396 IOWA DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE 



On the line of selling hogs diret-t, I find for the year 1916 that there 

 was received at the Union Stock Yards, in Chicago, 9,188,224 head; 

 added to this were 340,042 hogs sold direct to the packers. I take the 

 above figures from the statement of M. P. Hornie, statistician of the 

 Stock Yards Company, Chicago. 



As to the causes of the sudden drop in the hog market, which took 

 place, I believe, in September, 1915, when hogs took a slump of from 

 $1 to $1.40 per cwt., Mr. Meeker stated to me, in Chicago, some few 

 weeks ago, that it was a very unusual thing, and at that time their 

 Armour & Company's hog account showed a large loss, and their in- 

 structions to their hog buyers were to buy hogs cheaper — and they did. 

 The above has no meaning or conclusion in my mind any more than 

 any other business or transaction. 



I am wondering what hit the fat lamb market on November 16, 1916, 

 when they cut 25 to 40 cents per cwt. off the price at Omaha. The 

 high selling price at that time was $11.60; now top lambs at that market 

 bring $13.50. Can anything be done to remedy these bad breaks in 

 the market? 



Some tell me that the packers, getting a goodly supply in the coun- 

 try, "lay off,' so to speak, on the big market or Union Stock Yards, 

 and do not go out to buy until 10 or 11 o'clock, knowing that their firms 

 have already bought and will receive direct, a sufficient supply of live 

 hogs to keep their employes busy and the plant running full time, 

 even if they fail to buy any that day. But, believe me, when they do 

 go to the pens to buy, look out — there is sure to be a break in the 

 market. . 



Now, as to the commission men's argument on the country-buying 

 packer. I quote from the market paper, and perhaps most of you have 

 read the same — but it will not take long, and I will read. it. It was 

 headed: "Our Country-Buying Packer 'Explains'." 



"In Report No. 113, of the United States Department of Agriculture, 

 entitled 'Methods and Cost of Marketing Live Stock and Meats,' there 

 are quoted, at pages 27 and 28, several replies from the five largest 

 packing houses, indicating their position with respect to the country 

 buying of live stock. The article does not indicate the identity of the 

 packer writing each letter, but one familiar with the concerns can 

 identify them in the following order: No. 1, Swift; No. 2, Armour; 

 No. 3, Morris; No. 4, Sulzberger (now Wilson); No. 5, Cudahy. No. 1, 

 being identified as Swift & Company, we will discuss and analyze their 

 arguments to determine the value of each. 



"They start off with the same statement made by one Hayward, of 

 Swift & Company, mentioned in our article of September 28, 1916, and 

 in the third paragraph mention the alleged necessity for country buying 

 at Chicago (Omaha Packing Company, Swift), St. Louis (St. Louis 

 Dressed Beef Company, Swift), and Kansas City (Fowler, Armour), 

 and state that by reason of these plants being from two to ten miles 

 distant from the public markets, the 'hogs would have to be loaded 

 into cars, involving expense of loading, switching, as well as shrinkage 



