysis* Fresh Picnics* A* Areas - Weights of Fresh Picnics Bought Last and Weights of Fresh Picnics Preferred by Areas, Tested Against Weights of Fresh Picnics Bought in the Entire Philadelphia Area*

27

Fresh. Hams Fresh hams weighing 10-12 pounds were bought last and preferred by over three-fifths of the retailers (Table llj.), Table l!*..

Weights of Fresh Hams Bought and Weights of Fresh Hams Preferred by Philadelphia Retailers June-August, 1949• Weight Group Pounds

Bought Preferred Percent of Retailers 14 6g 18 3 2

8-10 10-12 1 2-14 14-11 if 16-11 •18

18 62 16 2 2

l4/ Continued Bought 5 Percent Signif5 Bercent SigniBLevel Level leant Preferred leant Area Last dhi Square Chi Square No No South 1+70 1 .1B 5 .9 9 §•99 No No North +62 .3 6 5.99 5 .9 9 No No West .20 .29 5.99 5 .9 9 No No Central 3 .2 6 5.99 1.54 5.99 No No ' East +42 5 .9 9 .10 5.99 B. Times of Stores -- Weights of Fresh Picnics Bought Last and Weights of Fresh Picnics Preferred by Types of Stores, Tested Against Weights of Fresh Picnies Bought in the Entire Philadelphia Area. Type of Store

5 Percent SignifBought 5 Percent Signlfleant leant Preferred Level Level Last Chi Square tihi Sauare

Selfservice 1+48 Medium meat 1+20 Neighbor­ hood 2.07

5 +99

No

.2 9

5 .9 9

No

5»99

No

.2 0

5 .9 9

No

5+99

No

.5 6

5 .9 9

No

28

He'tallex*s stated that light hams could be sold more easily either whole or as halves (Figure 4)«

Other rea­

sons for preference were less fat and waste5 customers1 desire; customers prefer light weights because of high prices; light hams can be sliced and still give desirable ends; hams of these weights are better eating, having better texture and tenderness; and customers prefer light weights because of small families• Significantly more light hams were bought in South Philadelphia than were bought In the entire Philadelphia area#l5Z

There were no significant differences between the

15/ Chi Square Analysis# Fresh Hams# A# Areas - Weights of Fresh Hams Bought Last and Weights of Fresh Hams Preferred by Areas, Tested Against Weights of Fresh Hams Bought in the Entire Philadelphia Area. Bought; Percent Signif5 Percent SignifLast Level leant Preferred Level leant Chi Square (lighter) Chi Square South 9 .HT Y+49 Yes 7.12 9*49 No North 3 .6 2 9.49 No 1.65 9.49 No West 1.20 9.49 No .80 9.49 No Central 6 .2 6 9*49 No 2*58 9*49 No East 2.64_____ 9 .49 No_______ 2.69 9.49____ No

Area

B#

Type of Store

Types of Stores - Weights of Fresh Hams Bought Last and Weights of Fresh Hams Preferred by Types of Stores, Tested Against Weights of Fresh Hams Bought in the Entire Philadelphia Area#

5 Percent SignifBought 5 Percent Signifleant leant Preferred Level Last Level Chi Square Chi Square

Selfservice 2.96 Medium meat 1 .6 2 Neighbor­. hood 3.9k

9.49

No

3.09

9.49

No

9.49

No

.83

9.49

No

No

S.k2

9.49

No

__ 2.42_

29

% of total 0

25

50

More chops per pound

% of total

Less fat, vaste

0

Customers desire

25

50

Customers desire

Smaller more desirable ends Light weights because of high prices Better eating, texture and tendernei*se weights because of smaller families

Less fat, waste Light weights because of high prices Light weights because of small families Better eating, texture and tenderness

Fig, 1, Reasons For Preferring Fresh Loins of Weights Indicated in Table 11,

Fig, 2, Reasons For Preferring Fresh Butts of Weights Indicated in Table la

% of total 25

% of total 0

25____50

Light hams can be sold whole or as halves

Less fat, waste

Less fat, waste

Customers desire

Customers desire

Light weights because of high prices Light weights because of small families Better trim Better eating, texture and tenderness

Light weights because of high prices Light hams can be sliced and give desirable e Better eating, texture and tenderness Light weights because of small families

Fig, 3. Reasons For Preferring Freeh Picnics of Weights Indicated in Table 1 3 ,

Fig. Reasons For Preferring Fresh Hams of Weights Indicated in Table lij..

50

weight of fresh, hams bought in the other four areas of Philadelphia and the weight of fresh hams bought in the entire Philadelphia area. Weights of fresh hams preferred in each of the five areas of Philadelphia were tested against weights of fresh hams bought in the entire Philadelphia area.

No signifi­

cant differences were found. Weights of fresh hams bought and preferred by each type of store were tested against weights of fresh hams bought in the Philadelphia area as a whole.

No signifi­

cant differences were found.

Cured Hams Cured hams weighing 10-12 and 12-11*. pounds were most in demand (Table 15) • Table 15*

Weights of Cured Hams Bought and Weights of Cured Hams Preferred by Philadelphia Re­ tailers. June-August, 1949 •

Weight Group Pounds 8-10 10-12 12-14 14-lb 16-18 18-20 Over 20

Bought

à 23 9

Light Hams Heavy fiams Preferred Preferred Percent of Retailers 11

8 12

%

35 33 32

In cured hams there was a preference for a wider range of weights in both light and heavy hams.

Cured hams

31

tmder 16 poxmda are considered llglit hams, ütdLle tiams l6 pounds and up are considered to be heavy hams •

In the

light cured hams, those weighing 10-12 pounds were most preferred and in the heavy hams the preference was almost equally divided» Reasons for preferring cured hams of the lighter weights were similar to reasons given for preferring fresh hams of the light weights (Figure $) • most often was customers1 desire.

The reason mentioned

Other reasons were that

light hams can be sold more easily either whole or in halves; they have less fat and waste; and can be sliced and give desirable ends. Reasons for preferring hams of the heavy weights in­ dicated in Table 15 were also varied*

Over 60 percent of

the retailers stated that they are better hams for slicing (Figure 6) •

Customers1 desire and less waste were also

mentioned as reasons for preference* There were no significant differences between the weights of cured hams bought and preferred (light and heavy) either by areas or by type of store when tested against the weights of cured hams bought in the entire 16/ Philadelphia area.- ^ 16/ Chi Square Analysis. Cured Hams. A. Areas - Weights of Cured Hams Bought Last and Weights of Cured Hams Preferred by Areas, Tested Against Weights of Cured Hams Bought in the Entire Philadelphia Area*

32

Cared Plenics Cured picnics weighing 4-6 pounds showed a strong popularity, being bought last by 89 percent and preferred by 91 percent of the retailers (Table 16). Table l6#

Weights of Cured Picnics Bought and Weights of Cured Picnics Preferred by Philadelphia Re­ tailers. June-August, 1949* Weight Groups Pounds 4-6 6-8 8-10

bought Preferred Percent of Retailers 89 ,

91 9

11>/ Cont inue d 5 Percent Signif* Bought "5 Percent stgnifleant Preferred leant Last_____Level Level Chi Square Chi Square 15759 No Light South 5.4» No 7.82 No Heavy 1.65 5.99 No Light 4 .9 8 No North 3 .7 0 2 7. 12.59 Heavy .70 No 5. 9 No West 2 No Light 4.33 2 .3 5 12.59 No Heavy .32 9 Central 9.38 No No Light 4.75 2 12.59 No Heavy .30 9 4*88 No Light l.Sl 7.82 No East 12.59 No Heavy 2.85 5.99 Area

ll ll

B. Types of Stores - Weights of Cured Hams Bought Last and Weights of Cured Hams Preferred by Types of Stores, Tested Against Weights of Cured Hams Bought in the Entire Philadelphia Area. ïype of Store Selfservice

5 Percent Signifbought 5 Percent Signifleant Preferred Level leant Last Level Chi Square Chi Square 3.48

12.59

Medium 4.5° meat Neighbor- 1.05 hood

12.59 12.59

No Light Heavy No Light Heavy No Light Heavy

4 .4 2 .9 5 3 .7 1 .1 6 2 .2 5

.15

7.Ô2 5*99 7 .8 2 5.99 7 .8 2 5*99

No No No No No No

33

Customers1 desire was given by ij.6 percent of those interviewed as a reason for preferring cured picnics of the weights indicated in Table l6*

Less fat and waste was

given as a reason by 34. percent (Figure 7) » There were no significant differences between the weights of cured picnics bought or preferred either by areas or by type of store and weights of cured picnics bought in the Philadelphia area.H/

17/ Chi Square Analysis# A#

Cured Picnics#

Areas - Weights of Cured Picnics Bought Last and Weights of Cured Picnics Preferred by Areas, Tested Against Weights of Cured Picnics Bought in the Entire Philadelphia Area.

Bought 5 Percent Sign if£ Percent SlgnifLast_____Level leant Preferred _ Level leant Chi Square Chf Square .bb 3.84 Ho Wo South 190 .00 3i81j. Ho Wo Worth Wo West .08 3.84 Ho Ï96 .18 3.84 Ho Wo #01 Central .83______ 3.84 Ho 1 Wo East •13 Area

B#

Store

Types of Stores - Weights of Cured Picnics Bought Last and Weights of Cured Picnics Preferred by Types of Stores, Tested Against Weights of Cured Picnics Bought in the Entire Philadelphia Area# Level Last - C M Square

Selfservice .99 Medium .78 meat Neighbor­ hood 3.56

leant

5 Percent SignifPreferred Level leant Chi Square

3.84

Wo

.03

3.84

Wo

3.84

Wo

1.10

3.84

Wo

3.84

Wo

1.66

3.84

Wo

34

Cured Butts Cured butts weighing less than 2 1/2 pounds were men­ tioned as the weight of cured butts bought last and pre­ ferred by over 80 percent of those Interviewed*

Cured

butts weighing over 2 1 /2 pounds were mentioned as being bought last by only 13 percent (Table 17)# Customersf desire and less fat and waste were the most important reasons for preference (Figure 8 )*

There

were no significant differences between the weights of cured butts bought and preferred either by areas or by type of store when tested against weights of cured butts bought in the entire Philadelphia area.l§/

m

18/ Chi Square Analysis* Cured Butts* A* Area - Weights of Cured Butts Bought Last and Weights of Cured Butts Preferred by Areas Tested Against Weights of Cured Butts Bought in the Entire Philadelphia Area* Bought 5 Percent Signlf£ Percent Signify Area Last Level leant Preferred Level leant Chi Square "a3as£J.eit No South No 3.8k •43 .16 No 3.8k No Worth • 11 3.% 3.8k No West 3.8k No •02 •03 Central 1.12 No 3.8k No 1*02 3.8k East •78 •88 _____3.8k No No __ 3.84 B* Types of Stores - Weights of Cured Butts Bought Last and Weights of Cured Butts Preferred by Types of Stores* Tested Against Weights of Cured Butts Bought in the Eatire Philadelphia Area* Type of Store

3.84

No

•00

3.84

No

*65

3.84

No

$

00

3.84

No

•70

3.84

No

1 .0 6

.._2*84_ .

No

H

o

Selfservice Medium meat Neighbor­ hood

H

i

Bought 5 Percent Signify £ Percent SignifLast Level leant Preferred Level leant Chi So uare Square

35

of total

% of total

M

Customers desire

59___ 2?

Light hams can be sold whole or as halves

Better hams for siloing

Less fat, waste

Customers desire

Light hams can be sli and give desirable Light weights because of high prices Light weights because of small families Better eating, texture and tenderness

Less waste Can be sliced and give desirable ends Better eating, texture and tenderness Cheaper than light weight bams

Fig. 5s Reasons For Preferring Cured Hams (Light) of Weights Indicated in Table 15*

Fig* 6, Reasons For Preferring Cured Hams (Heavy) of Weights Indicated in Table 15*

% of total

% of total

Customers desire

Customers desire

Less fat, waste

Less fat, waste

Light weights because of small families Light weights because of high prices Better eating, texture and tenderness

Light weights because of high prices Light weights because of small families Better eating, texture and tenderness

Fig* 7* Reasons For Preferring Cured Picnics of Weights Indicated in Table

Fig* 8* Reasons For Preferring Cured Butts of Weights Indicated in Table 17 *

Table 17*

Weights of Cured Butts Bought and Weights of Cured Butts Preferred by Philadelphia Re­ tailers* June-August, 194-9 • Weight Group Pounds

Bought Preferred Percent of Retailers

Under 2 l/2 Over 2 1/2

87 13

88 12

Slab Bacon Slab bacon weighing 8-10 pounds was most in demand, being mentioned by 45 percent of the retailers as the weight of slab bacon bought last*

Slab bacon weighing

6-8 pounds was mentioned by 26 percent, while slab bacon weighing 10-12 pounds was mentioned by 20 percent (Table 18) Table 18*

Weights of Slab Bacon Bought and Weights of Slab Bacon Preferred by Philadelphia Retailers* June-Augus t, 1949• Weight Group Pounds

Preferred Bought Percent of Retailers

26

6-8 8-10 10-12 Other

26

45

46

9

7

20

21

Reasons for preference for slab bacon of the weights indicated in Table 18 were similar to those given for other cuts# Salt Pork No specific weight group of salt pork had a clear cut

37

popularity (Table 19)•

Salt pork weighing 8-10 pounds,

12-14. pounds, and 18-20 pounds was each mentioned by 18 percent of the retailers as the weight of salt pork bought last. Table 19*

Weights of Salt Pork Bought and Weights of Salt Pork Preferred by Philadelphia Retailers. June-August, 1949* Weight Group Pounds

Bought Preferred Percent of Retailers 18 11 18 7 0 18 22

8-10 10-12 12-lk l4-l6 I6-I8 18-20 Other

19 12 16 12

4

lb 21

Pew reasons were given for preferring salt pork of the weights indicated in Table 19»

The only two reasons men­

tioned were that these weights give the right proportion of lean to fat, and that they give wide slices. In summary there is little variation, either by area or by type of store, in the weights of cuts bought or pre­ ferred when compared to weights of cuts bought In the entire Philadelphia area.

Generally the retailers are

getting the weights of pork cuts they desire.

Some Heavier Cuts Bought and Desired by Chain Store Buyers Chain stores buy their meat through a central buyer or

buyers to fill orders placed by the individual stores of the chain.

Chain stores buy large quantities of midwest­

ern pork. In the case of loins, they bought and preferred sig­ nificantly heavier loins than did the Philadelphia area as a whole .22/ Weights of fresh butts bought and preferred by chain store buyers, when tested against weights of fresh butts bought in the entire Philadelphia area, showed no signifi­ cant differences. Weights of fresh picnics bought by chain store buyers when tested against weights of fresh picnics bought in the Philadelphia area showed no significant difference.

Chain

store buyers preferred significantly heavier picnics than did the Philadelphia area. 19/ Chi Square Analysis. Chain Store Buyers# Weights of Cuts Bought and Weights of Cuts Preferred by Chain Store Buyers, Tested Against Weights of Cuts Bought in the Qatire Philadelphia Area# Cut Fresh Loins

Bought 5 Percent Signif5 Percent Signlfleant Preferred Level Last Level leant c a n Square Chi Square 1 2.2 6

7 .8 2

1 .2 7 if*61

7 .8 2 5 .9 9

Hams

18.21

9 .4 9

Yes 37.52 (heavier)

Cured tiams

8 .7 3

12.59

14.78

5 .9 9

.68

3.84

No Light 2.27 Heavy 3.71 Yes 8.73 ((heavier) No .68

Butts Picnics

Picnics Butts

Yes 21.05 (heavier) No 1.17 No 8 .4 0

7.82

Yes (heavier) 7 .8 2 No Yes 5.99 (heavier) Yes 9.49 (heavier) 7 .8 2 5.9? 3.84

No No Yes (heavier) No 3.8k

39

Weights of fresh hams bought and preferred by chain store buyers were significantly heavier than weights of fresh hams bought In the Philadelphia area as a whole* Weights of cured hams bought and preferred (light and heavy) by chain store buyers were not significantly dif­ ferent from weights of cured hams bought in the entire Philadelphia area. Weights of cured picnics bought and preferred by chain store buyers were significantly heavier than weights of cured picnics bought in the Philadelphia area as a whole. Weights of cured butts bought and preferred by chain store buyers did not show a significant difference when tested against weights of cured butts bought in the Phila­ delphia area* In summary, chain store buyers purchased and preferred heavier weights of certain pork cuts than did the other stores.

They purchased significantly heavier loins, fresh

hams and cured picnics than did the Philadelphia area as a whole*

They preferred significantly heavier loins, fresh

and cured picnics and fresh hams*

4o SALE OP PRODUCTS

Sale of Processed Products Increasing Eighty-four percent of the packers said the trend In their sale of processed products In the past ten years had been upward (Table 20)*

This Is Indicative of the changes

taking place In the amount of processing*

With smaller

families# and often with two or more members of the family working, the demand is for products more completely pro­ cessed*

Twelve percent of the packers could not see any

trend, and Ij. percent said the trend in the sale of processed products was down*

The latter was due to lack of facili­

ties* Table 20*

Ratings by 25 Eastern Packers of the Trend in the Sale of Processed Products In the Last Ten Years* 1949• Trend

Percent

Up Down No trend

84 4 12

More Skinned Hams Being Sold The trend is definitely away from the sale of regular hams*

Regular hams have more fat than do skinned hams and

eastern consumers do not want much fat*

Eighty-two percent

of the packers said the trend in their sales of skinned hams was up in the last ten years, and 18 percent said there was no trend*

4i

The amounts of the increase in the sale of skinned hams were varied but generally large.

One packer had in­

creased his sales of skinned hams from none, ten years pre­ viously, to 99 percent in 19l*.8#

Two others showed increases

from 5 percent to 100 percent sold as skinned hams. The large percentage of hams sold as skinned hams is shown in Table 21*

Eighty-eight percent of the packers in­

terviewed sold 90 to 100 percent of their hams skinned* Table 21*

Percent of Hams Sold as Skinned Hams by 25 Eastern Packers, 19^8* Number of Packers 16 6 1 1 1

Percent of Hams Sold Skinned 100 90-99 50 40 20

Sale of Fresh and Cured and Smoked Hams Decreasing Hams are also sold with various degrees of processing. For this study hams were classified as fresh, cured and smoked, cured and tenderized, boiled, canned, and smokehouse cooked*

Fifty-seven percent of the packers said the trend

in their sale of fresh hams in the last ten years had been down, and lj.3 percent of them said there was no trend*

Hone

of the packers said the trend in sales of fresh hams had been up* The percent of hams sold fresh in 194& showed wide

k2

variation among packers, with, on© packer selling 100 percent and one selling only 3 percent as fresh hams (Table 22).

It

is significant that although there is a wide variation in the percentage of hams sold as fresh hams, the trend in the sale of fresh hams has been down# Table 22#

Percent of Hams Sold as Fresh Hams by 22 Eastern Packers , 1948 #

Number of Packers

Percent Hans Fresh 100 80 60 50 40 30 26

1 1 1 2 1 1 1

dumber of Packers 3 1 1 5 3 l

Percent Hams Fresh 25 20 19 10 5 3

The trend in the sale of cured and smoked hams in the last ten years had been generally down#

Of the packers who

answered the question concerning the trend in their sale of cured and smoked hams, 78 percent said the trend was down# Eleven percent said there was no trend, while 11 percent said the trend was up#

The percent of cured and smoked hams sold

by individual packers varied from 0 to 55 percent of their ham sales (Table 23) # Only 32 percent of the 22 packers said they sold hams cured and smoked# types#

The other packers marketed hams of other

43 Table 23*

Percent of Hams Sold Cured and Smoked by 22 Eastern Packers, 194$•

Number of Packers

Percent Hams Cured and Smoked

1 1 1 1

Number of Packers

Percent Hams Cured and Smoked

1 2 15

55 50 45 40

23 20

More Cured and Tenderized and Boiled Hams Sold The trend In the sale of cured and tenderized hams has been up in the last ten years.

Twenty-seven percent of the

packers said the trend had been up# down#

None said it had been

The amount of the upward trend was large, starting

from 0 percent at the beginning of the period, and increas­ ing to 38 to 60 percent in 83 percent of the cases report­ ing an upward trend*

The percent of hams sold cured and

tenderized in 194$ varied from 0 percent to 66 percent of ham sales (Table 24)* Table 24*

Percent of Hams Sold Cured and Tenderized by 22 Eastern Packers, 194$ •

Percent Hams Percent kams Number of Cured and Number of Cured and Packe rs_____ Tenderized______ Packers_______Tenderi zed

1

66

1

2$

3 1

60

50

1

15

1

45

12

1

3$

1

10

—

Boiled hams showed an upward trend in the sales of 32 percent of the packers and a downward trend in the sales of 9 percent of the packers*

Twenty-three percent of the

packers said there was no trend.

Other packers either did

not handle boiled hams or did not complete the question. It can be concluded that the trend in the sale of boiled hams is upward. The percent of hams sold as boiled hams in 194.8 varied among packers from 0 percent to 32 percent (Table 25)* Table 25» Humber or Packers

Percent of Hams Sold as Boiled Hams by 22 Eastern Packers, 1948♦ Percent Hams Boiled

1 4 2 1 2

32 30 25 22 20

Sumber of Packers

Percent Hams Boiled

1 3 1 7

15 10 8

Pew Packers Sell Canned Hams Only one packer said the trend in his sale of canned hams was up and none said the trend was down.

Eighteen

percent of the packers said they sold canned hams, and canned hams as a percent of total ham sales ranged from 5 to 25 percent.

Eighty-two percent of the packers sold

no canned hams; therefore, canned hams do not appear to be important in the eastern market as a whole from the point of view of sales of the eastern packer.

45 Sale of Smokehouse Cooked Hams Increasing Fifty-four percent of the packers said the trend In the sale of smokehouse cooked hams was up# there was a downward trend.

No packer said

The amount of the trend was

large in each of the eases indicating an upward trend# The amount of hams sold smokehouse cooked was large (Table 26) *

One packer sold 80 percent of his hams as smokehouse

cooked, and one sold only 5 percent this way.

Forty-one

percent sold no smokehouse cooked hams• Table 26#

Percent of Hams Sold Smokehouse Cooked by 22 Eastern Packers, 1948#

Number of Packers

Percent Mams Smokehouse Cooked

Number of Percent Hams Packers Smokehouse Cooked

1

80

2

25

1 2 1 2 1

70 60 40 38 30

1 1 1 9

15 10 5 —

In summary, it appears that the trend in the sale of fresh and of cured and smoked hams has been down#

Canned

hams were sold by only 18 percent of the packers interviewed and only one said there was an upward trend in his sales of canned hams#

The trend in the sale of cured and tenderized

hams, of boiled hams and of smokehouse cooked hams has been up#

More processing is being, and will probably continue

to be done#

¥>

Siloed and Packaged Bacon Popular Sliced and packaged bacon was very popular as compared to slab bacon (Table 27) •

Of 66 Philadelphia retailers who

answered a question concerning sales of bacon, only one sold less than $0 percent of his bacon sliced and packaged. Table 27*

Percent of Bacon Sold Sliced and Packaged by 66 Eastern Retailers, l ^ S . Number of Retailers

^Percent Sold Sliced and Packaged

26 2?

I 3 1

100 Q0-Q9

8 :1? S o -59

Under 50

Thirty-nine percent of the retailers sold 100 percent of the bacon sliced and packaged, and 77 percent of the retailers sold 90 to 100 percent of the bacon sliced and packaged# processing#

This is another indication of the increase in A half pound or a pound of sliced bacon is

much more convenient for the housewife than a piece of slab bacon. The extent of the sale of sliced and packaged bacon is reflected by the percent of bellies sliced by eastern packers in 194-8 (Table 28).

Forty-five percent of the

packers sold 90 percent or more sliced bellies, and 32 per­ cent sold 75 to 89 percent sliced bellies#

Of the packers.

82 percent said that in comparison with, pre-war they were selling more sliced bellies.

Only one of the packers said

he was selling fewer sliced bellies than pre-war. Table 28. Number of Packers

Percent of Bellies Sliced by 22 Eastern Packers, l ^ 8 . Percent of Bellies Sliced

Number of Packers

Percent of Bellies Sliced

PREFERENCE FOR EASTERN DRESSED PORK AS COMPARED TO MIDWESTERN DRESSED PORK

Eastern Dressed Pork Less Perishable Perishability Most Important on Fresh Pork One of the big selling points of eastern dressed fresh pork from the standpoint of the retailer in the East, is that it is less perishable than mi dwe stern dressed pork. Eastern pork has longer shelf life, which is important es­ pecially to the small retailer who has a slow turnover and small volume*

A large percent of Philadelphia retailers

and packers believed that eastern fresh pork products were less perishable than midwestem fresh pork products (Table 29), Table 29*

Ratings by Eastern Retailers and Packers of the Relative Perishability of Eastern and Midwestern Dressed Fresh and Processed Pork* frresh fork Processed Pork Retailers Packers Retailers Packers Percent

Eastern dressed less perishable Midwestem dressed less perishable Same perishability

9k

96

48

72

3 3

—w 4

,5 47

4 24

When midwestem pork is shipped east and sold in competition with freshly slaughtered pork, it is at a disad­ vantage because it is already approximately a week old*

49 This is more important on fresh pork than on processed pro­ ducts because of the greater perishability of fresh pork. Perishability Also Important oh Processed Pork Ratings of retailers and packers indicated that eastern processed pork products were less perishable than those of the Midwest (Table 29) •

Forty-eight percent of the re­

tailers and 72 percent of the packers rated eastern manu­ factured products less perishable.

It should be pointed out

that processed or manufactured pork as used here is all pork other than fresh pork and includes cured and smoked pork. The greater perishability of midwestem pork products fresh and processed - which are sold in the East in com­ petition with eastern products, is an important factor in the continued eastern slaughter of Indiana hogs.

Coupled

with the greater perishability of midwestem pork sold in the East, is the shrinkage which takes place between the time the cuts are weighed at the midwestem plant and the time they are delivered to the individual retailer in the East*

Eastern Dressed Pork Has Better Appearance Fresh Pork Has More **Bloom* Eighty-seven percent of the retailers and all of the packers were of the opinion that eastern fresh pork had better appearance than midwestem fresh pork (Table 30) •

So

Table 30 • Ratings by Eastern Retailers and Packers of the Relative Appearance of Eastern and Mid­ western Dressed Fresh and Processed Pork. Processed Pork Èresh Pork Retailers Packers Retailers Packers Percent Eastern dressed better appearance Midwestem dressed better appearance * Same appearance

87

100

5k

84

7 o

—— --

11 35

——

16

Freshly chilled pork cuts have a bright appearance, often called "bloom.”

This bloom fades rapidly.

Hence, pork

products from eastern slaughtered hogs have an advantage in appearance over midwestem slaughtered products because of the time required to ship the latter east.

Some eastern

consumers are willing to pay for this appearance.

As long

as they are, it will help sustain eastern slaughter of mid­ w e s t e m hogs. Appearance of Sausage Most Important in Processed Pork More than half of the retailers and 8i|. percent of the packers were of the opinion that eastern processed pork pro­ ducts, particularly sausage, had better appearance than midwestem processed pork.

Inasmuch as this reflects the

opinions of the consumers of pork, it is a factor which must be considered in continued slaughter of Corn Belt hogs in the East.

51 Quality of Eastern Dressed and Midwestern Dressed Pork Similar Fresh. Pork Quality Little Different It is realized that quality is a nebulous term; how­ ever, it is indicative of the relative merits, in the minds of the consumers, retailers acid packers, of eastern pork as compared to midwestem pork *

Opinion of the retailers on

the question of quality was almost evenly divided with neither type of fresh pork being favored (Table 31)• Table 31#

Ratings by Eastern Retailers and Packers of the Relative Quality of Eastern and Midwestern Dressed Fresh and Processed Pork* Fresh Pork Processed Pork Retailers Packers Retailers Packers Percent

Eastern dressed better quality Midwestern dressed better quality Same quality

36

28

25

39 25

— 72

41

34

5k

••

46

Most packers thought the quality of the two types of fresh pork was the same* Processed Pork Quality Similar Opinion of retailers as to the quality of processed pork favored midwestem processed pork, but only slightly* The majority of opinion was that the quality of the two types of pork was the same (Table 31) * A difference of opinion was found between the retailers

52

and the packers concerning the relative quality of eastern and midwestem manufactured products*

More retailers pre­

ferred the quality of midwestem than preferred the eastern processed pork.

Fifty-four percent of the packers preferred

the quality of the eastern pork*

However, in the case of

both retailers and packers more than

percent of those in­

terviewed was of the opinion that the quality of the two types of pork products was the same*

Therefore, it is con­

cluded that the quality differences are slight*

Price of Eastern Dressed Pork Higher The higher death loss, shrinkage, and bruising con­ nected with eastern slaughter result in higher at-the-plant costs*

The eastern packer must be compensated for the ad­

ditional cost in order to stay in business in the highly competitive packing industry*

It is a constant problem for

the eastern packer to obtain payment of higher prices for his products and to keep the spread between his prices and the prices on midwestem dressed products wide enough for It to be profitable to continue slaughtering hogs in the East* One hundred nine of the retailers interviewed handled both midwestem and eastern pork products.

Of these re­

tailers, 51 percent said they received no premium for east­ ern pork products, 4° percent said they were receiving a premium and 9 percent said they didn11 know.

53 Of the retailers receiving more for eastern fresh pork, 58 percent said the mount received was 1 to 5 cents per pound and l±2 percent said the amount received was 6 to 10 cents per pound* Fifty percent of the retailers receiving more for east­ ern processed pork said the amount received was 1 to 5 cents per pound.

Forty-seven percent said the amount received

was 6 to 10 cents per pound and 3 percent said they received over 10 cents per pound more for eastern dressed processed pork.

This indicates that in many cases considerably more

was charged for eastern pork than for midwestern pork* The reasons given by the retailers for obtaining more for pork products coming from hogs dressed in the Bast were varied, with that of better appearance being mentioned most often*

This appeared to be a factor of vital importance in

continued eastern slaughter of midwestern hogs.

That east­

ern pork was better dressed and trimmed and had less fat and waste was also given as a reason.

Retailers want as

little fat as is consistent with quality, and it is felt that in many cases they fail to realize that some fat is necessary for quality.

Other reasons mentioned were that

eastern pork has better quality, that the trade believes in eastern pork and that it has less shrinkage.

The most im­

portant reasons for getting more for eastern pork, as evi­ denced by these answers, were better appearance and better trim, which means less fat and waste*

54 All of the packers said that eastern fresh pork was higher priced than the midwestem.

On the question of manu­

factured products, 88 percent of them said eastern pork was higher than midwestem pork. The extent of the price differential at the wholesale level is shown in Table 32.

The daily price quotations for

the period July, 1949 to January, 1950 for eastern and midwestern fresh pork at New York City were averaged by months. Fresh loins weighing 10-12 pounds from hogs dressed in the East brought on an average 1*2 cents per pound above loins of the same weights that were slaughtered in the Midwest* This is for a short period and is not long enough to de­ termine whether or not the difference in price between east­ ern and midwestem dressed products is becoming less.

How­

ever, it does show that more per pound was paid for fresh pork dressed in the East. Table 32.

Average Price Per Pound that Eastern Dressed Fresh Pork Was Above Midwestern Dressed Fresh Pork, New York City, July, 1949 • January, 1950.

Cut Loins 8-10 Loins 10-12 Boston butts 4~8

Average Price Per Pound Eastern Dressed Pork Was Above Midwestem Dressed Pork July 1949 July Aug.Sept.Oct.Nov.Dec*Jan*Jan. 1950 1.7 2.4 1.7 2.4 2.4 2.2

1.5 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.5 2.1 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 3.1 2.2 2.3 3.9

1.4 1.2 2.5

55 PROBLEMS OF EASTERN SLAUGHTER

Procurement Presents Many Problems Live bogs are the eastern packers1 raw material and the procurement of them Is a constant problem#

In obtain­

ing his hogs from a wide area the packer In the East has greater problems of shrinkage, bruising, death loss, and higher at-the-pl ant cost than do packers who slaughter the hogs close to the source of supply*

These problems arise

from the distance the hogs have to be shipped and from the cost entailed In shipping them#

In order to study these

problems, data from the hog purchase books of three eastern packers were obtained In detail*

Shrinkage Averaged More Than 7 Percent Shrinkage averaged 7*34 percent of the purchase weight In shipping hogs from Midwest markets to eastern packers. The shrinkage by states varied from an average of 3# 10 per­ cent on hogs purchased locally in Maryland to 8*50 percent for those purchased in Iowa*

Shrinkage is one of the

reasons why packers prefer to purchase hogs close to where they are to be slaughtered#

Shrinkage, coupled with the

death loss, greater bruising and freight cost means that Indiana has a favorable competitive position in the supply of hogs for the eastern market*

This is especially true

56 since Indiana is the first surplus hog producing state west of the eastern market♦ (Table 33) • Table 33#

Shrinkage of Hogs Purchased by Three Eastern Packers, by States, 19^8. Shrinkage Percent

State Iowa Minnesota South Dakota Tennessee Kentucky Ohio Indiana Illinois Nebraska Mi ssouri P e m sylvan! a Maryland

8,50 8,28 8.27 8*18 7.92 7 .8 8

Average

7.34

7.7k

7.50 7 .2 2 7.00 6 .1 4 3 .1 0

In the detailed records taken from the hog purchase books of the selected eastern packers, shrinkage data were obtained on 21$,709 hogs*

Fifty-eight percent of these

were obtained from terminal markets*52/ The average shrink­ age of hogs purchased at midwestem terminal markets was 7#$2 percent compared with 7*34 percent for all purchases of eastern packers (Table 34)* Included in purchases of eastern packers were the hogs they bought in Pennsylvania and Maryland.

The shrinkage

20/ Chicago, Illinois ; Peoria, Illinois; Indianapolis, Indiana; St* Louis, Missouri; Sioux Falls, South Dakota South St. Paul, Minnesota; Columbus, Ohio; Cincinnati, Ohio; Louisville, Kentucky; and Sioux City, Iowa,

57

Table 3l|_*

Average Shrinkage of Hogs Purchased by Three Eastern Packers, 19^8*

Shrinkage Source of Hogs_________________________Percent All markets, including eastern All midwestem markets Midwestern local markets Midwestem teiminal markets

7#34 7*67 7*92 7*52

on hogs from Pennsylvania and Maryland was relatively low since they were purchased near where they were slaughtered. In order to make the comparison between terminal markets and other markets more meaningful, the hog purchases from Pennsylvania and Maryland were excluded.

The average per­

cent shrinkage of hogs purchased from midwestem local mar­ kets was 7*92 percent# shrinkage were small#

The differences in the percent No tests of significance were made#

Shrinkage of hogs purchased by eastern packers from terminal markets varied from 6.73 percent on hogs purchased from St. Louis to 8#lj,6 percent on hogs from Sioux City, Iowa (Table 35) •

The average shrinkage of hogs purchased

from Indianapolis was 7*76 percent, as compared to the average shrinkage of 7.52 percent at all terminal markets* Of the 126,256 hogs in this sample that were purchased from terminal markets, $S percent was bought at Indianapolis* This is a large sample and gives a reliable picture of the shrinkage of hogs shipped from Indianapolis to the East# For some of the other terminal markets the sample is small. Because of this no conclusions are drawn as to the

58

significance of the differences in shrinkage between ter­ minal markets* Table 35s

Shrinkage of Hogs Purchased by Three Eastern Packers from Terminal Markets, 194.8*

Terminal Market Purchased From Sioux City, Iowa Columbus, Ohio South St. Paul, Minnesota Sioux Falls, South Dakota Indianapolis, Indiana Cincinnati, Ohio Peoria, Illinois Loui svi lie , Kentucky Chicago, Illinois St* Louis, Missouri Average Shrinkage, all Terminal Markets

Shrinkage Percent 8.46

S :3 8.27 7.76 7.67 7.33 6.95 6 .8 1 6.73 7.52

Death Loss Showed Variation Death loss on hogs purchased from all markets was com­ pared with the death loss at terminal markets, and with death loss at markets excluding terminal markets*^/ The average death loss of hogs purchased from markets excluding terminal markets was 2*6 per thousand, while it was only 2*1 per thousand for hogs purchased from terminal markets (Table 36)* 21/ Such a large part of the total purchases came from Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Missouri, Maryland and Kentucky that some.of the other states such as South Dakota and Minnesota had only a small number of hogs in the sample* Because of this the death loss from some states may not be representative, but it is indicative and is, there­ fore, reported* .

59

Table 36»

Death. Loss on Hogs Purchased by Three Eastern Packers, by States, 194-6# Markets Excluding terminal Ail Terminal Markets Markets Markets Death Loss Per Thousand

State Kentucky Nebraska Iowa Penn sylvan! a Tennessee Missouri Ohio Indiana South Dakota Illinois Maryland Minnesota

6 .7 4 .8

Average

2*6

#

2*7 ■ ——

4 .1 ———

2.6 2.6 6.2 2 .3 2 .7

——-~

1*5* 2*3 2*1 2*0 1*6**

2.0 .8 — ——

2*1

5*5 1J..8 3*9 2*6 2.6 2*3 2*3 2*2 2.0 1.9 #0 ——— 2 .3

St. Louis and E. St. Louis# Chicago and Peoria, Illinois* There was considerable variation in death loss between

terminal markets (Table 37) •

Hogs purchased from the *ter­

minal market at Sioux City, Iowa, showed a death loss of 4-.1 per thousand hogs, which was the highest found at ter­ minal markets.

The number of hogs in the samples from

Columbus, Ohio; Sioux Falls, South Dakota; and Chicago, Illinois was small, each furnishing less than 3*000 head* In summary, hogs purchased from markets other than terminal markets showed the highest death loss.

This was

also true in the case of shrinkage and indicated that, if prices were the same, it might be more profitable for east­ ern packers to purchase hogs from terminal markets where the death loss and shrinkage was the lowest*

6o Table 37*

Death Leas Per Thousand on Hogs Purchased by Three Eastern Packers from Terminal Markets,

.

1948

Death Loss Per Thousand

Market

Sioux City, Iowa Columbus, Ohio Louisville, Kentucky Indianapolis, Indiana Sioux Falls, South Dakota Cincinnati, Ohio Chicago, Illinois St. Louis, Mi ssouri Peo ria, Illinoi s

4 .1 4 .0 2.7 2 .1 2.0 1 .8 1 .8

1.5 .5

Cost of Hogs at the Plant Eastern packers maintain hog buyers who keep in daily touch with markets throughout the Corn Belt and the East. These buyers not only watch such factors as shrinkage and death loss on hogs from the different areas and markets, but they closely watch the price* For one company the cost of the hogs at the plant^^ was calculated for the purchases of every fourth week of the year 194.8 (Table 38)*

It is to be expected that as

hogs are purchased at greater distances from the packer they will have more shrinkage, bruising and death loss and 22/ The at-the -pi ant cost of the hogs is the price of the hogs plus freight, commission, and any other expense necessary to get the hogs to the plant. The sample totaled 37#178 hogs purchased by the selected company. The number in the sample is small but indicative of cost to the packer and Is therefore reported*

61

that the. cost of freight will be greater# must pay correspondingly less for them#

Hence, the packer Packers are In

contact with almost all Important markets and eastern pack­ ers are buying hogs in competition with mldwestern packers; consequently, no market gets far out of line or stays out of line very long# Table 3 8 .

At-the-Plant Cost to an Eastern Packer of Hogs Purchased from Different Areas,3/ I9I4.8 #

Source

At- the- PI ant Cost Per Hundredweight

Indiana (excluding Indianapolis) Indianapolis, Indiana Chicago, Illinois Galesburg, Illinois Illinois (excluding Gale sburg, Chicago and E# St# Louis) Iowa St# Louis and E. St# Louis

$25.93 25.90

nil

2k.77 2k. 61 2k. 27

1/ Total live cost divided by live weight#

Indiana Hogs Yield About the Same as Other Hogs Yields of hogs bought are an ever present problem to the eastern packer#

It has long been felt by some people

that the hogs from Indiana yield a higher percentage of the primal cuts than do hogs from other areas#

In order

to test this hypothesis, the cooperation of several in­ terested eastern packers was obtained and cut-out tests were run on different lots of hogs from Indiana and else­ where#

In all, 75 usable 'cut-out tests were obtained on hogs purchased from Indiana and from other states where eastern 23/ packers purchase their slaughter hogs—^ (Table 39)* Table 39#

Source and Number of Lots of Hogs Used in CutOut Tests by Selected Eastern Packers, 1949» Source Indiana Illinois Ohio Kentucky Tennessee Maryland Pennsyl van! a Mi ssouri Iowa and Minnesota

Number of Lots 34 29 5 2 1 1 1 1 1

No significant differences were found between the yields of any of the primal cuts obtained from Indiana hogs and from hogs purchased elsewhere (Table i|X))*

Simi­

larly, total primal cut yields both including and exclud­ ing bellies were not found to be significantly different from Indiana hogs and from hogs purchased elsewhere#

23/ Yields were taken as a percent of the packer dressed hot carcass weight because there is less variation in this weight than in the cold carcass weight. This is because of the differences in the refrigeration facill ties and practices of the different packers.

63

Table I4.O.

Cut

Analysis of Variance* Comparison of Yields of Cuts of Hogs Purchased from Indiana and from Elsewhere*

Indiana Elsewhere Percent Yield

Hams 17*62 Loins 13*23 Bellies 15.42 Butts, pic­ nics and shouldersl/ li|-*lj-2 Total pri­ mal cuts (including z bellies)i/oO.SO Total pri­ mal cuts (excluding belli es)3/%5*20

F or Variance Ratio

5 Percent Signifleant Level

17*92 13.28 15.13

2 .1 4 .02 .59

3.98 3*98 3.98

No No No

14.38

.03

3*98

No

60.72

.01

3.98

No

4 5.5 8

.4 9

3.98

No

1/ Because of the different ways of using shoulders they could not be tested separately. Some of the packers sold shoulders whole and others cut butts and picnics* For this reason butts, picnics and shoulders were tested together* This made them comparable between packers* 2/ Hams, loins, bellies, butts, picnics and shoulders* Jjj Because of their influence on yields, bellies, a fat

cut, were excluded from the total primal cuts and the lean cuts hams, loins, butts, picnics, and shoulders were tested.

Carcass Yields Show Little Variation Among Markets The carcass yields of hogs purchased from Indiana were compared with those of hogs purchased from terminal and local markets.

The carcass yields of hogs (shipper dressed

yield, chilled) were taken from the hog purchase book of

64 2k/ one packer e5™ Carcass yields of hogs purchased at Indianapolis were compared with carcass yields of hogs purchased at Chicago, Illinois and at other te rainai markets (Table 1^.1)• Table ZpL*

Analysis of Variance* Comparison of Carcass Yieldsi/ of Hogs Purchased from Indianapolis with Carcass Yields of Hogs Purchased from Terminal Marketsis/V r

Indianapolis Compared with

Market

Cincinnati, Ohio 73*99 Chicago, Illinois 74*4.0 Peoria, Illinois 73*72 Louisville, Kentucky 7 4 » Sioux City, Iowa 73*54 E,St«Louis, Illinois^ ,7 4 *1 3 E,St*Louis, - -- Illinois3/70*04 ,3 / 7 0 *0 4 Sioux Falls, South Dakota 72*82 Columbus, Ohio 72*84

5

Indian- Variance apolis Ratio 73*1*0 73*40

73*40 73*4o 73*40 73*40 69*27 6 9 ,2 7

73*40 73*4°

Percent SignifLevel leant

6*96

*24

l|.*03 3*99 4*08

2*00 *08 3*97 2*91 2 .9 1

4*05 4»°4 3*99 4* 4*35 ^

No Yes No No No No No

*92 *52

4*07 4*10

No No

2*19

1/ Shipper dressed yield, chilled* 2/ Only the above markets were classified as terminal markets

when sorting terminal markets from others* This was done because not all markets, as reflected in purchases, are of importance to the eastern packers * 2/ Packer dressed yield, hot*

At seven out of eight terminal markets no significant dif­ ferences were found between carcass yields of hogs purchased at Indianapolis, Indiana, and carcass yields of hogs 24/ In two cases records from another packer were used and are reported as packer dressed yield, hot• The carcass yields of each lot of hogs bought by the selected packer were obtained on a sample basis for the year 1948 and these yields were sorted by markets, both terminal and local*

65 purchased at each of the other terminal markets.

Hogs

from one terminal market, Chicago, Illinois, showed car­ cass yields significantly higher than those of hogs pur­ chased from Indianapolis ♦

Indianapolis hogs showed an av­

erage carcass yield of 73*140 percent, while the hogs pur­ chased from Chicago showed an average yield of cent .

per­

The difference was significant, but not highly so.

No significant differences were found between the car­ cass yields of hogs purchased from the Indianapolis terminal market and the carcass yields of hogs purchased from the local markets in Indiana (Table l±2)*

The yields of the hogs

purchased from Indianapolis were higher than the yields of hogs purchased from the local markets, but the differences were not significant. No significant differences were found when the yields of hogs from the local markets of Bowling Green and Russell­ ville, Kentucky, were individually tested against yields of hogs from Indianapolis (Table 43) •

However, hogs from

Glasgow yielded significantly less than did hogs from In­ dianapolis.

When hog purchases from Bowling Green, Russell­

ville and Glasgow were collectively tested against those from Indianapolis, a highly significant difference in yields was

f o u n d .

-25/

Hogs from Indianapolis yielded significantly

25/ Highly significant or significant at the level. When a difference is significant cent level, there i s at iSffiSfe one chance that the difference which occurred could merely through chance.

1 percent at the 1 per­ out of 100 have arisen

66

Table lj.2*

Analysis of Variance. Comparison of Carcass Yields of Hogs Purchased from Indianapolis with Carcass Yields of Hogs Purchased from Indiana Local Markets (Lafayette, Logansport, and Washington) •!/

Indi anapo 11 s Compared with

Market

Lafayette, Indiana 73#12 Logansport, Indiana 72#40 Lafayette, Logansport and Washington, Indiana^ 73*04 Ft. Wayne, Amboy, Vincennes, Lafayette, Washington, Bath and Cambridge, Indiana^/ 68.74

F Indi an- Variance apolis Ratio

Sig£ Percent niflLevel cant

73. W 73.40

.10 1.28

4..10 4..io

No No

73.4-0

.37

4..07

No

69.27

.91

4-35

No

1/ Shipper dressed yield, chilled# 2j Yields of hogs from Washington, Indiana, were not tested

separately against yields of hogs from Indianapolis be­ cause of the small number of hogs purchased from Washington# 2/ Packer dressed yield, hot#

Table 43»

Analysis of Variance. Comparison of Carcass Yields of Hogs Purchased from Indianapolis with Carcass Yields of Hogs Purchased from Kentucky Local Markets (Bowling Green, Russellville, and Glasgow) .=/

Indianapolis Compared with Bowling Green, Kentucky Russellville, Kentucky Glasgow, Kentucky Bowling Green, Russellville, and Glasgow, Kentucky

Market

F Slg" "T Indi an­ Variance Percent nifiapo lis Level cant Ratio

71*92

73.40

3 .8 6

4 .0 8

No

72,39

73.40

1.30

4 .1 0

No

7 1 .6 4

73.40

4 .9 9

4 .1 0

Yes

71.95

73.40

8 .3 6

4 .0 5

Yes

1/ Shipper dressed yield, chilled.

67

more than did the hogs from Kentucky local markets. Hogs purchased from Nashville and Paris, Tennessee, were tested both individually and together, against hogs purchased from Indianapolis (Table 44.)# Table 44*

Analysis of Variance# Comparison of Carcass Yields of Hogs Purchased from Indianapolis with Carcass Yields of Hogs Purchased from Tennessee Local Markets (Nashville and Paris)#

Indianapoli s Compared with

7 3 .4.0

7 1 .8 6

73.40

7 2 .8 6

7 3 .4 0

4 .0 7

No

3 .8 8

4 .1 0

No

(XJ 0• H

73.43

Sig5 Percent nlfiLevel cant

O O#

Nashville, Tennessee Paris, Tennessee Nashville, Paris, Tennessee

Market

Indian­ Variance Ratio apolis

4 .0 5

No

1/ Shipper dressed yield, chilled#

The differences in yields between hogs purchased from the two markets in Tennessee and the hogs purchased from Indianapolis were not significant#

This was the case when

they were tested, both individually and collectively, against the yields of hogs purchased from Indianapolis# Hogs purchased from Baltimore would be expected to yield considerably more than hogs purchased from Indianapolis because of the distance the Indianapolis hogs have to be shipped before slaughter#

This was found to be the case#

The average carcass yield of hogs purchased from Baltimore was found to be 75#50 percent compared to an average yield of 73*4° percent for hogs purchased from Indianapolis#

The

68

difference in tiie yields of hogs purchased from Baltimore and from Indianapolis was highly significant* Carcass yields of hogs purchased from Indianapolis were tested against yields of hogs purchased from local markets in Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio (Table

The

average carcass yield of hogs purchased from the Ohio, Illinois and Indiana local markets was 72*95 percent as com­ pared to 73*ij.O percent for hogs purchased from Indianapolis. Although the average yield of hogs purchased from the In­ dianapolis market was higher than the average yield of hogs purchased from the local markets, the difference was not significant* Table 45•

Analysis of Variance. Comparison of Carcass Yieldsi/ of Hogs Purchased from Indianapolis with Carcass Yields of Hogs Purchased from Local Markets .S'

Indianapolis Compared with Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana local markets Kentucky and Tennessee local markets

Market

Indianapolis

F Vari ance Ratio

Slg5 Percent nifiLevel cant

72.95

73.40

1*80

3 .99

No

72.38

73.40

6.07

4 .0 0

Yes

1/ Shipper dressed yield, chilled* 2/ Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana local markets (Chillocothe, New Vienna, Wapakoneta, Ohio; Bushnell, Danville, Erie, Freeport, Galesburg, LaHarpe, Stronghurst, Urbana, Illinois; Lafayette, Logansport, Washington, Indiana). Kentucky and Tennessee local markets (Bowling Green, Russellville, Kentucky; Glasgow, Nashville, and Paris, Tennessee)*

69

The carcass yield of hogs purchased from Indianapolis was significantly higher than the yield of hogs purchased from Kentucky and Tennessee local markets# Carcass yields of hogs purchased from Indiana local markets were tested against yields of hogs purchased from Illinois local markets.

The difference in the yields of

hogs between Indiana and Illinois local markets was not sig­ nificant (Table i|_6) . Analysis of Variance. Comparison of Carcass Yields of Hogs Purchased from Indiana Local Mar­ kets (Lafayette, Logansport, and Washington) with Hogs Purchased from Local Markets in Illinois, Kentucky and Tennessee*!/ ,/ . L, . F -Indiana Local à/ 5"' ■" SlgIndiana Percent Variance nifiMarkets Com­ Market cant Locals Ratio Level pared with Illinois local market s2/ Kentucky and Tennessee local markets^

72.95

73.04

7 2 .3 8

73.04

• 0

Table lj.6#

4 .2 8

No

1*03

4 .2 0

No

1/ Shipper dressed yield, chilled. 2/ Lafayette, Logansport, and Washington, Indiana. j/ Bushnell, Danville, Erie, Stronghurst, Freeport, Gales­ burg, LaHarpe, Urbana, Illinois. It/ Bowling Green, Russellville, Glasgow, Kentucky; Nash­

ville, and Paris, Tennessee.

Carcass yields of hogs purchased from the Indiana local markets were tested against the yields of hogs purchased from the Kentucky and Tennessee local markets.

Although

the average yield of the hogs purchased from the Indiana

70

local markets was th.e highest, the difference was not sig­ nificant» Carcass yields of hogs obtained from all local markets, with the exception of the Baltimore market, were tested against the yields of hogs obtained from terminal markets (Table I4.7 )»

The average yield of hogs purchased from ter­

minal markets was significantly greater than that of hogs purchased from local markets* Table 1|.7*

Analysis of Variance# Comparison of Carcass , Yieldsi/ of Hogs Purchased from Local Markets£=Z Compared with Hogs Purchased from Terminal Markets#5/ F" ' $ Local Variance Percent Signif­ Level icant Ratio Markets "■

Local Markets Compared with Terminal markets

Terminal Markets 73.85

7 3.2 4

"

6 .6 5

3.89

Yes

1/ Shipper dressed yield, chilled* g/ Local markets (Lancaster, Pennsylvania; Hashville, Paris, Tennessee; Bowling Green, Russellville, Glasgow, Kentucky; Lafayette, Logansport, Washington, Indiana; Bushnell, Danville, Erie, Stronghurst, Freeport, Galesburg, LaHarpe, Urbana, Illinois; So# St# Paul, Minnesota; St# Joseph, Missouri; So# Omaha, Omaha, Nebraska! 2/ Cincinnati, Columbus, Ohio; Chicago, Peoria, E# St# Louis, Illinois; Louisville, Kentucky; Sioux City, Iowa; Sioux Falls, South Dakota; Indianapolis, Indiana*

From these tests it is concluded that there is little difference between the yields of hogs purchased from the different terminal markets#

Hogs purchased from terminal

markets had significantly higher carcass yields than hogs purchased from local markets#

Although there was a dif-

71

ferenoe in yields between terminal and local markets in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois which, favored the terminal mar­ kets, the difference was not significant.

Yields of hogs

from Indiana local markets were higher than yields of hogs from local markets in Illinois, Kentucky and Tennessee, but the differences were not significant*

Other Problems of Eastern Slaughter of Hogs High Shrinkages Bruising and Death Loss Eastern packers were asked what they considered to be the over- all di sadvantages of eastern slaughter of hogs; 76 percent of them mentioned higher shrinkage, bruising, and death loss.

Greater shrinkage, bruising, and death

loss mean lower yields and higher costs.

The packer must

pass these higher costs on to the trade.

The eastern

packers were of the opinion that the higher losses came about as a result of the long hauls and carelessness in handling the live animals•

It is to be expected that hogs

purchased in the Midwest and shipped East to be slaughtered will shrink. considerable.

In inclement weather the death loss will be The length of time hogs are in transit makes

this a real problem.

Although no data were obtained on

bruises, they are to be expected.

A hog may slip and break

a small blood vessel in the hind quarter.

Blood will col­

lect around the stifle joint and may not be discovered at the time of killing or cutting.

The dealer or consumer

72

who purchases the ham will be dissatisfied and it will re­ sult in loss of business# 2 ^ Perhaps, as transportation becomes faster and handling becomes better, the transportation losses will diminish® It appears now that shrinkage, bruising, and death losses will always be serious problems to the eastern packer* Freight Costs Higher for Live Hogs Freight rates and differentials were often mentioned as definite disadvantages of eastern slaughter of hogs* Eastern packers were of the opinion that the freight rates on live hogs and those on products from hogs slaughtered in the Midwest and shipped East were such that packers shipping the live animals were placed at a relative disadvantage* The question of freight rates and differentials is a weighty one and has many ramifications*

In this study no

attempt was made to analyze or to appraise the situation* All that is done here is to point out that it is one of the most important problems of eastern slaughter*

It was men­

tioned by half of the packers interviewed as a disadvantage of eastern slaughter of hogs* Buying Presents a Constant Problem Eastern packers buy through order buyers at various markets and some packers felt that having to buy this way 26/ Goedert, A. W. and Maddux, S. K., "Pork Packing" (Chicago: National Provialoner, 1932), p. 9«

73

was a disadvantage#

Tiiey felt that they could not buy as

advantageously through an order buyer as they could them­ selves*

This may or may not be the case*

By buying through

dealers, eastern packers can spread their purchases over a wide area and can take advantage of any favorable price that might appear in different markets*

Buying over a wide area

they can obtain hogs of the quality end finish they desire and do not have to purchase hogs of all weights*

This might

be the case if they were doing their own buying at one or a few markets* Some eastern packers felt that the problem of a slaugh­ ter hog supply was a handicap as compared with that of midwestern packers*

This is definitely true and is tied in

with the buying mentioned above*

The eastern packer obtains

the bulk of his hogs from the C o m Belt and ships them to the East where they are slaughtered*

This is closely tied

in with freight rates, shrinkage, bruising, and death loss* These place him at a disadvantage with the midwestern packer who slaughters hogs at the source of supply and ships only the desired products East*

The whole process of

shipping live animals to the East is a costly one and must be offset by other factors* Other Disadvantages Are Important Another reason, mentioned as a disadvantage of eastern slaughter of hogs, was that the grease, tallow and hides of the hogs obtained by eastern packers were sold at a

7k

discount compared with, those gotten by mi dwe s t e m packers • They felt that the eastern packers were mostly small and unorganized and lacked the volume to utilize the glands and inedible by-products efficiently.

No data other than

the reasons given by the packers were obtained on this sub­ ject. Higher at-the-plant cost of hogs because of high freight costs, greater crippling, bruising, and death loss was mentioned as another disadvantage of eastern slaughter* All of these factors mean higher at-the-plant cost of hogs and place the eastern packer at a relative disadvantage. Another disadvantage of eastern slaughter of hogs ad­ vanced was the length of time between loading and receiving the hogs.

Although there may be delay in transit, basically

it is the distance the hogs must be transported and the shrinkage, death loss, and bruising resulting in higher cost which is the disadvantage. Two of the packers mentioned the heavy cost of handling hogs in the pens and scheduling the kill as a disadvantage of eastern slaughter of hogs.

The eastern packers are

often located in high rent areas of metropolitan centers and space is limited.

To keep the hogs in the pens until

they are killed involves expense, and enough hogs must be carried to provide a supply for the killing and cutting crew. One packer felt that shrinkage of products purchased

75 from other packers to be used in processing in the East was a problem®

It is true that there is shrinkage on pro­

ducts as well as on live animals.

However, this is believed

to be a minor problem among those faced by eastern packers* The fact that eastern packers have fewer outlets than midwe stern packers was mentioned as a disadvantage*

The

eastern packer is a local packer and has limited sales or­ ganization and distributive machinery.

This is a disadvant­

age in contrast to the large midwestern packer who has the "pulse" of many markets and can divert pork products, even while enroute to what appears to be the most profitable outlet* One packer felt that handling live hogs was less ef­ ficient than handling carcasses*

This appears to be true

and, on the face of it, there is little justification from an economic viewpoint for shipping the live animal instead of the desired cut*

However, other factors must be con­

sidered* The need of unloading and feeding hogs in transit was mentioned as a disadvantage of eastern slaughter of hogs because it adds to the expense*

This is true but it is a

necessary expense in view of the distance the hogs are shipped to be slaughtered* Another disadvantage of eastern slaughter of hogs that was mentioned was the high cost of selling and distributing through the peddler truck system.

Distributing through the

76

peddler truck system is unique in some areas of the East* The driver of the truck sells, delivers, bills, and collects* He carries the product on his truck and goes from store to store*

Often the storekeeper gets in the truck and selects

the loin he wants*

This is in contrast to the system used

in most places where a salesman visits the retailer and takes his order or the retailer buys direct from a whole­ saler or a branch house*

The peddler truck system is costly

and, in this sense, a disadvantage*

Midwestern slaughter

might or might not change the peddler truck system*

Car­

casses could be shipped east and the system maintained* This system is also an advantage because through it the re­ tailer gets more service*

The peddler truck visits each re­

tailer more often and if the retailer1s supply is low he can order extra items, as well as select the items he wants from the stock carried in the truck* One eastern packer said he could no longer get enough of a premium on eastern dressed products to cover the added costs entailed in slaughtering in the East,

It was

pointed out that only 30 percent of the carcass brings a premium over the products shipped in from the Midwest* This would indicate that the traditional spread between eastern and midwestern pork is narrowing and that the east­ ern packer is meeting increased competition from midwestern products* Another disadvantage mentioned for eastern slaughter of

77 hogs was that because of the distance from the supply of hogs, the eastern packer is less flexible in his operations. The packer in the East has to plan operations well ahead of time because he has to order hogs which will be delivered three days later* On the other hand, he is flexible because he can adjust M s kill and processing to meet the immediate market demand* He can hold the hogs he has bought in the pens for a few days, or discontinue buying.

In fact, this very flexibility

was believed by some eastern packers to be an advantage, because they could more quickly adjust to the fluctuations in demand in their market and vary their product to meet the changing demand*

Viewed in t M s light, the eastern

packer is not less flexible in his operations than is the midwestern packer. Dumping by large packers in the trade area of the east­ ern packer was mentioned as a disadvantage. t M s practice is not known.

The extent of

To the extent it does exist,

it would be a definite disadvantage and a problem in eastern slaughter* It was felt that depressed times make midwest competi­ tion more severe because eastern packers cannot get their costs down*

No logical reason appears why this should be

of any more importance to the eastern packer than to any other packer.

One packer was of the opinion that the east­

ern packers take what is left at the CMcago market because

78 the Chicago packers meet their needs first*

This disadvant­

age does not appear to be valid because, through order buy­ ers, the eastern packers buy in competition with Chicago packers*

Also, since they can spread their buy over a wide

area, they can fill their demand by purchasing hogs at numerous markets. The problems of eastern slaughter are many and varied* Most of them arise from the necessity of shipping the raw material, the live hog, such great distances#

Prom this

shipping arise serious problems of shrinkage, bruising, and death loss, all of which result in relatively higher at-theplant cost of the hogs they purchase*

This puts them at a

disadvantage as compared to the midwestern packer *

There

are many problems other than these, as has been pointed out* Some of them are important, but the problems arising from shipping the live hogs long distances are basic*

The mere

fact that the eastern packers are in business today is evidence that there are offsetting advantages to these problems and disadvantages*

These will be treated in the

analysis of the future of the eastern packer market*

79 WHAT OF THE FUTURE?

Significant Trends Although, no sudden changes are to be expected in east­ ern slaughter of midwestern hogs, many changes or trends of possible far reaching significance may be noted#

For

example, 80 percent of the packers interviewed was of the opinion that there are significant trends affecting con­ tinued eastern slaughter#

Only l6 percent thought there

are no significant trends • Shipment of Carcasses Thirty percent of those who said there were signifi­ cant trends said shipment of carcasses East was one of the most important trends• Shipment of hog carcasses is not a new thing# been carried on for many years#

It has

The animals are dressed

at a plant near the source of supply and shipped in refrig­ erated cars to the eastern packers who cut the carcasses and distribute the products to their trade#

These ship­

ments may be handled through a broker who does nothing but buy and sell carcasses# One firm has been acting as a dressed hog broker since 1930♦

This firm deals exclusively in dressed hogs, buying

them from various packers in the Midwest and shipping them in refrigerated cars to packers in the East#

These carcasses

80

are shipped packer style which is the carcass with the head off, ham facings off, kidneys out and leaf lard out#

This

firm^7/ has a basic figure for each of the weight groups of hogs that is used in arriving at the price to be paid by the eastern packer for the carcasses bought#

The carcasses are

shipped, based on the previous days top market at Chicago# Dressed Live 1-10-50 Selling Price, Weight Weight Denominator Chicago Cost and Freight, lbs.____ lbs#________________top market New York City 12I1.-138 139-154

180-200 200-220

1 .14.3 1.42

16.25 16.25

24.375 24.212

In the above example, if on 1-11-50 an eastern packer ordered some carcasses from the Chicago broker and wanted carcasses from hogs weighing 180-200 pounds the price would be arrived at as follows.

Hogs weighing 180-200 pounds

alive would yield carcasses weighing 124-138 pounds.

For

carcasses with dressed weights of 124-138 pounds the de­ nominator is 1.43*

On this particular day, 1-11-50, car­

casses were being quoted by the broker at 7 points above the denominator of 1.43 which makes a total of 1.50.

Pur­

chases are based on the top Chicago market of the previous day and on 1-10-50 the top market was $16.25 per hundred­ weight on live hogs#

The total denominator of 1.50 is then

multiplied by the top market of the previous day, $16.25# and the result, $24*375 per hundredweight, is the selling 27/ Busse Brokerage#

81

price — CAP (cost and freight included) New York City* Similarly, carcasses weighing 139-154- pounds coming from live hogs weighing 200-220 pounds would have a de­ nominator of l#42e

With the market 7 points above the de­

nominator, the denominator l»i|.2 plus 7 points or l#4-9 points is multiplied by the previous days Chicago top of $l6*25 and a selling price CAP New York City of #24*212 is the re­ sult» The advantages of carcass shipment are claimed to be many*

Several* packers in the East have discontinued

slaughtering hogs and rely wholly on carcasses*

This means

they do not have to have a killing gang and do not have to worry about disposal of waste products*

The plant can be

much smaller, have less equipment and less overhead*

The

fat on the carcass serves as a protective covering during shipment»

It is claimed the meat has a fresher appearance

and will hold up better than cuts that are shipped from the Midwest, although not as well as cuts from hogs dressed in the East» The extent of carcass shipping at the present time is unknown*

However, several packers are relying on carcasses»

Based on this and on the fact that 30 percent of the pack­ ers who said there were significant trends felt that ship­ ment of carcasses was the most important one. It is be­ lieved that shipment of carcasses has a large potential» At the present time this method admittedly does not yield

82

ont a that have the appe apance and hold up as well as cuts

from hogs dressed in the East but the cuts are claimed to be better than cuts that are shipped to the East#

It is

also entirely within the realm of possibility that in the future cuts may be packaged at the source and shipped East# Even if this is the case Indiana is still in a favorable competitive position# Improved Refrigeration and Transportation A trend affecting continued eastern slaughter that was mentioned by 20 percent of the packers and that appeared to be of equal importance with shipping of carcasses East was the improvement of refrigeration and faster and better trans­ portation#

This tends to reduce eastern slaughter by making

it more advantageous to ship the pork products instead of the live animal# Other Trends Adversely Affecting Eastern Slaughter Two of the packers pointed out that the national pack­ ers had sold their eastern plants and felt that this was a significant trend away from eastern slaughter#

One packer

pointed out that there had been a decline in eastern slaughter for the past 25 years#

Another packer felt that

midwestern packers were making greater efforts to meet the specialized demands of the eastern trade#

Other trends

mentioned were the decline in the premium paid for eastern dressed products and the growth of chain stores who buy large amounts of midwestern pork#

The effects of national

packer advertising on eastern slaughter were pointed out* Large packer vertical integration was also felt to be work­ ing against eastern slaughter*

Another trend noted was the

diminished consumer demand for locally slaughtered products over the past 30 years*

Increased manufacturing by branch

houses of large packers was noted*

This would work against

eastern slaughter because branch houses do not slaughter but use midwestem processed pork*

Another trend adversely

affecting eastern slaughter was that greater consumption, greater consumer acceptance, better quality and greater variety of canned meats will decrease the demand for cer­ tain meat products of eastern slaughterers* Trends Favorably Affecting Eastern Slaughter All wds not pessimism, however#

One packer felt that

the trend was toward recognition of parity of freight costs between live hogs end the products which would help eastern slaughter*

One other thought the trend was toward decen­

tralization of midwest packing, and toward an increase in the East#

The former is true; the latter is contrary to

opinions expressed by other packers*

Another felt there

was a significant trend among eastern packers toward more attention to special consumer preferences which would be favorable to continued eastern slaughter# A trend toward truck transportation of live hogs to the East was noted by one packer*

This could mean less

shrinkage, faster transportation and lower cost*

Another

©astern packer felt they were offering consistently higher quality products and asking the needed price.

Equalization

of labor costs» as a result of the labor movement in the Midwest, was a trend favoring continued eastern slaughter that was mentioned by another packer.

This would tend to

lessen the disadvantage of the eastern packer as compared to the midwestem packer.

Is Continued Eastern Slaughter of Midwestern Hogs Assured? In view of the importance of eastern slaughter of hogs to Indiana farmers, and in view of the decline in eastern slaughter over the past quarter of a century, eastern packers were asked their opinion as to whether or not con­ tinued eastern slaughter of midwestem hogs was assured. Eighty percent of the packers contacted were of the opinion that continued eastern slaughter of midwestem hogs was assured (Table ij.8)*

Some of the packers doubted if con­

tinued eastern slaughter of midwestem hogs was assured, some said there would be less and some said they just didn't know. When asked mhy continued eastern slaughter of midwest­ e m hogs was assured a variety of reasons was given; rea­ sons which are supported by the findings of the retail sur­ vey.

Most of these reasons centered around those of

locally-owned companies close to the public which can cater

85 to preference demands of nationalities with, a product that has better appearance and is less perishable than products shipped in#

Service is also an important element.

Also,

there is a definite demand for locally dressed pork, es­ pecially fresh pork, which is kept alive by advertising# Other eastern packers felt that people would always be will ing to pay a premium for quality products#

In connection

with quality, fresh trimmings for sausage was considered to be important# Table I4.8#

Ratings by 25 Eastern Packers As To Whether or Not Continued Eastern Slaughter of Midwestern Hogs Is Assured# Percent

Continued eastern slaughter of midwest hogs is assured There will be less Doubt it Don’t know Data incomplete

80 k k k 6

Also mentioned was equalization of labor costs be­ tween East and West due to the labor movement which would place the eastern packers in a relatively more favorable position#

Evidence of recognition of the principle of

parity of freight costs as between raw materials and pro­ ducts derived from them was considered as a factor assur­ ing continued eastern slaughter of midwestem hogs# Reasons given by the packers, and buttressed by the survey of retailers, lead to the conclusion that continued

86

eastern slaughter of midwestem hogs is assured, although it will probably continue to decrease somewhat• sons support this conclusion*

Many rea­

Although the costs entailed

in eastern slaughter are high, some consumers are willing to pay more for the products due to the brighter, fresher appearance*

The product is less perishable and fresh meat

is very desirable for use in sausage making and processing• Eastern packers are local businesses and cater to di­ verse nationalities with a wide variety of manufactured products that do not have a national market*

Eastern pack­

ers render many services which are valuable, especially to the small retailer*

They are also going concerns, many

with a long reputation for quality products, service and fair dealing*

They have large fixed investments which they

desire to protect*

Eastern slaughter is faced with stiff

competition and an increase in the shipment of carcasses is probable.

However, it should be stressed again that no

sudden changes in the amount of eastern slaughter are ex­ pected*

Continued eastern slaughter of midwestem hogs

appears to be assured but is expected to decrease somewhat*

What Can Indiana Farmers Do? From the results of the retail survey it is concluded that generally the retailer and the consumer in the East are getting pork cuts of weights they desire*

To get cuts

87 of tiiese weights packers buy closely graded hogs of the desired finish over a wide area*

They largely buy and

prefer hogs weighing l80-2lp0 pounds, and want a long-bodied hog with as little fat as is consistent with quality.

Most

of the packers were of the opinion that hogs needed only leO-1,5 inches of back fat* Eastern hog slaughter has declined, but it will con­ tinue to be of major importance as a market outlet for Indiana hogs.

Indiana is in a favorable location, being

the surplus hog producing area closest to eastern packers as they look west for sources of supply*

The state can

market the year around supply of hogs required in the fresh pork trade*

Hogs from Indiana compare favorably with those

of other producing areas as to shrinkage, death loss, and carcass and product yields* If eastern slaughter declines Indiana will still be in a favorable location for the supply of carcasses or of cuts*

In the future more slaughtering will probably be

done near the source of the hogs and Indiana faimers should consider the possibilities of this*

For these reasons

Indiana will continue to be in a favorable competitive position as far as the eastern market is concerned. The bulk of Indiana hogs goes East for slaughter and this market demands hogs weighing 180-2^0 pounds with as little finish as is consistent with quality*

Fifty-six

percent of the packers desired hogs weighing only 180-220

88

pounds •

Because of tills and tiie premium paid for hogs of

tills type and weight, it appears that it is and will con­ tinue to be profitable for Indiana farmers to market their hogs at these weights and without too much finish#

89

BIBLIOGRAPHY Production and Marketing Administration, Livestock Branch., ^Livestock Market News Statistics and Related Data,11 TJ* S» Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C *, 194-2, 194-8 • Butz, Ee Le, rTHog Prices in Indiana,” Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No# 4-87, July, 194.3. Henry, D. L., Wiley, J. R., "Marketing Slaughter Livestock in Indiana,” Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 522, July, 194-7* Pearson, F. A. and Bennett, K. R., "Statistical Methods," John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: New York, N. Y., 194-2* Wiley; J. R., Unpublished data concerning out-of-state shipments of Indiana slaughter hogs. Animal Husbandry Department, Purdue University, 1930» The Philadelphia Inquirer, "Philadelphia Food Facts," Philadelphia, Pennsylvani a, 194-7* Goedert, A. W. and Maddux, S. K * , "Pork Packing," The National Provisioner: Chicago, Illinois, 1932. North Central Livestock Marketing Research Committee, "Price Differentials for Slaughter Hogs," Iowa State College Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. P93, Augus t, 194-8 • Wiley, J. R . , Robertson, L. S., and Beck, W. G,, "Dif­ ferences in Hog Prices at Some Indiana Hog Markets," Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin S. B. 540, June, 1949* Wiley, J. R ., "Death and Crippled Losses in Shipping Hogs to Market," Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No* 318, November, 1927* Paarlberg, Don, "Prices of Butter, Lard and Cottonseed Oil," Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station Memoir 281, October, 1948* Vestal, C. M., and Shrewsbury, C. L., "The Effect of Soy­ beans, Soybean Oil Meal, and Tankage on the Quality of Pork," Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 400, March, 1935*

90

Ashby, R. c., "Federal Regulation of Livestock Markets," University of Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station, AE 2518, May, 19lj.8* Mayer, 0* G ., "Meat and Lard in Our National Economy, " American Meat Institute, Chicago, Illinois, June, 1949• Bureau of Agricultural Economics, "Fats and Oils in World War II," War Records Monograph-#6, U* S. Department of Agriculture. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, "Meat Supply and Distribu­ tion by Quarter Years, United States, 194^-"47»ri U* S. Department of Agriculture, June, 194® • Bureau of Agricultural Economics, "Consumption of Food in the United States, 1909-49»" Miscellaneous Publication No. 691 , U. S. Department of Agriculture, August, 1949»

VITA

Ramon Wilson:

Born September 22, 1922 in Ogden, Utah,

Graduated from Davis County High School in June, 1940* Attended Utah. State Agricultural College September, 194.O to April, 1943# Ordered to active duty in the Army April 5» 1943 + Served 42 months, with one year of service in the Philippine Islands.

Discharged from active duty

September 26, 1946* Received B. 8» degree from Utah State Agricul­ tural College June, 1947 with a major in Agricultural Economics# Received M» S* degree from Purdue University, June, 194® with a major in Agricultural Economics. Thesis title: Operation of Township Schools. Received the Ph.D. degree from Purdue University in June, 1950#

Major in Agricultural Economics.

in Economic Theory and General Economics#

Minors

Thesis title:

The Eastern Packer Market for Indiana Slaughter Hogs#