storage to hold over much grain, storing excess crops in the 

 form of livestock is the only practical way. If it can be af- 

 forded, it is a pleasing way to insure against food shortages. 



Livestock Serves as a Shock Absorber 



During the drought of 1934 crop production in the United 

 States fell 24 per cent and there was not enough food for 

 man and beast. Man ate what he wanted and ruthlessly ad- 

 justed the livestock to the feed that remained. 



With the good crops of 1937 to 1942, man ate what he 

 wanted and increased the numbers of livestock in order to 

 keep the remainder from going to waste. 



Countries which have large numbers of livestock seldom 

 suffer from lack of food, for the livestock serves as a shock 

 absorber. If the supply of food is sharply curtailed, the live- 

 stock is slaughtered, adding to food supplies in two ways. 

 First, the livestock is used as food directly, and second, the 

 slaughter of the livestock releases for human consumption 

 food that would otherwise have been fed to the livestock. 



At the present time the European livestock population has 

 been greatly reduced. The food strategy in occupied areas 

 during this and all other major wars has been to liquidate 

 the livestock. This is generally conceived to be a shortsighted 

 policy. It is believed that present stocks of food are thus 

 squandered at the expense of possible future supplies. In 

 short, we accuse the invaders of killing the goose that lays 

 the golden egg. On the contrary, however, the slaughter of 

 livestock is a conservation measure. In so far as the animals 

 consume grain, potatoes, and other root crops which other- 

 wise might be fed to human beings, the animals are a luxury 

 to be quickly disposed of like other luxuries in time of war. 

 England and Denmark reduced the numbers of hogs more 

 than cattle. 



The high nutritive value of livestock products is not due 



