Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1906-12-20
| he
Unjust Discrimination.

out to Marshall county farmers why
| they did not receive the amount it was
| their fair share to receive for poultry,
| who received the excessive share and
how. This was matter of equal in
terest to the consumer as we'll as to the
producer. l promised in that article
l. to take up the further matter of our
Marshalltown market with reference to
cattle and hogs Having an abiding
faith that the farmer should have his
fair proportion in the markets for
things he produces and believing the
best way to reach that result Is to pub
fish the details showing how he Is dis
eliminated against, Is the purpose OF
this article The following is where
the shoe pinches.' The time was
when cattle feeding in Iowa was pro-
fitable That is, farmers were certain
without weighing cattle and feed that
they were making better than market
price for corn Now they carefully
weigh their cattle and corn for fear
the results will show, nothing above
market price for the feed. Why and
how has this change been brought
about l may not be right but give
my solution of 1t.
Formerly our farmers were permitted
to go to points on the Missouri river
or beyond, buy the grass fed cattle and
In shipping pay the freight thru to
market, Chicago, ON thru rate. Switch
out at Marshalltown, fatten them on
our corn to finish and send them on
to market, paying for the excess Of
weight where fattened over the weight
when received. This custom prevailed
for years, was known as feeding
In transit rate" and from its long con
tlnu3nc@ WAS apparently as profitable
to the railroads as 1t was satisfact tory
to the feeders.
Finally some four or five years ago,
railroad official appeared and whom
with a freshly sharpened pencil began
figuring to see how he could transfer
the hard earned profit of the farmer
to the revenues of the railroad. These
men are bright fellows, on hand at all
occasions with their opinions and argu-
ments, paid big salaries because they
are effective in producing revenues 1t
was found that farmers We're reason
ably prosperous under the practice Of
the feeding in transit" arrangement
as mentioned. This was no new prin-
ciple. Milling In transit is in full oper-
alton today and has been for fifty years
or more Feeding in transit was equal.
ly profitable to the western herdsman,
who could Craze his cattle cheaply up
on the cheap grazing domain of the
west and satisfactory to the feeder who
could fatten the cattle upon the high
priced corn land of Iowa. 1t Is here
that the railroad official with his lead
pencil "butted in" to get the greater
part of the profit, earned by the farmer,
transferred to his company. The first
move was an order issued AL feeding
in transit rates are withdrawn" and
have ever since SO remained to the
Iowa cattle feeder
Let us see how this worked out. I'm
der the former plan the Marshall co1n-
ty farmer who wished to fatten a car
20 head--of cattle. could go to Kan
sas City we will say, and buy his 70
head of grass fed cattle-of weight,
say 1000 lbs. each. The rate now on
cattle from Missouri river points to
Chicago is 231s cents per head. Under
the feeding in transit" this amount
would be paid thru plus 81, switching
charges at Marshalltown.
Suppose this car of cattle were fed
the usual standard Of 100 bushels OF
corn each and rushed on to the Chicago
market at an increase in weight of 500
pounds each. The freight account
would then stand:
20, head, 10000 lbs Kansas City to
Chicago at 231ac ............. $4,000
Switching at Marshalltown $50. 200
Extra increased weight, 10000 at
22c -. ................... 22.OO
Total railroad share for freight. $71.00
Let us see how 1t is now.
The same cattle, Kansas City to
Marshalltown at 15c .........$30.00
Same when finished, 10000 at
nc ~. 81. oo.VV
Terminal charge, Chicago ....... 200
Railroad share after the pen
Gil worked $So.VV
Or difference on each car taken
from the legitimate fair share of the