L I B RAFLY OF THE U N I VLR5ITY OF ILLINOIS G30.7 xe.&w V1Q.5-4-1-S55 A6RICULT0UE THE LIBRARY OF !Hf MAR 13 1952 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIVESTOCK EARNINGS on North-Central Illinois Farms An analysis of factors affecting them By M. L. MOSHER Bulletin 548 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign http://www.archive.org/details/livestockearning548mosh CONTENTS PLAN OF THE STUDY 259 HOG ENTERPRISES 261 Returns per 1 00 Pounds of Hogs Produced 265 High Feed Costs Greatly Reduced Hog Earnings 269 Other Factors Affecting Returns per $100's Worth of Feed Fed to Hogs 272 CATTLE ENTERPRISES 279 Feeder Cattle 280 Beef-Cow Herds 282 Dual-Purpose Cattle 286 Dairy Cattle 286 SHEEP ENTERPRISES 298 Native Flocks of Sheep 298 Feeder Sheep 300 CHICKEN ENTERPRISES 301 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 308 EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED IN THIS STUDY 313 L'rbana, Illinois December, 1951 Publications in the Bulletin series report the results of investigations made or sponsored by the Experiment Station FOREWORD Actual records kept by farmers have long formed a satisfactory basis for finding out why some farmers earn so much more than others who operate similar farms. In this publication records of livestock enter- prises taken from complete records kept by cooper- ators in the Farm-Bureau Farm-Management Service have been used to help answer the question: "Why does livestock on some farms earn more than that on similar farms in the same area?" The answers to this question as shown by the findings in this study are in quite close agreement with findings from closely supervised experiments conducted by other depart- ments of the Illinois Station. For some classes of livestock, the study would have been more satis- factory had more long-term records been available. The author acknowledges the contributions of the farmers who kept the records; of W. A. Herrington, B. E. King, E. G. Fruin, and M. P. Gehlbach, the fieldmen of the Farm -Bureau Farm -Management Service who supervised the records and assisted the cooperating farmers with their management prob- lems; of H. C. M. Case and R. H. Wilcox for their assistance in planning the study and interpreting the results; and of several other members of the Depart- ment of Agricultural Economics and members of the Animal Science and Dairy Production Departments for their critical reading of the manuscript in its early form. M. L. Mosher LIVESTOCK EARNINGS on North-Central Illinois Farms By M. L. Mosher, Professor of Farm Management THE EFFICIENCY WITH WHICH LIVESTOCK is pro- duced or purchased, fed, and its products marketed has in some years more effect on farm earnings on livestock farms of north-central Illinois than any other part of the business. In other years it is second in importance only to crop yields. Many different factors contribute to this over-all efficiency, some more than others. This study was undertaken to find the extent to which these different factors influenced returns on feed fed and why some farmers earned so much more from their livestock enterprises than their neighbors with similar enterprises. Records of 271 farms in north-central Illinois, in the heart of the corn belt, were studied (Fig. 1). All were kept by farmers cooperating in the Farm-Bureau Farm-Management Service. 1 All of these farms had usable records for the livestock they kept for the ten years 1936-1945. The cropland on the farms was fair to excellent cornland. Eighty percent of the farms had dark prairie soils with per- meable subsoils. About 10 percent had some timber or sandy loam soils. Another 10 percent in the eastern part of the area had a more or less impervious clay subsoil. On 63 percent of the farms, 90 percent or more of the land was tillable. Only 6.6 per- cent of the farms had more than 30 percent of nontillable land. Sixty-five percent of the farms were between 160 and 320 acres in size, the average being about 280 acres. Only 4.5 percent had less than 140 acres and only 3.3 percent had more than 500. About a fourth of the farms studied were classified as grain farms because they sold 70 percent or more of all their crops 1 The Farm-Bureau Farm-Management Service is a service for farmers con- ducted by the University of Illinois Department of Agricultural Economics in cooperation with county farm bureaus. Records kept by cooperating farmers are supervised by fieldmen trained in farm management, who spend all their time with about 200 farmers each. About 80 percent of all costs of the service is from annual fees paid by the cooperating farmers. 257 258 Bulletin No. 548 [December, CM AMP A I an The 271 farms whose livestock records were studied were located in seven- teen counties in north-central Illinois. The heavy concentration of records in the eastern part of the area means only that more records were available there, not that the area produces more livestock than the western part. (Fig. 1) produced. Another fourth were mixed grain and livestock farms, feeding 30 to 60 percent of the crops produced. About a half were classed as livestock farms because 60 percent or more of the crops produced was fed on the farm. As an average, almost three-fourths of the crop returns during the ten years was fed to livestock, with about a third going to hogs and another third to cattle (Fig. 2). The Peoria livestock market is within the area and the Chi- cago market is within a few hours' trucking distance. Farms around the cities and towns have limited markets for whole milk. Some farms with small dairy herds sold their cream and fed the skimmilk to hogs and chickens. This publication is not a manual of livestock-production practices. It deals with the extent to which various efficiency factors were used on these farms and how their use was related to returns on feed fed. Some of the results will, of course, imply that certain practices are either beneficial or harmful. But for 1961] Livestock Earnings on North-Central Illinois Farms 259 o\° o *i I uj - o -J «1 ^ c 0* YOUNG CATTLE AND FEEDER CATTLE 16.2 % A high percentage of the crop returns for these farms was fed to livestock during the ten years 1936-1945. These averages are for 164 of the 271 farms, and are for farms that changed very little in size, cropping system, and amount of livestock during the ten years of the study. (Fig. 2) detailed directions or recommendations on how to handle hogs, cattle, sheep, and chickens, the reader is referred to numerous other Illinois publications. PLAN OF THE STUDY The hog, cattle, sheep, and chicken enterprises are discussed sep- arately. As would be expected, hog enterprises were the most common among the 271 records, 200 being included in this study. At the other end of the scale, only 33 of the farms had sheep enterprises extensive enough to be included in this study. 260 Bulletin No. 548 [December, o o +-» w > T3 .iciicioio coi>©©© t» § OOOOO OOhhh o "S • HHOOOO) NOhOO) t- g CO©»OCO<-i HiOiOiOt* l> ■S icco choice "*-*^^2J £2 ■2 OiCNt-CO© 00H1ONN ^ t> 00 iO ■* -tf • ■ • ai ; M '.'.'.'.! ; ; ! . • a) > ri • '• : : 3 . CO : : : : : :....>> CT> 0> CT> CT> Ci C>05CT>0>0 r, B.I M o S c '■& o §1 03 o3 u o 35 £«o cuaj*© 1s p > t- - eo aj 05 — < o ■§ ° o-3'E CO 4) § .2.2 s CO CO 05 > > a d .a « 1951] Livestock Earnings on North-Central Illinois Farms 261 The measure of livestock efficiency used in these studies was the returns per $100' s worth of feed fed. 1 This measures efficiency in the use of feed and in marketing, but it does not include the use of labor, power, machinery, and equipment. Since, however, feed makes up about 60 percent of all costs of producing dairy cattle and poultry, 75 percent for hogs, and 80 to 85 percent for beef cattle and sheep, "re- turns per $100's worth of feed fed" is a fairly accurate measure of over-all production and marketing efficiency for each kind of livestock. When figuring the cost of feed, these charges were made: average Illinois farm prices for grain, local farm prices for hay, cost prices for protein concentrates, minerals, and mixed feeds, and local rental rates for pasture (Table 1). Prices received by Illinois farmers for livestock and livestock products during the period are given in Table 2. Average returns to each of four kinds of livestock on all Farm- Bureau Farm-Management farms of northern Illinois for 1936 to 1945 are shown in Table 3. Also shown are the returns necessary to pay all costs — feed, labor, power, machinery, equipment, and veterinary and miscellaneous costs. HOG ENTERPRISES In the study of hog enterprises in north-central Illinois, 200 records for the ten-year period 1936-1945 were analyzed. All of these records were from farms where at least 10,000 pounds of hogs were produced annually and where there were usable records for all ten years (Fig. 3). On these farms more of the total value of all crop returns — about a third — was fed to hogs than was used for any other one purpose. Among Farm-Bureau Farm-Management farms in north-central Illi- nois, hog farms realized higher net farm earnings during these ten years than the cattle or grain farms. (When the soil-conserving value of the program was considered as well as the immediate returns, a combination of feeder cattle and hogs proved to be more profitable than hogs alone.) The measure of efficiency used was the return per $100's worth of feed fed to hogs. Cost-of-production studies in Champaign and Piatt counties for the ten years 1936-1945 show that the average cost of producing hogs was $132 for each $100's worth of feed fed to hogs (Table 3). That is, the return necessary just to break even was about $132. The average for the twenty-three years 1925-1947 was the same ■ — $132. On Farm-Bureau Farm-Management farms during these 1 See pages 313 to 315 for an explanation of this and other terms used in the study. 262 Bulletin No. 548 [December, So a ft a* a S -a 0) M c 2 fto Pi O jag. lis o 7 c sag, w ft§ oeooooioo nooooo o C ** CO •<}< 00 ,_| ^ _| _( ,-( l-tT-KNOlIN i-i OOOit^OOOO CilNCOCOCO O cooot--oooo ©^co CiOi00CD»O OlCO^Wt o T3 to to o a - * b < 2 * «-, t >> o ft c to i-i C/5 ,Jrf CO »2 > T3 •° CO (1) t-r > 5 ft (U (U «T3 s§ c ft 3 v u K o 0) bfl a 2 o < ft I h > CO % > < COI>OOOiO iH^M^iO CO CO CO CO Tt 4 Tf Tf ^ ^ ^ C5 C5 Oi Oi O O Ci O^ G> C5 0> rt 8 3 4) rS CO Ol O -"*< ONN^O) ■* QONOOO) O0t~^l>t- 00 r»^-ioocct^ snnho ■^•0000505 OOOOcCOO© ooico^oo c^©o©-<* a> 5?G SI 32 lO -ooo5© HNMTfm i cocococo't* Tt<2<-2!^2! aS Oi 09 OS 05 Oi 05 05 C5 Oi OT r_. 1951] Livestock Earnings on North-Central Illinois Farms 263 3 NORTHERN COUNTIES 30 FARMS 6 MIDDLE COUNTIES 66 FARMS 8 SOUTHERN COUNTIES 104 FARMS Over half of the 200 hog enterprises studied were located in the southern part of the area. All of the farms were within reasonable distance of good markets. (Fig. 3) twenty-three years, average returns were $146. For the 200 hog farms studied, the average during the ten years 1936-1945 was even higher — $151 per $100's worth of feed fed. This means that except for an occa- sional year now and then, the hog enterprises on these farms have shown a good margin of profit over a long period. But although the average was high, the variation was great. One of the 200 farmers had a return as low as $110, another had a return as high as $221. Sixty farmers (30 percent of all 200) with the highest returns received $170 per $100^ worth of feed fed and 60 others with lowest returns averaged $134 (Fig. 4 and Table 4-A1 1 ). Since an average of $2,930's worth of feed per farm was fed annually, the difference of $36 on each $100 amounts to a difference of $1,055 income per farm annually. Two farmers fed about the same amounts of feed to hogs, $3,000 annually. Both sold their hogs on the open market; neither sold breed- ing stock. Yet one had an average return of $5,100 a year and the other only $3,500. This annual difference of $1,600 amounted to a ten-year difference of $16,000 for feeding the same amounts of feed ! 1 In this and all such table references, the letter (in this reference, A) refers to the row in the table and the number following refers to the column. 264 Bulletin No. 548 [December, RETURNS PER $IOO'S WORTH OF FEED FED TO HOGS 20 40 60 80 100 120 130 140 150 160 170 I 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 60 FARMS WITH HIGHEST RETURNS PER $ 100'S WORTH OF FEED FED 80 FARMS WITH MEDIUM RETURNS PER $ 100'S WORTH OF FEED FED i i -1 - _l $18 60 FARMS WITH LOWEST RETURNS PER $ 100'S WORTH OF FEED FED $36 1 I --I The 60 farms with lowest returns per $100's worth of feed fed to hogs barely exceeded the break-even figure of $132. Those with medium returns exceeded it by $20 and the best ones by as much as $38. (Fig. 4) Why do such differences exist among farmers recognized as good farmers (record-keeping farmers usually rank above the average of all farmers in earning ability) ? The reasons for the differences are brought out in the discussion on the following pages, where several different factors are analyzed for their relation to the hog enterprise. The discussion is divided into three general parts: returns per 100 pounds of hogs produced, feed costs per 100 pounds of hogs produced, and other factors. Most of the factors discussed are efficiency factors: they are points at which a producer conceivably could do a better job. In brief the study showed: The farmers who made the highest profits on their hogs marketed their hogs earlier. They had smaller death losses after weaning. They made more use of the two-litter system. They fed less total concentrates. They weaned more pigs per litter. They used more pasture. They fed more protein concentrates. They adjusted their production better to the market prices of corn and hogs, and so had a more favorable corn-hog ratio. They sold at medium weights. More of the high-profit farms were in the southern part of the area than in the middle or northern part. Production during the war years was increased more on the high- profit farms than on the low-profit farms. The 60 hog enterprises for which returns on feed were highest were only slightly larger than the 60 for which returns were lowest. 1951] Livestock Earnings on North-Central Illinois Farms 265 Each of these points will be discussed in greater detail in the fol- lowing pages. A graphical summary of the differences in returns due to several of the factors is given in Fig. 5. A detailed summary of the data from the 200 farms is given in Table 4 (facing page 268). Table 5, page 270, shows the distribution of the 200 farms according to the returns per $100's worth of feed fed to hogs and each of the factors. Other information pertaining to the hog enterprises is found in Tables 1, 2, and 3. Returns per 100 Pounds of Hogs Produced The 60 farmers who had the highest returns per 100 pounds of hogs received an average of $6 more per $100's worth of feed fed than the 60 farmers who had the lowest returns (Fig. 5 and Table 4-B1). This difference was much less than the difference in returns associated with feed cost per 100 pounds of hogs produced, which was $31 (see page 269 and Table 4-F1). The 60 farmers with the highest returns per $100's worth of feed fed exceeded the 60 farmers with the lowest returns by 37 cents in returns per 100 pounds of hogs produced and were $1.47 lower in feed cost per 100 pounds of hogs (Table 4-A2 and A8) . Ten-year average returns per 100 pounds of hogs produced amounted to $10.77 for the 200 farms; the group with the highest returns per 100 pounds averaged $11.53 and the low-return group averaged $10.00 (Table 4-A2 and B2). Much of this difference was associated with the larger production on the 60 high-return farms dur- ing the high-price war years. But some of it was also associated with differences in the efficiency factors (Table 4, row B and column 2). Time of marketing proved important. Producers who sold their spring and early summer litters before the end of the year and carried only fall pigs until late winter realized a larger margin of profit than their neighbors who carried more of their spring and early summer hogs over into the next year. The 60 farmers who marketed earliest (who still had on hand on January 1 only 31.3 percent of their total sales) realized $158 per $100's worth of feed fed, while the 60 farmers who marketed latest (who had 55.1 percent of their total sales on hand January 1) averaged only $141 returns (Fig. 5 and Table 4-C1 and C3). The difference of $17 per $100's worth of feed fed would i ; amount to $500 a year, or $5,000 for the ten years, for the average annual amount of $2,930's worth of feed fed. 266 Bulletin No. 548 [December. RETURNS PER $100S WORTH OF FEED FED TO HOGS 20 40 60 80 100 120 130 140 150 ,60 170 RETURNS PER 100 POUNDS OF HOGS PRODUCED HIGHEST RETURNS- $11.53 AVERAGE FOR 60 FARMS MEDIUM RETURNS- $10.77 AVERAGE FOR 80 FARMS LOWEST RETURNS— $10.00 AVERAGE FOR 60 FARMS EARLY MARKETING— 31.3% ON HAND JANUARY I ON 60 FARMS TIME OF MARKETING (A small per- centage of hogs on hand January 1 indicates early marketing) LATE MARKETING — 55.1 % ON HAND JANUARY I ON 60 FARM'. '$4 $1? : DEATH LOSSES AFTER WEANING LEAST DEATH LOSSES- 0.8 % AVERAGE FOR 60 FARMS MEDIUM DEATH LOSSES — 1.7 % AVERAGE FOR 80 FARMS MOST DEATH LOSSES— 3.6 % AVERAGE FOR 60 FARMS LITTER SYSTEM USED ONE-LITTER SYSTEM — 24 FARMS TWO-LITTER SYSTEM — 160 FARMS THREE- OR MIXED-LITTER SYSTEM— 16 FARMS !$< FEED COST PER 100 POUNDS OF HOGS PRODUCED LOWEST FEED COST— $ 6.23 AVERAGE FOR 60 FARMS MEDIUM FEED COST- $7.13 AVERAGE FOR 80 FARMS HIGHEST FEED COST— $ 8.02 AVERAGE FOR 60 FARMS $16 POUNDS OF CONCENTRATES FED PER 100 POUNDS OF HOGS PRODUCED LEAST CONCENTRATES FED— 386 POUNDS AVERAGE FOR 60 FARMS MEDIUM AMOUNTS FED— 436 POUNDS AVERAGE FOR 80 FARMS MOST CONCENTRATES FED— 491 POUNDS AVERAGE FOR 60 FARMS J L A 3 . 4 . I 20 40 60 60 100 120 130 140 150 160 170 Averages shown here are of groups of records separated according to thirteer of the hog-enterprise factors studied. Averages for other factors are shown ir Figs. 7, 8, and 9. Inasmuch as all factors are acting at the same time to mak< hog earnings high or low, it should be kept in mind that the degree of different is not necessarily an indication of the relative importance of any one factor, no: even an indication of which differences are significant. For such information thi reader is referred to Table 5. (Fig. 5 19611 Livestock Earnings on North-Central Illinois Farms 267 RETURNS PER $100'S WORTH OF FEED FED TO HOGS 20 40 60 80 100 120 130 140 150 160 170 i 1 r NUMBER OF I PIGS WEANED PER LITTER MOST PIGS— 7.1 AVERAGE FOR 60 FARMS MEDIUM NUMBER — 6.4 AVERAGE FOR 80 FARMS FEWEST PIGS— 5.7 AVERAGE FOR 60 FARMS _$_3_ $I2~ PASTURE FED PER 10O POUNDS OF GRAIN MOST PASTURE FED — 0.65 PASTURE-DAYS AVERAGE FOR 60 FARMS MEDIUM AMOUNTS FED— 0.42 PASTURE-DAYS AVERAGE FOR 80 FARMS LEAST PASTURE FED — 0.30 PASTURE-DAYS AVERAGE FOR 60 FARMS PROTEIN FEEDS FED PER 100 POUNDS OF GRAIN MOST PROTEIN FEEDS— 14.1 POUNDS AVERAGE FOR 60 FARMS MEDIUM AMOUNTS FED— 9.9 POUNDS AVERAGE FOR 80 FARMS LEAST PROTEIN FEEDS -6.5 POUNDS AVERAGE FOR 60 FARMS VALUE OF HOGS BOUGHT PER $100's WORTH SOLD LOWEST VALUE BOUGHT— $1.41 AVERAGE FOR 60 FARMS MEDIUM VALUE BOUGHT— $3.43 AVERAGE FOR 80 FARMS HIGHEST VALUE BOUGHT— $9.19 AVERAGE FOR 60 FARMS WEIGHT OF HOGS SOLD PER PIG WEANED LIGHTEST WEIGHTS WHEN SOLD — 210 POUNDS AVERAGE FOR 60 FARMS MEDIUM WEIGHTS WHEN SOLD — 239 POUNDS AVERAGE FOR 80 FARMS HEAVIEST WEIGHTS WHEN SOLD- 277 POUNDS AVERAGE FOR 60 FARMS $8 AVERAGE WEIGHTED CORN-HOG RATIO HIGHEST C0RN-H0G RATIO — 14 47 AVERAGE FOR 60 FARMS MEDIUM CORN- HOG RATIO— 14.24 AVERAGE FOR 80 FARMS LOWEST C0RN-H0G RATIO— 14.05 AVERAGE FOR 60 FARMS WEIGHT OF HOGS PRODUCED ANNUALLY MOST H OGS PER FARM— 73,500 POUNDS AVERAGE FOR 60 FARMS n^^mnnnHHHi MEDIUM NUMBERS PER FARM- 34,600 POUNDS AVERAGE FOR 80 FARMS FEWEST HOGS PER FARM— 17,400 POUNDS AVERAGE FOR 60 FARMS ■ ;$2 J L 20 40 60 80 100 Fig. 5. — Concluded 120 130 140 150 160 170 268 Bulletin No. 548 [December, Only about $6 of the $17 difference was due to the average price difference of 42 cents per 100 pounds sold. The rest of the difference was evidently due to various efficiencies of production on those farms where a large proportion of hogs was marketed before the end of the year (Table 4, row C and column 3). The distribution of the 200 farms according to the proportion of hog sales on hand January 1 and the returns per $100 's worth of feed fed to hogs is shown in Table 5. Lower death loss after weaning went with higher profits. On the 60 farms with the lowest death loss, 1 the loss was only 0.8 percent of the weight of all hogs produced. It was 3.6 percent on the 60 farms with the highest death loss. The returns per $100's worth of feed fed were $157 and $143 respectively, a difference of $14 in favor of the group with the lowest death loss (Table 4-D1 and D4). As a measure of efficiency, death loss after weaning is closely related to number of pigs weaned per litter (page 271) ; farmers weaning large litters also had small death losses after weaning. Both factors indicate that one of the most important reasons why some farmers make more money than others with their hogs is that they keep their hogs healthier. For the relation of death loss after weaning to returns, see also Fig. 5 and Table 4, row D and column 4. For frequency distribution (the distribution of farms according to the death loss after weaning and the returns per $100's worth of feed fed) see Table 5. Two-litter systems brought a little better return. The highest returns per $100's worth of feed fed were obtained by those who fol- lowed a two-litter system rather than a one-litter or three-litter system. The advantages of the two-litter system were evident in each of the three areas into which these counties were divided, the northern, middle, and southern. Of the 200 farmers whose records were used in this study, 160 followed the two-litter system, 24 a one-litter system, and 16 used mixed and three-litter systems (these 16 were all classed as three-litter systems). Those who followed a one-litter system had the lowest feed costs per 100 pounds of hogs produced. They used less protein concentrates per 100 pounds of grain than those following two- and three-litter 1 As used in this report, the death loss after weaning is the percent that the weight of all hogs that died after weaning was of the total weight of all hogs produced during the year. Total weight of hogs included those that died. Table 4.— Relation of Different Factors of Hog Production to Returns for Feed Fed, to Net Farm Earnings, and to Each Other A » "".nd closely rel." aaK — «.. 2aS , ; , i J rP „ te< Ottetut. .<■»..«« ,. teM „„t.00'.-» U .-f..d .dt.b.0 13 14 Aver,,, Percent ot I„„„ in 'Xctt'XrT IE P„c„, of b.,„ Pound. Pound. ol I 9 10 11 U pel 5100 19 SO °^" d is. Ono- Two- Tl.rcc- 5 6 7 15 10 17 11 mpiil S1S1 170 1 "oM si 5 12 80 8 8 80 12 li i S i Si J i 1 lil 52 33 15 li 5 l ":S£'"" " S1S4 $11 .IS 1:1 g:| | S J MS 70 i 1| "J ' 1 J ]i Jl I i a -1 1 1 ''I 3 'ill '!IS •J! sum M -2S.S .? -8 s i S6. 99 I? ! J W 2 ? 188 2 1 - ot 1 32 il IE 8 S !oo *j8:j5 -103 :! 'I :! - l 2 BO i $ ?:o5 1 ' u8 11 -118 ' „ i 4 g 1 20 14 li 1 S171 •num u.ed $ !fi *!8:S 409 9 100 i J, 87 08 436 6 1 -1 li "'1 t 1 »l 1 36 14 11 800 67 5142 ■8 , sKSBSLftSr. ??????... nn 137 HI || i 1 81 8 7!l3 -l!70 s S i 1 181 11 l n l 1 -I II -1 1 1 ill 31 s !8:ti 38 5 ;i 1 1 li jl i, S -105 5 :« Is li if n 5 I -il I| 1 'ill lii~i;;;; 18 IS '!§| -li 1 '» 1 il '5.21 440 i « II ".« l -09 J 1 1? 11 i *!"o " :" ''" '"■"■•;";" ' , " SIES 145 11 it! i 10 80 2 79 13 '?:" l ' „ Il 18 1 IB l »| 1 -S J 46 300 -1 *!8o ■ ■■^■'Pki, ISI s 8:3 11 i i 86 s 1:1 1 ° l i 1 1:1 54 31 «S "I 1 -1 i 3 8 s '!o2 •Ill 51086 40 8 .. !°8 8 D *8 it! 8 S ii '1:8 lis a !J:I1 li 15 15 § 888 l ll .1 3 3 -6 -.40 -23 4 .03 13 -24 .06 ■' 12 _s 19 500 111 "18.S ft:. i 18 1 J 11 il! 8 ! 1 ! s1 *i IS 210 f 55 lil 1 29 SS 11 700 S :°s .1 -5 IS -13 -.23 -22 3 .04 .8 -3 67 - 01 6 2 ~ 7 4 900 'il Is ||;| 8 1 11 ll *?.» ill 8 1 J -3 -S:I §11 *l 1 38 1 i!E SIM 8.0 73 42.2 8 12 ;, 10 87 02 431 6 1 '38 'll «62 |« [4 23 "8 III I;™ !« !?:8 -1:! i - 2 1 " I -':S -30 - i :8 !:J - b :8s -12 L 4 :8I 100° | 8 .. '" - 4 li88 "S?""'™''™ '!!! .10.91 41 7 I A 8? "J '?.!! ill 1 1 | !8o 1:1? lit HI! 1? n !| 73 600 » o«»l - 60 I,*., 150 10 27 -1:8 .3 -14 16 .06 - 2 3 - 10 .9 -.99 12 -.02 -33 j 23 10 'il? 8106, 4,6 20 IS 69 '. f:B 88 8 i :JJ '8:8 %a iii !21 7 11 li 11 If 188 153 10.71 39 .6 8 92 6 99 ill 8 1 il 18! 111 111 MM « 32 5 is 1!!,'! "* 1 "» b ^'»»Dd-tU 1 l, t . "? -:°2 -1 2 8 | - 51 - 3 1 - 4 - 97 13 .02 -10 | 14 ' 23 300 "■».».» ..dud. -i— I... 6«~, — — 1951] Livestock Earnings on North-Central Illinois Farms 269 systems and used a little more grain per 100 pounds of hogs produced than those following two-litter systems. See also Fig. 5 and Table 4, row E and columns 5, 6, and 7. High Feed Costs Greatly Reduced Hog Earnings On the 60 farms with the lowest feed costs, returns were $168 per $100's worth of feed fed to hogs, while on the 60 farms with Jiighest feed costs returns were $137. On the basis of the average annual amount of $2,930 's worth of feed fed, the difference of $31 amounts to about $900 a year, or $9,000 for the ten years. This difference in re- turns associated with feed costs is much greater than the difference as- sociated with returns per 100 pounds of hogs produced (see page 265). The average feed cost for the 200 farms was $7.13 per 100 pounds of hogs produced (Table 4-A8). On the 60 lowest-feed-cost farms the average was $6.23 and for the 60 highest the average was $8.02 (Table 4-F8). The 60 farmers who had the lowest feed costs increased production in the second five years over the first five years much less than did the 60 with the highest costs. This indicates that part of the reason why the ten-year average feed costs were low on these 60 farms was that relatively more hogs were produced on them during the prewar years, when costs were low. But analysis of the data indicates that less than a fifth of the difference of $1.79 in feed costs between the two groups of farms was associated with this factor. Much more of the difference was associated with the amount of feed required to produce 100 pounds of hogs, as discussed below. See also Fig. 5 and Table 4, row F and column 8. For frequency distribution see Table 5. Effect on profits of amount of feed needed. As an average the 60 farms feeding the least concentrates (grain and protein supplements) per 100 pounds of hogs produced realized $34 more per $100's worth of feed fed, almost $1,000 more annually, and $10,000 more during the ten years than the 60 farmers feeding the most concentrates. The 60 farmers feeding the least concentrates fed only 386 pounds to produce 100 pounds of hogs, while the 60 using the most fed 491 pounds of concentrates (Fig. 5 and Table 4-G9). Thus it required about 105 pounds more grain (nearly 2 bushels more corn) to produce 100 pounds of hogs on the 60 farms using the most feed per 100 pounds of hogs than on the 60 farms using the least feed. 270 Bulletin No. 548 [December, Table 5. — Distribution of 200 Hog Farms According to Returns for Feed Fed and Each of Several Factors That Affect Those Returns Factors for which distribution is shown Distribution according to returns per SlOO's worth of feed fed 60 farms 80 farms 60 farms with with with lowest medium highest returns returns returns Odds of obtaining so great a correlation by chance* Proportion of hog sales for the year on hand January 1 (Table 4C) 60 farms with most on hand 36 80 farms with medium amounts on hand 17 60 farms with fewest on hand 7 Percentage death loss after weaning (Table 4D) 60 farms with most losses 29 80 farms with medium losses 20 60 farms with least losses 11 Feed cost per 100 pounds of hogs produced (Table 4F) 60 farms with highest feed costs 43 80 farms with medium feed costs 16 60 farms with lowest feed costs 1 Pounds of concentrates fed per 100 pounds of hogs produced (Table 4G) 60 farms feeding most concentrates 51 80 farms feeding medium amounts 8 60 farms feeding least concentrates 1 Number of pigs weaned per litter (Table 4H) 60 farms weaning largest litters 7 80 farms weaning medium litters 27 60 farms weaning smallest litters 26 Value of hogs bought per SlOO's worth sold (Table 4L) 60 farms buying most hogs 29 80 farms buying medium numbers 18 60 farms buying fewest hogs 13 Weight of hogs sold per pig weaned (Table 4M) 60 farms selling heaviest hogs 26 80 farms selling medium-weight hogs 16 60 farms selling lightest hogs 18 Returns per 100 pounds of hogs produced (Table 4B) 60 farms with highest returns 12 80 farms with medium returns 25 60 farms with lowest returns 23 Pasture days per 100 pounds of grain fed (Table 4J) 60 farms using most pasture 14 80 farms using medium amount 21 60 farms using least pasture 25 Pounds of protein concentrates per 100 pounds of grain fed (Table 4K) 60 farms feeding most protein 12 80 farms feeding medium amount 25 60 farms feeding least protein 23 Average weighted corn-hog ratio (Table 4N) 60 farms with highest ratio 13 80 farms with medium ratio 26 60 farms with lowest ratio 21 Location of farms (Table 4P) 104 farms in southern counties 28 66 farms in middle counties 20 30 farms in northern counties 12 Weight of hogs produced per farm (Table 4Q) 60 farms producing most hogs 16 80 farms producing medium numbers 23 60 farms producing fewest hogs 21 Soil rating and soil type (Table 4R) 52 farms with soils rating 1.0 to 1.9 13 102 farms with soils rating 2.0 to 2.9 31 46 farms with soils rating 3.0 or more 24 farms with timber or sandy soils 6 22 farms with tight subsoils 10 (number of farms) 15 39 26 23 36 21 21 33 26 4(1 30 10 2i 33 23 24 39 Id Less than 1 in 100 Less than 1 in 100 Less than 1 in 100 Less than 1 in 100 Less than 1 in 100 Less than 1 in 100 1 in 100 16 in 100 14 in 100 8 in 100 9 in 100 40 in 100 94 in 100 40 in 100 See opposite pape for footnote. 1951] Livestock Earnings on North-Central Illinois Farms 271 The frequency distribution in Table 5 again shows the close rela- tionship between feed required to produce 100 pounds of hogs and returns per SlOO's worth of feed fed to hogs. A study of all the distri- butions shown in Table 5 and of Table 4, column 1, shows that the amount of feed required to produce 100 pounds of hogs was the most accurate measure of the efficiency of the hog enterprise. This factor, however, itself depends on several other factors. Weaning large litters effectively lowered feed costs. Few factors that affect the economy of hog production are as closely related to the net earnings as the number of pigs weaned per litter. On 60 farms, for all litters farrowed during the ten years 7.1 pigs were weaned, while on 60 other farms the average was only 5.7 pigs (Table 4-H10). The returns per $100"s worth of feed fed were $158 for the large-litter group and $146 for the small-litter group. Thus an average difference of 1.4 pigs weaned per litter was accompanied by a difference in returns of $12 per SlOO's worth of feed fed. This difference of $12, when applied to the average of $2,930's worth of feed fed annually, means an annual difference of $352, or $3,520 for the ten years. The relation of number of pigs weaned per litter to the other factors that affect returns, and to the returns themselves,, is shown in Fig. 5 and Table 4, row H and column 10,, and by the frequency distribution in Table 5. More pasture meant less concentrates required and higher earn- ings. The 60 farmers who used the most pasture (0.65 pasture day per 100 pounds of grain, Table 4-J11) fed only 417 pounds of con- centrates per 100 pounds of hogs produced and realized $156 per $100's worth of feed fed. The 60 farmers who used the least pasture (0.30 pasture day per 100 pounds of grain) fed 462 pounds of concen- trates per 100 pounds of production and realized only $145 returns. The amount of pasture per 100 pounds of grain fed varied on the 200 farms from none at all to more than 1 pasture day. Six farmers used less than 0.25 pasture day per 100 pounds of grain, and five u?ed more than 1 pasture day. ''Footnote for Table 5, opposite page) " The cross-tabulation analysis in Table 4 measures gross rather than net relationships between the variables in the table. This is a simple method of analysis which is open to criticism because, as in many farm-management analyses, the large number of closely related variables makes it difficult to test their individual significance in a precise way. However, when the probability of a result being due purely to chance is less than 5 in 100, as shown in this column, the result is called "significant," and the factor is one which farmers should consider in analyzing their farming operations. A probability larger than o in 100 does not, however, prove that some of the other relationships shown are of no significance. 272 Bulletin No. 548 [December, Most of the advantage of raising hogs on pasture appears to be in the saving of grain. On the 60 farms where the most pasture was used, 45 pounds less grain was needed to produce 100 pounds of hogs than on the 60 farms using the least pasture. Death loss after weaning was smaller on the 60 farms that used the most pasture. For the relation of amount of pasture to other factors, see Fig. 5 and Table 4, row J and column 11. For frequency distribution see Table 5. Liberal feeding of protein concentrates was profitable. The 60 farmers who fed the most protein concentrates per 100 pounds of grain 1 realized $8 more per $100's worth of feed fed than the 60 farmers who fed the least. Sixty farmers fed an average of 14.1 pounds of protein concentrates per 100 pounds of grain, and 60 others fed only 6.5 pounds (Table 4-K12). Five used less than 4 pounds, and 5 fed 17.5 pounds or more. Of the 80 farms feeding medium amounts of protein concentrates, 25 were among the 60 having the lowest returns from hogs and only 19 were among the 60 with highest returns (Table 5). The relation of amount of protein concentrates fed to other factors that affect returns is shown in Fig. 5 and Table 4, row K and column 12. Frequency distribution is shown in Table 5. Other Factors Affecting Returns per $100's Worth of Feed Fed to Hogs Buying many feeder pigs or much breeding stock lowered returns. A close relationship existed between the number of feeder pigs or breeding animals, or both, bought 2 and the returns on feed fed to hogs. The 60 farmers who bought the fewest feeder pigs and breeding ani- mals received an average of $155 per $100's worth of feed fed to hogs, while the 60 farmers who bought the most received only $144. None of these farms, however, depended to any great extent on feeder pigs. On the 60 farms where the most feeder pigs and breeding stock were bought, the value was $9.19 per $100's worth of hogs sold (Table 1 In this study minerals and mixed feeds purchased are included with protein concentrates. 2 Records of numbers of feeder pigs bought were not kept during several of the ten years during which these farm records were obtained, so the value of hogs bought per $100's worth sold was used as a measure of the purchases of feeder pigs and breeding stock. Very few breeding animals except boars were bought. 1951] Livestock Earnings on North-Central Illinois Farms 273 4-L13). On the 60 farms with the least, the value was only $1.41. The average for all farms was $4.55 (Table 4-A13) . As a group, those farmers who kept their purchases down to the minimum of necessary breeding stock kept their hogs more healthy (as shown by more pigs weaned per litter and smaller death losses after weaning) and so obtained greater profits from the hog enterprise. It must be remembered, however, that a few farmers who made relatively large purchases of feeder pigs did get into the more profitable group. See Fig. 5 and Table 4, row L and column 13. For frequency distribution see Table 5. Marketing at medium weights more profitable than at heavy or light weights. The average weight of all hogs sold during the ten years was 242 pounds per pig weaned (see page 314 for an explanation of how this figure is derived). The average market weight per hog marketed (not including breeding stock) was estimated to be about 220 pounds. On 11 farms the average weight of the hogs sold was less than 200 pounds per pig weaned, and on 8 farms was more than 300 pounds. Sixty farmers marketed hogs at 277 pounds per pig weaned, which would be about 250 pounds per hog marketed; these farmers realized only $147 per $100's worth of feed fed. Sixty other farmers marketed their hogs at 210 pounds per pig weaned, or about 190 pounds per hog marketed; they realized $150 per $100's worth of feed fed. But the 80 farmers who marketed at medium weights, sold them weighing 239 pounds per pig weaned, or about 220 pounds per hog marketed, and realized $155 per $100's worth of feed fed. Hog production was highest on the farms where hogs were sold at medium weights and lowest on the farms where they were sold at light weights. Farmers who sold medium-weight hogs required the least feed to produce 100 pounds of hogs and those who sold heavy hogs required the most. Heavy death losses on farms where light- weight hogs were sold appear to have contributed largely to the greater input of feed on them; this suggests that some farmers may have sold at light weights to avoid further losses after disease had appeared in the herds. See Fig. 5 and Table 4, row M and column 14. Frequency distribution is shown in Table 5. Best farmers did a good job of adjusting to prospective corn-hog ratios. Some farmers were much more successful than others in ad- justing the number of hogs raised to the prospective profitableness of 274 Bulletin No. 548 [December, hog production. The 60 farmers who succeeded best in increasing hog production in years when corn-hog ratios were favorable to hogs and decreasing production during years of unfavorable ratios realized a ten-year average of $8 more per $100's worth of feed fed than the 60 farmers who were least successful in making such adjustments. The 60 farmers who maintained the highest average weighted corn- hog ratios increased total production during favorable hog years or reduced it during unfavorable years six of the nine years after the first year of 1936 and held production nearly level the other three years (Fig. 6). On the other hand, the 60 farmers whose corn-hog ratios were lowest increased production during unfavorable years five of the nine years and held it about level the other four years. On the 60 highest-ratio farms the average weighted corn-hog ratio was 14.47 as compared with an average of 14.05 on the 60 farms having the lowest ratios. See Fig. 5 and Table 4 ; row N and column 15. For frequency distribution see Table 5. 19 - 18 - 17 < 16 tr o S'9 14 o 13 < a. hi 5«2 AVERAGE CORN-HOG RATIO HOG PRODUCTION ON 60 FARMS WITH LOW RATIOS HOG PRODUCTION ON 60 FARMS WITH HIGH RATIOS 65,000 60.000 55,000 ^ o o 50,000 J 45,000 O x u- 40,000 ° en o z 3 O 0. 35,000 30,000 25,000 20.000 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 The 60 farms with high corn-hog ratios during the period tended to raise or lower production as the ratio varied. On the other hand, the 60 farms with low ratios increased production each year, regardless of the profitableness of the increase. (Fig. 6) 1951] Livestock Earnings on North-Central Illinois Farms 275 RETURNS PER $IOO'S WORTH OF FEED FED TO HOGS 20 40 60 80 100 120 130 140 150 160 170 1 1 1 1 1 II THREE NORTHERN COUNTIES 30 FARMS 1 1 1 |"j$6 • 1 SIX MIDDLE COUNTIES 66 FARMS Ftgij 1 i$3 HI _i EIGHT SOUTHERN COUNTIES 104 FARMS • Greater use of pasture in the southern counties contributed to the higher returns on feed fed to hogs in those counties. (Fig. 7) Returns were higher in the southern counties of the area. The returns per $100's worth of feed fed to hogs increased from $147 on 30 farms in three northern counties 1 (Kendall, DeKalb, and Lee) to $150 on 66 farms in six middle counties (Grundy, LaSalle, Marshall, Put- nam, Bureau, and Henry) and further to $153 on 104 farms in eight southern counties (Ford, Livingston, McLean, Woodford, Tazewell, Peoria, Stark, and Knox). The increase in returns per $100's worth of feed fed as one moves from north to south is evidently due to lower feed costs. 2 The only very obvious reason for the smaller feed requirements in the southern counties is the much greater amount of pasture and the smaller amount of grain fed to the hogs grown there. The records show that 60 percent more pasture was fed in the southern counties than in the northern counties. This again illustrates the value of raising hogs on good pasture. The data oppose the idea expressed by some that the difference in feed requirements was due to the use of more one-litter systems in the northern counties. When the farms were divided into subgroups ac- cording to the use of one-litter, two-litter, or three-litter systems, the same relationship of returns per $100 's worth of feed fed and location from north to south was found for each litter system used. See Fig. 7 and Table 4, row P and columns 16, 17, and 18. For frequency distribution see Table 5. 1 The terms northern, middle, and southern are used for convenience and are not to be interpreted literally. Actually the divisions correspond roughly with isothermal lines during the growing season, which in this area tend to run from northwest to southeast. 2 The decreasing amounts of feed required to produce hogs on record- keeping farms as one goes from north to south in the corn belt has been noted in annual reports of farm-management associations in Minnesota, Iowa, and Illinois for many years. 276 Bulletin No. 548 [December, Size of enterprise had little effect on efficiency. On the 60 farms with the most hogs, an average of 73,500 pounds annually was pro- duced, as compared with only 17,400 pounds on the 60 farms with fewest hogs. But the average difference in returns per $100's worth of feed fed was only $2 in favor of the 60 farms with the large volume of production. Earnings per farm, however, were much higher on the farms with large enterprises. The 60 farmers who raised the most hogs had net farm earnings of $25 more per $100 charged for the use of land, labor, and capital than the 60 farmers who had only a small volume of hog production (Table 4-Q21). Efficiency of production, however, influenced net farm earnings even more than volume of production. The 60 farmers most efficient in hog production had returns of $35 more per $100 charged for the use of land, labor, and capital than the 60 least efficient farmers (Table 4-A21) ; this is $10 more than the difference due to volume of production. See Fig. 5 and Table 4, row Q and column 19. The frequency dis- tribution on the basis of size of business is given in Table 5. Hogs did better on some soils than on others. Fifty-two farms were on soils with productivity ratings of 1.0 to 1.9; these were the more productive, relatively level soils with permeable subsoils. On 102 farms the soils rated from 2.0 to 2.9; these soils were either a little more rolling than the first group, had a little of the less-productive timber or sandy land, or had small areas of land with impermeable subsoils. Farms with soils rating 3.0 or more were subdivided into two groups: (1) 24 farms that had permeable subsoils but which were rated low in productivity because of rolling timberland or sandy soils, and (2) 22 farms that were on dark prairie soils underlain with more or less impermeable subsoils (Table 4, row R, Table 5, and Fig. 8) . Returns per $100's worth of feed fed were not as great on the 22 farms having impermeable subsoils as on the farms in the other groups. Farmers on the more rolling or sandy soil types did a little better with hogs than those whose farms were on the more highly productive but more level soils, some of which did not have the best drainage. The lower returns on the 22 farms with the impermeable subsoils than on the farms on rolling and sandy soils appear to have been due to a greater death loss and to slower gains, both of which indicate lack of thrift. The slower gains are indicated by the lighter selling weights of hogs that required the same amount of feed per 100 pounds of final weight and by the larger proportion of hogs on hand January 1. The fact that only about half as many hogs were raised per farm on these 1951] Livestock Earnings on North-Central Illinois Farms 277 RETURNS PER $IOO'S WORTH OF FEED FED TO HOGS 20 40 60 80 100 120 130 140 150 160 170 1 1 1 1 1 III 52 FARMS WITH SOILS OF 1.0 TO 1.9 PRODUCTIVITY RATING 1 1 1 |;$i 102 FARMS WITH SOILS OF 2.0 TO 2.9 PRODUCTIVITY RATING | i$2 24 FARMS WITH SOILS OF 3.0+ PRODUCTIVITY RATING, TIMBER AND SANDY SOILS 22 FARMS WITH SOILS OF 3.0+ PRODUCTIVITY RATING, TIGHT SUBSOILS !$7 Except where there was a tight subsoil, type of soil seemed to have little relation to returns on feed fed to hogs. (Fig- 8) 22 farms as on the rolling and sandy soils may indicate that hog pro- duction is not as profitable on land with an impermeable subsoil. The differences in profitableness of hogs on different soil types were not great, however, and several of the most profitable hog enter- prises were found on level farms with impermeable subsoils. Since 14 of the 22 farms that had impermeable subsoils were in the eight southern counties, where returns are usually higher, and only one in the three northern counties, one would expect that returns for feed fed to hogs would be above average on these farms with impermeable subsoils rather than below average. Highest earnings associated with all-round efficient work. Eight of the factors that have been discussed in the preceding pages were considered to be the most important of the factors that affect the effi- ciency of the hog enterprise. These were: number of pigs weaned per litter, death loss after weaning, amount of protein concentrates fed, amount of pasture used, time of marketing, adjustment to prospective corn-hog ratio, litter system, and weight at marketing. The 200 farmers were divided into groups according to the number of these factors in which they were better than average. Thus a farmer was considered to be better than average in all eight factors if he: — weaned more pigs per litter than the average — had a smaller death loss after weaning than average — fed more protein concentrates per 100 pounds of grain — used more pasture per 100 pounds of grain — marketed early — had a better-than-average corn-hog ratio — used a two-litter system — sold his pigs at a medium weight 278 Bulletin No. 548 [December, RETURNS PER $IOO'S WORTH OF FEED FED TO HOGS 20 40 60 80 100 120 130 140 150 160 170 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 HOG ENTERPRISES ABOVE AVERAGE IN 7 OR 8 FACTORS 22 FARMS swmmbi^hhbhb HOG ENTERPRISES ABOVE AVERAGE IN 5 OR 6 FACTORS — 68 FARMS 1 $'° ! HOG ENTERPRISES ABOVE AVERAGE IN 3 OR 4 FACTORS 83 FARMS $22 1 HOG ENTERPRISES ABOVE AVERAGE IN 1 OR 2 FACTORS 27 FARMS $28 ; Eight efficiency factors were considered to be more important than any of the others for a hog enterprise (see previous page for a list of them). The 200 records were divided on the basis of the number of these factors in which they were above average. (Fig. 9) Twenty-two of the 200 farmers were better than average in seven or eight of these eight factors. Their returns per $100's worth of feed fed to hogs were $169. Twenty-seven were above average in only one or two of these factors; their average returns were only $141. The 200 farms were divided as follows (see also Fig. 9) : Excelled Excelled Excelled Excelled in 1 or 2 in 3 or 4- in 5 or 6 in 7 or 8 factors factors factors factors Number of farms 27 83 68 22 Returns per $100's worth of feed fed to hogs $141 $147 $159 $169 Net earnings per SI 00 charged for land, labor, and capital $143 $151 S172 $171 The net farm earnings per $100 charged for the use of land, labor, and capital increased as the general efficiency of the hog enterprise increased, up to the group that excelled in five or six of these factors. It then dropped off slightly for the 22 farmers who were most efficient in all parts of the hog enterprise. It is possible that some of the farmers having large and very efficient hog enterprises neglected some other important parts of the farm business to care for the hogs, and the farm earnings suffered even though the hog enterprise was excellent. When one good farmer who did excellent work with a medium-sized hog enterprise was asked why he did not raise more hogs, he replied that he had learned that when he tried to raise more hogs, he was inclined to neglect some other important parts of his business. 1951 Livestock Earnings on North-Central Illinois Farms 279 CATTLE ENTERPRISES Thirty-two animal units of cattle (cows or their equivalent in young and feeder cattle) were kept, as an average, on the 271 farms on which records were obtained during the ten years 1936-1945. These included purchased feeder cattle, cows milked, cows not milked, and young animals (Table 6) . Dairy herds of five or more cows per farm were kept on 41 percent of the farms. Only 4.5 percent of the farms averaged twenty or more dairy cows. About half the farmers purchased and fed some cattle during one or more of the years. One animal unit of feeder cattle on the farm for one year represents an average of about two feeder cattle fed during part of the year. On this basis, about 7 percent of the farmers fed at least a hundred head annually during the ten years and 40 percent fed at least twenty head annually. Many fed cattle only a part of the years. Seventy-four farmers (27.3 percent of the 271) annually kept beef- cow herds of five or more cows besides those milked. Only about 5 per- cent of the farmers kept as many as twenty beef cows per farm. On some farms there were a few cows of dairy breeds that were not being milked, but most of the cows were of the three common beef breeds, Hereford, Angus, and Shorthorn. Most farmers having beef cows also had dairy cows or feeder cattle or both during part of the ten years. Table 6. — Number of Different Kinds of Cattle on 271 North-Central Illinois Farms, Average for 1936-1945 (Animal units per farm*) Purchased feeder Average num- "^ ca ^ e cattle Cows not milked Cows milked er per arm XT Accumu- >,- ._ Accumu- tvt„„ Accumu- X t ™ Accumu- 60.0 or more 27 9.9 16 5.8 1 .4 50.0 to 59.9 9 13.2 4 7.3 .4 1 .4 40.0 to 49.9 27 23.2 12 11.7 1 .8 1 .8 30.0 to 39.9 50 41.6 12 16.1 5 2.6 1 1.2 20.0 to 29.9 56 62.3 16 22.0 7 5.2 9 4.5 10.0 to 19.9 65 86.3 48 39.7 27 15.1 40 19.3 5.0 to 9.9 27 96.3 22 47.8 33 27.3 59 41.0 Less than 5. .. . 10 100.0 141 100.0 197 100.0 160 100.0 Total 271 ... 271 ... 271 ... 271 Average number of animal units per farm 32.0 ... 15.0 ... 5.0 ... 6.7 a An animal unit in cattle is one mature cow, or young animals and feeder cattle requiring about the same amount of feed. Two young animals of varying ages or 1,000 pounds of feeder cattle were considered to be one animal unit. 280 Bulletin No. 548 [December, Cattle used 30 percent of the total value of all crop returns, includ- ing pasture and nonfeed crops, on the farms studied (Fig. 2). Of the feed fed to cattle, about 55 percent was used by purchased feeder cattle and by young cattle produced on the farm, 15 percent by beef cows, and 30 percent by dairy cows. Feeder cattle brought returns of $121 per $100's worth of feed fed or slightly more than the $118 necessary to pay all costs. Dairy cattle brought returns about equal to all cost items. Necessary returns have not been calculated for dual-purpose herds and beef-cow herds, but both types of herds probably brought about the necessary returns. Although the cattle enterprises paid little or no profit above all costs, farms with cattle were better off than those without because the cattle paid the market price for legume and grass hay and pasture. This hay and pasture, needed for a sound soil-conservation program on the farms, would not have brought a cash return or perhaps would not have been grown if there had not been cattle on the farms. Also, the cattle produced much manure, a valuable fertilizer which brings a cumulative gain over a period of years. The cattle also made use of family and hired labor that would otherwise have been idle and with- out cash return. A well-balanced farm program requires that good use be made of available labor. Feeder Cattle The study of feeder-cattle enterprises is not reported in detail in this bulletin. Another study is being made that will analyze the reasons for high and low returns from feeder cattle. The feeding of purchased feeder cattle was a major enterprise throughout the ten years on about a fifth of the 271 farms studied. It was of some importance for at least part of that time on about as many more farms (Table 6) . A comparison of different crop and livestock systems on 164 com- parable farms among the 271 farms studied showed that when both current earnings and the increase in capital value of the land are con- sidered, 26 livestock farms on which feeder cattle formed the major enterprise were the most profitable. According to cost-of-production studies made in east-central Illi- nois, feeder cattle brought the market value for all feed including hay and pasture, the customary charges for all hired, operator, and family labor, expenses for veterinary and use of equipment, and other miscel- laneous costs during the ten years of the study. The average returns 1951] Livestock Earnings on North-Central Illinois Farms 281 necessary to pay all costs during the ten years were $118 per $100's worth of feed fed (Table 3). Average returns for the 40 feeder-cattle farms in this study were $121. About 80 to 100 feeder cattle were fed during each of the ten years on 40 farms. About 40,000 pounds of cattle were produced per farm per year (Table 7). Average amounts of feed required for each 100 pounds of gain were : grain, 634 pounds; protein and mineral supplement, 57 pounds; hay, 250 pounds; corn silage, 363 pounds; other silage (sorgo or grass), 11 pounds; and pasture, 9.7 pasture days. Total average feed cost was $13.31 per 100 pounds produced. The average selling price of feeder cattle was $12.21 per 100 Table 7. — Average Annual Production Records of 100 North-Central Illinois Cattle Herds: Dairy, Dual-Purpose, Beef-Cow, and Feeder-Cattle Herds (Based on records during some of the years 1936-1945) Item Dairy herds Dual- purpose cattle herds Beef- cow herds Feeder- cattle herds Number of farms Number of animal units in herd* Number of cows in herd Number of cows milked Percent of cattle units milked. . . 40 20.1 14.4 12.6 62.7 Total value of feed fed Returns per SlOO's worth of feed fed Total milk produced, pounds Total weight of animal produced, pounds. . Milk produced per cow milked Weight of animal produced per cow in herd. SI 447 S 179 98 090 6 245 7 785 434 Price received per 100 pounds of milk produced. . Price received per 100 pounds of cattle sold Price paid for cattle bought Spread between purchase and selling price of feeder cattle Death loss, percent of weight produced Feed cost per 100 pounds of beef or 1,000 pounds of milk Amounts of feeds per 100 pounds of beef or 1,000 pounds of milk Grain, pounds Protein concentrates, pounds Total concentrates, pounds Hay, pounds Silage: corn, pounds other, pounds Pasture, days Protein feeds per 100 pounds of total concentrates Pasture days per animal unit Net farm earnings per S100 charged for use of land, labor, and capital b S2.07 S8.70 8.2 S8.97 227 29 256 403 229 16 24.6 11.8 186 20.5 13.5 42.9 SI 254 S 144 49 377 8 114 5 611 601 SI. 81 S9.21 8.0 S9.61 288 15 303 339 115 S154 30.9 5.5 197 S154 14 32.0 19.5 2.9 9.1 735 110 SI S 18 007 14 154 6 209 726 SI . 82 S10.80 S10.84 333 15 348 452 238 6 41.4 4.3 205 40 59.0 3.8 2.9 4.9 541 121 18 565 39 785 S12.21 S10.56 SI. 65 2.5 S13.31 634 57 691 250 363 11 S138 S169 6 One animal unit consisted of one mature cow or its equivalent in young stock or 1,000 pounds live weight of feeder cattle. b This refers to the earnings of the whole farm business and not the cattle enterprise only. 282 Bulletin No. 548 [December. pounds. This spread of $1.65 above the average purchase price of $10.56 more than offset the $1.10 difference between feed cost and selling price. Death loss was 2.5 percent of the total weight produced. Beef-Cow Herds This study showed that beef cows are useful on corn-belt farms. They make good use of large areas of improved nontillable pasture and require little labor. They also make good use of the legumes and grasses needed for soil improvement and erosion control. A better quality of breeding stock than is commonly used, however, is required if beef cows are to make as good use of hay and pasture as other kinds of cattle. Scrub calves raised on high-priced corn-belt land cannot com- pete with Choice calves produced on western ranges. In order to be profitable, beef cows must be of good quality, be kept almost entirely on hay and pasture, and produce calves every year. They may clean up corn in stalk fields, but should be of a quality that will keep in good flesh on pasture and hay alone. Both cows and calves must be kept healthy and in good condition. Nonproducing cows and and cows that do not winter well should be disposed of at once. This study of beef-cow herds is confined to 14 farms where beef cows only were kept all ten years. One or two cows in each herd were milked for home use. The herds averaged 19.5 cows a year. They and Table 8. — BEEF-COW HERDS: Relation of Returns for Feed Fed to Net Farm Earnings and Various Production Factors, 1936-1945 Average of 7 farms Average of 7 farms T . with lowest returns with hiahest returns liem per SlOO's worth per SlOO's worth of feed fed of feed fed Returns per SlOO's worth of feed fed $ 95 $126 Net farm earnings per $100 charged for land, labor, and capital . . $135 $142 Number of cows in herd 19.2 19.9 Percent of cattle units milked 9.1 10. 1 Beef produced per cow in herd, pounds 722 739 Price of beef per 100 pounds sold $10.50 $11.09 Death loss, percent of weight produced 7.7 5.5 Feed cost per 100 pounds of beef or 1,000 pounds of milk $11 .59 $10.09 Amount of feed per 100 pounds of beef or 1,000 pounds of milk Grain, pounds 346 320 Protein concentrates, pounds 12 18 Total concentrates, pounds 358 338 Hay, pounds 511 392 Silage: corn, pounds 276 201 other, pounds 7 5 Pasture, days 43.2 39.6 Pounds of protein concentrates per 100 pounds of concentrates 3.4 5.2 Pasture days per animal unit 208 202 1951] Livestock Earnings on North-Central Illinois Farms 283 their calves used feed valued at $1,735 a farm annually (Table 7). About 80 percent of their feed was hay and pasture. The 14 beef-cow herds made profitable use of much legume hay and pasture needed for soil improvement and erosion control that would otherwise not have been fed. But that other classes of livestock might have made better use of the hay and pasture is indicated by the fact that farm earnings were relatively low on all 14 farms where beef-cow herds were the only cattle kept. Average net farm earnings of $138 per $100 charged for the use of land, labor, and capital on the 14 farms with beef-cow herds were $20 below the average of 240 of the ten- year farms used in this study (31 nontypical farms are not included in this average) . None of the 14 farms were among the upper 72 (30 per- cent) of the 240 farms when rated according to net farm earnings, 6 were among the 96 medium-earning farms, and 8 were among the 72 lowest-earning farms. 1 Returns per $100 , s worth of feed fed averaged $110 for the 14 herds. The 7 herds that brought their owners the highest returns averaged $126, while 7 others brought only $95 (Table 8) . No records are avail- able that show the necessary returns per $100's worth of feed fed to beef-cow herds. The 7 most profitable herds had higher net farm earnings than the 7 least profitable herds, but even the most profitable herds had net farm earnings well below the average of all 240 farms. The 7 farmers whose beef-cow herds brought the highest returns produced a little more beef per cow than the 7 with lowest returns; they sold cattle for 59 cents more per 100 pounds; they had a smaller death loss, about 70 percent as much; they used $1.50 less feed to produce 100 pounds of cattle; they fed less total concentrates per 100 pounds of cattle produced; and they fed 50 percent more protein con- centrates per 100 pounds of concentrates (Table 8) . 1 Farmers who kept beef-cow herds and bought additional feeder cattle had more profitable farms than those who depended on either beef-cow herds or feeder cattle alone. Twenty-five farmers who kept beef-cow herds during part of the ten years and bought additional feeder cattle earned an average of $172 per $100 charged for land, labor, and capital. This was $14 more than the average of all 240 farms. It was $3 more than the average of the 40 farms on which only feeder cattle were kept. Eleven of the farms where both beef cows and feeder cattle were kept were among the 72 high-earning farms, 9 were among the 96 with medium earnings, and only 5 were among the 72 with low earnings. No special study was made to find out why these farms were so profitable, but the author has observed that a better quality of breeding stock is found on farms where some feeder cattle are bought than on farms where only breeding herds are kept. 284 Bulletin No. 548 [December, More beef produced per cow, the higher the returns on feed. Returns for the 7 herds producing the most beef per cow were $12 more per $100's worth of feed fed than returns for the 7 herds producing the least beef per cow (Table 9). The first group averaged 811 pounds of beef per cow and the second group averaged 650 pounds. The aver- age for all 14 herds was 726 pounds, of which 48 pounds (6.6 percent) was lost by death. The weight of beef produced depended largely on the age and con- dition of the calves when marketed. Most of the group fed the calves on the farm and sold them with more or less finish at 800 to 1,000 pounds. Some sold calves at the end of their first fall as fat calves, and a few sold calves as feeders at varying ages. General quality of calves produced was low. The average price received for all cattle sold from these 14 herds during the ten years 1936-1945 was only $10.80 per 100 pounds. The average price received for all cattle on 40 farms where purchased feeder cattle were fed was $12.21. While the lower price for cattle in the beef-cow herds was in Table 9. — BEEF-COW HERDS: How Various Production Factors Were Related to Returns, 1936-1945 Factor considered £gS£&S Number of cows per herd 7 farms with most cows '. 25.2 cows 7 farms with fewest cows 13.9 cows Difference 11.3 cows Pounds of beef produced per cow 7 farms producing most beef per cow 811 pounds 7 farms producing least beef per cow 650 pounds Difference 161 pounds Death loss, percent of weight produced 7 farms with largest death losses 9.5 percent 7 farms with smallest death losses 3.8 percent Difference 5.7 percent Prices received for beef sold 7 farms receiving highest prices $11 . 78 7 farms receiving lowest prices 9.81 Difference $ 1 . 97 Feed cost per 100 pounds of beef or 1,000 pounds of milk 7 farms with highest feed cost $11 . 67 7 farms with lowest feed cost 10.02 Difference $1.65 Concentrates per 100 pounds of beef or 1,000 pounds of milk 7 farms feeding most concentrates 414 pounds 7 farms feeding least concentrates 281 pounds Difference 133 pounds Feeding of silage 7 farms feeding silage 477 pounds* 7 farms not feeding silage None Difference 477 pounds a 477 pounds of silage fed per 100 pounds of beef produced. Returns per $100's worth of feed fed $107 113 $ 6 $116 104 $ 12 $ 98 123 $ 25 $113 107 $ 6 $101 119 $ 18 $104 117 $ 13 $105 115 $ 10 1951] Livestock Earnings on North-Central Illinois Farms 285 part due to the sale of aged breeding stock, for the most part it was due to the poorer quality of the calves. The 7 herds that sold at the highest average price, $11.78, had an advantage of $6 per $100's worth of feed fed over the 7 herds that sold at the lowest price, $9.81 (Table 9) . Feed costs were about the same on the two groups of farms. Good profits depended on low feed costs. The 7 farmers who had highest returns on their feed produced beef at a feed cost $1.50 less per 100 pounds of cattle produced than the 7 with lowest returns. The 7 who produced beef at the lowest feed cost, $10.02 per 100 pounds, received $18 higher returns per $100's worth of feed fed than the 7 who produced at the highest feed cost, $11.67 per 100 pounds (Table 9). The average for the 14 herds was $10.84 per 100 pounds. This is 4 cents more than was received for each 100 pounds sold. It was the value of the small amount of dairy products and the beef used on the farm that brought total herd returns up to 10 percent above feed costs. Closely related to feed cost is the weight of concentrates fed per 100 pounds of cattle produced. The 7 farmers who fed the most con- centrates per 100 pounds of cattle produced (414 pounds) had an average feed cost of $11.29 per 100 pounds, compared with $10.39 for the 7 who fed the least concentrates (281 pounds) . Returns per $100's worth of feed fed were $13 greater on the 7 farms where the least concentrates were fed. High death losses, low profits. In the 7 herds with the highest returns on feed, the death loss was only 70 percent as great as in the 7 with the lowest returns (Table 8). The death loss amounted to 9.5 percent of the total weight produced on 7 farms and only 3.8 percent on 7 other farms. Returns per $100's worth of feed fed were $25 higher on the farms with the lowest death losses. For all 14 farms the average death loss was 6.6 percent of the weight of the beef produced. Silage feeding not economical. Seven herds that were fed corn silage returned $10 less per $100's worth of feed fed than the 7 herds that were not fed silage. Net farm earnings were $20 lower per $100 charged for use of land, labor, and capital on the 7 farms where silage was fed. The feeding of corn silage on mixed grain and livestock farms in the heart of the corn belt tends to reduce the acreage of legumes and grasses, and this in turn reduces crop yields. It also tends to increase machinery and building costs by duplicating machinery and buildings needed for the harvesting and storing of other crops. 286 Bulletin No. 548 [December, Dual-Purpose Cattle Only 6 of the farms studied had only dual-purpose cattle on them during the ten years 1936-1945. It is obviously not practicable to base general conclusions on the data from these six herds alone. The herds averaged 13.5 cows, of which 8.8 were milked (Table 7). These herds brought an average return of $144 per $100's worth of feed fed, compared with $179 for dairy herds, $110 for beef-cow herds, and $121 for feeder cattle. Returns per $100's worth of feed fed, however, do not indicate the relative profitableness of different live- stock enterprises because of the differences in costs other than feeds, such as labor, equipment, veterinary costs, and other miscellaneous costs. The milk from the dual-purpose herds brought $1.81 per 100 pounds, and the cattle brought $9.21 per 100 pounds. This was 51 cents more than was received for cattle from dairy-cow herds, $1.59 less than from beef-cow herds, and $3.00 less than from feeder cattle. Feed costs for dual-purpose herds were low compared with those for beef-cow or feeder-cattle herds. Profits from dual-purpose herds, however, were low because of low prices for dairy products and low prices for cattle because of the poor quality of the beef. Dual-purpose cattle produce milk and beef at relatively low costs. If one has a good market for milk and has a quality of breeding stock that enables him, by careful feeding, to produce good-quality fat calves for market, he may find dual-purpose cattle profitable. Dairy Cattle The farms included in this study are outside any specialized dairy area, and dairy cattle are only a minor enterprise on most of them. On these farms as a whole, the value of the crop returns fed to dairy cattle came to only about 12 to 15 percent of the total value of all returns. About two-thirds of this value (9 percent of all crop returns) was fed to milk cows and the rest to nonproducing animals, including young dairy stock. The income from dairy products and dairy cattle was, however, a rather important part of the earnings on many farms. On 111 of the 271 farms (Table 6) at least five cows were milked. Small herds like these bring in a regular weekly income that helps to pay family living expenses. Dairy cattle were the only cattle kept on 60 of the farms on which five or more cows were milked each year during the ten years. Forty- 1951] Livestock Earnings on North-Central Illinois Farms 287 four farms had the usual milk and cattle markets; milk or cream was sold at wholesale, and calves and surplus cows were sold for meat. A few calves were sold for breeding purposes and some cows were sold into other dairy herds. Seven farms had special markets for dairy products; some sold bottled milk to residences and restaurants and some had special wholesale markets for high-grade Jersey and Guern- sey milk. Nine farms had purebred herds and sold some breeding stock (Table 10). On the 7 farms that had special milk markets, average returns were $226 per $100's worth of feed fed to the dairy herd, compared with only $178 on the 44 farms having usual milk and cattle markets. The 7 farms with a special market received an average of $3.44 per 100 pounds of milk sold, compared with only $2.11 received by farms Table 10. — DAIRY-CATTLE HERDS: Production Records for Herds With Usual Markets, Herds With Special Milk Markets, and Herds With Special Cattle Markets, 1936-1945 Herds with Herds with Herds with T . usual milk special special ie and cattle milk cattle markets markets* markets b Number of farms 44 7 9 Total animal units in herd 20.9 36.7 24.3 Number of cows in herd 15.1 26.8 15.7 Number of cows milked 13.4 24.9 13.0 Percent of cattle units milked 64 . 1 67 . 9 53 . 5 Returns from dairy products, total value $2 204 $5 778 $2 407 Returns from beef, total value 541 604 1 592 Total returns from cattle, value $2 745 $6 382 $3 999 Total value of feed fed 1536 2 827 2 028 Returns per $100's worth of feed fed 178 226 197 Pounds of milk produced 104 476 168 035 117 463 Pounds of milk produced per cow milked 7 797 6 748 9 036 Pounds of beef produced 6 442 9 288 8 369 Death loss: pounds 528 938 519 percent of total produced 8.2 10.1 6.2 Pounds of animal produced per cow in herd 427 347 533 Price received per 100 pounds of cattle sold $8.66 $7.97 $19.40 Price received per 100 pounds of milk produced $2.11 $3 . 44 $2 . 05 Feed cost per 100 pounds of milk or 10 pounds of cattle $ .91 $1 .08 $1 .00 Percent of income from dairy products 77.8 90.9 60.7 Pounds of protein concentrates per 100 pounds of concentrates 11.5 16.3 17.4 Pounds of milk per pound of concentrates 2.5 2.3 2.0 Amounts of feed per 100 pounds of milk or 10 pounds of beef Grain, pounds 23.2 24.6 25.2 Protein concentrates, pounds 3.0 4.8 5.3 Total concentrates, pounds 26 . 2 29 . 4 30 . 5 Hay, pounds 40.5 37.6 36.8 Silage, pounds 26.9 57.5 39.3 Pasture, days 2.4 2.4 2.2 Pasture days per animal unit 183 168 176 Net farm earnings per $100 charged for use of land, labor, and capital $152 $153 $157 a Some sold bottled milk and some had wholesale markets for high-grade Jersey or Guernsey milk. b Purebred herds from which breeding stock was sold. 288 Bulletin No. 548 [December, with usual markets. Net farm earnings, however, were about the same on the two groups of farms. The extra cost of labor and additional equipment needed to supply the special markets apparently offset the higher price received for dairy products. On farms where the extra work is done with family labor that would not otherwise be profitably employed, producing milk for a special market may be profitable. For the 9 farms with special cattle markets, returns were $19 more per $100's worth of feed fed than for the 44 with usual cattle and milk markets. Those with special cattle markets also had slightly higher net farm earnings. Part of this advantage, however, was due to the unusually good market for breeding stock during the period 1936-1945, as indicated by an average selling price of $19.40 per 100 pounds for all cattle sold during the period. For the 44 farms with usual markets, the average selling price was only $8.66 per 100 pounds. For 3 of the 9 farms with special cattle markets, the average price was between $25 and $30. This study, however, is concerned mainly with the farms with usual cattle and milk markets. Why did some of them show better returns than others? To find the answer, 40 of the 44 farms with usual markets were studied in detail (on 4 farms the dairy enterprise was not typical of the area). On these 40 farms an average of $l,450's worth of feed was fed each year to dairy cattle. On 20 of the farms, returns averaged $201 per $100's worth of feed fed and on twenty others only $157. This difference of $44 amounts to about $640 a year for the average amount of feed fed. The average for the 40 farms was $179, which was equal to the necessary returns to break even (Table 3, page 262). The group with the more profitable dairy herds had net farm earn- ings of about $1,500 a year more than the other group. This shows that the farmers who handled their dairy cattle efficiently handled their farms more successfully in other ways too. The farmers whose herds made the best returns produced milk and milk equivalent in weight of animal for 14 cents less per 100 pounds of milk than those with the lowest returns. The high-return farmers fed less concentrates, hay, silage, and pasture for each 100 pounds of milk or 10 pounds of animal weight produced. They fed more protein feeds per 100 pounds of concentrates. They fed more pasture per animal unit. They had slightly larger herds. Their herds produced about 1,100 pounds more milk per cow. 1951] Livestock Earnings on North-Central Illinois Farms 289 They received 20 cents (10 'percent) more per 100 pounds of milk produced. They produced a little more live weight of animal per cow in the herd. They received 57 cents (6 percent) less per 100 pounds of cattle produced. Their death losses were 20 percent less. They milked about 3 percent more of the cattle units in the herd. The high-return farmers had about 20 percent higher net farm earnings per $100 charged for the use of land, labor, and capital. Each of these distinctions is discussed in some detail in the follow- ing pages. The relation of each of several factors of dairy production to each other is shown in Fig. 10 and Table 11. Distribution of the 40 farms according to returns on feed fed and each of several factors that affected returns is shown in Table 12. Feed cost and profits. As expected, the 20 farmers having the low- est feed costs per 100 pounds of milk or 10 pounds of animal weight had the highest average returns per $100's worth of feed fed (Fig. 10 and Table 11-B1). The 20 farmers having lowest feed costs had returns of $194, and the 20 with highest feed costs, $163. This difference of $31 would amount to about $450 annually for the average amount of feed fed ($1,450). Fifteen of the 20 farmers having the lowest feed costs were in the group of 20 farmers having the highest returns per $100's worth of feed fed (Table 12). Only 5 of the 20 having the highest feed costs were in this group. The relation of feed cost to other factors is shown in row B and column 2 of Table 11 and in Fig. 10. Light grain rations, higher returns. On the 20 farms feeding the least concentrates per 100 pounds of milk or 10 pounds of animal weight, average returns were $191 per $100's worth of feed fed. On the 20 farms feeding the most concentrates, returns were only $167. For the average amount of feed fed, the difference of $24 would amount to about $350 annually. However, the difference between the two groups in net earnings per $100 charged for land, labor, and capital was only $6. Applied to the average charge, this meant an annual difference of only $330. Thus while cheapening the dairy ration by feeding less grain may have led to higher returns above feed costs, net farm earnings were not increased accordingly, probably because of a decrease in the amount of milk produced. 290 Bulletin Xo. 548 [December. Table 11. — Relation of Different Factors of Dairy Production to Returns for Fe< Fed, to Net Farm Earnings, and to Each Other Returns per 1100's worth of feed fed 1 Feed cost per 100 - lb. milk pro- duced" Amounts of feed fed per 100 pounds of milk produced" Pounds of protein concen- trates fed per 100 lb. of concen- trates' 3 Paatv dayi per anim \:nit Pounds of total concen- trates Pounds of hay Pounds of silage Pasture days 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 $.90 25.6 40.3 24.5 2.50 11.8 186 .83 .97 -.14 23.5 27.7 -4.2 37.0 43.6 -6.6 20.6 28.5 -7.9 2.37 2.55 -.18 12.5 11.1 1.4 190 181 8 $.81 .99 -.18 22.7 28.5 -5.8 37.5 43.1 -5.6 20.1 29.1 -9.0 2.31 2.61 -.30 13.1 10.5 2.6 188 184 4 $.83 .96 -.13 20.7 30.5 -9.8 41.0 39.6 1.4 24.8 24.3 .5 2.36 2.57 -.21 14.0 9.7 4.3 187 185 2 $.87 .93 -.06 23.6 27.6 -4.0 39.4 41.3 -1.9 30.0 19.2 10.8 2.14 2.78 -.64 16.1 7.5 8.6 180 192 -12 $.85 .94 -.09 24.4 26.8 -2.4 39.9 40.8 -.9 7.7 6.9 .8 2.7 2.2 .5 10.5 13.1 -2.6 203 169 34 $.86 .94 -.08 25.8 24.5 1.3 42.5 34.7 7.8 .0 71.9 -71.9 2.70 2.06 .64 10.0 14.3 -4.3 196 166 30 $.90 .89 .01 24.4 26.8 -2.4 37.6 43.1 -5.5 48.3 7.8 40.5 2.13 2.80 -.67 14.4 9.2 5.2 176 196 -20 $.87 .93 -.06 24.0 27.2 -3.2 38.0 42.6 -4.6 35.1 14.9 20.2 2.06 2.86 -.80 14.7 9.0 5.7 178 194 -16 $.94 .86 .08 27.5 23.7 3.8 38.3 42.3 -4.0 31.9 17.3 14.6 2.48 2.44 .04 10.9 12.7 -1.8 182 189 $.91 .88 .03 25.8 25.5 .3 40.8 39.9 .9 32.8 16.4 16.4 2.55 2.37 .18 10.3 13.3 -3.0 187 -3 $.89 .90 -.01 25.8 25.4 .4 37.0 43.6 -6.6 34.5 14.7 19.8 2.40 2.53 -.13 11.5 12.1 -.6 182 190 -8 $.84 .96 -.12 23.6 27.6 -4.0 38.2 42.5 -4.3 20.4 28.7 -8.3 2.45 2.48 -.03 12.3 11.3 1.0 189 183 6 $.87 .92 -.05 25.0 26.2 -1.2 39.1 41.6 -2.5 26.3 27.3 -1.0 2.40 2.52 -.12 9.9 13.7 -3.8 187 185 A. Returns per SlOO's worth of feed fed Average of all 40 farms $179 20 farms with highest returns 201 20 farms with lowest returns 157 Differences: 20 highest — 20 lowest 44 B. Feed cost per 100 lb. milk produced" 20 farms with lowest cost $194 20 farms with highest cost 163 Differences: 20 lowest — 20 highest 31 C. Concentrates fed per 100 lb. milk produced" 20 farms feeding least concentrates $191 20 farms feeding most concentrates 167 Differences: 20 least — 20 most 24 D. Protein concentrates fed per 100 lb. concentrates 15 20 farms feeding most $188 20 farms feeding least 170 Differences: 20 most - 20 least 18 E. Pasture days per animal unit 20 farms using most pasture $183 20 farms using least pasture 175 Differences: 20 most — 20 least 8 F. Feeding of silage 22 farms feeding no silage $181 13 farms feeding silage 180 Differences: 22 no silage — 13 silage 1 G. Number of cows milked per farm 20 farms milking most cows $183 20 farms milking fewest cows 174 Differences: 20 most — 20 fewest 9 H. Pounds of milk produced per cow milked 20 farms with highest-producing cows $191 20 farms with lowest-producing cows 167 Differences: 20 highest - 20 lowest 24 J. Price received per 100 lb. of milk produced 20 farms receiving highest prices $184 20 farms receiving lowest prices 174 Differences: 20 highest — 20 lowest 10 K. Pounds of animal produced per cow in herd 20 farms producing least $182 20 farms producing most 176 Differences: 20 least — 20 most 6 L. Price received per 100 lb. of animals sold 20 farms receiving lowest prices $188 20 farms receiving highest prices 169 Differences: 20 lowest — 20 highest 19 M. Percent of weight produced that died 20 farms losing least $189 20 farms losing most 169 Differences: 20 least - 20 most 20 N. Percent of cattle units milked 20 farms milking largest percent $186 20 farms milking smallest percent 172 Differences: 20 largest — 20 smallest 14 Or the equivalent in live weight of animal. Includes high-protein concentrates, commercial and mixed feeds, minerals, and salt. 1951] Livestock Earnings on North-Central Illinois Farms 291 'able 11. — Relation of Different Factors of Dairy Production to Returns for Feed Fed, to Net Farm Earnings, and to Each Other (Concluded) Number of cows milked per farm Pounds of milk produced per cow milked 10 Price received per 1001b. of milk produced 11 Pounds of animal produced per cow in herd 12 Price received per 100 lb. of sold 13 Per- centage death 14 Net farm earnings Percent of per $100 cattle charged units milked for land, labor, and capital 16 Returns per $100's worth of feed fed Average of all 40 farms 12.6 7,406 20 farms with highest returns 13.1 7,962 20 farms with lowest returns 12.2 6,850 Differences: 20 highest - 20 lowest 9 1,112 Feed cost per 100 lb. milk produced* 20 farms with lowest cost 13.1 8,060 20 farms with highest cost 12. 1 6,760 Differences: 20 lowest - 20 highest .... 1.0 1 ,300 Concentrates fed per 100 lb. milk produced" 20 farms feeding least concentrates 13 .4 7,980 20 farms feeding most concentrates 11.9 6,840 Differences: 20 least - 20 most 1.5 1 , 140 Protein concentrates fed per 100 lb. concentrates' 3 20 farms feeding most 14.8 8,570 20 farms feeding least 10.4 6,240 Differences: 20 most - 20 least 4.4 2,330 Pasture days per animal unit $2.07 2.16 1.96 .20 $2.00 2.14 -.14 $2.03 2.11 -.08 $2.07 2.06 .01 441 449 432 17 461 420 41 455 426 29 475 407 $8.70 8.41 8.98 -.57 $8.71 8.68 .03 $8.72 8.67 .05 $8.77 8.63 .14 8.2 7.3 9.0 -1.7 6.2 10.1 -3.9 9.8 -3.2 6.5 9.8 -3.3 62.9 64.4 61.3 3.1 63.9 61.8 2.1 62.5 63.2 -.7 61.3 64.5 -3.2 $154 167 140 27 $162 145 17 $157 151 $158 149 1 20 farms using most pasture 10.0 15.2 -5.2 7,000 7,820 -820 $2.01 2.12 -.11 450 431 19 $8.81 8.59 .22 7.2 9.1 -1.9 63.9 61.8 2.1 $157 151 Differences: 20 most — 20 least 6 . Feeding of silage 22 farms feeding no silage 8.5 19.5 -11.0 6,900 8,280 -1,380 $2.02 2.14 -.12 439 426 13 $8.83 8.33 .50 7.6 8.8 -1.2 62.5 62.8 -.3 $155 149 Differences: 22 no silage — 13 silage. . . - 6 . Number of cows milked per farm 20 farms milking most cows 20 farms milking fewest cows Differences: 20 most — 20 fewest 17.8 7.4 10.4 8,408 6,404 2,004 $2.10 2.04 .06 438 444 -6 $8.48 8.91 -.43 8.5 7.8 .7 63.4 62.4 1.0 $155 152 3 . Pounds of milk produced per cow milked 20 farms with highest-producing cows 20 farms with lowest-producing cows Differences: 20 highest — 20 lowest .... 15.7 9.6 6.1 8,690 6,120 2,570 $2.08 2.05 .03 454 428 26 $8.67 8.72 -.05 7.1 9.2 -2.1 63.2 62.5 .7 $160 147 13 . Price received per 100 lb. of milk produced 20 farms receiving highest prices ' 20 farms receiving lowest prices Differences: 20 highest — 20 lowest. . . . 13.2 12.0 1.2 7,230 7,590 -360 $2.28 1.85 .43 412 470 -58 $8.28 9.12 -.84 10.2 6.1 4.1 64.4 61.3 3.1 $158 150 8 Pounds of animal produced per cow in herd 13.7 11.5 2.2 7,100 7,710 -610 $2.09 2.04 .05 371 510 -139 $8.34 9.06 -.72 9.9 6.4 3.5 65.6 60.1 5.5 $155 153 Differences: 20 least — 20 most 2 . Price received per 1001b. of animals sold : is receiving lowest prices 20 farms receiving highest prices Differences: 20 lowest — 20 highest. . . . 15.1 10.1 5.0 7,600 7,210 390 $2.19 1.94 .25 419 462 -43 $8.01 9.39 -1.38 9.3 7.0 2.3 64.6 61.1 3.5 $160 147 13 • Percent of weight produced that died 20 farms losing least 12 2 13.0 -.8 7,650 7,160 490 $2.00 2.13 -.13 461 421 40 $8.90 8.49 .41 4.7 11.7 -7.0 61.7 64.0 -2.3 $163 20 farms losing most Differences: 20 least — 20 most 145 18 Percent of cattle units milked 12.6 12.6 7,360 7,450 -90 $2.04 2.09 -.05 410 4 72 -62 $8.65 8.75 -.10 8.7 7.6 1.1 67.6 58.1 9.5 $157 20 farms milking smallest percent Differences: 20 largest - 20 smallest. . . 151 6 * Or the equivalent in live weight of animal. b Includes high-protein concentrates, commercial ai id mixed feeds , minerals, and salt. 292 Bulletin No. 548 [December, Of the 20 farms having the highest returns for feed fed, 14 were from the group feeding the least concentrates and 6 from the group feeding the most (Table 12) . See also Fig. 10 and row C and column 3 of Table 11. Heavier feeding of protein concentrates gave more profit. The 20 farmers who fed the most purchased protein feeds per 100 pounds of concentrates had average returns of $188 per $100's worth of feed fed, while the 20 farmers feeding the least had returns of only $170. The difference would amount to about $260 per herd annually for the average amount of feed fed. This difference in added return could not be expected if the basic rations already supplied sufficient protein to meet the optimum needs of the animals for that nutrient. Thirteen of the 20 farms having the highest returns were from the group feeding the most protein concentrates; only 7 were from the group feeding the least protein (Table 12) . See also Fig. 10 and row D and column 7 of Table 11 for the relations between the factors. Liberal use of pasture profitable. The 20 farmers who fed the most pasture per animal unit in the dairy herd received average returns of $183 per $100's worth of the feed they fed to their dairy cattle. The 20 feeding the least pasture had returns of $175 (Fig. 10 and Table 11-E1). For an average-sized herd this difference of $8 would amount to about $120 annually, but the increased farm earnings on the farms feeding the most pasture amounted to about $330, almost three times as much. The importance of the liberal use of pasture is shown by the fact that the 20 farmers feeding the most pasture had higher returns for feed fed and higher earnings on their land, labor, and capital even though they had smaller herds, produced less milk per cow, received a lower price for their milk, and fed less protein concentrates than those using little pasture. Usually smaller herds, lower production, lower price, and less protein concentrates meant lower returns and lower earnings. Liberal use of pasture reversed this situation (row E and column 8 of Table 11). Twelve of the 20 farms using the most pasture were among the 20 farms having the highest returns per $100's worth of feed fed to dairy cattle (Table 12). Farm earnings higher where no corn silage was fed. Even though corn silage is a good feed, it is a relatively expensive feed in the heart of the corn belt, where grain production is the major enterprise and where the large acreages of legumes and grasses that should be grown 1951] Livestock Earnings on North-Central Illinois Farms 293 for soil improvement and erosion control provide a surplus of rough- age. Returns per $100's worth of feed fed averaged about the same on 13 farms where some silage was fed throughout the ten years and on 22 farms where no silage was fed during the ten years (5 others fed silage only part of the time) . But net farm earnings were appreciably higher on the farms that did not feed silage. This difference in net farm earnings was due, in part at least, to two things: grain yields were higher on the nonsilage farms because of their larger acreages of legume hay and pasture; on the farms that fed silage, machinery and building costs were higher because of the increased amounts necessary. Table 12. — Distribution of 40 Dairy Cattle Farms According to Returns for Feed Fed and Each of Several Factors That Affect Those Returns Distribution according to returns per SlOO's worth of feed fed Odds of obtaining Factors for which distribution is shown 20 farms with 20 farms with correlation lowest returns highest returns by chance a Feed cost per 100 pounds of milk produced 11 (number of farms) (Table 11-B) 20 farms having highest costs 15 5 Less than 20 farms having lowest costs 5 15 1 in 100 Concentrates fed per 100 pounds of milk produced (Table 11-C) 20 farms feeding most concentrates 14 6 Between 1 20 farms feeding least concentrates 6 14 and 2 in 100 Protein concentrates fed per 100 pounds of concentrates fed (Table 11-D) 20 farms feeding most protein concentrates 7 13 fi in 100 20 farms feeding least protein concentrates 13 7 Pasture days per animal unit (Table 11-E) 20 farms feeding most pasture 8 12 20 farms feeding least pasture 12 8 20 in 100 20 in 100 6 in 100 20 in 100 Number of cows milked per farm (Table 11-G) 20 farms milking most cows 8 12 20 farms milking least cows 12 8 Milk production per cow (Table 11-H) 20 farms having highest producing cows 7 13 fi 'n 100 20 farms having lowest producing cows 13 7 1 Prices received for milk (Table 11-J) 20 farms receiving highest prices 7 13 20 farms receiving lowest prices 13 7 Percent of weight produced that died (Table 11-M) 20 farms having largest death losses 12 8 20 farms having smallest death losses 8 12 Percent of dairy cattle units that were cows milked (Table 11-N) 20 farms milking largest percentage 8 12 90 "n 1fin 20 farms milking smallest percentage 12 8 u ' uu a The cross-tabulation analysis in Table 11 measures gross rather than net relationships between the variables in the table. This is a simple method of analysis which is open to criticism because, as in many farm-management analyses, the large number of closely related variables makes it difficult to test their individual significance in a precise way. However, when the probability of a result being due purely to chance is less than 5 in 100, as shown in this column, the result is called "significant," and the factor is one which farmers should consider in analyzing their farming operations. A probability larger than 5 in 100 does not, however, prove that some of the other relationships shown are of no significance. b Or the equivalent in live weight of animal. 294 Bulletin No. 548 [December, How the feeding of corn silage relates to other factors that affect returns on feed fed is shown in row F and column 5 of Table 11 and in Fig. 10. Large herds had higher returns on feed. The 20 farmers having the largest herds (averaging 17.8 cows) had a return of $9 more for each $100's worth of feed fed than the 20 having the smallest herds (averaging 7.4 cows). Of the 20 farmers having the highest returns. 12 were from the group milking the most cows and 8 from the group milking the fewest cows. See Fig. 10, row G and column 9 of Table 11. and Table 12. High milk production and profits. On the 20 farms with the highest-producing cows (8,690 pounds per cow) returns were $191 per $100's worth of feed fed; on the 20 farms with the lowest production (6,120 pounds per cow) returns were only $167 (Fig. 10 and Table 11-H1). For the average amount of feed fed on these farms, the difference of $24 amounts to about $350 a year, or $3,500 for the ten years of the study. The 20 farmers with the high-producing cows had $13 higher net farm earnings per $100 charged for land, labor, and capital, or about $700 per farm annually, than the 20 farmers with low-producing herds. Farmers who develop high-producing herds tend to be more efficient with other parts of the farm business also. Thirteen of the farmers having high-producing cows were among the 20 farmers with highest returns on feed fed (Table 12) . The rela- tion of milk production per cow to other factors that affect returns on feed fed is shown in row H and column 10 of Table 11. Prices and profits. An average price of $2.28 per 100 pounds of milk produced was obtained on the 20 farms receiving the highest prices and only $1.85 on the 20 farms receiving the lowest prices. The difference of 43 cents would amount to about $420 annually, on the basis of the 98,000 pounds produced annually by the average herd. Returns per $100's worth of feed fed, however, were only $10 higher on the 20 farms where the highest prices for dairy products were re- ceived. This relatively small difference is due in part at least to the higher feed costs and higher death losses on the farms with the highest prices. The data do not show why death losses and feed costs were high on these farms. Part of the difference in prices received was due, in the author's opinion, to the fact that the 20 farms that got the best prices for their dairy products had cattle that produced milk with a higher butterfat content. The lower production of milk and of animal weight per cow 1951] Livestock Earnings on North-Central Illinois Farms 295 on the farms receiving the best prices and the higher feed costs per 100 pounds of milk or 10 pounds of animal weight on these farms, bear out this contention. Of the 20 farmers who had the highest returns per $100's worth of feed fed, 13 were from the group receiving the highest price for milk and 7 from the group receiving the lowest price. For relation of prices received to other factors affecting returns, see row J and column 11 of Table 11. Production of meat by dairy herds not profitable. The 20 dairy herds that produced the most animal weight per cow in the herd, 510 pounds, had $6 lower returns per $100's worth of feed fed than the 20 herds that produced the least, 371 pounds (Fig. 10 and Table 11-K1). In the 20 herds that produced the most animal weight, fewer cows were milked in proportion to the size of the herd. That beef-producing dairy herds were not profitable is again shown in Fig. 10 and Table 11 -LI. The 20 farmers who sold beef for the highest average prices received $19 less per $100's worth of feed fed than the 20 who sold for the lowest prices. The lower prices for dairy products on the farms where the highest prices were received for beef appear to have more than balanced any advantage due to higher beef prices (Table 11, rows K and L and columns 12 and 13) . High death losses, lower returns. Twenty herds lost 11.7 percent of their total weight of cattle produced, and 20 others lost only 4.7 percent. The average for the 40 herds was 8.2 percent. The 20 herds with a low death rate brought $20 more per $100's worth of feed fed than the 20 with a high death rate. Assuming an aver- age amount of feed fed, this difference would account for an annual difference in feed returns of about $300. Net earnings per farm were about $1,000 more for the farms with low death losses, indicating that the farmers who had high death losses in their herds also had other large losses in their farm businesses. Twelve of the 20 farms with low death losses were among the 20 farms with highest returns. See row M and column 14 of Table 11 for the relation between death losses and other factors that affect the returns for feed fed. Nonproducing dairy cattle meant lower profits. The 20 farmers milking the largest percentage of their dairy-cattle units (67.6 percent compared with 58.1 percent for the 20 with the smallest percentage) received an average of $14 more per $100's worth of feed fed (Fig. 10 and Table 11-N1). While the number of cows milked was the same on the two groups of farms (12.6 per farm), the farmers milking the 296 Bulletin No. 548 {.December, RETURNS PER $100'S WORTH OF FEED FED TO DAIRY CATTLE 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 RETURNS PER $100'S WORTH OF FEED FED HIGHEST RETURNS — 20 FARMS AVERAGE RETURNS FOR ALL 40 FARMS LOWEST RETURNS — 20 FARMS FEED COST PER 100 POUNDS OF MILK LOWEST FEED COST— 81 i AVERAGE FOR 20 FARMS HIGHEST FEED COST— 99 t AVERAGE FOR 20 FARMS S3 LEAST CONCENTRATES FED — 20.7 POUNDS AVERAGE FOR 20 FARMS CONCENTRATES FED PER 100 POUNDS MOST CONCENTRATES FED — 30.5 POUNDS AVERAGE FOR 20 FA RMS OF MILK WfBSM ""$24 PROTEIN FEED PER 100 POUNDS OF CONCENTRATES MOST PROTEIN FEEDS — 16.1 POUNDS AVERAGE FOR 20 FARMS LEAST PROTEIN FEEDS — 7.5 POUNDS AVERAGE FOR 20 FARMS PASTURE DAYS PER ANIMAL UNIT MOST PASTURE — 203 DAYS AVERAGE FOR 20 FARMS LEAST PASTURE— 169 DAYS AVERAGE FOR 20 FARMS FEEDING OF SILAGE DID NOT FEED SILAGE— 22 FARMS FED SILAGE — 13 FARMS NUMBER OF COWS MILKED MOST COWS MILKED— 17.8 COWS AVERAGE FOR 20 FARMS FEWEST COWS MILKED — 7.4 COWS AVERAGE FOR 20 FARMS MILK PRODUCED PER COW HIGHEST PRODUCTION— 8,690 POUNDS AVERAGE FOR 20 FARMS LOWEST PRODUCTION — 6,120 POUNDS AVERAGE FOR 20 FARMS PRICES PER 100 POUNDS OF MILK PRODUCED HIGHEST PRICES $2.28 AVERAGE FOR 20 FARMS LOWEST PRICES $ 1.85 AVERAGE FOR 20 FARMS J I L 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 In comparing returns on feed fed to dairy cattle as related to each of several efficiency factors, the reader should refer to Table 12 for a statement of the significance of the differences. The fact that significance has not been proved does not, however, mean that the factor should not be considered in a dairy enterprise. (Fig. 10) 1951] Livestock Earnings on Xorth-Central Illinois Farms 297 RETURNS PER $100'S WORTH OF FEED FED TO DAIRY CATTLE 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 2iO 220 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r LEAST CATTLE — 371 POUNDS AVERAGE FOR 20 FARMS CATTLE PRODUCED PER COW MOST CATTLE — 510 POUNDS AVERAGE FOR 20 FARMS PRICE RECEIVED FOR CATTLE SOLD LOWEST PRICES — $8.01 AVERAGE FOR 20 FARMS HIGHEST PRICES — $9.39 AVERAGE FOR 20 FARMS DEATH LOSSES PER WEIGHT PRODUCED LEAST DEATH LOSSES — 4.7% AVERAGE FOR 20 FARMS MOST DEATH LOSSES — 11.7 % AVERAGE FOR 20 FARMS PERCENT OF CATTLE UNITS MILKED LARGEST PERCENT MILKED — 67.6% AVERAGE FOR 20 FARMS SMALLEST PERCENT MILKED — 58.1% AVERAGE FOR 20 FARMS BETTER THAN AVERAGE IN ALL FOUR FACTORS A FARMS BETTER THAN AVERAGE IN THREE FACTORS- FOUR IMPORTANT EFFICIENCY FACTORS BETTER THAN AVERAGE IN TWO FACTORS // FARMS BETTER THAN AVERAGE IN ONLY ONE FACTOR — 9 FAR MS BELOW AVERAGE IN ALL FOUR FACTORS 5 FARMS $25 $~56~ _ $52 ' J I I I I J_ 2 40 6 60 CO 20 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 Fig. 10. — Concluded. (The "four important efficiency factors" used were milk production, proportion of protein feeds in grain mixtures, death losses, and pro- portion of nonproducing animals in the herd.) smallest percentage of cows averaged nearly 1 more nonproducing cow in their herds and had 50 percent more other dairy cattle. Of the 20 farmers having the highest returns on feed fed, 12 were among the 20 farmers milking the largest percent of cattle units. These data show how important it is for farmers in the heart of the corn belt to keep the number of nonproducing animals in their dairy herds down to the minimum needed for replacements. Well-balanced dairy enterprises paid larger profits. Four of the factors that have been discussed were considered to be the most im- portant ones to affect returns per $100's worth of feed fed. These four were: milk production, proportion of protein feeds in grain mixtures, death losses, and proportion of nonproducing animals in the herd. 298 Bulletin No. 548 [December, Four farmers had dairy enterprises that were operated more ef- ficiently than average in respect to each of these four factors: they had higher-than-average milk production per cow, fed a larger pro- portion of protein feeds in grain mixtures, had less-than-average death losses, and had a smaller-than-average proportion of nonproducing animals in the herd. Five other farms were operated less efficiently than average in respect to each of these four factors. The four most efficient farmers had average returns of $218 per $100's worth of feed fed; the five least efficient, $166. When the difference of $52 is applied to the $l,450's worth of feed fed annually on the average farm, it amounts to about $750, or $7,500 a farm over the ten years (Fig. 10). For the 40 farms the average annual return per $100's worth of feed fed was $179. The four farmers whose enterprises were above average in each of the four factors named above realized an advantage of $39 over the average. For the average amount of feed this would amount to $560 a year or $5,600 for the ten years. The five below average in all four factors trailed the average by $13 per $100's worth of feed fed, $190 a farm annually, and $1,900 for the ten years. SHEEP ENTERPRISES On a few farms in north-central Illinois, sheep have a major place in the farm program. Fifty-five percent of the farms on which ten- year records were obtained kept sheep one or more of the ten years. Only a small proportion of all crop returns — 2 percent — was fed to sheep, however (Fig. 2, page 259) . The following discussion is based on the comparatively few farms, 33 in all, that had sheep during eight or more of the ten years 1936- 1945. In drawing conclusions the reader should consider the small number of records used. On 14 of the farms native flocks were kept, and on 19 feeder sheep were purchased and fed. Most of these sheep enterprises — 20 out of the 33 — were concentrated in Woodford, Tazewell, and McLean counties. The rest were widely scattered over the area. Native Flocks of Sheep The 14 native flocks of sheep proved to be a profitable sideline that brought in an average of $462 per farm for mutton and wool (Table 13). The flocks averaged about 35 ewes each. These flocks brought a return of $128 for each $100's worth of feed fed them. Most 1951] Livestock Earnings on North-Central Illinois Farms 299 of the feed was hay and pasture. The value of all feed averaged $360 per farm. Nearly half of this feed charge was for pasture alone. For the ten years, pasture was charged at an average rate of 7.1 cents per animal-unit day (the amount of pasture 5 mature sheep or their equivalent in lambs will eat in a day on a full feed of pasture) . Most of this pasture would have had no use, beyond its value for soil improvement and erosion control, if sheep had not been on the farm. Even the 7 least profitable flocks brought average returns well above the value of all feed charged to them. Of the 14 flocks, 7 returned an average of $142 per $100's worth of feed fed, while the other 7 returned only $117, or $25 less. This $25 Table 13. — NATIVE FLOCKS OF SHEEP: Production Records on 14 North-Central Illinois Farms, 1936-1945 a Average of 7 Average of 7 Avpr „„ f flll Item flocks with flocks with 14 flocks lowest returns highest returns Number of animal units per fiock b 10.2 9.6 9.9 Total value of feed fed $392 $328 $360 Total returns from sheep and wool 460 465 462 Average returns per $100's worth of feed fed 117 142 128 Pounds of mutton and wool produced 3 946 3 817 3 880 Percent of weight produced that died 9.6 15.3 12.4 Price received per 100 pounds of mutton and wool sold • $11.96 $12.52 $12.24 Feed charge per 100 pounds of mutton and wool produced 9.93 8.59 9.28 Amounts of feed fed per 100 pounds of mutton and wool produced Grain, pounds 173 139 156 Purchased concentrates, pounds 4 4 4 Total concentrates, pounds 177 143 160 Hay, pounds 485 343 414 Silage, pounds 34 3 19 Pasture, days 61 58 60 Pounds of purchased concentrates fed per 100 pounds of total concentrates 2.4 2.8 2.6 B All these farms had flocks of breeding ewes for eight or more of the ten years and bought no feeder sheep. b Five mature sheep or their equivalent in lambs were considered one animal unit. difference when applied to the average feed charge per flock ($360) would amount to $90 yearly or $900 for the ten years. A complete analysis showing why some flocks did so much better than others was impracticable because there were so few records. Study of the data, however, brings out the following facts: the 7 flocks that gave the highest returns were about the same size as the 7 that brought the lowest, but the high-return flocks sold at an aver- age of 56 cents more per 100 pounds of mutton and wool, produced 100 pounds of mutton and wool for $1.34 less, and were fed more pasture and more protein concentrates in proportion to grain (Table 13). 300 Bulletin No. 548 [December, Feeder Sheep The feeder sheep on 19 farms brought $127 per SlOO's worth of feed fed, a good return and about the same as that from native flocks (Tables 13 and 14). The feeder sheep consumed more grain and less hay and pasture per 100 pounds of animal weight produced than the native flocks. They ate less grain and more hay and pasture, however, than the feeder cattle (page 281). The range in returns from feeder sheep was wider on the different farms than the range in returns from native flocks. The 10 feeder flocks with the highest returns yielded $151 per $100's worth of feed fed, while the 9 flocks with the lowest returns yielded only $104. The range for native flocks was narrower — from $142 down to $117. The wider range for feeder sheep indicates that there were more hazards with them than with native flocks. The 10 flocks that brought in the highest returns averaged about $150 less feed per flock than the 9 flocks yielding low returns, and they brought in about $350 more from sheep and wool (Table 14) . The high-return flocks used considerably less of all kinds of feed except purchased concentrates, which both groups of flocks used in about the same proportion. The price of wool and mutton was about the same Table 14. — FEEDER SHEEP: Production Records on 19 North- Central Illinois Farms, 1936-1945 a Average of 9 Average of 10 Avprae* of all Item flocks with flocks with 19 flocks lowest returns highest returns Number of animal units per flock b 17.5 16.7 17.1 Total value of feed fed $1 231 $1 083 $1 153 Total returns from sheep and wool 1 284 1 630 1 466 Returns per $100's worth of feed fed 104 151 12.7 Pounds of mutton and wool produced 11 159 12 110 11 657 Percent of weight produced that died 19.2 10.8 13.9 Price received per 100 pounds of mutton and wool sold $ 10.56 $ 10.57 $ 10.57 Feed charge per 100 pounds of mutton and wool produced 11.03 8.94 9.89 Amounts of feed fed per 100 pounds of mutton and wool produced Grain, pounds 496 418 455 Purchased concentrates, pounds 16 13 14 Total concentrates, pounds 512 431 469 Hay, pounds 350 258 302 Silage, pounds 12 4 8 Pasture, days 32 20 26 Pounds of purchased concentrates fed per 100 pounds of total concentrates 3.1 3.0 3.1 a All these farms fed sheep for eight or more of the ten years. A few farms also had small flocks of breeding ewes during a few of the ten years. b About 1,000 pounds of live weight of feeder sheep was considered one animal unit. 1951] Livestock Earnings on North-Central Illinois Farms 301 in both groups. But the 10 flocks having the highest returns produced wool and mutton at a feed cost averaging $2.09 less per 100 pounds of animal gain. These flocks also suffered only about half as heavy death losses as the 9 flocks with the low returns. CHICKEN ENTERPRISES A chicken enterprise makes a direct contribution to the family living on many farms in north-central Illinois. Often a large share of the groceries and clothing is bought with chicken and egg money. The average income from chickens and eggs, including products used on the farm, amounted to about $700 annually on 100 farms on which complete poultry records were kept during the ten years 1936-1945. About half these flocks were concentrated in Livingston, Woodford, and Tazewell counties. On the 30 farms with the largest flocks, incomes from chickens and eggs averaged more than $1,000 a year. Viewed in relation to total farm income, however, production of chickens and eggs is a minor project on most farms. The value of the feed fed to chickens was only 4.7 percent of the value of all crop returns on the farms from which the 100 farms used in this study were selected (Fig. 2, page 259). About $390's worth of feed was fed annually to the average flock. Flocks averaged 157 hens. About 55 percent of the total cost of pro- ducing chickens and eggs during the ten years went for feed and about 21 percent for labor. These 100 farms differed greatly in returns per $100's worth of feed fed during the ten years. While the ten-year average for all the flocks was $177 per $100's worth of feed fed, for 30 flocks the average RETURNS PER $IOO'S WORTH OF FEED FED TO CHICKENS 40 60 80 IOO 120 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 ~l I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1- 30 FARMS WITH HIGHEST RETURNS PER $IOO'S WORTH OF FEED FED The difference in returns on feed fed was greater for poultry than for other livestock enterprises. The 30 flocks with highest returns made half again as much as the 30 with lowest returns. (Fig. 11) 302 Bulletin No. 548 [December, Table 15. — Relation of Different Factors of Chicken Production to Returns for Feed Fed and to Each Other Returns per $100's worth of feed fed Returns per hen Feed cost per hen Eggs laid per hen Price received per dozen eggs Percent of eggs laid in Oct., Nov., Dec. Percent of sales from eggs Pounds of protein concen- trates 3 per 100 pounds of concen- trates 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 $177 $4.36 $2.51 137 $.28 21.9 71.3 25.4 220 172 141 4.69 4.52 3.81 2.16 2.63 2.69 147 138 125 .28 .27 .27 23.3 22.3 19.9 71.8 70.1 72.5 26.2 25.5 24.6 79 .88 -.53 22 .01 3.4 -.7 1.6 $189 183 158 $5.61 4.22 3.29 $3.04 2.39 2.13 150 139 120 $.29 .27 .26 26.6 21.9 17.1 63.8 72.4 77.3 28.8 24.3 23.4 31 2.32 .91 30 .03 9.5 -13.5 5.4 $201 170 164 $3.74 4.14 5.27 $1.87 2.44 3.23 132 136 143 $.26 .28 .28 18.8 21.8 25.1 78.0 73.0 62.3 23.6 25.8 26.8 37 -1.53 -1.36 -11 -.02 -6.3 15.7 -3.2 $192 177 164 $4.99 4.30 3.81 $2.67 2.49 2.36 164 138 109 $.29 .28 .26 25.8 23.0 16.5 77.4 73.1 62.7 29.3 24.8 22.3 28 1.18 .31 55 .03 9.3 14.7 7.0 $182 182 167 $4.93 4.41 3.73 $2.75 2.49 2.28 147 137 127 $.31 .27 .24 25.2 22.0 18.4 73.7 69.8 70.8 29.6 25.1 21.5 A. Returns per SlOO's worth of feed fed Average of all 100 flocks 30 flocks with highest returns 40 flocks with medium returns .... 30 flocks with lowest returns Differences: 30 highest - 30 lowest B. Returns per hen 30 flocks with highest returns 40 flocks with medium returns .... 30 flocks with lowest returns Differences: 30 highest - 30 lowest C. Feed cost per hen 30 flocks with lowest feed cost 40 flocks with medium feed cost. . . 30 flocks with highest feed cost Differences: 30 lowest - 30 highest D. Eggs laid per hen 30 flocks laying most eggs 40 flocks laying medium number . . 30 flocks laying fewest eggs Differences: 30 most — 30 fewest E. Prices received for eggs 30 flocks receiving highest prices . . 40 flocks receiving medium prices. . 30 flocks receiving lowest prices . . . Differences: 30 highest - 30 lowest 15 F. Percent of eggs laid in Oct., Nov., Dec. 30 flocks producing most in fall . . . $183 40 flocks producing medium in fall 175 30 flocks producing fewest in fall. . 175 Differences: 30 most — 30 fewest 8 G. Percent of sales from eggs 30 farms selling most $177 40 farms selling medium amount . . 181 30 farms selling least 174 Differences: 40 medium — 30 most 4 40 medium — 30 least 7 H. Pounds of protein concen- trates* per 100 pounds of concentrates fed 30 farms feeding most $177 40 farms feeding medium amounts 181 30 farms feeding least 173 Differences: 40 medium — 30 most 4 40 medium - 30 least 8 J. Number of hens per flock 30 farms having most hens $181 40 farms having medium number. . 167 30 farms having fewest hens 187 Differences: 30 most — 40 medium 14 30 fewest — 40 medium 20 1.20 .47 20 .07 2.9 $5.11 4.22 3.79 $2.85 2.46 2.23 152 139 120 $.29 .27 .26 30.1 21.6 14.0 71.2 73.1 69.0 28.8 25.9 21.3 1.32 .62 32 .03 16.1 2.2 7.5 $3.78 4.47 4.79 $2.16 2.54 2.81 145 143 120 $.27 .27 .28 20.9 23.1 21.2 88.1 71.7 54.0 28.2 23.7 24.9 .69 -.32 .38 -.27 -2 23 -.01 2.2 1.9 -16.4 17.7 -4.5 -1.2 $4.64 4.40 4.03 $2.66 2.48 2.39 146 139 124 $.28 .28 .26 24.3 22.6 18.6 74.6 72.2 66.9 35.7 24.7 16.1 -.24 .37 -.18 .09 -7 15 .02 -1.7 4.0 -2.4 5.3 -11.0 8.6 $4.35 4.33 4.40 $2.44 2.60 2.44 146 139 124 $.28 .28 .27 24.4 21.7 19.6 78.1 73.6 61.5 24.6 26.7 24.5 .02 .07 -.16 -.16 7 -15 -.01 2.7 -2.1 4.5 -12.1 -2.1 -2.2 a Including high-protein concentrates, minerals, oystershell, and mixed purchased feeds. 1951] Livestock Earnings on North-Central Illinois Farms 303 was $220 and for 30 others only $141 (Fig. 11 and Table 15-A1). The difference of $79 per $100 ? s worth of feed fed, when applied to the average flock, amounts to a little more than $300 annually, or $3,000 for the ten years. Thus the difference in returns was enough to have paid a good share of a boy's or girl's expenses during four years in college. Why was there such a great difference in returns? Some of the reasons show up when the 30 flocks with the highest returns are com- pared with the 30 with lowest returns: The flocks with the highest returns had 88 cents (23 percent) more average returns per hen. Feed cost per hen was 53 cents (20 percent) less. Twenty-two (18 percent) more eggs were laid per hen in the high- return flocks. The price received for eggs was 1 cent per dozen more. In the high-return flocks a larger proportion of the eggs were laid during October, November, and December. High-return flocks were given more protein feeds in proportion to the total weight of feed fed. (As used here, protein feeds include all high-protein feeds, minerals, and commercial mixed feeds.) High returns per hen essential. Among the 100 flocks studied, the average return per hen for the ten years varied from as little as $2.42 to as much as $7.27. The 30 flocks having the highest returns per hen averaged $5.61 annually, compared with only $3.29 for the low-return flocks (Fig. 12 and Table 15-B2). The 30 flocks that had the highest returns per hen had an average return of $189 per $100's worth of feed fed, compared with only $158 for the 30 flocks that had the lowest returns. This difference of $31 per $100's worth of feed fed would amount to $121 a year ($1,210 during ten years) on farms feed- ing the average amount of feed to poultry. Twelve of the 30 flocks with highest returns per hen were among the 30 most profitable flocks and only 2 were among the 30 least profit- able flocks (Table 16). On the other hand, of the 30 flocks having lowest returns per hen 14 were among the 30 least profitable flocks and only 4 among the 30 most profitable flocks. The 30 flocks having the highest returns per hen laid 30 more eggs per hen than the 30 flocks having the lowest returns per hen (row B of Table 15). They received 3 cents more a dozen for eggs, produced more eggs during the fall and winter, produced more meat in propor- tion to eggs, and were fed more protein feeds in proportion to grain. 304 Bulletin No. 548 [December, Feed costs and returns. Feed cost per hen averaged $2.51 annually, varying from $1.50 per hen to $4.42. Thirty flocks averaged $3.23's worth of feed per hen; 30 others averaged only $1.87. The 30 flocks using the least feed per hen returned $37 more per $100's worth of feed fed than the 30 flocks using the most feed (Fig. 12). Much of the difference in feed fed per hen appears to have been due to a difference in the relative amounts of poultry and eggs pro- duced. Only 62 percent of the poultry sales from the 30 flocks with high feed costs was from eggs, while 78 percent from the flocks with low Table 16. — Distribution of 100 Chicken Flocks According to Returns for Feed Fed and Each of Several Factors That Affect Those Returns Factors for which distribution is shown Distribution according to returns per $100's worth of feed fed 30 flocks with lowest returns 40 flocks with medium returns 30 flocks with highest returns Odds of obtaining so great a correlation by chance" Returns per hen (Table 15-B) 30 flocks with highest returns 2 40 flocks with medium returns 14 30 flocks with lowest returns 14 Feed cost per hen (Table 15-C) 30 flocks with highest feed cost 10 40 flocks with medium feed cost 17 30 flocks with lowest feed cost 3 Eggs laid per hen (Table 15-D) 30 flocks laying most eggs 3 40 flocks laying medium number 13 30 flocks laying fewest eggs 14 Prices received for eggs (Table 15-E) 30 flocks receiving highest prices 7 40 flocks receiving medium prices 12 30 flocks receiving lowest prices 11 Percent of eggs laid in October, November, December (Table 15-F) 30 flocks producing most in fall 5 40 flocks producing medium number 13 40 flocks producing fewest in fall 12 Percent of sales from eggs (Table 15-G) 30 farms selling most 10 40 farms selling medium amount 10 30 farms selling least 10 Pounds of protein concentrates per 100 pounds of concentrates fed (Table 15-H) 30 farms feeding most 8 40 farms feeding medium amounts 11 30 farms feeding least 11 Size of flocks (Table 15- J) 30 farms with largest flocks 6 40 farms with medium flocks 16 30 farms with smallest flocks 8 (number of flocks) 16 12 12 1 in 100 Less than 1 in 100 3 in 100 65 in 100 35 in 100 65 in 100 85 in 100 16 in 100 a The cross-tabulation analysis in Table 15 measures gross rather than net relationships between the variables in the table. This is a simple method of analysis which is open to criticism because, as in many farm-management analyses, the large number of closely related variables makes it difficult to test their individual significance in a precise way. However, when the probability of a result being due purely to chance is less than 5 in 100, as shown in this column, the result is called "significant," and the factor is one which farmers should consider in analyzing their farming operations. A probability larger than 5 in 100 does not, however, prove that some of the other relationships shown are of no significance. 1951] Livestock Earnings on Xorth-Central Illinois Farms 305 feed costs was from eggs (Table 15-C7) . It is to be expected that feed costs would be higher where more meat is sold. See also row G of Table 15. In some flocks the feed cost was probably low because the hens picked up more or less feed which was not charged to them. For the relation between feed cost per hen and returns per $100's worth of feed fed, see also Table 16. For the relation of feed cost to several other factors, see row C and column 3 of Table 15. Egg production per hen and profits. Egg production per hen is one of the best measures of the profitableness of the chicken flock. The average number of eggs laid per hen varied from a low of 74 in one flock to a high of 217 in another. Five flocks produced 175 or more eggs per hen, and 7 produced fewer than 100. The average for all 100 flocks was 137; the 30 best averaged 164 and the 30 poorest only 109 (Table 15-A4 and D4). The 30 high-producing flocks brought an average return of $192 per $100's worth of feed fed and the 30 low-producing flocks only $164 (Fig. 12). For an average-sized flock this difference would amount to about $110 a year or §1,100 during the ten years. The relation of number of eggs laid per hen and other factors affecting returns on feed are shown in row D and column 4 of Table 15. The distribution of the 100 flocks according to egg production per hen and returns for feed is shown in Table 16. High price for eggs meant high returns. The ten-year average price received for eggs varied on different farms from 21 cents a dozen to 35 cents a dozen. Thirty flock owners received an average of 31 cents a dozen, while 30 others received only 24 cents. The 30 receiving the higher prices had average returns of $182 per $100's worth of feed fed to poultry, while the 30 receiving the lower prices had only $167 (Fig. 12 and Table 15-E1 and E5). Some of the difference in price was due to the greater fall and winter production on the farms where the higher prices were received. Some was due to special outlets for table and hatching eggs on some farms. Undoubtedly part of the difference was due to greater increases in production on some farms during the high-priced war years, but the extent to which this was true was not determined. Whatever caused the higher prices on some farms, prices were responsible for greater poultry profits on some farms than on others. See row E and column 5 of Table 15 for the relation between prices received and other factors, and Table 16 for the distribution of the 100 flocks according to prices received and returns on feed fed. 306 Bulletin No. 548 [December, RETURNS PER $100'S WORTH OF FEED FED TO CHICKENS 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 2lC 220 RETURNS PER HEN — i 1 1 1 1 1 1 — i — i — r HIGHEST RETURNS— $5.61 AVERAGE FOR 30 FLOCKS MEDIUM RETURNS — $4.22 AVERAGE FOR 40 FLOCKS LOWEST RETURNS — $ 3.29 AVERAGE FOR 30 FLOCKS FEED COST PER HEN LOWEST FEED COST— $ 1.87 AVERAGE FOR 30 FLOCKS MEDIUM FEED COST — $2.44 AVERAGE FOR 40 FLOCKS HIGHEST FEED COST— $3.23 AVERAGE FOR 30 FLOCKS '$37~ EGGS LAID PER HEN PER YEAR MOST EGGS LAID— 164 EGGS AVERAGE FOR 30 FLOCKS MEDIUM NUMBERS LAID— 138 EGGS AVERAGE FOR 40 FLOCKS FEWEST EGGS LAID — 109 EGGS AVERAGE FOR 30 FLOCKS H_$l_5_ "$ _ 2 V " PRICE RECEIVED PER DOZEN EGGS HIGHEST PRICE 31 i AVERAGE FOR 30 FLOCKS MEDIUM PRICE 27 i AVERAGE FOR 40 FLOCKS .OWEST PRICE — 24 i AVERAGE FOR 30 FLOCKS PERCENT OF EGGS LAID IN FALL MOST EGGS IN FALL — 30.1% AVERAGE FOR 30 FLOCKS MEDIUM NUMBERS IN FALL — 21.6 % AVERAGE FOR 40 FLOCKS FEWEST EGGS IN FALL — 14.0 % AVERAGE FOR 30 FLOCKS PERCENT OF POULTRY SALES FROM EGGS MOST SALES FROM EGGS — 88.1% AVERAGE FOR 30 FLOCKS MEDIUM SALES FROM EGGS — 71.7% AVERAGE FOR 40 FLOCKS LEAST SALES FROM EGGS 54.0 % AVERAGE FOR 30 FLOCKS $4 $7 PROTEIN AND MIXED FEEDS PER 100 POUNDS OF TOTAL FEED MOST PROTEIN AND MIXED FEEDS 35.7 POUNDS, 30 FLOCKS MEDIUM AMOUNTS 24.7 POUNDS, 40 FLOCKS LEAST PROTEIN AND MIXED FEEDS 16.1 POUNDS, 30 FLOCKS SIZE OF FLOCK LARGEST FLOCKS 240 HENS AVERAGE FOR 30 FLOCKS MEDIUM FLOCKS 146 HENS AVERAGE FOR 40 FLOCKS SMALLEST FLOCKS 87 HENS AVERAGE FOR 30 FLOCKS J I L J I I L 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 The most important factors in the poultry enterprise (see also Table 16), on the basis of returns on feed fed to chickens, were returns per hen, feed cost per hen, and number of eggs laid per hen. (Fig. 12) 1951] Livestock Earnings on North-Central Illinois Farms 307 Large fall and winter egg production increased poultry profits. The percentage of the total annual egg production that came during October, November, and December varied from 7 percent for one of the 100 flocks to 40 percent for another. The 30 flock owners who had the heaviest production during these three months gathered 30 percent then, while 30 others gathered only 14 percent of the year's eggs during that time (Table 15-F6) . The 30 flocks with the heaviest fall and winter production had re- turns of $183 per $100's worth of feed they used, and the 30 with the least production had returns of $175 (Fig. 12 and Table 15-F1). This difference of $8 between the 30 highest and 30 lowest flocks was con- siderably less than the differences associated with egg production per hen ($28) and with prices received for eggs ($15). The relation between percentage of eggs laid in October, Novem- ber, and December and other factors affecting returns on feed fed is shown in row F and column 6 of Table 15. The distribution of the flocks according to fall and winter production and returns on feed fed is shown in Table 16. Percent of poultry sales from eggs was closely related to number of eggs laid per hen. The 30 flocks having the highest percentage (88 percent) of poultry sales from eggs laid an average of 145 eggs per hen, while the 30 flocks having the lowest percentage (54 percent) laid only 120 eggs per hen (Table 15) . The highest returns from feed were from the 40 flocks having medium percentage of sales from eggs (Fig. 12 and Table 15-G1). For the relation of percent of poultry sales from eggs to other factors, see row G and column 7 of Table 15 ; and for the distribution of the 100 flocks according to sales from eggs and returns on feed fed, see Table 16. Medium amounts of purchased protein feeds better than large or small amounts. 1 The 40 flock owners who fed medium amounts of purchased protein feeds (24.7 percent of all concentrates fed) had average returns of $181 per $100's worth of feed fed. The 30 owners using the most protein feeds (35.7 percent) had returns of $177, and the 30 using the least (16.1 percent) had returns of $173 (Fig. 11 and Table 15-H1 and H8). How the proportion of purchased protein feeds per 100 pounds of feed was related to other factors affecting returns on feed fed is shown in row H and column 8 of Table 15. For frequency distribution of the 1 Purchased protein and mineral feeds included chick starter and laying mash as well as high-protein feeds purchased to mix with home-grown grains. 308 Bulletin No. 548 [December, 100 farms according to proportion of protein feeds and returns on feed fed, see Table 16. Returns slightly higher for small flocks. The 30 smallest flocks (averaging 87 hens 1 ) had a little higher return per $100's worth of feed fed than the 30 largest flocks (240 hens) , $187 and $181 respectively (Fig. 12 and Table 15-J1 and J9). But the 40 medium-sized flocks (106 to 178 hens) brought a much lower return than either of the other groups, $167. These results agree with the recommendations often made by poultry specialists that one should either keep only a small flock for home use or else keep a flock large enough to demand the careful attention of the farm operator. In the small flocks, the hens probably "picked up" more of their feed than in the large flocks. However, many of the small flocks were confined much of the time, as were many of the large flocks, and so ate only the feed that was charged to them. The relation of size of flock to other factors that affect returns is shown in row J and column 9 of Table 15. Distribution according to size of flock and returns on feed is shown in Table 16. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Livestock enterprises on 271 north-central Illinois farms enrolled in the Farm-Bureau Farm-Management Service were studied from records kept by the farmers during the ten years 1936 to 1945. The number of records of each kind of livestock was: hogs, 200; feeder cattle, 40; beef-cow herds, 14; dual purpose cattle, 6; dairy cattle, 60; native flocks of sheep, 14; feeder sheep, 19; and chickens, 100. Large numbers of factors are responsible for differences in earnings from any kind of livestock on different farms. The cross-tabulation method of analysis used in these studies measures gross rather than net causal relationships between the factors used in each comparison. It has been assumed that one can reach valid conclusions regarding safe practices to follow in order to get the best returns for the feed fed to livestock by a careful study of three relationships: (1) the gross relationship of high, medium, and low livestock earnings to any one factor; (2) the gross relationship of high, medium, and low degree of each factor to the livestock earnings; and (3) the relationship of the high, medium, and low degree of each factor to each of the other factors that affect livestock earnings. The three relationships should be studied together. 1 Found by averaging number of hens on farm at end of each month. 1951] Livestock Earnings on North-Central Illinois Farms 309 Hogs Keeping hogs healthy so as to wean large litters, avoid death losses, and make rapid gains was shown to be of greatest importance in getting profits from hogs. Feeding more protein and mineral feeds and more pasture than the average for the group was almost as important as keeping hogs healthy. Timely production and feeding so as to market spring pigs in the fall and adjusting annual production to the probable corn-hog ratio were shown by these records to be important factors related to good hog earnings. Selling hogs at a medium weight appeared to be a better practice than selling at heavy or light weights. Many of the hogs sold at light weights, however, were apparently sold light because of a lack of thrift rather than from choice of selling time. This is indicated by the heavy death losses, late selling, and relatively heavy feed requirements of the light-weight hogs. Purchase of large numbers of feeder pigs was related to relatively low hog earnings. Net farm earnings were also low on farms where many feeder pigs were bought. Associated with the purchase of large numbers of feeder pigs were relatively heavy death losses, small litters of pigs raised on the farm, high feed costs, low selling prices, and heavy selling weights. On farms where feeder pigs were bought but where these associated factors were controlled, earnings were good. The two-litter system of pig production had an apparent advan- tage in hog earnings over the one-litter or three-litter system. Net farm earnings on two-litter farms were much higher than on one-litter farms. Two-litter farms make better use of breeding stock, labor, and equipment. Hogs on farms in the southern counties of the area brought better returns for the feed fed than those on farms in the central and north- ern counties. The only apparent reason for this was the use of rela- tively more pasture and less grain for the weight of hogs produced. Total weight of hogs produced per farm had little relation to the returns per $100's worth of feed fed to hogs. Farm earnings, however, were much higher on the farms producing the most hogs than on those producing fewer hogs. This was largely due to the relationship of the prices of hogs, grain, and other livestock being favorable to hogs during the ten years of the study. 310 Bulletin No. 548 [December, Feeder Cattle The feeding of purchased feeder cattle was a major enterprise on about a fifth of the farms studied and a minor enterprise on another fifth. When both current earnings and increased capital value of the land were considered, livestock farms on which feeder cattle formed the major enterprise were most profitable. Hog production was also important on those farms. (No detailed report of the feeder-cattle enterprise appears in this publication.) Beef-Cow Herds In order for beef-cow herds to be profitable on farms of north- central Illinois, the cows and bulls need to be of good quality. The cows must be kept almost entirely on pasture and hay and be of such quality that they will keep in good flesh on good pasture and hay alone. They must produce good calves every year. Nonproducing cows and cows that do not winter well on roughage alone should not be kept. Low death losses were more closely related to high earnings per $100's worth of feed fed to beef-cow herds than any other factor studied. The feeding of relatively small amounts of concentrates per 100 pounds of beef produced was also closely associated with high cattle returns. Dual-Purpose Cattle Dual-purpose cattle produce beef and milk at relatively low costs. However, the average price received for milk from such herds was 12 percent less than from dairy herds and the price received for beef was 15 percent less than from beef-cow herds and 25 percent less than from feeder cattle. Dairy Cattle While farms included in this study are outside any specialized dairy area and only 9 percent of the value of crops produced was fed to dairy cows, 40 percent of the farms did milk five or more cows each. A detailed study of 40 farms having only dairy cattle and the usual markets for dairy products and cattle was made. Of several factors studied, high production per cow and the feeding of relatively small amounts of grain per 100 pounds of milk produced were most closely related to high dairy cattle earnings on these general cornbelt farms. Of the two factors, high production per cow was most closely related to high net farm earnings. 1951] Livestock Earnings on North-Central Illinois Farms 311 Low death losses in the dairy herd were very closely related to high dairy-cattle earnings. No other dairy-cattle factor was so closely related to high net farm earnings. The feeding of concentrates rich in protein feeds was closely re- lated to high dairy cattle earnings and those poor in protein feeds to low earnings. This indicates that most cornbelt farmers having small dairy herds may wisely feed more protein concentrates than they have fed in past years. Good legume hay and legume silage will reduce the need for some purchased protein concentrates. Of the 40 herds studied, the 20 herds milking the largest percent of the cattle units in the herds had appreciably higher dairy-cattle earnings than the 20 milking the smallest percent even though the low 20 produced the most milk per cow, had less death loss, and fed more protein feeds per 100 pounds of concentrates. Dairy-cattle earnings on farms receiving relatively high prices for milk were greatly reduced by high death losses on the same farms. The data do not disclose any reason for this relationship. The 20 herds on pasture the most days of the year were fed less protein concentrates, produced milk with nearly 10 percent less feed cost, had less death loss, and had appreciably higher earnings than the 20 on pasture the shortest time, even though the herds getting most pasture produced 10 percent less milk per cow. Twenty farms that milked 17.8 cows per farm had appreciably higher returns for feed fed to dairy cattle but very little higher net farm earnings than 20 farms that milked only 7.4 cows per farm. Production of more meat from the dairy herd was accompanied by somewhat lower returns from feed fed to cattle but by no appreciable decrease in net farm earnings. Sheep While sheep ate only 2 percent of the value of crops produced on the 271 farms, some sheep were found on 55 percent of the farms during one or more of the ten years 1936 to 1945. Native flocks on 14 farms proved to be a profitable sideline, bring- ing an average of $462 for mutton and wool per farm. They brought $128 per $100's worth of feed fed to them. This was $18 more than beef-cow herds brought for the same value of feed. Some of the feed fed to sheep would not have been used by other livestock. In order to utilize a given amount of roughage, only about half the investment in breeding stock is required for sheep as for beef cows. Enough ewes can be kept on a small farm to justify the purchase of 312 Bulletin No. 548 [December, first-class rams, but a major problem with small beef -cow herds is the high cost of first-class bulls. Native sheep have a good place on small grain, hog, and poultry farms. Feeder sheep on 19 farms brought $127 per $100's worth of feed fed during the ten years. This was almost the same that native flocks of sheep brought and $6 more than feeder cattle brought. The ten flocks that brought the highest returns for feed averaged about $150 less feed and $350 higher returns than the nine flocks that brought the lowest returns. The high-return flocks suffered only about half as heavy death losses, produced mutton and wool for $2.09 less per 100 pounds, and sold mutton and wool at about the same prices as the low-return flocks. Chickens Average returns from chickens and eggs, including products used on the farm, amounted to about $700 annually on 100 north- central Illinois farms on which complete poultry records were kept during the ten years 1936 to 1945. The chicken enterprise makes a direct contri- bution to the family living on many farms where large shares of the groceries and clothing are bought with chicken and egg money. Poultry earnings varied greatly among the 100 flocks. Thirty flocks brought only an average of $141 per $100's worth of feed fed while 30 other flocks brought $220. The large variation in the percent of eggs and meat produced by different flocks makes it difficult to answer the question, "Why do some flocks earn more than others?" Good flock earnings were closely related to high returns per hen. High returns per hen were closely associated with high egg production per hen, high percentage of eggs laid in the fall and early winter, high feed cost per hen, and better-than-average prices for eggs. Low feed cost per hen was even more closely related to high returns per $100's worth of feed fed than high returns per hen. Low feed cost per hen was closely associated with high percentage of returns from eggs. High egg production per hen was shown to be a good indicator of large chicken profits. High egg production per hen was associated with greater production of eggs during the fall and winter, larger per- centage of sales from eggs, and greater-than-average use of protein concentrates. Low price received for eggs was closely related to low returns per $100's worth of feed fed to chickens and to small production of eggs during the fall and early winter. 1951] Livestock Earnings on North-Central Illinois Farms 313 The best chicken profits were from large and small flocks rather than from medium-size flocks. This bears out the recommendation often made by poultry specialists that one should either keep only a small flock for home use or else keep enough to demand the careful attention of some member of the farm family. EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED IN THIS STUDY General Terms Returns per $100's worth of feed fed. This is the measure of efficiency of each livestock enterprise. The returns include the value of all sales less purchases of livestock, -with adjustments for beginning and closing inventories, plus the sales of livestock products, plus the value of all livestock products used on the farm by either the farmer's family or hired help. The value of feed includes the value of all grain, hay, silage, pasture, and protein and mineral supplements (see Table 1 for the prices charged). Protein concentrates. These include purchased feeds such as tankage and soybean meal; mill feeds such as bran and gluten feed; and mixed feeds having higher protein content than farm grains. Soybeans and minerals were included with protein concentrates. One gallon of skimmilk was considered equivalent to one pound of protein concentrate. Pasture day. A pasture day is the amount of pasture used in one day by a cow that gets a full feed of roughage from pasture. Fieldmen of the Farm- Bureau Farm-Management Service helped cooperating farmers estimate the amount of pasture used by horses, cattle, sheep, and hogs. Xo pasture charge was made for chickens. Pounds of concentrates. The weight of concentrates includes the weights of grain and purchased protein and mineral supplements. Weight of livestock produced. The weight of livestock produced was obtained by adding the weight of those sold, those butchered for home or hired men's use, those that died after birth (pigs that died after weaning), and those on hand at the end of the year, and subtracting the weight of those on hand at the beginning of the year or purchased during the year. Percentage death loss. The percentage death loss is the percent the weight of all animals that died after birth (pigs after weaning) is of the total weight of the livestock produced. Animal unit. An animal unit is one mature cow or the following equiva- lents: 1 mature bull, IV2 yearling cattle, 2 weaned calves, 1,000 pounds live weight of feeder cattle or feeder sheep, 5 mature sheep, or 10 weaned lambs. Net farm earnings per $100 charged for the use of land, labor, and capital. A measure of total farm earnings was included with some data in order to show the relation of efficiency in the livestock enterprise to total farm earnings. "Net farm earnings per $100 charged for the use of land, labor, and capital" is the measure of farm earnings used in this study. Four 314 Bulletin Xo. 548 [December. percent of the value of the bare land was used as the charge for land ; the cost and estimated value of all hired, family, and operator's labor was used as the charge for labor; and 5 percent of the undepreciated value of buildings, fences, machinery and equipment, and of the January 1 inventory values of all livestock and feed and grain, was used as the charge for capital. Net farm earnings for the use of land, labor, and capital were obtained by subtracting all expenses except labor from the gross farm earnings. The measure "net farm earnings per $100 charged for the use of land, labor, and capital" is a new measure of farm efficiency. It is similar to "rate earned on the investment" in land and operating capital but puts labor on a par with land and capital. It is an input-output ratio that includes the three factors of production: land, labor, and capital. It measures efficiency in the use of land, labor, and capital, and is not influenced by the size of business as are "labor and management earnings" and "management earnings." Hogs Percent of sales on hand January 1. This is a rough measure of the time of year when hogs are sold. No records of the months of hog marketings were obtained, so the percent by weight of the year's sales that was on hand January 1 was the only measure of seasonal sales available. The author realizes this is only an approximation, but many years' experience in working with hog-enterprise records has led him to know that it is accurate enough to help answer the question as to why hogs show so much higher profits on some farms than on others. Average weighted corn-hog ratio. This is a measure of a farmer's ability to adjust the number of hogs raised to the profitableness of the hog production. The average weighted corn-hog ratio was obtained as follows: the yearly corn-hog ratio, based on Illinois prices of corn and hogs, was multiplied by the pounds of hogs produced that year, and the totals so obtained for ten years were added together and divided by the total weight produced during the ten years. The corn-hog ratios, as reported by the Illinois Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, for the ten years were : 1936 — 14.2 1941 — 14.8 1937 — 12.1 1942 — 17.4 1938 — 18.0 1943 — 14.4 1939 — 15.4 1944 — 12.6 1940 — 10.0 1945 — 13.4 Number of pigs weaned per litter. This is figured by dividing the total number of pigs weaned by the number of sows that farrowed live pigs. Percentage increase in weight of hogs produced during second five years over first five years. This is the percent that the total produc- tion of hogs during the five years 1941 to 1945 was above the total production during the five years 1936 to 1940. Average weight of sales per pig weaned. In this study the measure of the weight of hogs sold is the average weight of hogs sold per pig weaned. The number marketed was not recorded during all of the ten years, but the number of pigs weaned was. This measure credits the pigs weaned with the 1951] Livestock Earnings on North-Central Illinois Farms 315 selling weight of all feeder pigs and breeding animals bought, and thus makes the selling weight appear higher on farms where feeder pigs or breeding animals were bought. The measure was affected also by the weight of hogs that died after weaning. When one recognizes the wide differences in average selling weights of hogs on different farms, he will realize that the two errors — one due to different proportions of feeder pigs and breeding animals bought, and the other due to different percentages of death loss after weaning — are not enough to prevent the use of the measure as a means of helping to learn why the hogs on some farms were more profitable than those on other farms. The author believes that it is far better than no measure of the average selling weight of hogs. Percent of farms using one-litter, two-litter, or three-litter system. Most farms using the one-litter system had pigs farrowing in April, May, or June. Those using the two-litter system had spring pigs farrowing in February, March, or early April and fall litters farrowed by the same sows in August or September. Two plans for the three-litter systems were followed. One plan was to have each sow farrow three litters: first in May or June, second in February or March of the following year, and third in August or September. The other plan provided for the two-litter system described above, with May or June pigs farrowed by another lot of sows. Percent of farms in the southern, middle, and northern counties of the area. The divisions referred to in the text are not strictly along straight east-west lines but are adjusted so that they represent areas of comparable growing seasons. Value of hogs bought per $100's worth sold. This is primarily a measure of the number of pigs bought. Records of the purchase of feeder pigs were not kept separate from the breeding stock bought, but very little breeding stock other than boars was bought. The value of hogs bought includes feeder pigs and breeding stock. Cattle Feed cost per 10 pounds of beef or 100 pounds of milk. The feed costs of 10 pounds live weight of cattle and of 100 pounds of milk were considered equal when analyzing these data. Price received per 100 pounds of milk produced. To get this price, return from milk, including all dairy products sold, used in the farm homes, or fed to livestock, was divided by the total weight of milk produced. The price of milk actually sold could not be calculated because of the variation in the kinds of dairy products sold. Sheep Native flocks. Native flocks of sheep are flocks of breeding sheep kept in the area. Feeder sheep. Feeder sheep are sheep, usually lambs, brought from the western ranges to the grain belt to fatten for market. 10M— 12-51— 47141