Armour's 1919 Livestock Purchases

Previous

RISING prices of farm land and feed have changed entirely the character of livestock received on the market as compared to twenty years ago. The period following the war shows all conditions more or less accentuated, and one can trace very definitely the tendency to market animals younger and to feed to lesser ripeness than prevailed in the earlier years of the last decade. In 1919 Armour and Company purchased 12,235,451 head of livestock, while in 1918 they purchased 11,398,131. Yet the animals bought last year weighed actually fewer pounds, in spite of their greater numbers, than those received the year preceding; the former weight being 3,740,347,223 pounds and the latter 3,939,278,534 pounds. Furthermore, the animals of 1919 cost over nineteen million dollars more. The following table presents these facts on a percentage basis:

Increased number animals 1919 over 1918 7.3%
Decrease in total weight animal purchases 5.0%
Increase in cost of animals 3.7%
Increased price per pound live weight 1.2¢

Probably the fundamental factor in bringing about these conditions, which are distinctly unfavorable from a quality trade standpoint, is the feeder’s expectation of declining prices. This attitude has driven all the animals to market almost as soon as they were in merchantable form. The late winter months of 1919-20 saw an opposite tendency among hog feeders, but this was not sufficiently marked to check the general trend.

Another factor in stimulating this hurried marketing has been the belief that more money could be made by selling the grain crop than by feeding it. This has given short rations to many animals that would have made suitable market records if handled properly, but it has enabled farmers to cash in their grain and meat crops while prices were relatively high.

In terms of permanent agriculture it would have been better to leave a greater share of this cash invested in a further development of livestock, but the war order against feeding wheat placed the situation in some western states beyond the control of the average stockman. As a general practice in production this incomplete utilization of livestock must be deplored, although one cannot criticize the tendency under the special market conditions of 1919 and early 1920.


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Clyx.com


Top of Page
Top of Page