Publication 1442 ( Section 1 )

SWINE PRODUCTION

ECONOMICS

(630.4

C212
P 1442
I section
1971
c. 3

lypii^ H

CANADA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

>
c

<

<

O

CANADA AGHfCULTUR!

f" s ' LIBRARY

£*"*«« -■■■ «<HSlte
OTTAWA. ONTARIO

CAi<. ... ?!}iriHfiiik«
C < 3 .

>

o
c:

r-

2J
in

SWINE PRODUCTION

ECONOMICS

R.J. Bens and A.G. Wilson, Department of Agricultural Economics,
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon

R.W. May and J.F. Hickie, Production and Marketing Branch and
Economics and Statistics Branch, Saskatchewan Department of Agri-
culture, Regina

Prepared under Direction of the Saskatchewan Advisory Council on
Animal Production

Publication 1442 (Section 1)

CANADA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

The text for this publication was prepared under the direction of the
Saskatchewan Advisory Council on Animal Production and appears in
five separate sections:

1. Economics

by

R.J. Bens and A.G. Wilson, Department of Agricultural Eco-
nomics, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, and R.W. May
and J.F. Hickie, Production and Marketing Branch, and Economics
and Statistics Branch, Saskatchewan Department of Agriculture,
Regina.

2. Feeding

by

J.M. Bell and B.D. Owen, Department of Animal Science,

University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon.

3. Routine Care and Management

by

L.A. Blair, Production and Marketing Branch, Saskatchewan

Department of Agriculture, Melfort, and

A. Castell, Research Station, Canada Department of Agriculture,

Melfort.

4. Buildings and Equipment

by

J. Kristjanson, Family Farm Improvement Branch, Saskatchewan
Department of Agriculture, Regina, and

W.P. Lampman, Department of Agricultural Engineering, Univer-
sity of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon.

5. Diseases

by

O.M. Radostits, Western College of Veterinary Medicine, Univer-
sity of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, and

V.E. Senior, Veterinary Division, Saskatchewan Department of
Agriculture, Regina.

This publication was published by the Canada Department of Agri-
culture in accordance with the terms of reference of the Federal-
Provincial Regional Cooperative Publishing Program.

NOTE TO READERS

The attention of readers is drawn to the fact that the text for this
publication was prepared by the Saskatchewan Advisory Committee on
Swine Production and that where recommendations for pesticide use
appear, they are consistent with those of that province. However,
readers who reside in other provinces should check with provincial
authorities to determine whether or not the recommendations apply in
their province.

CONTENTS

Hogs Can Be Profitable 7

Marketing grain through hogs 7

Mechanized vs conventional facilities 8

Size of enterprise 8

Selecting the type of enterprise 8

Production Performance 9

Low feed conversion 9

High productivity per sow 9

Other factors 10

Least cost rations 10

Productivity of the breeding herd 11

Age (days) to market weight 11

Variation from farm to farm 12

Estimating Production Costs 13

Out-of-pocket expenses 13

Opportunity costs 13

Variable costs 14

Fixed costs 14

Using cost figures for decision-making 14

Pricing weanlings 14

Swine Marketing 15

Consumer preferences 16

Hog carcass grading system 16

Price determination methods 19

Teletype selling 19

Marketing feeder pigs 20

Swine Prices 21

Seasonal price variation 21

Cyclical price 23

Other price movements 23

The hog-barley ratio 23

The Competitive Position of Canadian Swine Producers 24

Appendix 26

Tables

1 . Amount of grain marketed through a hog 7

2. Resources required for various types of swine enterprises .... 9

3. Feed requirements and costs for various classes of swine 11

4. Effect of turnover on labor return 12

5. Break-even weanling costs for a $4 labor return 15

6. Per capita consumption of meat, Canada 16

7. Table of differentials 18

8. Tariff rates on swine and pork, Canada and United States .... 25

Figures

1. Cross-section of hams showing differences in muscling 17

2. Seasonal price and slaughter variation, 1950-69 22

3. Hog prices, Saskatoon and Toronto, 1950—69 24

4. Hog-barley ratio and inspected slaughter, 1950-69 25

HOGS CAN BE PROFITABLE

A swine enterprise can be a profitable venture. As in any business, to make the
most profit, the operator must have a sound knowledge of basic economic and
production principles. Lack of planning or careless management of the swine enter-
prise, as of any business, can end in financial loss.

A person contemplating a hog production enterprise should carefully consider the
following questions:

• With the experience and resources available, could I maintain a profitable hog
enterprise?

• What size enterprise can 1 handle most efficiently and profitably?

• Which type of hog production, i.e., weanling, feeder, farrow-finish, breeding,
would be most suitable?

• Should I use conventional or mechanized facilities?

• Why are some swine enterprises successful while others are not?

Each farmer must assess the answers to these questions as they relate to his own
situation. The best method of operation or type of production for one farmer may
not be the best for his neighbor. It is easy to be optimistic about expected hog
prices and performance levels, and the new producer should make a critical
comparison of his management with that of this neighbors who have been success-
ful.

Marketing grain through hogs

The profitability of marketing grain through hogs depends on four factors:

• the price of pork

• the feed conversion ratio

• the price of feed grains

• the overall management of the hog enterprise

Table 1 indicates the amount of grain that might be marketed through hogs in
various types of enterprises. Higher consumption of grain can result from such
factors as poor housing, poor disease control and poorly balanced rations.

Table 1. Amount of Grain (Barley) Marketed through a Hog

Feed Required (Barley)

Type of

Enterprise lb bu

Feeder hogs

(35-200 lb) 465-560 9.7-11.6

per hog marketed

Farrow-finish 600-750 12.5-15.7

per hog marketed

Weanling pigs 1900-2280 40.0-47.5

per breeding female
per litter

Ranges for feeder hogs are for feed conversions of 3.25:1 and 4.0:1 whereas the high
requirements for mature stock are increased by 20 percent.

Mechanized vs conventional facilities

The operator of a swine enterprise must decide which facilities are best suited to
his needs: mechanized, total confinement buildings with controlled temperature
and humidity, or conventional facilities in which temperature and humidity are not
controlled, animals are allowed outside, and such tasks as feeding and manure
removal are done, at least in part, by hand.

Mechanized facilities can best be employed when the producer:

• has access to adequate capital but no surplus labor

• has experience with hogs and a high level of skill in working with them

• is prepared for a long-term commitment to hog production

• wants to make hogs a primary enterprise with a high volume of production
Conventional facilities are most suited to. the producer who:

• has sufficient labor but is short of cash

• has limited experience dealing with a hog enterprise

• is not prepared for. a long-term hog production enterprise

The trend in swine production is toward greater confinement, particularly when
the producer wants a large scale operation and must therefore minimize his labor
requirements. Greater confinement leads to lower feed requirements per hog, easier
handling and management of the breeding herd, and a shorter/time period in which
to grow hogs to market weight. However, mechanized enterprises require more
careful management for top economic performance than do conventional ones.
High capital investment for mechanized facilities does not serve as a substitute for
day-to-day management skills.

While controlling temperature and humidity is difficult without modern facilities,
the proper insulation and ventilation of conventional buildings seldom requires. a
prohibitive expenditure and can improve production performance in non-
mechanized facilities.

Size of enterprise

Good management is the key to low per unit production costs and thus higher
profits.

Manual feed and manure handling systems limit the number of hogs that can be
handled efficiently and profitably. A large number of hogs can be handled in
mechanized facilities. However, high income can be achieved from conventional
facilities and a medium-size enterprise, even though there will be high labor require-
ments per unit of production.

The best combination for highest income is good management (low production
costs) and mechanized facilities (high number of hogs).

Selecting the type of enterprise

There are four types of hog enterprise: weanling, feeder, farrow-finish and
breeding stock. Table 2 shows the resources required for the various types of swine
enterprise.

8

Table 2. Resources Required For Various Types of Swine Enterprises

Weanlings

Feeders

Farrow-finish

Breeding stock

A high level of skills 1.
for:

(a) Managing the
herd breeding
and farrowing
schedules

(b) Farrowing and
rearing piglets

(c) Disease control

Warm, dry farrowing
facilities

2.
High labor required
in relation to
capital

3.
Low grain require-
ment in relation to
labor and capital

Reasonable skill
for:

(a) Providing
proper rations
to get good
feed efficiency

(b) Disease control

(c) Purchasing
weanlings with
good profit
potential

High grain require-
ment in relation to
labor and capital

Low labor
requirement (if
the facilities are
highly mechanized)

1. A combination of 1. All the skills

the skills required
for the previous
two types of
enterprises

A medium amount
of capital in
relation to labor
and grain require-
ments

required for the
other types of
enterprises

2. Ability to main-
tain and assess
detailed and
and accurate
records of pig
performance

3. Knowledge of
breeding procedures

4. Greater capital
investment than
any type of
commercial swine
enterprise

SUPERIOR PHYSICAL PRODUCTION PERFORMANCE

Few producers reach top levels of physical production performance in their hog
enterprise. Average performance is well below the levels of "superior performance".
Producers with poor breeding stock, or who do not crossbreed, should expect lower
levels of physical production performance.

Likewise, producers with conventional facilities which are cold, wet or unsanitary
cannot expect superior physical performance. Inexperienced producers, even
though they might have expensive facilities, should not expect superior physical
production performance immediately.

Low feed conversion

Balanced rations, minimal disease levels and hybrid pigs can achieve feed conver-
sions of less than 3 pounds of feed per pound of gain in the growing and finishing
periods. Feed requirements based on average conversions of 3.25:1 for growing
animals are given in Table 3. Given good performing breeding stock and disease
control, it is possible to reduce this feed requirement by as much as 15 per cent.

High productivity per sow

Superior breeding stock, proper nutrition and close attention at farrowing time,
are necessary for superior performance in terms of animals produced on a per sow
basis.

An individual sow can have as many as 2.55 litters in a year (three litters every 14
months). A superior sow could therefore farrow 22—23 pigs in a year although it
would be difficult to wean more than a maximum of 18—19. This might allow for
sales of 1 7— 19 market hogs per year from this high producing sow.

Not all sows in the breeding herd will reach this level of performance. Because
some sows have poor or no litters, others are culled and new gilts are brought in,
the average performance per sow in the superior breeding herd will not likely be
tli is high.1

An overall breeding efficiency of 85 percent would result in 15 — 16 market hogs
sold per year for each sow in the breeding herd. This number of annual market hogs
represents a level of performance which is achieved by relatively few herds.

Other factors related to superior physical performance

Healthy, fast -growing pigs can be reared to market weight in 150-180 days.

Minimum days to market weight depends heavily on freedom from disease.
Proper nutrition also increases resistance to disease. Superior management in terms
of getting hogs to market in 5 to 6 months is therefore closely related to the
question of proper nutrition and disease control.

The problem of least cost rations

Although "properly balanced" rations may result in the best physical feed conver-
sion, there may be other rations which would achieve a lower feed cost per pound
of pig produced on the farm. Some grains are higher in nutrients, and it may be
possible to lower feed costs by feeding more grain and less supplement in the
ration.

It is important to know whether a "cheaper ration" will actually cost less in terms
of cost per pound of pig produced. Rations which are "inexpensive" may be short
of essential nutrients and therefore inefficient.

The lowest cost of feed per pound of gain is one of several important economic
factors. Each individual farmer should recognize that the least cost ration formula-
tion on his farm depends on:

• The value of feed grain on the farm

• The price of supplements

• The nutrient content of feed grain

• The feed requirements of the animals for good growth and good health

The kinds and proportions of feeds used for the most economical production
varies with such factors as price, nutrient content and feed requirements. Table 3
provides an estimate of feed costs for various classes of swine.

If a sow is on the farm for 12 months, she should be counted as one sow unit, and one-half
sow unit if she is present for 6 months, etc. The total sow units should be used for these
purposes and not just the sows which have good litters twice per year.

10

Table 3. Feed Requirements and Costs for Various Classes of Swine

Class or period

Ration

constituent

(lb)

(lb)

Total

Total

Feed cost

feed

cost

per

required

market hog

(lb)

(dollars)

(dollars)

Weanling
(up to 35 lb)

Prestarter

16

Starter

18

34

2.50

2.50

Weanling
(35-50 lb)

Grower
(50-110 lb)

Finisher
(110-200 lb)

Sow
(per year)

Boar
(per year)

Barley

Supplement

23

5

150

28

290

40

1900

200

1520

180

28

178

330

2100

1700

0.70

Total

4.21

7.15

12.06

42.50

2.83

35.40

0.12

17.51

Assumptions: (1) Total confinement

(2) High energy grain (12-14% protein barley), valued at 1.5^ per pound

(3) 35-40% protein-mineral-vitamin supplement valued at 1$ per pound

(4) Prestarter and starter are complete commercial feeds, valued at 10^ and 54
per pound, respectively

(5) 15 pigs produced per sow per year

(6) Mating ratio of one boar per 20 sows

productivity of the breeding herd

High productivity per sow is usually consistent with higher profits per sow.
Controlled temperature and humidity are required for superior performance in this
respect. However, higher capital investment is required to achieve this ideal environ-
ment. Breeding herd performance must be better to compensate for higher invest-
ment costs.

Sow productivity depends heavily on management of the sows with respect to
breeding schedules and care at farrowing time. Superior performance requires
superior management even when housing conditions are ideal.

age (days) to market weight

Minimum days to market weight and high yearly turnover are usually consistent
with economic efficiency if investment in buildings and equipment is high.

If investment is low, and labor and facilities are plentiful, it may be economical to
accept longer times to market weight. Hogs which take as long as 7 or 8 months to
reach market weight require additional labor and will likely require an

11

uneconomical feed conversion ratio. The money invested in the hog will also be tied
up for a longer period.

Another factor which influences the time to market weight is the weight at which
the hogs are sold. It takes more feed to produce a pound of pork as the hog reaches
heavier weights. Seven to eight percent more feed per pound of pork is required for
a hog weighing 200—255 pounds than for one weighing from 150—200 pounds.

If, for example, the feed conversion ratio from 150—200 pounds is 3.5:1, and
from 200—225 pounds is 3.75:1, and the ration is worth 2 cents per pound, the
extra feed cost would be about $1.90 per hog.

Other facts to consider are:

• Probable loss in index rating

• Additional labor and overhead costs

• Probable reduction in turnover (i.e. less pigs through the barn)

A farmer who has a considerable investment in the hog enterprise must look upon
turnover as an important factor. Table 4 shows how significant turnover can be.

Table 4: Effect of Turnover on Labor Return

Number of hogs
fed per year

700 800

($) ($)

Investment 17,500.00 17,500.00

Operating costs per hog 32.00 32.00

Fixed costs per hog 3.04 2.66

Labor return per hog 6.96 7.34

Enterprise labor return 4,872.00 5,872.00

Assuming greater use of facilities with no change in per hog operating costs and gross returns,
and hours of labor.

The net effect of feeding an extra 100 hogs through the same facilities is to
increase labor returns by about 20 percent. Such an increase in turnover is possible
by reducing the average time to market weight from 180 days to 154 days per
market hog.

Variation in performance and costs from farm to farm

Wide differences in production performance and costs from one farm to another
may be attributed to the following factors:

• Dissimilar experience and day-to-day management skills, especially with regard to
disease control

• The quality of the breeding herd

• The type of facilities used

The question, "How much does it cost to raise hogs? ", can only be answered in
terms of each individual situation. It is easy to be too optimistic about the expected
level of physical performance, and a producer should make a critical comparison of
his management with those who have been successful operators for some time.

12

PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING PRODUCTION COSTS

Producers should keep records of such items as the cost and amount of feed
consumed, the number of animals farrowed and weaned or purchased, the cost of
purchased animals, the number marketed, and their price, and the breeding and
farrowing dates for individual sows. Such records are essential in gauging day-to-day
management, as a basis of year-to-year comparison, and as a check on efforts to
improve performance.

Out-of-pocket expenses

Some production costs involve an out-of-pocket expense while others do not. The
out-of-pocket expenses are simply recorded as cash outlays and include such items
as purchased feed, hired labor, veterinary and medicine costs, utilities and
miscellaneous overhead, insurance on facilities or livestock, repayment of loans,
machinery and equipment operating costs, repairs to buildings and equipment, and
purchased replacements for the breeding herd.

Opportunity costs

Costs which do not involve cash outlays are usually termed opportunity costs and
may include such items as homegrown feed, the farmer's labor, buildings and
equipment owned by the farmer, breeding herd replacements selected from farm
stock, and money generated on the farm and used for operating expenses.

The real cost of inputs, which do not require cash outlay, is the income they
would have produced if they wre not used in the hog enterprise. For example, if
homegrown barley can be sold for 1 cent per pound, then this is its real cost to the
hog enterprise. The best alternate income from the barley might be to sell it for this
price to another hog producer.

If the farmer's labor could have been used for another alternative such as cattle or
carpentry, the real cost of his labor to the hog enterprise is the hourly wage he
sacrifices.

If farm buildings could be used for other enterprises, the real cost of the buildings
to the hog enterprise is the return which would be earned if the buildings were used
in another way. Assuming the buildings would be idle if there were no pigs, then
there is no "opportunity cost" and the real cost of the buildings to the swine
enterprise approaches zero. If there are loan payments to make on the buildings,
the relevant cost might be the cash outlay required to service the loan.

If money generated from the farm is used for hog operating expenses, rather than
put in the bank or used for some other purpose, then the real cost of operating
capital to the hog enterprise is the rate of return which would have been earned in
the best alternate use. The real cost of borrowed money is simply a cash outlay in
terms of interest.

If a gilt is selected from the farm stock to replace an older sow, the real cost of
the replacement is the return given up by not selling the gilt.

13

Variable costs

Some cost items vary with the level of production and can be changed by
decisions which affect the level of current production. These cost items, called
variable costs, include feed, labor, veterinary and medicine charges, livestock
insurance, utilities and miscellaneous overhead, machinery and equipment operating
costs, repairs to buildings and equipment, interest on money used for operating
expenses and loss allowance due to the death of hogs prior to reaching full market
weight.

Fixed costs

Some cost items, the result of long-term planning, are not influenced by
day-to-day decisions. Called fixed costs, these include loan payments, interest
on owned investment, breeding herd replacements and depreciation due to
obsolescence.

Using cost figures for decision-making

Variable costs influence short-run decisions regarding when, how and how much
to produce. The fixed costs do not vary in the short run because they will remain
constant even if no production takes place. The length of time to which decisions
are directed determines whether variable costs or total costs are the most important
factors bearing on production decisions.

For example, a farmer may be testing out some plans to build a hog barn. He
would not go ahead with the enterprise unless he expected the eventual returns to
cover his total costs (cash costs, interest and depreciation, etc.). Total costs (variable
plus fixed costs) are the relevant costs for him to consider.

If the farmer already has the facilities, he has already accepted the fixed costs
that go with them. This means that he bears the fixed costs whether he uses the
facilities or not. The farmer should, therefore, produce as long as the returns cover
the variable costs associated with production since it is only the variable costs that
are due to actual production.

Break-even points for pricing weanlings

Weanling producers are always in a strong bargaining position when there are
good profits in feeding operations. Cost records can be used by weanling producers
to develop pricing guidelines as an aid in bargaining with feeder operations.

Farmer's Estimate of Production Cost/Weanling $12

Add Desired Labor Return 4

Break-Even Selling Price for Weanling Producer $16

Feeder operators can also use cost records to estimate break-even weanling costs.
Table 5 illustrates the procedure when a $4 labor return is desired by the feeder
operation.

14

Table 5. Break-even Weanling Costs for a $4 Labor Return

(Select the Cost Column and the price row that is the most reasonable expectation for your
situation.)

Expected Returns per Total Costs

market hog (155 lb (less weanling costs)

dressed wt)

$17 $19 $21 $23 $25

Price Per Gross re-

cwt turns/hog Break-even Weanling Costs

$24

$37.20

$16.20

$14.20

$12.20

$10.20

$ 8.20

$26

$40.30

$19.30

$17.30

$15.30

$13.30

$11.30

$28

$43.40

$22.40

$20.40

$18.40

$16.40

$14.40

$30

$46.50

$25.50

$23.50

$21.50

$19.50

$17.50

$32

$49.60

$28.60

$26.60

$24.60

$22.60

$20.60

$34

$52.70

$31.70

$29.70

$27.70

$25.70

$23.70

Example: Relevant cost — $19; expected return — $28/cwt ; desired labor return —$4.00. The
upper bargaining limit would be $20.40 per weanling.

If the feeder operation is already under way (the fixed investments have been made) the
relevant production cost will be the Variable Costs. The upper bargaining limit in the short run
can then be calculated by using Variable Costs instead of Total Costs.

SWINE MARKETING

Production and marketing decisions cannot be viewed in isolation. Production
decisions must be based on consumers' demands. The marketing system reflects
these demands back to the producer. Swine producers, therefore, must have as their
goal a marketing system which operates at the lowest cost consistent with satisfying
the wants of the consumer. The consumer in turn can be expected to indicate his
desire for a particular quality or form of product by the premium he is willing to
pay.

Swine marketing really begins when the decision is made to produce, and ends
with a satisfied smile on the face of the well-fed consumer. Marketing entails the
performance of certain functions which are services added to a product as it moves
from the producer to the consumer. These functions may be classified into those of
exchange, those associated with the physical handling of the product, and those
involved in enabling exchange and physical handling of the product to occur with
greatest efficiency.

Thus, marketing consists of buying and selling; of providing for storage,
transportation and processing; of grading, financing, and assuming risk; and of
providing for an enlargement of the demand for the product. Efficient performance
of these functions is dependent upon the presence of an accurate and timely
information system. This is important since the returns to swine producers reflect
the price the consumer is willing to pay for the volume of product offered, less the
marketing cost. Producers should, therefore, be vigilant to ensure that the

15

marketing functions are performed as efficiently as possible. It is the producer who
is the residual claimant of the consumer's expenditure.

Consumer preferences

In their purchasing patterns of the past few years, consumers have indicated a
preference for beef over pork. There has also been an increase in the consumption
of poultry products as the price of these products has gone down.

When purchasing pork at the retail counter, consumers look for leanness, fineness
of texture, freshness, eye appeal, closeness of trim, and price in relation to value.

The inferior status of pork in comparison to beef in the consumers' eyes arises
largely from the relatively greater fat content in the retail cuts of pork and the
failure of the industry as a whole to successfully promote pork products. While the
method of presentation of pork products to the consumer is largely beyond the
control of the producer, keen competition between retail outlets should bring
about continuous improvement in this area.

Recent trends in per capita meat consumption in Canada and a forecast to 1980
are shown in Table 6. Pork consumption on a per capita basis is relatively constant
and will likely continue as such in direct proportion to the increase in population.
However, consumption of pork as a percentage of total meat consumption is
declining, and this trend is expected to continue. This decline has been a spur for
action by producers and the trade to improve the quality of pork products. Such
action has given rise to the new Canadian hog carcass grading system.

Table 6. Per Capita Consumption of Meat, Canada, 1949-1980

(pounds carcass

weight)

1949-51

1959-61

1964-66

Average

Average

Average

1975

1980

Total

129.8

141.3

149.3

163.1

168.2

Beef

52.3

68.4

81.0

94.8

100.0

Veal

9.0

6.9

7.4

7.0

6.9

Pork

56.2

53.1

49.6

50.0

50.0

Lamb & Mutton

2.3

3.1

3.3

3.3

3.3

Other Meats

10.3

9.9

8.0

8.0

8.0

Poultry

16.7

29.7

37.1

45.7

49.0

(evisc. wt)

Hog carcass grading system

A new hog carcass grading system was introduced late in 1968. This new system
was the result of the combined efforts of producers, packers and government
agencies to discover means whereby the true value of a carcass could be estimated.
Research demonstrated that the combined thickness of fat at the loin and the
shoulder, and carcass weight were closely related to carcass value determined by the
prices and weights of the respective cuts.

A value index system was developed whereby carcasses having approximately the
same fat thickness and carcass weight measurements as the former "B" grade were

16

assumed to have a carcass value index of 100. The values of carcasses having other
measurements were expressed as an index by comparing their respective values to
that of the index 100 carcass. Value index differentials according to carcass weight

Figure I. Cross-sections taken in the ham regions of two market weight pigs differing greatly in
muscling and fat deposition. Carcass quality is under genetic as well as feed and management
influence and is an important factor in determining net returns for swine production. (Photos
courtesy Iowa State University).

and combined fat thickness are shown in Table 7. Under the new index grading
system the value index established for an individual carcass is subject to demerits
according to its type, quality and necessary trim.

Example of calculation of the value of a carcass:
Warm dressed weight 162 pounds
Total backfat thickness 2.1 inches
Basic index 112 (from table)
Type demerit (roughness) deduct 3 points
Quality demerit (oily carcass) deduct 10 points
Adjusted index 99

Trimable demerit 4 pounds (farm origin)
Settlement weight 162- 4 = 158 pounds
Value of carcass 99 X 158 X $30.00 (price of index 100) = $46.93

17

c

O

(0

oc

"TO

r-

NO

o

r-

nO

NC

NO

r-

NO

nO

r-

NO

NO

nO

r-

nO

r-

NO

NO

5

NO

ON

0)

>
o

00

tO
CO

to

CO

WO
CO

>o

oo

to

CO

«o

co

<0

co

to

cc

to
oo

to

CO

oj

CO

CI

00

CO

r-H

c

S3

0

£>

CO
*-<

to
On

ON

ON

on

On

ON

ON

on

ON

ON

ON

ON

co

co

CO

0

O
r-

O
00

fN

. — i

o

ON

o

3

NO

3

co

3

<-N)

3

3
3

co

ON.

ON

to

ON

cr

CO
CO

0

*-*

o

NO

ON

NO

rN

r<\

O

ON

3

3

3

3

rs

3

3
3

co

ON

r~

ON

to

ON

ON

CO

CO

o

■*-•

o
to

on

r-j

3

ON

o

r-

3

to

3

3

fN

3

3
3

'CO
ON

r-

ON

to

ON.

ON.

00

cc

CO
CO

o

o

O

ON

o

O

to

3

m

3

fN

3

3

3

■CO

On

o-

to
OS

fN

ON

co

CO

oo
cc

oo
oo

o

o
ro

1 — 1

£

ON
CO

ON

o

O

NT,

o

3

3

3
3

co

On

ON

to

ON

rN

'ON

co

CO

co
oo

CO

co

CO

oo

0

to

fN

1 —

ON

to

o

m

o
i — i

o

3
3
i — i

CO
ON

r-«

ON

to

ON

rN

ON

CO'
oo

CO

cc

CC
■CO

co

CO

cc
cc

oc

cc

o
o

ON

CO

CO

CO

r-

cc

co

r-

'CO

cc

cc

r-
cc

cc

CC

cc

CC

co

••3
■J

2

r~-Or-ju-)t--3cNtoco3r'>iooo-*

ON
NO

ON

NO

cc

NO

NO

NO

SO

NO
NO

to

NO

NO

CI

NO

m

SO

NO

so

3
sO

3

c

ON

ro

If)

r—

o~

rn

to,

f-

ON

m

o

o

1

1
o

1

fN

1

r)

1

sO

fN

1
CO

r»i

1

3

ro

1

rN

rO
1

ro

1
SO

ro

1

oc

1

3

fN

+
1

PQ

C

r i

fN

r )

(N

fN

ci

r*i

ei

ro

ro

*t

^

-r

i

18

i

Note: Not all carcasses are subject to demerit. Reasons for any demerits will be

outlined on the settlement form. The above example is for illustration

purposes only.

The new system allows the estimate of the price of an animal to more closely

reflect its cut-out value. The demerit and index system also provides an indication

to the producer of those areas in which herd improvement is required. Since the

price of swine is determined on the basis of index 100, as the price rises the

differentials in values of the respective categories of animals widen providing added

incentives for improvement. The system will require continuous review since, as the

average conformation of swine changes and the relative value of individual cuts

varies, errors will be introduced into the calculation of carcass worth.

price determination methods

Producers should judge the channels through which their swine are marketed by
the following criteria:

1. competitiveness

2. cost

3. speed

4. equity

5. convenience

Competiton has the greatest impact on producer returns. To have true
competition, many buyers and sellers must be present, or buyers and sellers must be
equally well informed and skilled in bargaining. Direct deliveries by the producer to
the processing plant have brought about such a decline in the degree of competition
on many markets that price to producers probably declined.

However, direct deliveries are efficient in that yard facility requirements are
reduced, as are labor costs in handling the hogs. Speed in marketing reduces
shrinkage losses and avoids excess transportation costs.

The importance of convenience varies among producers. To be efficient, the price
paid for a given quality of animal should be the same to all sellers at a given
location, and any differential locations should accurately reflect transportation
and associated costs.

Teletype selling — To provide fair competition, many provinces have utilized
marketing board legislation to establish centralized selling by teletype for swine.
This has met with general acceptance by both producers and the trade. In most
provinces using this method of sale, all swine are directed through the system.
Manitoba is an exception. There, a producer may opt out of the system, but must
pay the sales fee assessed per hog.

The teletype marketing procedure is simple and, if applied efficiently, can greatly
reduce marketing costs as hogs are sold in lots, thus reducing movement and
shrinkage. Composition of these lots is varied to appeal to many buyers. The system
maintains the anonymity of the buyer, and the use of the Dutch auction bidding
system makes collusion among buyers as to price very difficult.

Considerable expertise has been developed in the central offices responsible for
the operation of the teletype systems, thus enhancing the competitiveness and

19

efficiency of the system. Price levels in other markets are watched closely to ensure
that the price established reflects the true worth of the swine sold. Hours of system
operation are restricted to concentrate buyer interest.

Where the system has been in use over a period of time, it has become apparent
that a high degree of price variability exists during the market day. This within-day
price variability is greater under the teletype system than under the public
market-direct-to-plant combination previously in use.

Within-day pricing equity, that is, the same price on a given day for an equivalent
product with regard to location, can best be achieved through pooling. As yet,
however, pooling has not received significant producer support. Where marshalling
yards are used, producers emphasize their personal convenience and the tendency is
to have a proliferation of such yards with a subsequent increase in marketing costs.

When judged according to the criteria laid down earlier, the teletype system offers
distinct advantages to other marketing methods. However, present teletype systems
cannot be considered to be the ultimate in marketing. They merely enhance the
competitiveness in the market place for a product which is sold under objective
grade standards.

Under the teletype sales system, the bargaining ability of the producer is no
longer the critical factor in the determination of net returns. On the other hand,
personal contact between the buyer and seller is no longer necessary for the
exchange of title, and the vital marketing information which this contact used to
provide must now be obtained in other ways. However, in comparison to other
marketing methods, such as sale at packer buyer stations, or direct to packing
plants, the teletype system offers particular advantages to the average producer in
the sale of his slaughter animals.

Marketing feeder pigs — The feeder pig market is highly disorganized in
comparison to the slaughter hog market. Several methods of sale are common for
weanling and feeder pigs, including private treaty between farmers, auction,
commission agent and contract sales. Evaluation of the pig is largely by eye
appraisal and producer reputation.

A pig's value as a feeder depends on its conversion rate and rate of gain as well as
on inherited carcass characteristics. Such characteristics cannot be ascertained with
accuracy upon physical examination of the feeder pig, so producers with swine
finishing operations should seek information about these characteristics at time of
purchase.

When purchasing pigs in public premises, this information is often not available.
Furthermore, there is a great risk of introducing disease into the swine operation
when pigs are purchased at public premises. Purchase of feeder pigs directly from a
producer is one means of reducing this risk, provided the disease history of the pigs
is known.

It is difficult to establish a representative price for feeder pigs. The feeder
producer must receive a price sufficiently high to encourage him to remain in the
business, while the producer finishing the animals must be able to purchase at a
price which will enable him to obtain a positive margin on his enterprise.

Auctions and commission firms may be used to establish price. However, direct

20

sales have advantage in that the reputation of the producer is known.
Furthermore, if the potential benefits from specialization in the farrowing and
finishing operations are to be obtained, there must be a close tie between the
producer and purchaser of the feeders to ensure that the farmer produces what the
latter needs and desires. A contract may, therefore, be beneficial to both parties.

The budget examples given in the Appendix show the procedure to follow in
budget calculations. Under the budgets prepared on those pages, approximately
equal returns to labor are obtained by the producers of feeder and slaughter pigs
when 40 pounds weanlings are priced at one half the anticipated price for index
100 slaughter animals plus $3.00 when barley is 2 cents per pound. For each tenth
of a cent fall in the price of barley, the price of the weanling should be increased by
20 cents.

The following example will illustrate the calculation of a fair price for weanlings

under the production conditions laid down in the budget section, and where the

price of index 100 animals is $30 per hundredweight and barley is 1.5 cents per

pound:

One half index 100 price = 0.5 X $30.00 $15.00

Add 3.00

Add differential due to barley price 1.00

(2- 1.5) 10 X 20

Price for Weanling $19.00

If the price of index 100 animals declined to $28 per hundredweight and the
price of barley rose to two and a half cents per pound, the price for the weanling
would decline as follows:
One half index 100 price = 0.5 X $28.00 $14.00

Add 3.00

Add differential due to barley price - 1.00

(2-2.5)10X20

Price for weanling $16 00

In the above calculations, the rules for calculating weanling values now have a
feeder bias. This is because technological improvements in production have
provided proportionately larger cost savings to the pig feeding as compared to the
weanling enterprise. The formula used in calculating weanling prices should be
reviewed and adjusted as necessary to reflect individual situations and, in particular,
the market outlook.

SWINE PRICES

The price of slaughter swine varies seasonally and cyclically with a definite
upward or downward trend evident over the long term. These variations are
superimposed on each other, and the combined variation is reflected in the price
movements.

Seasonal price variation

Seasonal price movement should be of particular interest to swine producers
since, other things being equal, production should be geared to take advantage of

21

high price periods.

Prices vary seasonally because of changes in the demand for and supply of swine.
The slaughter level is a contributing factor to the seasonal price movement. In
general, lower prices follow high slaughter levels. Pork consumption also follows a
seasonal pattern, thus giving rise to a within -year change in the demand-supply
relationship and thus a change in price.

Figure 2 shows average prices for B dressed swine, by months, at the Saskatoon

Price at Toronto
Price at Saskatoon
Inspected Slaughter, Canada

Inspected Slaughter
(thousand head)

-750

-700

Month

Figure 2. Seasonal Price and Slaughter Variation, Average 1950-69.

and Toronto markets. The chart also shows a changing price differential between
the two markets within the year. Producers should study the price differentials and
direct their livestock to the most advantageous market available to them.

22

Cyclical price variation

Swine prices and slaughter move in cycles averaging about 4 years in length. As
shown in Figure 3, prices and slaughter move in opposite directions with low prices
usually accompanying high slaughter levels. Cycles may be set off by changes in
feed prices as well as by changes occuring outside of agriculture. Production cycles
imply less than optimum use of facilities and thus increased production costs.

As swine production takes place more and more in a controlled environment
some people believe the cycles will become less pronounced, and may even
disappear. However, the astute new entrant into swine production will carefully
consider the stage of the production cycle before committing himself. Other things
equal, entry should be timed to take advantage of the lower breeding stock prices
which normally prevail near the peak of the production cycle.

Other price movements

Price cycles at the Saskatoon and Toronto markets are not consistent, as can be
seen from Figure 3. This reflects relative changes in demand and supply,
particularly during the low price phases of the cycles. Periods of low net return
from grain, which encourage diversification, have often preceded peaks in output
cycles.

Because of rising population and total demand, the long term trend is for
inspected slaughter to increase. This rise is being accompanied by a slight price
increase, although this price increase has not kept pace with the decline in the
purchasing power of money. Improved technology has allowed producers to remain
in business at a time when the prices of many inputs have increased substantially.

The hog-barley ratio

The hog-barley ratio is the number of bushels of No. 1 feed barley, or
hundredweights of mixed feed, equivalent in value to 100 pounds of index 100 live
hogs, basis Winnipeg prices for hogs and barley. This ratio provides an indication of
the relative profitability of a hog operation.

An increase in the ratio, meaning greater profitability in swine production, tends
to be accompanied by an increase in slaughter levels one year later. In turn,
increases in slaughter are usually accompanied by a price decline. Movement of the
hog-barley ratio over time is compared with the level of inspected slaughter in
Figure 4.

A high hog-barley ratio is not necessarily a signal for a producer to enter swine
production. In general, a decline in the ratio would indicate a better time for entry.
For those already engaged in production, a high ratio should be a signal for a
careful examination of the net returns from feeding swine to heavier weights. An
attempt should be made to determine whether the returns from the increase in
weight are sufficient to more than offset the decline in the efficiency of feed
conversion and in the market price associated with swine of increasing backfat
thickness.

23

Inspected Slaughter
Price at Toronto
Price at Saskatoon

Dollars per cwt.
50-

45-

40-

35-

30
25-1

20-

15-

10-

nspected Slaughter
million head)

-8.5

-8.0

\

\ _.'

/
/

1950

52

54

—r-
56

a/ \

— r
58

Year

Figure 3. Hog Prices, Saskatoon and Toronto; Inspected Slaughter, Canada; 1950-69.

THE COMPETITIVE POSITION OF CANADIAN
SWINE PRODUCERS

Canadian swine producers operate within the framework of a continental market.
Because of relatively low tariffs on the movement of swine and pork products
between Canada and the United States, these products move freely across the
Canada-U.S. border (Table 8).

Live swine are not imported into Canada because of the risk of introducing hog
cholera. Movement of live swine to the United States has been limited because of
the historical premiums offered for high quality carcasses in Canada. Canadian back
bacon, hams and bellies are considered premium products in the U.S. where they

24

Hog-Barley Ratio

Inspected Slaughter

Hog-Barley Ratio

30.0-

28.0-

Inspected Slaughter
(million head)

1950 52

Year

Figure 4. Hog-Barley Ratio and Inspected Slaughter, 1950-69.

Table 8. Tariff Rates on Swine and Pork, Canada and United States, 1970

Canadian Tariff U.S. Tariff

(cents per pound)

Swine (alive)

Pork (fresh and frozen)

Bacon and hams

0.5
0.5
1.75

0.8

1.0

2.0 (unboned)

3.0 (boned)

are sold at higher prices than local products. Imports of American pork products
into Canada are made on a price basis, as there is no indicated consumer preference
here for American pork.

25

APPENDIX

The purpose of the following budgets is to explain the procedure for estimating
costs and returns and to show how various factors can affect the profitability of
production. Note the assumptions which precede each budget example.

ANNUAL COSTS PER BREEDING ANIMAL

Assumptions

Above -average management

$430/animal investment in facilities

7% investment charge

Breeding herd in total confinement

$3/ton for feed processing

Replacements purchased from outside the herd

Feed costs as in Table 3

Total

Costs/year (variable and fixed)

Sow Boar

$42.50

$35.40

2.85

2.28

5.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

Variable costs /breeding animal

Feed

Feed processing
Machinery use and utilities
Veterinary and medicine

Total variable costs/year $54.35 $45.68

Fixed costs/breeding animal1

Sow Boar

Depreciation on facilities
Investment on facilities
Investment on animal
Loss and replacement
Insurance on facilites

Total fixed costs/year $75.45 $93.45

$38.70

$38.70

16.56

16.56

6.00

7.00

13.00

30.00

1.19

1.19

$129.80 $139.13

1 If the breeding herd runs outside, fixed costs will be lower and feed consumption will be
higher. If replacements are selected from the herd, the costs of replacements will be lower.

26

SPECIALIZED WEANLING PRODUCTION

Assumptions Your business2

Above-average management

60 sows and 3 boars valued at $6,300

$430/sow investment in facilities

Yearly cost of facilities/weanling

investment:

($430 + 10% residual) X'/2X 7%

depreciation:

($430 - 10% residual) £■ 10 years

insurance:

$5/$ 1,000 average investment

16 weanlings/sow/year or 960/year

Weanlings sold at 35 pounds

$3 per ton for feed processing

Feed costs as in Table 3

Variable costs/weanling3

Weanling feed $2.50

Share of sow and boar feed 2.76

Feed processing .19

Utilities, machinery use and miscellaneous .60

Veterinary and medicine .70

Add: interest on variable costs .15

Total variable costs/weanling $6.90

2

Prospective producers should record their expectation as to performance and costs in this

column, and check their estimates with an experienced hog man or Farm Management

Specialist.
3
Hired labor can be entered as a variable cost.

27

i

Fixed costs/weanling Your business

Depreciation on facilities4 $2.42

Investment on facilities4 1 .03

Investment on breeding herd4 .46

Losses and replacements in herd .90

Insurance on facilities .08

Total fixed costs/weanling $4.89

Total

Costs per weanling $1 1 .79

Add: labor cost/weanling5

All costs plus labor

Factors affecting net returns

(based on example procedure below)

1 Productivity/sow

No. pigs weaned/sow /year Total costs/weanling

($)
18 10.94

16 11.79

13 13.63

10 16.54

i

If actual interest charges are greater than shown for facilities and breeding stock, then such
costs should be substituted in place of the above allowances.
'The farmer's own labor should be estimated at its opportunity cost.

Example procedure - labor return summary
Gross return
Less variable cost

Return over variable cost
Less fixed cost

Return to labor and management
Return to labor and management/sow/
year: 16 X $4.21

$16.00/weanling
6.90

$ 9.10
4.89

$ 4.21 /weanling
S67.36/sow

28

2 Investment/sow

Value of facilities/sow Total costs/weanling

($) ($)

100 9.09

250 10.32

430 11.79

550 12.84

3 Grain prices

Price/lb Total costs/weanling

(0 ($)

1.0 11.15

1.25 11.46

1.5 11.79

1.75 12.10

2.0 12.41

4 Grain consumption/sow

Grain quantity Total costs/Weanling

(lb) ($)

1,900 11.79

2,500 12.41

3,000 12.93

5 Break -even prices for a $4 labor return/weanling

No. pigs weaned/sow /year Total costs (less labor) Price needed

($) ($)

18 10.94 14.94

16 11.79 15.79

13 13.63 17.63

10 16.54 20.54

29

SPECIALIZED FEEDER OPERATION
Assumptions

Above-average management

1 ,000 feeders/year capacity

$25 /hog investment in facilities

Yearly cost of facilities

investment:
($25 * 10% residual) X'/2X 7%

depreciation:
($25 - 10% residual) -r 10 years

insurance:
$5/$ 1,000 average investment

35-lb weanlings purchased for $16

Feed conversion of 3.25:1

$3/ton for feed processing

Feed costs as in Table 3

Variable costs /hog fed6

Feed

Feed processing

Utilities, machinery use and miscellaneous

Veterinary and medicine

Marketing

Subtotal

Purchase of weanling

Loss allowance

Add: interest on variable costs

Total variable costs/hogs fed

Your business

$12.06

.69

.90

.50

1.00

$15.15

$16.00
1.00

.73

$32.88

Hired labor can be added as a variable cost.

30

Fixed costs/hog fed

Depreciation on facilities7
Investment on facilities7
Insurance on facilities

Total fixed costs/hog fed

Your business

$ 2.25
.96
.07

$ 3.28

Total

Costs/hog fed

Add: labor cost8
All costs plus labor

$36.16

Factors affecting net returns

(based on example procedure below)

1 Grain prices

Price/lb Total costs/hog fed

«) ($)

1.0 33.84

1.25 35.00

1.5 36.16

1.75 37.32

2.0 38.48

If actual interest charges are greater than shown for facilities, then such costs should
substituted in place of the above cost allowances.

Q

The farmer's own labor should be estimated at its opportunity cost
Example procedure - labor return summary
Gross return $42.00/hog fed

Less variable cost 32.88

Return over variable cost
Less fixed cost

Return to labor and management

$ 9.12

3.28

$5.84/hog fed

31

2 Feed conversion

Conversion ratio Total cost/hog fed9

($)
3.0:1 35.17

3.25:1 36.16

3.5:1 37.14

4.0:1 39.10

4.5:1 41.06

5.0:1 43.02

3 Investment/hog fed

Value of facilities/hog fed Total costs/hog fed

($) ($)

10 34.20

15 34.85

20 35.51

25 36.16

30 36.81

Turnover

No. hogs fed/year Total cost/hog fed

($)

1,000 36.16

900 36.45

800 36.89

5 Break-even weanling costs for a $4 labor return/hog fed

Grain price/lb Gross return/hog Maximum weanling

cost

(<0 ($) ($)

1.0 42.00 20.16

1.25 42.00 19.00

1.5 42.00 17.84

1.75 42.00 16.68

2.0 42.00 15.52

9

The total costs per hog may not increase as rapidly as indicated if the higher feed conversion
ratios result from using more grain and less supplement in the ration.

32

6 Break-even hog prices for a $4 labor return/hog fed

Grain price/lb Total costs

(less labor )

(4) ($)

1.0 33.84

1.25 35.00

1.5 36.16

1.75 37.32

2.0 38.48

7 Hog price required for various labor returns/hog fed

Labor return
desired

($)
4. . .

Minimum price
needed10

($)
24.40/cwt

25.20
25.90

26.60
27.40

Total costs Minimum price

(less labor) needed10

($) ($)

. 36.16 25.90/cwt

6 36.16

8 36.16

10 36.16

27.20
28.50
30.00

FARROW-FINISH PRODUCTION

Assumptions

Above-average management

60 sows, 3 boars valued at $6,300

$800/sow investment in facilities

Yearly cost of facilities/sow

investment:
($800+ 10% residual) X l/2 X 7%

depreciation:
($800 - 10% residual) -r 10 years

insurance :
$5/$l ,000 average investment

15 market hogs/sow/year or 900/year

Feed conversion of 3.25: 1 from 35-200 lb

Your business

10

Minimum prices are in terms of dressed weight price /cwt for hogs dressing 155 lb (premium
not included).

33

Your business

$3 /ton for feed processing.
Feed costs as in Table 3.

Variable cost/farrow-finish hog1 *

Feed

breeding herd

$ 2.95

fed hog

14.56

Feed processing

.89

Utilities, machinery use and miscellaneous

1.50

Veterinary and medicine

1.20

Marketing

1.00

Loss allowance

1.00

Add: interest on variable costs

.64

Total variable costs/hog $23.74

Fixed cost/farrow-finish hog

Depreciation on facilities12 $ 4.80

Investment on facilites1 2 2.05

Investment on breeding herd1 2 .49

Loss and replacement in herd 1 .00

Insurance on facilities .15

Total fixed cost/hog 8.49

1 1 Hired labor can be added as a variable cost.

12 If actual interest charges are greater than shown for facilites and breeding stock, then such
costs should be substituted in place of the above cost allowances.

34

Total Your business

Cost/hog $32.23

Add: labor cost13

All costs, including labor

Factors affecting net returns

(based on example procedure below)

1 Productivity/sow

Total costs/market hog

($)
17 30.86

15 32.23

12 35.14

9 39.99

2 Investment/sow Total cost/market hog

($) ($)

400 28.73

600 30.48

800 32.23

1000 33.98

3 Grain prices Total costs/market hog

. Price/lb

«) ($)

1.0 29.24

1.25 30.73

1 .5 32.23

1.75 33.70

2.0 35.20

the farmer's own labor should be estimated at its opportunity cost

Example procedure - labor return summary

Gross return $42.00/market hog

Less variable cost $23.74

Return over variable cost $18.26

Less fixed cost $ 8.49

Return to labor and management $ 9.77/market hog

35

4 Feed conversion

Conversion ratio Total cost/market hog1 4

($)
3.0:1 31.06

3.25:1 32.23

3.5:1 33.45

4.0:1 35.74

4.5:1 38.03

5.0:1 40.31

5 Turnover

No. hogs/marketed/year Total cost/market hog

($)
900 32.23

800 33.29

700 34.66

6 Break-even hog prices for an $8 labor return/market hog

Grain price/lb Total costs Minimum price

(less labor) needed1 s

(i) ($) ($)

1.0 29.24 24.00/cwt

1.25 30.73 25.00

1 .50 32.23 26.00

1.75 33.70 27.00

2.0 35.20 28.00

7 Hog prices required for various labor returns/market hog

Labor return Total costs Minimum price

desired (less labor) needed15

($) ($) ($)

6 32.23 24.00/cwt

8 32.23 26.00

10 32.23 27.30

12 32.23 28.60

The total costs/hog may not increase as rapidly as indicated if the higher feed conversion

ratios result from using more grain and less supplement in the ration.

'Minimum prices are
premium considered).

Minimum prices are in terms of dressed weight price/cut for hog dressing 155 lb (no

36

Production and Marketing Statistics

The following publications provide much useful statistical information relating to
swine production and marketing.
Canada Department of Agriculture, Livestock and Meat Trade Report. Ottawa:

Markets Information Section, Production and Marketing Branch, Canada

Department of Agriculture, weekly.
Canada Department of Agriculture, Origin of Livestock Marketed . Ottawa: Markets

Information Section, Production and Marketing Branch, Canada Department of

Agriculture, monthly.
Canada Department of Agriculture, Livestock Market Review. Ottawa: Markets

Information Section, Production and Marketing Branch, Canada Department of

Agriculture, annual.
Department of Agriculture Economics, Selected Livestock Statistics. Saskatoon:

University of Saskatchewan, biennial compilation.
Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Report on Livestock Surveys, Cat. No. 23-005,

Ottawa: Queen's Printer, quarterly.
Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Canadian Livestock and Animal Products Statistics,

Cat. No. 23—003, Ottawa: Queen's Printer, annual.
Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Census of Canada. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, census

years.

37

i

CAL/BCA OTTAWA K1A OC5

3 9073 00153727 5

»