xt7fj678tq39 https://nyx.uky.edu/dips/xt7fj678tq39/data/mets.xml   Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Kentucky 1970 journals kaes_research_rprts_02 English University of Kentucky Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 2 : January 1970 text Research Report 2 : January 1970 1970 2014 true xt7fj678tq39 section xt7fj678tq39   ¢
    Harry R. White, D. Milton Shuffett, and Robert W. Rudd
` RESEARCH REPORT 2 : ]:mua1·y197O I
- University of Kentucky :: Agricultural Experiment Station A 
· Department of Agricultural Economics

 J x
x * a

Page E
LIST OF TABLES ....................... v I
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS .................... v I I
INTRODUCTION ........................ l
Purposes of the Study .................. l I
Data and Time Period Used for Analyses ......... l
Evidence of the Emergence of a Feeder-Pig Industry }
in Kentucky ..................... 2
Marketing Systems for Kentucky Feeder Pigs ....... 5 .
Buyers of Feeder Pigs Sold on Kentucky Auctions ..... 5
The Market Class of Feeder Pigs ............. 6 T
Seasonal Price Variation of Feeder Pigs with Rising
and Falling Farm-Product Price Levels ........ 7 I
Shifts in the Seasonal Patterns of Feeder-Pig I
Prices ........................ lO I
Shifts in Seasonal Patterns of Prices by Weight ·
Groups ........................ lO
Reasons Underlying Changes in Seasonal Prices
for Feeder Pigs ................... l3
Seasonal Price Movements at Kentucky Auctions and ‘ I
at South St. Paul .................. l4 `
Seasonal Prices for Feeder Pigs and Central Market
Prices for Slaughter Hogs .............. l4
Seasonal Feeder-Pig Market Receipts Movements ...... l7
Seasonal Market Receipts of Feeder Pigs and
Slaughter Hogs .................... l9
Seasonal Differences in Receipts of Feeder Pigs by
weight Groups .................... 22 ’
Shifts in the Seasonal Patterns of Receipts ....... 25
Causes for Shifts in the Seasonal Pattern of
Receipts ....................... 32
Seasonal Movements in Feeder Pig—Slaughter Hog
Price Ratio ..................... 37
Relationship Between Feeder-Pig Price and Lagged
Slaughter-Hog .................... 37
iii 7

 I -1
, § Page
3 A Regression Analysis of weight-Price Relationships .... 42
T ‘ Trends in the Neight—Price Relationship ......... 46
g 5 Seasonal Changes in the Weight-Price Relationship
A [ for Feeder Pigs ................... 46
I s Influence of the Hog—Corn Price Ratio on Height-
1 ‘ Price Relationships ................. 49
f § Movements of the Feeder-Pig, Slaughter-Hog Price
_ a Ratio Related to Changes in the Weight-Price
Q § Regression ...................... 5l
5 § Seasonal Changes in the Weight-Price Relationship
‘ Q As Influenced by Hog—Corn Ratio ........... 52
; Q Limitations of Interpretation of the Weight-Price
3 3 Relationship ..................... 54
4 Q SUMMARY ........................... 54
L g REFERENCES ......................... 57
A § Appanoxx .......................... 59
T i
Z §
2 I
? 5
l 23
- 1 g
f ;
i I iv
I E!
g i
_ ¤ I y _ __ .ii...Iii-ii~

g i
Tab1e Page 1
1. Feeder Pig Shipments From Kentucky, by State of 1
Destination, by Years, 1957-64 ........... 5
2. Average Annua1 Changes of Seasona1 Pattern of 1 I
Average Price of Feeder Pigs, by Weight Groups, f
Kentucky Auction Markets, 1949-62 .......... 11 L
3. Average Annua1 Change of Seasona1 Pattern of 1
Market Receipts of Feeder Pigs, by Weight Groups,
Kentucky Auction Markets, 1928-47 and 1949-62 .... 30
4. Regression Equations Re1ating Month1y Prices to
weight ....................... 44
Figure Page
1. Approximate Market Supp1y Area of Five Centra1
Kentucky Livestock Auction Markets ......... 3
2. Comparison of Average Seasona1 Index of Prices of V
Feeder Pigs under 160 1b. at Five Kentucky Auction
Markets, 1949-62, with 1954-61 ........... 8 A
3. Comparison of Index of Seasona1 Variation of Prices
of Feeder Pigs under 160 1b. under Conditions of
Rising and Fa11ing Farm-Product Prices, Five
Kentucky Auctions .................. 9
4. Average Seasona1 Index of Prices of Feeder Pigs, by
Weight Groups, at Five Kentucky Auction Markets, V H
1954-62 ....................... 12
5. Comparison of Seasona1 Index of Prices of Feeder Pigs
at Five Kentucky Auctions and South St. Pau1, Minn.,
1954-62 ....................... 15 y
6. Average Seasona1 Index of S1aughter—Hog Prices
(200-220 1b.) at Five Centra1 Kentucky Auctions
Compared with Chicago, 1949-62 ........... 16

C ( Figure Page
· ( ‘ 7. Average Seasonal Index of Feeder-Pig Prices (l954-62)
E at Five Kentucky Auctions Compared with Slaughter-
( . Hog Prices, Chicago, l949-62 ............ l8
( g 8. Seasonal Index: Receipts of Feeder Pigs (under l6O lb.)
K 3 at Five Kentucky Auctions, l949-62 ......... 20
( ( 9. Seasonal Index: Receipts of Slaughter Hogs at Chicago
{ § (l949—62) ...................... 2l
( 3 l0. Seasonal Index: Receipts of Feeder Pigs (80-99 lb.)
( § at Five Kentucky Auctions, l949—62 ......... 23
( 5
( E ll. Seasonal Index: Receipts of Feeder Pigs (under 80 lb.)
i g at Five Kentucky Auctions, l949-62 ......... 24
I g l2. Seasonal Index: Receipts of Feeder Pigs (l00—l59 lb.)
g § at Five Kentucky Auctions (l949—62) ......... 26
( 3 l3. Seasonal Index: Number of Head of Slaughter Hogs
’ § weighing l8l-220 lb. at Five Kentucky Auction
Q Markets (l949—62) .................. 27
> 3 l4. Seasonal Index: Market Receipts of Feeder Pigs under
E g l60 lb. for June at Five Kentucky Auctions,
g 1950-62 ....................... 28
j g l5. Seasonal Index: Market Receipts of Feeder Pigs (under
. ( é l6O lb.) for July at Five Kentucky Auctions,
( g l950—6l ....................... 29
( 3 l6. Seasonal Index: Market Receipts of Feeder Pigs (80-99
( ; lb.) for June at Five Kentucky Auctions, l950—6l . . 3l
· ( ( l7. Seasonal Index: Market Receipts of Feeder Pigs (under
* & 80 lb.) for May at Five Kentucky Auctions,
( ‘ 1950-62 ....................... as
( ( l8. Seasonal Index: Market Receipts of Feeder Pigs (80-99
( ( lb.) for December at Five Kentucky Auctions,
( g l949-6l ....................... 34
· ( E l9. Seasonal Index: Market Receipts of Feeder Pigs (l00-
( g l59 lb.) for January at Five Kentucky Auctions,
` ~ g l950-62 ....................... 35
. ii
V ( @3 20. Seasonal Index: Market Receipts of Feeder Pigs (80-99
l 3 lb.) for July at Five Kentucky Auctions, l950—6l . . 36
3 ,3
· ( § vi
. ii I _ J .............

Figure Page i ¤
21. Annua1 Average Feeder Pig-S1aughter Hog Price Ratio E f
and Price Difference at Five Kentucky Auction i
Markets, 1949-62 .................. 38
22. Average Seasona1 Index: Ratio of Feeder-Pig Price to 1
S1aughter-Hog Price at Five Kentucky Auction {
Markets, 1949-62 .................. 39 § (
23. Average Ratio of Prices of Feeder Pigs (40-79 1b.) to i *
Prices of S1aughter Hogs (181-220 1b.) Three Months %
Later at Five Kentucky Auction Markets, 1949-62 . . . 41 }
24. weight-Price Re1ationship for Feeder Pigs at Five i
Kentucky Auctions for January 1955, Showing the E
Change in Average Price per Unit Increase in
Average Height ................... 43 E
25. Annua1 Change in Def1ated Average Price of Feeder g
Pigs by weight Groups, Five Kentucky Auctions, .
1949-62 ....................... 45
26. Month1y Movement and Trend in the Height—Price i
Regression and the Feeder Pig-S1aughter Hog Price I
Ratio for Feeder Pigs and S1aughter Hogs at Five .
Centra1 Kentucky Auctions, by Months, 1949-62 .... 47 ·
27. Average Seasona1 Movement of Regression of Weight .
on Price of Feeder Pigs, Kentucky Auctions, Com-
pared with Seasona1 Index: Average Price of .
S1aughter Hogs (200-220 1b.) at Chicago, - _
1949-62 ....................... 48 · —
28. Month1y Movement of the Weight-Price Regression for
Feeder Pigs Compared with the Month1y Movements of
the Hog-Corn Price Ratio (Smoothed by a 3-Month
Moving Average), 1949-62 .............. 50 1
29. Seasona1 Variation of Regressions of weight on Price = ~
of Feeder Pigs, Years of High Hog-Corn Price Ratio
Compared with Years of Low Hog-Corn Price Ratio,
For the Period 1949-62 ............... 53 ‘

; \
By   i
Harry R. White, D. Milton Shuffett, and Robert W. Rudd  
Production of feeder pigs has long been an important enterprise in I
Central and Northern Kentucky, the area included in this study. Several
factors support this enterprise in the area: (l) feeder-pig production 5
generally requires pasture in excess of other needs, and in Central Ken- ·
tucky more than one half of the land is in pasture; (2) small grain crops -
are seeded in the fall and provide late fall and early spring pasture; °
(3) Central Kentucky is a grain-deficit area, and feeder pigs can be pro- :
duced on a limited supply of concentrate feed; and (4) the feeder-pig l
enterprise is a flexible enterprise in that farmers can decide at any time ‘
after weaning age to sell feeders or to hold hogs to heavier weights de- C
pending on price and cost expectations. ‘
Purposes of the Study
The present study is a continuation in part of earlier research ‘ I S
by Rudd [4] on prices of feeder pigs. The objectives of the present
study were: (l) to determine the seasonal patterns of feeder-pig prices
and receipts at five Central Kentucky markets over the years l949—62 and
to determine if these patterns have changed from those found in the
earlier study (l926—48), (2) to determine if shifts have occurred in
the seasonal patterns of marketing and prices, to determine the under- _
lying reasons for such changes, and (3) to determine the most profitable ` ’
timing of feeder-pig purchases and slaughter-hog sales from the stand-
point of seasonal price variation. Having knowledge of this type
should enable producers of feeder pigs to time production, to the ex-
tent possible, to take advantage of normal seasonal patterns in prices. _
Data and Time Period Used for Analvses
The data for this study were taken from the sales records of
five Central Kentucky auction markets located at Danville, Lexington,

i E
1 · Winchester, and Paris] and serving most of Centra1 Kentucky (Fig. 1).
i Q These markets are among the Iargest of the 21 auctions Iocated in 18
§ · towns in the B1uegrass area. Data were co11ected for the years 1949-62
Q on market receipts, weights, and prices.
( Se1ection of markets was made on the basis of size and sa1es-
I A day continuity. Size assures sufficient market receipts for continuous
E price quotations. This group of markets gives a comp1ete set of sa1e
Q days Monday through Friday each week which makes possib1e a continuous
Q price ref1ection.
( _ The price and market-receipt information was taken from the
Q pen sheets of the auction companies a1ong with the tota1 pen weights
i § of pigs. Information on 108,653 pen sa1es were obtained for use in
Q the study. In the co11ection of these data a11 sing1e 1ots (one head)
f ; and a11 pigs so1d with sows were e1iminated.
‘ 3 The chief Iimitation to these feeder-pig data is the 1ack of
3 ¤ any measure of qua1ity. In the editing of the data, a11 1ots of pigs
€ 3 that seemed to be of 1ow qua1ity were e1iminated. The measure of 1ow
E ; quality was prices of $3.00 or more per hundredweight lower than other
‘ § 1ots of pigs so1d the same day at the same market and of approximate1y
Q Q the same weight.
i 5 In addition, a top average weight per 1ot of feeder pigs was
E g set at 159 pounds; consequent1y, a11 1ots whose average weight was
; ? greater than 159 pounds were exc1uded since most of these hogs would
j A go for s1aughter.
. 1 ; The data series were combined for the five markets and sum-
1 g marized into month1y and annua1 series of prices and market receipts
1 g by 20-pound weight groups from 20 to 160 pounds for the combined
Q · markets. A price and market-receipts series for s1aughter hogs was
Q ; obtained on the same basis for three weight groups: 181-220; 181-199;
E i and 200-220 pounds, to compare feeder-pig and s1aughter-hog prices and
‘ i § receipts at the 1oca1 1eve1.
( ; Evidence of the Emergence of a Feeder-Pig Industry in Kentucky
; § Buying and se11ing of feeder pigs have, unti1 recent1y, been
} g the resu1t of short-term adjustments to changes in feed costs or changes
§ E in the financia1 position of the participant. A transformation toward
’ 1 g a commercia1 feeder-pig industry based on the demands of a de1iberate
_ I § over-a11 business po1icy is now evident.
i i
    lLivestock 3,L1CT.ZlOT1 IIlE1.I`k€TZS supplying $3.].65 data W€I`€Z BO)/].€ County
  i Stockyards, Danville; Bluegrass Stockyards, Lexington; Clay—Gentry
  : Stockyards (later operating as Clay-Wachs), Lexington; Farmers Sales
| I Company, Winchester; and Bourbon County Stockyards, Paris.
1 .
· ·' ` ......

 {J  NE    
3 4 ·• A? E  
  §t&% ?*      
wt ‘ WO,      
     ki! sox      
 Qu! $5        
<1,~     W' L  
 cle; 4*   
;    i {I'   
  `Q ? 2
\“ ‘i_`/_,/U.   5  gz  
xw-;   IAWA4 l 

 I i 4
§ Evidence of development of pigs as a regular farm enterprise is
` Q available in substantial volume but tends to be fragmented rather than
€ cohesive and analytically well founded. For example, the shipment of
§ feeder pigs from Kentucky to Indiana and Ohio has developed into a sub-
f g stantial industry during recent years (Table l).
i ‘ A second example of evidence supporting the emergence of a dis-
{ § tinct and viable feeder-pig industry in the Central Bluegrass area of
i ‘ Kentucky is the upward trend in feeder-pig production in the five market
§ 5 areas of Central Kentucky. During the l4-year period covered by this
; study, the trend in production of feeder pigs weighing less than 80
Q § pounds increased at an average annual rate of 6.77 percent.2
{ § The changes taking place in the Kentucky feeder-pig industry are
T § only a part of a much larger change taking place in the industry in gen-
l Q eral. Purchases of feeder pigs in the North Central Region for l956,
j Q which includes Kentucky and the corn-belt states, amounted to 7.4 million
y § head and constituted approximately l0.2 percent of total hog marketings.
5 g Radical changes appear to have taken place since l956 as indi-
Q g cated by changes in Illinois and Indiana, the number two and number three
. § hog-producing states in the United States. Gaydon [2] reported in l956
I Qi that feeder-pig purchases as a percentage of hog marketings in Illinois
  B and Indiana were 9.7 and 7.4 percent, respectively. By l96l, these pro-
Q é portions were approximately 20.0 percent in both states.
· 3
g ? Technological advances in feeder-pig and slaughter-hog production
Q Q have provided the opportunity and the incentive to increase specializa-
Q g tion. Advances in the design of farrowing houses, including heating and
Q ventilation, have made it possible to successfully farrow sows in winter
Q 3 without unreasonable increases in costs and, as a result, have cut down
E e on the highly seasonal nature of sow farrowing. wisconsin, for example,
g ` has increased fall farrowings as a percentage of spring farrowings from
I . a long-term average of 50 percent before l955 to 83 percent in l960 and
V i L 85 percent in l964. Also, spring and fall farrowings have leveled out
3 _ by months, with relatively heavier farrowings in November, December and
§ , January than was the case before l955.
g g Another technical advancement that has given emphasis to the
§ * development of a specialized feeder-pig industry has been the develop-
I § ment of techniques and equipment to significantly reduce the labor
§ § involved in feeding, watering, and manure disposal associated with the
' § Q finishing of purchased feeder pigs. From an economic point of view, the
* g desirability of exploiting the comparative advantage found in separating
_ I s hog production into the two components of feeder-pig production and
T é finishing purchased feeder pigs means serious consideration should be
V E § given to accepting specialization as a way of operation in the hog busi-
- ; ness.
i §
i   2Based on least squares trend analysis for the years 1947-62.
L `S  

 I » , 
5 I
E \
BY YEARS, l957-64 I ‘
Sune 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 i
-—-—--------—----————--—--— thousands of head ---------... - ................   `
Indiana 14 48 73 81 99 161 146 147 130 162 240 I
Oh¤> ;; ;; ;; .§§ .2Z .22 .22 .22 .§§ .29 .12
T6t61 14 48 73 137 146 205 190 186 188 218 314 é
Sources: Indiana: Indiana State- Federal Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. I
Ohio: "Shipment of Feeder Pigs into Ohio," Ohio Crop Reporting Service, Ohio ,
Department of Agriculture, Division of Animal lndustry.  
Farmers in the Central Kentucky area, which is the principal i
feeder-pig producing area in the state, sold 4l3,000 head of hogs in l964. Q
Approximately one half of the hogs sold in the Central Kentucky area are V
feeder pigs. .
Marketing Systems for Kentucky Feeder Pigs I
Newberg [3, p. 52] reported that terminal markets are of little
importance for sale of feeder pigs. Sales through terminal markets ac- _ _ I
counted for only O.8 percent of the feeder pigs sold by Kentucky farmers
in l956. Direct sales to other farmers made up 55 percent of the feeder- -
pig sales. Auction markets ranked second to direct farm sales in percentage —
of feeder pigs handled (26 percent) and dealers ranked third (I5 percent).
Concentration yards handled only l.3 percent of the feeder pigs sold by `
farmers in l956.
The popularity of the local auction market as an outlet for A
Kentucky feeder pigs is due primarily to the geographic convenience of
these markets. Also, the local auctions sell pigs on a pen-lot basis
with feeder pigs of equal quality sold in each lot.
Buyers of Feeder Pigs Sold on Kentucky Auctions
Approximately one—half of the feeder pigs sold on the five Central I
Kentucky auctions involved in this study are transported out of the state.
Dealers who buy for other farmers, primarily in Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois,
take about 30 percent of all pigs sold to out-of-state feeders. The re-
maining 2O percent destined for out—of-state shipment are taken by corn—belt
farmers for their own farm enterprise. A significant market for Kentucky
feeder pigs to be used by serum companies producing hog-cholera serum

I a
§ 6
i 3
Q Q existed up until the early l950's. However, changes in serum technology
· Q and the development of cholera-free states have reduced the total number
l . of feeder pigs required for this purpose. Also, some serum companies
é A prefer to raise their own pigs rather than compete in the market for
l · feeder pigs. Intrastate sales of feeder pigs from the Central Bluegrass
I 3 market go mainly to garbage feeders in the Louisville area. Local farmers
l § buy only a negligible number of feeders from these markets each year.
i The Market Class of Feeder Pigs
i S Feeder pigs can be segregated as a market class of livestock pri-
Q § marily in that they lack the weight and quality of finish associated with
P ‘ slaughter hogs. Therefore, feeder pigs are pigs that can economically
E . take on additional weight and finish.
1 § Slaughter hogs are separated from feeder pigs on the basis of
1 , weight in U.S.D.A. Market News Service publications. Generally, barrows
g 5 and gilts weighing less than l20 pounds are considered feeder pigs.
{ L However, this weight division is often overlooked and at various times
§ 3 swine up to l8O pounds are referred to as feeder pigs. Historically,
“ § there appears to be no distinct line between feeder pigs and slaughter
, g hogs because sometimes barrows and gilts in the l40-l6O pound class find
§ use for immediate slaughter and occasionally hogs above l6O pounds are
e g held for more feeding.
i g For the purposes of this study the division between feeder pigs
é Q and slaughter hogs has been set at l6O pounds. The break between the
Q Q two categories of swine is arbitrary but follows the precedent set earlier
l 3 in research by Rudd [4] in the field of feeder-pig price determination.
‘ g i The problem of when to market livestock is an important decision
` Q confronting the producer. An error in judgment in the timing of market-
i I ings by the farmer can mean the difference between profit and loss. The
i . measurement of seasonal variation in prices offers useful assistance to
i the producer in this problem.
s i
Q g _ The average seasonal index of prices received for feeder pigs on
; E the five Central Kentucky auctions during 1949-1962 reached a high of ll5
‘ 5 § percent during April and declined about 18 percent, on the average, to a
~ l E seasonal low of 94 percent for the months of July, November, and December3
I   *_"—
‘   fg 3Seasona1 variation in prices has been separated out by use of a ratio of
; Q prices to 12-month moving average, centered and adjusted. The years
i g 1949-62 were used, yielding indices for 1950-61. However, due to the
5 shift in the seasonal index during the period 1949-53, these years
{   were left out of the final index for this study. An index covering the
i .
. l¤ I , y _,,_,,,_...  

7 l
! .
(Fig. 2). However, July is the more consistent low month in price of § —
feeder pigs. A seasonal index for a month measures the percentage that § '
prices for that month are of the average price for the entire year. A (
seasonal index for April of ll5 percent, for example, would indicate that (
during April prices averaged l5 percent above the average price received (
for the entire year. A monthly index of lOO means that the price for (
that month was the same as the average for the year. E
Stability in seasonal price patterns can also be measured by the g 2
relative variability of the index for individual months. The coefficient (
of variation of the individual annual seasonal indices indicates the i
amount of variation of the monthly indices from year to year. A relative 7
variability of 2 percent for April means that in two years out of three ?
the relative price will be the same as indicated by the index, plus or ,
minus 2 percent (Appendix, Table l).
The seasonal index calculated for an earlier period of years (l926- i
48) using the same five Kentucky auctions as a source of data shows a ;
seasonal high price reached in July and a seasonal low price in December. i
A substantial change has taken place in the seasonal price patterns for .
feeder pigs since 1948. ?
Seasonal Price Variation of Feeder Pigs with Rising and 4
Falling Farm-Product Price Levels i
A comparison was made of the seasonal price movemgnts of feeder .
pigs for the years in which the price of all farm products· rose or de- ”
clined by at least lD percent for the years l949—62. The average seasonal p
price index during the three years of increasing farm-product prices .
(l950, l95l, l958) reached a high of llO percent during July and declined . _ A
about l9 percent, on the average, to a seasonal low of 89 percent for the
month of December (Fig. 3).
The seasonal variability of prices for the years of rising farm-
product prices was only one percent greater than the average price variability ·
of all feeder pigs under l6O pounds for the entire period l954-62.
During the four years of falling farm-product prices (l952, l953,
l955, l959), the average seasonal price index was highest in May at ll6
percent of the yearly average price (Fig. 3). The seasonal low occurred i
in December when the price index equaled 88 percent of the yearly average
price. The seasonal change of 24 percent, on the average, was about 6 ~
percent greater than the average price variability of all feeder pigs over
the entire period.
years 1954-61 was found to be representative of the actual seasonal
movement of feeder-pig prices. Seasonal variation in market receipts
of feeder pigs was isolated by the same method using 1949-62 inclusive.
4Changes in the price of all farm products were measured by the Index cf
Wholesale Prices cf Farm Products (1910-14 = 100) [6]. `

§ TI
I 2
t 53
Q   ¤ `J»
i I .r- n
I D. C\l
I * · L K?
1 · cu r-
‘ I S S o I-*— _
¢ ' *4- In
I g 2 2 / O O ,5
. I I
¤   cv 2+ <¤ =¢
I la 
  cn ca #9 JE
1 ai "( I-I lr- "
    I * (D OS; S
Z. ‘+— *r-
1   . \ 2 2
5 >< Z5
,   I ° {1 g <:
Q   \ c >»
X; . >—• gd
~; \ u
I CI I-J U) r··· Z
*5 -¤‘· ru 4->
E E c <;:
  O O O CU
¤¤ / 2 2 *‘
  , *7> cu cu
‘ R ¤’
es- r¤ 4-*
I ·g 2 s. cu
Qu G.)
Y   2 2
I Z3 (1 *+- 3 ·
“ I Q O 3E
  : * <; 1
I I \ 0 0 E
‘   ` 2   E OW
{ s. .-
I   \ .¤ L
  1 * 0. cu .:
` 2 , \ E ·¤ 4->
1 *‘ · 8 § E
· i E Ln
2 2 ‘ \ I
I I ` `
;   \ ·= Cs
( L °l"'
. t L1.
E E  ...
I :=
{ if Q LQ O IO C>
· 4   3 `*° 2 2 2 2 2
I ` ‘_( ‘,.{
~ l   (quam md) xapu] pzuoseag
: $5 ·
L la
\ `
_ ~»   _ _ _ ,  _,....._...  

U; I
cu U} L
O Q   R
S .2 i
GTF-· e —
·"n»·~¤-1 I —
Cds ;
:-·,_<,·: :
if Z 2
V “¤ E
U1, A ;
Lzgaygb-Mr; { U7 E
Zcwwnn ' UV E
,.. .- .-a cx. 2
c’ZS~;`§'_< • S- I
¥#·:¤>::.I / ¤,· -
<»-·éS*‘*u;-; -55 P —
O,-·=..·c> I (Um ;
an ,O"* / Z Eu. _ .
@01% · Cn Y
  ' *6: Q
Q-4;:,4,0C} r` W'; ;
*"°Z', u m
I ' °¤-
• LU ¢
r Q-:
l • Ji LPG 1
Om 5
* :.5
< .2W ?
rc: W `
u ·»—q___g
W §°:
Z9 Wu
I 3,-gz: ‘
• mg:
www A
\ 2 -Ȥ  
• Og
G © '
,—< Q O cn
(JUS;) 00 c> u.
.I9d)Y D_
  7 `

Q Q The differences in seasonal price patterns between years of rising
· § and falling farm-product prices are located in differences in the size of
( the peak price index. An explanation of this difference is that (deflated)
  T "”l°“ °E €‘*i§'.€“ ‘°`g$ ivmi ‘°l€‘" d”‘”l"g ’$"§€$l.E2L]2i3ii§€§"`iE§°‘§E§Et
s prices, u e range in seasona varia ion n _ _ _
( 3 equal for the two sets of years. The difference of greatest significance,
( a therefore, was the persistence of a seasonal price index almost equal to
§ 5 the peak month over a longer period of the season when farm-product prices
( § were rising.
) S Shifts in the Seasonal Patterns of Feeder-Pig Prices
i §
E § There was evidence of a systematic shift in the seasonal movement
é of feeder-pig prices during the period l949-62. The shift is descernible
T 2 when trends are fitted to the successive observations for particular months.
( 3 The increased importance of March and April as months of season-
j , ally high feeder-pig prices at the expense of June and July is the most
g 3 pronounced change in the seasonal index for the period of this study.
E § During the period l949-54, the seasonal high price for the year changed
i § in progressive steps, by months, from the long-time seasonally high
j § month of July to April. The seasonally high price index for feeder pigs
i A at the five Kentucky auctions remained in April for the 1954-62 period with
, Q only two exceptions--l956 and l957 when May was slightly higher than
( Q April. Because of the observed shift in the seasonal index between
Q § l949 and l954, and owing to the stability of the seasonal high price
3 Q index since l954, the seasonal indices for prices of feeder pigs have
§ é been based on the years l954-62 instead of considering the entire period
_ i A l949-62 in the calculation for seasonal indices of feeder-pig prices.
( i Based on the trend indications, the seasonal index of prices of
g » feeder pigs for April has shifted upward at the rate of l.46 percentage
( · points per year over the entire period l949-62 (Table 2).
( i March shows an upward trend of l.O7 percent per year for the
same period. These upward shifts were compensated for by a downward
’ trend in the seasonal price index for July of 2.lO percent and to a
( L lesser extent by downward trends in the seasonal index of feeder-pig
Q * prices for June and August.
i §
l E
( é Shifts in Seasonal Patterns of Prices by weight Groups
1 g ' The seasonal price movements of feeder pigs were influenced by
t T é weight during the period of this study. To compare the movements of the
y Q seasonal price index as it is influenced by changes in the weight of
§ Q feeder pigs, the receipts of feeder pigs at the Kentucky auctions were
( g divided into three weight groups: under 80; 80-99; and lOO-l59 pounds.
3 g These groups will be referred to respectively as lightweight, medium—
E 5 weight, and heavy feeder pigs. The basis for these divisions was a

 1 .
11 {
1 .
TABLE 2 1 3
Average Chance per Year Average of i .
Aonth A11 Pigs i 1
Under 80 1b. 80-99 1b. 100-159 1b. under 160 1b. 1 `
-—--—------ Percent -----——----— E
January 0.67 0.65 0.27 0.36 {
February 1.04 0.75 .43 .61
March 1.35 1.08 .73 1.07 ;
Apri1 1.53 0.79 .64 1.46 `
ray - .92 - .78 - .19 — .16 ¥
` June -1.55 -1.14 — .83 -1.21
Ju1y -2.09 -1.84 -1.77 -2.10 ;
August -1.00 -1.08 - .99 -1.14
September - .22 - .52 - .44 - .45 E
October - .20 .09 - .009 — .10 § I
November .068 .26 .46 .19
December .97 .96 .65 .74 j
comparison of the seasona1 movements of market receipts in each 20-pound
weight group from 20 to 160 pounds. It was observed that pigs weighing
under 80 pounds and pigs weighing over 100 pounds show very uniform
seasona1 movements in market receipts; whereas, pigs weighing between ‘
80 and 100 pounds did not match up with either 1ighter or heavier feeder _ _
pigs. Therefore, the 80-99 pound group was given a separate c1assifi— A
cation. .
The average seasona1 index of prices received for feeder pigs
in the 1ightweight group reached a high of 119 percent during Apri1 and
dec1ined about 24 percent, on the average, to a seasona1 1ow of 90 per- ;
cent for the month of Ju1y (Fig. 4). In genera1, the 1ightweight feeder . ,
pigs showed a greater range of variation than the other weight groups. ·
However, the coefficient of variation for the individua1 months revea1s
a re1ative variabi1ity of on1y 2 percent for the high month of Apri1 and .
a re1ative variabi1ity of 3.5 percent for the seasona11y 1ow month of
Ju1y (Appendix, Tab1e 1). L
The seasona1 price pattern for medium-weight feeders, the sma11est
weight group in terms of market receipts, a1so conformed quite c1ose1y to (
the average for a11 feeder pigs, reaching an Apri1 peak of 116 percent of Q
the season's average price and dec1ining 18 percent, on the average, to a
seasona1 1ow of 93 percent for the month of November (Fig. 4). Variabi1ity
of the medium-weight group equa1ed the variabi1ity found for a11 feeder
pigs. The coefficient of variabi1ity for the high month was 2.5 percent
and for November, the seasona11y 1ow month, the coefficient equa1ed 4.0
percent (Appendix, Tab1e 1).

2 _"l
i é
? é
= F I 3
1   I Ei
. § Z “’
~ ; 4->
I g 4/ J:
_ E , U1
1   E vi 25
F $ ’_' · »-Q ’ E
1 w= G w ·· r 0
S oo -¤ cu >»
»·s v—< I _Q
ii :-4 LO r'
j gg CD 3 T ·~
E   '¤ n 0 [D vv
  %¤ S zz 2 3
`   • ` 0.
_ § I I s ’· ‘
=   I n \ ` < g S
2   | I " cv;
1 15 ' ' s LL Ln
  ‘ Q. 2
gf I` *1 2 0
ze 44 ’*
·* 0 ’ ::1 an an
  ,’ 0 w +»
1   / r 2 ..93
¤   · M ‘ ; z
  /¢‘¢¢ L}- p-
= __4 ¢; O ..
z   o' 2 >< E
1   % *3
  3 ,·‘ ' 2 2
Q ` O
‘ *1 s * Q ij
w   s N O 3
  1 `~ · 2 2
.     `§ ` ` \ ` 2 3 lg}
‘ ` .,.
: ` i \ V-4 E u.
V \ • 2 P
I E I < ·-¤
i I I '
.   *1 .
K =§ <"
2 EJ
? ig cn
' a 4” O
· 3 2 5 2 8 S § ¤»
    (QHSQ xsd) Xapu] [BUOSBQS
; E
r 3
A   i ., _.4..1..... , .,.. 1

l3 i
! .
For heavyweight feeder pigs the price pattern resembled the move- E 4
ment found in the other two groups. The range of seasonal price variation i
for heavy feeders showed a range of only l6 percent, on the average, which Q
was 2 percent less than the average range of variation found for all feeder {
pigs under l60 pounds. The characteristic seasonal peak price came in i
April, but the low for the year extended from November to January (Fig. 4). ,
Reasons Underlying Changes in Seasonal i ’
Prices for Feeder