on BULLETIN 1150, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
It is reasonable that buyers prefer to buy in larger units than the 
individual lots of live stock in a typical cooperative shipment. Ié is 
even claimed that it is often possible to “ work off ” inferior animals 
to better advantage by this method than by grading the load; in 
other words, to “ make the good hogs sell the poor ones.” The ex- . 
tent to which careful buyers can be imposed upon to this extent is a 
question. 
Selling according to quality or grade predominates on many of 
the important markets and is without doubt the most desirable 
method, especially where the animals in the load represent a con- 
siderable range in quality and where the spread in the market price 
for the different grades 1s wide. Each shipper’s animals then actu- 
ally sell on their merits, as nearly as this ideal can practically be 
approached. Excessive shrinkage is avoided, and buyers, not being 
compelled to take undesirable animals in order to get the desirable 
ones, are inclined to bid more nearly what each grade is actually 
worth. More than this, no manager can hope to obtain for his ship- 
pers. Where a shipping association has a sufficient volume of busi- 
ness, this sorting can be done at the shipping point and only animals 
of one grade loaded in a car. 
WEIGHING. 
The methods used in weighing the animals are of at least as much 
concern to the manager of a shipping association as the methods of 
selling. He is concerned not only in keeping the shrinkage down to 
the minimum, but also in dividing the total shrinkage on a fair 
basis among the different shippers. 
As each group of animals sold at a given price must be weighed 
separately, it follows that the method of sale determines to a large 
extent the method of weighing. The weighing problem resolves it- 
self into the question of the merits of dividing shrinkage according 
to ownership or of prorating it uniformly on some fair basis. 
Weighing by marks.—The advantage claimed for the method of 
weighing by marks is that the actual shrinkage incurred on each lot 
can be definitely ascertained and charged to the individual shipper. 
This is always desirable in the case of cattle, as the shrinkage differs 
widely on account of the wide differences in the quality and condition 
of the animals and on account of different methods of feeding and 
handling the cattle. These differences are of less significance in the 
case of calves. Wide differences often occur in the shrinkage of 
different lots of hogs and sheep. Hogs or sheep coming from green 
pastures will shrink more than those coming from the feed lot. 
Animals driven or hauled different distances to the shipping point 
often show considerable differences in shrinkage. One of the prob- 
lems of the manager is to single out the shipper who feeds heavily 
before delivering his live stock. Weighing by ownership is the most 
effective method of doing this. Managers frequently request sepa- 
rate weights only on lots which they suspect have been filled before 
delivery. 
The chief disadvantage of weighing by marks is that excessive 
shrinkage usually results. Extra shrinkage resulting from weighing 
according to marks has been reported as high as several hundred 
pounds in some cases. Naturally this difference will vary with the 
Ll 
