COST OF PRODUCING HOGS IN IOWA AND ILLINOIS 29 
The average weight of the tried sows at breeding time was 310 
ounds in 1921 and 312 pounds in 1922. The tried sows which were 
Eeicated and sold gained 99 pounds in 1921 and the same figure in 
1922. A more favorable market in 1922 made the average increase 
in value of old sows $2.31 per head; in 1921 there was a decrease in 
value of the tried sows of $6.58. 
Higher inventory values at the beginning of 1921 also influenced 
the amount of appreciation in that year. Young gilts weighing 
about 200 pounds when bred increased in weight 125 pounds and in 
value $3.70 per head in 1921, and in 1922 they increased 164 pounds 
in weight and $9.61 in value. The greater increase in value in 1922 
was influenced by a greater gain and a more favorable market. The 
increase in value would have been greater if gilts or breeding stock 
had been valued on a butcher basis. 
FINANCIAL RETURNS FROM THE HOG ENTERPRISE 
The relation of the cost of production to profit is presented in 
Table 21. A very definite decrease in profit per 100 pounds gain 
and return per bushel of corn accompanies each increase in cost. 
In determining the amount returned for the corn, all feed, except 
corn, and all other items of expense were deducted and the remainder 
was divided by the number of bushels of corn fed. The average 
pes per 100 pounds was $2.39 in 1921 and $1.35 m 1922. The 
ogs returned 69 cents per bushel for corn in 1921 and 71 cents in 
1922, besides paying market price for other feeds grown and pur- 
chased for labor, equipment, interest, and all other various costs. 
The average value of the corn consumed was 36 cents in 1921 and 52 
cents in 1922. The margin of the return by hogs over the farm 
value of the corn was 33 cents per bushel in 1921 and 19 cents in 
1922. 
TABLE 21.—The effect of cost of production upon profit 
| 1921 | 1922 
(a eee Oe ee ee 
Range in cost per 100 pounds of pork | 100 pounds Return | 100 pounds Return 
SSS per a ae per 
| Average | Profit or gata || Average | Profit or be = 
| cost loss ! cost osgi | COFmse 
SUL Te kB eS Sh epee eee ore $3. 32 $3. 02 SEL) | eee eee ORES Sieh Sede eo: 
<A UTEP ASAT beet tn Siege Gl Sell lel eer gee aaa 4. 66 3. 24 . 86 $4. 88 $2. 96 $0. 97 
ST O0iG SENS ee ree rir te 5. 28 2.71 0 5. 47 2.07 = 
TEIN PY OT ee ee ee eee 6. 51 1.23 . 52 6. 37 1. 55 | Pe 
SrO0te Samer e 2 ied tak eT 7. 42 . 87 48 | 7. 44 —.2B 50 
“SETTER | Ee Seen Geko eee preres Peereae 8. 07 —.27 332 8. 24 —1.06 .42 
- a tl gon I ieee eal REF Rage! pee eaeean ines Garena 9. 20 —1.79 . 34 
DUPONT BUR (yy res erties 2 ey ret) _ Ti 10. 89 —3. 98 11 10. 02 —2.04 .27 
Ser Le ee ee eee 11.09 —3. 55 O8e |e Ft eee 2 5 ae ee 
peed Dee errs Nike iO 0 “eas CL Se |. Snes 
Bit Whtetei hg Ee eee Te Ree eh |e ree Perr mereT Semen 
PECORARO 3 Pee yh F305 “peti yh 5. 49 2. 39 69 6. 32 1.35 71 
1 Figures preceded by a minus sign (—) were losses. 
RELATIONSHIP OF CORN AND HOGS 
Corn and hogs are so closely related in American farming that they 
have developed a rather definite cycle of production and _ price. 
A graphic summary of the data secured in this two-year study of 
