The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1937-12-16
SAUK CENTRE HERALD. Sank Centre, MINI.


to pillow them under so we must
assume that they will be harvested
and fed to livestock. Let us see how
this will work out: five million
acres planted to alfalfa should
produce as a very minimum $1,000.
600 tons, which is sufficient to win
ter at least seven and one-half
million dairy cows, as they. have
practically no winter in the Cotton
Belt. These seven and one-half
million cows, on an average. should
each produce $50 pounds of butter
per annum, which would make a
total Of 1,S75, 100000 pounds of
butter, and also about 100000 cal
YES. When we stop to consider that
the total consumption Of butter in
this country was only 2.121 1888, 900
pounds in 1886, 1t can readily be
appreciated that the operation that
I have just described would abso-
lutely destroy the dairying indus
try in all Northern states with the
possible exception Of the milksheds
in the Northeastern states.
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and other
dairying states cannot possibly
compete with the South in butter
production because Of the advan-
tages that the South enjoys in
climatic and labor conditions. The
South has practically no winter,
and labor is altogether too cheap.
what would happen to the dairy
industry If the domestic butter
supply were suddenly increased by
88 per cent? It would absolutely
destroy the industry in the North,
because it would force the price
down to such ruinous levels that
the northern dairyman could not
possibly meet them. In short, it
would knock the bottom out of
prices and convert the butter mar
ket from a buyers to a sellers
market. Let me ask you gentlemen
from the beef-producing states
what would happen If these grasses
were converted into beef?
my friends, the picture that
have just painted is a very real one,
and I present it for your considera-
ton in the hope that suitable
amendments may be adopted that
will safeguard our section of the
country against such a catastrophe.
Another purpose in presenting
this situation Is to show what a
delicate subject we are dealing
with and how easy it would be for
us to pass legislation that would
absolutely destroy the equilibrium
Of production that now exists be-
tween the North and the South, as
well as to badly upset prices.
"The measure under considera-
ton deals with wheat, corn, rice,
and tobacco. but it practically ig-
nores all other lines Of farm pro-
duction. Take eggs. for instance:
In 1885 we produced about two and
one-half billion dozen eggs, having
total market value of 1881 SIS. 900.
Eggs in Minnesota are now bring
ing from 10 to 20 cents for No. /
grade, which is less than cost of
production. It is my information
that this low price is largely due to
short selling Of eggs and to imports
from China. Anyone familiar with
the poultry industry knows that
eggs cannot be produced profitably
at prevailing prices during the win.
ter months when the flocks must be
fed. Why was not a provision
written into this bill to prohibit the
short selling Of eggs? Was it ar
oversight?
at will be noted that rice is in
cluded among the commodities
covered by this bill, and yet in 1885,
we only produced 38,7S4, 900 bushel:
of rice, which brought an average
price of TIL cents per bushel, or 9
total value Of $29, $4,000. This year
we produced 100000 bushels OF
rye, with a total value In excess OF
$40.OO0,000. Why should not rye be
included in this legislation? 1t is q
very important crop in a numbr OF
Northwestern states. It cannot be
that rye was left out because it is
a northern crop and rice included
because it is a southern crop. I dc
not want to believe that this bill
was drawn along sectional lines
and yet what can we believe in view
Of the failure of the committee tt
include rye and other crops?"