Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
of too low quality to grow the additional feed grains for hogs had to be
minimized. By transferring only 10% of the beef based protein production
potential to pork production, only the best portion of the BCC was allowed
to be involved in the redistribution of land in both eastern and western
Canada. The increase in pork production as a percentage of the total an-
nual supply of protein from pork must be larger than 10% where the sup-
ply of protein from pork is less than the total amount of protein from beef.
It must be less than 10% where the pork protein supply exceeds the supply
of protein from beef. Whereas the defl ation factor for beef was 90% for
both eastern and western Canada, the corresponding infl ation factors for
pork were different between the two Canadian regions (Table 1).
TABLE 1:
Weights of protein before and after redistribution from beef to pork production
and the beef deflation and pork inflation factors.
Initial
Reallocated
Remaining
After/before
factors (%)
kt, protein
Beef
for deflation
East
36.9
3.7
33.2
90
West
218.8
21.9
197.0
90
Pork
for inflation
East
157.7
3.7
161.4
102
West
123.5
21.9
145.4
118
The beef to pork redistribution involves three crop area changes: area
going into feed grains for pork (Ap); the forage area that was supporting
displaced beef (Af); and the feed grain area that was supporting displaced
beef (Ag). Some of the area required to grow feed grain for the hogs had
to be taken from land that had been growing forage. The conversion from
forage to annual grains determined the area (cA) in which the changes in
soil carbon storage caused solely by the expansion of pork production take
place. The initial land displacement was computed as:
