IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/uersmp/330276.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Improvements in Grades of Hogs Marketed

Author

Listed:
  • Parham, Karen D.
  • Agnew, Donald B.

Abstract

The percentage of slaughter hogs that qualified for U.S. No. 1 or No. 2 grades rose dramatically between 1968 and 1980, according to the most recent U.S. Department of Agriculture nationwide sample. In 1980, nearly 96 percent of all barrows and gilts were U.S. No. 1 or No. 2, compared with 50 percent 12 years earlier. Hog producers are striving to raise leaner hogs to satisfy consumer preference.

Suggested Citation

  • Parham, Karen D. & Agnew, Donald B., 1982. "Improvements in Grades of Hogs Marketed," Miscellaneous Publications 330276, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:uersmp:330276
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.330276
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/330276/files/ERS-675.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.330276?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Van Arsdall, Roy N. & Nelson, Kenneth E., 1984. "U.S. Hog Industry," Agricultural Economic Reports 305428, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    2. Smyth, Donald Craig, 1985. "Economic impacts of the Farmer-Owned Reserve program on the U.S. corn-livestock sector," ISU General Staff Papers 1985010108000013104, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    3. Hayenga, Marvin & Kliebenstein, James, 1994. "Grading Systems in the Pork and Beef Industries," Re-Engineering Marketing Policies for Food and Agriculture - FAMC 1994 Conference 265983, Food and Agricultural Marketing Consortium (FAMC).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:uersmp:330276. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ersgvus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.