Content uploaded by Agapi Somwaru
All content in this area was uploaded by Agapi Somwaru on May 19, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
China's Hog Production Structure and Efficiency
Agapi Somwaru, USDA-ERS
Zhang Xiaohui, Ministry of Agriculture-RCRE, China
Francis Tuan, USDA-ERS
Corresponding author: Agapi Somwaru
1800 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036-5831
Fax (202) 694-5823
Paper prepared for presentation at the American Agricultural Economics Association
Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada, July 27-30, 2003
Copyright 2003 by [authors]. All rights reserved. Readers may make verbatim copies of this
document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright notice
appears on all such copies.
China's Hog Production Structure and Efficiency
Agapi Somwaru, Zhang Xiaohui and Francis Tuan
Over the last 20 years, China's demand for and supply of livestock products has increased
dramatically. Although, China’s livestock production has changed, with the share of pork
production declining, pork production remains the core of the country’s livestock industry.
China’s hog industry is adjusting to capture the benefits of specialization. This paper attempts
to capture structural changes in China’s hog production, its evolving trends, and economic
efficiency. We estimate parametrically the overall efficiency and scale elasticity of 2500
surveyed hog farms in China. Our analysis indicates that the large commercialized farms are
the most efficient but the middle size specialized farms with increasing returns to scale
production technology are the most profitable.
Over the last 20 years, China's demand for livestock products has increased
remarkably due to rapid development of the national economy, rising living standards, and
population growth. Many economists have documented the strong relationship between a
country’s economic development and increasing demand for livestock products with
accompanying structural changes in the livestock sector (Taniguchi, 1995, Kurosaki, 1998,
Benjamin, 1992, Skoufias, 1994). The hog industry still plays a dominant role in China’s
livestock sector despite the rapid expansion of poultry (Wailes et al., 1998, Tuan et al. 1998,
and X. Zhang, 1999). In the last decade, however, hog production went through drastic
structural changes with an increase in large, specialized farms and a decline in the overall
number of farms. The purpose of this paper is to provide insights into China’s hog production,
structural changes, and economic efficiency.
Although, China’s livestock production has changed, with the share of pork
production declining, pork production remains the core of the country’s livestock industry. In
2001, pork production accounted for 65.8 percent of China’s total meat output and pork
continues to be the most popular meat consumed by Chinese consumers. Pork production is
also the most important enterprise among all livestock production activities in rural China.
Continued income growth, urbanization, and rising meat demand will continue to shape and
transform China’s hog production and its need for feed inputs. To analyze these changes in
China's hog industry, we utilize two unique data sets: first, China’s Agricultural Census,
conducted by the National Bureau of Statistics in 1996 and second, a 1999 comprehensive
livestock survey conducted by the Research Center of Rural Economy (RCRE) in the Ministry
of Agriculture (MOA). These data sets allow us to capture changes in hog production
activities, analyze structural change, and measure the economic performance of the hog-
raising sector. Understanding the factors affecting hog production at the micro-level is very
important, because livestock production, with its linkages to rural economic growth, can be
viewed as a means to improve farm household incomes. Knowledge of structural
characteristics, adoption of practices, and new technologies for a more profitable hog
industry, would be of great importance for farmers and China’s entire hog sector.
During the period of transition to China’s current market economy, the role of the
market mechanism in guiding rural households’ livestock raising activities has been crucial.
Though production technologies applied by different rural households vary significantly, the
hog industry is adjusting to capture the benefits of specialization in production as well as new
opportunities offered by liberalized markets. Farmers adjust their operations to take
advantage of economies of scale and to make the most effective use of scarce investment and
available resources. As the dynamics of micro economic decisions change livestock
production, the number and size of hog operations are also adjusting in China. Some studies
of various countries have recognized unprecedented changes in hog production and
documented empirically these structural adjustments (Adams and He, 1995, Taniguchi, 1995,
Chen et al., 2001, McBride and Key, 2003). This paper attempts to capture and document
structural changes in China’s hog production, its evolving trends, and economic efficiency.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In the next section we present changes in
livestock production and consumption over the last sixteen years. Then the structural changes
in hog production are described. We discuss the methodology used for this analysis, data
sources, and sampling characteristics. We then review the hog industry’s structural and
technical performance, followed by econometric results of hog farms’ economic performance.
Lastly, we conclude with a summary.
China’s Livestock Production and Consumption in the Last Fifteen Years
In the last decade and a half, meat production in China not only experienced a
dramatic increase in total quantity produced, but also underwent significant structural
changes. Total meat production increased around 3.3 times in volume, reaching 63 million
tons in 2001 as compared to 19 million tons in 1985. Pork still has the largest share of total
meat output (66.1%), although this declined by 20 percent in the last 16 years while the share
of poultry production has increased. Poultry now accounts for about 21 percent of total meat
production in China (Table 2).
Likewise, China's total meat consumption has increased in volume and changed in
composition. Between 1985 and 2001, poultry consumption rose nearly 3 times while pork
consumption increased only by 1.48 times (figure 1). In other words, Chinese consumers are
gradually shifting from favoring pork consumption to consuming more poultry and aquatic
products. Nevertheless, pork meat consumption is still predominant in total meat
consumption for both rural and urban residents (figure 2). Changes in consumption can be
traced to China’ fast economic growth, rising per capita income, as well as urbanization. As
urban residents’ consumption of meat products continues its upward trend, rural households'
income generated from raising livestock will also increase, boosting their standard of living.
Changes in Hog Production Structure in Rural China (1985-1996)
There are primarily three categories of hog operation in China: backyard hog farms,
specialized hog operations, and commercialized hog production enterprises. We briefly
present each category of hog operation and their technical and economic characteristics.
The first category, backyard hog farms, includes very small hog production activities
in rural households. China’s rural households, besides raising hogs, also are involved in
raising small numbers of other animals, such as chickens and goats, as well as undertaking
some crop production activities. Although their production scale is small, most hogs raised
are sold in the local markets, providing an important source of cash income. These
households often save some portion of the slaughtered hogs for home consumption. Usually,
these small operations average 2-3 head of hogs per household per year. Rural households in
this category use traditional feeding methods, such as table scraps, vegetables, green fodder,
and unprocessed grains and oilseeds. Over the last 15 years, the number of backyard hog
farms has gradually declined, but backyard hog operations still dominate in both the number
of hog farms and share of total pork production in China.
The second category is the specialized rural hog production households or specialized
hog farms. Family members are chiefly engaged in hog production. These operations on
average produce over 30 hogs annually. Recently some larger operations have produced
several hundred head of hogs per year. The share of these operations in China’s hog
production is increasing, and their production capacity is beginning to dominate some of the
rural markets in China due mostly to the government’s marketing promotion policy. For
example, the government is building more and more wholesale and retail markets in urban
and rural areas, providing market information to the public through media, and reducing
limitations on selling products by producers. Specialized hog farms can be, in particular,
found in feed grain producing provinces or local areas that have brewery operations because
of the availability of byproducts that can be used as high energy feed. In 1996, the output
share of these operations increased to 14.6 percent of total pork output, compared with only
2.9 percent in 1985 (figure 3).
The last category, commercialized hog production enterprises, includes state or
collectively owned hog farms, as well as privatly owned in the form of sole proprietorship or
partnership, with share rent or contract arrangements with state farms or collectives. These
operations are characterized by large capital investment and their size and production capacity
considerably surpass those of the specialized hog farms. The breeding technologies, feeding
methods, and disease prevention practices in this category are advanced and modern. Big and
middle-sized hog production enterprises are mostly located near the suburbs of big- or
middle-size cities. The operations presently account for 4.7 percent of total hog production in
Recent changes in the structure of hog production in China is clearly reflected in the
decrease of meat output from backyard farms, at an average rate of 1.4 percent per year. This
is the case because the number of backyard farms that raise hogs is decreasing annually, even
though the slaughter per farm increased from 1-2 head to 3 head in recent years. Most rural
households lack necessary capital to invest and improve their livestock operations. Further,
urbanization continues but its pace has slowed down considerably in the last few years. With
a lack of urban job opportunities for the huge rural population, the majority of rural laborers
are still confined to small-scaled cropping and livestock activities. Nevertheless, specialized
hog farms, both in numbers and production, are expanding at an increasing rate.
Methodology for Analysis
Given the transition of the hog sector, our study attempts to assess the economic
performance of China's hog production and its structural changes. Even though it is still
dominated by many small operations, hog production in China has begun to shift and become
more concentrated in large specialized operations. These changes have profound effects on
the industry’s performance, and measuring the impacts of these changes is therefore of great
imterest. The method used to assess these changes is presented below.
Analysis of production structure and performance of hog production begins with the
underlying production technology. This may be formalized by specifying a transformation
function, S(Xn,Y) = 0, which minimizes the production frontier in terms of inputs Xn and
output Y. Information on the production technology can be characterized via an input set,
F(Y,Xn), that represents the set of all inputs Xn that can produce Y.
An input distance function (denoted by superscript i) recognizes the least input use
possible for producing the given output vector as defined by F(Y, Xn) or the distance function
implies input of resource use for production of a given output vector:
iXYFxXYD Î= tt
where Di is the distance of unit i, Y is output, Xn are inputs such as labor, expenses for
purchasing baby animals (feeder pigs), expenses for fine feed, expenses for beans, expenses
for succulents and coarse fodder, expenses for additives, other feed expenses, other variable
expenses, indirect expenses, and marketing expenses. We use a programming method to
estimate the input distance function and capture the distance from the frontier assuming a
radial contraction of inputs to the frontier of hog operations. The ratio of estimated potential
efficient input use compared to the actual observed use provides an estimate of technical
efficiency. Further, scale economies can be measured by identifying variations in the input
and output ratio at different scale levels when variable returns to scale are allowed.
Functional relationships of production or distance functions represent a foundation for
data envelopment analysis (DEA) procedures and can be estimated using programming
methods rather than econometric (parametric) techniques. Formally, an input-oriented
programming problem may be written as:
There are J observations and the non-negative weights, lj, determine the reference points on
the frontier for unit i. For notational simplicity the unit index i is suppressed on the l-
weights. The input vector in (2) for unit i is adjusted by the efficiency score,qi, (Di = qi) and
then compared with the reference point, nj
l, on the frontier.
The Lagrangian of equation (2) is set up in such a way that the shadow prices of
outputs and inputs, umi and vni, respectively, are non-negative:
mii uxxyyuL llqnlq
u is the shadow price of the equality constraint on the sum of the l’s. Since the value
of the shadow price is unique for inefficient units, we utilize the radial projection approach for
calculating scale elasticity values (see Forsund, F.R and L. Hjalmarsson (1979).
Estimation of scale elasticities using non-parametric techniques, while straight
forward for efficient points (i.e., points that satisfy F(Y,X) = 0) are ambiguous for inefficient
points. Following Forsund et al. we use the radial projection approach and calculate for each
farm the scale elasticity as follows:
where Ei is the input-oriented efficiency score and in
u is the shadow price on the equality
l. The farm exhibits increasing returns to scale if in
u > 0, constant
returns to scale if in
u=0, and decreasing returns to scale if in
China's 1996 national agricultural census provides us with a unique opportunity to
comprehend the structure of hog production in China in its entirety. The census covers all
Chinese persons and households in rural areas, non-household agricultural production units,
township enterprises, as well as administrative organizations of all villages and towns. This
was the first agricultural census conducted in China. We used the livestock data of this first
agricultural census to put together a complete picture of the production structure of China's
national hog industry, as well as its operations by size and by region.
Since the agricultural census lacks data on feed use and other important economic
characteristics of hog production, we supplement our study with a livestock survey conducted
by RCRE. The 1999 RCRE detailed household survey was conducted in the most important
hog producing areas in China. This was an extensive survey of more than 2500 farm
households aimed to capture an accurate picture of hog production efficiency, costs, and feed
use by size and types of operations in China.
Characteristics of the Sampling Areas
The 1999 RCRE livestock survey covered fifteen provinces, accounting for 65 percent
of the country's hog output. The sample size in each province varies depending on the
number of hog production enterprises. The distribution of the sample size by province and
size of hog operation is reported in Table 1 below.
The provinces included in the 1999 survey are: Sichuan, Hunan, Hubei, Shandong,
Henan, Hebei, Jiangsu, Jiangxi, Anhui, Guangxi, Liaoning, Beijing, Heilongjiang, Yunnan
and Shanxi. The sample size of the survey is 2,558 households. Agricultural output per farm
is measured as farm income or the main product output in jin (weight) times the price (yuan
per jin). For the variable inputs, labor expenditures are the number of persons times the
number of working days times wage rate (yuan per day) or annual per-farm expenditures on
labor is used. Cost of purchased animals is the price of baby animals (or feeder pigs)
purchased times the animal weight annually per farm. Cost of fine feed includes annual
expenditures on mixed feed, grain feed, bran, and oilseed cakes per farm. Cost of bean dregs
feed includes annual expenditures on lees and bean dregs annually per farm. Cost of
succulents and coarse fodder includes expenditures on rice chaff, millet bran, fodder, and
succulents annually per farm. Cost of additives includes annual expenditures on additives.
Other expenditures include annual cost of leftovers, such as leftovers from restaurants, per
farm. Indirect cost includes annual depreciation of fixed assets, expenditures on repairs, and
miscellaneous fixed expenses per farm. Marketing cost includes annual expenditures on
contract fees, costs of marketing, taxes and other fees per farm. Other variable expenses
include costs of feed processing, fuel, irrigation, and electricity, the cost of veterinary fees,
and the cost of other direct fees annually per farm.
Hog Production: Structural and Technical Performance
According to China's first ever agricultural census conducted in 1996, there were 119 million
hog producers in the 31 provinces and municipalities that produced a total of 345 million
hogs. On average, each producer raised 2.9 hogs that year.
Despite hog production in each of the 31 provinces and municipalities in China, in
general, hog production is concentrated in the central, eastern, and southwest provinces (see
map with the top ten hog production provinces). The top ten hog producing provinces
accounted for 65 percent of total hog production. Of the ten, the largest two hog producing
provinces, Sichuan and Hunan, contributed 25% of China's total. The biggest private feed
company in China, namely the Hope Feed Company, is located in Sichuan province.
According to the census, around 85-90 percent of rural households in Sichuan and Hunan
raised hogs. However, the number of hog farms is declining rapidly in some coastal
provinces, such as Zhejiang, Jiangsu, and Guangdong, due to the growth of non-farm
industries (Figure 4). Nevertheless, Guangdong province remains in the third place in terms
of slaughtered hogs in 1996, because the size of hog operations grew rather rapidly during the
last 15 years., even as the number of hogs declined.
Figures 5 and 6 present the distribution of hog farms and production by size of
operations. In 1996, most hog farm operations in China were small and produced one to five
slaughtered hogs annually; these accounted for 92.6 percent of the total farms (figure 5).
However, these farms produced 59.4 percent of total hog production (figure 6). Farms with
hogs ranging from 6 to 30 head account for 7.1 percent of total farms and 24.7 percent of total
production. Farms with more than 30 head account for 0.3 percent of total hog farms but 15.6
percent of total production (figures 5 and 6). This indicates that large production units take
advantage of the economies of scale in their operations. Based on gross accounting, our
survey clearly indicates that feeding cost efficiency increases with the size of hog operations
(table 3). For hog operations under 5 head (small size), the average profit per farm for raising
hogs is 79 yuan or 40 yuan per head of animals slaughtered. For hog operations with 6-10
head, average profit per operation is 332 yuan (42.3 yuan per head), or three times larger than
the profit of the smaller hog operations. For operations with more than 500 head, average
profit amounts to 99,171 yuan or 40 yean per head animals slaughtered (table 3).
Table 3 indicates that rural households whose hog operations are in category 4 (raising
31 to 100 hogs) are the most profitable operations, based on their high ratio of profit to cost.
Hog farms that have more than 30 head are considered specialized hog farms in China. These
farms are characterized by their high adoption rate of new technologies in hog production.
The source of specialized farms’ efficiency primarily lies in economies of scale. Among the
specialized hog farms, those middle size farms with 31-100 head (average slaughter number
of 51 head) have advantages that allow them to be more efficient than bigger operations. That
is because they depend mostly on their own labor and their need for hired labor is minimal.
Second, they do not have to build large facilities, like the very large commercialized
enterprises, to accommodate the hogs. Finally, the indirect cost, such as managing fees, for
this kind of hog farm is low compared with other, larger operations.
In sum, the smallest size of hog operations are less profitable than the larger size, as
the bigger operations can take advantage of economies of scale associated with their larger
size, and specialized operations are more profitable than large commercialized operations.
Using the survey data in conjunction with the agricultural census we employed the
methods described in the previous section and constructed measures of efficiency and scale
economies for our sample of farms in China. Our deterministic procedure estimates the best-
practice production frontier from these data and compares individual farms to the estimated
frontier. For this purpose, we use programming to estimate an input distance function. Our
farm model, as stated previously, is based on one output and nine inputs.
The results are robust and presented in Table 4. We have constructed measures of
efficiency or performance as well as scale elasticity for the entire sample, by class size and by
province. The estimates, over the whole sample, by class size and by region, display some
interesting differences. The overall efficiency estimate, using all 2558 hog farms, is 0.24,
indicating low overall efficiency, but the scale elasticity shows increasing returns to scale
(0.192). The most obvious differences are revealed by the measures of efficiency and scale
elasticity by class size. As the size of operations increases from less than 5 head to more than
500 head, overall efficiency increases from 0.30 to 0.99, respectively, as expected because
benefits of specialization and scale economies are likely. However, the estimates of scale
elasticity reveal unexpected differences among the farms by size that support the gross
accounting analysis presented in the previous section. As the size of farms increases from
less than 5 to 100 head, hog farms exhibit increasing returns with scale elasticity averaging
from 0.254, for the smallest size, to 0.506 for farms with 31 to 100 head of hogs. Scale
elasticity, however, decreases as the size of farms increases further (specialized hog farms).
In sum, while overall efficiency increases with the increase in farm size, the “pure”
economies of scale elasticity measure increases for backyard and specialized hog farms and
decreases or exhibits constant returns for commercialized hog farm operations. Table 3
(based on accounting method) indicates the most profitable farms are those with 31 to 100
head, while Table 5 (capturing the major expense category by the size of hog operation)
shows that feed cost accounts roughly for 70 percent of the total cost of hog production.
Looking into feed categories more closely (table 6), we observe that the cost for fine feed
accounts for the greatest expense (67%) for all sizes of hog operations, followed by residues
from various feed sources such as sugar and starch (25%).
Since the cost of fine feed is so importance for China’s hog operations, we examine
this in depth. From table 7 below we observe that the share of raw grains is the largest in the
total fine feed category (43.4%), followed by the commercially purchased mixed feed
(33.6%), bran of various grain categories (14.1%), and oilseed cakes (8.9%). The smaller size
operations use more raw grains than larger operations. On the other hand, larger operations
use more bran of various grains as well as commercially purchased feed. Note that the most
cost-efficient hog size category (31-100 head) uses more commercially purchased feed than
any other category except the largest one (which has 500 heads and more). This explains why
this size of operation exhibits larger scale elasticity than the backyard hog farms.
The average feed-meat conversion ratio is estimated at 3.18 for all farms in the survey.
The middle size operations (6~10, 11~30, and 31~100 head) have a lower conversion ratio
and better feed efficiency than all other operations including the smallest backyard hog farms
and the largest-size hog operations.
All sizes of hog operations seem to depend on corn as the main feedgrain. In recent
years, especially in south China, farmers used low-quality early rice to feed their hogs as the
price of corn is much higher in this part of the country.
The spatial results, as shown in Table 4, capture regional disparities in both efficiency
and scale measures. Anhui, Jiangsu, Hubei, Heilongjiang, and Yunnan provinces have the
highest performance regarding overall efficiency and increasing returns to scale. Hubei,
Heilongjiang, and Yunnan provinces have primarily specialized and commercialized
operations using commercially purchased feed and bran of various grains for feed. Anhui and
Jiangsu have a fair amount of backyard farms but corn plays an important role as feed for
their hog operations. Hebei, Hubei, and Jiangxi provinces have the highest scale economies as
most of their hog operations are in the specialized category.
Summary and Conclusions
In summary, traditional small hog farms still dominate hog production activities in
China, but their output share declined at a rate of 1.4 percent per year from 1985 to 1996.
Meanwhile, operations of specialized hog farms are expanding at an increasing rate, in terms
of both numbers and output.
After analyzing the feed efficiency and structure of production costs directly from
survey data and estimating the overall efficiency and scale economies of hog farms in the
sample, we can conclude that the middle size hog operations with 31 to 100 head are most
profitable. The overall efficiency estimate, using all 2558 hog farms, is 0.24, indicating low
overall efficiency. However, the scale elasticity (0.192) indicates increasing returns. As the
size of operations increases from less than 5 head to more than 500 head, overall efficiency
increases from 0.30 to 0.99, respectively. As the size of farms increases from less than 5 to
100 head, hog farms exhibit increasing returns. The scale elasticity ranges from 0.254, for the
smallest size, to 0.506 for farms with 31 to 100 head of hogs.
Overall efficiency, measured by the efficiency scores qi, is the highest for the
commercialized farms but their scale elasticity exhibits constant returns to scale. For the
specialized farms the scale elasticity is increasing with lower efficiency scores than the
commercialized operations. Based on the accounting method, indicates the most profitable
farms are those with 31 to 100 head while analysis of major expense category by the size of
hog operation, shows that feed cost accounts roughly for 70 percent of the total cost of hog
production. Looking into feed categories more closely, we observe that fine feed is the
greatest expense (67%) for all size of hog operations, followed by residues from various feed
sources such as sugar and starch (25%).
Our results suggest that larger hog farms are likely to prevail in China and, for the next
10 or 20 years, are more likely continue to replace the traditional backyard hog farms. The
large commercialized farms although efficient their scale elasticity indicates that they operate
either under decreasing returns or constant returns to scale. The spatial results, as shown in
Table 4, capture regional disparities in both efficiency and scale measures.
Adams, R.H and J. J. He. “ Source of Income Inequality and Poverty in Rural Pakistan.”
Research Report 102, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, 1995.
Benjamin, D. “Household Composition, Labor Markets, and Labor Demand: Testing for
Separation in Agricultural Household Models.” Econometrica, march 1992 (60):287-322.
Chen, J., S. Rozelle and C. Carter. “Economic Development and the Evolution of Backyard
Livestock Production: A Case Study of Hog Production in China.” Working paper,
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, July 2001.
Forsund, F.R and L. Hjalmarsson (1979). “Generalized Farrell Measures of Efficiency: An
Application to Milk Processing in Swedish Dairy Plant,” Economic Journal, 89, 29 4-315).
Kurosaki, T. “Risk and Household Behavior in Pakistan’s Agriculture.” Research Paper
Series, No.34, Institute of Developing Economies, Tokyo, 1998.
Li, S.Y., M.Miyamote, and K.Kobayashi. “ An Economic Analysis of Animal Husbandry in a
Large Urban Area of Tokyo: A Case Study from Funabashi.” Technical Bulletin, Faculty of
Horticulture, Chiba University, 1987, N0 39, pp. 77-91.
McBride, W. and N. Key. “Economic and Structural Relationships In U.S Hog Production.”
Agricultural Economic Report, No 818, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, February 2003.
Skoufias, E. “Using Shadow Wages to Estimate Labor Supply of Agricultural Households.”
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, May 2000 (82): 287-297.
Taniguchi, N. “ The Conditions of Japanese Agricultural Production.” In Agriculture and
Agricultural Policy in Japan, edited by the Committee for the Japanese Agriculture Session,
XXI, IAAE Conference, 1997.
Tuan, F.C., X. Zhang, and E. Wailes. "China's Pork economy: Production, marketing,
Foreign Trade, and Consumption," China: Situation and Outlook Series, WRS-98-3,
Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, July 1998, pp. 17-25.
Wailes, E., C. Fang, X. Zhang, L. Cao, H. Chen, Z. Wu, and J. Guo. “China’s Livestock Feed
Relationships: Preliminary Results from A Survey in Seven Provinces.” Proceedings of
WCC-1-1, January 12-13, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1998.
Zhnag, X. “The Current Situation and Benefit/Cost Analysis of Rural Household Hog
Production in China.” Research Report of China’s Rural Economy: 1990-1998. Edited by the
Research Center of Rural Economy, Ministry of Agriculture, Beijing, March 1999.
Figure 1. Livestock and Aquatic Products Total Consumption, 1985-2001
1985 1990 1995 1999 2000 2001
Beef & Mutton
Source: 1999 RCRE survey and authors' calculations
Figure 2. Composition of Total Consumption, 1985 and 2001
Beef & Mutton
Beef & Mutton
1986, 2001 China's Statistical Yearbooks
Figure 3. Shares of Hog Output by Type of Operation, 1985, 1993, and
1985 1993 1996
Back yard hog farms Specialized hog frams Hog enterprices
Source: China’s Statistical Yearbooks.
Fig. 4 Top ten hog production provinces
Figure 5. Distribution of Hog
Farms by Size
Under 6 head
Over 1000 head
Source: 1999 RCRE Survey; authors' calculations
Figure 6. Output (Animal Slaughtered) Shares of Hog Operation by Size
Under 6 head
Over 1000 head
Hog heads in 1,000
Under 2, 50 0
5,001 - 12,500
12,501 - 17,500
Regional Distribution of Hog Farms in China, 1999
Table 1. Sample Distribution of Hog Operations by region
Item <=5 6~10 11~30 31~100 101~500 >= 500
Number 2558 1462 356 428 220 76 16
Percent 100 57.15 13.92 16.73 8.60 2.97 0.63
Top eight provinces 2090 1215 305 370 132 58 10
Liaoning 213 87 39 49 33 5 0
Jiangsu 18183255117 5 0
nhui 151 121 7 4 5 11 3
Jiangxi 242 117 45 50 21 8 1
Henan 33027316171111 2
Hunan 284 148 45 69 13 8 1
Guangxizhuangzu 288 114 71 88 12 3 0
Sichuan 401 272 57 42 20 7 3
Table 2. China's Meat Output and Shares by Livestock Category
Item 1985 1993 1996 1999 2000 2001
1,000 tons percent 1,000 tons percent 1,000 tons percent 1,000 tons percent 1,000 tons percent 1,000 tons percent
Pork 16547 86.14 28544 75.14 40377 71.70 40060 68.15 40314 65.82 41845 66.07
Beef 467 2.43 2336 6.15 4949 8.79 5050 8.59 5328 8.70 5488 8.66
Mutton 593 3.09 1373 3.61 240 0.43 2510 4.27 2740 4.47 2927 4.62
Poultry 1602 8.34 5736 15.10 10746 19.08 11160 18.99 12870 21.01 13079 20.65
Total meat 19209 100.00 37989 100.00 56312 100.00 58780 100.00 61252 100.00 63339 100.00
Table 3. Balance Sheet of Production and Cost by Size of Hog Operation
Item Gross income Total cost Direct cost Purchasing Feed Employe
Other Indirect Profit Profit to
animals Fee Expense
cost cost ratio
<=5 per farm 1377.2 1270.7 1228.7 247.9 902.8 27.46 50.51 42.0 79.1
per head 692.1 638.5 617.4 124.6 453.6 13.8 25.38 21.1 39.7 6.1
6~10 per farm 3670.2 3302.6 3195.0 740.1 2292.8 35.23 126.9 107.6 332.4
per head 466.9 420.2 406.5 94.2 291.7 4.48 16.14 13.7 42.3 10.0
11~30 per farm 6476.1 5838.8 5644.6 1090.4 4280.8 80.64 192.72 194.2 556.6
per head 359.4 324.0 313.2 60.5 237.5 4.48 10.69 10.8 30.9 9.4
31~100 per farm 25926.3 22686.2 22131.7 4414.0 16728.3 409.98 579.41 554.6 2830.1
per head 505.9 442.7 431.8 86.1 326.4 8 11.3 10.8 55.2 12.3
101~500 per farm 93842.8 81923.5 77676.7 16002.3 56584.8 2722.11 2367.51 4246.8 9197.2
per head 465.5 406.4 385.3 79.4 280.7 13.5 11.75 21.1 45.6 10.9
>= 500 per farm 1174280.6 1026641.7 928825.1 116004.9 751214.3 48468.1 13137.8 97816.6 99171.1
per head 475.3 415.5 375.9 47.0 304.0 19.62 5.32 39.6 40.1 9.2
Table 4. Efficiency and Scale Estimation Results
Item Efficiency Scale elasticity
Distance function: All farms 2558 0.236 0.192
Distance function: by class size
Less than 5 heads 1462 0.301 0.254
6-10 heads 356 0.449 0.420
11-30 heads 428 0.527 0.205
31-100 heads 220 0.607 0.506
101-500 heads 76 0.888 -0.042
Greater than 500 heads 16 0.994 0.013
Hebei 141 0.524 0.433
Liaoning 213 0.457 0.303
Heilongjiang 50 0.840 0.051
Jiangsu 181 0.872 0.145
Anhui 151 0.878 0.194
Jiangxi 242 0.559 0.320
Shandong 79 0.686 -0.120
Henan 330 0.473 0.168
Hubei 40 0.840 0.362
Hunan 284 0.646 0.307
Guangxizhuangzu 288 0.562 0.252
Sichuan 401 0.405 0.160
Yunnan 118 0.808 0.070
Shaanxi 40 0.745 -0.217
Table 5. Shares of Major Expense Categories by Size of Hog Operation
Item All farms <=5 6~10 11~30 31~100 101~500 >= 500
Hired labor 2.6 1.9 0.9 1.1 1.6 2.9 3.1
Purchasing animals 11.6 17.1 18.9 15.3 17.0 16.9 7.5
Feed 73.2 69.9 70.5 74.3 74.1 70.1 74.2
Other expenses 12.6 11.1 9.8 9.3 7.3 10.1 15.2
Total 100 100 100.1 100 100 100 100
Table 6. Share of Feed Cost by Size of Hog Operation
Item All farms <=5 6~10 11~30 31~100 101~500 >= 500
Fine feed 67.81 66.69 64.01 65.09 78.08 78.45 65.09
Cost of lees and bean dregs 24.90 13.92 20.85 22.90 15.06 10.80 22.90
Additivies 3.84 1.68 1.19 1.91 3.68 5.73 1.91
Succulence and coarse fodder 3.45 17.71 13.95 10.10 3.18 5.02 10.10
Other feed (leftovers) 0.62 0.72 1.74 1.42 1.25 0.85 1.42
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Table 7. Composition of Fine Feed by Size of Hog Operation
Item All farms <=5 6~10 11~30 31~100 101~500 >= 500
Raw grains 43.41 66.24 62.77 56.72 49.40 56.92 33.03
Purchased mixed feed 33.64 10.12 14.33 15.86 20.13 12.37 50.12
Wheat bran and broken rice 14.05 22.22 18.01 22.17 20.77 20.45 8.54
Oil cakes 8.90 1.42 4.89 5.25 9.70 10.26 8.31
Total fine feed 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00