RISING prices of farm land and feed have changed entirely the
character of livestock received on the market as compared to twenty
years ago. The period following the war shows all conditions more or
less accentuated, and one can trace very definitely the tendency to
market animals younger and to feed to lesser ripeness than prevailed
in the earlier years of the last decade. In 1919 Armour and Company
purchased 12,235,451 head of livestock, while in 1918 they purchased
11,398,131. Yet the animals bought last year weighed actually fewer
pounds, in spite of their greater numbers, than those received the
year preceding; the former weight being 3,740,347,223 pounds and the
latter 3,939,278,534 pounds. Furthermore, the animals of 1919 cost over
nineteen million dollars more. The following table presents these facts
on a percentage basis:
Increased number animals 1919 over 1918 7.3%
Decrease in total weight animal purchases 5.0%
Increase in cost of animals 3.7%
Increased price per pound live weight 1.2¢
Probably the fundamental factor in bringing about these conditions,
which are distinctly unfavorable from a quality trade standpoint, is
the feeder’s expectation of declining prices. This attitude has driven
all the animals to market almost as soon as they were in merchantable
form. The late winter months of 1919-20 saw an opposite tendency among
hog feeders, but this was not sufficiently marked to check the general
trend.
Another factor in stimulating this hurried marketing has been the
belief that more money could be made by selling the grain crop than by
feeding it. This has given short rations to many animals that would
have made suitable market records if handled properly, but it has
enabled farmers to cash in their grain and meat crops while prices were
relatively high.
In terms of permanent agriculture it would have been better to leave
a greater share of this cash invested in a further development of
livestock, but the war order against feeding wheat placed the situation
in some western states beyond the control of the average stockman. As a
general practice in production this incomplete utilization of livestock
must be deplored, although one cannot criticize the tendency under the
special market conditions of 1919 and early 1920.