The daily star-mirror. (Moscow, Idaho) 1911-1939, 1923-10-09
Wide Variations
in Selling Hogs
Analysis Made by Depart
ment of Agriculture
of Shipments.

AA uAo a Aoo OSSA AhoNe
by the United States Department OF
Agriculture Of shipments by 200 co
operative associations in 1921. 1t dis
closes such extreme differences In unit
costs that averages appear Of little
value as representations of marketing
costs. evidently the first requirement
is to know whose cost you are talk
ing about.
The departments study indicates,
for example, that between the local
expense of the association with the
lowest cost and that Of the association
with the highest there was a spread
Of nearly 1000 per cent. Cost per
1000 pounds shipped was about 80
cents for the association with the low
est cost. For the association with
the highest cost 1t was about So. 1t
is said, however, that the local costs
Of the different associations covered
such a diversity Of functions that
management" was practically the
only item common to them all.
Units of Marketing Expense.
In a general way local marketing
expense is held to include the local
managers commission, assessments
for sinking fund, a preparation
costs, and miscellaneous expenses.
Losses arising from the crippling and
killing of stock in transit are usually
included. ~Shrinkage In weight is not
included, and represents a loss which
falls upon the original shipper. Elk
Guiding freight, the department finds
that hog marketing by cooperative as
sociatiOns in the corn belt through
commission agents in the central mar
kets during 1921 cost about $3.50 per
thousand pounds.
About one-third of this amount was
home expense, and the rest terminal
market expense. 1t is remarked that
average costs at the different terminal
markets are as apt to be misleading,
though In a lesser degree, as average
home costs for the different shipping
associations. Average terminal cost
for all associations and all markets,
for example, was $1.9O per 1000
pounds. But the variation between
terminal markets was from $3.50 to
1928. The association with the low
est average terminal costs paid $1.32
per 1000 pounds, while the association
the highest paid 1892. These
figures are averages of associations
shipping to the various markets,
yvaiuhtaI on tho uaJrrnn nf hrrcipacc !
The low and high figures are there
fore low and high COS associations
and not shipments. AS the services
performed at the terminals varied con
siderably, the spreads do not les
lre proportionate differences in unit
Commission Costs Vary.
Thus commission costs varied from
IS cents to $1.19 cents PEI 1000
But commission Is usually
on a per car basis. Varia-
ions in commission costs are prob
IDLY due principally to differences in
ar load weights, rather than to vari-
atoms in commission charges. An
association whose commission costs
re high probably has been unable for
reasons to ship full car loads.
similarly, variations in yardage costs
nay result from variations in the size
f the animals. Variations in feed
'osts may be due to variations In
nimal weights and to some extent,
n the price of feed. Nevertheless,
all due allowance Is made for
UGH causes of cost variation, the diff
erence between association costs is
till marked.
Further Investigations are being
,ade by the department into the
luses of this variation in shipping
osts. 1t is indicated, by the prog
ass so far made, that the real diff
erences in home station expense are
onsiderably less than the apparent
ifferences. Diversity in account
lg methods furnishes the explana-
of a considerable part of the
bread. Some shipping associations
not handle live stock exclusively,
ut are interested in numerous side
mes, and elements of cost entering
ito the handling Of the side lines
ave often been included In state
ents on the live stock end Of the !,
1siness. Then, too, there are cases
which expenditures for good will,
lch as dinners, and what might be ,
rmed development outlay. have en-
rged the total. Investigators for
e department are attempting a COM I.
lrison of shipping costs from strict ,
comparable items of expense re- ,
by the different associations. F,
Is believed this comparison will !,
.ow that variations in actual ship :
ng efficiency, and in general busi- II;
SIS management, are not very great.
Heavier Loading Recommended. II
In view of the wide differences In
mmission costs reported by the as
cations, department officials think
lportant savings could be effected g
heavier car loading. The high cost y
in 1921 had an outlay for =
mmission charges amounting to r.
,re than twice that Of the low cost r
ISOLATION. Probably a great part of
Is variation was due to a difference H
car load weights, rather than to
ferences in rates or In services per
at the various markets. 1t is