Economic Impact of the Deer & Elk Farming Industry in Indiana
November 2011
Prepared for the Indiana Deer and Elk Farming Association
By: Dr. John Lee, PhD, Agricultural Economist
and Alicia English, PhD candidate, Agricultural Economist
2
http://www.indianadeer.net/ at website their visit please IDEFA, about information more For
with smallholder agricultural producers in Liberia’s tree crop sector. sector. crop tree Liberia’s in producers agricultural smallholder with
tradeoffs of energy production. She has had previous international development experience working working experience development international previous had has She production. energy of tradeoffs
current research focuses on the areas of natural resources, land use changes and environmental environmental and changes use land resources, natural of areas the on focuses research current
Tennessee in 2008, in Agricultural Economics and hopes to complete her Ph.D. the fall of 2012. Her Her 2012. of fall the Ph.D. her complete to hopes and Economics Agricultural in 2008, in Tennessee
She received her B.A. in economics from Colorado State University, M.S. from the University of of University the from M.S. University, State Colorado from economics in B.A. her received She
Alicia English is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Agricultural Economics at Purdue University. University. Purdue at Economics Agricultural of Department the in candidate Ph.D. a is English Alicia
and Natural Resource Economics and Policy (AGEC616) at Purdue University. University. Purdue at (AGEC616) Policy and Economics Resource Natural and
Dr. Lee teaches Introduction to Resource Economics (AGEC204), Welfare Economics (AGEC604) (AGEC604) Economics Welfare (AGEC204), Economics Resource to Introduction teaches Lee Dr.
water resource economics and policy and ecotourism and wildlife rescue in developing countries. countries. developing in rescue wildlife and ecotourism and policy and economics resource water
the economic impacts of livestock disease outbreaks and control strategies, land use economics, economics, use land strategies, control and outbreaks disease livestock of impacts economic the
Agribusiness Department at Louisiana State University. His research expertise includes assessing assessing includes expertise research His University. State Louisiana at Department Agribusiness
University. Prior to Purdue University, he was on the faculty of the Agricultural Economics and and Economics Agricultural the of faculty the on was he University, Purdue to Prior University.
B.S. from New Mexico State University, M.S. from Purdue University and Ph.D. from Texas A&M A&M Texas from Ph.D. and University Purdue from M.S. University, State Mexico New from B.S.
research experience in production agriculture and natural resource economics. Dr. Lee received his his received Lee Dr. economics. resource natural and agriculture production in experience research
Dr. John Lee is a professor of Agricultural Economics at Purdue University. University. Purdue at Economics Agricultural of professor a is Lee John Dr. He has over 26 years of of years 26 over has He
Authors the About
operation.
of their deer breeding farm operations and Frank Keeton for the use of pictures from his elk farming farming elk his from pictures of use the for Keeton Frank and operations farm breeding deer their of
Additionally, we would like to thank Gary Jacobson, Ken McIntosh and David Abbott for the pictures pictures the for Abbott David and McIntosh Ken Jacobson, Gary thank to like would we Additionally,
From the IDEFA board, Shelly Burns for handling the creation and collection of the survey. survey. the of collection and creation the handling for Burns Shelly board, IDEFA the From
We would like to thank the IDEFA members that took the time to complete and return the survey. survey. the return and complete to time the took that members IDEFA the thank to like would We
Acknowledgement
3
Over 95% of Hunting preserve clients are from out of state, bringing dollars into Indiana Indiana into dollars bringing state, of out from are clients preserve Hunting of 95% Over
hunting preserve sales in excess of $460,000 per year per $460,000 of excess in sales preserve hunting
Indiana hunting preserves are the major demand driver for the local breeding industry with per per with industry breeding local the for driver demand major the are preserves hunting Indiana
Indiana.
The economic footprint of deer and elk farming is very significant for many rural counties in in counties rural many for significant very is farming elk and deer of footprint economic The
2010.
The Indiana deer and elk farming industry had a total economic impact of $49.3 million dollars in in dollars million $49.3 of impact economic total a had industry farming elk and deer Indiana The
Deer and elk farmers and hunting preserves had a direct economic impact of $27 million in 2010 in million $27 of impact economic direct a had preserves hunting and farmers elk and Deer
industry. the for results survey
Total employment and family labor income in Indiana exceeded $16 million annually based on on based annually million $16 exceeded Indiana in income labor family and employment Total
farm inventory, annual expenditures, herd sizes, annual revenue, and labor supply and cost. and supply labor and revenue, annual sizes, herd expenditures, annual inventory, farm
A survey was given in the fall 2011 to IDEFA members to collect detailed information regarding regarding information detailed collect to members IDEFA to 2011 fall the in given was survey A
2006 since 19% increased have breeders Licensed
farms elk and deer 388 has Indiana
Indiana in and nationally growth rapid seen has farming elk and Deer
Summary Executive
4
Permits BOAH
Figure 2 : Indiana Deer and Elk Operation Breakdown by 2011 2011 by Breakdown Operation Elk and Deer Indiana : 2 Figure
2). (Figure industry cervid total
Preserves have only 1% of the the of 1% only have Preserves
breeding Farms. Hunting Hunting Farms. breeding
operations are Deer and Elk Elk and Deer are operations
one percent of these these of percent one - Eighty
1). (Figure species
is Elk and 13% are other cervid cervid other are 13% and Elk is
comprised of Whitetail deer, 14% 14% deer, Whitetail of comprised
73% of the total cervid herd is is herd cervid total the of 73%
operations in the state of Indiana, Indiana, of state the in operations
Deer and Elk industry, of the 391 391 the of industry, Elk and Deer
Using the country totals for the the for totals country the Using
Permits
Figure 1: Percentage of Indiana Herds by Species 2011 BOAH BOAH 2011 Species by Herds Indiana of Percentage 1: Figure study.
type were made available to the the to available made were type
2011 with species and operation operation and species with 2011
County totals for cervid farms in in farms cervid for totals County
deer, elk, llama and emus. emus. and llama elk, deer,
sheep, goats, horses, poultry, poultry, horses, goats, sheep,
include cattle, bison, swine, swine, bison, cattle, include
Livestock included in the permits permits the in included Livestock
types of livestock by county. county. by livestock of types
species and operation/farm operation/farm and species
These Premise IDs identify the the identify IDs Premise These
production through the state. state. the through production
track agricultural animal animal agricultural track
Premise ID numbers in order to to order in numbers ID Premise
Animal Health (BOAH) uses uses (BOAH) Health Animal
The State of Indiana Board of of Board Indiana of State The
base. consumer broader a to
such as antlers, urine, velvet, hides and venison are additional products that these farms can market market can farms these that products additional are venison and hides velvet, urine, antlers, as such
many of these animals, especially those that are high valued trophy bucks. Other animal products products animal Other bucks. trophy valued high are that those especially animals, these of many
supplying animals to their own preserves. Hunting preserves typically serve as the end market for for market end the as serve typically preserves Hunting preserves. own their to animals supplying
preserves. Breeding and hunting operations engage in both the breeding of stock for sale and for for and sale for stock of breeding the both in engage operations hunting and Breeding preserves.
The breeding operations provide breeder stock and animal products for other operations and hunting hunting and operations other for products animal and stock breeder provide operations breeding The
The breeding and hunting of deer and elk is comparable to other small scale agricultural enterprises. enterprises. agricultural scale small other to comparable is elk and deer of hunting and breeding The
Indiana Deer & Elk Farming Industry Farming Elk & Deer Indiana
5
Source: 2010 US Census Bureau and BOAH premise IDs premise BOAH and Bureau Census US 2010 Source:
14.4 $45,427 181 6,483,802 388 Indiana
8 $48,451 99.2 33,292 7 Whitley
15.8 $42,994 101.4 34,387 8 Adams
9.6 $44,702 116.4 42,223 10 DeKalb
17 $39,392 98.7 36,903 12 Miami
13.9 $43,350 115.7 47,536 12 Noble
10.8 $47,152 145.6 77,358 20 Kosciusko
14.4 $43,531 426.5 197,559 23 Elkhart
540.6 355,329 26 Allen 14.6 $47,284
13.6 $46,767 106.1 47,051 27 Marshall
13.2 $45,578 97.8 37,128 60 LaGrange
line poverty come Mile
Population Population permits BOAH
County
Persons below the the below Persons In- Household Mean Sq. per Persons
Indiana in Counties Farming Elk and Deer Ten Top 1: Table
$44,920. Poverty in these counties also ranges, with 8% to 17% of people living below poverty line. line. poverty below living people of 17% to 8% with ranges, also counties these in Poverty $44,920.
98 persons to 541. Mean household income varies from $39,392 to $48,451, with an average of of average an with $48,451, to $39,392 from varies income household Mean 541. to persons 98
the population average is 90,877 people. The number of people living per square mile ranges from from ranges mile square per living people of number The people. 90,877 is average population the
and population characteristics. According to the US Census Bureau statistics for these 10 counties, counties, 10 these for statistics Bureau Census US the to According characteristics. population and
Noble, Miami, Whitley, DeKalb, and Adams Counties. These counties are diverse in their economic economic their in diverse are counties These Counties. Adams and DeKalb, Whitley, Miami, Noble,
The top 10 counties for BOAH permits in 2011 were, were, 2011 in permits BOAH for counties 10 top The LaGrange, Marshall, Elkhart, Kosciusko, Allen, Allen, Kosciusko, Elkhart, Marshall, LaGrange,
state.
19 percent since 2006, with a majority of the distribution of farms in the northeastern part of the the of part northeastern the in farms of distribution the of majority a with 2006, since percent 19
Indiana. Licensed breeders in the state have increased increased have state the in breeders Licensed Indiana.
Permit BOAH addition to BOAH, monitors deer breeding facilities in in facilities breeding deer monitors BOAH, to addition
Figure 4 : Number of Deer and Elk Farms by by Farms Elk and Deer of Number : 4 Figure The Indiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR), in in (DNR), Resources Natural of Department Indiana The
2011 by DNR permits DNR by 2011 - 2004
Figure 3 : Total Indiana Licensed Game Breeders with Deer Deer with Breeders Game Licensed Indiana Total : 3 Figure
Year
2004 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
0 50
Number of Permits of Number 100
150
200
250
300
350
400
6
Census Ag 2007 to 2002 the from Inventories Elk and Deer in Change : 5 Figure
are 59 Elk farms in Indiana in 2011. 2011. in Indiana in farms Elk 59 are
county data with less than 3 observations. However, the BOAH premise ID data indicates that there there that indicates data ID premise BOAH the However, observations. 3 than less with data county
of their 2002 herd. It is important to note that the Agriculture Census does not publically report report publically not does Census Agriculture the that note to important is It herd. 2002 their of
Sullivan Counties, have increased their elk herds, while Greene County has seen a complete decrease decrease complete a seen has County Greene while herds, elk their increased have Counties, Sullivan
enough observations to be reported in the Census. Three of these counties, Knox, Putnam and and Putnam Knox, counties, these of Three Census. the in reported be to observations enough
The Agricultural Census shows growth and decline in the elk farming industry. Only four counties had had counties four Only industry. farming elk the in decline and growth shows Census Agricultural The
years. survey between decline
inventories are represented by purple circles and those represented in blue circles have seen a a seen have circles blue in represented those and circles purple by represented are inventories
growth and declines in deer and elk Inventories. Counties that have seen an increase in deer deer in increase an seen have that Counties Inventories. elk and deer in declines and growth
Using the 2002 and 2007 USDA Agricultural Census, we further identify areas of the state with with state the of areas identify further we Census, Agricultural USDA 2007 and 2002 the Using
7
category. operations breeding and hunting the into aggregated were results the operation, only
account for the costs of managing these animals. Additionally, because there was only one hunting hunting one only was there because Additionally, animals. these managing of costs the for account
these in our final survey tallies, as the costs of operations, feeding and supplies are still important to to important still are supplies and feeding operations, of costs the as tallies, survey final our in these
Farm surveys, 3 were identified as elk operations and 4 were identified as hobby farms. We included included We farms. hobby as identified were 4 and operations elk as identified were 3 surveys, Farm
surveys, 2 Hunting and Breeding Farm surveys and 1 Hunting Only operation. Within the 75 Breeding Breeding 75 the Within operation. Only Hunting 1 and surveys Farm Breeding and Hunting 2 surveys,
The distribution of surveys returned from the different types of operations were, 75 Breeding Farm Farm Breeding 75 were, operations of types different the from returned surveys of distribution The
2011 - 2004 Permits DNR to Results Survey of Comparison 6: Figure
Total Indiana Licensed Game Breeders with Deer (DNR Permits) (DNR Deer with Breeders Game Licensed Indiana Total
Cumulative Number of Breeding Farms Based on Starting Year (survey) Year Starting on Based Farms Breeding of Number Cumulative
2004
2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 to prior
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
consistent with the DNR permit data. County level totals can be found in Appendix A. Appendix in found be can totals level County data. permit DNR the with consistent
2011. Figure 6 illustrates that survey responses are proportionally proportionally are responses survey that illustrates 6 Figure 2011. - 2004 from operations breeding
began were compared to the Indiana Division of Natural Resources (DNR) permits by year for deer deer for year by permits (DNR) Resources Natural of Division Indiana the to compared were began
Because the survey was not randomly distributed, survey responses based on the date the operation operation the date the on based responses survey distributed, randomly not was survey the Because
and hunting specific operational expenses. Both surveys can be found in Appendix C and D. and C Appendix in found be can surveys Both expenses. operational specific hunting and
survey included the same information as the breeding survey with additional information on hunters hunters on information additional with survey breeding the as information same the included survey
operations and facilities, and equipment, veterinary and feeding expenses. The hunting preserve preserve hunting The expenses. feeding and veterinary equipment, and facilities, and operations
The Breeding Farm Survey asked information on animal sales and purchases, herd inventory, inventory, herd purchases, and sales animal on information asked Survey Farm Breeding The
English. and Lee by analyzed statistically
response rate for the Hunting and Breeding Preserves was 75%. The responses were then then were responses The 75%. was Preserves Breeding and Hunting the for rate response
and end of October 2011. Overall, the response rate for the Breeding Farm Survey was 20% and the the and 20% was Survey Farm Breeding the for rate response the Overall, 2011. October of end and
IDEFA members were asked to fill out the survey and mail the responses back between September September between back responses the mail and survey the out fill to asked were members IDEFA
breeding and hunting operations. Hobby farms were also included in the distribution of the survey. survey. the of distribution the in included also were farms Hobby operations. hunting and breeding
instruments to current IDEFA members. The survey was segmented into breeding operations and and operations breeding into segmented was survey The members. IDEFA current to instruments
Indiana. The Indiana Deer and Elk Farmers Association (IDEFA) created and disseminated two survey survey two disseminated and created (IDEFA) Association Farmers Elk and Deer Indiana The Indiana.
The primary objective of this study is to estimate the economic impacts of the cervid industry in in industry cervid the of impacts economic the estimate to is study this of objective primary The
Survey Methodology Survey
8
Feeding expenses make up 25% of the annual expenses for a breeding farm operation farm breeding a for expenses annual the of 25% up make expenses Feeding
Expenditure on equipment category for breeding farms last year was over $1.6 million dollars million $1.6 over was year last farms breeding for category equipment on Expenditure
Breeding farms average 31 animals per farm per animals 31 average farms Breeding
Total sales for breeding operations were 213 animals for a reported total of $757,228 of total reported a for animals 213 were operations breeding for sales Total
of $475,151 of
Total purchases for breeding operations were 147 animals purchased in 2010 for a reported total total reported a for 2010 in purchased animals 147 were operations breeding for purchases Total
since 2004 and the average breeding and hunting operations have been around since 2000. since around been have operations hunting and breeding average the and 2004 since
Hunting and Breeding preserves was 75% (n=3). The average breeding farm has been in existence existence in been has farm breeding average The (n=3). 75% was preserves Breeding and Hunting
The response rate for the Breeding Farm Survey was 20% (n=75) and the response rate for the the for rate response the and (n=75) 20% was Survey Farm Breeding the for rate response The
Highlights Survey
Results Survey
9
$2,000 N/A N/A N/A added value Other
Bucks
N/A N/A $5,087 $291,338 67 N/A
Harvested Trophy Trophy Harvested
Bucks Harvested $1,847 $9,235 5 N/A N/A N/A
Harvested Does Harvested $585 $11,847 18 N/A N/A N/A
$3,132.72 $13,661 4 Buck Stocker $0 - 8
Semen $250 $20,000 80 $745.00 $13,847 19
Doe Open $938 $75,000 80 $1,868.37 $3,700 4
$0 - 20 $1,728.81 $3,789 4 Doe - Fawn
$0 - 10 $1,866.07 $6,938 5 Buck - Fawn
$9,546.67 $11,469 1 Buck Breeder $5,000 $50,000 10
$3,117.22 $12,319 4 Doe Bred - $2,000 -
Sales
$3,000 $12,000 4 $1,857.28 $8,218 3 Semen
$250 $7,000 25 N/A N/A N/A Hunting - Does
Hunting -
N/A $2,214 $135,000 68 N/A N/A
Stocker &Trophy Buck Buck &Trophy Stocker
3 Doe Open $667 $13,333 20 $2,110.98 $6,936
2 Doe - Fawn $667 $6,667 10 $3,056.67 $5,460
2 Buck - Fawn $667 $6,667 10 $1,932.01 $3,182
1 Buck Breeder $7,500 $30,000 4 $11,141.67 $11,795
3 $5,000 $11,667 11 $3,858.93 $8,670 Doe Bred
sale sale
Purchases animal $/ sale $/ $/animal sale $/
Animal/ Animal/ Animal/ Animal/
Average Average
Hunting & Breeding Only Breeders
Table 2: Average Purchases and Sales of Cervid Industry Survey Respondents Survey Industry Cervid of Sales and Purchases Average 2: Table
that had both $/sale and animal number purchased. number animal and $/sale both had that
number of animals only gross purchases and sales. Dollars per animal are only calculated for surveys surveys for calculated only are animal per Dollars sales. and purchases gross only animals of number
of animals per sale. This difference accounts for the fact that, some surveys did not report the the report not did surveys some that, fact the for accounts difference This sale. per animals of
larger (smaller) in comparison to dividing the average amount spent per sale by the average number number average the by sale per spent amount average the dividing to comparison in (smaller) larger
by farm and the average amount spent per animal. The average amount spent per animal, will be be will animal, per spent amount average The animal. per spent amount average the and farm by
Reported in Table 2 are the average number of animals per sale, the average amount spent annually annually spent amount average the sale, per animals of number average the are 2 Table in Reported
pedigree. on based widely vary can animal each for prices and
market value of the animal. Therefore, these animals are considered highly differentiated products products differentiated highly considered are animals these Therefore, animal. the of value market
several characteristics, including pedigree, genetics, and antler size, which can radically change the the change radically can which size, antler and genetics, pedigree, including characteristics, several
animal. While some of these values seem high, especially for fawns, deer and elk are valued on on valued are elk and deer fawns, for especially high, seem values these of some While animal.
for fawns purchased, buck fawns were averaging $1,932 and doe fawns were averaging $3,056 per per $3,056 averaging were fawns doe and $1,932 averaging were fawns buck purchased, fawns for
does purchased by farm averaged $3,858, and open does averaged a price of $2,110 per animal. As As animal. per $2,110 of price a averaged does open and $3,858, averaged farm by purchased does
$475,151. Breeder Bucks averaged a price of $11,795 and averaged one animal per purchase. Bred Bred purchase. per animal one averaged and $11,795 of price a averaged Bucks Breeder $475,151.
Reported from the breeders only survey, there were 147 animals purchased in 2010 for a total of of total a for 2010 in purchased animals 147 were there survey, only breeders the from Reported
Sales and Purchases Animal
10
rack. point
following prices: $2,750 for 150 points, $4,750 for 170 points, and over $11,000 for a 191 a for $11,000 over and points, 170 for $4,750 points, 150 for $2,750 prices: following 200 200 -
overall point score for the buck. Regionally, an Ohio hunting preserve markets trophy bucks for the the for bucks trophy markets preserve hunting Ohio an Regionally, buck. the for score point overall
resembles price and grading of diamonds. Length, circumference and antler points result in a a in result points antler and circumference Length, diamonds. of grading and price resembles
should be noted that trophy buck pricing is based on the Boone and Crockett point system, which which system, point Crockett and Boone the on based is pricing buck trophy that noted be should
taxidermy costs, they also buy hunting equipment and supplies from local sporting good retailers. It It retailers. good sporting local from supplies and equipment hunting buy also they costs, taxidermy
hunters not only pay lodging, food, travel expenses, and guide tips, in addition to processing processing to addition in tips, guide and expenses, travel food, lodging, pay only not hunters
percent of hunting preserve clients were from out of state and 7 percent were international. These These international. were percent 7 and state of out from were clients preserve hunting of percent
$874,000 for 200 animals. In 2010, each hunting preserve averaged 81 hunters and over 93 93 over and hunters 81 averaged preserve hunting each 2010, In animals. 200 for $874,000
These averaged over $5,000 per animal. Total sales of the trophy bucks for 2010 was slightly over over slightly was 2010 for bucks trophy the of sales Total animal. per $5,000 over averaged These
The high dollar sales for the breeding and hunting operations were in breeder and trophy bucks. bucks. trophy and breeder in were operations hunting and breeding the for sales dollar high The
purchased 68 bucks for $135,000. This results in an average purchase price of $2,214 per animal. per $2,214 of price purchase average an in results This $135,000. for bucks 68 purchased
purchase price of stocker bucks used in the hunting preserves, where on average, an operation operation an average, on where preserves, hunting the in used bucks stocker of price purchase
the hunting side of their operations. This can be seen especially in the volume and average average and volume the in especially seen be can This operations. their of side hunting the
less per animal. The main driver in purchase decisions for these operations were animals used in in used animals were operations these for decisions purchase in driver main The animal. per less
$667. Breeding and hunting operations bought larger quantities of animals, but on average spent spent average on but animals, of quantities larger bought operations hunting and Breeding $667.
$667 per animal. As for fawns purchased, the average amount per animal was also approximately approximately also was animal per amount average the purchased, fawns for As animal. per $667
animals per purchase. Bred does averaged a price of $5,000, and open does averaged a price of of price a averaged does open and $5,000, of price a averaged does Bred purchase. per animals
For hunting and breeding operations, breeder bucks averaged a price of $7,500 and averaged 4 4 averaged and $7,500 of price a averaged bucks breeder operations, breeding and hunting For
fawns saw an increase of $3,756 from average purchase price to average sale price. price. sale average to price purchase average from $3,756 of increase an saw fawns
price of does fawns sales were averaging $1,600 less per animal than those being purchased. Buck Buck purchased. being those than animal per less $1,600 averaging were sales fawns does of price
where the difference in average price per straw was over the per unit price of $1,145. The average average The $1,145. of price unit per the over was straw per price average in difference the where
animals varied in prices, but were similar to purchase prices in all but the per unit price for semen, semen, for price unit per the but all in prices purchase to similar were but prices, in varied animals
Total sales for breeding operations were 213 animals, for a reported total of $757,288. The The $757,288. of total reported a for animals, 213 were operations breeding for sales Total
11
72 N/A Harvested Deer
7 N/A Hunting for Released Bucks Stocker
Herd Breeding from released Deer 9 N/A
110 N/A Size Herd
Hunting
30% 9% Mortality Herd
30 14 Fawns of Number Average
Average Rate of Conception of Rate Average 2 9.4
Bred Does of Number Average 15 10
61 14 Does
Bucks Stocker 23 11
21 2 Bucks Breeder
96 31 Size Herd
Breeding
animals) of (number Hunting & Breeding Only Breeding
Table 3: Average Inventories of Indiana Cervid Industry Survey Respondents Survey Industry Cervid Indiana of Inventories Average 3: Table
deer per acre. Operations with 6 or more deer to acre, spent on average $8,724 on feed and hay. hay. and feed on $8,724 average on spent acre, to deer more or 6 with Operations acre. per deer
only operations averaged 11 acres with 6 acres dedicated to pens. On average, operations had 6 6 had operations average, On pens. to dedicated acres 6 with acres 11 averaged operations only
covered on average 159 acres total, with 11 acres dedicated to their breeding operations. Breeding Breeding operations. breeding their to dedicated acres 11 with total, acres 159 average on covered
the fawns to weaning costs on average $214 per animal. Breeding and hunting operations, operations, hunting and Breeding animal. per $214 average on costs weaning to fawns the
breeding operations. Typically 56% of the fawns are weaned for an average of 81 days. Bringing Bringing days. 81 of average an for weaned are fawns the of 56% Typically operations. breeding
Feeding and hay expenses account for over $8,536 of the average annual expenditures for for expenditures annual average the of $8,536 over for account expenses hay and Feeding
Expenses Hay and Feeding
demographics. and sizes
Reported in Table 3 are the breakdowns of the breeding and breeding and hunting operation’s herd herd operation’s hunting and breeding and breeding the of breakdowns the are 3 Table in Reported
preserve. each
released from the breeding operations. On average, 72 deer were harvested through hunting on on hunting through harvested were deer 72 average, On operations. breeding the from released
hunting side of the operation, the average herd size was 100 animals, with an average of 9 animals animals 9 of average an with animals, 100 was size herd average the operation, the of side hunting
operations were lower and herd mortality was higher than for the breeding only operations. For the the For operations. only breeding the for than higher was mortality herd and lower were operations
comprised of 61 does, 23 stocker bucks and 21 breeder bucks. The rate of conception for these these for conception of rate The bucks. breeder 21 and bucks stocker 23 does, 61 of comprised
For hunting and breeding operations the average herd size for breeding, was 96 animals, animals, 96 was breeding, for size herd average the operations breeding and hunting For
weaning. after fawns of loss the
approximately 7.7% annually. The mortality rate was reported on the total breeding herd including including herd breeding total the on reported was rate mortality The annually. 7.7% approximately
respondent lost 80% of his herd to an EHD outbreak, excluding this outlier, the mortality rate is is rate mortality the outlier, this excluding outbreak, EHD an to herd his of 80% lost respondent
bucks, averaging 10 fawns born a year. Herd mortality was reported at 9%, though one survey survey one though 9%, at reported was mortality Herd year. a born fawns 10 averaging bucks,
largest with 178 animals. The typical herd is comprised of 14 does, 11 stocker bucks and 2 breeder breeder 2 and bucks stocker 11 does, 14 of comprised is herd typical The animals. 178 with largest
The average herd size for breeding farms was 31 animals, with the smallest herd of 2, and the the and 2, of herd smallest the with animals, 31 was farms breeding for size herd average The
Inventory Herd
12
equipment. feed for $1,212 Indiana in manufactured Chute, Handling Custom
feeding bins, $1,588 for watering equipment and and equipment watering for $1,588 bins, feeding
Feeding equipment averaged $1,875 for bulk bulk for $1,875 averaged equipment Feeding
average of $16,419 and $9,886 respectively. respectively. $9,886 and $16,419 of average
were the second and third highest expense with an an with expense highest third and second the were
maxed out at $150,000. Farm vehicles and ATVs ATVs and vehicles Farm $150,000. at out maxed
average $19,373. The large equipment category category equipment large The $19,373. average
equipment category, where operations spent on on spent operations where category, equipment
The category with the largest expense is the large large the is expense largest the with category The
respondents.
resources is $426,496 in total for the survey survey the for total in $426,496 is resources
equipment, the average annualized cost on these these on cost annualized average the equipment,
operation. Assuming a 5 year useful life for for life useful year 5 a Assuming operation.
these are costs that are spread over time in the the in time over spread are that costs are these
million dollars. Though it is important to note that that note to important is it Though dollars. million
a deer and elk farm. The sum total reported for this expenditure category just in 2010 was over $1.6 $1.6 over was 2010 in just category expenditure this for reported total sum The farm. elk and deer a
in the farming and hunting operations. Equipment costs are a large part of the fixed costs of operating operating of costs fixed the of part large a are costs Equipment operations. hunting and farming the in
equipment), video equipment, semen storage sedation equipment, other, and rental equipment used used equipment rental and other, equipment, sedation storage semen equipment, video equipment),
including trailers and transport equipment, feeding equipment (bulk bins, other feeding, watering watering feeding, other bins, (bulk equipment feeding equipment, transport and trailers including
The equipment category includes all large equipment (bulldozers, tractors etc.), ATVs, farm vehicles, vehicles, farm ATVs, etc.), tractors (bulldozers, equipment large all includes category equipment The
Equipment
average, a breeding operation has 5 pens, which cover an average of 6 acres. acres. 6 of average an cover which pens, 5 has operation breeding a average,
Over 61% of the breeding operations have a handling facility and have spent on average $7,133. On On $7,133. average on spent have and facility handling a have operations breeding the of 61% Over
average breeding farms have a total cost of over $12,000 in fencing and over $14,500 in buildings. buildings. in $14,500 over and fencing in $12,000 over of cost total a have farms breeding average
hunting operations are reported in Table 5. In the Facilities section of Table 5, one can see that on on that see can one 5, Table of section Facilities the In 5. Table in reported are operations hunting
annuitized average costs for all surveys, separated by breeding farm only and breeding and and breeding and only farm breeding by separated surveys, all for costs average annuitized - Non
expenditure categories, breeding farms spend on average $47,709 a year on operations and facilities. facilities. and operations on year a $47,709 average on spend farms breeding categories, expenditure
total expenditure each. The miscellaneous category is further broken down in Figure 8. Over all of the the of all Over 8. Figure in down broken further is category miscellaneous The each. expenditure total
physical capital (working pens, fencing and buildings). The other categories are less than 16% of the the of 16% than less are categories other The buildings). and fencing pens, (working capital physical
roads, forage, and water sourcing costs) and and costs) sourcing water and forage, roads,
improvements (which refers to land clearing, clearing, land to refers (which improvements Raceway Fenced
followed by maintenance and repair and and repair and maintenance by followed
costs account for 25% of annual expenditures, expenditures, annual of 25% for account costs
operation can be found in Figure 7. Feed and hay hay and Feed 7. Figure in found be can operation
The yearly annuitized expenses for a breeding breeding a for expenses annuitized yearly The
5 years and a 10% interest rates. rates. interest 10% a and years 5
handling facilities over 10 years, equipment over over equipment years, 10 over facilities handling
10 years, buildings over a life of 15 years, years, 15 of life a over buildings years, 10
assume that annuitizing the costs of fencing over over fencing of costs the annuitizing that assume
are costs that occur on a yearly basis. We We basis. yearly a on occur that costs are
annuitized over the life of the farm and then there there then and farm the of life the over annuitized
of costs, some of them are costs that can be be can that costs are them of some costs, of
Deer and elk breeding operations have a variety variety a have operations breeding elk and Deer
Facilities and Operations
13
testing DNA $428.91 12
testing CWD $70.87 12
Necropsies $107.00 3
Inseminated Artificially Does 10
Costs Sedation $27.58
Sedated Bucks 8
Sedated Does 7
Service
Animals
cost Average
Number of of Number
Table 4: Average Veterinary Costs of Cervid Industry Survey Respondents Survey Industry Cervid of Costs Veterinary Average 4: Table Only Farms Breeding —
operations.
Specific veterinary expense categories were not reported for the two breeding and hunting hunting and breeding two the for reported not were categories expense veterinary Specific
animal. per
28 farms, at an average cost per farm of $428. Typical per animal DNA test costs between $65 between costs test DNA animal per Typical $428. of farm per cost average an at farms, 28 70 70 -
higher scoring racks, DNA testing is done on some animals. For our survey, DNA testing was used on on used was testing DNA survey, our For animals. some on done is testing DNA racks, scoring higher
Because deer and elk are valued on numerous characteristics, their pedigrees which can result in in result can which pedigrees their characteristics, numerous on valued are elk and deer Because
having semen storage, 27 farms purchased semen, and 36 farms used artificial insemination. insemination. artificial used farms 36 and semen, purchased farms 27 storage, semen having
eeiay evcs r as ue fr h bedn o te nml. Twenty animals. the of breeding the for used also are services Veterinary three farms reported reported farms three -
state. importing
deer and elk and their animal products out of the state, depends on the rules and regulations of the the of regulations and rules the on depends state, the of out products animal their and elk and deer
seven farms reporting that testing had taken place. Requirements for exporting exporting for Requirements place. taken had testing that reporting farms seven - Thirty $70. of animal
was 12 animals per farm at an average cost per per cost average an at farm per animals 12 was
average number of CWD testing from the survey survey the from testing CWD of number average
and semen on the basis of CWD testing. The The testing. CWD of basis the on semen and
restricts imports of live animals, animal products products animal animals, live of imports restricts
Hemorrhagic Disease (EHD). The State of Indiana Indiana of State The (EHD). Disease Hemorrhagic
bovine tuberculosis, brucellosis and Epizootic Epizootic and brucellosis tuberculosis, bovine
(CWD), herds in Indiana are typically tested for for tested typically are Indiana in herds (CWD),
testing for disease above Chronic Wasting Disease Disease Wasting Chronic above disease for testing
Although the survey did not ask about any other other any about ask not did survey the Although
$3,390. cost average on supplies medical
and artificial insemination. Veterinary services and and services Veterinary insemination. artificial and
include sedations, disease testing, necropsies, necropsies, testing, disease sedations, include
managing the operation. Veterinary services services Veterinary operation. the managing
Maintaining herd health is an important piece of of piece important an is health herd Maintaining
Expenses Veterinary
14
Expenditure Miscellaneous Annual Average of Percent 8: Figure
Figure 7: Percent of Average Annual Expenditures for Deer & Elk Farms Elk & Deer for Expenditures Annual Average of Percent 7: Figure
15
$1,838 Other $1,849
$2,733 $794 Storage Semen
$1,660 $730 equipment Sedation
$1,000 $686 equipment Rental
$2,083 $1,779 equipment Video
Watering equipment Watering $500 $1,589
Feeding equipment Feeding ** $1,212
Bulk feed bins feed Bulk $2,667 $1,875
$12,440 $3,586 Trailers/crates
Implements ** $6,896
$16,419 vehicles Ranch $18,713
$12,500 $9,886 ATV(s)
$24,000 $19,373 equipment Large
Equipment
Insurance $2,940 $2,123
Taxes Property $1,500 $1,775
Fees Consignment Auction ** $1,660
Expenses Travel $3,761 $2,286
Contributions Charitable ** $2,161
Advertising/Marketing $6,500 $2,738
Fees Association ** $238
Expenses Miscellaneous
Repair and Maintenance $17,800 $6,865
Facility Handling of Cost $15,000 $7,133
Percent with Handling Facility Handling with Percent 67% 61%
pens Working $4,000 $3,934
Buildings $19,500 $14,552
Improvements $7,000 $5,034
Shelters/Blinds $9,833 $2,646
Fencing $55,053 $12,349
11* 6 (acres) pens of Area
12* 5 pens of Number
$118,333 N/A lodge(s) of cost Capital
Facilities
$5,767 $9,743 ($/ac) value Purchase Average
62 11 (acres) purchased Land
159 N/A (acres) hunting of Area
11 11 (acres) breeding of Area
2000 2004 started Year
Operation
Breeding & Hunting & Breeding Only Breeding dollars) in (
Respondents Survey Elk & Deer of Costs Operational Annual Average 5: Table
16
** No expenses reported in these categories these in reported expenses No **
* Only relates to the breeding side of the breeding and hunting operations hunting and breeding the of side breeding the to relates Only *
services Outsourced $6,605 $2,561
paid wages Total $49,500 $23,253
hourly paid Employees 4 6
salary paid Employees 1 2
Labor
$3,600 N/A beverages and food Lodge
$35,789 N/A supplies Lodge
$4,605 $3,391 supplies Veterinary/Medical
$19,007 $8,480 Hay and Feed
** $2,828 supplies Operating
Services Veterinary & Supplies
$9,786 $1,570 Fuel
$2,832 $898 Utilities
Utilities
Breeding & Hunting & Breeding Only Breeding dollars) in (
Table 6: Average Annual Operational Costs of Deer & Elk Survey Respondents, cont. Respondents, Survey Elk & Deer of Costs Operational Annual Average 6: Table
17
4.62 5.26 Output $ Million Employment/ 12.59 2.71
0.378 0.077 0.144 0.157 Output $ Income/ Labor
1.824 0.236 0.588 1 Output
Total Effects Induced Effects Indirect Effects Direct
Multipliers Sector Livestock Indiana 7: Table
sector relevant multipliers. These multipliers are reported in Table 7. Table in reported are multipliers These multipliers. relevant sector
354 The Economic Impact of the Indiana Livestock Industries provided provided Industries Livestock Indiana the of Impact Economic The 354 – ID Report Extension Purdue
estimate these different impacts from the deer and elk farming industry. Specifically, results from from results Specifically, industry. farming elk and deer the from impacts different these estimate
the USDA Forest Service provided the framework with coefficients from Indiana was used to to used was Indiana from coefficients with framework the provided Service Forest USDA the
induced effects. For this analysis, the IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for Planning) model developed by by developed model Planning) for Analysis (Impact IMPLAN the analysis, this For effects. induced
The total economic impact of the deer and elk farming industry is the sum of the direct, indirect and and indirect direct, the of sum the is industry farming elk and deer the of impact economic total The
that originated with the deer and elk farming industry. industry. farming elk and deer the with originated that
Through these activities, incomes and profits are spread throughout the local and state economy economy state and local the throughout spread are profits and incomes activities, these Through
caterer purchasing food, hiring staff, buying equipment and vehicles from other local businesses. businesses. local other from vehicles and equipment buying staff, hiring food, purchasing caterer
hunting preserves. Catered meals to hunting lodges involves local businesses that start with the the with start that businesses local involves lodges hunting to meals Catered preserves. hunting
businesses and people in the state of Indiana that support the deer and elk farming and cervid cervid and farming elk and deer the support that Indiana of state the in people and businesses
benefit from the initial activity. In this study, the induced effect is through the spending by other other by spending the through is effect induced the study, this In activity. initial the from benefit
The induced effects from an industry results from other businesses and spending activities that that activities spending and businesses other from results industry an from effects induced The
economy. rural
industry. The expenditures result in economic impact multiplying through the other sectors of the the of sectors other the through multiplying impact economic in result expenditures The industry.
represent sales to other local businesses, which provide these services to the deer and elk farming farming elk and deer the to services these provide which businesses, local other to sales represent
fencing, veterinary services, transportation, utilities, insurance, etc. In many cases, these purchases purchases these cases, many In etc. insurance, utilities, transportation, services, veterinary fencing,
sector linkages include the purchases of equipment, feed, feed, equipment, of purchases the include linkages sector - inter these of Examples operate. to
sectors in the economy. These purchase reflect both products and services required by the industry industry the by required services and products both reflect purchase These economy. the in sectors
The indirect effects relate to the purchases made by the deer and elk farming enterprise from other other from enterprise farming elk and deer the by made purchases the to relate effects indirect The
sector. the in employed directly those to paid
hides, semen, antlers, velvet, processed meat products, etc. Income relates to salaries and wages wages and salaries to relates Income etc. products, meat processed velvet, antlers, semen, hides,
and elk products and stock sold. This segment includes live animal sales for breeding and hunting, hunting, and breeding for sales animal live includes segment This sold. stock and products elk and
employment generated predominantly by participants. Sales represent the overall value for deer deer for value overall the represent Sales participants. by predominantly generated employment
For the deer and elk farming industry in Indiana, the direct effects relate to sales, income and and income sales, to relate effects direct the Indiana, in industry farming elk and deer the For
impacts. their in global or regional state, the within be can effects These
These categories include the direct, indirect and induced effects from the operation of that industry. industry. that of operation the from effects induced and indirect direct, the include categories These
The overall economic impact of a sector or industry can be divided into three distinct categories. categories. distinct three into divided be can industry or sector a of impact economic overall The
Economic and Rural Impacts Rural and Economic
18
system. scoring this on based counties rural
majority of deer and elk farms are located in very very in located are farms elk and deer of majority
maximum rurality score of Indiana is 0.57. The The 0.57. is Indiana of score rurality maximum 0.46 0.45 7 Whitley
Whitley County. It should be noted that the the that noted be should It County. Whitley
0.41 0.43 8 Adams
become less rural from 1990 to 2000, except for for except 2000, to 1990 from rural less become
0.36 0.4 10 DeKalb
from 0.2 to 0.49 for 2000. These counties have have counties These 2000. for 0.49 to 0.2 from
BOAH permits in 2011, the rurality index ranges ranges index rurality the 2011, in permits BOAH Noble 0.42 0.45 12
county is considered. The top ten counties by by counties ten top The considered. is county
0.38 0.41 12 Miami
nature. The closer to one, the more rural the the rural more the one, to closer The nature.
0.38 0.44 20 Kosciusko urban urban - rural the of metrics other than nuanced
given a relative rurality score which is more more is which score rurality relative a given 0.23 0.28 23 Elkhart
(2007), the top 10 BOAH premise ID counties are are counties ID premise BOAH 10 top the (2007),
0.2 0.22 26 Allen
Indiana citizens. Using estimates from Waldorf Waldorf from estimates Using citizens. Indiana
0.41 0.44 27 Marshall focused on improving the livelihoods of rural rural of livelihoods the improving on focused
policy makers in selecting policies that are are that policies selecting in makers policy 0.49 0.53 60 LaGrange
based on its relative rurality score may better aid aid better may score rurality relative its on based
2000 1990
permits areas are within the state. Distinguishing an area area an Distinguishing state. the within are areas
distinction must be made on how rural these these rural how on made be must distinction BOAH BOAH score rurailty Relative
impact of deer and elk breeding in Indiana, a a Indiana, in breeding elk and deer of impact
counties Indiana of Rurality Relative 9: Table In order to better gauge the significant local local significant the gauge better to order In
Impacts Rural
household income and employment in economically limited rural communities. rural limited economically in employment and income household
owners. Many of these deer and elk farmers engage in this activity as a means to improve improve to means a as activity this in engage farmers elk and deer these of Many owners.
and elk farming enterprise is predominantly owned and operated by small acreage rural land land rural acreage small by operated and owned predominantly is enterprise farming elk and
cooks, guides, and labor results in approximately $200,000 in seasonal income. Finally, the deer deer the Finally, income. seasonal in $200,000 approximately in results labor and guides, cooks,
$16.2 million dollars annually. In addition, total wages paid by hunting preserve operations for for operations preserve hunting by paid wages total addition, In annually. dollars million $16.2
and over 2,600 part time hourly workers statewide. Producers survey based labor income exceeds exceeds income labor based survey Producers statewide. workers hourly time part 2,600 over and
members to provide labor. Survey results aggregated to the industry reveal 497 full time employees employees time full 497 reveal industry the to aggregated results Survey labor. provide to members
Hoosiers. Many of the deer and elk breeders rely on part time hourly employees or on family family on or employees hourly time part on rely breeders elk and deer the of Many Hoosiers.
model result may not accurately reflect the real labor income or employment opportunities for for opportunities employment or income labor real the reflect accurately not may result model
Indiana’s deer and elk farming is estimated at 575 people. It should be noted that this Input/output Input/output this that noted be should It people. 575 at estimated is farming elk and deer Indiana’s
resulting from deer and elk farming exceeds $10 million dollars annually. Total employment from from employment Total annually. dollars million $10 exceeds farming elk and deer from resulting
$22,289,718 in indirect and induced effects for the economy of Indiana. Total labor income income labor Total Indiana. of economy the for effects induced and indirect in $22,289,718
for 2010. This includes the value of output or sales of $27,037,505. The industry generates over over generates industry The $27,037,505. of sales or output of value the includes This 2010. for
The total economic impact of the deer and elk farming in Indiana is estimated to be $49,327,223 $49,327,223 be to estimated is Indiana in farming elk and deer the of impact economic total The
575 $10,215,156 $49,327,223 Total
73 $2,081,126 $6,391,666 Induced
124 $3,887,249 $15,898,052 Indirect
378 $4,246,781 $27,037,505 Direct
Employment Employment Income Labor Output
Table 8: Direct, Indirect, and Induced Impacts of Deer & Elk Farming in Indiana in Farming Elk & Deer of Impacts Induced and Indirect, Direct, 8: Table
19
Anabaptist and Pietist Studies. 2011). 2011). Studies. Pietist and Anabaptist
Amish living in 23 communities, the third largest community in the nation (Young Center for for Center (Young nation the in community largest third the communities, 23 in living Amish
amount of acreage (Anderson, Frosh and Outlaw 2007). In Indiana, there are approximately 45,825 45,825 approximately are there Indiana, In 2007). Outlaw and Frosh (Anderson, acreage of amount
breeding is considered an opportunity to diversify operations and to turn a profit on a relatively small small relatively a on profit a turn to and operations diversify to opportunity an considered is breeding
noted that within this total there are approximately 1,600 Amish operations. For the Amish, deer deer Amish, the For operations. Amish 1,600 approximately are there total this within that noted
A 2007 national cervid study done by Texas A&M, there were over 7,828 nationally and the study study the and nationally 7,828 over were there A&M, Texas by done study cervid national 2007 A
2002. in nothing from increase head 276 a with PA Mercer,
increases were in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Indiana. The county with the largest gains was was gains largest the with county The Indiana. and Michigan Pennsylvania, in were increases
491 in 2002. Elk inventories in contrast had less increases in inventories. States with the largest largest the with States inventories. in increases less had contrast in inventories Elk 2002. in 491
Ohio. Lancaster, PA had the largest gains with 1531 deer inventory increase from a population of of population a from increase inventory deer 1531 with gains largest the had PA Lancaster, Ohio.
with the largest increases in operations were in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Indiana and and Indiana Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, in were operations in increases largest the with
Deer operations in Pennsylvania increased for most counties between 2002 and 2007. The states states The 2007. and 2002 between counties most for increased Pennsylvania in operations Deer
inventories are increasing are represented by orange circles in Figure 10. 10. Figure in circles orange by represented are increasing are inventories
purple circles represent areas where inventories have been increasing. Counties in which elk elk which in Counties increasing. been have inventories where areas represent circles purple
operations, there are areas of growth in surrounding states. In regards to deer inventories, the the inventories, deer to regards In states. surrounding in growth of areas are there operations,
Using the USDA Agricultural Census to describe the state of regional deer and elk farming farming elk and deer regional of state the describe to Census Agricultural USDA the Using
Figure 9: Impact of Expanding Hunting Preserves in Indiana Indiana in Preserves Hunting Expanding of Impact 9: Figure
Sold Elk &
Quantity of Deer Deer of Quantity
Q Q 1 0
Today Demand
Demand Future
P 0
P 1
Supply
Price
farmers.
demand by hunting preserves translates into higher prices and more animals sold by deer and elk elk and deer by sold animals more and prices higher into translates preserves hunting by demand
The following supply and demand graph illustrates this impact (Figure 9). An increase in animal animal in increase An 9). (Figure impact this illustrates graph demand and supply following The
Indiana. This is due to the high percentage (>90%) of animals purchased from in from purchased animals of (>90%) percentage high the to due is This Indiana. state breeders. breeders. state -
The future growth of elk and deer farming will be driven in large part by hunting preserves in in preserves hunting by part large in driven be will farming deer and elk of growth future The
Introduction Opportunities and Challenges and Opportunities
20
sector. this of growth future the hurt will farmers
geographic market available to Indiana deer and elk elk and deer Indiana to available market geographic
herds in Michigan and Minnesota. Limiting the the Limiting Minnesota. and Michigan in herds
herds for the spread of bovine tuberculosis from from tuberculosis bovine of spread the for herds
DNR and BOAH are monitoring wild Indiana deer deer Indiana wild monitoring are BOAH and DNR
always at risk for disease outbreaks from wild herds. herds. wild from outbreaks disease for risk at always
fears to their herds. Animal breeding operations are are operations breeding Animal herds. their to fears
based on possible health risks and disease spread spread disease and risks health possible on based
industry. Other states have restricted importation importation restricted have states Other industry.
states in an attempt to support their own breeding breeding own their support to attempt an in states
banned the importation of live animals from other other from animals live of importation the banned
reveals a wide variation in policies. Some states have have states Some policies. in variation wide a reveals
products. A review of different state rules and regulations regarding the cervid farming industry industry farming cervid the regarding regulations and rules state different of review A products.
industry is how other states choose to regulate imports of live animals, semen and other cervid cervid other and semen animals, live of imports regulate to choose states other how is industry
Another factor that will affect the future growth and development of the Indiana deer and elk farming farming elk and deer Indiana the of development and growth future the affect will that factor Another
markets. state - of - out
and development of hunting preserves in Indiana has resulted in many Hoosier breeders to rely on on rely to breeders Hoosier many in resulted has Indiana in preserves hunting of development and
elk farm to preserve ratio is 21:1 in Pennsylvania while the ratio is 97:1 in Indiana. The lack of growth growth of lack The Indiana. in 97:1 is ratio the while Pennsylvania in 21:1 is ratio preserve to farm elk
hunting preserves. Indiana, in contrast, has 388 farms and only 4 hunting preserves. The deer and and deer The preserves. hunting 4 only and farms 388 has contrast, in Indiana, preserves. hunting
For example, Pennsylvania has approximately 1000 deer and elk breeding farms and over 47 cervid cervid 47 over and farms breeding elk and deer 1000 approximately has Pennsylvania example, For
the region. A large percentage of this growth is driven by demand from the hunting preserve sector. sector. preserve hunting the from demand by driven is growth this of percentage large A region. the
state will gradually be phased out. By contrast, Figure 9 shows the growth of deer and elk farming in in farming elk and deer of growth the shows 9 Figure contrast, By out. phased be gradually will state
not allow for new hunting operations to be established, with the thought that the four preserves in in preserves four the that thought the with established, be to operations hunting new for allow not
prohibits hunting and harvesting of game mammals on existing preserves after July 1, 2013 and does does and 2013 1, July after preserves existing on mammals game of harvesting and hunting prohibits
current policies. The limitations on current hunting preserves by Indiana House Bill No 1349, 1349, No Bill House Indiana by preserves hunting current on limitations The policies. current
Constraints to growth in the deer and elk farming industry in Indiana may be affected by several several by affected be may Indiana in industry farming elk and deer the in growth to Constraints
Figure 10: USDA Agriculture Census, Growth in Deer and Elk Inventories from 2002 to 2007 2007 to 2002 from Inventories Elk and Deer in Growth Census, Agriculture USDA 10: Figure
21
4. - R - PRCD development.
Waldorf, B. 2007. “What is Rural And What is Urban in Indiana?” Purdue Center for Regional Regional for Center Purdue Indiana?” in Urban is What And Rural is “What 2007. B. Waldorf,
2011) 1, November on (Visited
NAS. 2011. 2002 and 2007 Census of Agriculture. URL: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/ http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/ URL: Agriculture. of Census 2007 and 2002 2011. NAS. - USDA
354. - ID Extension Purdue
Mayen, C. and K. McNamara. 2007. “The Economic Impact of the Indiana Livestock Industries.” Industries.” Livestock Indiana the of Impact Economic “The 2007. McNamara. K. and C. Mayen,
emanualusersguidetoimplanversion30software&Itemid=10 (Visited on October 31, 2011) 2011) 31, October on (Visited emanualusersguidetoimplanversion30software&Itemid=10
http://implan.com/V4/index.php?option=com_multicategories&view=categories&cid=222:referenc
MIG, Inc. 2011. “Users Guide to IMPLAN Version 3.0 Software” URL: URL: Software” 3.0 Version IMPLAN to Guide “Users 2011. Inc. MIG,
2011) 31, October on (Visited
Indiana State Government. 2011. “BOAH Premise IDs.” URL: http://www.in.gov/boah/2328.htm http://www.in.gov/boah/2328.htm URL: IDs.” Premise “BOAH 2011. Government. State Indiana
2011) 3, November on (Visited cno=1349
http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2006&session=1&request=getBill&do
Indiana General Assembly. 2006. House Bill 1349. URL: URL: 1349. Bill House 2006. Assembly. General Indiana
2011) 2, November
College URL: http://www2.etown.edu/amishstudies/Population_by_State_2011.asp (Visited on on (Visited http://www2.etown.edu/amishstudies/Population_by_State_2011.asp URL: College
Young Center for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies. 2011. “Amish Population by State.” Elizabethtown Elizabethtown State.” by Population “Amish 2011. Studies. Pietist and Anabaptist for Center Young
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/18/18183.html (Visited on November 1, 2011) 2011) 1, November on (Visited http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/18/18183.html
Census Bureau. 2011. State and County Quick Facts. URL: URL: Facts. Quick County and State 2011. Bureau. Census
Station. College A&M, Texas Industry.
Anderson, D., B. Frosh and J. Outlaw. 2007. Economic Impact of the United States Cervid Farming Farming Cervid States United the of Impact Economic 2007. Outlaw. J. and Frosh B. D., Anderson,
References and Data Sources Data and References
22
1 1 1 1 Johnson
2 2 2 1 1 1 3 Jennings 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Jefferson 1
Jay 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2
5 5 3 1 1 3 4 3 Jasper
1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 Jackson
Huntington 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Howard
Henry
1 2 2 2 Hendricks 2 2 2 1
2 2 3 3 Harrison 1
Hancock
4 4 3 3 Hamilton 7 6 7 5
Greene 3 3 3 1 1 1 1
7 Grant 5 5 5 5 5 7 5
Gibson
3 Fulton 3 3 4 3 2 3 3
4 Franklin 5 5 6 3 3 3 4
4 Fountain 1 2 3 2 2 3 3
Floyd
Fayette
10 Elkhart 23 21 19 10 6 6 9
4 Dubois 4 4 4 5 6 5 4
Delaware 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
4 DeKalb 8 8 8 7 7 5 4
12 Decatur 4 5 6 6 4 5 5
1 Dearborn 1 1 1 1 1
7 Daviess 1 1 1 5 7 5 6
Crawford 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Clinton 1
2 Clay 1 1 1 1 3
1 1 1 1 1 2 Clark 1 1
1 1 1 Cass
1 1 1 1 Carroll
1 1 1 2 2 2 Brown 1 1
1 1 1 2 3 2 Boone 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 Blackford 1 1
1 1 1 Benton
1 1 Bartholomew 1 1
21 21 21 19 19 15 Allen 22 22
4 1 1 1 1 2 Adams 8 4
County 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2011 2010
County by Permits DNR : A Appendix
Appendices
23
1 2 1 1 3 3 3 3 Vigo
1 1 Vermillion 1 1 1 1 1
Vanderburgh 1 1
Union
Tipton
Tippecanoe 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 5
Switzerland
1 1 1 1 2 4 4 4 Sullivan
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Steuben
1 2 2 2 Starke 1 1 1 1
Joseph St. 6 6 5 5 4 6 8 8
Spencer
Shelby
2 2 2 2 1 1 2 Scott
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Rush
1 5 Ripley 1
Randolph 1
2 2 Putnam 3 2 2 2 2 2
1 2 Pulaski 1 1
Posey 1 1 1 1
2 2 Porter 1 2
5 6 Pike 3 3 2 2 5 4
2 1 Perry 1 1 1 1 1 2
2 Parke
2 2 Owen 1 1 1 1 1 2
Orange
Ohio
6 6 Noble 16 11 10 8 7 5
1 1 Newton 1 1 1 1 1 1
9 8 Morgan 4 4 4 4 7 7
Montgomery 1 1 1
1 Monroe 1
12 11 9 11 9 5 6 Miami 13
Martin
27 24 16 13 8 9 11 Marshall 28
2 1 1 Marion 1
4 2 1 1 2 3 3 Madison 2
1 1 Lawrence 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 Laporte 1
2 2 3 3 2 2 2 Lake 3
57 53 37 38 33 33 27 LaGrange 66
21 19 16 12 11 13 11 Kosciusko 23
3 4 3 3 3 3 3 Knox 2
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 County 2011
24
317 298 239 237 228 242 253 Total Grand 334
12 10 6 5 4 5 4 Whitley 10
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 White 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 Wells 2
3 Wayne 3
1 2 3 Washington
7 7 5 5 4 5 5 Warrick 6
1 2 2 1 1 2 2 Warren 1
2 2 3 4 2 4 4 Wabash 2
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 County 2011
25
Letter Survey IDEFA B: Appendix
IntroductionAppendices Appendix C: IDEFA Breeding Farm Survey IntroductionAppendices Appendix D: IDEFA Hunting Preserves Survey