Morris tribune., 1922-07-28

cussion Of public questions by anyone
who may wish to discuss them: The
editor assumes no responsibility for the
views here expressed, but does welcome
contributions from anyone who Will not
abuse the privilege whether the opinions
expressed agree with ours or not
Farmer Endorses Central'S Methods
I am somewhat surprised that H.
P. Carlson would play into the hands
of those opposing the cooperative
marketing of livestock by bringing
out that advertisement of the South
St. Paul Livestock Exchange. That
letter of Kiewell's sounds to me as
though it had been gotten up pur-
posely by those who are opposing
us farmers in our activities for the
distribution of our products through
cooperative effort. Anyone know
ing anything at all about the Central
can't swallow such statements as are
supposed to have been written by
this association manager
The article mentions the dissatis-
faction amongst shipping associations
that has been caused by Central. I
wonder if this dissatisfaction doesn't
rest quite largely in the hands of
some few managers who are posing
as cOOperatOrs, but who are inter
ested in cooperative shipping only so
far as it will net themselves person
ally the greatest profit. 1t is un-
derstood that many managers have
been offered bonuses for the assOcia-
tons business by certain independ-
ent commission firms and the weak
managers have fallen for it. Where
farmers have absolutely insisted that
the livestock be shipped to Central
shouldn't such managers be dissatis-
fed Fortunately, however, these
weak ones are in the minority and
for one want to compliment the man
ayers who are fighting for good clean
cooperative marketing methods.
The statements that Central can
not properly care for the shipments
can best be checked up by noting
the shrinks you get on your consign-
ments. 1 saw an article in a Fer
gus Falls paper this spring where
their shipping association had
checked up on CentraPs shrinks as
against the shrinks from two other
independent commission firms to
whom they shipped. Their results
on "a loads showed that CentraPs
shrinks were about half that Of the
independent firms. Surely this is
proof of whether Central could pro-
perly care for the stock. Central
handles at least rs percent of the
livestock on the market and why
can't we as farmers hire just as cap
able help to look after our stock
as the independent firms do.
When a person says. Central can
not get as good sales it reminds me
of the story that the local buyers
used to tell, namely, that they
could get more for the stock than the
shipping association could. We
have lived to see the falsity of this
statement. Likewise we are today
seeing where CentraIs cattle sales
are on a par if not above those of
the other firms. Just lately see
by the market report that Central
sold 80 head of yearlings for $9.65
and 10 head of mixed steers and she
stuff for 1915. Has any other COM
mission firm made such sales this
year?
Anyone who knocks Centrals
Stocker and Feeder Department
knocks our efforts as farmers to rid
ourselves of the spectators or I'M
necessary middlemen. Why shouldn't
we have the opportunity of selling
direct to a farmer buyer? Should
we have to sell to the speculator
first? I maintain we should not and
I endorse CentraIs policy in regard
to handling stockers and feeders.
Farmer buyers can buy direct from
the shipper without the excessive
spectators fill on the stock and the
spectators profit on the price. No
commission is charged the buyer
either Now my understanding is
that if there are no buyers for some
of the stockers and feeders then Cen
trail can weigh the cattle up to their
Stocker and Feeder Department at
the market price on the day of sale
and hold them and sort them into
uniform lots for the farmer buyers
who can buy them at the market
price on day of purchase. Central
is in no way specializing in doing