The Farmington times and herald. (Farmington, St. Francois Co., Mo.) 1902-1905, 1905-03-31
THE BEEF TRUSTS PROFITS.
Forty Three Per Cent Instead Of Two PEI
Cent, as Commissioner Garfield
Estimated il in His Report

Cuthbprt Powell, commercial rdi
for Of the Kansas CiIy Journal ant
for more than quarter Of Il cen.
tury in close touch with the pnck
ing house aud livestock interests Ot
,nr West, says II dispatch to the
thIragu Record Herald, hnS pre-.
pared M article, based on arrurnt,
figures, t0 show that Commissioner
Garfield was in error when hr re-.
parted TINT packers make profit
of only 80 ccuts n head
Mr.. Powell ; investigation show,
thnt th" average net profit to the
packers instead of > per cent on
the price of cattle, is - / | head,
nr T. per cent on the price Of eat
tie, and that this profit Is turned
over every two or tour weeks
twelve to twenty four times a year
OF coursr.' says Mr.. Powell
all cattle do not kill ont alike
some crossing more thHn others
They net all the way from fitty.twc
To slNty.two pounds To- the hundred
pounds IN clear meat, the latter he.
ing the percentage for choice rX.
port steers. -
lie gives some carefully prepared
figures, hnsrd upon the years kill
ing Of Il big packing plant, repre-
scntlug all grades coming to it in
that time, which are rmlneutly fair,
including as many or more cheap
and medium cattle rs better ones
The result of these figures shows
that the plant received for what is
termed uftnl nn average OF
TlJ.l4 per head, rs follows: Az
rruge value of hides per head,
S932 of fats, ~ lG, and Of oilal
- 2G-totnl Sli.l4.
1t is plain from these figures why
the little houses can not prosper
The small offul and the fats Weld
the big houses Il profit of 80 per
head, which Is mostly lost hy the
little killer. Aud when the value
ot the cured hide Is added the large
packing companies receive Il gross
income from the side products of
| go IA. Native steers on the huOf
averaging ,2Oj pounds and dress
ing - per cent in killing, making
200 pound, of clear meat, selling
on this market at - - per hundred
weight, which would make their
cost at the yard on the hoot Sj1 %
Taking from this the value of the
otlal shown above to be 50. II,
and the cost of the net carcass to
the packer is 81 90.
Now for this carcass, the same
date, packers were receiving au nv.
rragr of cents per pound This
would give for the 700 pounds of
meat Sj2.j for the average. Kill
ing, the cost of which approximate
| Iy is 30 cents per head, leaves So
net for the carcass. Deducting
from this ~ .OG, the cost of the
live animal, after allowing $lj IA,
the value of the otfal, and there
remains gross profit to the packer
of - 81 per head.
But there are the general expense
of the plant and extraordinary dis.
bursements to be accounted for,
and 81 80 per head on cattle will
be allowd for this, which IL II very
liberal estimate. Still there re
mains S1.4l per head net profit to
the packers.
Applying the average profit OF
$7.4l on cattle, 20 cents on hogs
80 cents on sheep and 30 cents on
calves. to the total number Of head
killed in a year by the combine
: packing houses, gives total profit
of 81 ,127, AZ. Figuring upot
the total capitalization, undoubted
~ heavily watered, of $ll0, 800.
600, we have i3 per cent.
The Commoner, commenting OF
the above and the absurdity o
, Mr.. Gariicld's findings" " says ther,
: is quite u difference between Mr.
Garfcld's 80 cents profit per hea,
! and Mr.. Powell'e $74l profit; an,
quite Il difference between Mr.. Gar
, field , per cent net profit and Mr.
| Powell'S - per cent. Yet ther
$ are some Republican editors win
. point with pride to the Garfield re
port and insist that it proves tina
{ there is no such thing as n bee
Il trust.
s-=z=-------