Page 2 



.:}■:. X rv-:y;] 



The niinois Agricultural Aaaodation Record 



■i-iv.%rv; 



April 21. 1924 



jAci 



ICIJLTIJIIAL. ASSOCL^wBn 



Published twice a month by the Illinois Asricultural 

 Auociatlon, *0t South Dearborn Street. Chicaco, IlllnQla. 

 Eflited by Department of Information. H. C. Butcher. 



Dirt^ctor. 



Entry as second class matter net. 10. 1921. at tlie post 

 ofllce at Chicago. Illinois, under the act of March 3. 1»7». 

 Acceptance for mailing at special rates of postage pro- 

 vided for in Section llOS. Act of October 3. 1917. author- 

 l«ed Oct. 31. 1921. 



The individual membership fee of the Illinois Agricul- 

 tural Association is Ave dollars a year. This fee IncludM 

 payment of flfty cents for subscription to the IlllnoM Ag- 

 ricultural Association Record. 



OFFICERS 

 President, S. H. Thompson, Qolncy. 

 Vice-President. C. B. Watson, DeKalb. 

 Treasurer, R. A. Cowles. Bloomlngton. 

 Secretary, Geo. A. Fox, Sycamore. 



EXECXmVE COMMITTEE 

 By ConKresslonal Districts 



11th Jacob Olbrlch, Harvard 



12th G. F. Tullock, Rocktord 



13th C. E. Bamborough, Polo 



14th W. H. Moody. Port Byron 



15th H. E. Goembel, Hooppole 



16th A. R. Wright, Varna 



17tf, F. D. Barton, Cornell 



18th!!.!!..".'.'..'.'..'.' R- F. Karr, Iroquoia 



19th J. U Whlsnand, Charleaton 



20th Eari C. Smith, Detroit 



2lat t ..Samuel Sorrella, Raymond 



22nd Stanley Cattle, Alton 



23rd J. E. LIngenfelter, Lawreneevllle 



24th ' Curt Anderson, Xenia 



2Bth Vernon Leaaley, Sparta 



Directors of Departments 

 I. A. A. Office 



General Offlee and Assistant to Secretary, J. H. Kelker; 

 Organization, G. E. Metzger; Information, H. C. Butcher; 

 Transportation, L. J. Quasey; Statistics, J. C. Watson; 

 Finance, R. A. Cowles; Fruit and Vegetable Marketing, 

 A. B. i-eeper; Live Stock Marketing, C. A. Stewart; 

 Dairy Marketing, A. D. Lynch; Phosphate-Limestone, 

 J. R. Bent; In charge Poultry and Egg Marketing, F. A. 

 Gougler; special representative on Tuberculosis Eradi- 

 cation, M. H. Petersen. 



Good New On "PitUbnrgh Pla$" 



I It is reported on credible authority from Wash- 

 ington that Special Examiner John W. Bennett 

 of the Federal Trade Commission, who has been 

 hearing testimony on "Pittsburgh Plus" for two 

 years, has submitted his report and that the re- 

 i port is against this false steel freight charge. 



This is very encouraging to the I. A. A. as we 

 have been among the leaders in seeking to abol- 

 ish the practice. However, the report is "privi- 

 leged," that is, not released for publication. There 

 teems to be no sound reason for keeping the re- 

 port secret. The public is deeply interested in 

 ''Pittsburgh Plus" and should know the facts 

 about it. 



Three Montha in 1924 



Looking back over the first three months of 

 I. A. A. work ih 1924 we find several high points 



■ in association accomplishment. It is difficult to 

 enumerate specifically all that has been done in 

 January, February and March, 1924. Iir many 

 cases we have merely laid the foundation for fu- 

 ture progress in certain lines of work. In other 

 cases a definite piece of worit has been accom- 

 plished. 



• I The following are 25 of the principal accom- 

 plishments of the I. A. A. for the first quarter of 

 1924: 



[ 1. Outlined a definite program of work for 12 

 «ooperative marketing and service departments 

 for 1924. 



2. Assisted in the formation of the Illinois Farm 

 Bureau Serum Association to unify the collective 

 purchasing of serum under one head. 



3. Cooperated with the University of Illinois and 

 the National Live Stock Producers' Association in 

 holding a ' series of nine livestock shipping, asso- 

 ciation schools to instruct managers, directors and 

 farm advisers in problems of shipping associations. 

 There was a total attendance of 558 at these 

 schools. 



4. Formulated a uniform selling contract for 

 use between county farm bureaus and organiza- 

 tions in other states with dairy cattle for sale to 



protect farm bureau members against purchasing 

 tuberculous cattle. 



5. Directed educational campaigns in 30 coun- 

 ties to secure county appropriations for the eradi- 

 cation of T. B. 



6. Assisted in the formation of a milk producers 

 cooperative association at Galesburg. 



7. Started a survey to get the facts to aid in 

 the solution of the Chicago milk situation. 



8. Assisted in organization of the Ford County 

 Cream Producers' Association. 



9. Advised farm bureau members in Whiteside 

 county toward organization of a cooperative cream- 

 ery at Prophetstown. 



10. Assisted the Producers' Cooperative Dairy 

 of Decatur in organization plans. 



11. Assisted in the reorganization of the Illinoi* 

 Friiit Exchange. 



12. Assisted the Illinois Broom Corn Growers 

 Cooperative Association in its organization plans. 



13. Cooperated with the Illinois Poultry and 

 Egg Shippers Association to push the campaign 

 for buying eggs at country points on the basis of 

 grade. Many buyers are now paying five cents 

 premium for firsts. 



14. Represented Illinois fruit and vegetable 

 growers before the Interstate Commerce Commis- 

 sion protesting a proposed raise in fruit and vege- 

 table rates from Illinois points to Chicago. 



15. Called a meeting of Illinois county farm 

 bureau presidents to discuss agricultural legis- 

 lation which endorsed the McNary-Haugen bill. 

 Sent a representative to Washington to actively 

 back the passage of this bilL Actively supported 

 all legislation in the farm bureau legislative pro- 

 gram. Helped kiU Williams bill which would have 

 harmed cooperative livestock marketing. 



16. Made a radio survey in Illinois to determine 

 the use of radio among farmers with the purpose 

 in view of planning programs to disseminate farm 

 bureau information. 



17. Participated in a crop reporting conference 

 called by the U. S. Department of Agriculture 

 at Washington. 



18. Made analysis of tax figures for 1922 and 

 1923 in a considerable number of Illinois counties. 



19. Furnished speakers for many local meetings 

 in Illinois and several meetings in other states. 



20. Held a series of limestone conferences re- 

 sulting in the drawing up of a definite list of 

 recommendations for the standardization of lime- 

 stone buying in Illinois and determining the re- 

 lation of the I. A. A. and county farm bureaus to 

 limestone purchasing. 



21. Made arrangements with one big limestone 

 producer to grant special rebate to farm bureaus 

 in purchases of limestone. 



22. Filed claims for 31 Illinois cooperative mar- 

 keting association for refunds of Federal income 

 taxes which they have paid. 



23. Made a full investigation into the require- 

 ments of county farm bureaus with reference to 

 county organization work. 



24. Started definite plans for the establishment 

 of a business and accounting service for Illinois 

 cooperative associations. 



25. Published six issues of I. A. A. Record go- 

 ing to the entire membership as well as sending 

 out the news of the association to the public press. 



Another Drawback To Quality Eggt 



Last issue we told how the practice of washing 

 eggs prevents them from grading as firsts as they 

 will not keep in storage due to the removal of 

 the protective covering. This is a drawback in 

 the campaign to have Illinois egg buyers pay on 

 the basis of grade with a premium of five cents 

 per dozen for firsts. 



Another practice which causes eggs to come out 

 of storage almost a total loss has been called to 

 the attention of the I. A. A. This is the practice 



of breeders of pure bred poultry to prick a hole 

 with a needle through the shells of the eggs which 

 they market to local dealers in order to prevent 

 their neighbors from buying them at market price. 

 These needle holes are too small to be detected 

 in ordinary grading, but they cause the eggs so 

 treated to decompose rapidly. 



Egg buyers state that they would be much more 

 favorable to paying a premium to the producers 

 of quality eggs if such practices as the above are 

 abolished. 1 ., .... :. 



Can the Producers Handle Hogs? 



Because of the continued increase in the volume 

 of business handled by the Producers' cooperative 

 commission companies, reports and rumors have 

 been disseminated by interests opposed to these 

 farmers' selling agencies that the Producers are 

 handling far more hogs than their facilities will 

 permit and that the salesmen are overtaxed, bring- 

 ing about poor service to shippers as well as lower 

 prices. It has also been said that the shrinks on 

 hogs consigned to the Producers have been ex- 

 cessive. 



What are the facts t The Chicago Producers 

 Commission Association made a complete investi- 

 gation of the hog shipments received during the 

 week ending March 28th to get facts to prove 

 whether or not this propaganda was true. This 

 investigation covered the prices received by the 

 Producers' shippers in relation to the average 

 received in the Chicago yards. The co-op handled 

 260 cars of hogs that week, over 100 cars more 

 than its nearest competitor. 



Here are the results : I I* ''i-; • 



Those five consecutive days' results show that 

 the Producers sold hogs higher than the market 

 average four out of five days and they disposed 

 of all their shipments upon the day 'of arrival. 

 With a larger number of hogs at their disposal, 

 the Producers are in a position to demand better 

 prices, they are able to sell out every day and 

 they have lighter shrinks. 



The average net shrink per head for the Chicago 

 Producers' hog shipments for December was 2.15 

 pounds; January, 1.23; February, 1.58; March 

 2.7. 



There are reasons for the continued growth in 

 the receipts of the Producers' selling agencies. 



Just Listen To This! 



In a recent issue of the Chicago Journal of 

 Commerce in the "Board of Trade News and Gos- 

 sip" column, we find an interesting comment upon 

 the Capper-Tincher Act, also known as the Grain 

 .Futures Act, which the farm bureau was largely 

 instrumental in getting through Congress for the 

 government regulation of the grain trade. 



Now the Journal of Commerce has never been 

 accused of praising the Capper-Tincher Act or 

 being at all in favor of it. So the following ob- 

 servation is worth noting: "This relegation (of 

 the Chicago Board of Trade) to third place in 

 the world's grain business is regarded as a result 

 of curtailed speculation following the endorsement 

 of the Grain Futures Act by the Supreme Court. 

 The blame is placed on Senator Capper and Con- 

 gressman Tincher by most of the members, but 

 those who are fully acquainted with the require- 

 ments and provisions of the law are free to admit 

 that the blame is more on those who persist in mis- 

 construing the purposes of the law and who insist 

 on circulating propaganda intended to inflame 

 sentiment against its administration." 



What do you think ol thati And we've been 

 told all the time that the act itself was to blame 

 for all our grain marketing troubles. 



*t 



dkL 



