130 STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. 



with average grades at 4iA to 4% cents. As a consequence, the beef 

 producer of the winter of 1902 and 1903 operated with high-priced 

 feeders, high-priced feed and high-priced labor with the markets con- 

 tinuously on the decline; this decline did not begin until late in the 

 fall after feeding operations had been planned or begun. It started 

 down from between eight and nine cents, gradually falling to five cents 

 within a period of six months. Under these conditions the beef pro- 

 ducer could not realize a profit and did well if he came out even. 



A question commonly asked is, what has caused the drop in beef 

 prices? Though one should make a careful study of the economic 

 and commercial features of beef production, markets, supply, demand, 

 etc., still, it would not be possible to answer this question definitely 

 as the influencing conditions are so numerous and greatly varied. 

 Shortage in the supply was freely presented as the cause of high 

 prices in 1902, and in truth the number of cattle per 1,000 people in the 

 U. S. has been steadily diminishing since 1892. In 1892 the U. S. had 

 826 cattle per 1,000 inhabitants. In 1900 the U. S. had 585 cattle per 

 1,000 in habitants. This decrease, however, does not mean as much as it 

 at first may appear to^ for the export trade has nevertheless gone on 

 increasing rapidly since 1894. 



It is true that the supply had much to do with recent high prices 

 simply because the cattle in the country in 1901 could not be fitted 

 for market owing to scarcity of feed resulting from drought and the 

 high prices of corn. As a result immense numbers were held over 

 till 1902. The season of 1902 was universally productive of large crops; 

 early frosts in the corn belt resulted in serious injury to the corn crop 

 with the result that the only way to dispose of it profitably was by con- 

 verting it into meat. Thus toward the close of 1902 feeders and feed 

 were abundant. 



In 1902 the high prices actually paid by the packers do not represent 

 the comparative cost of the cattle. The receipts on the Chicago mar- 

 ket during the first half of April, 1902, were only 94,200 as compared 

 with 113,500 in the same period of 1901. In 1902 the cattle averaged 

 but 975 pounds live weight, as against 1,042 pounds in 1901. Packers 

 could not expect to get a corresponding amount of meat from a given 

 number of head because of half-fat instead of finished stuff. For the 

 poorer quality, they had to pay from |1.60 to |1.70 per cwt. more in 

 1902 than they paid for the better class- in 1901. Though the extremely 

 high prices were a boon to the producer, these could not be profitably 

 maintained any length of time by the packer. We must therefore be 

 content in future with more normal prices; it does not seem possible 

 that fabulous prices can be attained and maintained in the near future. 



The spasmodic marketing of cattle during the past six months has 

 done much toward reducing beef prices so rapidly. This condition 

 began to characterize the market late in October when on October 20, 

 1902, 30,843 head of cattle were placed on the Chicago market in one 

 day. These rushes seemed to be due to lack of confidence in the main- 

 tenance of profitable prices for prime beef and as a result the unfin- 

 ished stuff continued to flood the markets at intervals resulting in 

 increased depression of prices and the holding over, as in one case, 

 of 4,000 head in one day from one market alone. The producer would 

 be much better off if some means could be devised to prevent the 

 spasmodic marketing of unfinished cattle resulting in depressed prices. 



