



Produced by Emmy, MWS and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)










    THE LIVESTOCK
    PRODUCER AND
    ARMOUR

[Illustration]

    _The success of capital lies in ministering to the
    people, not in taking advantage of them_

                                  Philip D. Armour


    1920
    ARMOUR AND COMPANY
    CHICAGO

[Illustration: _Directors of Armour and Company_

    George B. Robbins
    C. H. MacDowell
    Everett Wilson
    Arthur Meeker
    Frank W. Waddell
    Charles W. Armour
    Laurance H. Armour
    J. Ogden Armour
    A. Watson Armour
    Philip D. Armour
    F. Edson White
    E. A. Valentine
    Frederick W. Croll
    Robert J. Dunham]




Foreword


THE year 1919, included as it was in the period between the signing of
the Armistice and the ratification of peace, was logically a season
of uncertainty, unrest and unsettled conditions. And yet American
business, discounting all this, entered upon and passed through this
period with full faith in a favorable outcome.

While prosperity was general, the processes of realignment of our
economic relations hurt or temporarily hampered some lines of business.
The livestock and packing industries did not escape entirely unharmed.

Naturally, proposed radical legislation, with accompanying agitation,
and a slump in American meat exports, caused such violent disturbance
of the livestock markets during the latter half of the year that both
producers and packers became deeply concerned as to the immediate
future of the industry.

No array of proved facts as to the low percentage of packer profits,
no pointing out of the real factors controlling meat and livestock
prices was sufficient to convince the disturbed element of the public
and certain agents of the Government that packers’ operations on the
existing large scale were justifiable.

Therefore, by a recent understanding with the Government, Armour and
Company will dispose of all their interests in food production, not
directly associated with and dependent upon the meat packing business.
In addition, Armour and other packers agree to relinquish interests
in stock yards and railway terminal properties at the various market
centers. The terms of the understanding permit the retention of dairy
and poultry products in view of the dependence of these on such
refrigerating and distributive facilities as the packers have provided.

Both patriotism and enlightened self-interest command every citizen
and business to make concessions and sacrifices in times of crises,
whether of war or peace; and while Armour and Company felt that they
were clearly within their rights in their operations previous to this
understanding with the Government, it was plainly in the line of public
service to make concessions that would clear the way towards public
confidence in the development of the livestock industry.

    J. Ogden Armour

[Illustration: Running against a “glutted market” in the “good old
days.” Today the stockman’s market is nation-wide.]




How and Why Livestock Market Grew


THERE was a time, within the memory of men still active in the cattle
business, when the capacity and demand of the local butcher shop
measured the demand for fat stock and fixed the price as well.

On driving his cattle to the village, or negotiating for their sale,
it was not uncommon for the stockman to be met with the news that a
neighbor had got ahead of him and glutted the market with two or three
or more meat animals. No matter how good the offerings, there was no
present market at any price.

This was the condition of the livestock business in the “good old
days” before the establishing of the great packing centers; before the
development of economical systems of slaughtering, saving the waste,
and distributing dressed beef quickly and continuously to the remotest
parts of the country.

No stockman now considers the demand of the local butcher as a serious
factor in making or breaking the market for his cattle. If he is
feeding a carload or more, he has an approximate date set for the
finishing of his feed. By keeping in close touch with the supply of
cattle in the country, their movement and the trend of prices, he
chooses what appears to be the most favorable day and ships them to the
market.

Even if he is feeding only a few head, the disposal of them is not
dependent upon local demand. He may double-up with his neighbors to
make up a car. He may belong to a shipping association that makes a
business of collecting small lots into carloads for direct shipment,
and although he sells to the local stock buyer, his knowledge of what
his cattle are worth at the central markets enables him to secure a
fair price.

So it has come about that world demand determines prices and governs
buying activities in every town and village where livestock is
purchased. For local butchers everywhere are governed by prices at the
central markets. The truth is that the most successful butchers no
longer do their own killing, but buy their beef from packers’ branch
houses in the larger cities and towns or from “route cars” running from
packing plants or branch houses into the smaller communities.

In doing this they get better beef at lower cost than by local
slaughtering, and they can serve their customers with a safer and more
satisfactory article because the animal is killed and the meat prepared
under the stringent government inspection and sanitary regulations
that are practiced only in the larger establishments. This insures
absolute freedom from diseased conditions and careless handling.

Practical butchers, who are also feeders, have proved by test that they
can ship their beef cattle hundreds of miles to the big packer, have
them slaughtered, dressed and returned at less cost than they can do
their own killing. This is possible because the utilization of every
scrap of the animals in valuable by-products, and the saving in labor
by wholesale slaughtering and handling, pay all expenses, including the
freight both ways, and leave a margin for the butcher besides.

The local butcher or livestock producer can little better afford to
kill and prepare his own beef than he can afford to tan the hide and
make his own shoes. There was a time, even in America, when the farmer
himself actually did these things. He also sheared his own sheep by
hand, while his wife and daughters spun the wool into yarn and wove
cloth for the family clothing. Progress has made such methods absurd,
unprofitable and impracticable.

But the great machinery of economical production and distribution
was not built in a day, or a year, or a decade. Armour and Company’s
activities began more than fifty years ago. At first the packing
house was only a butcher shop on an enlarged scale, preparing and
handling pork products almost exclusively. Cattle were killed for
local consumption only, as there was no such thing as cold storage,
refrigerator car lines or branch houses for the distribution of fresh
meats.

In those days the offal from the packing houses was thrown away or
buried, as is still done to considerable extent by the small butcher
at the present time. The by-products industries, by which hundreds
of valuable articles are now created from what was once waste,
were developed through long years of scientific investigation and
experimentation.

The efficiency of the Armour organization of today is the result of the
accumulated efforts of thousands of trained scientific and business
minds, applied through half a century to the solution of the problem of
factoring and furnishing food supplies for the nation and the world by
the most direct and efficient means.

Nothing less than a great and thoroughly organized concern could effect
the economies that make such achievement possible. Armour and Company’s
growth has been, and is, simply the natural expansion of a great
industry keeping pace with the progress of the producer.




Re-investment and Expansion Policy


NO amount of criticism, investigation, misrepresentations or
“exposures” has ever shaken Armour and Company’s faith in the fairness
and final endorsement of the great body of American livestock producers.

That the consumer found grievance in recent high food prices and
attributed his troubles to the packer or producer, or both, was perhaps
not to be wondered at, though his reasoning was not sound. That
competing food distributors should object to the extension of packer
efficiency to general food distribution is easily understood from these
competitors’ viewpoint.

The retirement of Armour and Company from all lines of production
and distribution not directly associated with meats and livestock
by-products, was in response to these disturbed elements of public
opinion. But these restrictions of packer activities in no way affect
the relations of mutual confidence and dependence between Armour and
Company and the livestock producers.

The fundamental things remain, and they are these: The livestock
industry must continue to exist and expand; producers must be rewarded
with fair profits; livestock markets must be maintained and made more
convenient; and the markets for meat products must be enlarged and
extended.

To these basic facts Armour and Company have pinned their business
faith, and upon them shaped their policy. Ninety per cent of the
profits of the Company have been re-invested in the business and
are represented today by great packing plants at sixteen market
centers, and many branch houses throughout the country, together with
refrigerator car lines connecting the livestock markets with the
consuming centers of the nation.

It requires no argument to show the livestock producer that his
interests and profits are inseparably associated with these properties,
and it is quite as plain that the necessities and conveniences of the
consuming public are dependent upon and served by them.

America and the world will continue to demand more and more meat and
other products from livestock. Agriculture will not successfully
continue without the production of meat animals. So the future reveals
no reason why Armour and Company should not continue the policy of
re-investing their earnings in the business that gives the most direct
and substantial support to the basic industry of animal husbandry.

[Illustration: The packer must, with utmost carefulness, balance his
daily purchases against his daily sales.]




Aspects of Big Business Explained


THE simple recital of an ordinary day’s doings of Armour and Company’s
beef department will make plain a number of things that may appear
mysterious to a casual observer. Each day, at the opening of the
market, the manager of the beef department must carefully weigh the
possibilities of his sales and shipments of beef carcasses against the
receipts of cattle of the quality demanded by his trade. And he must
buy accordingly.

The prevailing idea that, because of cold storage facilities at
the packing centers, unlimited numbers of cattle of all grades and
qualities can be absorbed and slaughtered, is wrong. For even though
cold storage capacity were unlimited, beef cannot be held. Each day’s
kill must find room in chill and storage rooms by the shipment of about
an equal number of carcasses _out_ of storage to Armour’s branch houses
located in all parts of the country.

These branch houses must, in turn, dispose of each shipment promptly to
make room for new arrivals. Each branch manager receives a memorandum
of the cost of the beef, and of course is expected to sell it at a
profit. But he _must_ sell it within a very limited time, even if he
cannot show a profit.

Local conditions determine this. He may meet with unforeseen
competition in the kind of meats he has ordered, or the demand for
meats may have fallen off for one or a dozen of reasons, or for no
discoverable reason at all. These known and unknown influences on the
demand govern his market and he has to accept the situation, depending
on evening up the score under more favorable conditions.

Of course a decline or advance at one or a few branch house points,
from merely local causes, does not materially affect the market at the
packing centers, but any widespread fluctuation from general causes is
immediately reflected in cattle prices at all of the great markets.

The best way for a producer to learn what determines the price he gets
for his livestock is to visit the nearest Armour branch house and get
first hand information on the facts that govern meat prices at the
final market.

Any Armour branch manager will welcome visitors and willingly answer
questions. He will explain not only the factors that influence the
general level of prices, but will point out why cuts from certain types
of beef carcasses are in constant demand at the highest prices, while
similar cuts from other carcasses are neglected and sell materially
lower.

There is a type of beef carcass that is best and commands the best
price, and it costs no more to produce than an inferior type. The same
is true of mutton and pork. Any Armour branch manager will show you
what these types are and the Armour Farm Bureau will furnish, without
charge, information on improved methods of producing the sort of
animals that are most in demand for meat purposes.

One aspect of the big packing business, the importance of which is not
generally appreciated, is refrigeration. It is not too much to say that
without ample means of refrigeration, both in storage and in transit,
no fit and adequate supply of fresh meats and dairy products could be
supplied to the public.

Food refrigeration originated with the meat packing business early in
its history. At first only storage refrigeration was practiced for
the purpose of conserving and equalizing the supply of fresh meats
for local or near-by consumption. Then came the conception of transit
refrigeration, and the refrigerator car was invented, primarily for the
purpose of shipping fresh meats from the producing centers of the West
to the consuming centers of the East.

From the transportation of fresh meats, the extension of the service
to the carrying of fresh fruits, vegetables and dairy products was a
natural and easy step, resulting in the development and maintenance of
the great orchard lands and fruit and market garden areas from coast to
coast, and the tremendous expansion of the indispensable industry of
dairy farming all over America.

To the livestock producer refrigeration in storage and in transit means
everything. Without it the great packing interests could not exist and
livestock husbandry would revert to the primitive and unprofitable
conditions prevailing fifty years ago and described in the preceding
chapter.

These facts explain why Armour and Company have persistently
opposed every attempt to deprive them of the exclusive use of their
privately-owned refrigerator cars and turn them over to the railroad
companies for general use. To maintain the necessary constant movement
of meat products Armour must have an adequate supply of these cars
every day in the year. Extended experience has proven that they would
not and could not be supplied by any form of railroad administration,
either governmental or corporate, yet devised.




Declining Livestock Prices and the Causes


BRIEFLY outlined herewith is a resumé of what are accepted as the chief
causes contributing to the sharp decline in livestock prices during
1919.

The discontinuance of Government orders for beef was the principal
thing which affected cattle prices in the late spring. From being a
purchaser the Government became a seller in the domestic market. Added
to this, there has been unusual labor unrest, large supplies, agitation
against the high cost of living, low foreign exchange rates, and the
English boycott against high prices.

The falling off in hog prices was far more serious than in the case of
beef, because normal demand for hogs is based on the consideration of
large exports, while the market for beef is primarily and principally
domestic.

The great demand for American pork products which was confidently
expected from European countries did not materialize, because of the
extraordinary and unforeseen development of exchange conditions which
made purchases on the American market practically impossible.

The earlier part of 1919 was marked by an unprecedented export of pork
products, reaching in the month of June the high point of over 400
million pounds. From this point the drop was sharp and continuous,
month by month, the figures for October showing total exports of less
than 120 million pounds—a falling off of 70% in four months. These
later exports were on orders booked earlier in the year, and not on new
business.

Added to these principal factors, and aggravating them, were attempted
boycotts of meat and proposed radical legislation for the regulation
and restriction of the packing industry, and the resulting condition
of uncertainty up to the very closing weeks of 1919, when the
understanding between the packers and the U. S. Department of Justice
was made public.

The big question is, What of the year 1920? While nothing positive can
be predicted, better conditions is a practical certainty. The domestic
consumption of beef is increasing to a gratifying degree; the arranging
of international credits and the opening of foreign markets is a matter
of comparatively short time. European need for pork products will be
urgent and excessive for a considerable time, and this will not only
take care of our surplus hogs, but will react favorably upon the market
for cattle and sheep.




Standard Breeds _of_ Beef Cattle


ABERDEEN-ANGUS

Early maturing; transmits polled character; high dressing percentage;
high proportion valuable cuts.

[Illustration: Aberdeen-Angus]


SHORTHORN

Greatest weight for age; dress out well at slaughter; quiet
disposition; strong milking tendencies.

[Illustration: Shorthorn]


GALLOWAY

Prepotent; adapted to rugged regions; high carcass value; valuable hide.

[Illustration: Galloway]


POLLED SHORTHORN

Characteristics similar to Shorthorn except polled; some strains dual
purpose.

[Illustration: Polled Shorthorn]


HEREFORD

Best grazing breed; matures early; fattens rapidly; good weight for age.

[Illustration: Hereford]


RED POLLED

Strictly dual purpose; fair grazers; early maturing.

[Illustration: Red Polled]




The Livestock Situation


RIGHT now is a good time to stick to the middle of the highway of
common sense. As shown in earlier chapters, the conditions adverse
to the business can be only temporary, and even the losses incurred
may be turned to profit in the end, if the livestock men shall learn
the lesson of economy and efficiency of production and more complete
co-operation among themselves and with the packing industry.

Recent experiences will impel some producers to curtail or discontinue
their operations temporarily, but others will take their places and
quantity of production will be maintained while quality will be
increased.

High-priced land, grain and labor will compel stockmen to grade up
their herds, to discriminate more closely in the purchase of feeding
stock, to improve feeding methods and to keep exact records of costs.
For at the higher level of costs and values all around, as compared
with prewar times, both the risks and rewards of the business will be
greater.

As co-operative activities are extended among producers, it may be
found advisable for livestock associations to employ expert buyers
at the various markets whose duty shall be the filling of orders for
association members, for the choice of feeders cannot be safely based
on personal fancy. The only true guide is unbiased judgment as to what
the market demands in the finished product and what type of feeding
cattle will yield the result.

An experienced buyer of keen judgment, constantly in touch with the
market, should prove as valuable to producers as the expert buyer of
fat cattle is to the packer.

Such expert selection of feeders would take the guesswork out of the
first and most important step in feeding.

Generally speaking, the consumers’ demand is constantly for better
meats from comparatively young animals. Taking the situation the
country over with present prices of feed stuffs considered, it has been
found that beef cattle make most money for the producer if not held
past the age of two years. But there is no hard-and-fast rule for the
guidance of every individual producer; the heavy, well-finished cattle
always bring high prices. Only by keeping an accurate feeding record
can the producer decide for himself what policy is most advantageous in
his case, or determine when his steers stop making sufficient gains to
compensate him for the feed required.




Armour’s 1919 Livestock Purchases


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.




Financial Aspects of Livestock Industry


ONE of the most significant and gratifying gains in the livestock
business during the decade just past is the recognition of its
financial soundness. This is reflected in the changed attitude of
financiers and investors towards cattle paper. While a decade ago
bankers in the great financial centers looked with suspicion upon
such securities, now bankers and business men throughout the country
purchase approximately $500,000,000 of cattle paper annually and regard
it as among the safest investments.

Melvin A. Traylor, President of the First Trust and Savings Bank
of Chicago, declares that “loans on livestock are the best of all
investments,” and President Thos. P. Martin, of the Oklahoma Stock
Yards Bank, Oklahoma City, agrees with him. This latter bank loaned
$45,000,000 in seven years to cattle producers in Oklahoma, Texas and
New Mexico, only fifty dollars of the amount loaned being lost. It is
doubtful if any other industrial securities could make a better or even
an equal showing.

There is still some difficulty in arranging loans in some sections of
the country, where bankers have not yet realized the changed conditions
of the business and farmers have not given the proper emphasis to the
improvement of livestock production. But generally speaking the cattle
feeder with good judgment in the breeding and selection of feeders
meets with no obstacles in financing his operations.

Most country bankers freely accept cattle paper because it is readily
rediscounted in the country’s financial centers. But many of them urge
the borrowing feeders to keep accounts and determine accurately their
profits and losses.

This is to the interest of the feeder and the cattle industry as a
whole. For if the business is ever to be placed on a cost-of-production
basis for the reckoning of market prices, it must be done by an
accumulation of thousands of actual tests in feeding practice. It
is plain that each individual feeder could not set or ask a certain
percentage of profit, since a poor judge of stock and a careless feeder
would demand more for an inferior product than the more efficient
feeder would ask for a better article.

The feasibility of any such scheme of regulating prices does not now
appear, but it is clear in any case that each lot of cattle would have
to be appraised at what their production _ought_ to cost, considering
quality, and not what it actually _did_ cost.

[Illustration: Bankers now recognize cattle loans as good investments,
and the skilled stockman has access to needed funds.]




Losses on Declining Markets


THAT the packing industry suffers with the livestock producers on a
falling market was never more clearly emphasized than in the year
1919. Armour and Company’s losses on dressed beef alone amounted, in
the twelve months, to several million dollars; and on the sale of pork
products the losses were even greater.

These losses are figured on the basis of the primary sales, which
include not only the meat but the hides and all other by-products
derived from the animals.

Such deficits do not mean that the Armour organization, as a whole,
suffered a net loss for the year. But there is no mystery about the
methods of countering these deficits. They are offset by the profit
made in manufacturing by-products into merchantable commodities.
Each by-product industry in the Armour organization is placed on its
own responsibility. It must pay to the beef, hog, or sheep killing
department the market value for its raw materials—the same price it
would pay if it purchased on the outside market.

For example, the beef department buys its cattle to the best possible
advantage in competition with other buyers, and sells the beef at the
best price obtainable. The hides go to the tannery at prices ruling on
the open market. If the Armour tannery cannot pay this price the hides
go to outside buyers. To sell at less would be favoring the tannery at
the expense of the beef department, or robbing Peter to pay Paul.

The same business methods are pursued with every scrap of the animal,
whether used in making glue, soap, sand-paper, drugs, fertilizers, or
any other commodity.

While on this basis Armour and Company sustained heavy losses in their
meat departments, the by-product industries showed profits, as they
usually do, because their products are not so perishable and are not so
much influenced by market fluctuations.

These by-product industries are, in short, the insurance of the packers
against crippling losses, and may be likened to the activities of the
up-to-date livestock farmer, who diversifies his operations by feeding
cattle and hogs and by keeping fowls, sheep and dairy cows, so that if
he loses on cattle or hogs he may offset his losses by better prices
for lambs, wool, butter, eggs, poultry, or a money crop.




Why Prices Fluctuate


PRICES for livestock are not controlled by packers, and only to a
limited extent by the supply of cattle in the market. They go up or
down in response to the price the consumer is willing to pay for meat.

Note how closely the two lines in the chart, representing prices of
cattle and dressed beef, follow each other through the two and a half
years covered by the graph. America’s twenty million food shoppers
determine the dressed beef price, by their willingness or refusal to
accept beef at the price asked in competition with other food. And
naturally dressed beef prices react directly and at once on cattle
prices.

It is often necessary for the packer to take a marginal loss on beef in
order to stimulate demand, but he must at once hedge against this loss
by buying cattle cheaper. He tries to fit the price he pays for cattle
each day to the price he is obtaining for beef. Only by so doing can he
maintain his business on present small margins. Large receipts of fish,
poultry, game, eggs, vegetables or fruit at certain seasons also affect
the price the public is willing to pay for beef, and this is reflected
in the price the packer can afford to pay for the live animal.

It is plain that the packer cannot determine retail meat prices, simply
because he cannot say to the consumer at the butcher’s counter, “You
must buy meat and you must pay such and such a price.” Because he
cannot do this he cannot control the prices of livestock.

[Illustration: WHAT MAKES THE PRICE OF CATTLE

THIS CHART SHOWS THAT DEMAND BY CONSUMERS IS THE BIG FACTOR]




What Efficient Distribution Means


LIVESTOCK producers are, of course, engaged in an absolutely
indispensable industry. Of scarcely less importance is the packing
business. For upon food production and preparation depend all other
industries and activities.

But it is profitable and enlightening to ask, of what use would be
production and preparation without means for delivering the food to the
consumer? The mere asking brings realization of the prime importance
of ample and uninterrupted transportation and distribution of packing
house products to consumers through the retailers of the country.

And this, in turn, brings us to the consideration of the packers’
salesmen in the hundreds of cities and towns throughout America, which
as a whole make up the final market for the producer’s livestock.

With the sale of his meat animals by the commission man at the primary
market, the owner seems to witness the end of the transaction as far as
he is concerned. But does he?

Could the commission man sell and the packer buy the livestock if it
were not for another salesman and another buyer out at the farthest end
of the market system transacting business with each other in the retail
market?

Again the question answers itself. For the packer’s salesman is
literally the salesman of the livestock producer at the final market,
upon which all other markets depend. The advertising and educational
activities conducted by the packer continuously broaden and intensify
the ultimate market for the products which the livestock man produces.
It devolves upon these agencies to keep the meat products moving
towards final consumption, just as the man at the measuring spout of
the old-fashioned threshing machine had to keep the grain out of the
way and prevent congestion.

There are two distinct divisions of the process of turning livestock
into available meat supplies. First, the production, shipment and sale
of livestock. Second, the preparation, transportation and distribution
of meat products to retailers. The two are interrelated and absolutely
dependent one upon the other.

The opportunity for organized producers to take complete possession
of their end of the process by assuming control of the stockyards, is
offered in the passing of that control from the packing industries by
virtue of the recent understanding with the U. S. Government.

[Illustration: The packer’s salesman is literally the farmer’s salesman
in the thousands of “final markets” throughout the land.]




Farming as a Business


ALL business undertakings are ventures. Under the best of conditions
there are fat and lean years, and the possibility of failure, due to
poor management, lack of capital, or adversity, is always present.

Farming is no exception. It is in essence a business proposition, and
should be so regarded.

A knowledge of crops, of soils and tillage, of livestock breeding
and feeding and other purely agricultural subjects constitutes but
one side of the farming industry. On top of this come the important
matters of business management—the buying of seeds, fertilizers, feed
stuffs, livestock and general equipment and supplies; the erecting
and maintenance of buildings; the arrangements for necessary credit;
keeping in touch with market conditions and prices; the hiring of
help, and finally the establishing and operation of an accurate
cost-accounting system.

Yet when all is said and done, records indicate that farming offers
more chances of success than almost any other line of business
endeavor. A retail merchant, according to statistics, has from two
to four chances in ten to conduct his business successfully for
fifteen years; a manufacturer has from two to seven chances to do the
same. Farming is conspicuous for its small percentage of out-and-out
failures. Living is practically assured, which gives the farmer a
distinct working advantage to begin with. He enjoys a cash market and
is not called upon to suffer bad debt losses. He is in an industry that
is absolutely essential, which cannot be destroyed by any shifting of
circumstances.

The greatest need is doubtless for cost-accounting systems which will
serve as a guide, not only to prevent unwise purchases, but to indicate
wise expenditures in improvements that will bring a good return on
investment, and to show definitely the amount of profit obtained on
each transaction. Next to this in importance is perhaps the need
for a thorough understanding of crop rotation and the principle of
diversified farming as a means of offsetting losses in one line with
gains in another. The securing of credit to enable expansion, and the
adoption of labor-saving devices are also essential.

Profits and losses in farming must be reckoned, as in all other
businesses, on averages over a term of years. But the future
offers better assurance than ever before to the man who is a good
agriculturist and at the same time a skillful business manager.




We Stand or Fall Together


WITH some elements of the American public there seems to persist the
conviction that the great packing concerns are seeking the injury of
livestock producers to their own enrichment. How such an idea can be
seriously harbored by thinking men is hard to understand. For the
packing industry to plan for the farmer anything but prosperity is to
endanger or destroy the source of supply of the raw material by which
it lives and grows.

It should be perfectly plain that the packers are selfishly interested
in encouraging the producer. Their selling efforts are directed towards
disposing of the largest possible volume of meat products, at the best
price obtainable in competition with other foods, in order that they
may maintain large volume of livestock purchases at prices that will
encourage both quantity and quality of production.

Between the producer and the consumer, between the buying and the
selling price, the packers operate upon a smaller margin of profit than
any other large industry. On invested capital they have realized an
average of about 9 per cent over a term of years, on volume of sales
about 2 per cent, and on each pound of meat less than one-half of a
cent.

At the same time the risks of the business are greater than in other
lines, both on account of the perishable nature of the product and the
violent fluctuations of food prices, the causes for which cannot always
be foreseen.

The comparative low prices of hogs and pork products at the end of 1919
is a case in point. The packing business entered upon the year in the
belief that the world shortage of food would maintain pork prices at
high levels for a number of years; that European demand would absorb
even a larger surplus of American hogs than the pre-war period. The
earlier months of 1919 confirmed this belief. The foreign demand was
very brisk, exports reached unprecedented volume and prices were
maintained.

Then came the unlooked-for event. Foreign exchange rates fell to so low
a point that Europeans could no longer afford to buy American meats.
The packers extended credit for a time, but the limit of safety was
soon reached, and when the year closed very little American pork was
being exported and no new contracts were being made.

The result was great loss to both producers and packers. Armour and
Company alone packed millions of pounds of pork during the period of
high prices, much of which was still in the course of curing when the
slump in the market came.

But the conditions that caused this decline and loss are exceptional
and only temporary. The great foreign need for American meats still
exists—the greatest need in the world’s history. The ability of Europe
to buy will be restored with the full restoration of peace and the
arrangement of international credits. The result will be a return of
profits and prosperity to both producers and packers of pork.

The facts to keep in mind are these:

First, there must finally be a realignment of prices on all livestock
and meats, to levels below the prevailing high war prices. A fair
balance must be struck between the interests of the consumer and those
of the producer. Prices for meat must be sufficiently attractive to
consumers to insure an adequate volume of sales; on the other hand
prices for livestock must be sufficiently high to encourage production.
Only on this basis can the industry thrive.

Second, the utmost care must be taken in breeding and buying of feeding
stock and the most exacting economy practiced in feeding methods.

Third, the producer must realize that the packer is his natural ally
in maintaining the prosperity of the two inseparable branches of the
livestock industry—production and packing.

It is a reassuring sign that producers and packers are already getting
together on a platform of better understanding of their mutual
interests, both for protection against disturbing agitation and
legislation and for the correction of whatever inequalities or abuses
may exist in the shipping and marketing of livestock.

Armour and Company’s Farm Bureau was established three years ago as a
point of contact with livestock men, through which better methods of
breeding, feeding, shipping and marketing could be promoted.

Being in constant touch with the requirements of the markets, Armour
and Company know the types of meat animals which are most demanded
and which bring the largest profit to the stockman. The Farm Bureau
has available many facts regarding the economical production of these
types, and these facts can be had by addressing the Bureau, care of
Armour and Company, Chicago.







