Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1919-11-04
PACKERS ASKED
REASON DRESSED
PORK IS So HIGH
Food Administrator Wilson
Shows Reduction in Price
of Live Hogs.

Feftlnent inquiry OF the large
packers as to why dressed pork prices
have mot come down during the last
few weeks in keeping with the re-
duction of hogs on the hoof is made
in a letter address by Clarence r.
Wilson, federal food administrator for
Washington, to Thomas E. Wilson,
president of Wilson & Co., Inc. of Chi
cago.
The letter states that the same
situation has been observed in the
prices quoted, by all OF the big Ave"
packers. but the difference more
marked in the case of Wilson & Co.,
says the food administrator. and: FUR,
thermorA a speech~made by T. e.
Wilson before the American Institute
Of Meat Packers, at Atlantic City
last September, seems to need some
explanation in the light of present
prices.
Mr.. Wilson's Letter.
The letter quotes from Mr.. wilson's
speech, as follows:
ing, according to census figures, have
only 12h per cent of their value
added by manufacture Only about
ner cent of this Increase represents
the packers rate Of profit"
IF this Is true" continues the To-
cal food administrators letter in part.
"the principal part of the cost of hog
products is the cost of the live hog.
1t seems that consumers have right
to expect q very. substantial drop in
prices of hog products.
Local Manager Quoted.
.Your local manager reports that in
the week ending August IL your COM
pany sold pork ipins at an, average
pffce Of $a7.s0, and that IN the week
ending October seven weeks later.
s sss ne ne. g sqee i az VIZ nxsr
have assumed that 1t takes a week to
slaughter in Chicago and get FRESH
pork products to Washington. have,
tAerseere, tsken hive big pricss 81 Az E.
ssis.ss5 and mud ! drop of ssss~ me
public gets The benefit Of less than
half Of that decline.
Tn the matter of costs the state
ment furnished by your manager Is
still more remarkable. He reports the
$34.03 August l6 to %34.32 October 4,
while 1--we hogs declined as stated
above $4.65 a hundred. II the raw ma
terfal constitutes IS per cent Of the
cost, as stated In your speech at At
iduhC SAsys oNSAA eAa AaASA Se>0S a. SScs
..In- his statement for the week end
ing September 20 your manager re-
ports cost OF pork loins at $34.18, and
cost of regular Laurel\hams at $3.50.
In other words, a cured pork product
costs less than an uncured pork
product Furthermore. taking five
weeks for the preparation of hams for
the market, and a week for the prepa-
ration Of pork loins. the raw material
for the hams cost 5000 a hundred and
the raw material for the loins cost
$17.30 q hundred. Yet your manager
informs me. that the cost OF the lofns
is greater than the cost of the hams.
which have considerably more labor
expended on them. and, as raw ma
terfals, cost $50 hundred higher"
Pertinent Questions Asked. !.
Concluding the letter. Mr.. Clarence
Wilson says:
"In view of these facts 1 beg to
inquire "a why your prices, q pork
products have not, in some appreci-
able degree at least, followed the
decline in the prices of live hogs: (2)
why the prices of pork loins, fresh
meat, persistently remain. higher
than your cured meats. the cost of
which must be enhanced by labor;
and cd why pork lofn prices present
a sitter and more successful resist
ence to the decline in live hog prices
than do ham and bacon prices.
I'm addressing these questions to
you 1t is not my intention to single
out Wilson & Co. for inquiry, for, from
e.