OCR Text |
Show Livestoclc gGHrofefo 1 r e. - j Los Angeles, May 28, 1934 Sena- tor Arthur' Capper's bill which would amend the Packers and Stock Yards Act of 1921 so as to require registration and regulation of all places where livestock trading is engaged en-gaged in is decidedly in the interests of the producer. Senator Capper would extend the protection now afforded af-forded producers in the large central cen-tral livestock markets to all points where there is any amount of trading trad-ing in livestock being carried on. The grower's right to sell at home, providing the sale is completed at the ranch, is not abridged by the a-mendment. a-mendment. Every feature of the Capper bill is designed to guarantee protection to the grower. Therefore, opposition to the plan must come either from those who do not fully understand the measure, or else do not have at heart the best interests of the producers. If a deal is made at the ranch, and the weights determined elsewhere, it is only fair to both buyer and seller sel-ler that the scales used shall be properly constructed and tested under un-der supervision of an authoritative and neutral agency. In the matter of grading, particularly particu-larly of sheep and hogs ,there certainly certain-ly can be no argument against uniform uni-form methods, following the example of central markets. The whole controversy has arisen over the country buying of hogs, re-I re-I suiting in a non-competitive operation, oper-ation, pretty much annihilating the price structure built up followed for more than half a century at central livestock markets. The result has been that receipts on open markets have decreased, but more important, the quality of hogs sold on the open markets have not included top quality qual-ity animals an important consideration consider-ation when it is known that even country prices are based entirely upon prices paid on open markets. An economist working for a big j packer is reported as making the statement that supply and demand do not make the market price, but rather the live price depends upon prices received for the product of hogs. In other words, everything that happens after the hogs leave the growers' hands condemnation, bruises, etc., enters into the transaction trans-action and determines the net price received for pork products. The packer works pretty much on a. marginal basis. Volume is desirable desir-able but not necessarily conductive to price. Competition in marketing facilities spreads the supply and the buying power. It is bad enough to have the trading yards scattered throughout the country and adjacent to metropolitan markets but to have these so-called markets unbridled and free to ignore the provisions of the federal law is unthinkable, especially when we look back on the amount of time, energy and money spent by the growers in putting through the packers and Stockyards act of 1921. Is it possible that conditions have so changed to nullify the same prin ciples that were so strong'ly fought for at that time with respect to Fed eral markets ? There appears to be even greater reasons why these outside facilities should be brought under control and that's all the Capper bill proposes to do. In my opinion the present situation situ-ation represents the zero point in competitive marketing of hogs and it is going to be quite a chore to bring-that bring-that enormous traffic back into competitive com-petitive channels. There is some ray of hope for the growers due to the fact that these concentration points have proven of advantage to the large packer who can take the drove and to the detriment of the smaller packer who wants graded hogs. This inequality goes directly to the cost and many of the smaller packers believe be-lieve that the demoralization in the pork market so evident locally in ;southern California can only be healed heal-ed where the cost is somewhere near the same to all classes of packers. It looks as though this country buying and division of the hog business ifrom central market channels has pretty much run its course but if it hasn't and that's the way the business busi-ness is to be done in the future there certainly can be no good argument against reasonable regulation for protection of the growers interest. |