Figure 1. Percent of cash receipts from farm marketings of all crops, all livestock, (and products) and hogs and pigs, Ohio, selected years, 1910 to 1990.
T. Stout and G. Packer
Agricultural Economics Department
A long-term decline in comparative importance of Ohio farm income from livestock compared to crops is part of larger regional and national changes in both the location and organization of livestock production. These developments appear to suggest continuing declines in the comparative importance of animal agriculture (compared to crops) in Ohio. Yet the Northeast census region contains 20% of the meat consuming (but nonproducing) U.S. population, a market that states like North Carolina hasten to supply. Does this market potential justify collective efforts in Ohio to reverse long-term industry trends?
The 20th Century record of cash receipts to Ohio agriculture from sales of farm products shows that the comparative importance of crops and livestock as income producers has shifted toward more income from crops and less from livestock (Figure 1). Why has this happened?
Figure 1. Percent of cash receipts from farm
marketings of all crops, all livestock, (and products) and hogs and
pigs, Ohio, selected years, 1910 to 1990.
Perhaps a place to start is with the observation that the importance of livestock on Ohio farms began in self-sufficient households with family needs for food, clothing, and draftpower. As alternatives arose to meet these requirements, livestock became commercial investments for some families rather than necessities for all. Their worth, then, lay in their value in commerce. Even this worth was placed in comparison to the value of other commercial goods a farm might provide if it invested in them instead of livestock. So the history of Ohio farming has been one of evolution away from its origins in self-sufficient frontier homes, toward 20th and 21st Century commercial or industrial business units sharply motivated by market demand.
The cost of this evolution is not merely financial. As technology accelerates both the promise and the pace of change, ever less about the future can be forecast by experience from the past. Change begins to demand, not just embrace the future, by rejecting the past as well, and this is very hard to do. The future offers inducements that are material and countable, but the past contains values both nonmaterial and uncountable. Trade-offs between past and future become impossible to calculate. But change occurs, nevertheless, brought about less, perhaps, by any certainties about the future than by an indifference to the past.
Figure 2 illustrates changes in Ohio farmland use. There were more than 24 million acres in Ohio farmland in 1920 but less than 16 million in 1990. More than 8 million acres disappeared into nonfarm uses (forest land, rights-of-way, lakes, parks and recreation areas, airports, military installations, research facilities, and commercial, industrial, and residential uses). But cropland acres have remained about the same. Most of the disappearance (in farm use) has been in pastureland. Most of the cropland has gone into corn and soybean production.
Figure 2. Ohio land in farms, by
land-use classes, selected years, 1910 to 1990.
In the United States, there are now only about one-third as many farms as there were early in the century. Most people understand that this means existing farms have been consolidated into larger units, even though some land has been switched to nonfarm uses. What is less well known is that this consolidation into larger units has been accompanied by a strong trend toward specialization by individual farms on one or a few enterprises rather than on many, as was common many years ago. This means, for example, that the number of farms producing hogs has dropped even more rapidly than has the total number of farms. In 1900, 75% of U.S. farms had hogs, but by 1991, only 12% still raised them. All other farms that once raised hogs had abandoned them in favor of other specialities that looked more promising.
In Ohio, the most common alternative land use has become cash grain farming, and perhaps the most common alternative income producer to replace livestock production has become nonfarm jobs to support the family unit that still comprises the farm household.
Figures 3 and 4 compare county swine population densities in Ohio in 1961 and 1991. They are based on annual livestock inventory data collected by the Ohio Agricultural Statistics Service (OASS).
Contour lines have been used to identify changes in population densities because they are less arbitrary than county lines as indicators of geographic differences. For example, contour lines detect sharp changes within Fairfield County, which local knowledge might associate with urban encroachment in the northwest and rapidly changing terrain in the southeast. Similar insights appear in western counties where, for example, the contours suggest that population densities for hogs in Auglaize and Shelby counties are higher in the west than in the east. Figures 3 and 4 also show shifting contours in Butler County and the river counties east of Cincinnati, which local experience might associate with rising commuter populations and changing land use patterns. Much of the rise in hog inventories in Holmes and Wayne counties is among the Amish, and so appears in Figure 4 in eastern Holmes and southern Wayne Counties, with spillover into Tuscarawas and Coshocton Counties.
Figure 3. Inventory: Hogs and pigs on farms,
January 1, 1961.
Figure 4. Inventory: Hogs and pigs on farms,
December 1, 1990.
Changing patterns of livestock production are not confined to Ohio, of course. Both the location and organization of swine production are changing regionally and nationally.
State and regional data distributed by the USDA usually employ regional divisions like those shown in Figure 5. These regional groups can be consolidated into four major regions: Northeast, South, North Central, and West. These consolidations appear in the tables that follow, except that Maryland and Delaware have been included in the Northeast.
Figure 5. USDA Census regions.
In Tables 1 to 3, regional comparisons of 1960, 1975, and 1990 are made for hog inventory, hog marketings, and hog slaughter. Inventory represents the beginning annual population. Marketings and slaughter represent total output for the year. The choice of years is arbitrary, representing a recent year and preceding years at evenly spaced intervals. Regional totals in each table are the sum of leading states plus "all other" states, which lumps into one category a number of states whose regional contributions are modest.
The national center of swine production is the North Central Region (Figure 5). In fact, the twelve North Central states account for nearly 80% of total hog inventory, and this percentage has not changed much over the years (Table 1). However, there is a qualifier: when the apparently stable North Central states are examined closely, it is clear that there has been growth in the west North Central states balanced by a decline in the east North Central states. Growth and decline is indicated in the right-hand column of Table 1, where 1990 inventory is shown as a percentage of 1960 inventory. Notice the dramatic growth of inventory in states such as North Carolina or Arkansas, and cornbelt fringe states such as Michigan, Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas.
Perhaps the best place to begin an examination of hog marketings is with the bottom-right corner of inventory (Table 1) and the bottom-right corner of marketing (Table 2). National hog inventories in 1990 were only 91% of the 1960 levels - down 9%, but hog marketings during that same period were up nearly 12%, reflecting increased industry productivity. (Comparing inventory and marketings on a state-by-state basis is unreliable because there are substantial intrastate shipments of livestock, such as the movement of feeder pigs from states where they were farrowed to states where they were finished and marketed).
Changes over time in state or regional marketings offer useful insights. Iowa remains the leader in hog marketings, accounting for nearly one-fourth of the national supply. No state has grown faster than North Carolina, which now markets more hogs than Ohio (Table 2). Increased hog marketings in states such as Kansas and Nebraska are related to the advent of irrigation and the increased production of feed grains. The rise in hog marketings in Michigan, the only growth state in the east North Central region, has been associated with a rise in slaughter capacity (Table 3).
Commercial slaughter includes all slaughter activity (except farm slaughter), which is for home consumption and has declined to very small amounts. In some states, commercial slaughter information for the whole year is not reported. This is because the industry is so small or there are so few firms in the state that disclosure might identify useful information about competitors (state totals minus my firm equals information about that firm). As a result, estimates sometimes have been made by the authors in completing Table 3 (the table footnote explains this).
Shifts in packer location tend to coincide with shifts in livestock population. The long-term interest of the packing industry is to be located as close to the livestock as transportation and storage technologies will allow. Once bound to cities and consumers, packers have always been sensitive to developments in railroads, refrigeration, trucks, highways, and comparative freight rates that would allow them closer access to livestock, which is their raw material. Packer migrations for most of this century have been from east to west, from urban to rural, and more recently, into the south. As individual plants have grown larger, a few relocations can have a large impact on changing state totals in slaughter volume. Michigan, Illinois, and South Dakota provide examples (Table 3). Most of the commercial slaughter activity in the east has disappeared. Pennsylvania accounts for nearly all the slaughter activity in the Northeast region (Table 3). Increases in slaughter in Virginia and North Carolina accompany local growth in hog marketings.
| Table 1. Hog and pig inventory: Thousands of hogs and pigs on farms, with percentage distributions and changes, by regions and selected states, United States, January 1, 1960, and December 1, 1974 and 1989. | |||||||||
| 1960 | 1974 | 1989 | 1989 as
percent
of 1960 | ||||||
| Region and state | Thousand head | Percent of U.S. | Thousand head | Percent of U.S. | Thousand head | Percent of U.S. | |||
| Northeast | 1,075 | 1.8 | 918 | 1.7 | 1,198 | 2.2 | 111.4 | ||
| Pennsylvania | 558 | 0.9 | 633 | 1.2 | 975 | 1.8 | 174.7 | ||
| All other | 517 | 0.9 | 285 | 0.5 | 223 | 0.4 | 43.1 | ||
| North Central | 43,957 | 74.5 | 42,687 | 77.6 | 42,840 | 79.7 | 97.5 | ||
| Ohio | 2,707 | 4.6 | 1,950 | 3.5 | 2,080 | 3.9 | 76.8 | ||
| Indiana | 4,949 | 8.4 | 4,300 | 7.8 | 4,350 | 8.1 | 87.9 | ||
| Illinois | 7,469 | 12.7 | 6,500 | 11.9 | 5,700 | 10.6 | 76.3 | ||
| Michigan | 797 | 1.3 | 715 | 1.3 | 1,260 | 2.3 | 158.1 | ||
| Wisconsin | 1,963 | 3.3 | 1,400 | 2.5 | 1,150 | 2.1 | 58.6 | ||
| Total ENC | 17,885 | 30.3 | 14,865 | 27.0 | 14,540 | 27.0 | 81.3 | ||
| Minnesota | 3,594 | 6.1 | 3,700 | 6.7 | 4,450 | 8.3 | 123.8 | ||
| Iowa | 12,951 | 22.0 | 13,400 | 24.4 | 13,500 | 25.2 | 104.2 | ||
| Missouri | 4,232 | 7.2 | 3,900 | 7.1 | 2,700 | 5.0 | 63.8 | ||
| North Dakota | 288 | 0.5 | 322 | 0.6 | 280 | 0.5 | 97.2 | ||
| South Dakota | 1,328 | 2.2 | 1,700 | 3.1 | 1,720 | 3.2 | 129.5 | ||
| Nebraska | 2,502 | 4.2 | 3,050 | 5.5 | 4,200 | 7.8 | 167.9 | ||
| Kansas | 1,177 | 2.0 | 1,750 | 3.2 | 1,450 | 2.7 | 123.2 | ||
| Total WNC | 26,072 | 44.2 | 27,822 | 50.6 | 28,300 | 52.7 | 108.5 | ||
| South | 12,568 | 21.3 | 10,266 | 18.7 | 8,753 | 16.3 | 69.6 | ||
| North Carolina | 1,520 | 2.6 | 1,890 | 3.4 | 2,570 | 4.8 | 169.1 | ||
| Georgia | 1,780 | 3.0 | 1,590 | 2.9 | 1,200 | 2.2 | 67.4 | ||
| Kentucky | 1,474 | 2.5 | 1,100 | 2.0 | 975 | 1.8 | 66.1 | ||
| Tennessee | 1,453 | 2.5 | 780 | 1.4 | 700 | 1.3 | 48.2 | ||
| Arkansas | 478 | 0.8 | 170 | 0.5 | 710 | 1.3 | 148.5 | ||
| All other | 5,863 | 9.9 | 4,636 | 8.4 | 2,598 | 4.8 | 44.3 | ||
| West | 1,426 | 2.4 | 1,129 | 2.0 | 990 | 1.8 | 69.4 | ||
| 48 States | 59,026 | 100.0 | 55,000 | 100.0 | 53,781 | 100.0 | 91.1 | ||
| Source: For January 1, 1960, and December 1, 1974, Livestock and Meat Statistics, Annual Summaries, SRS, ERS, USDA. For December 1, 1989, Meat Animals: Production, Disposition, and Income, NASS, USDA, April, 1992. | |||||||||
| Table 2. Slaughter hog marketings: Thousand head marketed, with percentage distributions and changes, by regions and selected states, United States, 1960, 1975, and 1990.1 | |||||||||
| 1960 | 1975 | 1990 | 1990 as percent of 1960 | ||||||
| Region and state | Thousand
head |
Percent of U.S. | Thousand head | Percent of U.S. | Thousand head | Percent of U.S. | |||
| Northeast | 1,074 | 1.3 | 1,075 | 1.5 | 1,716 | 1.9 | 159.8 | ||
| Pennsylvania | 593 | 0.7 | 715 | 1.0 | 1,424 | 1.6 | 240.1 | ||
| All other | 481 | 0.6 | 360 | 0.5 | 292 | 0.3 | 60.7 | ||
| North Central | 64,265 | 80.4 | 58,114 | 78.5 | 70,422 | 78.8 | 109.6 | ||
| Ohio | 4,064 | 5.1 | 2,766 | 3.7 | 3,455 | 3.9 | 85.0 | ||
| Indiana | 7,348 | 9.2 | 5,649 | 7.6 | 7,106 | 7.9 | 96.7 | ||
| Illinois | 10,651 | 13.2 | 9,492 | 12.8 | 8,930 | 10.0 | 83.8 | ||
| Michigan | 1,096 | 1.4 | 949 | 1.3 | 2,014 | 2.3 | 183.8 | ||
| Wisconsin | 3,335 | 4.2 | 2,357 | 3.2 | 1,900 | 2.1 | 57.0 | ||
| Total ENC | 26,494 | 33.1 | 21,213 | 28.6 | 23,405 | 26.2 | 88.3 | ||
| Minnesota | 5,660 | 7.1 | 5,053 | 6.8 | 7,689 | 8.6 | 135.8 | ||
| Iowa | 18,457 | 23.1 | 16,821 | 22.7 | 21,994 | 24.6 | 119.2 | ||
| Missouri | 5,709 | 7.1 | 5,222 | 7.1 | 4,485 | 5.0 | 78.6 | ||
| North Dakota | 487 | 0.6 | 469 | 0.6 | 429 | 0.5 | 88.1 | ||
| South Dakota | 2,236 | 2.8 | 2,481 | 3.4 | 3,027 | 3.4 | 135.4 | ||
| Nebraska | 3,577 | 4.5 | 4,411 | 6.0 | 6,917 | 7.7 | 193.4 | ||
| Kansas | 1,645 | 2.1 | 2,444 | 3.3 | 2,476 | 2.8 | 150.5 | ||
| Total WNC | 37,771 | 47.3 | 36,901 | 49.9 | 47,017 | 52.6 | 124.5 | ||
| South | 12,947 | 16.2 | 13,120 | 17.7 | 15,476 | 17.3 | 119.5 | ||
| North Carolina | 1,527 | 1.9 | 2,343 | 3.2 | 5,044 | 5.6 | 330.3 | ||
| Georgia | 1,867 | 2.3 | 1,934 | 2.6 | 1,805 | 2.0 | 96.7 | ||
| Kentucky | 1,794 | 2.2 | 1,485 | 2.0 | 1,532 | 1.7 | 85.4 | ||
| Tennessee | 1,610 | 2.0 | 1,186 | 1.6 | 1,254 | 1.4 | 77.9 | ||
| Arkansas | 496 | 0.6 | 457 | 0.6 | 1,391 | 1.6 | 280.4 | ||
| All other | 5,653 | 7.2 | 5,716 | 7.7 | 4,450 | 5.0 | 78.7 | ||
| West | 1,652 | 2.1 | 1,688 | 2.3 | 1,759 | 2.0 | 106.5 | ||
| 48 States | 79,938 | 100.0 | 73,997 | 100.0 | 89,373 | 100.0 | 111.8 | ||
| 1 Excludes intrastate interfarm sales.
Source: For January 1, 1960, and December 1, 1974, Livestock and Meat Statistics, Annual Summaries, SRS, ERS, USDA. For December 1, 1989, Meat Animals: Production, Disposition, and Income, NASS, USDA, April, 1992. | |||||||||
| Table 3. Commercial hog slaughter: Thousands of head slaughtered, with percentage distributions and changes, by regions and selected states, United States, 1960, 1975, and 1990. | |||||||||
| 1960 | 1975 | 1990 | 1990 as percent of 1960 | ||||||
| Region and state | Thousand head | Percent of U.S. | Thousand head | Percent of U.S. | Thousand head | Percent of U.S. | |||
| Northeast | 6,590 | 8.3 | 3,599 | 5.2 | 2,1531 | 2.5 | 32.7 | ||
| Pennsylvania | 2,725 | 3.4 | 2,452 | 3.6 | 1,9631 | 2.3 | 72.0 | ||
| All other | 3,865 | 4.9 | 1,142 | 1.6 | 190 | 0.2 | 4.9 | ||
| North Central | 52,406 | 66.3 | 46,274 | 67.4 | 64,413 | 75.7 | 122.9 | ||
| Ohio | 4,558 | 5.8 | 3,397 | 5.0 | 2,575 | 3.0 | 56.5 | ||
| Indiana | 5,024 | 6.4 | 2,975 | 4.3 | 3,624 | 4.3 | 72.1 | ||
| Illinois | 5,003 | 6.3 | 4,438 | 6.5 | 8,834 | 10.4 | 176.6 | ||
| Michigan | 1,536 | 1.9 | 4,060 | 5.9 | 3,836 | 4.5 | 249.7 | ||
| Wisconsin | 3,441 | 4.4 | 3,050 | 4.4 | 358 | 0.4 | 10.4 | ||
| Total ENC | 19,562 | 24.8 | 17,920 | 26.1 | 19,227 | 22.6 | 98.3 | ||
| Minnesota | 5,428 | 6.9 | 4,428 | 6.4 | 5,878 | 6.9 | 108.3 | ||
| Iowa | 14,455 | 18.3 | 15,190 | 22.2 | 25,785 | 30.3 | 178.4 | ||
| Missouri | 3,879 | 4.9 | 2,415 | 3.5 | 2,798 | 3.3 | 72.1 | ||
| North Dakota | 18 | . . . | 22 | . . . | 97 | 0.1 | 538.9 | ||
| South Dakota | 2,154 | 2.7 | 2,029 | 3.0 | 4,416 | 5.2 | 205.0 | ||
| Nebraska | 4,044 | 5.1 | 2,907 | 4.2 | 5,401 | 6.3 | 133.6 | ||
| Kansas | 2,866 | 3.6 | 1,363 | 2.0 | 811 | 1.0 | 28.3 | ||
| Total WNC | 32,844 | 41.5 | 28,354 | 41.3 | 45,186 | 53.1 | 137.6 | ||
| South | 15,704 | 19.9 | 15,064 | 21.9 | 16,1491 | 19.0 | 102.8 | ||
| Virginia | 2,101 | 2.7 | 2,798 | 4.1 | 4,551 | 5.4 | 216.6 | ||
| North Carolina | 1,141 | 1.4 | 1,687 | 2.4 | 2,749 | 3.2 | 240.9 | ||
| Georgia | 1,859 | 2.4 | 1,488 | 2.2 | 1,5561 | 1.8 | 83.7 | ||
| Kentucky | 1,477 | 1.9 | 1,456 | 2.1 | 2,7321 | 3.2 | 185.0 | ||
| Tennessee | 2,380 | 3.0 | 2,901 | 4.2 | 809 | 1.0 | 34.0 | ||
| Texas | 1,758 | 2.2 | 1,098 | 1.6 | 334 | 0.4 | 19.0 | ||
| All other | 4,988 | 6.3 | 3,636 | 5.3 | 3,418 | 4.0 | 68.5 | ||
| West | 4,336 | 5.5 | 3,750 | 5.5 | 2,421 | 2.8 | 55.8 | ||
| 48 States | 79,036 | 100.0 | 68,687 | 100.0 | 85,136 | 100.0 | 107.7 | ||
| 1 Estimated by the author by distributing U.S. residual among unreported states according to their share reported in first
seven months of 1990.
Source: For 1960 and 1975, derived from Livestock and Meat Statistics, Annual Summaries, SRS, ERS, USDA. For 1990, Livestock Slaughter, 1990 Summary, NASS, USDA, March, 1991. | |||||||||
Nearly one-fourth of the U.S. population -- and pork consumption -- is in the Northeast region. Most of that demand is supplied by shipments from the west North Central region. There may be a basis for sustained or increased packer activity and for integrated hog production in states nearer to this massive Northeast market (east North Central states, for example) if packers and integrated producers act together to make geographic advantages work for them.
Figure 6 provides a graphic summary of Tables 1 to 3. Each figure is divided into the four major census regions. Each region has four bars representing the regional percentages of U.S. total 1) beginning inventory, 2) marketings, 3) slaughter, and 4) population (population is used here as a proxy for meat consumption). Percentages flow across the top panels of each figure; the 1990 percentage shows the height of the bar beneath it. For example, Figure 6 shows that in 1990 the Northeast accounted for 2% of U.S. hog and pig inventories, the North Central for 80%, the South for 16%, and the West for 2%. Changes also are seen in these percentages compared to 1960 and 1975. In the last bar, human population shifts out of the Northeast and North Central regions and into the south and west are seen. The North Central region dominates the swine industry; all other regions have surplus population (and pork demand) relative to regional capacities to supply that demand. The North Central region ships pork to all other regions (the Northeast is the biggest importing region), and these facts have not changed for 30 years.
Figure 6. Hogs and pork: Regional
percentage distribution of inventory, marketings,
slaughter, and pork consumption, 1960, 1975, and 1990.
For individual east North Central states such as Ohio where marketings now exceed slaughter capacity, this means there is a strong tendency for hogs to be shipped west or north to slaughter only to travel as pork back east across the state on its way to consumption in the Northeast. These double-freight charges have a price-depressing effect that further discourages long-term prospects for swine production and induces producers to continue to switch toward alternatives, such as a cash grain/nonfarm job combination.
A summary of trends to consider in anticipating the future might include the following:
Despite these long-term trends, observers note that Northeastern states (east of Ohio) contain over 20% of the U.S. population, and that these consumers depend on red meat shipments from locations west of Ohio (Figures 5 and 6). Why should Ohio livestock move west to slaughter only to be shipped back east across the state as meat on its way to this major market right next door? Efforts are underway to see if Ohio does, in fact, enjoy some geographic advantages that could be developed.
New production arrangments in the United States are unlike those in the past. National production in the future will be characterized by few participants rather than many, with units so large as to want mutual commitments (for markets and supplies) contracted over periods long enough to be reasssuring to producers, packers, and their lenders. Government policy commitments probably also would be sought. A few good locations would be important, perhaps with low population density and committed producers in areas where community income enhancement would be an attractive inducement. In Ohio, the Indiana border, Southeast Ohio, and the Amish communities are speculative possibilities.
However, nobody has the essential facts; work needs to be done. Turning an Ohio trend around would be more complicated than just being ready when the opportunity arrives. This opportunity may not even arrive unless something persuasive makes it happen. A collective effort, informed and organized, is required. Packer and producer commitments, comparative freight rates, and contract production arrangements all will need to be examined and discussed.
Bollinger, T.J., P.J. Brown, T.T. Stout, and G.M. Tosi. 1992. Contflict in the countryside? Farm and nonfarm neighbors sharing the land. Ohio's Challenge (magazine of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology), The Ohio State University, Columbus.
Stout, Thomas T. 1992a. Changing geographic patterns of cattle and hog production in Ohio, 1961-1991. ESO-1980, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster.
Stout, Thomas T. 1992b. Patterns of livestock production and slaughter in the United States: An overview. ESO-1934, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster.