AN EZPERIMNT IN REPORTING
COUNTRY SALES OF LIVESTOCK IN OREGON
WILLIAIA YOUNG FO1LER III
A TRtSIS
subniit ted to
OREGON STATE COLLJ'
OF SCIENCE
June 198
e11iiri
Redacted for privacy
Associate Professor of A
ei?ture Eomomica
Redacted for privacy
Redacted for privacy
Redacted for privacy
Dean of Graduate School
Date thesis is presented iObruary 19. 198
Typed by Mrs. Jeanette M.Swimm
It has been ny desire to present a paper that will prove useful
and valuable to landgrant college personnel, state departments of
agriculture, the Federal Market News Service and to producers of
cattle and sheep in the formulation of a more successful livestock
merket reporting system, especially on country sales.
To Mr. E. F. Gait of Great Falls, Montana, a men whom I have
never seen, goes credit for atisniating iv interest in the reporting
of country sales of liveetcok. For years the newsletter on livestock
trading issued by Mr. Gait's bank, the First National
of Great
Falls, has been oi great help to Montana ranchers.
Forever, I will be indebted to Oregon State College for giving
me the opportunity to complete the requirements for a Master' s degree
while on the job as an extension specialist. At least one other
college said such an undertaking was not feasible.
The Extension Service, particularly assistant director, J.W.Scheel,
is to be thanked for providing many of the means through which this
study and n,y graduate classes were undertaken and completed.
Dr. 0. Burton Wood, head of Agricultural Economics, outlined
graduate course of study. Throughout the three-jear program, he has
been a good counsellor arid loyal supporter.
iv
To
major professor, Dr. 8.. Kent Christensen, belongs any
credit for improvement in me personally or professionally, as a
result of graduate study. Against considerable resistance, he put
across many ideas for ny benefit. He baa taut me the vabo of
patience, perseverance and preciseness.
Experimental reporting of Oregon country livestock sales was
made poslibie by four men. One was Don Warnock, agricultural field
representative of the First National Bank of Port3and, Lakeview
Branch. Another was L. W. Schaad, assistant manager of the United
States National Bank of Portland, La Grands Branch. A third reporter
was J. E. Hezimrger, secretary of the Northwest Liwetock Production
Credit Asocjation at Portland. Dissemination of the report through
the Neat Animals and Wool Review was made possible by N. D. Thomas,
extension agricultural economist.
No acknowledgoents would be complete without a word of thanks
to the hundreds of persons who gave of their tine and knowledge in
providing the data through questionnaires compiled in this report.
Two perscis who tttir'ed ier prominentli in the prothction of
thia report, always in the background, were Mrs. Virginia QniUiam
and Mrs. Jeanette Swinmi. Without them there would have been no com'
plated doouaent.
LIST OF TABLES...1....,.,,.,.,,,...,....,....,..,,,.,,.,,.,.,.
LIST OF PIc4JRS..aa,a.,.s.a,,ii..,.,.a.,.,.,..,,..ae,..,,,,a....
INTR0DUCrIoN,. ..
. . . a, a. a a. a. a.. a ,, .. .aa a * a a.
1
TERMINAL AI*ET RiA ORTING,...a....aa...a....a.,,,,.a..,...,.a...
2
Weaknessesinl4axicetNeweServi.oe..,,,..,..,,...,.a,.,a,....
3
a,. a a a., * ..s
a a,
NEED FOR REPORTING -OF COUNTR! SALES IN OREGON.... as
is. a. a. S * S *i
CURRENT ATLEMPT3 AT LOCAL SALES KEPORTING,..,,,,.,,...........,
Reporting by Creclit Agencies......,. a,
7
, , SsssS*.. a S * a... a
7
T1e Gait News1etter......,,....,,,...,.,,.,...,.,,,,,.
7
Bank of Belle Fourohe. a . . a a. as.. a.. a a 0 e a. *.. .,. a su a. * a *
AZCtiofl
Reporting by Extension
502'Vice.,..,,.,,,,.,.
a a..a
Ontario Auction Report.....,....,,,,...,.........,.,.,.
KlaaathFallsAucttonReports....,..,..,...,...,.,,,,.,.
9
9
10
Expeilasntal Reporting of Livestock Sales in Other States, U
NewflexiooRangecattleReport.,,,.,...,...,,...,...,,, 11
The Arizona Range Cattle Market Report,.... ..
Nevada Cattle Sales Report....,.aa....a.aa....
. .......
12
11
a
RagionalSbortTermOutlookRaport.....,,,,.,...,,...,. 35
..saa* 17
Field Contacts,. . ,. . a.. a. .. ..a. as a s .-*as a a... . a.., a as 18
Report FO11)1.a..*a...,...a.......*-.a......,.,,...,..,a,, 1
Releases of Report,
....... ... . . . .. .
, . a. a . ,.. 19
The Review Nailing List,.,.....,,........,..,..,..,...,
Preliminary Field Survey...... .a.sa-aaa.s....sSa.ass.e-aas
Tbe Field Survey.. *.....,.,a.,,..,aa.s,aa.,as,*,,,a...
t)LT?[E OF LIVESTOCK SALES EEPORjD. ,.., a,, a.,,.,.
a-.a,..,.,
21
21
22
26
AN&L!SI$ OF FIELD SUEVEY..............,.....,.......,..-.........
Variation in Ntather of Liestook sold by area. . a,
27
Individual Record Totals........................ ..........
27
28
Persons Seeing Country Trading Report in Newspapers........
31
32
a as a. a ,.
Persons Receiving CountryTradingReport...................
UsefnlnessofCountrySalealziformation..............,.....
Kinds of Information Desired..., ..... . ... ...
.. a . .
30
315
I4ediaforRepoz'tingsaleslnformation....,,......,...,....,
NonthsoftheYearInforiiatjonDesired.....,............,..
36
Suggested $ equy of Iesue........................,..,..
39
DayofWeekInforntionPreferred..........,..,,..........,
SuggestedChangesinContentofReport,,...........,,....,
Suggested Sources of Data.,. . a
. .
a a..... .
.. ..
PresentSourcesof.MarketInforitjen.,..,,,,..,,,.,.,....
&eINARY, CONcLUSIONS AND
37
Li].
153
157
S
BIBLIOGRAi'EY.....,,..,,....,.,...,..,.,..,.,...1,,,.....,.,....,
63
APPflDIX..,., ,. s,..*,a
61$
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
Responsetothequestionnaires.,..........,...........
Table 2. Eetited livestock production and marketings, Oregon.
Table 3.
Table
Total number of livestock sold and currently on
hand by ares for 1956... .. . . . ,.,. .. . .. ..... .
a. a. .
25
26
28
Number of livestock (individual record totals,
sold plus on band),.........,,,,,.....,.,.......,..,.
29
Table 5.
'ers one receiving country trading report by areas.., ...
30
Table 6.
Persons seeing country trading report in newspapers
'by area....,.....................,.........,........,,,
32
.
Table?. Usefulness of country trading report to producers
by area,,,......,......,,,....,,.,,...........,....,.....
Table 8.
Table 9.
U sefulness of country trading report by- type of
operator, a a a, * a. a a a a a
*a a a a a. a
a
a a a a -a*
33
a a *4 * a
1(inds of information desired in report by areas....,..,
35
Table 10. Suggested madia for reporting country trading
information by area...,...,..a...,............*.,.a.,..
36
Table U. Months of the year country trading report information
desired by aroa,..,.,.,,,.,,,,.,.......,....,.,,.......
38
Table 12. Months of the year country trading report information
desired by type of operator,...........................
Table 13. Day of week preferred for releasing country trading
report by area,. as , a a a a a a
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a. a
38
a *.
Table 2l. Day of week preferred for releasing country trading
reportbytypeofoperator.,......................,,... il
Table 15, Suggested frequency of issue of country trading
report by area, . . , a, a *
a a I a a a. a *.
a-, a a a a a a
a a . . *. a a
Table 16, Suggested frequency of issue of country trading
report by type of operator.a,,,,,a.......a.a....a.,,...
13
1956..............,..................... received, was
20
eurvey...........,....... field in used stats of Areas 2. Figure
23
infoxtion trading country which from Areas 1, Figure
FIGURES OF LIST
51
52
outlet,.,...... of typs by information trading country
rec*iV'S now ucers
livestock *ich through SoTirces 25, Table
*
I
55*5 51*5 0*55
... . . .
1i9
....
..
.
.
..
operator1
of type by information trading country receive
now producers livestock thioh through Sources 21. Table
.
area.... by Ijtfoztion trading country receive
now producers livestock which through Sources 23. Table
out].et..............,..........,,,, of type tradingby
country on data getting for suggested Sources 22. Table
.
04 .4.
,........
operator... of type by trading
country on data getting for auggeted Sources
...
...... ... .
li?
1*6
.
.
.
.
.
21 Table
500
area........ by trading
country en data getting for suggested Sources
outlet................................,....41,
by report trading
20 Table
of type
country- In chsnges Suggested 19. Table
area...
bh
operator,....,.......................,........ of type
laS
by report trading country in changes Suggested 18. Table
by report trading country in changes Suggested
17, Table
(1J
devised in the spring of l96 to collect such sales data tlu'ough credit
agencies, sunnarize this information at Oregon State College and release them in the "Meat Animals and Wool Review'1 and over KOAC.
ThEMINAL MA1UCZT RE1)RTIIG
The Federal Ltveetock end Meat Market Reporting .rvice via establiahed and is perpetuated br Congressional legislation (9,p,l).
Its function is to gather, analyze and widely disseminate timely,
acourace, unbiased and interpretable market information.
3
Weakneeses in
arket News Service
Auction Reporting By Exteneion Service
12
iarket8, where no public lieetock report similar to those at Ama-
17
I1J
?ield Contacts
At 7our request the following
report is submitted:
Place:
Date*______________________
Country sales report to be mailed to Coryallis each Monday.
DestiDelivery Price &
Nuber of
nation
Weighing
Grade
Weight
Date
head or
ondition
fleeces
-
-
-
-
A
________________
-
-_--
___
V
The information sent in by the credit agencies was clarified,
organized and then disseminated weekly through the Meat Animals and
o1 Review during the period May 17 to October b, l96.
weeks there was not enough
(On certain
trading information to warrant a report.)
In addition to being released in the Reitew, the
information on
Figure 1.
Areas of Oregon covered by reporting agencies, 196
U. 5. National Bank, La Grande Branch
First National Eank, Lakeview Branch
Northwest Livestock Production Credit Asociation scrves the entire state, with the exception of
Baker and K1amth counties, with a total of 183 inrnbers.
The Review Mailing List
During the time that the country trading report was released,
persons requesting the Meat Animals and Wool Review includeds
2,910
Oregon farmers and livestock producers; I2 county extension agents;
live public officials; 11 radio stations; 22 newspapers; 20 Oregon
State staff members; 29 California residents; 23 Washington residents;
U Idaho residents; and U other state residents.
22
About 30 peroant Of the addressees returned useable question'nairee.
After' the returned preliminary questionnaires were checked, a
The State was divided into six areas for the field survey
(figure 2).
The northwest area extended from Lane County to the
Columbia IIiver and from the Cascades to the Pacific.
This area was
selected because most of the livestock in it tend to move toward the
portland market.
It is an area of ma11 livestock producers, and it
has many small auctions and
a11 independent packing plants located
mit.
Area two, the southwest area, is the region commonly known as
Area three, central Oregon, inclisied Desc}mtes, Jefferson and
Crook counties.
This area includes many small livestock feeders and
CLJTO dii.
UMA7LL4
TILL
Sf4SI9.
V141C0
CLAe/4m4f
pill-
y,4,.f.
4
<L,.ow'
PaM
,
RT1KCR
J
/#I,v
Rok
SOUT(HEIIST
kr%f
I
1
'E)k5oN
L,4k
ioSi.
Figure 2.
Areas of the state used in field survey.
especially forward contracting to California outlets in order to move
their livestock.
Table 1.
Type of response,
by area
Responses to the questionnaires
329 producers, Oregon 1957
Mailed
Northwest
Livestock producers
County agents
Newspapers
Others
Southwest
Livestock producers
County agents
Newspapers
Others
Central
Livestock producers
County agents
Newspapers
Others
Hid-Columbia
Livestoók producers
County agents
Newspapers
Others
Livestock producers
County agents
Newspapers
Others
Southeast
Livestock producers
County agents
Newspapers
Others
.0 responses,
by
TotaI
Received 'sithTReceived after
first letter second letter received
50
70
120
2
12
3
2
2
38
15
16
60
1
15
1
34
1
3
5
8
9
17
I
265
lb
6
1
9
-
-
31
8
2
2
2
1
-
18
7
-
5
31
2
-
1
1
4
11
2
-
2
3
-
2
1
1
2
97
36
6
I
13
2
49
12
I
4
3
8
1
-
-
51
20
8
28
S
I
2
1
2
-
I
1
3
S
8
area 648
l7
154
32
A total of 6h8 questionnaires and letters were mailed on Novem
ber ]., l96.
Of these, 17, or 27 percent, were returnede
On
November 28, a follow-ip letter was mailed to afl. those who had re
ceived the first letter but had not returned it.
plied, about 2
percent.
Another 11 re-
All told, 329 ueeable questionnaires were
returned for a total of near)y l percent (table 1).
After the useable questIonnaires were edited, the information
was coded and then tabulated by IBM.
VOLiSMI 0? LIYkST0CK SALES REPORTED
The Northwest Livestock Production Credit Association at Portland submitted meat of the information on country trading of livestock
tL
ill
Market tnspected4**
279,382 bead
Country inspected*
l21,1i31 head
Slaughter inspacted**
S2,351 head
Sales rexxrted. credit aenciea6278 head 38.620 bead
2,75O fLeeces
* "Marketinga" were obtained from Crop and Livestock Reporting
Service.
** Brand inspection data were obtained from State Department of
Agriculture at Salem.
This agency would not accurately estimate what portion of its
27
Similar information also was not available from the United States
National Bank at La Grands,
Th. First National Bank at Lakeview re
ported that about onehalf of the sales of its customers ware covered.
to October b), the three credit agencies reported the sale of 6,778
cattle, or an estimated one percent of Oregon 'a marketings (table 2).
trading report.
These sheep accounted for about six percent of
Oregon's marke tinge.
The country trading report covered sales of about seven percent
of Oregon s wool 1eece production.
While Oregon sheepmen sheared
some 76I,OOO sheep in l96, the report listed Bales of 2,7O fleeces.
$i*uwr4l
Data summarized from the questionnaires give some indication of
(table 3).
Operators responding from the Blue
keted more cows than respondents elsewhere.
I!
i
ntatns area owned and mar
The same thing Ia true
rr*juii
cars on the Meat AnirQals anü.Wool Review mailing list.
Table 3.
Southwest
Central
Mid-Columbia
Blue Mt.
Southeast
Total number of livestock sold and
currently on hand by area for 1956
329 producers, Oregon 1957
216
277
145
1459
2
622
299
3,887
1,903
1,9146
1,059
10013
5.066
2614
1470
Mid-Columbia Blue Mt.
Southeast
908
209
172
128
1,155
1,161
All areas _]86_
Southwest
Central
681
1,722
860
325
1458
813
223
133
500
140
140
140
6,503
1,280
5,885
1,1461
5,2146
-
53
100
171
19
702
151
3,14914
3148
1,031
1,988
3145
181
551
630
145
30 -
-
1,829 1,225
102
1,500
135
701
10
17
23
1514
information was an.i'ized by total livestock production in an area.
For cows, sold and on hand, central Oregon contaIned the mdi-
northeat, southwest and southeast areas (table 14).
For yearlings, sold and on hand, the southeast area contained
of one yearling were reported in the northwest, southwest and Blue
Mountains areas.
Table L.
Number of livestock (individual
record totals, sold plus on band)
329 producers, Oregon 1957
-
Southwest
Central
Mid-Columbia
Blue Mt.
Southeast
502
1,hOO
152
800
500
___x
-
1
10
322
185
1
6
3
70
6b0
1,000
5
1
2
2
1
.a,TT,, W
l.tOO
hO
5,816
700
30
100
hO
250
223
80
18
280
223
80
12
5,362
3,300
2b
IhO
600
125
750
ihO
70
2
18
22
SJJ.1
3!0
-
100
130
900
350
--------------- Classof livestock
Breeding wei
Feeder Laiubs
Ho25
Southwest
Central
Mid-Columbia
Blue Mt.
Southeast
-
2
3
2
Other
-,
£4..I.
.1..
12
U
i5
S
10
5
35
10
38
10
2
-
For calves, sold and on hand, the Blue Munt sins area w*s the
home of the largest individual operator.
reported 900 calvo$.
Irwew
to a range operator in the Blue Mountains area.
He reported 5,816 head.
A low for breeding ewes was reported in the northwest section, that
number being six head.
The Blue Mountains area also contained the largest producer of
only at mt head.
area.
Columbia, a total ot l.
Table
.
Persons receiving country trading report by areas
329 producers, Oregon 1957
Northwest
109
ItO
9
158
Southwest
29
114
1
Central
12
7
-
Mid-Columbia
U
3
141
16
23
12
225
92
31ue Mt
Southeast
All
real
69.0
25.3
5.7
3.00
1414
65,9 31.8
2.3
100
19
63,2
36.8
1
1
73.3
20.0
6,7
100
3.
58
70,7
27 6
1.7
100
35
65.7
314,3
329
68.14
2.0
12
100
100
3.6
1Q9
32
Table 6.
Persona seeing country trading reporb in newspapers by re
329 producers, Oregon 1957
Area
Yea
No Don't know
Northwsst
i9
95
Southwest
5
36
3
Central
1
12
3
L&id'Coluthia
5
10
-
Blue Mt.
10
4j
Southeast
13
22
11
-
Yea
No
31.0
60.1
8.9
100
1l.1
81.8
6.8
100
19
214
63.2
15.?
100
15
33,3
66.7
-
100
58
17.2
75.9
6.9
100
35
37.1
62,9
-
100
ota1
158
Iron Pt knói
Total
Perhaps the reason why the northwest area was low, with about
63 percent reporting favorably, is that prices here are domi*iatad by
the terwinal and auction markets located in the area.
Table 7. Usefulness of country
trading report to producers by area
329 producers, Oregon 1957
Area
lee No didn't answer total lea
No
Northwest
100
21
37
158
63.3
13.3
23,14
100
Southwest
30
6
8
144
68,2
13.6
18.2
100
Central
15
1
3
19
78,9
5.3
3.5.8
100
Mid-Columbia
12
3.
2
15
80,0
6.7
13.3
100
Blue Mt.
146
3
9
58
79.3
5.2
15.5
100
Southeast
31
1
3
35
88.6
2.9
8.5
100
All areas
2314
33
62
329
71.1 10,0
18.9
100
didn't answer Total
y type of operators
1hen the answers were analyzed according to the type of livestock
produced, about 7? percent of the cattle operators said the country
trading report would be useful to them (table 8).
next high with about 7C) percent.
Lamb operators were
Others including lending agencies,
county agents, newspapers, livestock traders and others, said "yee
61 percent of the time.
of the time.
bg producers said "yes" about 142 percent
The information received from hog operators is hard to
314
evaluate because hog prices were not reported in the country trading
report during 196.
Table 8.
operator
Usefulness of country trading report
by type of operator
329 producers, Oregon 19?
Yes No didn't answer Total Yes No didn't answer Total
Cattle operator 1314 U
30
76.6
l7
6.3
17.1
100
Lamb operator
3
8
Hog operator
8
14
7
19
142.1 21.1
36.8
100
39 10
10
9
66.2 16.9
16.9
100
18.9
100
Other*
...-
AU operators
2314 33
..................... . ....... .. .. .. .
62
329
71.1. 10.0
* Other includes lending agencies, county agent., newspapers, live
stock traders and others,
Prices of livestock being traded wore of greatest concern to the
desire for grade information.
The importance of grades was particu
larly stressed by those living in the midColumbia area.
Table 9.
Kinds of information desired in report by areas
329 producers, Oregon 19S7
VU.
JJ.
head or
Northwest
109
Southwest
31
Central
1
.d-Columbia U
Blue Mt.
4S
Southeast
30
1]. ra
74
18
12
10
33
64
17
23
10
9
41
10
8
7
1
29
2
3
44
U
3.4
U
7
7
6
4
37
33
23
22
32
20
28
20
L8J_ ik
69.0 46.8
70. 49.9
78,9 63.2
Mid-ColuzMa 73.3 66,7
Blue Mt.
77.6 6.9
Southeast
8.7 6.7
40.
AU areas
1L3
73.3 5l.t
5
20
8
241 j7Oj_
Northwest
Southwest
Central
W.tUjZ LWL.
condivery Deati-
38.6
7.9
46.7
63.8
6.7
1
.1i3_ _PL.. - _'
Percent of persons reporting
1J,0
27.11
25J
37,3
31.8
20.!
4S.
22.7
36.8
42.1
42.1
S7.9
46.7
40.0
26.7
33.3
48.3
!6.9
.2
S0.0
62.9
7.l
37.1
7i.
I&S.0
k3.2
3li.3
- 6.3
3.4
8.6
31.9
Desire for information on the number of head or fleeces sold, as
a part of the report, was mentioned by 48 percent of the respondents.
It was listed most frequentl7 by respondents from the southeastern area.
Persons in centr'al Oregon most often desired information On
weighing conditions.
By weighing conditions is meant information con-
corning whether the animals
re trucked or trailed before weighing
and whether there was a "pencil shrink" taken on the animals.
The percent of the respondents desiring information on delivery
TIQIla
countzy trading report was information on deetnation of animals
sold.
However, this kind of information was suggested by as many as
0 percent of the respondents in the Blue Muntairt
area and 23 per-
cent of those reporting in the southwest area.
edia for Reporting Sales Information
was considerable question as to thether it should be part of the Meat
Animals and Wool Review or issued as a separate report (table 10).
Table 10,
Suggested media for reporting
country trading information by area
329 producers, Oregon 197
Suggested media
Area
1¼rt of Meat
Animals and
Wool Review
Northwest
Southwest
Central
id-Coluia
Blue It.
Southeast
86
20
Did
Separate
report
18
8
not
Other
answer
Number of answers
l
3
-16
10
AU
answers
l8
19
9
3
314
10
-
114
17
13
1
14
Allareas'
3
3S
176
56
29
93
- - - - - - - - * - - - - - - * a -----Percent of persons reporting
Northwest
100
14.Ii
U.b
1.9
32.3
Southwest
18.2
100
Jà.14
36.14
Central
,2.6
21.1
100
26.3
Mid-Colwthia
60,0
20.0
20.0
100
Blue Mt.
8.6
17.2
100
214.2
Southeast
148.6
37.1
n.h 100
2.9
- * *********
-
AU areas
3j
'17.0
1,2
28.3
37
lionthi desired by area
Over ha1! o
the persons reporting, about 53 percent, said that
country trading information was needed all months of the year
(table 11).
The next high, 26 percent, said that information was
needed in the fall.
The desire for country trading inforiation ali months of t he
t;JVtI I2WI4.L iThr71
Southwest
Central
d-co1umbia
Blue Mt.
Southeast
AU areas
17
12
11
3
11
3
9
2
35
22
2
3
2
8
8
3?S
46
41
16
6
6
2
2
2
38.6 27.3
60.0 13.3
25.0 36.4
4.5
15.8 31.6 10.5
13.3 40.0 3.3.3
ii
9
5
60.3
62.9
13.8
22.9
87
17
3
57.9
15.8
3.4
8.6
8.6
8.6
29.3
25.7
i4.326.hSj
53.2 14.0
information on country trading of livestock in eli months (table 12).
Table 12.
nths of the year country trading
information desired r type of operator
329 prodxcers, Oregon 197
Cattle operator
Lamb operator
Hog operator
Other*
98
23
34
10
33
19
1
3
Cattle operator
Lamb operator
Hog operator
Other*
44.5
38.6
76.9
64.7
10.5
AU operators
47.0
12.4
21.6
7.7
5.9
nner or answers
56
26
18
17
-
2
-
2
U
Percent of answers
25.
12.7
20.5
19.3
15.4
21.6
3.9
-
12.6
15
23.4
2
6.8
-
4.6
* Other includes lending agencies, county agents, newspapers, live!
stock traders and others.
Persona other than livestock producers, including lending agencies,
county agents, newspapers and livestock traders were next in line
favoring reporting country sales of livestock all months of the year.
They were followed by cattle and lamb operators in that order.
Cattle
operators were, however, the most concerned about reporting sales
during the fall months.
There was little indication that any of this
group desired country trading information during the winter months
only.
Day of Week Information Preferred
the Blue
intans area had no choice as to the week1r release date
for the country trading report.
Table 13.
ek preferred for releasing
country trading report by area
329 producers, Oregcn 1957
1)ay of
Day of week preferred
Did
No
Saiie as Lat Not same as
not
Aniza1s and Meat Animals and preferance answer
Wool Review Wool Review
Area
AU
anwera
Number of persons' rè'
Northwest
Southwest
Central
idCo1uiiia
Bluest.
Southeast
Northwest
Southwest
Central
Mid-Co1unbi*
Blue
Southeast
AU areas
Da
56
19
9
7
20
18
35.14
143.2
147.14
146.6
314.5
51.14
i9.2
0
3
1
-
114
6
6
26
114
1.9
6.7
1.2
U
14
1
12
3
158
1414
19
15
58
35
Percent of persons reporti.ng
100
2.3
100
25.0
31,8
100
21.0
31.6
100
6.7
140.0
100
20.7
14i.8
100
8.6
140.0
38.
preferred by type of operator
bt of the producers indicating a 2reference said they pro-
L1
Table lL. Day of week preferred for releasing
country trading report by type of operator
329 producers, Oregon 19S7
Type
of
Se as Meat
Animals and
porator Wool Review
Cattle operator 68
Day of week prefer
Did
No
not
AU
Meat Animals and pre
for nce answer
nswe1
Wool Review
Number of operators repo4g
29
173
3
73
Nit same as
7
-
22
1
llotorL9
-
Lamb operator
Hog operator
Other*
32
Cattle operator 39.3
Lamb operator
143.3
Hog oierator
38.9
Other*
314.14
LI
1.5
214
18
714
7
14
18
21
20
614
l7l)29
Percent of Operators reportg
100
2.2
32.14
214.3
100
38.9
22.2
100
32.8
31.3
100
Table 15.
Suggested frequency of isuo of
country trading report by area
329 producers, Oregon 1957
Frequency ofsaue
1bre than
once a week
Area
Northwest
Southwest
Central
MidColuuibia
Blue Mt.
Southeast
AU areas
Northwest
Southwest
Central
11
3
1
2
1
22
Less than Did not
answer
week1
57
16
15
11
Is
7
23
10
3
6
All
answers
1414
19
15
9
19
25
8
14
58
35
133
112
62
329
--- - S - - S - ------------ - - ------
MidColumbia
Blue M.
7.0
6.8
5.3
13.3
1.7
Southeast
11.14
AU areas
Weekly
36.1
Percent of persons reporting
100
22.8
3I.l
36J.
314.1
21.0
22.7
15.8
3.00
57.9
lj6.7
-
100
100
39,7
140.0
143.1
15.5
3.00
514,3
22.9
11.14
100
314.0
18.9
100
Suggested frequency b te of oDerator
Cattle operators were the group moat favorable to releasing
eyen3.y split between weekly and. ieee than weekly, although n.ariy 38
Table 16. Suggested frequency of issue of
country trading report by type of operator
329 Producers, Oregon 1957
L'eguency of issue
Type of
Cattle operator
Lamb operator
Hog operator
Other*
AU operators
88
10
6
3
3
22
21
16
5
20
5
20
2].
133
312
62
31
5
74
18
64
329
- Percent of operators reporting
38.2
100
11.5
28.4
100
41.9
21.6
27.8
100
27.8
278
31.2
32.8
100
31.3
- - ------- * a - a a - a - - - - - ----------Cattle operator
Lamb operator
Hog operator
Other*
5.8
8.1
16.6
4.7
4W
kw- _1_
* Other includes landing agencies, county agents, newspapers, livestock traders and others.
Suggested Changes in Content of Report
uggested changes by area
Because information on the country trading of livestock in 1956
Table 17. Suggested changes in
country trading report by area
329 producers, Oregon 197
Area
locality
coverage
papers
Radio
agents
vision
OtIr
Nuth,ir of anuweri
Northwest
Southwest
Central
Nid-Golumbia
Blue Mt.
Southeast
50
10
15
9
8
5
20
25
5
3
3
9
114
12
12
9
6
140
6
3
1
8
2
3.
5
3
7
6
8
2
3
2
1
1
-
-
3
1
14
1
AU ai1ai
1014
17
9
914
57
35
- a - * - a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a - - - - S - - 5 Percent of persons reportin
Northwest
31.6
10.8
8.2
is.a
25.3
5.1 12.7
Southwest
6.8
2,3
20.5
11.14
2.3
22.7
13.6
Central
1.8
26,3
142.3.
15.8
10.5
147.14
5.3
Mid-Columbia 140.0
20.0
6.7
20.0
33.3
Blue Mt.
12.1
6.9
25.8
15.5
13.8
f.2
314,5
Southeast
140.0
2.9
17.1
2.9
314.2
314.2
5.7
Al]. aróas
31.6
2&,6
3.7,3
IL
3.0.65.2
2.
Suggested changes br tpe of operator
Lath operators
st often mentioned the need for more definite
information as to locality of sales,
I*re than 39 percent suggested
Table 18. Suggested changes in
county trading report by type of operator
329 producers, Oregon 1957
Type of
operator
sales
locality
Cattle operator 57
Lamb operator
29
Hog operator
14
Other*
114
mide
coverage
57
County ThisNéwz.
papers
Radio agents vision 0th
Number of answers
6
19
23
9
32
6
10
1
14
1
1
1
3
1
114
5
14
14
U
15
5
17
17
AU operators 1014
914
Cattle operator
Lamb operator
Hog operator
Other*
32.9
39.2
22.2
21.2
32.9
20.3
27.8
26.6
18.5
13.5
5.6
21.9
All operators
31.6
28.6
17.3
3?
-
35
I?
9
Percent of operators reporting
13,3
5.2
11.0
3.5
8.1
1.14
114.9
5.14
5.6
5.6
16.7
1.6
6.3
7.8
6.3
-
11.2
1O.6
5.2
2.7
* Other inciudsa lending agencies, county agents, newspapers, livs-stock traders and others.
Suggested changes by type of maxk at outlet used
About 37 percent of the operators using the terminal market at
North Portland suggested
country sales.
re definite information as to locality of
About 25 to 33% of the operators selling at other
outlets also made this suggestion.
From 21 to 30 percent of the
Table 19. Suggested changes in
country trading report by type of outlet
329 producers, Oregon 1957
AU
County Talewide
News
sales
change
vision
Other
Iadio
agents
locality coverage papers
thinibér of answers
1147
16
10
2
23
S
Terminal market S14
37
130
6
6
18
38
114
9
Auction
39
27
1
2
Feeder
5
7
5
7
1
2
57
6
16
12
Trader
17
3
8
73
10
3
14
Local Slaughter 214
19
5
1
37
2
Other farmer
12
9
7
3
3
2
Other
2
outlet
-
-
AU outlets
-
-
20
13
123
1514
------ - ------ * - - -------- 149
148
Terminal market 36.7
Auction
29.2
26.0
Feeder
29.8
Trader
Local Slaughter 32.9
Other farmer
32.5
100.0
Other
25.1
30,0
25.9
21.0
26.0
214.3
Percent of answers
6.8
10.9 15.7
10.8
6.9
13.9
18.-S
16.5
7.14
28.0
10.5
5.3
U.0 6.8
13.7
8.1
8.1
18.9
32.6
2.0
114.0
All outlets
-
-
-
10.14
3.14
14.6
3.7
3.6
5.5
-
5.14
10.1
14.2
1.14
14.6
1.8
14.1
2.7
-
2.7
3
* a -
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
'47
Suggested Sources of Data
Area
agencies
inspectors
Northwest
Southwest
Central
Mid-Columbia
Blue Mb.
Southeast
18
3
15
6
9
3
19
33
All areas
62
North eat
Southwest
Central
---
38
- - -
6
2
'4
3
214
114
114
23.
8
7
113
81
52
Other*
17
3.
3
9
'4
314
S S - --------------------
11.14
214.1
314.1
Blue Mb.
Southeast
6.8
31,6
20.0
32.8
37.1
£1]. areas
18,8
Mid-&,olumbia
reporters
Auction
Number of answers
1
'45
10
8
'47.14
'40.0
Percent of persons reporting
10.8
28.5
3.1.14
18.2
22.7
2.3
3.5.8
10.5
20.0
26.7
-
'41.14
214.1
214.1
l.5
60.0
22,8
20,0
11.14
314.3
21i
15.8
10.3
* Largest other group noted were county agents.
The use of government reporters was suggested by about 214 percent
of the respondents.
1&re than 28 percent of the respondents in the
northwest area gave this answer as compared 'with only 10 percent in
the central area, 22 percent in the southeast area and 214 percent in
the Blue 3buntains area.
About 142 percent of the cattle operators suggested the use of
brand inspectors for getting information on country trading of live'
stock.
Government reporters were suggested by 214 percent and credit
organizations by about 19 percent of the cattle operators (table 21).
Table 21.
Sorees suggostd for getting data on
country trading by type of operator
329 producers, Oregon 1957
c
Cattle operator 38
Lamb operator
10
Hogoperator
3
Other
11
.A11 operators
62
Cattle operator
Lamb operator
Hog operator
Other
72
145
314
13
17
3
22
10
21
10
5
5
8
81
52
314
113
a a
a
22.0
liX.6
13.5
23.0
16.7
32.8
16.7
17.2
14
2
9
a
Percent of operators reporting
26.0
19.6
7.5
6.8
29.7
13.5
11.1
22.2
27.8
15.6
114.1
12.5
Outlet agencies inspectors reporters dealers slaughter Other*
Terminal
Number of inewera
market
8'
38
19
34
2
35
Auction
18
36
30
27
24
4
Feeder
8
1
1
7
4
4
Trader
18
12
5
7
4
4
Local
slaughter 12
l
18
6
23
4
Other
farmer
1
6
6
7
3
Other
6
1
3
outit
15
139
109
55
73
Terminal
Percent of answers
market
25.0
25.7
27.9
1.5
14.0
5.9
Auction
19.4
13.0
25.9
21.6
17.2
2.9
1eeder'
28.0
32.0
16.0
16.0
4.0
4.0
Trader
10.0
36.0
8.0
8.0
24,0
14.0
Local
slaughter 14.6
28.0
22.0
23,2
7.3
4.9
Other
farmer
20.0
17.1
8.6
17.1
37.2
Other
60.0
)O.O
10.0
AU outletsl7.4
29.1
3S.3
3j 3.1.5
-
-
Total
136
139
25
50
82
-
-
35
10
177
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
* Other includes cóisatà ho eieprts, dealers, county agents
and ranchers.
Preaent Sources of Market information
house reports were about 39 percent each.
Federal market news reports
were used by one-third of the producers.
Table 23.
Sources through which livestock producers now
receive country trading information by area
329 producers, Oregon 1957
Area
Source
Newspapers
Auction reports
Radio
Commission house reports
Federal market news
Local livestock producers
Livestock buyers
North- South'
west
west
Cen-
Mid..
tral Co3ximbia
106
29
12
614
21
10
60
!2
17
12
146
25
13
16
33
114
7
Blue
Mt.
Sàutheast
36
32
23
26
15
9
14
23
13
9
9
5
30
U
21
16
6
5
20
8
2
5
2
2
23
16
17
Countyagents
214
9
13
3
Lending agencies
6
1
8
Truckers
1
1
3
14
Others
6
6
1
2
14
- - a - - a - - - S - - - - - * - - - * - S - - - * - - - - - Percent of persons reporting
Newspapers
67.1
63,2
62.1
146.t
Auction reports
60.0
lAS 147.7 52.6
55.2
Radio
38.0 38.6
26.7
147,14.
39.7
Commission house reports
60.0
32.9. 27.3
68.14.
51.7
Federal market news
29.1 29.5
36.2
147.14
33.3
Local livestock producers
15.8 36.14
31.6
51.7
33.3
Livestock buyers
20.9 31.8
142.1
13.3
39.7
County agents
1.2 20.5 10.5
20.0
22.14
Lending agencies
26.3
6.7
3.8 13.8
Truckers
1.9
10.5
6.7
2.3
6.9
Oth's
3.8 13,6
6.9
5.3
-
yype of operator
7
14
1
2
- * 65.7
714.3
142.9
31.14
145.7
145.7
148.6
20.0
U.1.i
2.9
5.7
52
cattlemen used local livestock producers as a source of intozation.
Source
operator
Newspapers
Auction reports
Radio
CommisSion house reports
Federal market news
Livestock buyers
Local livestock producers
County agents
Lending agencies
Truckers
Other
- a. a - a - - - * - - Newspapers
Auction reports
Radio
Commission house reports
Federal market news
Livestock buyers
Local livestock producers
County agents
Lending agencies
Truckers
operator
operator
Number of sñiwers
56
6
36
U
1114
91
71
32
72
33
Sli.
23
21
57
58
U
30
15
6
12
13
14
- 65.9
52.6
141.0
141.6
31.2
32.9
33,5
17.3
8.7
3,5
8
6
9
1
1
1
1
Oth'
29
28
114
22
17
25
12
14
1
5
7
2
- --------------
- - Percent of operators reporting
61.1
75.7
145.3
148.6
143.8
33.3
21.9
1414.14
143.2
1414.6
21.9
33.3
31.1
500
3i.14
28.14
5.6
26.6
114J
5.6
39.1
18.8
5.6
17.6
5.6
6.3
5.14
7.8
1.14
-
The picture was a little different with lamb operators.
News
Table 25.
Sources through which livestock producers now receive
country trading intormation by type of outlet
329 producers, Oregon 195?
-
- -
-
-
L.
Auction
Newspapers
85
Auction reports 133
Commission house
reports
89
Radio
147
Livestock buyers3o
Federal market
news
142
Local livestock
producers
28
County agents
18
Lending agenc&eslO
Truckers
6
Others
11
All aiiees
1409
90
114
35
9].
113
26
55
38
26
20
9
6
132
11
5
16
16
29
63
36
36
7
214
21
9
16
16
14
39
8
15
12
11
1
38
20
9
5
13
11
6
2
3
2
9
5
19
U
114
-
11
1
2
14
13143
79
167
226
- - _ - - - - - - - S S - - - - - a
Newspapers
20.8
Auction reports 10.5
Cosunission house
reports
21.8
Radio
11.5
Livestock buyers 7.3
Federal market
nawe
10.3
Local livestock
producers
6,8
County agents
13.14
Lending agencies 2.14
Truckers
1.5
Others
2.7
AU soureas
100.0
20.3
20.5
8
3
1.
2
14
14
2
6
36
132
- * - - - - - *
Percent or answers
21.0
17.8
213.14
16.8
17.8
15.5
19.7
15.2
25.0
16.7
6.9
12.1
12.1
11.1
5.6
11.1
8.1
13.9
6.3
8.8
113.3
12.8
15.9
10.6
8.8
10.1
9.0
5.3
8.3
2.8
8.6
11.14
5.13
13.5
3.0
5.8
6.2
8.3
2.5
0.5
2.5
6.3
3.8
2.5
1.3
11.14
0.14
6.1
2.3
11.1
11.1
5.5
1.2
1.8
14.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
9.5
113.2
9.6
9.6
-
-
13.5
100.0 100.0
the auctions put auction reports at the top of their list.
producers now marketing
their
Those
livestock to feeders and traders
relied most heavily an nespapera.
Recoiitendatjons
radio station KOAC should be continued.
The fact that tore than oue.fourth of
the persons reporting
were not able to recognise the country trading report, even though
they are on the Meat Animals and Wbol Review mailing list, stresses
view.
1.
Gait, E. F., Chairman of the Board, First National Bank of
Great Falls, Montana, Great Falls, Montana.
Personal
communication, April 15, 1957.
2.
Lahti, K. IL, Vice-President, Bank of Belle Fourche, Belle
Fourche, South Dakota. Personal communication. April 7, 1956.
3.
MeNeely, John 0., Chairman, Technical Committee, WJk-21.
Ins
Annual report of cooperative regional projects. Denver,
Colorado, Western livestock marketing research,
January 23, 1956. ip.
14.
Potter, 1. L. The marketing of Oregon livestock. Corvallis,
1952. 39p. (Oregon. Agricultural ixperiment btation.
Station
Bulletin 5114)
5.
Seatferle, C, B., Assistant Agricultural :cxnomtst.
of Nevada. Reno, Nevada. Personal communication,
February 22, 1957.
6.
Seltzer, Raymond L and Thomas M. Stubblefield.
range cattle market report. Tucson, 1957. 9p.
Agricultural Ixperiment Station, Report 1148)
University
The Arizona
(Arizona.
7.
Southworth, William. Producer's preliminary statement. In:
Oregon livestock and meat marketing conference, Jaimary 6, 19514,
Oregon State College, Corvallis, Oregon. p. 1.6. (kimeographed)
8.
Stucky, H. It. , Read of Department of Agriou3i tire]. Economics.
New IAexico A. & U. College, State College, New Mexico.
communication, August 17, 1956.
9.
Personal
Swensen, Theo T., Local Representative, Federal Market News
Service, North Portland, Oregon. In: Oregon livestock and
meat marketing conference, January 6, 19514, Oregon State College,
Corvallis, Oregon. p. 1-3.
(Imeographed)
Special to:
Yrom:
Certain Papers
8/2l/6
R. H. Birdeall, Ag. In.to. Spec,, 005
Recent fat cattle price increases have spurred contracting o
Oregon feeder cattle for fafl delivery at prices above earlier
expectations, reports
i, L FoLer, Oregon State College livestock
marketing specialist.
Scattered reports from eastorn Oregon this week show increased
4ost buyer activity has centered around yearling
d tyear-
between September 3 and 10.
Central Oregon reports a contract for 110 yearling Hereford
steers at $17 with no shrink.
They will go to California.
A contract thia week for 300 light yearling Hereford steers
county.
66
Urnatilla county reports hiS year34ng Hereford steers frog
ermt
aton sold for $16.7S at off..tbei..truok weight at Grand'iew, Washington.
A Fort Klamath area report indicates yearling steers being ccn-
September 3. delivery in Cahifonia.
An earlier report from the Lake county area indicated that hO per-
)!iY i;cT
Oregon State College and
United States Department of Agriculture
Cooperating
Extension Service
2O SnoU Hail
October 10, 156
To, AU Oregon County Extension Agents
Agriculture
Gentlemen,
After the pre-test is completed and perfected, the final questionnaire will go to about 600 persons on the )at Animals and Wool
Review mailing list. It will be at that time that you as county
agents will receive copies of the qieationnaire which we hope you
will complete and return.
Sincere1r yours,
W. L 1ow)s r
Livestock far1eting Specialist
iJ
Ie)i.Ji'!T1
Oregon State College and
Jnited States Department of Agriculture
Cooperating
xteneion Service
Snail HaIl 205
Country eale, of livestock br you and fellow producers is on
the increase in Oregon.
Many times, you have pointed out the need for greater exchange
of information among yourselves, as producers, about these country
eales of livestock.
As a result of the demand for more information on country trading,
Oregon State College started reporting country sales as a regular part
of the Meat Animals and Wool Review. This report was started May 17.
We feel that thè report has now had sufficient trial run for us to ask
producers and others whether it should be continued or discontinued.
If continued, how can we improve it?
e eventually plan to send the questionnaire to 600 producers in
Oregon.
bwever, prior to that, we must make sure that the questionnaire is understandable. We would appreciate your completing the teat
questionnaire for us. If any of the questions are not clear, imprac
tical to answer, or if you think your neighbors would not answer certain questions, please so indicate on the question involved. Please
return it to we in the enclosed envelope.
Sincerely yours,
W. I. Fowler
Livestock Marketing Specialist
IF/vsq
eric. 2
COO P1HATIVE EXTENSION ORK IN AGRICULTURE AND HOME ECONOMICS
OREGON STATE COLLEGE and
UNIT'.J) STAThS
DPANTNT OF AGRICULTURE 000PERI&T]NO
Corvailis, Oregon
At your request the foUowing questionnaire is submitted:
QU.:sTIoNNAIRE
1. DId you receive any copies of the Meat Animals and Wool RevIiw in
which the "lxperimental Country Trading Report" appeared?
(May 17 through October b, 1956)
2. Did you hear the Country Trading Report read over radio station
KOAC during the Thursday Evening Farx Hour? _____YEb _____NO
_____NO
Over any other radio stations _____YES
3.
Severs]. Oregon newspapers and regions]. livestock papers carried
stories containing informition from the Country Trading Report.
Did you see any of these?
_____YES
If yea,
iich paper?_____________________
______NO
j4.
you?
the continued reporting of country sales of livestock help
I! the answer is no, skip to question eleven.
5.
If the answer to question four is yes, do yen think the reporting
of country sales should be continued as a part of the Meat Animals
and Wool Revisw or sent out as a separate report?
_____Part of the Meat Animals and Wool Review
_____Separate report
_____Other (Specify)_______________________________________
_411
nths
Spring
_Suer
______Fa3.1
_____Winter
7.
following kinds of information would you desire to
have in the report?
1hich of the
_______Grade
i____
ç]
_____Weight
______Destination
______Other (Specify)_______
8. How often do you think this Country Trading Report should be
issued?
_____Dei]y
_____Twice a week
______Once a week
_____Twice a month
_____Once a month
9. Would you prefer to receive the Country Trading Report the saie
day as the Meat Animals and Wool Peview'
______YES
_____No preference
NO (Specify)______________________
71
11, Vhere should we look for information regarding the country sales
of livestock to be used in preparing the "Country 'rading
Report?"
______Credit Agencies
______Brand inspectors
_____Ooveriaent Reporters
______Other (Specify)
-.
12, From where do you now receive information regarding livestock
trading?
_Local livestock iroducers
_____Lending agencies
_County Agents
______Truckers
_____Other (Specify)________
13. Which of the following most clearly describes your occupation?
In what county is your ranch, farm or business located?__________
1. About how marr head of livestock did you have as of October 1, 1956
or have you sold this year?
Reif era 2 lr. or older
15. What percent of yow' livestock sales wwnt through channels shown
in the table following? (Sales should total 100 percent for each
kind of livestock)
Terminal Market
ict.on
Name
Address