Omaha daily bee., 1916-07-10
Bad Year for Feeders.

Bad Year for Feeders.
THE feeders Of the country had a
hard time last year, and it is perfectly
well known to every one who is en-
gagged in the industry that it was an
abnormal year in many respects, in
that the foot and mouth disease,
failure Of the corn crop in some sec.
tons, and the poor quality in others,
caused by too much moisture and
early frosts and high price of feed
stuffs and feeding cattle, all making
for the high cost Of production, were
responsible for it in part. The main
reason. however, was the depressed
condition in business resulting in low
consumer purchasing power and in
ability, on part Of consumer, to pay
higher prices for beef.
| There may be, roughly, perhaps,
million people in this country en-
gagged in the business of producing
live stock, perhaps more, whose chief
interest, naturally, is to get as much
for their cattle as they can. On the
other hand, there are a hundred and
one million people in this country who
are not interested in what the farmers
get for their cattle. Their interest is
to see how cheap they can buy their
beefsteak and their purchasing power
determines the price that the retailer
pays US for cattle and contrary to the
popular idea, the middle man Oh
packer. has little voice in the matter
"You have heard our friends say
that they thought they would &c,
more money for cattle IL there wa.
more competition in buying; in other
words, more firms In the industry
more people to buy cattle. This
would, Of course, mean more competi.
ton in buying, cause higher prices fol
cattle, more competition In selling
would cause beef to be sold cheaper
This would do two things-narrow
the slaughterer's present margin
which Is as small as the business car
be conducted on and at the same time
increase the cost Of doing business BY
dividing 1t up into smaller units, with
the ultimate result that there would
be no margin of profit, and probably
the business would be conducted at !
loss which means that the survivors
would be the people whose income
came partially from other bushes.
than the slaughtering of beef, Ir
other words, il our volume OF bushes.
or that of any firm, was decreased 3
third, or SO per cent, It would not b.
within the limits of possibility to Gu,
down the expenses so as TO make tn,
cost Of doing business the same a.
with the present volume.
Some Statistics.
II want here to give you these
statistics-that the average sold pric,
Of beef through all OF Armour & CO..
branch houses in the United State.
for the calendar year OF 1914 was |.
cents pound, and the average sole
price Of beef through the same house,
in the year 1915 was TX cents
pound, and the purchase price of al
graded and kinds of cattle by Armou
& Co., for the year 1914 was S.i2
while in the year 1915 it was sos, 4,
decrease of 6 cents per hundre,
weight, or less than LILO Of ! cent pc
pound. showing clearly that cattle di,
not sell much.
lower and beef did sell much lower
And want to offer this chart, q
made up from our records, showing
in two colored lines the fluctuation
in Armour & Co, purchase price 70
cattle, and the selling price of bee
in the United States for the last tire
years.
Lest there be any confusion o,
your minds as to how we do our bust
ness. ! want to say that we do no
sell at retail, but to the retail butcher.
1t has been said here that the price a
retail does no fluetuate with the pric
OF live cattle. That Is = separat
| h,.arh ~ the trada and , .rhtset -,