'^^o^ '^oV .^'"-. \ "°.'^^'*/ V-^\** "'^^..^*, ^, ""' ^0^ o-.i'. •^o " -^' -n^-o^ ^'%^ ^Tvi* A •j^?;J^^^, o> jT' ,,» '. -t ^"-^^^ -. S- -^""te. V .'^' v*o^ c^'^^^ : '^o ^ ^^ 1 16S -\ \ .. - \ ^v / W - ^ *\ - - *■ \ K\ «^ - V^ V " ft " xJV 1 X7 V v _ If - ■^k4»1 , ... .. ^ i I l\ / \ —i V / \ * I / \ I \ \ ,' \ " 1 \ \ 1 * \ ; \ ' 1 \ \ / \ \ 1 -V — \ ,' \ ( t \ 1 — v\ ; / I — — \ / \ / j \ * / j 1 \ ^ / / y 1 \ /'~ f — t / — ■*^ S'^ — N • .__ . . 14 Agriculturat. Prices preceding the war^ of exports from the United States as related to British exchange, and to ocean freights from New York to Liver- pool. It will be noted that United States prices must necessarily be weakened in the fall of the year by weak British exchange and high ocean freights. The speculative price as set from day to day is sometimes a result of technical situations altogether apart from supply and demand. Ordinarily, the speculative price as . represented by "futures" and the cash price move in sympathy, but occasionally a scared "short" finds the market oversold and bids up prices un- duly in an effort to cover, or a tired "long" finds the market over- bought and sends prices down unduly in an effort to sell. And occasionally there is manipulation — interests working together to make the price temporarily higher or lower than a normal working of supply and demand would justify. Sometimes the cash markets, following the lead of the speculative markets, may get out of line with ultimate supply-and-demand conditions for several months at a time. CRITICISM OF OUR PRICE-MAKING SYSTEM PRICES of corn, hogs, etc., are determined chiefly by supply and demand, together with the occasional influence of stra- tegic manipulation. The system as operated by the packers and Board of Trade speculators really reflected conditions before the war with remarkable accuracy. During the war, so many extraor- dinary conditions were at work that it was impossible to measure supply-and-demand conditions at all accuratel}'^, and it is impos- sible to say how efficiently the speculators did their work. But speculators and packers, in so far as they set prices, are concerned solely in making a profit for themselves. If, by manip- ulating the market, they can make a bigger profit than by trying to express supply-and-demand conditions with mathematical ex- actitude, then they may be expected to manipulate. The violence with which hog prices swing above and below cost of production would suggest that the packers are consciously endeavoring to send prices too low for a year or two, in order later to send them too high. They go into the low-price period with a small amount of high-priced products on hand, and come out into the higher level with a large quantity of low-price products. It would seem that by laying in a stock of hog products at the low point, they hope to profit later b}'^ an advance in price. It is typical of supply and demand, as it makes prices of stan- dard farm products, that a small crop sells for more than a large crop. A twenty per cent decrease in the supply raises the price more than twenty per cent, possibly thirty per cent, or even fifty per cent. Old Gregory King, in the latter part of the Seventeenth century, recognized this principle when he stated: "We take it a defect in the harvest may raise the price of corn [wheat] in the following proportions : Defect. .^ Above the common rate. 1 tenth raises the price 3 tenths 2 tenths raises the price 8 tenths 3 tenths raises the price 16 tenths 4 tenths raises the price 28 tenths Modem statistical study indicates that this statement of King's is somewhat exaggerated, but undeniably the tendency exists among standard agricultural products for small crops to bring in 16 Agkicultural Prices a greater return than large crops. In other words, the demand for farm products is inelastic. The ultimate consumer wants just so much of staple foods, no more, no less. If farmers raise more than so much, they must accept a considerable reduction in price; if they raise less, they can command an advance out of all propor- tion to the shortage. The law of demand for staple farm products being inelastic, small crops bring in a greater return than large crops.* The classical economists, the people of laissez faire persuasion, accept this condition as natural, as inevitable, and therefore de- sirable. But is it desirable. P The sharp price rise which comes as a shortage becomes apparent benefits those lucky producers who have supplies on hand, and especially those keen speculators who first saw the oncoming shortage and bought in anticipation. This sharp price rise may overstimulate production. The high hog prices in 1909-1910 stimulated the production of too many hogs, and when this increased production reached market, the price was $6.50 instead of the expected $8 to $10. And the low prices of 1911-1912 in turn begat the high prices of 1913-1914. The question comes, Would it not be to the public interest if, in price making, more emphasis could be placed on cost of produc- tion and less on the short-time working of the law of supply and demand?/' Prices should rise with a short crop, but not to such an extent as to make a short crop more profitable than a normal crop. If a moderate rise in prices will not sufficiently curtail de- mand, then the public should be educated to the fact that there has been a drouth, and that unless they curtail their demand, there will not be enough to go around. Of course, under our present laissez faire attitude, every speculative business man would take such a pronoimcement as a "bull" statement, and the demand Avould immediately increase instead of decrease. \^here is danger that any attempt to make cost of production the guiding factor in price determination will amount to close government supervision of storage, speculation and similar market phenomena. The dis- advantages of government supervision are apparent to all who watched the Food Administration at work during the war. The Food Administration performed a hard job remarkably well, but farmers found that the officials were ignorant of agriculture, and that, moreover, agricultural interests could not expect a square deal except in so far as they were organized to compel a square *The skew curves of supply and demand, as derived by H. L. Moore, in his book on "Economic Cycles," furnish mathematical proof of this statement so far as corn and oats are concerned. Criticism of Our Price-Making System 17 deal, or except as the emergency itself compelled a square deal Ij to insure continued production^^ ^ ' If farmers are to continue under the present laissez faire sys- tem with supply and demand, together with strategic manipula- tions, as the price-making force, they must necessarily learn to play the game themselves. They will find it necessary to practice sabotage in the same scientific, businesslike way as labor and cap- ital. They will reduce the size of their crops at strategic moments, because they know that small crops ordinarily bring in a greater return than large crops. Of course, if farmers should practice sabotage in the same heartless, efficient way as labor and capital, our societ}^ will be imperiled. The burden of the sabotage prac- ticed by labor and capital has been borne chiefly by the farmer. When farmers also practice sabotage, labor and capital will be forced to come to an agreement with farmers on production and price matters. Is there not a possibility that capital, laborers and farmers, by placing themselves in equally powerful bargaining positions, may come to see the futility of sabotage as a price-sustaining force .P Once farmers are able to meet the other classes of society on equal terms, all three classes ought to unite on production as the source of profit, rather than on clever bargaining. This in- volves close-knit organizations of both farmers and laborers under the leadership of men well educated in general economics, in stra- tegic bargaining, and in production. There must be men studying the system as a whole, men who perceive the legitimate physical difficulties Avhich our society faces. The labor leaders must come to see that there is a point beyond which labor can not go in raising wages and reducing hours. /Farm leaders must come to see that there is a point beyond whicEiarmers can not go in reducing acre-| age and raising prices/^ Business leaders must come to see that the common people wirTnot stand for curtailment of production to two-thirds factor}^ capacity in order to secure abnormal profits, when by running the factories to full capacity the business will give normal profits. The best brains of all classes must unite in overcoming legitimate ph3''sical handicaps, not in figuring out ways in which a specific class may benefit at the expense of other classes. In the meantime, farmers must learn to use sagacious sabotage as effectively as labor and capital. Otherv/ise they will continue to be at the mercy of capital and labor. What is the best means of overcoming the food shortage re- sulting from droutli ? Laissez faire economists and business men say : Let high prices curtail demand and stimulate production. ]8 Agkicultuiiai. Prices But this remedy is "locking the stable after the horse is stolen." lis it practical to build government warehouses to store wheat in [years when the acre yield is more than fifteen bushels, and fror" which wheat may be drawn in years v/hen the yield is less than thirteen bushels? No scheme of this sort can be definitely laid out in advance. But statistical science will soon reach a point where it should be possible to meet our physical handicaps in the way of drouth, floods and accident, in the spirit of doing what is best for society, instead of utilizing the crisis for individual or class profit. If we are to continue our present complex society, we must educate our children very thoroly in social mathematics. Our prob- lems are not only problems of the spirit, but also of exact measure- ment. What is the fair price for bacon? This involves the cost- of-production idea. Is bacon relatively lower or higher than hogs ? Are hogs relatively lower or higher than corn ? Is there a normal supply in the country? If bacon were lower in price, would the future suppl}^ be imperiled? Would an injustice be done to farm- ers? If bacon were higher in price, would an undue profit accrue to the packers, or would the farmers be stimulated to produce to:" many hogs a year from now ? Possibly it will be wise for the government to provide funds to finance a Price Publicity Committee, to be made up of economists appointed by our state universities and agricultural colleges. The duty of this commission would be to make public week by w^eek the relevant price facts. They would point out which products are rel- ativel}'^ high and which are relatively low, and issue index numbers of various kinds, in an endeavor to educate the public to funda- mental price facts. The object of such a Price Publicity Com- mittee will be to furnish such constant publicity that it will be diffi- cult for any product to sell for any length of time either above or below cost of production. And in saying this we define cost-of- production price as that price which is necessary in the long run to keep enough producers in the business to satisfy the demand. It is believed that adequate publicity will favor the prevailing of the long run cost-of-production price as opposed to the short run supply-and-demand price. Men in whom the laborers of the country have faith should have an intimate, statistical knowledge of the supply and de- mand forces as they make prices and as they make for the pros- perity of laborers and society as a whole. Men in whom farmers have faith should have an Intimate, statistical knowledge of labor and business problems in order that they may know approximately Ageicultural Pkices 19 when labor and business are charging fair prices for their services. Business men already have a fair statistical knowledge of farming and labor conditions, but they need an even more intimate knowl- edge, as well as a change of heart. They must learn to operate their businesses from the standpoint of greatest service and a fair / profit, not from the standpoint of greatest profit. Those busi- nesses which do not learn this may expect to be taken over either by the government, organized labor, or organized farmers, if noh in one way, then in another. SUPPLY AND DEMAND BOTH farmers and city consumers have expressed much dis- satisfaction in recent years with the methods of price deter- mination as used b}- the boards of trade and packing houses. The representatives of the boards of trade and packing houses have answered these complaints with the simple formula, "supply and demand." During the war, many people announced that prices in the United States were no longer the result of supply and demand. For a period of two and a half years, wheat prices were held at approximately $2.20 a bushel, in spite of the fact that both supply and demand conditions were varying constantly during this period, and in spite of the fact that under supply-and-demand conditions as they ordinarily work, prices might have been expected to have gone as high as $4 and as low as $1.50, at different times during this period of two and one-half years. Social workers and others of idealistic temperament who have alwa^^s been pained Avith the rather heartless way in which the law of supply and demand has Avorked, Avere much pleased with the stabilized Avheat price, and re- ferred to it as an instance of the repeal of the laAV of supply and demand. rOf course, the laAv of supply and demand never has been re- pealed, and never Avill be repealed. Instead of trying to repeal it, Ave should try to secure the best type of price-fixing machinery thru Avhich this laAV may Avork. Man has not repealed the laAv of gravitation, but has devised such machines as automobiles, air- planes, etc., thru Avhich he accomplishes his purposes notAvith- standing. ^ Our cit}^ friends Avho favor government attempts to repeal the laAv of supply and demand and to fix uniform and relatively cheap prices should direct their efforts toAvard the search for a ncAv price- fixing machinery. For arbitrary interference Avith this law in- A^ariably brings penalties in the form of conditions Avhich often are more scA'ere than the condition which it was hoped to improA'^ "What AA'e should striA'e for rather is a better understanding of the laAV of supply and demand, in the hope that we may be able to modify the seA-erit}^ of its operation and thus avoid periods of feast and famine, Avith their unreasonably Ioav prices and unreason- ably high prices. Thousands of men in the corn belt, especially the leaders of Supply and Demand 21 the organized farmers, should be familiar with the normal, math- ematical working of the law of supply and demand. They should know not only when prices are lower than warranted by the supply, but just how mu^h too low. Exact measurement is necessary in order to perceive when unusual factors are at work. The price indicated by a mathematical interpretation of supply and demand may be $1,25 for corn, whereas the actual price, because of a purely speculative drive, may be only $1. It is wise to measure prices to some extent by purely mathematica.1 considerations, in order that we may perceive more clearly when extraordinary forces are at work. After having arrived at a price based on a mathematical inter- pretation of supply and demand, the problem is to determine to Avhat extent extraordinary forces are at work and to what extent it may be worth while to combat them by extraordinary measures. If corn is 15 cents a bushel below the mathematically justified price, will it be advisable for farmers generally to hold their corn and cause a shortage at the terminal markets? Will it be advis- able to put out newspaper propaganda showing the public how the market price of corn is below cost of production, or put on an advertising campaign to increase the demand? These matters of larger policy are mostly outside the field of mathematics. They are largely matters of strategy. How much bargaining force do the farmers represent ? To what extent will they follow directions ? At what season of the year is it best to strike? Generally speaking, a farmers' drive for higher prices would best begin about January 1st, and should reach its greatest inten- sity about March 1st. After March 1st, seasonal scarcity begins, and no further propaganda is needed. A consumers' drive for lower prices best begins about August 15th, and reaches its great- est intensity about October 15th. After October 15th the seasonal surplus, especially of corn and hogs, begins, and there is no fur- ther need for consumers to bring artificial propaganda to bear. It is interesting to note in this connection that the "bear" campaign engineered by the governments of the world in 1919 began in late July and continued until about October 15th, at Avhich time the weight of the season's marketings was sufficient to hold prices down without additional use of newspaper space. After a mathematical study of prices, the leaders of farm or- ganizations, in so far as they attempt to influence prices, must consider the state of the export trade, rate of foreign exchange, ocean freights, world crop conditions, business conditions at home and abroad, and, in fact, all the factors which the trained specu- 22 Aguicultukal PrvicEs lators take into account on the Board of Trade. They must take all of these things into account, and yet be able on occasion to act decisively. They must learn to play the game in the same fashion as a skillful whist player. They must not "overbid" their hand, but bid its full worth, and they must take all the tricks they can. To have even a fair chance of success in an effort of this sort, farmers must set up a very strong statistical organization, in charge of a highly competent staff of thoroly trustworthy experts. For farmers themselves have neither the time nor the opportunity to secure the training necessary to enable them to acquire and as- similate the information needed. CAN "PRICE" MAKE "SUPPLY AND DEMAND"? DISSATISFIED farmers and city consumers have been told often that "supply and demand" makes the price. Econo- mists have backed up the Board of Trade people and the packers in making this assertion. But is it not almost equally true to say that "price" makes the "supply and demand"? Is it not possible to set a price which, as can be demonstrated mathematically, is out of line with the present supply and demand, and thru this price to create new and unexpected supply-and-demand conditions ? It is conceivable, for example, that oleomargarine might be sold for several years at a price below that warranted by supply and demand and equally below a price warranted by cost of pro- duction. It is conceivable that the abnormally low price, without reducing the supply, would increase the demand and result in the formation of the oleomargarine habit among millions of people. And it is equally conceivable that later on the price of oleomar- garine might be increased more nearly to a parity with butter, and that the oleomargarine eating public might continue the oleoinar garine, even tho it was underselling butter by only 10 cents a pound, instead of the 15 cents a pound differential which was ex- isting when the habit was formed. A low price may be used to create a demand, which v/ill con- tinue even after the low price no longer exists. In like manner, a low price may be used to curtail the supply of the competing article. In the illustration, an artificially low price for oleomar- garine might reduce the demand for butter, thereby reducing the supply, and increase the demand for oleomargarine, and this situ- ation of a reduced supply of butter and an increased supply of oleomargarine might continue, even tho the price of oleomargarine were later raised to its customary relationship with butter. Price may act as a cause and "supply and demand" may be a result. In open, competitive markets, "supply and demand" generally comes first and price follows after. Before the war, for instance, the dominating factor in the corn market was the supply of corn, and during the months of July and August, when the new corn crop was being made, the price of corn varied with almost mathe- matical accuracy with the rainfall and temperature which were making the new corn crop. The demand for corn was a fairly ^4 Agkicultuual 1'uices constant factor. The supply of corn was the pricc-makuig force. Smce the war, corn prices have not been the result of "supply and demand" in the sense that they were before the war. During 1919, price often came first in the corn market, and supply and demand followed afterward. For example, in January and Feb- ruary, 1919, corn prices broke 20 cents a bushel, in spite of the fact that receipts at central markets were decidedly below their customary level. Influential people had postulated the theory that the war was over, and that supply and demand, if given an opportunity, would operate to bring about a lower price level. They set a lower price level, but supply and demand refused to operate on the new level. The lower corn prices Avhich prevailed during the spring of 1919, however, probably had a very material effect on the acreage planted. At any rate, there was about four per cent less corn planted in 1919 than in 1918. According to the customary view, when the supply is smaller than usual, the price should be greater than usual, and vice versa. In the hog market this does not necessarily hold true. In Novem- ber of 1907, hog prices were dropped with a terrific jerk, as a result of certain unusual conditions. The drop was so great that farmers refused to market their hogs, and receipts of hogs in November of 190T were about one-third smaller than in the ordi- nary November. The price of hogs was lower than customary by about one-fourth, and the supply of hogs marketed Avas less by about one-third. A similar situation prevailed in August of 1919. Prices dropped about $5 per hundredweight, or faster than ever before in history. Receipts also dropped, and much fewer hogs were received than in the ordinary August. In both 1907 and 1919, the packers figured that the business world was so upset that to be on the safe side they would best buy their hogs cheaper than they had been buying them. Farmers were slow to realize just how great the disturbances had been in the business world, and failed to understand that in a situation of this sort the packers could put thru their program for lower prices, in spite of reduced hog receipts for a month or two. It is in the ver}'- nature of things that the packers can outlast the farmers at such a game. The packers know more accurately than the farmers the supply-and-demand conditions, and they know that after a hog- reaches two hundred pounds, it is only a question of weeks till the farmer will let him go, no matter what the price. It will take an extraordinarily able farmers' organization to beat the packers at this game, an organization which holds as its trump card "ultimate supply and demand." Can "Feice" Ma3ce "Stipply and Demand"? 25 Prices may make supply and demand, and supply and demand may make prices. First one has the lead, and then the other ; the}' are constantly acting and reacting. Before the war, the relation- ship in some commodities might be expressed with almost mathe- matical exactness, but there were constant little departures. Since the Avar prices have much more often taken the initiative than they did before the war. The result, of course, is a more violently fluc- tuating condition of both supply and demand. The problem which farmers and city consumers should put to the Board of Trade people and the packers is : What are 3'^ou doing to place prices at a point which will result in a more uniform supply and a more uniform demand.^ COST OF PRODUCTION THE common man prefers to approach the question of price not from the standpoint of supply and demand, but from the standpoint of cost of production. The laboring man says that he has no quarrel with the farmer, that in fact he is glad to pay the farmer what it costs him to produce food. Most people take it for granted that the just price is cost of production. In July of 1917, President Wilson gave his scholarly definition of a just price: "By a just price I mean a price which will sustain the indus- tries concerned in a high state of efficiency, provide a living for those Avho conduct them, enable them to pay good wages and make possible the expansion of their enterprises which will, from time to time, become necessary, as the stupendous undertaking of this great war develops." The idea of a just price, covering cost of production and rea- sonable profit, is considerably different from market price or supply-and-demand price. The market price typically alternates considerably above and considerably below the production cost of the bulk of the people engaged in the enterprise. For instance, when prices go up and profits become larger, new people are at- tracted into the business and production is increased until finally there is more supply than there is demand, and then prices have to go down and profits become losses, and the people who can not produce except at the high prices must go out of business. Both the farming world and the business world are composed of a great many different men, each of whom is chasing a profit in his own wa}^ Many of these men are very short-sighted and are lured into an apparently profitable business just at the Avrong time, and in like manner become discouraged with an apparently unprofit- able business at just the wrong time. Under the competitive re- gime, it is apparent to any thoughtful business man that both in business and in farming the market price or suppl3^-and-demand price is almost never the same as cost of production, but fluctuates in rather rhythmical manner, now above and then beloAV cost of production, tending to equal almost exactly, over any long period of years, true production cost. Under the market price or supply-and-demand price system as it has prevailed, the constant tendency is for the wealthier people, both among farmers and among business men, to increase their wealth at the expense of the poorer people. Poor people who Cost of Pkoduction 27 embark In general business or in farming, no matter how intelli- gent, are likely to go into and come out of any particular enter- prise at just the Avrong time. The average man who is moderately well fixed and stays by a particular enterprise year in and year out, manages to secure for himself just a little better than ordinary wages. The man who is wealthy and expands his operations just as prices are starting up, and reduces operations just as prices are starting down, secures large profits. The fluctuating price system, which means great profits to a wealthy few, serious losses and wrecked lives for a few, and a bare livelihood for many, is the natural result of the laissez faire policy! of the old classical economists. Their idea was to let things alone, on the theory that, let alone, prices would sooner or later, adjust themselves to the proper point. In practice, prices almost never reach a proper point, but are constantly moving either above or below cost of production. One hundred years of laissez faire pol- icy have demonstrated beyond a doubt that under such a system the wealthy few inevitably become richer, whereas the bulk of the people get just enough to keep them going. The laissez faire, supply and demand, specula,tive, or market price system, is condemned by nearly every one except the busi- ness men who run it and believe they understand its beneficent workings, and the economists of the classical type who, in their careful reasoning, are unable to think of any other way of deter- mining satisfactory prices over any period of time. The common people and the lofty idealists were greatly elated during 1917 and 1918 at the apparently successful working of fixed prices estab- lished more or less in defiance of the speculative or laissez faire price sj^stem. I Those who have given the most thought to price fixing advo- cate as a guide "cost of production plus a reasonable profit." But what is cost of production? Even in industries so well con- trolled by man as coal mining, where the weather does not enter in, there are some mines that can produce a ton of coal for two or three dollars, while other mines can not produce a ton of coal for less than six or seven dollars. The North Dakota wheat farmer, in a year of rust, may produce wheat at a cost of four or five dollars a bushel, whereas the Kansas farmer the same year may produce wheat at a cost of only a dollar or a dollar and a half per bushel. Shall both the Dakota farmer and the Kansas farmer be paid cost of production plus a reasonable profit for their wheat.? From this standpoint we see that there is no such thing as a standard cost of production. A single producer may be able to determine 28 Agricultural Prices his personal cost of production of a given quantity under a given set of conditions. But in the general sense, as it is commonly thought of, cost of production is a will-o'-the-wisp, a creature that seems to exist but really does naE7~J Nevertheless, there is a rougH-and-ready method of determm- ing cost of production or just price as distinguished from laissez faire or supply-and-demand price. We refer to the ratio method of price determination. Over a long series of years, cost of pro- duction plus a reasonable profit is roughly expressed by the rela- tionship which exists between a raw product and the finished product. In rough form it may be most easily grasped in the case of corn and hogs. Over anj^ long period of years, hogs sell on the Chicago market at a price per hundredweight equal to the Chicago price of 11.5 bushels of corn. When hogs have sold for fourteen bushels of corn, they have sold for more than cost of production plus a reasonable profit, while, on the other hand, when they have sold for nine bushels of corn, they have sold for less than cost of production plus a reasonable profit. All this is not saying that certain producers ha.\e not been able to make a profit when hogs have sold for nine bushels of corn. Neither is it saying that cer- tain producers may not have been selling at a loss when hogs sold for as much as fourteen bushels of corn. It is simply saying that it has required the pulling power of a price for hogs which is equal to the price of 11.5 bushels of corn to keep enough men in the hog business ^'ear in and year out to supply the demand of this country for hog products during the past sixty years. This is what we mean by the ratio method of price determination. It is the only practical method of determining cost of production in such a busi- ness as farming, Avhere there are millions of producers working un- der a variety of conditions. We have the greatest respect for the old laissez faire or specu- lative method of price determination. It worked very nicely under competitive conditions, such as existed before the war. No one knows as to Avhethcr or not times now are right for adopting a different machinery thru which the law of supply and demand may work. We offer the ratio method as a method which is probably better adapted to a thoroly democratized co-operative society than the old-fashioned laissez faire method, Avhich Avas adapted primar- ily to a competitive society. The spirit of the ratio method is highly technical. The ex- amples given in this book must necessarily be simple. But in actual practice, the ratio method would necessarily become quite tcclmical, requiring for its administration highly specialized statis- Cost or Pkocuctiox 29 ticians. At the pixsent time very few men are available for work of this sort. The ordinary man who tries to fix prices by the ratio method is biased by either personal or class interests. A notable example of this was the Chicago ]Milk Commission, com- posed of leading citizens of the state of Illinois, which sat from December, 1917, to Februai-y, 1918, and finally offered as a meth- od of milk price determination the ratio method. The majority of the members of this Milk Commission were city people, and on that account, consciously or unconsciously, they twisted the ratio method so as to bring about a low price for milk. If the majority of the commission had been farmers, they could have twisted the ratio method to bring about a much higher price for milk. But there are now, and in the future will be more, men properly trained in the weighting of agricultural index numbers, who can look into matters of this sort with a scientific nicety and determine prices by the ratio method with the greatest accuracy, by which we mean the minimum of bias toward either producer or consumer. It is our intention in this book to indicate ways of securing ratio prices for various agricultural products. The methods out- lined in succeeding chapters are definite and exact ; we grant, how- ever, that they may be made more comprehensive and be further refined so as to cover their respective fields in more effective fashion. RATIO METHOD OF DETERMINING COST OF PRODUCING HOGS THE ratio method of price determination was first publicly recognized in the United States by the Food Administration, in November of 1917. A commission of seven swine men had been appointed by the Food Administration to determine the cost of producing hogs, and in submitting their report the commission adopted practically without change the ratio method of price de- " termination as advocated in Wallaces' Farm.er during the summer and fall of 1917. The commission, composed of expert swine men from all over the United States, after a careful technical survey of the situation and consideration of the figures submitted by the author, came to the conclusion that the ratio method actually expressed cost of production more simply and accurately than any other method. In its simplest form, the hog producer of fifty years ago grasped the ratio idea. Without any statistical investigation, the swine growers of those days came to the conclusion that they could make money when they sold their hogs for a value per hun- dredweight of more than the value of ten bushels of corn. For a generation or two, hog men looked on a ratio of ten bushels of corn to one hundred pounds of hog flesh as about right, altho they felt that such a ratio might not cover risk. From an exact statistical standpoint, take the ten-year period extending from 1907 to 1916, inclusive. During that time No. 2 Chicago corn averaged 66.3 cents a bushel, whereas hogs averaged $7.53 per hundredweight. The ratio for that particular ten-year period Avas 11.4 bushels of Chicago No. 2 corn to equal in value one hundred pounds of Chicago hog flesh. How uniform is this ratio between corn and hogs from decade to decade may be judged from the following table, which gives the ratios ^s they have pre- vailed year by year for the past sixty years, and the average by decades. The second column shows the number of bushels of corn required each year to equal in value one hundred pounds of live hog : 1858-1867. 1868-1877. 1858 8.7 1868 9.5 1859 7.1 1869 14 I860 12.4 1870 11.9 1861 14.0 1871 10.2 1862 10.0 1872 11.1 1863 7.0 1873 12.3 Ratio ]Method of Determining Cost of Pkoducing Hogs 31 1864. 1865. 1866. 1867. . 7.3 .16.3 .16.2 . 7.2 Ten-year average 10.6 1874. 1875. 1876. 1877. . 8.9 .11.8 .15.3 .11.5 Ten-year average 11.7 1878-1887. 1888-1897. 1878. 1879. 1880. 1881. 1882. 1883. 1884. 1885. 1886. 1887. . 9.7 .10.3 .12.3 .12.1 .10.9 .11.3 .10.5 . 9.7 .11.1 .12.4 Ten-year average 11.0 1888. 1889. 1890. 1891. 1892. 1893. 1894. 1895. 1896. 1897. .12.3 .12.5 . 9.9 . 7.4 .11.8 .16.5 .11.6 .10.8 .10.7 .14.2 Ten-year average ll.J 1898-1907. 1908-1917. 1898. 1899. 1900. 1901. 1902. 1903. 1904. 1905. 1906. 1907. .14.6 .12.0 .13.2 .11.8 .11.6 .13.0 .10.2 .10.4 .13.4 .11.4 Ten-year average 12.2 1908. 1909. 1910. 1911. 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. . 8.4 .11.3 .15.2 .11.2 .10.9 .13.2 .11.7 . 9.6 .11.5 . 9.7 Ten-year average 11.3 To refine the method to meet market conditions, we need to know the ratio between corn and hogs at different seasons of the year. There are seasonal periods of over-supply and scarcity of both corn and hogs. In November, for instance, the 1907-1916 price of corn was 6T.2 cents and the price of hogs .$7.23, or a ratio of 10.6 bushels to one hundred pounds of hog flesh, while in March of the ten-year period the average price of corn was 61.7 cents and the price of hogs $7.66, or a ratio of 12.4 bushels of corn for one hundred pounds of hog flesh. In like manner, there is a fairly normal ratio for each month of the year and for each week of the year. All this is on the assumption that hogs are simply con- densed corn. It does not take into account the fact that hogs have been made out of corn at varying values during a period of about a year preceding time of marketing. Obviously, then, we must have a composite corn value. In matters of this sort, statisticians know that it is absolutely impossible to weight matters so as to represent actual conditions, but at the same time they know that absolute accuracy is not at all essential, that in fact a difference in weighting will ordinarily make very little difference in results. 3S Ageicttltural Pkices While the author personally recommended to the commission appointed by the Food Administration to investigate cost of pro- ducing hogs, a slightly different weighting, yet nevertheless we will use here the weighting recommended by that committee. The committee assumed that the corn going into the making of a hog was distributed over twelve months ; that during the first month 2 per cent of this corn went into the hog or its dam; the second month, 2 per cent ; third month, 2 per cent ; four month, 3 per cent ; fifth month, 4 per cent; six month, Q per cent; seventh month, 5 per cent ; eighth month, 9 per cent ; ninth month, 15 per cent ; tenth month, 20 per cent ; eleventh month, 17 per cent, and twelfth month, 1907 1908 1309 19!© 1911 fSI2 1915 S9I4 1915 1316 19 f 7 1913 1319 1920 *35i Gair\ T, r C**-* . 2 5-0 .. 1 u L-' .. .. ■fl i i_ 1 i II 1 V H k il ■ ^ »«!< -° tosi ^lSiOTL Tl r 2 J ' „ . ?" W 5 ,_B .. .. .. rv 4 0« ■ » 5 i>0 1 e o« .V .... I Illustrating the departure of actual Chicago hog prices from the ten-year stan- dard ratio, corrected seasonally. 15 per cent. Securing composite corn values by this kind of weighting, we find that a.s an average of the ten-year period, 1907- 1916, the Januar}^ ratio was 11 bushels; February, 11.6 bushels; March, 12.4 bushels ; April, 12.7 bushels ; May, 12.3 bushels ; June, 12.1 bushels; July, 12 bushels; August, 11.8 bushels; September, 11.8 bushels; October, 11.3 bushels; November, 10.6 bushels, and December, 10.4 bushels. For sake of example, determine cost of producing hogs for the Chicago market for the month of April, 1918. Corn values month by month, beginning April, 1917, were as follows: 144.9 cents. Ratio Method of Determining Cost of Producing Hogs 33 163.9 cents, 170.7 cents, 200 cents, 197.2 cents, 208.6 cents, 199.2 cents, 201 cents, 173.2 cents, 180.6 cents, 174.5 cents, and 172.3 cents. Weighting these on the basis indicated, we get a composite value of corn of 182.5 cents. The historical ratio for the month of April is 12.7 bushels of such composite corn. Multiply 182.5 cents by 12.7, and we secure $23.18 as the cost of producing hogs for the Chicago market in April of 1918, under the ten-year ratio method. The actual price was $17.45, or a loss of $5.73 per hundredweight. The chart which is published herewith illustrates graphically results secured in the same manner for every month during the ten-year period beginning 1907. Ordinarily, Chicago No. 2 corn measures very accurately the changes in corn value on the farm, the corn out of which hogs are actually made. During part of the winter of 1917—1918, Chicago No. 2 corn ceased to be quite such an accurate measure as usual, for the reason that the quality of the crop was so poor that only a small amount of corn graded No. 2, and for the further reason that there were severe transportation difficulties. Some people have urged not using Chicago No. 2 corn values, but corn values on farms as reported to the United States Depart- ment of Agriculture, monthly, by crop reporters. This price is no doubt compiled with considerable accuracy, but is open to ob- jection for the reason that it does not represent a uniform grade. In soft corn years, a bushel of corn as valued by crop reporters on farms is poor stuff. In such years, there is always a wider spread between the farm value of corn and the Chicago No. 2 value than in years when the quality is good. It might do fairly well to take farm values of corn and farm values of hogs if definite grades could be established. If they can not be, it is probably best to take Chicago values of No. 2 corn and heavy hogs as a basis, making allowance occasionally when exceptional conditions arise in the way of artificial prices temporarily created by transporta- tion difficulties, and remembering always that the true point at issue is to apply a ratio between certain grades of actual feed on the one hand and a certain grade of hogs on the other. This is a technical matter which really can not be decided by lawyers or business men, however competent such men may be to run a food administra.tion or a department of agriculture, or by farmers, however competent such men may be to feed hogs. It is a matter which must be handled by men v/ho understand markets and who have had sufficient economic training so that they understand a little something of the making of index numbers, and who have S-i Agricultural Prices had sufficient touch with agricultural conditions so that they un- derstand a little something of the technique of feeding hogs. Soon after the report of the commission on cost of producing hogs, the Food Administration announced among other things that it would do its best to pay hog producers, for a hundred pounds of hog flesh, the equivalent of thirteen bushels of the corn which went into these hogs, the ratio system to apply to hogs farrowed in the spring of 1918. It was expected that there would be an urgent need for hog products during 1919, and it has generally been regarded that this announcement of the Food Administration was wise. The thirteen-bushel ratio was 13 per cent over the historic ratio, and encouraged the transforming of a larger amount of corn into hogs than usual. ' When it came to putting the thirteen-bushel ratio into effect, in the fall and winter of 1918-1919, the Food Administration did all in its power to squirm out of living up to its guarantee. First, the effort was made, in the month of September, 1918, to make it appear that the thirteen-bushel ratio was based on a ratio between farm corn prices and Chicago hog prices, in spite of the fact that the pamphlets originally issued by the Food Administration to farmers of the corn belt in November of 1917 explained the ratio on a basis of Chicago corn prices and Chicago hog prices. By using farm corn prices, the Food Administration secured a figure of about $2.50 per hundredweight lower than if the thirteen-bushel ratio had been applied literally as desciibed in the original pam- phlets. The Food Administration, hov/ever, claimed that it could not live up to its original guarantee, because the export prices of pork would not justify it. In this respect, it is interesting to note that in August of 1918, just before the Food Administration took up this matter of carrying out its thirteen-bushel guarantee, Great Britain reduced its maximum price on American bacon by about $12 per hundredweight. It is also interesting to note that the British Food Administration was making money on its handling of pork products, altho it was losing money on its wheat. Those American producers who were most familiar with the situation be- lieved that there was a concerted effort by the American and Brit- ish food administrations to buy the large American hog crop, which had been secured by the thirteen-bushel guarantee, as cheaply as possible, avoiding its guarantee with such chicanery and deceit as an experienced business man knows how to use in case of emer- gency. The committee of some fifteen men, supposedly representing the American hog producers, which met with the United States Ratio Method of Detekmining Cost of Producing Hogs 35 Pood Administration in this matter, were not well educated along statistical or economic lines, and they went down to defeat in Sep- tember, 1918, scarcely realizing just what the Food Administra- tion had done to them. Only two members of this committee had served on the original commission, and it was impossible for them to give the other members a full comprehension of what the ratio meant. When the facts became known, widespread indignation among the farmers of the corn belt compelled the Food Administra- tion to abandon the hypocritical pretense of living up to the thir- teen-bushel ratio and come out flatly for a $17.50 minimum, which was really a ratio of 10.8 bushels. The Food Administration was able to thus repudiate in part its definite obligation to hog pro-, ducers, because there were no thoroly organized farmers with lead- ers trained to think in terms of statistics and economics. The author does not care to create a prejudice against the Food Administration. It probably did its work as efficiently as any branch of the government during the war. The sole purpose is to point out to agricultural students the extreme disadvantage under which farmers labor in bargaining with other classes of society. It is hoped that as farmers learn to follow the example of keen business men and employ trained experts to look after their interests, and as farm leaders become better trained in statistics, economics and business principles, this disadvantage will disappear. SUPPLY AND DEMAND VERSUS COST OF PRODUCTION WHAT makes hour-by-hour and day-by-day prices under laissez faire conditions is not cost of production, but that brute force which we call "supply and demand." In its blind groping, this force necessarily approximates cost of production as an average of any long period of time. But it never specifically recognizes cost of production as a factor which should be con- sidered. It approximates cost of production because it has to, not because it wants to. An illustration of the strategy of the hog market is a case in point. Imagine a Monday hog market in early March, at which season of the year prices are generally rising. Suppose that in- stead of the accustomed 40,000 Monday hog run, 60,000 have been received. Suppose that, owing to car shortage or some other reason, eastern shippers are out of the market. There is a larger supply than usual and a smaller demand, and prices decline 15 or 20 cents a hundredweight, perhaps very much more. "Supply and demand," say the packers and practical economists, with unction. But at that very time every one may know that the potential supply in the country is very small, and the potential demand is very great. At that ver}^ time this wider situation may be taken fully into account by the packers in the prices which they are charging for their products to the retailers. The hog market may have broken 15 to 20 cents, but the lard, ham and bacon markets may have held steady or even advanced. The packers, in the prices which they pay for live hogs and the prices which they charge for hog products, are governed chiefly by strategic considerations. Da}^ by day they change their prices to meet the surface indications of changing supply and demand conditions. They may sometimes exercise such poor strategy that they will be compelled to manufacture hog products at a loss for a time. The prime consideration is to buy as cheapl}^ as possible and to sell as high as possible and yet meet the competition, which is rather more active than many farmers have supposed. Now it is obvious that a ratio system of hog prices is not com- patible with the system employed by the packers, or by any typical business man, for that matter. Big business enjoys a speculative profit which comes with fluctuating prices. But a daily fluctuat- ing price is not consistent with the idea of a just price or a cost-of- Supply axd Demand vs. Cost of Production 37 production price. If the packing business were a monopoly under government control, stabilized prices under the ratio system might be paid with some degree of satisfaction, provided we assume that the governmental authorities have a real insight into market con- ditions and a thoro understanding of the ratio system of price judgment as related to supply and demand. Under the present re- gime, however, it is difficult to see much prospect of hog prices ever being stabilized, for the reason that under a laissez faire sys- tem business profits result from fluctuating prices, those businesses profiting most which are best organized and most long-lived, and are able to take strategic positions over long periods of time. What would happen if cost of production were to be paid in the hog market day by day, year in and year out.^ By cost of pro- duction is meant the 11.5-bushel ratio, modified seasonally. Pack- ers can think of many objections. For instance, they can conceive of periods of a year or two at a time when the 11.5-bushel ratio would necessitate paying the farmers more for their hogs than they could get for the meat. Equally, they can see how it might be that for periods of a year or two at a time, they would be able to get out of the consumers a price equivalent to considerably more than the 11.5-bushel ratio. Admittedly, these objections are sound under present conditions; supply-and-demand price is the only price adapted to the laissez faire situation. yii farmers as a class are to secure cost of production for their hogs^ month after month and year after year, they must organize into powerful associations to do business co-operatively. They must control the supply of hogs with an iron hand and an intelli- gent head. They must be willing to play fair with the consumers}; and not charge more for their hogs than the ratio of the pair sixty years. In fact, it is conceivable that they might be able to sell their hogs at slightly less than the 11.5-bushel ratio of the past sixty years. If the organization was really powerful enough to enforce the cost-of-production ratio over any period of time, the market risk, which has been a very serious factor in the past, would disappear. This risk has been such a factor that it is quite pos- sible that farm.ers would be willing to produce enough hogs to sat- isfy the market at an eleven-bushel ratio if the risk no longer ex- isted. The author estimates that as an average of the past sixty j'^ears the consuming public has been paying at least 50 cents per hundredweight more than necessary for its hog products. This extra 50 cents has been in the nature of risk insurance. It is conceivable that both farmer producers and city consumers might organize to carry this risk between them, the city consumer 88 Agricultural Prices co-operative organizations agreeing in advance to take a certain number of pounds of hog products, and the farmer producing or- ganizations agreeing to furnish such a quantity of hog products on the basis of a corn-hog ratio representing cost of production. CATTLE PRICES AND THE RATIO METHOD A RATIO between corn and cattle does not represent cost of production nearly as accurately as a ratio between corn and hogs. However, such a ratio, when worked out and applied over a long period of years, reveals the interesting historical fact thab the swings in cattle prices above and below the ratio line are periods of about seven years each way. A more accurate method is to take into account the fact that fat cattle as produced in the corn belt and marketed at Chicago are commonly made out of feeders v/hich were bought a few months previously, taken to the farm, and finished chiefly on corn, together with a little in the way of pasture, hay, silage and concentrated feeds, such as cottonseed meal and oil meal. As an average of the ten-year period, 1906-1915, ordinary 1,000-pcund feeders on Chicago, in October, cost $51.20. As an average of the ten-year period, these same IjOOO-pound feeders, as ordinary, v/ell-finished fat steers Aveighing 1,S00 pounds each, sold the follov>ring April for $98.35. During this ten-year period it seemed to take $47.15 to cover the cost of feed, risk, labor, etc., of bringing a 1,000-pound feeder to l,SOO-pound fat condition. Ordinaril}^ it is substantially accurate to measure these things in terms of corn only. During the ten-year period under consid- eration, the weighted price of corn Avas 61.5 cents. Dividing $47.15 by 61.5 cents equals 76.7 bushels. As an average of the ten-year period it has required the value of 76.7 bushels of weighted corn to make a 1,000-pound feeder, bought in October, moderately fat for the Chicago market the following April. The corn is weighted on the theory that the steers consume 8 per cent of it the month after they are bought, 15 per cent the second month, 20 per cent the third month, 20 per cent the fourth, 20 per cent the fifth, and 17 per cent the last month. Applying the ten-year ratio to the specific month of April, 1918, Ave find that a 1,000-pound feeder in October, 1917, cost $84, and the value of 76.7 bushels of com.posite corn A<^as $139.40, making a total cost of the finished 1,300-pound steer, $223.40. The actual selling price in the month of April, 1918, was $199.55, or a loss of about $23.85 per steer. Applying the same method month by month, we get the chart as herewith published. It expresses profits and losses with a fair degree of accuracy to the ordinary cattleman who buys feeders 40 Agiuculturai. Prices at the central market and feeds them for five to seven months, largely on corn. During the winter of 1917-1918, the chart was not quite so accurate as usual, for the reason that the other ex- !<)0T i .05S oer . 1^ f 2^)^ 1 * ^" - ^^ - - 52?^ <^^' - Illustrating the departure of prices of 1,300-pound native steers at Chicago from the ten-year ratio. penses did not mount at this time as rapidly as corn. While heavy losses were incurred by cattle feeders, they were not so grgat as indicated in the chart. The profits and losses of the big cattlemen of the far-western and southwestern states are not to be measured by such a chart. Their chief expenses are labor and the cost of pasture. Weather conditions affect them directly, whereas Aveather conditions in the corn belt affect cattle profits indirectly, thru the price of corn. During 1917 and 1918, the western cattle men, with the exception possibly of those in certain sections of the southwest, which suf- fered from unprecedented drouth in 1917, made unusually good profits. As a class, their profits were probably not as large as the profits of the grain-growing farmers of the middle-west, but were far larger than the profits of the cattle-feeders of the middle- west. PACKER PRICES AND THE RATIO METHOD THE Chicago packers buy hogs as cheaply as they can and sell the pork as high as they can. Nevertheless, for months at a time they may sell pork products at a loss. Over any long period of time there is a fairly constant ratio between the value of one hundred pounds of live hog flesh and one hundred pounds of lard, ribs or other standard hog products. To simplify matters, and for purposes of illustration, we will consider that standard hog product, dry salt ribs, which makes up about 35 per cent of the live hog. As an average of the ten years from 1886 to 1895, dry salt ribs (low-grade bacon) sold for the value of 136 pounds of live hog. During the ten-year period from 1896 to 1905, ribs sold for the value of 137 pounds of live hog. During the ten-year period from 1906 to 1915, they sold for the value of 135 pounds of live hog. But while this ratio is quite constant over any long period of time, it varies considerably according to the season of the year. As an average of the ten-year period of 1907-1916, the ratio was 136 pounds in January, 132 pounds in February, 127 pounds in March, 126 pounds in April, 133 pounds in May, 137 pounds in June, 137 pounds in July, 137 pounds in August, 135 pounds in September, 136 pounds in October, 140 pounds in No- vember, and 139 pounds in December. In April of 1918, hogs averaged about .$17.45 per hundredweight. Using the standard ratio for the month of iVpril, of 126 .pounds of live hog for one hundred pounds of ribs, we would get as the hog price of ribs $21.97. The actual price was about $23.21, or the packers got for the dry salt ribs in the month of April, 1918, about $1,24 more than the customary ratio. The chart tells the story, extending from 1905 to 1919. The black area above the line might be called packers' profits and the black area below the line packers' losses on the manufacture of ribs. As a matter of fact, the packers' profits in the latter part of ]917 and early in 1918 were probably larger than indicated. This method assumes that the packers' manufacturing charges rise and fall in the same ratio as hog prices rise and fall. In the rough way, over any long period of time, this is approximately true, but it was probably not true in late 1917. Hog prices at that time were over 200 per cent of the ten- 42 Aguicultueal Prices 3^ear period, whereas packers' manufacturing costs were probably not in excess of 170 per cent of the ten-year period. It is conceivable that as the packing business becomes even more centralized and further improvements in the use of by-prod- ucts are discovered, it may be possible for packers to sell short- ribs, as an average of a ten-year period, for a price no more than the cost to them of 133 pounds of hog flesh. Under conditions as they 'prevail at present, however, the 135-pound ratio is approxi- mately correct. The ratio method of determining profits and losses in the man- ufacture of various packers' products is not put forward as an aid in any method of packing house accounting. It is, however, put forward as a method by which the consumer and the farmer can PacKers' Prof it and Loss Areas on Mfj y Hogs into Ribs ms 1^06 1^107 1108 1'^0'^ mo m\ wz m zmT'msJH 1 6 1'^ 1 7 11 1 8 , i^ M »3«G« U FV. r.,. ; — 1 1-- ■-'■■-■■ , 11;; I 1 ! 1 i k IM . 1 An k . 1" L. ~ ^ . 4 ^:.itAi ^ 1 \ A. /Sk. I k„,A -jj . -p., cl r- yW-»W ^Wf^ '^T' ' i ^^ T^^^ *-^ j» . : 1 r If 1 1 Illustrating when short-rib sides have been above and below their ten-year average ratio to live hog prices. discover in a rough way when the packers are absorbing more than their customary share. A similar chart worked out for lard gives much the same re- sults, altho at times the profit and loss of the two products do not always coincide exactly. For instance, in 1914, lard sold for far less than its normal ratio during the entire year, whereas ribs sold for slightly more than their normal ratio. In 1919, lard sold far above its normal ratio and ribs were below. Similar ratios might be worked out for all the various hog meats, and also for cattle and the various cuts of beef. What examination we have made of some of these ratios indicates that the packers, in their buying of live stock and selling of products, regard each product as a law unto itself. If there is a large amount of stored lard on the market, on account of the shutting off of the German demand, lard prices may be reduced, even tho hog prices are such as to warrant lard selling at a dollar or two more per hundredweight. On the other hand, if the Allies at the same time are in the market for ribs, the prices will be advanced, even tho ribs may be made from hogs at a dollar or two less per hundredweight. The problem of the pack- ers is to buy as cheaply as possible and sell as high as possible, in the knowledge that too wide a spread Avill invite competition. In Packer Prices and the Ratio Method 43 the case of hog products, a loss may be withstood on a rapidly ris- ing market, because the manufacturing loss will be compensated for by the speculative profit. This was illustrated during a con- siderable part of the year 1917, when most hog products sold at considerably less than their normal ratio, but when the packers actually made splendid profits, owing to the continual advance of prices and speculative gain on products on hand. In normal times we regard charts based on principles as stated in this chapter as approximately accurate in measuring packers' profits and losses in the manufacture of given products. It is conceivable that the normal lard ratios may go lower in the near future. Corn oil, cocoanut oil, cottonseed oil and other tropical vegetable fats are being used as lard substitutes, and as a result lard may sell decidedly below its normal pre-war ratio to hogs. However, in this case the bacon hog will gain in popularity and the supply of lard will be curtailed to a point which will justify a ratio almost as great as existed before the war. MILK PRICE DETERMINATION JUST what price farmers should get for their milk has been a peculiarly vexing question. Before the war, farmers selling milk to city dealers were in an unusually weak bargaining position. When their position became intolerable, they organized into pow- erful bargaining associations,, many of which were said to be illegal under strict interpretation of the law. One of the earliest formed and most powerful of these produc- ers' associations has been the Chicago Milk Producers' Association, numbering 16,000 members and controlling most of the milk that is shipped into Chicago or manufactured in the district immedi- ately around Chicago. During the years immediately preceding the entry of the United States into the great war, this association bargained directly with the Chicago milk dealers as to what prices the farmer members of the association could get for their milk. They held a successful strike in April of 1916, and thereafter the Chicago milk dealers seemed to regard the association with con- siderable respect. The city press and the city politicians, how- ever, felt that the farmers were too high-handed in their disregard of certain laws, and forthwith began agitation which finally re- sulted in indictments against the leaders in the Producers' Asso- ciation. In the fall of 1917, the milk producers adopted as their guide in arriving at milk prices what has been called Pearson's formula. According to this formula, the cost of producing a hundred pounds of milk in the Chicago milk district is equal to the cost of 44 pounds of grain, plus 188 pounds of silage, plus 50 pounds of hay, jJlus 39 pounds of bedding, plus 2.42 man hours of labor. To the valua- tion thus secured, certain differentials were to be applied to each month of the year, the widest differential being 120.3 per cent, in December, and the narrowest 70.6 per cent, in June. This for- mula was devised by Professor F. A. Pearson, of the Daii-y Eco- nomics Division of the University of Illinois, after several years of actual cost accounting work in the Chicago milk district. It really represents actual cost of production on a large number of farms in certain specific years. Using Pearson's formula as a guide, the Chicago milk producers asked the dealers $3.71 per hundredweight for their milk in November, 1917. The dealers refused, and a strike was declared. The Food Administration intervened in an imofficial way and induced the producers to agree to a price of Milk Price Determination 45 $3.22 per hundredweight, pendmg an investigation by the federal government as to a price which should cover cost of production and a reasonable profit. The Food Administration appointed as a committee to deter- mine cost of producing milk plus a reasonable profit, six people of essentially city interests and three people of essentially agricultural interests. This committee took testimony during the months of December and January, and in their report took as a guiding prin- ciple in determining the cost of producing milk the ratio method. Early in December, the author was asked to present to the com- mission a profit and loss chart on milk produced in the Chicago district since January, 190T, the profits and losses being based on ratios between milk prices per hundredweight on the one hand, and a composite of corn, oats, bran, cottonseed meal, gluten feed, hay, and labor prices on the other hand. These latter ingredients were weighted roughly as in the Pearson formula, but corn was given greater emphasis. Incidentally, it is interesting to note as cor- roborative both of the ratio method and the cost-of-production method as employed by Professor Pearson, that the two methods give very similar results. Of course, it is conceivable that if Pro- fessor Pearson had made his cost accounting investigation in a year either of extremely good pasture or extremely poor pasture, the two methods would not agree. But taking as he did fairly average years, the results check very closel3\ While the Chicago Milk Commission adopted the principle of the ratio method, it did so with certain modifications. To illus- trate the method as adopted by the Chicago Milk Commission, we quote from the report as follows : "The commission has therefore selected as a base, representing cost of production and a fair profit, the average sale price per one hundred (100) pounds over the years 1908 to 1915, inclusive. The result of course does not represent present value, due to the large advance in cost of feed and labor since that time. The quan- tity of feed and labor per one hundred (100) pounds of milk, however, is the same in both periods. Considering the eight-year period as a base and distributing feed and labor on a basis of 100 per cent total, the commission developed the following ratio : Nine- teen per cent home-grown grains, 19 per cent- mill-feeds (wheat, bran, wheat middlings, hominy, cottonseed meal, oil meal, gluten feed, dry salt), 35 per cent hay (including silage valued at the ratio of three tons of silage to one ton of hay), 27 per cent labor. "It was agreed by the commission that variations in the prices of those four units represent Avith sufficient accuracy, when ap- 46 Agricultukal Prices plied according to the above ratio, the increase or decrease in the cost of production of milk. The only criticism made to this base or this plan was by a minority of the members of the commission, that the price to the producer during the eight-year period re- ferred to was not satisfactory to them. "From the monthly price reports issued by the Department of Agriculture, the farm prices of home-grown grains and hay are obtainable, and from a reliable trade journal published in Mil- waukee the wholesale prices of mill-feeds are obtainable. The average over the eight-year period from these records is as follows : Com, $1,107 per hundred pounds; mill-feeds, $1.S06 per hundred pounds ; hay, 55.7 cents per hundred pounds. "It appears fair to the industry that it is entitled to the same proportionate increase in the price of its product as has occurred in the elements which make up the product. From the records of the Department for November, 1917, the beginning of the period under consideration, the following prices prevailed, obtained from the same sources : Corn, $3,089 per hundred pounds ; mill-feeds, $2.3655 per hundred pounds ; hay, 78 cents per hundred pounds. "The commission has considered from the evidence and such information as was obtainable that the price of labor in November represents 50 per cent advance over the average for the eight-year period. Using the propoi'tion of feed and labor and prices over the eight-year period, and comparing with November prices from the same source of information and on the same products, we find the following ratio of increase: i O 'm a PQ Eight-year period aver- age. a5 a" CD t- Pet. increase Nov., 1917, over 8-year period. CD Corn 19 19 35 27 $1,107 1.306 .557 $3,089 2.3655 .780 179 81.1 40 50 53.01 34.41 49.00 40 50 Mill feeds Hay Labor 100 177 "The average price of milk per one hundred (100) pounds for the month of November, from 1908 to 1915, inclusive, was $1,768. Applying the new index ratio of 1.77, the November, 1917, price would be, therefore, .$3.13. In the same manner, the price for any month may be determined by taking the average price over the eight-year period for that month and multiplying it by the index Milk Peice Determination 47 figure, 1.77. It will be noted that by the use of this method the ratio of the costs of feed and labor betv/een the average of the eight-year period and the November, 1917, period, is used rather than the actual prices of the commodities. "The average monthly prices of milk per hundred pounds over the eight-year period were as follows : November, $1.768 ; Decem- ber, $1,812; January, $1,781; February, $1,737; March, $1.60; April, $1,406; May, $1.15; June, $1,017. Applying this index, 1.77 November price, to these figures: November, $3.13; Decem- ber, $3.20; January, $3.15; February, $3.07; March, $2.83; April, $2.49; May, $2.04; June, $1.80." This report was signed only by the city members of the com- mission. The agriculturally-minded members and the Chicago «907 I90g 1909 1910 1911 mz 1913 J9I4 I9IS i9!6 /9l7 (918 f3l9 (9^0 40c ts G. >nPer c.t. ZO - ,. _ m L 20 i h% rf^ jM~ ii Ll J \ 1 ij If Cw 7\ ^ 1 ■ V 40 ,, .. ] 1 r I 60 • .. .. w 1 80- ■• .. .. Illustrating when Chicago niiik prices have been above and below their ten-year average ratio to feed and labor prices. milk producers knew that the prices secured by the ratio method as advocated by the commission were not high enough to cover cost of production. The fault was in the method of application. Hay and labor between them were made to represent, according to the commission, 62 per cent of the total cost of producing milk, which is altogether too high a weighting. This bad weighting was made worse because of the fact that thoroly up-to-date figures on hay and labor were not available, and the figures which were taken were far lower than those existing at the time when the report was actually published. The converting of silage into terms of hay instead of into terms of corn is a matter open to grave question in view of the fact that silage production costs are almost identical with corn production costs, and the alternative market for silage is the corn market and not the hay market. Several other mis- 48 Agricultuiial Peices takes were made which might have been avoided if the method had been applied by a thoroly impartial body well versed in the tech- nique of dairying as well as the weighting of agricultural index numbers. The unjust prices secured by the commission should not be blamed on the ratio method, but on the way in which it was a,pplied. The finest scales are not dependable in the hands of an ignorant or a dishonest man. We present herewith a historical milk chart indicating profits and losses from January, 1908. A full description of the derivation of the Pearson formula is to be found in Bulletin No. 216 of the Illinois Experiment Station. COST OF PRODUCING CROPS THERE are two methods of determining the cost of producing crops — the cost-accounting method and the ratio method. The common method is the cost-accounting system, as employed by farm management investigators. For example, it has been found that the average farmer in the corn belt puts about twenty hours of man labor and fifty hours of horse labor on the average acre of corn. This divides up roughly into three hours of man labor and twelve hours of horse labor for plowing, three hours of man labor and twelve hours of horse labor for disking and har- rowing, three-fourths of an hour of man labor and one and one- half hours of horse labor for planting, six hours of man labor and twelve hours of horse labor for cultivating, six hours of man labor and twelve hours of horse labor for husking, hvo hours of man labor and five hours of horse labor for manuring and miscellaneous. In addition to the man and horse labor charges are machinery expense, seed, manure or fertilizer, insurance and depreciation on the gen- eral overhead charges, and the rent of land. With man labor at 35 cents an hour, horse labor at 18 cents an hour, land rent at $12 an acre, and machinery and miscellaneous expenses at $4 an acre, the total cost of producing an acre of corn in 1919 Avas about $32. On extra good land, the rent was as high as $18 or $20 an acre, and the cost of an acre was increased accordingly. However, on extra good land the yield was decidedly above the average. The average acre 3a eld in Iowa in 1919 was forty bushels, or the cost of producing a bushel of corn was roughly 80 cents on the farm in the month of December. The 1919 crop was decidedly above the average ; with an average crop it would have cost the Iowa farmer right around 90 cents a bushel in such a year as 1919. The ratio method when applied to corn corroborates the farm management investigational method. The ratio method is based on the supposition that the cost of producing corn varies with the cost of man labor, horse labor and machinery. For the sake of convenience, it is taken that the cost of horse labor varies with the price of corn, oats and hay, and that the price of agricultural machinery varies with that part of Dun's index known as metals. Roughly, it is figured that of the cost of producing corn in Iowa, 35 per cent is represented by land charge, 20 per cent by man labor, 15 per cent by corn (used either as seed or fed to horses), 10 per cent by hay fed to horses, 5 per cent by oats fed to horses, ~A) Agricultural Prices 10 per cent by Dun's metals, and 5 per cent by Dun's miscella- neous. Dun's metals are given, a lag of two years, and Dun's mis- cellaneous of one year, owing to the fact that machinery and the miscellaneous overhead expenses entering into the cost of corn pro- duction become felt rather slowly. Applying the ratio method, we will take as our base the ten- year period from 1897 to 1906. During this period lov/a land averaged about $50 an acre; harvest labor, without board, $2 a day; corn, 29.4 cents a bushel; hay, $5.47 a ton; oats, 23 cents a bushel; Dun's metals, about $14, and Dun's miscellaneous, about $15. The average acre of Iowa corn during this ten-year period was worth on a December 1st farm basis $10. Xow, in 1919, Iowa land was Morth about $192 an acre, or 384 per cent of the basic ten-year period; man labor, without board, at harvest time was around $5.20 a da}^, or approximately 260 per cent of this ten-year basic period. In like manner, corn was 410 per cent ; oats, 280 per cent ; hay, 330 per cent ; Dun's metals, 230 per cent, and Dun's miscellaneous, 230 per cent. If land is al- lowed a weighting of 35 per cent; man labor, 20 per cent; corn, 15 per cent; hay, 10 per cent; oats, 5 per cent; Dun's metals, 10 per • •cnt, and Dun's miscellaneous, 5 per cent, we arrive at 329 per cent as the cost of producing an acre of corn in 1919, as compared with 100 per cent for the basic ten-year period. In the basic ten- year period, an acre of corn actually sold for $10. In 1919, in order to come as near breaking even as in the basic ten-year period, c-.n acre of corn should sell for $32.90. The ratio method gives almost identically the same results as the farm management method. Both indicate that it cost the average loAva farmer in 1919 about 80 cents to produce a bushel of corn on a basis of December 1st farm values.* The ratio method may be applied to other crops by using a somewhat different weighting of the production factors. In the case of oats in Iowa, for instance, land may be given a weighting of about 35 per cent; man labor, 15 per cent; corn, 10 per cent; hay, 10 per cent; oats, 15 per cent; Dun's metals, 10 per cent, and Dun's miscellaneous, 5 per cent. This Avould indicate that oats in Iowa in 1919 cost about 324 per cent as much as in the basic ten years. In the basic ten-year period, the average acre of oats in Iowa sold for $8. We may therefore conclude that the *The chart printed in connection with the chapter, "Pork Exports, the Barometer of Corn Belt Prosperity," gives forty-four years of profit and loss areas per acre of corn in the twelve north central states, the method used being the ratio method as described in the above. Cost of Producing Crops 51 cost of producing- oats in 1919 was SM per cent of $8, or $25.92. With an average 3^ield of thirty-three bushels per acre, the cost per bushel was about TS cents on a December 1st farm basis. IManifestly, the weak point in the ratio method of determining cost of producing crops is the character of the basic period. Did the crops actually sell during the basic ten-year period for cost of production.'^ Manifestly, in some years they sold for less, and in some years they sold for more. As an average of the entire ten- year period, they must have sold for at least cost of production, or farmers would gradually have reduced their acreage of the par- ticular crop under consideration, or else gone out of business en- tirely. As a matter of fact, in the ten-year period under con- sideration, 1897-1906, land values were constantly advancing. It would seem, on the whole that this particular ten-year period is a fair one to use, and that as an average of these ten years crops sold for approximately cost of production, no more, no less. It is always conceivable that over long periods of time there might have occurred changes in supply or demand conditions that would make the basic ten-year period altogether false for the pur- pose of comparison. For example, in the case of oats, it is con- ceivable that tractors, trucks and automobiles might so displace horses as to make the city demand for oats decidedly less than during the ten-year period extending from 1897 to 1906. The oats acreage might therefore be considerably decreased, and oats be produced in large quantities only in those sections especially adapted to growing oats. It is conceivable, therefore, that the ratio method may possibly give the cost of oats production at rather too high a figure, a figure impossible of realization, one 3'ear with another. In the case of standard crops, however, there is remarkably little change in either supply conditions or demand conditions. Methods of producing corn are pretty well standard- ized. The market for corn is almost equally stable. It is be- lieved that the ratio method of determining cost of corn production will be approximately accurate for the next fifty years. CONSUMERS' RATIOS DURING the past fifty years, a number of people have set themselves to work to measure the shifting economic tides with index numbers. The more complete of these index numbers really undertake to measure the changing value of the dollar. In July of 1914, for instance. Dun's index number was ?119.71, which meant that it required $119.71 to buy a certain given amount of wheat, corn, oats, pork, beef, butter, eggs, wool, hides, pig-iron, lumber, petroleum, etc. On September 1, 1919, it required $238.34 to bu}'^ these same goods. The dollar of July of 1914 had become worth about 50 cents in September of 1919, in its ability to buy wholesale products. The consumer, in his buying, has certain choices. The man who thinks pork is too high in price can shift to beef or mutton ; or he can leave meat altogether out of his ration and secure the needed nutrients in dairy or poultry products. The producers' ratios, as described in preceding chapters, have to do fundamentally with supply conditions. They deal with the relation between a raw product and a more finished product. They are concerned, but not immediately, with demand conditions. The attempt in this chapter is to develop a ratio which gives more par- ticular weight to demand conditions. Therefore, ratios are devel- oped between a standard index number on the one hand and a given commodity on the other. However, because index numbers in- clude some of the items of expense entering into the production of any commodity, such a ratio also represents to a considerable extent a producers' ratio. To understand the matter more definitel}^, Ave shall look into the ratio actually prevailing between Dun's index number and Chicago hog prices. As an average of the ten-year period, 1907-1916, Dun's index number in January has averaged $120.16, whereas hogs during the same period have averaged $6.99 per hundred- weight. In other Avords, live hogs have sold per hundredweight for about one-seA^enteenth of the A^alue of Dun's index number. On this basis, in January of 1907, the index price of hogs was $6.24, whereas the actual price was $6.60, or 36 cents higher. In January of 1908, the index price of hogs was $6.59, whereas the actual price was $4,45, or $2.14 loAA^er. And so it goes. For the period of a year or tAvo, hogs Avill sell proportionately higher than other commodities, and then for a like length of time they will sell loAver. This is graphically illustrated in the accompanying chart. Consumers' Ratios 53 This chart, it will be noted, is very similar in appearance to the corn-hog ratio chart. The chief point of difference is in 1917 and 1918, during which time hogs sold relatively higher than an average of other commodities, as indicated by Dun's index number, whereas they were relatively lower than corn. War conditions, creating an unprecedented demand for breadstuffs, raised grain prices out of all proportion to other commodities. On studying this chart closely, it will be noticed that there is a tendency, gener- ally speaking, for hogs to sell relatively cheap to other commodi- 1901 IS08 1909 1910 191' i9n > 1913 19/4 1915 i9l6 \9\1 191 8 1919 ProfH ?er Cvit. a 6"-^ 1 i s*-» 1 ^iS » 1 5 '-2 1 11' 2i ' — ] — .. 1 — f- rt -4- n 1 — — 1 — ' — — ^- 1 ^0 VJ> 1/ . 'r^ 1 J ^ h 1 i 1 1 / ki, ] 1 / « 1 : i / I ^ i 1 1 / 1 41 ^ 57 56 35 >4 35 32 il 50 29 28 27 26 25 24 25 22 2\ 20 19 18 1 ■ 1 1 i _j^ 1 1 -> 1 / 1 1 ! I ! 1 1 / - ! IV' /-/■|\ r . / ! 1 / / V 1 - ! 1 1 / 1 1 / \/ 1 RcTai HdTTiPvicM J / 1 /^ / _4 ,r^ V ---^ 1 jr\ 1 ^ t 1 >A^ j\ \ 1 ,/ 1 / I j y^ ^^ • I ^ rr^ / 1 1 ^-v/ i /Sv ^ 1 1 1 1 V — /t\ >/ ' 1 1 1 1 i 1 Wno esa p riAm Prices ' ; i / rV\ 1 i ^ r^ - / ■■ 1 . t-. 1 T- /' , A / J7 : ^ ■ r^ n 1 / J-UJ "A" . ■\ ^ 16 15 !^ 12 It }0 ! ' ^V 7^ I J ,i \^ ' /S 1 A _^^ \ / \ r 'V 'v\^ ! r^ s r^ J A-/-,-5: r' >" ' \/ A/ '--' j UP" + PL 1 ■ nog r vices di L^niCAtf °'vZ^ >\ 9. ; . ■ 7f=i 8 7 6 1 i^\ /r^»A— . v^~^^^ 1 j / X v^ • 1 1 V / I N/^s^i I 1 1 ^~1 ! Illustrating- how the differential between farmers' price and wholesale and retail price widens in proportion to the higher price level. ferential between retail and wholesale prices sufficiently to cover the cost of doing business on a price level twice as high as in 1914. The facts concerning the retail price of ham, wholesale price of ham, and price of hogs, are presented in the accompanying chart. Other retail prices are given in the appendix, and it is possible from the figures there presented to work out normal dif- ferentials for such products as wheat and wheat flour, corn and corn meal, sirloin steak and cattle, etc. PORK EXPORTS THE BAROMETER OF CORN BELT PROSPERITY FOR years Ave have exported from the United States more corn in the form of pork than in the form of shelled corn or corn meal. In recent years we have been exporting an average of about 40,000,000 bushels of corn in the form of corn and corn meal, whereas we have been exporting the equivalent of about 130,000,- 000 bushels of corn in the form of pork products. And for the year 1919 we exported the equivalent of about 350,000,000 bushels of corn in the form of pork. There is an extraordinary sympathy between the corn and hog industries. True it is that we feed almost as much corn to our horses as we do to our hogs, but the corn which we feed to horses is for the purpose of keeping the farm plant running. The corn fed to horses does not bring in direct cash returns in the same Avay as the coiln fed to hogs. Nearly one-third of all our corn is fed to hogs, and from the standpoint of market strateg}^, this third which is fed to hogs counts more than the other tMo-thirds. The demand for the other two-thirds by horses and cattle and by the grist mills of the toAATis and cities is practically stationary from one year to the next. It is the corn which is fed to hogs that varies so greatly from one year to the next. For the first ten months of 1919, the value of the pork products exported from the United States was $778,000,000, or about one- eighth of the value of all the exports from the United States for this period. The only other product of practically equal magni- tude with pork products Avas cotton, Avith a total value of $775,- 000,000 for the first ten months of 1919. Wheat and wheat flour, Avhich most people think rank decidedly above the value of pork products, totaled during this period $556,000,000. Corn and corn meal exports during this period Avere worth an insignifi- cant $15,000,000. Of course aa'c are noAv exporting more pork products than ever before in history, but even before the Avar the corn belt expressed itself in international trade pre-eminently thru its exports of pork products. The ham, bacon and lard of the corn belt are comparable Avith the wheat of the nortlnvest and the cotton of the south. Before the Avar, we exported every year the equivalent of about five or six million hogs. Last year Ave exported the equivalent of thirteen or fourteen million hogs, nearly one-fifth of our total pro- Pork Exports and Corn Belt Prosperity 65 duction. Exports dropped off during September, October and No- vember, but this is a customary seasonal occurrence, and there is now the prospect of a resumption of a tremendous exportation of hog products during the winter and early summer. The two charts printed herewith indicate the very close con- nection between pork exports and profits in corn raising. The chart giving the profits and losses on the average acre of corn for the past forty-five years is re-published from Wallaces' Farmer of May 17, 1918, the profits for the years 1918 and 1919 having been added since. It will be noted that the other chai-t gives the exports of hog products in pounds from the United States year by year. The exports are in fiscal years, ending on June 30th. It will be noted that in a broad, general way, there is a considerable relation- ship between the two charts. When pork exports have been less than normal for a year or two, there is a decided tendenc}^ for corn to become unprofitable, and vice versa. Note how the big hog exports, starting in 1877 and continuing thru 1881, were accom- panied by a period of unusual corn profits. Note how the falling off in hog exports, starting with 1882 and continuing until 1890, was also accompanied by unprofitable corn crops. Then there was a temporary turn for the better in both corn and hog exports in 1890 and 1891, and a sag in both until 1897, when hog exports picked up and continued to pick up to a very marked degree for several years, the change in hog exports being slowly reflected in corn profits. Generally speaking, pork exports seem to lead the way, and corn tags along behind. During the war years, how- ever, corn seemed to move just about as fast as hog exports. The first year of really heavy hog exports was the year ending June 30, 1916, and the first corn crop to sell unusully high was that harvested in the fall of 1916. The corn crops of 1916, 1917, 1918 and 1919 have all been extraordinarily profitable, and the pork exports during these same years have been unusually heavy. Un- questionably, there is a very close relationship between hog exports and the general level of corn prices. We do not mean to say that there is a month-by-month relationship, or even a j^ear-by-year relationship. We do mean to say, however, that it is impossible for the United States to export an unusual volume of hog products without sooner or later raising corn prices. It may take a year or two for the effect to be felt by corn, but sooner or later the in- fluence seems to be inevitable. Heavy hog exports make for higher corn prices, and higher corn prices make for higher values in corn belt farm land. With- out much question, the fundamental cause of corn land rising so 66 Agricultural Prices much more rapidly than land In other sections is the unusual vol- ume of pork products starting with the year 1916. It would have been impossible for the com market to have reached or sustained / <% / 00 1^ _ .^ _ -J f vO ■v \ / * '^> "U fM i '} I ^ p a ) i H Jv •• )-• r \ i 2 \ \ \ \ c ■V. v ^ ^ o \ ) 1 - , O MCXl M 6 6: oc 1^ X o * lO Ti; -d cb i ^ lO a)±; to > tij c d g c CQ il U) .r-f O (D .2 «>> 3 01 to be m o
, 03 !P t< (P p ;i3 t^ m o) Q) +^ :=i bjjfc; — C t- ft rt 3 TO cpi25« £ O _ 3 .s ^1 ^ 2 rag C.S (p — -'^ 'O'C ^ ■ 3 Hi O.-tl ■M a 1^ its high altitude without the prop of such tremendous hog exports. In view of the evidence presented, we make bold to say that hog I exports furnish a most delicate barometer of corn belt prosperity. Pork Exports and Corn Belt Prosperity 67 The huge vokime of pork exports during the past three years is the explanation of corn belt land rising faster than in other sections. Iowa raises twice as many hogs as any other state, and this doubt- > T .^, t |i §1 ti 11 |i ii I! 1^ ill ^^ OS ?1 "^ jt'ss is the reason why land in loAva has risen faster than in any other state. What of the future .^ Is there any chance that pork exports will maintain their present volume .? We may as well face the issue 68 Agricultural Prices squarely and come to the conclusion that in all probability pork exports, within three or four years, will decline to about one-third their present volume. For four or five years previous to the war, the tendency of pork exports was somewhat downward. It is re- ported that at that time Great Britain was buying less and less of her hog products from the United States, and that she was thinking of buying more and more of her coarser quality of hog products from China. At the present time there is considerable Chinese bacon on the English market. It is also worth while to note in this connection that the English consumption of meat is now 1,200,000 tons, which is 600,000 tons less than her pre-war consumption of meat. If England has cut down on her meat consumption one-* third, the probabilities are that the continent of Europe has cut down on its meat consumption one-half. Probably never again will the world eat as much meat per capita as it did before the war. Whether we like it or not, we may as well face the probability that our pork exports are on the decline, and will not stop declining un- til they are down to about one-third of the 1919 volume. And we may expect that this decline in pork exports will have some influence on corn prices, and therefore on corn land prices. The future situation is of course considerably different than that which has existed at any time during the past forty-five years. The volume of money in circulation may be such that there will be no actual decline in corn prices or in corn land prices. Just the same, we may expect that the unusually favorable position which has been enjoyed by the corn belt during the past three 3^ears will disappear with the decline in pork exports. Previous to the war, Great Britain and Germany absorbed more of our pork exports than any other nations. Great Britain took 73 per cent of our pork exports, 86 per cent of our exports of hams and shoulders, and 36 per cent of our lard exports. Ger- many took 30 per cent of our lard exports and practically nothing in the way of bacon, hams or shoulders. Cuba, Holland and Bel- gium were the other large importers of American hog products, but these three nations together required only about one-tenth as much as Great Britain. If Great Britain cuts down her consump- tion of meat to two-thirds what it was before the war, she will be much more nearl}'' self-supporting from a meat standpoint than she is now, and probably will not import from the United States more than one-half as much meat as she did before the Avar. Great Britain owes considerable mone}'^ to the United States, and, more- over, in the future she will not get from the United States in such large measure ocean freight charges on the British merchant ma- PoKK Exports and Corn Belt Prosperity 69 rine. In the old days, Great Britain had a considerable credit balance coming to her every year from the United States, and she took a large part of this in the form of pork products. Now that the situation is reversed, it is difficult to see how Great Britain can import as much in the way of hog products from the United States as she did before the war. True it is that for the year 1919 she has imported about three times as much from the United States as before the war, but once the present emergency is past, it seems obvious that Great Britain will cut her pork imports down to the minimum. In the case of Germany, the situation is even worse. Germany, which normally took 150,000,000 pounds of lard from us every year before the war, must now pay the allied nations an indemnity every year of at least $600,000,000. In order to pay this huge sum, Germany must cut her imports down to the absolute minimum, and become extraordinarily efficient in exporting. For the next two or three years, Germany may perhaps import more lard from us than she did before the war, but, as rapidly as possible, Ger- many will re-establish her swine industry and reduce the imports of American lard. We may be painting the situation too black, but we can not see how our pork exports, by the year 1925, can total to more than 800,000,000 or possibly 900,000,000 pounds, which is less than one-third the 1919 volume of exports. Of course, another war may break out in the meantime, or some other extraordinary thing may happen, but in the ordinary course of events, it would seem that our pork exports must inevitably decrease until they are con- siderably less than the pre-war normal. And it would seem that this decrease in pork exports will have a very considerable bearing on corn prices, which will in turn have a bearing on corn land prices. Again, we wish to say, however, that we do not neces- sarily believe that corn land in 1925 or 1930 will be selling cheaper than it is today. Prices of all kinds doubtless will continue to be high in 1925 and 1930, for the simple reason that inflated currency the world over will still continue. The point we are trying to make is that once hog exports decline to the pre-war normal, or less, corn belt farming will cease to enjoy the unusual advantage which it had during the war. It may for a time be relatively less profit- able than farming in certain other sections of the United States. There are many curious paradoxes in the hog export trade in the United States. While a heavy export of hog products sooner or later means high corn prices, high hog prices and corn belt pros- perity generally, yet as a usual proposition, heavy hog exports do 7C Agricultural Prices not start except in times of unusually low hog prices. The heavy exports of "i 877-1881 did not start till hogs had declined below $5 a hundred, and reached their height while hogs were $3 to $4 a hun- dred. In 1882, when hog prices climbed to over $8 per hundred on the Chicago market, hog exports promptly fell off, and did not climb again until hog prices again went below $4 a hundred, in 1890. In early 1893, when hog prices on the Chicago market climbed up to nearly $8 a hundred again, hog exports dropped off very suddenl}^ They did not pick up at once in 1896, when hog prices went under $4 again, but did pick up very rapidly in 1897 and 1898, during both of which years hog prices on the Chicago market were under $4 a hundred most of the time. In 1902, there were heavy exports, in spite of the fact that hog prices were rela- tively high, but by 1903 the British apparently had had enough of buying high-priced pork on the American market, and they cur- tailed their importations very decidedly. Again, in 1910, the ex- ceedingly high prices stopped the export demand. During the past three years there have been unprecedented exports in spite of unusually high prices. But as a matter of fact, hog prices in the United States have been cheaper during the past three years than any place else in the world. We have been selling hogs at a great bargain, or Great Britain would not have bought such tre- mendous quantities from us. A thoro study of the exports of the United States month by month fi*om January, 1903, thru the year 1914, indicates that there is a continual tendency for hog exports to be large when hog- prices are low, and vice versa. The correlation coefficient between hog prices and hog exports is minus .52. There seems to be a closer correlation between hog exports and hog prices than between receipts of hogs at central markets and hog prices. The tendency has been for hog exports to be 40 per cent above normal when hog pri<;es are 15 per cent below normal; for hog exports to be 20 per cent above normal when hog prices are 8 per cent below normal, etc. In November of 1919, when hog exports were about 40 per cent above normal, it would have appeared, therefore, that hog prices were about 15 per cent below normal. This is a long-swing tendency, and of course there are occasional exceptions. This part of the problem may be summed up to the effect that big exports start in times of low hog prices, and that these exports after a time stimulate both corn and hog prices, with the result that after a time both corn and hogs become so high in price. that exports dry up, and then corn and hog prices weaken, and the whole thing starts over again. There was a continuous series of these cycles previ- Pork Exports axb Corn Belt Prosperity 71 ous to the war, and it is to be expected, now that the war is over, that the phenomena will repeat themselves, altho with some added variations. One thing we must remember is that very possibly the export trade of the United States will not count so big in the future as it has in the past. The United States has loaned som.ething like $10,0005000,000 to foreign countries, and every year she will have hundreds of millions of dollars in interest coming her way, instead of owing hundreds of millions of dollars to countries across the water, as Avas the case before the war. And as long as the United States has so much money coming to her in interest charges, we must expect that eventual!}^ the United States must import more goods than she exports. This does not necessarily mean the de- struction of the hog industry in the corn belt, but it may mean that it Avill have to shift onto a somewhat different basis. It may be that in the future we must plan on growing enough hogs only to satisfy the needs of the United States, ca,refully avoiding a glut which will. make it essential to export any large quantity. Or it may be that the American farmer is so exceedingly efficient in the business of producing hogs that the United States will always ex- port large quantities of pork products, even tho the balance of trade otherwise is against the United States. J"Tf we approach the; problem from the standpoint of going after a large trade m hog/ products Avith foreign countries, we must put ourselves in position to produce with the utmost economy possible. "Price", talks iii the export business, and we shall export large quantities of hog products whenever we are selling hogs decidedly cheaper than the rest of the world^ Just what kind of a whistle do we want, and v.diat price are we willing to pay for it ? Here is a problem which we commend to the earnest study of the research department which the National Farm Bureau Federation may some day possess. CORN BELT LAND VALUES IN RELATION TO COST OF PRODUCING CORN RENT or interest on the money invested in land is a legitimate item in cost of production — so far as the individual farmer is concerned. But society is likely to reach a time when it will assert the right to object to pajdng a price for corn which will permit of paying a very high rent, which in turn is used to support very high land values. Society may say, in effect: Your high land values are just as viciovis as watered railway stock, and you have no more right to expect a five per cent return on the inflated value than the rail- roads have to expect such a return on their watered stock. Society may be expected to pay a price for corn which is estab- lished by competition between farmers in this country and in the Argentine, and by the need of Europe for our pork products. This price doubtless will bear much the same relation to the general price level as before the war. It may be high enough to permit of corn belt land values as they existed in 1920, or even higher values. Or it may be low enough to compel a reduction in corn belt values and farm-hand wages. In the case of a severe drop in corn prices, it is conceivable but not probable that corn belt farmers will organize sufficiently to compel the return to a price high enough to maintain 1920 land A^alues and farm-hand wages. It is believed that under conditions of free competition it will be necessary for corn to sell for about 85 cents a bushel, on a basis of December 1st farm valuations in the corn belt in the ordinary crop year, in order to maintain land values as they existed in 1930. This means that prices might go as low as 70 cents a bushel in years of big crops, or as high as $1 in years of small crops. It is also assumed that labor at harvest, without board, will settle down to about $4.25 a day, which was the 1918 level. If labor at har- vest, without board, continues at $5 a day, which was the 1919 level, it will be necessary for corn to sell for about 88 cents a bushel, on a December 1st farm basis, in order to maintain the 1920 level of land values and farm-hand wages. It is recognized that this prediction may be wide of the mark in case farmers are able to organize themselves for selfish purposes as effectively as capital and union labor. For forty years pre- ceding the war, the farmer paid his regular monthly labor a sweat- CoKN Belt Land Values 73 ed wage, and, in effect, sold his own labor just as cheaply. During the war, the farmer had a taste of a higher standard of living, and, having had this taste, he will be loath to let farm product prices slip back to a point where he will be reduced to his former state or even lower. It is suggested as the only effective way out of the difficulty that farmers organize into powerful bargaining organizations, which, on occasion, can practice sabotage as skillfully as capital or union labor. But, in addition, and above all, it is absolutely necessary to become extraordinarily efficient. We must continue to apply our best brains to production problems, perfecting meth- ods which will enable us to produce corn 10 cents a bushel cheaper in Iowa than in Argentina. PRICE STABILITY AND SOIL FERTILITY ONE of the strongest arguments for more stable prices is the effect on soil fertility. While the best farmers will try to maintain the fertility of their land, no matter Avhat may be the eco- nomic outlook, the bulk of our farming population will not make any serious efforts along this line as long as the price outlook is uncertain. When prices are advancing, the tendency is for mil- lions of acres of farm land to find their way into the hands of spec- ulators and investors, who hold for a rise, and who take no interest whatever in the application of lime and phosphate or the growing of clover. AVlien prices are tending downward, there is a tendency to economize to the limit. Even those farmers who normally use fertilizers are likely to postpone purchases until next year or the year after, in the hope of lower prices. It is only under a system of relatively stable prices that we may expect really effective at- tention to be given to soil fertility problems by the bulk of our farmers. The quicker we can get onto a stable price level, the more effectively will the fertility of our soil be conserved. It is common observation that live stock farming maintains the fertility of the soil more effectively than grain farming. In the corn belt, live stock farms ordinarilj^ produce five bushels more corn per acre than grain farms. Two great obstacles to live stock farming are tenancy and price uncertainty. The man of small means who has been farming for himself for only a few years can not afford to take a chance. He does not know whether or not hogs will be at a price next year v>'hich will furnish a good market for corn, and he therefore plays safe by breeding only three or four sows, instead of the five or six which he might very well handle. Unquestionably, the farmers in the corn belt would be justified in keeping more live stock if the price of live stock should represent cost of production day by day and month by month. In fact, corn belt farmers, as an average of a five-year period, could prob- ably afford to produce both hogs and cattle at lower relative prices than were customary before the war, if only prices were more nearly stable, if they could feel reasonably sure of getting a price more nearly representing production cost. The maintenance of the fertility of our soil is a matter of national concern. In the long run, it is of more vital interest to the people of the cities than to the farmer. Men engaged in indus- trial enterprises should do what they can to favor such adjustment Measuring Total Crop Production 75 of prices as will make it to the advantage of the farmer to keep his land in good heart, because that will make for larger production and more economical production. MEASURING TOTAL CROP PRODUCTION THIS chapter does not folloAv the same line of thought as the other chapters. It has an indirect bearing, however, and Ave believe the suggested method of measuring total crop production to be of some value. Small crops ordinarily bring the farming class more money , than large crops. Nevertheless, Tin the long run big crops meanl prosperity to the country as a wnoler\ To judge just when crops as a whole are large and when they are small, a method has been devised, which may be illustrated as follows : In 1918, the United States produced 2,582,814,000 bushels of corn, 917,100,000 bushels of wheat, 89,833,000 tons of hay, 11,- 700,000 bales of cotton, etc. Now, to ascertain total crop produc- tion, it is obviously impossible to add together bushels, tons, bales, etc. We can add together the value of the crops, but the price level shifts from year to year, and this method is not satisfactory. Now, the 1907-1916 ten-year average price of corn was 61 cents, of wheat 96.2 cents, of hay $11.49 a ton, of cotton $59 a bale, etc. A ten-year average illustrates the relative economic emphasis. These prices are therefore used as constant factors, applicable to any crop year. The 1918 corn crop of 2,582,814,000 bushels, converted into economic crop units by multiplying by 61, equals 157,500,000,000. The 1918 wheat crop of 917,100,000 bushels, multiplied by 96.2, <^quals 63,600,000,000. The same thing done with the thirteen leading crops gives 559,900,000,000 crop units produced by the United States in 1918, or 5,270 crop units per capita. The per capita production of crop units since 1880 has been as follows : '^ 1880 5,360 1881 4,280 1882 5,330 1883 5,120 1884 5,560 1885 5,250 1886 4,970 1887 4,690 1888 5,240 1889 5,910 Decade Averages, 5,171 1890 4,720 1891 5,820 1892 4,840 1893 4,710 1894 4,030 1895 4,980 1896 5,170 1897 5,070 1898 5,360 1899 5,760 1900 5,820 1901 4,470 1902 5,480 1903 4,930 1904 5,220 1905 5,200 1906 5,560 1907 4,940 1908 5,220 1909 5.100 5,194 1910 5,320 1911 4,850 1912 5,690 1913 4,950 1914 5,410 1915 5,770 1916 4,940 1917 5,530 1918 5,270 1919 5,400 5,313 5,046 76 Agricultural Prices Note how constant has been the productive power of the United States in economic crop units per capita, decade by decade, since 1880. Note that since 1910 crop production has more than kept pace with the increase in population. In the '80's we exported the equivalent of about 650 economic crop units per capita (in this we convert pork exports into corn), which left, roughly, 4,500 economic crop units per capita for home consumption. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1919, we ex- ported about 750 economic crop units per capita, which left, roughly, 4,500 economic crop units of the 1918 crop for home con- sumption. During the decade ending 1919 there has been an aver- age of about 4,800 economic crop units per capita left for home consumption. It was probably necessary to retain more economic crop units per capita at home during the last decade than during the '80's, because of the smaller live stock production per capita. From the standpoint of production per farm, there has been a tremendous increase every decade. As an average of 1880-1889, the production per farm was 66,420 units, as compared with 67,990 units for the 1890-1899 decade, 71,600 units for the 1900-1909 decade, and 81,000 units for the 1910-1919 decade. In response to the higher price level, the productivity of the average farm has constantly been increasing. If both the general price level and the price of farm crops had been the same in the 1910-1919 decade as in the 1900-1909 decade, the probabilities are that the average production per farm would have been about 73,000 economic crop units instead of 81,000. If by the 1940-1949 decade we have a population of 150,000,000, and if Dun's index number at that time is $170, it will be necessary to pay at Chicago an average of about $1.80 for wheat, $1.15 for corn, and 65 cents for oats, in order to call forth as much production per capita as was called forth by the prices paid during the past forty years. When Dun's in- dex number is as low as $170 (at this writing, in early 1920, it is $244), $1.80 for wheat, etc., will be very high relatively. Rather than pay such a high relative price, the consumers of the United States will probably turn to Argentina and other countries where farmers produce food cheaply by living on a lower standard. The position of the United States, rising out of the world war, whereby she is the creditor nation of the world, will favor food importa- tions. \lt is a commonplace among business men that good crops mean good business. The effect, however, is not as close as they imag- ine. The short crop of 1901 did not affect the business world till 1903 and 1904. The short crops of 1892, 1893 and 1894 did Measuring Total Crop Production • 77 not have full effect till 1895 and 1896. A single crop year which is only slightly below average may have no effect whatever on business. But when three crop years average below normal, there is almost certain to be some effect on business^ From 1903 to 1919, the correlation between crops and the price of securities on the stock exchange was about .53. Professor H. L. Moore, in his book on "Economic Cycles," finds between crop jaelds per acre and pig iron production a correlation coefficient of .72, pig iron pro- duction lagging about a year behind crops. \lSig crops do mean good business, altho they mean prosperity to 'the farming class chiefly in an indirect way. A small crop generally brings farmers more money than a large crop, but small crops over a period of two or three years cause business depression and this reacts on farmers .\, I'^he problem of both business men and farmers is to devise some means of giving farmers as a class a financial interest in producing big crops rather than small crops, i - + HiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiy^ Part II MATHEMATICAL STUDY OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND IN THE HOG MARKET MATHEMATICAL formulation of price-making factors is necessary in order to know when extraordinary or strategic considerations are influencing the market. The mathematical methods are highly technical, and in order to explain most clearly we shall follow a specific problem thru from beginning to end. The problem is to determine the price of hogs from hog re- ceipts (supply) and from business conditions (demand). To rep- resent business conditions, we are using bank clearings outside of New York City. The actual figures for heavy hog prices at Chi- cago are given in the Appendix. Hog receipts at Chicago and bank clearings outside of New York City are given on pages 81 and 82. The problem is to evolve from these figures the law of hog prices. The first step is to determine the secular or long-time trend of these figures. Find, for example, the secular trend of such a series as : 1901 2 1904 5 1907 4 1902 3 1905 2 1908 6 1903 2 1906 6 1909 6 From looking at these figures, we know that the secular trend slopes upward, starting with about 2 in 1901, reaching 3 or 4 by 1905, and 5 or 6 by 1909. To express the matter with mathemat- ical accuracy, the method as applied to this series is as follows: First add all the figures together. Answer in this case, 36. Then divide by the number of figures — in this case 9. Thirty-six divid- ed by 9 gives 4, which is the value of the secular trend for 1905, which is the central year. The year 1904 is the —1 year, 1903 the —2 year, 1902 the — 3 year, 1901 the — 4 year, and in like manner 1906 is the +1 year!^ 1907 the +2 year, 1908 the +3 year and 1909 the +4 year. Multiply th^. minus years by their respective values : — 1 by 5, — 2 by 2, — 3 by 3 and — 4 by 2, and also the plus years, +1 by 6, +2 by 4, +3 by 6 and +4 by 6. The totals are —26 and +56, or a net of +30. Now the sum of the squares of — 1, — 2, — 3, — 4, +1, +2, +3 and +4 is 60. Sixty divided into 30 gives .5, Avhich is the rate of movement of the secular trend each year, or if, as we found, 4 is the secular trend value for 1905, then 3.5 is the value for 1904, 3.0 for 1903, 2.5 for 1902, and 2.0 for 1901, and in like manner 4.5 for 1906, 5.0 for 1907, 5.5 for 1908 and 6 for 82 Aguicultural Prices BANK CLEARINGS OF THE UNITED STATES OUTSIDE NEW YORK CITY. (7 ciphers omitted) 1903. 1904. 1905. 1906. 1907. 1908. 1909. 1910. 1911. 1912. $ $ $ $ $ •$ $ $ $ $ Jan. . . 390 376 411 510 542 463 516 591 597 623 Feb. . 323 330 353 415 449 388 437 498 497 566 Mar. 358 359 419 463 510 430 513 600 585 604 Apr. 364 353 405 436 499 430 507 570 543 614 May 354 339 418 444 507 421 491 537 557 604 June 368 350 408 443 479 419 504 548 562 567 July 379 348 403 440 506 448 515 543 555 602 Aug. 326 336 392 432 467 404 482 508 528 572 Sep. 338 350 403 420 454 434 506 516 542 564 Oct. 394 405 460 521 561 491 582 592 606 701 Nov. 356 418 461 505 418 480 572 582 603 655 Dec. 380 430 476 504 406 512 594 591 609 655 Totals 4330 4394 5009 5533 5798 5320 6219 6676 6784 7327 BANK CLEARINGS OF THE UNITED STATES OUTSIDE NEW YORK CITY— Continued. (7 ciphers omitted) 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. 1920. 1921. 1922. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. $ 693 584 628 626 618 598 621 563 599 703 631 668 $ 683 563 640 635 593 610 631 535 540 613 568 611 $ 620 543 628 620 599 610 623 573 614 741 756 797 $ 781 719 820 775 816 810 799 805 850 1002 1016 1036 $ 1051 884 1056 1036 1073 1064 1048 1041 1015 1254 1239 1192 $ 1182 1000 1224 1239 1271 1246 1324 1320 1271 1516 1375 1415 $ 1456 1160 1359 1326 1428 1449 1562 1516 1598 1809 1672 1576 $ $ $ Totals 1 75321 7222| 7724 10229 12953 15383 17909 Mathematical Study of Supply axd Demand 83 RECEIPTS OF HOGS AT CHICAGO IN MILLIONS OF POUNDS. (000,000 omitted) 1903. 1904. 1905. 1906. 1907. 1908. 1909. 1910. 1911. 1912. Jan. Feb, Mar. Apr. May- June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. 170 144 112 117 130 156 128 133 120 109 145 194 179 174 126 116 124 128 79 120 87 110 164 184 198 152 143 121 143 139 115 115 115 135 162 178 195 158 135 111 127 141 135 138 113 121 127 148 180 151 132 136 152 139 147 128 121 104 99 172 239 184 153 108 132 136 118 105 83 131 174 184 166 141 152 102 123 113 101 92 82 91 127 138 119 122 86 74 110 120 96 112 92 107 127 136 115 150 168 125 154 132 118 116 99 124 144 145 187 172 143 129 146 128 125 103 95 118 127 147 Totals 1 1,658! 1,591| 1,716 1,649 1,661 1,747 1,428 1,301 1,590 1,620 RECEIPTS OF HOGS AT CHICAGO IN MILLIONS OF POUNDS. Continued. (000,000 omitted) 1913. 19 L4. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. 1920. 1921. 1922. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. 182 149 141 129 133 149 126 132 131 134 133 189 157 145 127 103 110 139 112 102 90 119 95 226 200 166 149 109 132 130 122 109 97 85 152 223 239 193 157 119 135 128 122 136 106 164 207 218 224 162 131 116 127 114 110 79 58 92 146 168 157 212 232 190 157 121 153 105 98 159 202 223 256 212 155 147 163 182 146 96 110 135 182 234 Totals 1 1,728 1,525 1,674 1,924 1,527 2,009 2,018 84 Agricultural Prices 1909. The secular trend is a straight line, and the actual goes above and below the secular trend in more or less wave-like fashion. In Chart I, the straight line is the secular trend of heavy hog prices at Chicago for 1903-1916, and the irregular line fluctuating above and below is the actual price of heavy hogs. The next problem is to eliminate the normal seasonal varia- tion. For example, hog prices have a normal tendency to go dowii in the fall of the year, whereas bank clearings have an equally normal tendency to go up. Obviously, seasonal trends must be eliminated if such series as hog pi-ices and bank clearings are to be compared. As an average of the fourteen years from 1903 to 1916, inclu- sive, heavy hog prices at Chicago averaged in January, $6.54 ; February, $6.83; March, $7.22; April, $7.30; May, $7.10; June, $7.10; July, $7.18; August, $7.14; September, $7.29; October $7.08 ; November, $6.65 ; December, $6.55 ; average for the entire year, $7. On this basis, January is 93 per cent of the yearly average; February, 98 per cent; March, 103 per cent; April, 104 per cent; May, 101 per cent; June, 101 per cent; July, 103 per cent; August, 102 per cent; September, 104 per cent; October, 101 per cent; November, 95 per cent, and December, 94 per cent. The December average for 1902-1915 is $6.30, or 90 per cent. Obviously, the seasonal variation as just stated in percentages is affected to some extent by the secular trend, for the Decembers of 1902-1915 average 90 per cent, and those of 1903-1916 average 94 per cent. Taking the secular trend out of our seasonal, or adding 2 points to the early months of the year and subtracting 2 points from the last months of the year, we get approximately January, 95; February, 99; March, 104; April, 105; May, 102 June, 101 ; July, 103 ; August, 102 ; September, 103 ; October, 100 November, 94, and December, 92.* Hog receipts at Chicago, in the same manner, have a modified seasonal factor of January, 132 per cent; February, 117 per cent; March, 102 per cent; April, 85 per cent; May, 99 per cent; June, 99 per cent ; July, 87 per cent ; August, 87 per cent ; September, 74 per cent; October, 86 per cent; November, 103 per cent; Decem- ber, 129 per cent. For bank clearings outside of New York City, the modified seasonal factors are: January, 109; February, 93; March, 104; *The link relative method of finding the normal seasonal variation, as used by Warren M. Persons, in the January, 1919, Review of Economic Statistics, is far more difficult than the method here used, and for our pui'poses is not worth while. Mathematical Study of Supply and Demand 85 April, 100 ; May, 99 ; June, 97 ; July, 98 ; August, 90 ; September, 93; October, 108; November, 103, and December, 106. After securing normal seasonal variation, the next step is to modify secular trend for seasonal variation. Secular trend of hog prices, as modified seasonally, is portrayed in Chart II. The sec- ular trend price of hogs in January, 1903, is $5.19, which sum, multiplied by the seasonal factor 96, gives $4.98 as the secular price of hogs modified seasonally for January, 1903. The actual price was $6.60, or $1.62 above the secular modified seasonally, or 31 per cent greater than the secular price of $5.19. In this way the percentage of departure for each month from 1903 thru 1916 may be figured. This has been done for hog prices, hog receipts and bank clearings outside of New York City.* Now, as it happens, hog receipts are a much more violently fluctuating series than bank clearings outside of New York City. To put the series on an even footing, resort is made to what is known as the standard deviation. To secure the standard devia- tion of hog price percentage departures, add up the squares of these departures. The total for the 168 months from 1903 thru 1916 is 31,894, or, dividing by 168, we get 190. The square root of 190 is 13.8, which is the standard deviation of hog prices. Standard deviation means that the probabilities are that on the average not more than one out of three of the series of figures an- der consideration will exceed the standard deviation. Standard deviation for hog receipts is 15, and for bank clearings 8.7. This indicates that hog receipts depart from the secular trend as modi- fied seasonally with nearly twice as great violence as do bank clearings. To put all three series on the same footing, we divide the per- centage departures by the standard deviation, 13.8 in the case of hog prices, 15 in the case of hog receipts, and 8.7 in the case of bank clearings. In January of 1903, for example, hog prices were greater than the secular modified seasonally by 2.3 times the standard deviation; hog receipts were less by .3 of the standard *Warren M. Persons, in a footnote on page 35 of the January, 1919, Review of Economic Statistics, expresses the method of ascertaining per- centage departure from the secular trend in mathematical symbols as follows: "Let the original series beginning with January be Xi, X2, X3, . . . . X„, the ordinates of secular trend be d, O2, O3, .... On, and the adjusted indices of seasonal variation for twelve months be Si, S2, S3, ... . S12 per cent, respectively. Then the items for secular trend and seasonal variation are: Xi — SiOi X2 — S2O2 X3 — S3O3 X3 — S1O13 Oi ' O2 ' 0, ' " " Oi3 etc." 86 AGRICULTURAIi PrICES 1 ~~"\\ ^"i-^ \ -" y" L ^ 's__:_ .L. ^ „- """i:::l= ■^ us - — = \ c -" ...I ::? * t Jr--:_ z %.— ^ si t« __ .- sti trl -.'' \- 1 •— """■"■"slL "4^7^ S"'"::r::::::|:' -: ::!f ::::i .__ ^--^ ^:::::::::::::::::\ ::::$:—.::-::: ■P "" T+ ,^" \ C* ^ — r-"^ 5 — .L v:::::::::::::t:: \ s 5. 1 •?M "^'S"^-.. *• -1- - '=-"'''''" e 5"""""' «p-4 ' "* i r- -— r--::;==' — - ^ _, _? f" -i A . so ^ ^S o- \v »-• - i\-t th o- "^^^ "" 1 ^^i X-''''" o 1 I it- O*."" "T~ i^ t*\ --a '3" t ^ «■ ^ -■"""tI •-» T ^^^ S3lSig35)sSSSfS'SSSS!! a a ee o-*«oSO' ooooMoSa r- r- f P Mathematical Study of Supply axd Demand 87 88 Agricultural Prices deviation, and bank clearings were over by .9 of the standard devi- ation. The cycles of the hog prices, hog receipts and bank clear- ings, as secured in this way by reducing for standard deviation, are comparable. The results are charted in Charts III, IV, V. It may be seen from examining these charts that hog prices seem to be related directly to bank clearings and inversely to hog receipts. The problem is : Blend hog receipts and bank clear- ings together in such a way as to secure hog prices. The mathe- matical method of approach is by correlation coefficients and lines of regression. First, a simple illustration of the method of securing correla- tion coefficients : Take the two series, A and B, Avhich deviate from their respec- tive means by the amounts stated in Columns 2 and 3. In Column 1 is the 3^ear, which has nothing to do with the mathematics of the case. Column 4 is A squared. Column 5 is B squared, and Column 6 is A multiplied by B. 1 2 3 4 5 6 < M 0! < 0) m g < 1901 —3 —1 4-2 +2 —5 +1 +3 +1 9 1 4 4 18 25 1 9 1 36 + 15 — 1 1902 1903 + 6 -t-2 +22 1904 Sum The standard deviation of A is the square root of the sum of the A squares, or 18, divided by 4. The square root of 18 divided by 4 is 2.1. Standard deviation of B, in like manner, is 3. The sum of AB divided by 4, or +22 divided by 4, equals +5.5. The correlation coefficient is +5.5 divided by the standard deviation of A multiplied by the standard deviation of B, or 5.5 divided by 6.3, which gives +.87. A correlation coefficient of .87 is very high, perfect correlation being 1. Correlation over .5 is consid- ered fairly good, especially if there is a long list (fifty or more) of figures in each series. The formula for determining A in terms of B is : A equals r Mathematical, Study of Supply and Demand 89 In this formula, r is the correlation coefficient and o-a is the standard deviation of A, and o-b is the standard deviation of B. Sub- stituting for the specific problem, we get : 2.1 A equals .87 B or 3.0 A equals .609 B When B is — 5 we would expect A to be 3.05 ; when B is +1 we would expect A to be +.609 ; when B is + 3, we would expect A to be 1.827. Suppose now, in addition, that there are three series : A, B and C, and that the object is to determine A in terms of B and C. The three series stand: A B C 1901 —3 —1 +2 +2 —5 + 1 + 3 +1 +2 1902 +3 1903 —3 1904 —2 We already know that the standard deviation of A is 2.1, and of B is 3.0, and that the correlation coefficient between A and B is +.87. Using the customary method, we find that the standard deviation of C is 2.55 and that the correlation coefficient of A and C is — .89, and of B and C — .59. To find A in terms of B and C, we use the following formula : ab — '^ac rbc ^a A equals — T^ 1 — r' be I r + ac ab 'be o"a ^ ' be o-c In this formula ^ab means correlation coefficient between A and B, etc. ; era means standard deviation of A. Substituting, we get: +.87 — .53 2.1 —.89 + .51 2.1 A equals B C .65 3.0 .65 2.55 or, A equals .37 B — .49 C Applying this formula, we find that when C is +2 and B is — 5, as in the year 1901, we would expect A to be — 2.83, and when C 90 Agricultural Prices =?""" L s: ■«» "^ "■"-% <^^ w *«-^ •^ ■» ^"^ |_ ^.gj ^ — _:: >' """"^ -::: $'.::.: :::.:::±: ^ _„^_ .;. Z _ _ '5_-_ _ ' _ K it... .„„. „ ■ -S . t t - 5. :.. ~:t = „.j..::::2-....-.„ > 5 """"^i^ JJ *" TZI---""" J *■ '~ ~M~"~T5 »• "^"^.^ '^...^^ -.«-.-. -i L-_ 00 •"""' o ^----. P* ir'^' ^- f — " » :: <:: : : in "" !! s: :: ::::::: ::: ::\^^::::::: ^^ *■". ,--"' J _^_ i...t + <:; : M) ■■« j,^ '^'X~~"^ T O C o cr! .2rt be 'a s + I ^"":::==""-?=":::::t:::::::::::t:--:: i" :::i: :___ 1 -i==^ t^~ '=[ Oi- 1 -=5"' *^ "*"*!» 21 :3^: ^ :t:±:s™- - S :: ___ J==- Ti """"" _-- -"a — ^_^ ........ - - -; o — "^^ ........Iii....l "^p- '^ .^ ^ '- , _ T ,--'^ Of> - _^^JE=f^_.t .__ . 2 ^0' _ ■ _L _ ^ _ .. r' 4- 4- - fl% -i • ^ J' _ ._., .c: ........ .cvjI' 1 * ^k _ VJ '" pil :-' ■ • - T ^J^- "^. ._^ ^. ^^ - h ^-, *^^i 00 ■?' o ^->^ : o> ■■ ■■ ^ -L ^~- f^ ""S" F "*", " >^ J ^==* . — -— -- - «^. -::::::: ::tc±: ^i . ^— — i^ » S - 5 »» or> ^i» *ii:::::_._ „___-_' ":?__! ■ 1 ^ o -^-^;^-— t (y> it t ' •oh . T 0> """SS, ::- 9 9 9°^ ^ ^ a s T Y T u ^2 Mathematical Study of Supply axd Demand 93 is +3 and B Is +1, as in 1902, we would expect A to be — 1.1. In like manner, in 1903, we would expect A to be +2.60 and in 1904 +1.35. The results expressed in a table are : Actual A A as predicted by- formula from BandC 1901 —3 —1 + 2 + 2 — 2.83 1902 —1.10 1903 +2.60 1904 +1.35 The practical problem is to express hog prices in terms of hog receipts and bank clearings. Practically the same method is used with the 168 months from 1903 thru 1916, as. with the four years which have just been used for illustration. The standard deviations are 10.1 for hog receipts, 10.5 for hog prices and 9.8 for bank clearings. The correlation coefficients are +.39 betAveen hog prices and bank clearings, +.26 between hog receipts and bank clearings, and — A between hog receipts and hog prices. Using the formula : "■a A equals r B and allowing A to represent hog prices and B to represent bank clearings, we get : 10.5 Hog prices equal .39 bank clearings, or 9.8 Hog prices equal .417 bank clearings This formula is converted back into percentage departures from secular trend modified seasonally, and finally into hog prices as affected by bank clearings. The demand, or bank clearing, price, of hogs as compared v/ith the actual is shovni in Chart VI. In like manner we get : 10.5 Hog prices equal — .4 hog receipts, or 10.1 Hog prices equal — .426 hog receipts This formula is converted back into percentage departures from the secular trend modified seasonally, and finally into hog prices as affected by hog receipts. The supply price of hogs as compared with the actual is shown in Chart VII. Using the longer formula on page 89, we get: Hog prices equal .56 bank clearings minus .56 hog receipts. Or converted 94 Agricultural Prices ^:iE":r:::: ■*L 1"-. [ _]_ L ■ jl^^: ::e::'_^^ tr • »l \ "^v- -^c;;:__TTl"" '^ 1 * * " ^ >«"Tf 1 ^ 1 * T^ ^-E -,^_ 7'"' s- '■—■^5 :3a , _„_-- ■"^3^ fr" .'V 1 . - - -; •M ~"[ rCrV-^ '\'fMlU- \ '"^i __ _ _s s^n-ttj 7 O T-» " ^i^ > _ ____ „ "MiJ ^ %\ rH ■S4j-L^^ fp^^^ I ^^T> - s "^rT^>s ■S'il C?4^ ^ Cl •fej^ ::::::::^^' 2 ^ ^ fi X "^"■■\l . 8 ceofgc offaaoeeiefSe ^ ^ T" ^ 1 m 1 1 eeagS oe e7«E' n x^ 't ^ ^ 1 Mathematical Study of Supply and Demand 95 v9 ^"^ '" 1 -- ^ y - "^ — z. T"^T^ -=i4-l jI^ hVi- - ■ , ■« =Jt \ ;•. .c i^ - " ? ^ •" ifl'"'^ IJ* 9^ ^S ^iA... .»« ■ ^v^ \ ^i « STlr r^ "•'K ~-^d^ s '^iS 2 J!, "" - JhT — -^ i _> , rV' ; ^ ** ?* «• 'A 1 ■"" > •" .- s- '"^ -* " if-' ''I T^^^" " "T ''- > \ ~~ T--- ^s^ 'V, \ c* ^ / " ® ; <: ■^s" . »-i* ■ 1^ "Jv 00 . .<< tT ut- ^ -' ® \' -- s; «»« ~ V - - •-:rT~> r* ^" \ 1- F e »• J T- !/ [ < ^ V- , < 3L' ' ®. J ^ ^ J\ 1 «-sr . ■' Tii44LLX. te\ v,>>^ " Tx m-L.'p-^^ .*.- !ta -':i=t^*^- - ^iv^fcy ^^t - '1t?U^. 4:M*'^ _ -- — '"Tn'^ "^•Ft ^ ■^ "' JlL IP l^l^^i; s graecoss ^ "1 ^1 in 11 CO ^mm CIS -a 96 Agricultural Prices o _« = •** i *; -< V -1 ' -I » - s «. ■^ ■=5r "■ '--, - •« - >, :^ - — *' •-^ -- - - - - - ^ - " - *< b» C ■" •• 7 .. ., . ^ ^ f S 1 - !•- ~ " ■"' p • , ... -- i_ s ■*« fTt ^ r ,4* - V * > ^ < -■ - - - 1 <. - •a ^ fy c > c ■1 *» ^ - - -- - - - -- r b- r"~ - ? mm. * ,• 2 ^ -^ f - - - V : k ^ • ' - =: > •~ -, - -; !S 4 >■ - -^ {' p~ > O* - ;i ^ — -/ ^ ~ 1 C. ■- - ;-5 - o* - - ~ - ■V *. •< ► i =•■ ■ - - 9« 5 > <« V, s" ^ »^ u ^ e- *^ -1 i 00 « % »• * K» sC - t. o "~ •a - r- •n ► .— » " r; ■r - P: 3f . L r- -- ,* •- ~ 5 ==: - - «* P 5^ V I . * ^ »^ 9 'j. ^ \ e- 5 .- *-* «- r^ ^ -^ <« tft > »» - > o« < ^ •? — i 1 N N, s *• \> ^ o - -'■ < >o. > . ^ « Si CI « - - s£ ?F 1 1' Me a« s 1 3S <3 a i 00 00 1 oo 9 0. 3 CO ^ c s i s 1 J - ^ e « 1 1 9 1! 1 1 Ml Mathematical Study of Supply and Demand 97 into percentage departures from the secular trend corrected sea- sonally : .90 of bank clearings in percentage departures minus .51 of hog receipts in percentage departures equals the percentage which hog prices depart from their secular corrected seasonally. For instance, in January, 1903, bank clearings were 8 per cent above the secular corrected seasonally, and hog receipts were 5 per cent below. Eight times .90 plus 5 times .51 gives 9.7 as the per- centage which we would expect hog prices to be over their secular corrected seasonally. The secular for January, 1903, was $5.19; 9.7 per cent of $5.19 gives 50 cents. The secular corrected sea- sonally for January, 1903, is $4.98. Add 50 cents to $4.98 and we get $5.48 as the price which we would have expected heavy hogs to sell at Chicago in January, 1903, on the basis of good business and small hog receipts. Actually, hogs sold for $6.60, or $1.12 over the price predicted by formula. This is done for all the months from 1903 to 1916, and the supplj'^-and-demand price of hogs, as derived from hog receipts at Chicago and bank clearings outside of New York is charted in Chart VIII, in comparison with the actual prices. PREDICTING THE FUTURE OF HOG PRICES WE ASSUME that at the present time, and probably for some time to come, we are on a basis of 90 per cent above 1913 for hog prices, and 100 per cent over 1913 in bank clearings. This conclusion is based to some extent on the reasoning presented in the June monthly supplement of the Harvard Review of Economic Statistics for the year 1919. On this basis, the secular trend of heavy hog prices at Chicago, modified seasonally, should be roughly as follows for the several years beginning with 1919: January, $14.35; February, $15.07; March, $15.82 ; April, $15.67; May, $15.22 ; June, $15.22 i July, $15.52; August, $15.22; September, $15.52; October, $15.07; November, $14.16, and December, $13.86.* This is on the assump- tion that hog prices and prices generally will have for their normal mean a level 90 per cent above the 1913 level. It is expected that in a rough way hog prices will depart from this level according to the size of hog receipts and the condition of general business as expressed by bank clearings. (During 1920, andpossibly 1921, heavy exports will doubtless have influence.) The secular trend of bank clearings outside New York, modi- fied seasonally, for the year beginning with 1919, is taken as: January, $13,952,000,000; February, $11,648,000,000; March, $13,056,000,000; April, $12,800,000,000; May, $12,416,000,- 000; June, $12,416,000,000; July, $12,544,000,000; August, $11,648,000,000; September, $12,032,000 ; October, $13,824,000,- 000 ; November, $13,440,000,000, and December, $13,824,000,000. The secular trend of hog receipts at Chicago in millions of pounds, modified seasonally, for the period beginning with 1919, is taken as: January, 184; February, 163; March, 143; April, 118; May, 139; June, 139; July, 121; August, 121; September, 103; October, 120; November, 144, and December, 180. Based on the formula as secured in the preceding chapter (hog price equals .56 bank clearings minus .56 hog receipts), we would expect the following scale of hog prices in January, when receipts *These figures are based on seasonal correction factors as follows: January, 96; February, 100; March, 105; April, 104; May, 101; June, 101; July, 103; August, 101; September, 103; October, 100; November, 94; December, 92. These factors are practically the same as those used on page 84. PUEDICTING THE FuTUllE OF HoG PkICES 99 follow the secular trend (184,000,000 pounds at Chicago), but bank bank clearings are variable : Bank Clearings in January. Heavy Hog Prices. $11,000,000,000 $11.35 11,500,000,000 11.85 16,500,000,000 16.85 In like manner, tables may be made up for each month of the year, the idea being that for each $500,000,000 the bank clearings outside of New York are above or below the secular trend season- ally modified, fifty cents is added to or subtracted from the secu- lar trend hog price seasonall}"^ modified. Thus for April the tables would be: Bank Clearings in April. Heavy Hog Prices. $ 9,800,000,000 $12.67 12,800,000,000 15.67 15,800,000,000 18.67 Taking the tables as worked out for bank clearings and hog prices, we next modify for hog receipts. An excess of 33,000,000 pounds of hog receipts at Chicago in a month means on the average $1.80 lower prices, and vice versa. Thus, in January, with bank clearings at $13,952,000,000, we would expect the following prices with various sizes of hog receipts : Hog Receipts (in Pounds). Heavy Hog Prices, 162,000,000 $15.55 184,000,000 14.35 195,000,000 13.75 206,000,000 13.15 228,000,000 11.95 The tables herewith give this problem worked out in detail for the various months. It is realized that at this writing, in early 1920, financial matters are still so deranged by the great war that our secular trend for bank clearings may be wide of the mark. This is the best prediction we can offer at this writing, and we are offering it fully aware of its weakness, but fully believing that pre- dictions of this sort will stimulate more thoro research. It is be- lieved that better measures of demand may eventually be found than bank clearings outside of New York City, and that better measures of supply may be found than receipts at Chicago. Also there is a possibility that the varying size of exports of hog prod- ucts should be taken into account. 100 Agricultural Prices PRICE OF HEAVY HOGS PER HUNDREDWEIGHT, AS PREDICTED FROM HOG RECEIPTS AND BANK CLEARINGS OUTSIDE OF NEW YORK CITY. JANUARY. Bank Clearings Hog Receipts at Chicago, in Millions of Pounds. Outside New York. 162 1 173 184 195 206 217 228 239 $13,000,000.000 13,500,000,000 14,000,000,000 14,500,000,000 15,000,000,000 15,500,000,000 16,000,000,000 16,500,000,000 $14.55 15.05 15.55 16.05 16.55 17.05 17.55 18.05 $13.95 14.45 14.95 15.45 15.95 16.45 16.95 17.45 $13.35 13.85 14.35 14.85 15.35 15.85 16.35 16.85 $12.75 13.25 13.75 14.25 14.75 15.25 15.75 16.25 $12.15 12.65 13.15 13.65 14.15 14.65 15.15 15.65 $11.55 12.05 12.55 13.05 13.55 14.05 14.55 15.05 $10.95 11.45 11.95 12.45 12.95 13.45 13.95 14.45 $10.35 10.85 11.35 11.85 12.35 12.85 13.35 13.85 FEBRUARY. Bank Clearings Hog Receipts at Chicago, in Millions of Pounds. Outside New York. 141 152 1 163 174 185 196 207 218 $10,600,000,000 11,100,000,000 11,600,000,000 12,100,000,000 12,600,000,000 13,100,000,000 13,600,000,000 14,100,000,000 $15.27 15.77 16.27 16.77 17.27 17.77 18.27 18.77 $13.67 14.17 14.67 15.17 15.67 16.17 16.67 17.17 $14.07 14.57 15.07 15.57 16.07 15.57 17.07 17.57 $13.47 13.97 14.47 14.97 15.47 15.97 16.47 16.97 $11.87 12.37 12.87 13.37 13.87 14.37 14.87 15.37 $12.27 12.77 13.27 13.77 14.27 14.77 15.27 15.77 $11.67 12.17 12.67 13.17 13.67 14.17 14.67 15.17 $11.07 11.57 12.07 12.57 13.07 13.57 14.07 14.57 MARCH. Bank Clearings Hog Receipts at Chicago, in Millions of Pounds. Outside New York. 121 132 143 154 165 176 187 198 $12,100,000,000 12,600,000,000 13,100,000,000 13,600,000,000 14,100,000,000 14,600,000,000 15,100,000,000 15,600,000,000 $16.02 16.52 17.02 17.52 18.02 18.52 19.02 19.52 $15.42 15.92 16.42 16.92 17.42 17.92 18.42 18.92 $14.82 14.32 15.82 16.32 16.82 17.32 17.72 18.32 $14.22 14.72 15.22 15.72 16.22 16.72 17.22 17.72 $13.62 14.12 14.62 15.12 15.62 16.12 16.62 17.12 $13.02 13.52 14.02 14.52 15.02 15.52 16.02 16.52 $12.42 12.92 13.42 13.92 14.42 14.92 15.42 15.92 $11.82 12.32 12.82 13.32 13.82 14.32 14.82 15.32 APRIL. Bank Clearings Hog Receipts at Chicago, in Millions of Pounds. Outside New York. 96 107 118 129 140 151 162 173 $11,800,000,000 12,300,000,000 12,800,000,000 13,300,000,000 13,800,000,000 14,300,000,000 14,800,000,000 15,300,000,000 $15.87 16.37 16.87 17.37 17.87 18.37 18.87 19.37 $15.27 15.77 16.27 16.77 17.27 17.77 18.27 18.77 $14.67 15.17 15.67 16.17 16.67 17.17 17.67 18.17 $14.07 14.57 15.07 15.57 16.07 16.57 17.07 17.57 $13.47 13.97 14.47 14.97 15.47 15.97 16.47 16.97 $12.87 13.37 13.87 14.37 14.87 15.37 15.87 16.37 $12.27 12.77 13.27 13.77 14.27 14.77 15.27 15.77 $11.67 12.17 12.67 13.17 13.67 14.17 14.67 15.17 Predicting the Future of Hog Prices 101 PRICE OF HEAVY HOGS PER HUNDREDWEIGHT, AS PREDICTED FROM HOG RECEIPTS AND BANK CLEARINGS OUTSIDE OF NEW YORK CITY— Continued. MAY. Bank Clearings Hog Receipts at Chicago, in Millions of Pounds. Outside New York. 117 1 128 139 150 161 172 183 194 $11,400,000,000 11,900,000,000 . . . . . 12,400,000,000 12,900,000,000 13,400,000,000 13,900,000,000 14,400,000,000 14,900,000,000 $15.42 15.92 16.42 16.92 17.42 17.92 18.42 18.92 $14.82 15.32 15.82 16.32 16.82 17.32 17.82 18.32 $14.22 14.72 15.22 15.72 16.22 16.72 17.22 17.72 $13.62 14.12 14.62 15.12 15.62 16.12 16.62 17.12 $13.02 13.52 14.02 14.52 15.02 15.52 16.02 16.52 $12.42 12.92 13.42 13.92 14.42 14.92 15.42 15.92 $11.82 12.32 12.82 13.32 13.82 14.32 14.82 15.32 $11.22 11.72 12.22 12.72 13.22 13.72 14.22 14.72 'JUNE. Bank Clearings Hog Receipts at Chicago, in Millions of Pounds. " Outside New York. 117 128 139 1 150 1 161 172 183 194 $11,400,000,000 11,900,000,000 12,400,000,000 12,900,000,000 13,400,000,000 13,900,000,000 14,400,000,000 14,900,000,000 $15.42 15.92 16.42 16.92 17.42 17.92 18.42 18.92 $14.82 15.32 15.82 16.32 16.82 17.32 17.82 18.32 $14.22 14.72 15.22 15.72 16.22 16.72 17.22 17.72 $13.62 14.12 14.62 15.12 15.62 16.12 16.62 17.12 $13.02 13.52 14.02 14.52 15.02 15.52 16.02 16.52 $12.42 12.92 13.42 13.92 14.42 14.92 15.42 15.92 $11.82 12.32 12.82 13.32 13.82 14.32 14.82 15.32 $11.22 11.72 12.22 12.72 13.22 13.72 14.22 14.72 JULY. Bank Clearings Hog Receipts at Chicago, in Millions of Pounds. Outside New York. 99 1 110 121 132 143 154 165 176 $11,500,000,000 12,000,000,000 12,500,000,000 13,000,000,000 13,500,000,000 14,000,000,000 14,500,000,000 15,000,000,000 $15.72 16.22 16.72 17.22 17.72 18.22 18.72 19.22 $15.12 15.62 16.12 16.62 17.12 17.62 18.12 18.62 $14.52 15.02 15.52 16.02 16.52 17.02 17.52 18.02 $13.92 14.42 14.92 15.42 15.92 16.42 16.92 17.42 $13.32 13.82 14.32 14.82 15.32 15.82 16.32 16.82 $12.72 13.22 13.72 14.22 14.72 15.22 15.72 16.22 $12.12 12.62 13.12 13.62 14.12 14.62 15.12 15.62 $11.52 12.02 12.52 13.02 13.52 14.02 14.52 15.02 Bank Clearings Hog Receipts at Chicago, in Millions of Pounds. Outside New York. 99 110 121 1 132 143 154 165 176 $10,600,000,000 11,100,000,000 11,600,000,000 12,100,000.000 12,600,000,000 13,100,000,000 13,600,000,000 14,100,000,000 $15.42 15.92 16.42 16.92 17.42 17.92 18.42 18.92 $14.82 15.32 15.82 16.32 16.82 17.32 17.82 18.32 $14.22 14.72 15.22 15.72 16.22 16.72 ,17.22 17.72 $13.62 14.12 14.62 15.12 15.62 16.12 16.62 17.12 $13.02 13.52 14.02 14.52 15.02 15.52 16.02 16.52 $12.42 12.92 13.42 13.92 14.42 14.92 15.42 15.92 $11.82 12.32 12.82 13.32 13.82 14.32 14.82 15.32 $11.22 11.72 12.22 12.72 13.22 13.72 14.22 14.72 102 Agkicultueal Prices PRICE OF HEAVY HOGS PER HUNDREDWEIGHT, AS PREDICTED FROM HOG RECEIPTS AND BANK CLEARINGS OUTSIDE OF NEW YORK CITY— Continued. SEPTEMBER. Bank Clearings Hog Receipts at Chicago, in Millions of Pounds. Outside New York. 81 92 103 114 125 136 147 158 $11,000,000,000 11,500,000,000 12,000,000,000 12,500,000,000 13,000,000,000 13,500,000,000 14,000,000,000 14,500,000,000 $15.72 16.22 16.72 17.22 17.72 18.22 18.72 19.22 $15.12 15.62 16.12 16.62 17.12 17.62 18.12 18.62 $14.52 15.02 15.52 16.02 16.52 17.02 17.52 18.02 $13.92 14.42 14.92 15.42 15.92 16.42 16.92 17.42 $13.32 13.82 14.32 14.82 15.32 15.82 16.32 16.82 $12.72 13.22 13.72 14.22 14.72 15.22 15.72 16.22 $12.12 12.62 13.12 13.62 14.12 14.62 15.12 15.62 $11.52 12.02 12.52 13.02 13.52 14.02 14.52 15.02 OCTOBER. Bank Clearings Hog Receipts at Chicago, in Millions of Pounds. Outside New York. 98 109 120 131 142 153 164 175 $12,800,000,000 13,300,000,000 13,800,000,000 14,300,000,000 14,800,000,000 15,300,000,000 15,800,000,000 16,300,000,000 $15.27 15.77 16.27 16.77 17.27 17.77 18.27 18.77 $14.67 15.17 15.67 16.17 16.67 17.17 17.67 18.17 $14.07 14.57 15.07 15.57 16.07 16.57 17.07 17.57 $13.47 13.97 14.47 14.97 15.47 15.97 16.47 16.97 $12.87 13.37 13.87 14.37 14.87 15.37 15.87 16.37 $12.27 12.77 13.27 13.77 14.27 14.77 15.27 15.77 $11.67 12.17 12.67 13.17 13.67 14.17 14.67 15.17 $11.07 11.57 12.07 12.57 13.07 13.57 14.07 14.57 NOVEMBER. Bank Clearings Outside New York $12,400,000,000 . . . 12,900,000,000 . . . 13,400,000,000 . . . 13,900,000,000 . . . 14,400,000,000 . . . 14,900,000,000 . . . 15,400,000,000 . . . 15,900,000,000 . . . Hog Receipts at Chicago, in Millions of Pounds. 122 133 I 144 155 166 I 177 188 199 $14.36 14.86 15.36 15.86 16.36 16.86 17.36 17.86 $13.76i$13.16 14.26 14.76 15.26 15.76 16.26 16.76 17.26 13.66 14.16 . 14.66 15.16 15.66 16.16 16.66 $12.56 13.06 13.56 14.06 14.56 15.06 15.56 16.06 $11.96 12.46 12.96 13.48 13.96 14.46 14.96 15.46 $11.36 11.86 12.38 12.86 13.36 13.86 14.36 14.86 $10.76 11.26 11.76 12.26 12.76 13.26 13.76 14.26 $10.16 10.66 11.16 11.66 12.16 12.66 13.16 13.66 DECEMBER. Bank Clearings Hog Receipts at Chicago, in Millions of Pounds. Outside New York. 158 169 180 191 202 213 224 235 $12,800,000,000 13,300,000,000 13,800,000,000 14,300,000,000 14,800,000,000 15,300,000,000 15,800,000,000 16,300,000,000 $14.06 14.56 15.06 15.56 16.06 16.56 17.06 17.56 $13.46 13.96 14.46 14.96 15.46 15.96 16.46 16.96 $12.86 13.36 13.86 14.36 14.86 15.36 15.86 16.36 $12.26 12.76 13.26 13.76 14.26 14.76 15.26 15.76 $11.66 12.16 12.66 13.16 13.66 14.16 14.66 15.16 $11.06 11.56 12.06 12.56 13.08 13.58 14.06 14.56 $10.46 10.96 11.46 11.96 12.46 12.96 13.46 13.96 $ 9.86 10.36 10.86 11.36 11.86 12.36 12.86 13.36 LIMITATIONS OF THE MATHEMATICAL METHOD SUCH a mathematical formula as : Hog prices equal .56 bank clearings - — .56 hog receipts must always be applied with common sense. In November of 1914, for instance, hog receipts at Chicago were abnormally small on account of foot-and-mouth disease, and in December of the same year they were abnormally large for the same reason. Judging from receipts, we might have expected heavy hogs to sell for $8.83 in November and $6.44 in December. As a matter of fact, the actual price was $7.50 in November and $7.10 in December. It was commonly recognized by the trade that hog receipts at Chicago in November and Decem- ber of 1914 were abnormal, and not representative of the poten- tial supply in the country at large. Occasionally, as in November of 1907, falling prices act to curtail receipts. The small receipts in November, 1907, would have indicated a price of $6.75, whereas the actual price was $4.90. As a matter of fact, there was a large number of hogs that year, and the actual price reflected the potential supply rather than the temporary supply. It is possible to refine the method considerably. For instance, it may be v/orth while to proceed on the assumption that the rela- tion between hog prices and hog receipts is best expressed by an equation representative of a hyperbola or skev/ curve Instead of a straight line. The straight line equation, based on the years 1903 to 1915, Inclusive, is: Hog prices equal — .8 — .56 hog receipts. The hyperbola equation for these years is : Hog prices equal — 1.24 — .55 hog receipts -I-.0046 hog receipts squared. The skew or cubic curve equation is : Hog prices equal — 1.18 — .24 hog receipts -I-.0027 hog receipts squared - — .00079 hog receipts cubed. Using these more complex mathematical methods, It is often possible to express the relationships more exactly. But no method, however far refined, will take the place of common sense market judgment. Nevertheless, It may be decidedly helpful to a better 104 Agkicultural Prices + tn + + IS Jg + + ^ T Qu t ^ ' «« «• Q» i use 2J frf» 1 / ^ / - . y r / / r y r y / ^ ^ 1 < t n - J / N '*H n e 11 i 1 < 1 « O / / ^^ < ( 1 O A (fi 9 o < ©p fi 4" « a 6 SC H< & d <^ e »• & < > « t Q / Oj ^ sO e o t f f 1 > / j « » w f © o ® o O J / / ' < > / / ^ / / i / / ' 1 / ( 1 + n 4- + 2 1 1. \ 1 i (.< 1 n 1 M 1 Limitations of the Mathematical Method 105 understanding of the normai working of supply and demand to use both hyperbolas and cubic curves on occasion. Other refinements of the mathematical study of hog prices may consist in working out the correlation coefficients between hog prices and receipts at six markets or eleven markets instead of using Chicago receipts alone. Work may be done looking into the relation between hog prices and potential supply as contrasted with the temporary or month-by-month supply. So far as the relation between hog prices and business conditions is concerned, it should be worth while to work out correlation coefficients be- tween hog prices and the amount of new building, or hog prices and Dun's index number. In fact, there are a great many measures of business activities which may possibly measure the demand for hogs better than bank clearings outside of New York City.* Some people may think it advisable to work out a correlation and line of regression illustrating the relation between hog prices and corn prices. This has been attempted, but it has been found that after the secular and seasonal trends are taken out of both corn prices and hog prices there is practically no rela.tion between them. It is a curious commentary on our present marketing sys- tems that corn prices and hog prices, while very closely related decade by decade, have very little influence on each other month by month. In other words, changing costs of production can have practically nothing to do with the month-by-month changes in the market price under our present economic system. Unusually high corn prices today are more likely to influence the hog prices of next year than the hog prices of today. After everything has been done which can be done by mathe- matical method, there will still be room for common-sense judg- ment. But such judgment is best applied by men wise in market lore, men familiar with the technique of production, and who also are familiar with such mathematical methods as are here described. Since the chapter, "Limitations of the Mathematical Method," was written, it has been discovered that hog receipts at eleven markets are a more accurate indicator of hog prices than receipts at Chicago, and that prices of Connelsville coke are a better indicator of the demand for hogs than bank clearings outside New York City. The multiple coefficient of correlation between hog prices on the one hand and Chicago hog receipts and bank clearings outside New York City on the other hand is .65, whereas between hog prices and hog receipts at eleven markets and coke prices the multiple coefficient of correlation is .70. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON RATIOS AND MATHEMATICS OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND BY MEANS of corn-hog ratios, it is possible to determine with great accuracy month by month the production cost of one hundred pounds of hog flesh. The actual price, however, has been quite different from the cost-of-production price, except as an average of long periods of time. This is indicated by the profit and loss chart on page 32, the black areas above and below the zero line indicating the departure of the actual price from the ratio or cost of production price. The actual price heretofore has been determined chiefly by the action of supplj^ and demand and not by cost of production. The close agreement between actual price and the supply-and-demand price as based on a formula derived from bank clearings and hog receipts is shown on page 96. In the chart on page 107 are present- ed the cost-of-production price based on ratios and the supply-and- demand price as based on bank clearings and hog receipts. The ratio or cost-of-production price is much steadier than the supply-and-demand price. If the farmers could arrange with the packers for a price more nearly representing the cost-of-production or ratio price, it is obvious that the supply of hogs might be con- siderably steadied. Once farmers realize that neither excessive profits nor excessive losses are to be expected in the hog business, they will steady down to producing about the same number of hogs each year, and they Avill send them to market in a uniform stream, instead of in irregular spurts. Of course, there are always uncertainties in the way of weather, disease, etc. Hot, dry weather in July and August may curtail the corn crop and shoot up the price of corn and the cost of pro- ducing hogs. Such hot, dry weather immediately increases the cost of producing hogs. The packers, heretofore, have been either unable or unwilling to pay a price for hogs sufficient to cover the increased cost of production caused by the hot, dry weather, and as a result they have been compelled to pay more than cost of pro- duction a year or so later. Why shouldn't the packers and farm- ers constantly educate the public to pay the cost-of-production price? Tell the public that the drouth and high corn prices have increased the cost of producing hogs, and the price must be in- creased to prevent a shortage next year. Why shouldn't the farm- ^ - - ►^ •• '• < ^ • . _ «^ . •- llf •a ) « ^ ** ^ Hi •Si >s Sa g^ », - - ■'- 0" *" ^ (^ is» ^ JK " " ^ I I - .^ O" s. *- ■«*. »«. " "' .. ~ -. . - .. >■• J*i" 4 *•* ,- t£ ^ [• ** " <", *y <• ■ ^ -^ "? N, Si ^ y^ it z "J S •o ^ F*" > fr -• »' ^■ « .^ Lc: W^ »^ c^ < ^ ^ V i ^ ■^ ■«! feia ?^ :; ^ - ^. - d .♦' \ ^ ? . " ■• ■*/ S \ ., :.; :j >. - ^^ - ■'.- < \ l «' *' »»" B» - ^ )P 5 *» !* '^ if^ ©■ _ '-' -■ ■- — f. , i^a •*. ^»« ^ ,/ t eM ££ i f e < > *•- - __ ■^ 0* * >>« N ^ --' > Oft < ^ mat 1 Ha -- -* - r- -- -' - '■'- ■■-* • ® ^ ^ ■*» ^ , *■ -- \ Of* «>» •>* ■V ^ ^ '" — — - -■- -- - n*i :: ■• , P* .-. -■ \ " m . r % \ s ass i^ "■' *' ■V s.^ \ X* "^ *^ < i s ., 1 < ^ ^ /• - ____ © (J f " '' < ) - ^ 1 • - " •- . V » 9 5 1 § 1 1 s a S s 3 i cs ^ <* vS a ^ 09 ^ ^ & ? 1 * to os Tl m to o3 bi) o in hn bo o A C) o o QJ ;-. o p, 108 AGRICUIiTURAL PrICES ers try to find a way to regulate the supply with an iron hand, in an endeavor to maintain approximately the cost-of-production price at all times? This means willingness to lower the price of hogs in years when the corn crop is large, as well as ability to raise the price in years of a short corn crop. Unquestionably there are vagaries in the consuming demand for pork which might make the payment of a cost-of-production price difficult for a time. It is believed, however, that powerful corn belt farmers' organizations working in co-operation with the packers should be able to educate consumers to the cost-of-produc- tion idea, and so far as seasonal vagaries in the demand are con- cerned, the farmers and packers should be able to come to an agreement providing for paying rather more than the demand price for ,hogs in times of poor demand and rather less than the demand price for hogs in times of good demand, in an effort to make price meet cost of production rather than temporary demand idiosyncrasies. It is realized that the difficulties in the way of paying cost of production at all times are even greater than here indicated. The idea, in fact, runs counter to the laissez faire, competitive price system under which business is conducted today. It is believed, however, that in the future more and more attention must be paid to production and less and less to price manipulation. To this end, products must be sold at all times as nearly as possible at the cost-of-production price. There must be no prospect of unusual profit or unusual loss in the production of staple products. We are now referring to industries as a whole. It is inevitable, of course, that certain individuals will make great profits and others will incur losses, even in years when the cost-of-product^iin or ratio price is paid. Full consideration must always be given to the phy- sical facts and to special emergencies as they arise. Standard ratios representing cost of production for an industry may sud- denly be rendered out-of-date by a new invention. New situations must be recognized ftankly, but at all times the guiding motive should be to pay the cost-of-production price, in order that supply and demand may operate more smoothly. To give the cost of production price broader sway in our price system does not necessarily involve governmental control. The first step is education in price judging. Even in the grade schools and country schools, ratio methods of price judgment should be taught. In high schools the matter may be carried farther, and it is suggested that not only should the ratio method of price judg- ing be taught in high school, but also the practical use of correla- Conclusions 109 tion coefficients and lines of regression in determining prices from business conditions and the supply. In college (and the colleges have been most neglectful in this matter) specific problems should be worked out in great detail. Students in such classes should have access to adding machines, calculating machines, rechentaf- fels, and other modern devices for making calculations easy and accurate. But the most important thing of all just now is ade- quate research by colleges, by experiment stations, and by govern- mental departments. The government and market agencies must continue to improve their statistical records, and research students must study these records with all the refinements of statistical method. An excellent start along this line has been made by the Harvard Universit}'^ Committee on Economic Research. This committee seems to be concerned altogether with the industrial world. It is essential that the agricultural world be given similar service. The object of it all is to discover the best possible kind of ma- chinery thru which the law of supply and demand may work to the end that violent fluctuations in supply and demand may be re- duced to the lowest possible point consistent with changing weather and unforeseeable accidents. The present price system is not per- fect ; it can be improved. But before improvements can be made, the present system must be studied with the greatest thoroness. The great weakness of the present price system is that the men who operate it are concerned chiefly with making the greatest possible profit, and not at all with making the law of supply and demand operate smoothly on a price level roughly equivalent to cost of production. The highest purpose of our price system should be to tell pro- ducers truthfully what to do in the future, instead of capitalizing a temporary supply and demand situation to the advantage of cer- tain bright speculators. The $4.50 price for hogs in January of 1908 was a lie so far as it guided the future action of hog pro- ducers. So also was the $11 price in March of 1910. Both prices told the approximate truth about a temporary supply-and-demand situation. But both were fundamentally lies. Our whole laissez faire system is full of lies of this sort. Surely we have enough in the way of legitimate physical handicaps such as weather and pests so that we should be willing to run our price system more truth- fully. So far as farmers are concerned, the object of studies of this kind is, first, to play the price game as well as capital and labor ; and, second, to co-operate with capital and labor to enforce prices 110 Agricultural Prices roughly equivalent to cost of production, to the end that supply and demand may operate more smoothly. It is anticipated that greater emphasis on "cost-of-production price" and less emphasis on "supply-and-demand price" will result in gradually replacing most business men with production engi- neers and statistical economists. Business men have had profit as their sole motive. What we need is production engineers whose chief concern is production methods, and statistical economists who are able to understand the delicate inter-relations of different industries. It is believed that there is in most men a desire to do their work well, and that this desire will find more complete ex- pression, to the benefit of the bulk of the people, under the guid- ance of men whose supreme motive is not profit but technical under- standing and love of the work to be done. All this concerns the farmer, to the extent that when the industrial world shifts to this kind of basis, he may be more certain of a stable price for his products. Substituting production engineers and statistical economists for business men means doing away with the chance of excessive gains and excessive losses. And this is proper so far as production of and trade in staple products is concerned. The onl}'' place where the commercial imagination of the old- fashioned risk-taking business men has legitimate place is in work- ing with things which are not staple, such as theaters, luxuries, newspapers, etc. liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiy^^ APPENDIX SUGGESTIONS CONCERNING THE TABLES IN THE APPENDIX THE man who studies the figures as to receipts, prices, etc., as they unroll day by day and month by month in the great central markets gradually develops market judgment. Of course, there is more in the market than figures, but a thoro understanding of statistical relationships, of normal seasonal trends, etc., is nec- essary before one can fully appreciate the extraordinary or stra- tegical considerations which are occasionally involved. It is suggested that those who are really interested in prices should fill in month by month in the blank tables the figures as they become available. Sources of current figures are the Market Re- porter, published weekly by the United States Department of Agri- culture ; the daily live stock papers published at the great central markets ; the Monthly Crop Reporters, published by the United States Department of Agriculture, and, so far as retail prices are concerned, the monthly publications of the Bureau of Labor Sta- tistics. It is hoped that eventually the Bureau of Markets of the United States Department of Agriculture will have available ex- ceedingly valuable figures. At present, however, the Bureau of Markets figures are practically worthless because they have not been continued long enough to have sufficient background to enable .anyone to judge them properly. The effort has been made in the prices here collected to cover the period immediately preceding the war quite thoroly, in order that those who are interested may work out normal pre-war rela- tionships. In all price questions, the problem of grade is involved. Gradu- ally the grade classifications have been made more and more scien- tific, but even to this day there is haziness in certain products, notably cattle. It is believed, therefore, that the cattle prices are more unreliable than any other. Scientific grading of cattle is possible, and will be adopted as soon as the producers are in posi- tion to demand it. Market figures furnish the laboratory of economics. It is be- lieved that it is as essential for students at agricultural colleges to do laboratory work in economics as it is for them to spend such a large part of their time in the chemical, zoological or botanical laboratories. When the agricultural students judge marketable live stock, it is suggested that they be required to estimate the 11-i Agriculttjual Prices weight, grade, dressing percentage and probable Chicago price. An ingenious teacher, who is famiHar v/ith economics and market grades of grain and live stock, can think of many devices to bring home to his students the fact that the market is a living thing, yet subject to certain laws which are almost as exact as Mendel's law of inheritance. The author will appreciate being informed of any mistakes in the figures. Great pains have been taken to make them accurate, but it is inevitable that a few mistakes will creep in. The following gives a description of grades and sources of in- formation for some of the products for which figures are given in the tables of the Appendix : HEAVY HOG PRICES AT CHICAGO. From 1896 to date, heavy hog prices, as compiled by Chas. A. S. McCracken for the Chicago Drovers' Journal Year Book, have been used. From 1881 to 1895, inclusive, the average of the range of Chicago hog prices, as compiled by the Cincinnati Price Current, has been used. Properly speaking, these prices refer more nearly to average hogs than to heavy hogs. Previous to 1881, prices have been compiled from the Chicago Board of Trade Reports, the grade known as heavy packers and shippers being used so far as possible. CORN PRICES AT CHICAGO. "^ No. 2 mixed has been used thruout. From 1880 to 1916, inclusive, the average of the high and low for the month has been taken. Since Jan- uary, 1917, each day of the month has been averaged. Previous to 1880, averages were taken either weekly or semi-monthly. All figures are de- rived either from the Howard-Bartels Red Book or the Chicago Board of Trade Reports. The two sources generally agree. OATS PRICES AT CHICAGO. Previous to 1876, the grade known as No. 1 was chiefly used. Since 1876, No. 2, Standard or Contract oats has been used. Previous to 1881, averages were taken weekly or semi-monthly. Since 1881, the high and low for the month have been averaged. Previous to 1881, Chicago Board of Trade Reports were used. Since 1881, the Howai'd-Bartels Red Books have been used, which quote practically the same figures as the Board of Trade. WHEAT PRICES AT CHICAGO. Pi^evious to 1883, the grade known as No. 2 Spring was used, weekly or semi-monthly averages being taken from the Chicago Board of Trade Reports. From 1883 to 1903, inclusive, there is a slight confusion in grades, but the No. 2 Spring is used chiefly, averages of high and low for the month being taken from the Howard-Bartels Red Book. From 1904 to 1913, inclusive, prices are based on No. 2 Red and No. 1 Northern, the high of the one and the low of the other being used. From 1914 on, prices are based on No. 2 Red, No. 2 Hard and No. 1 Northern, Appendix 115 the highest of the highest-priced grade and the lowest of the lowest-priced grade being averaged. LIVE STOCK PRICES AND RECEIPTS. Practically all of the live stock figures since 1903 have been compiled from the Chicago Drovers' Journal Year Books. Mr. Chas. A. S. McCracken has compiled the price figures from actual transactions day by day in the stock yards for the past thirty years, and is still with the Drovers' Journal. The original source for live stock .receipts is the stock yards companies, but we have used the reports of the Drovers' Journal. For the years 1903, 1904 and 1905, for receipts at six markets, we have used figures fur- nished by Mr. M. F. Horine, statistician for the Chicago Union Stock Yards. These figures seem to be comparable with the figures for the later years, except in the case of cattle, where there is evidently some confusion in the counting of calves. The cattle receipts at six markets, as published by 1903, 1904 and 1905 reports, are about 8 per cent too large to be truly comparable with the later years. RETAIL PRICES. Retail price figures are taken from the publications of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Concerning the significance of these figures, the fol- lowing statement of Royal Meeker, Commissioner of Labor Statistics, is of value: "We secure retail prices of 44 articles of food from 50 cities on the 15th of each month. The stores selected are those patronized by wage-earners. The goods carried are standard grades and brands. The Bureau requests that these grades and brands be uniform thruout the year, as nearly as possible. Some of these stores are 'cash-and-carry,' and some of them deliver, depending on the locality in which they are situated. The Bureau makes every effort to have each city represented by a sufficient number of stores so the prices published for that city will represent the average prices charged to the wage-earner. Of course, the chances are that there will be differences, as we do not carry either the high-class stores or the cut-rate stores." 116 Agricultural Prices CHICAGO HEAVY HOG PRICES. Ten- 1860. 1861. 1862. 1863. 1884. 1865. 1866. 1867. 1868. 1869. yr. av. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ January . . . . 4.85 5.05 2.35 3.60 5.90 11.15 9.30 6.10 6.60 10.15 6.51 February . . . 5.25 5.00 2.50 4.05 6.35 11.30 9.45 6.50 7.75 10.35 6.85 March 5.05 4.75 3.00 4.15 6.55 11.15 9.40 6.60 8.65 9.85 6.92 April 4.90 4.55 2.90 4.25 6.95 9.50 8.55 6.80 8.55 9.75 6.67 May 4.80 3.85 3.10 2.50 2.40 3.75 4.15 6.45 7.25 7.50 7.80 8.70 8.95 6.25 5.90 8.25 7.65 8.75 8.75 6.08 June 4.80 6.08 July 5.20 2.70 2.75 2.55 2.60 4.25 3.80 8.55 8.90 9.25 10.85 9.40 9.85 6.05 6.35 8.35 9.15 8.95 9.20 6.53 August 5.35 6.88 September . . . 5.30 2.80 2.90 4.20 9.50 11.70 9.30 6=15 8.70 9.25 6.98 October . . . . 5.30 2.80 2.90 4.10 8.65 12.20 8.65 5.85 7.50 9.30 6.73 November . . . 5.30 2.65 3.45 4.50 9.75 11.15 6.95 5.75 7.00 9.10 6.56 December . . . 4.60 2.45 3.80 5.05 10.05 9.05 5.85 6.60 8.35 9.80 6.56 Yearly aver. 5.06 3.54 2.83 4.16 7.91|10.23 8.69 6.24 8.04 9.44 6.61 CHICAGO HEAVY HOG PRICES— Continued. Ten- 1870. 1871. 1872. 1873. 1874. 1875. 1876. 1877. 1878. 1879. yr. av. January . . . . 9.05 6.60 4.35 3.85 5.20 6.60 7.15 6.45 4.05 2.90 5.62 February . . . 9.00 7.30 4.45 4.20 5.35 6.95 7.95 6.15 3.90 3.70 5.90 March 8.55 6.75 4.45 4.95 5.30 7.50 8.55 5.50 3.70 3.95 5.92 April 8.80 5.60 4.25 5.40 5.50 8.25 8.05 5.55 3.55 3.70 5.87 May 8.75 4.55 4.05 4.90 5.50 7.90 7.15 5.30 3.30 3.50 5.49 June 8.60 3.80 3.90 4.45 5.55 7.00 6.05 4.85 3.50 3.75 5.15 July 9.00 4.40 4.05 4.55 6.05 7.05 7.00 4.95 4.10 3.60 5.48 August 9.50 4.40 4.65 4.60 6.90 7.75 6.15 5.05 4.25 3.40 5.67 September . . . 9.30 4.45 4.90 4.50 7.25 8.00 6.00 5.30 3.95 3.45 5.71 October . . . . 7.90 4.30 4.60 4.30 6.00 7.95 5.90 5.35 3.45 3.60 5.34 November . . . 6.85 4.00 4.25 3.85 6.50 7.30 5.75 4.70 2.95 3.85 5.00 December . . . 6.15 4.15 3.75 4.70 6.85 6.95 5.95 4.25 2.70 4.55 5.00 Yearly aver. 8.46 5.03 4.31 4.53 6.00 7.44 6.81 5.29 3.62 3.67 5.51 CHICAGO HEAVY HOG PRICES— Continued. 1880. 1881.1882 1883, 1884, 1885, 1886, 1887. 1888. 1889, January . February March . , April . . , May . . . June . . . July . . . August . . September October . November December 4.60 4.45 4.45 4.50 4.30 4.30 4.55 4.95 5.25 4.85 4.75 4.75 Yearly aver. I 4.64 5.15 5.90 5.90 5.95 6.05 5.90 6.40 6.50 6.75 6.60 6.20 6.15 6.60 6.80 6.80 7.10 7.70 7.90 8.20 8.45 8.40 7.65 6.75 6.20 6.35 6.90 7.25 7.50 7.30 6.50 5.65 5.50 5.20 4.70 4.75 5.20 5.85 6.70 6.50 5.95 5.55 5.20 5.25 5.70 5.20 4.70 4.45 4.20 4.60 4.60 4.55 4.55 4.05 4.00 4.55 4.55 4.10 3.80 3.50 3.65 3.85 4.05 4.15 4.00 4.00 4.15 4.60 4.45 4.35 4.10 3.75 4.25 4.45 5.20 5.30 5.00 4.60 4.55 5.30 4.75 5.00 4.50 4.85 5.20 5.40 5.35 5.45 5.50 5.55 5.55 6.10 6.20 6.20 6.05 5.95 5.20 5.00 4.70 4.75 4.75 4.50 4.35 4.40 4.15 4.20 4.25 3.85 3.60 6.131 7.381 6.07 5.44 4.21 4.14 5.71 4.38 Appendix CHICAGO HEAVY HOG PRICES— Continued. 117 1 Ten- 1890. 1891. 1892. 1893. 1894. 1895. 1896. 1897. 1898. 1899. yi'. av. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ ? $ January . . . . 3.70 3.55 4.25 7.45 5.30 4.25 3.95 3.35 3.65 3.75 4.32 February . . . 3.95 3.50 4.60 7.95 5.10 4.15 4.10 3.35 4.00 3.80 4.45 March 4.10 4.20 4.55 7.55 4.75 4.60 3.90 3.85 3.90 3.80 4.52 April 4.25 4.80 4.50 7.05 5.00 4.90 3.55 4.05 3.90 3.85 4.59 May 4.05 4.65 4.50 4.55 5.00 7.40 6.65 4.90 4.75 4.55 4.65 3.30 3.15 3.75 3.40 4.35 4.10 3.90 3.80 4.54 June 3.75 4.38 July 3.75 5.10 5.10 5.65 5.40 5.60 5.05 5.30 5.35 5.10 4.65 3.05 3.05 3.50 3.90 3.95 3.90 4.25 4.55 4.53 August 3.80 4.48 September . . . 4.35 4.90 5.15 6.00 5.85 4.10 2.90 4.00 3.85 4.40 4.55 October . . . . 4.05 4.50 5.35 6.40 5.15 3.85 3.25 3.75 3.70 4.30 4.43 November . . . 3.80 3.85 5.50 5.70 4.35 3.55 3.25 3.40 3.45 3.90 4.08 December . . . 3.40 3.65 6.15 5.65 4.35 3.50 3.25 3.35 3.40 4.05 4.08 Yearly aver. 3.92 4.36 5.06 6.54 5.02 4.33 3.39 8.64 3.85 4.03 4.41 CHICAGO HEAVY HOG PRICES— Continued. Ten- 1900. 1901. 1902. 1903. 1904. 1905. 1906. 1907. 1908. 1909. yr- av. January . . . . 4.55 5.25 6.40 6.60 4.95 4.70 5.40 6.60 4.45 6.20 5.51 February . . . 4.90 5.40 6.30 7.00 5.25 4.90 6.00 7.05 4.50 6.45 5.78 March 5.00 5.90 6.50 7.45 5.50 5.20 6.30 6.65 5.05 6.80 6.04 April 5.55 5.85 7.10 7.30 5.15 5.45 6.50 6.60 5.85 7.30 6.27 May 5.30 5.80 7.00 6.60 4.75 5.40 6.45 6.35 5.50 7.40 6.06 June 5.20 6.00 7.50 6.05 5.05 5.30 6.55 6.05 5.80 7.80 6.13 July 5.25 5.90 5.95 7.80 7.25 5.45 5.30 5.35 5.25 5.60 5.90 6.60 6.15 5.90 5.90 6.55 6.60 7.90 7.60 6.23 August 5.20 6.11 September . . . 5.25 6.65 7.55 5.75 5.70 5.40 6.15 5.80 6.90 8.10 6.33 October .... 4.80 8.10 7.00 5.40 5.35 5.10 6.40 6.05 6.05 7.85 6.01 November . . . 4.80 5.70 6.35 4.60 4.80 4.80 6.20 4.90 5.90 8.10 5.62 December . . . 4.75 6.20 6.35 4.50 4.50 4.90 6.25 4.65 5.75 8.45 5.63 Yearly aver. 5.05 5.89 6.93 6.00 5.14 5.23| 6.25 6.04 5.74 7.50 5.97 CHICAGO HEAVY HOG PRICES— Continued. 1 1 Ten- 1910. 1911. 1912. 1 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918| 1919. yr. av. January . . . . 8.70 7.85 6.30 7.40 8.35 6.80 7.30 11.00 16.40 17.60 9.77 February . . . 9.20 7.25 6.25 8.05 8.55 6.70 8.30 12.50 16.70 17.65 10.12 March 10.65 6.70 7.10 8.75 8.60 6.65 9.60 14.90 17.00 19.00 10.91 April 10.00 6.15 7.85 8.80 8.50 7.05 9.70 15.80 17.40 20.30 11.16 May 9.50 5.85 7.70 8.40 8.30 7.40 9.85 16.00 17.45 20.60 11.11 June 9.35 6.15 7.50 8.50 8.15 7.35 9.75 15.65 16.50 20.30 10.92 July 8.60 6.65 7.60 8.95 8.60 6.95 9.75 15.20 17.70 21.65 11.17 August 8.25 7.15 8.05 8.10 8.75 6.70 10.20 17.00 18.90 19.75 11.29 September . . . 8.70 6.75 8.30 8.10 8.60 7.20 10.55 18.30 19.55 17.25 11.33 October . . . . 8.45 6.50 8.65 8.15 7.55 7.75 9.85 17.25 17.55 14.25 10.60 November . . . 7.75 6.35 7.75 7.80 7.50 6.85 9.85 17.60 17.70 14.10 10.31 December . . . 7.65 6.25 7.45 7.70 7.10 6.60 10.00 16.95 17.55 13.50 10.08 Yearly aver. 1 8.89 6.64 7.54 8.23 8.22 7.001 9.56 15.68 17.53 18.00 10.73 118 Agricultural Prices CHICAGO CORN PRICES. Ten- 1860. 1861. 1862. 1863. 1864. 1865. 1866. 1867. 1868. 1869. yr. av. $ ? $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ January . . . . .48 .29 .23 .47 .82 .90 :6S .70 .86 .55 .568 February . . . .41 .28 .23 .51 .89 .88 .35 .68 .82 .56 .561 March .42 .27 .24 .50 .79 .79 .37 .74 .83 .54 .549 April .46 .30 .26 .47 .92 .63 .42 .93 .82 .54 .575 May .48 .33 .23 .27 .26 .48 .48 1.04 1.15 .54 .52 .48 .51 .96 .88 .88 .85 .58 .62 ,604 June .46 .596 July .43 .23 .28 .48 1.30 .56 .56 .80 .88 .81 .633 August .40 .23 .33 .49 1.26 .67 .56 .90 .97 .90 .671 September . . . .37 .21 .29 .60 1.30 .60 .54 1.00 .94 .84 .669 October . . . . .38 .22 .34 .79 1.25 .49 .66 1.06 .87 .67 .673 November . . . .32 .22 .31 .88 1.35 .52 .87 .97 .76 .73 .693 December . . . .28 .24 .37 .93 .97 .43 .76 .84 .64 .76 .622 Yearly aver. .407 .254 .284 .590 1.082 .628 .540 .872 .843 .675 .618 CHICAGO CORN PRICES— Continued. Ten- 1870. 1871. 1872. 1873. 1874. 1875. 1876. 1877. 1878. 1879. yr. av. January . . . . .72 .47 .41 .31 .55 .66 .43 .44 .42 .30 .471 February . . . .70 .52 .40 .31 .58 .64 .41 .42 .40 .32 .470 March .72 .54 .38 .32 .60 .66 .44 .40 .42 .33 .481 April .82 .54 .40 .34 .63 .71 .47 .46 .40 .32 .509 May .87 .54 .46 .39 .62 .71 .47 .53 .40 .34 .533 June .83 .53 .49 .34 .60 .67 .45 .46 .36 .36 .509 July .83 .51 .41 .36 .62 .70 .46 .48 .38 .36 .511 August .74 .45 .41 .39 .67 .69 .45 .45 .39 .33 .497 September . . . .64 .47 .36 .40 .77 .59 .45 .44 .36 .35 .483 October . . . . .60 .47 .33 .38 .76 .55 . 44 .43 .34 .41 .471 November . . . .61 .46 .33 .38 .77 .52 .44 .45 .32 .42 ,470 December . . . .50 .41 .31 .50 .78 .49 .45 . 44 .31 .41 .460 Yearly aver. .715 .492 .381 .368 .662 .632 .446 .450 .375 .354 .487 CHICAGO CORN PRICES— Continued. 1880. 1881. 1882. 1883. 1884. 1885. 1886. 1887. 1888. 1889. Ten- yi-. av. January . . February . March . . . April . . . May .... . 39 .37 .35 .34 .37 .37 .37 .40 .42 .43 .45 .48 .57 .67 .68 .61 .61 .62 .58 .64 .74 .73 .72 .78 .77 .67 .65 .68 .55 .60 .57 .56 .53 .55 .54 .50 .52 .50 .48 .52 . 59 .54 . 54 .52 .50 .55 .54 .53 .53 .69 .50 .40 .37 .37 .37 .39 .45 .47 .47 .47 .45 .43 .42 .43 .39 .37 .37 .37 .37 .36 .35 .40 .42 .39 .35 .35 .37 .36 .35 .37 .38 .38 .37 .36 .40 .42 .42 .44 .49 .49 .47 .49 .52 .57 .51 .48 .45 .43 .43 .39 .35 .34 .35 .34 .34 .34 .34 .36 .35 .33 .32 .46 .32 .445 .434 .443 .459 .475 June .... July .... August . . . September . October . . November . December . .36 .36 .38 .40 .40 .42 .39 .465 .472 .484 .493 .465 .470 .443 Yearly ave r. .378 .505 .678 .539 .518 .426 .373 .395 .465 .349 .463 Appendix CHICAGO CORN PRICES— Continued. 119 Ten- 1890. 1891. 1892. 1893. 1894. 1895. 1896. 1897. 1898. 1899. yr. av. $ ? $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ January . . . . .29 .49 .38 .42 .35 .43 .27 .23 .27 .37 .350 February . . . .28 .52 .40 .42 .35 .41 . 28 .23 .29 .35 .353 March .29 .62 .39 .41 .36 .44 .29 .24 .29 .35 .368 April .31 .71 .41 .41 .38 .47 .30 .24 .32 .35 .390 Mav 34 .62 .58 .62 .70 .51 .50 .42 .40 .39 .38 .40 .44 .52 .50 .45 .29 .27 .26 .24 .24 .26 .35 .32 .34 .33 .34 .33 .419 June .34 .390 July .40 .399 August .48 .63 .52 .38 .53 .40 .23 .30 .32 .32 .411 September . . . .48 .58 .46 .40 .53 .34 .21 .30 .30 .33 .393 October . . . . .51 .55 .42 .39 .51 .30 .24 .27 .31 .32 .382 November . . . .51 .64 .42 .37 .50 .28 .24 .27 .33 .32 .388 December . . . .50 .49 .41 .35 .46 .26 .23 .26 .36 .31 .363 Yearly aver. .394 .588 .460 .397 .433 .400 .259 .257 .317 .335 .384 CHICAGO CORN PRICES— Continued. 1900. 1901. 1902. 1903. 1904. 1905. 1906. 19-07. 1908. 1909. Ten- yr. av. January . . February . March . . . April . . . May .... .31 .33 .36 .40 .38 .37 .39 .42 .45 .51 .43 .51 .57 .57 .56 .61 .65 .61 .59 .59 .61 .62 .66 .72 .57 .60 .58 .55 .51 .46 .44 .44 .44 .45 .50 .51 .52 .49 .45 .43 .42 .45 .50 .53 .51 .49 .49 .49 .54 .53 .54 .54 .46 .43 .44 .47 .48 .56 .54 .56 .55 .53 .52 .49 .46 .42 .41 .42 .46 .49 .52 .49 .51 .50 .49 .46 .46 .42 .44 .44 .48 .53 .53 .54 .58 .62 .61 .58 .60 .59 .58 .62 .67 .75 .71 .74 .79 .80 .73 .64 .60 .60 .63 .66 .70 .74 .74 .71 .68 .66 .61 .63 .64 .466 .475 .495 .520 .552 June .... July .... August . . . September . October . . November . December . . .40 .42 .39 .41 .39 .42 .38 .552 .569 .570 .571 .548 .535 .518 Yearly ave 1^. .383 .504 .601 .463 .506 .503 .469 .531 .685 .667 .531 CHICAGO CORN PRICES— Continued. 1 1 Ten- 1910. 1911. 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918|.1919. yr. av. January . . . . .65 .47 .67 .49 .63 .73 .76 .99 1.81 1.40 .860 February . . . .65 .47 .65 .50 .62 .73 .76 1.01 1.75 1.31 .845 March .63 .47 .70 .52 .67 .73 .74 1.12 1.72 1.51 .881 April .59 .50 .78 .56 .67 .76 .77 1.45 1.66 1.63 .937 May .60 .54 .79 .58 .70 .77 .74 1.64 1.62 1.77 .975 June .59 .56 .74 .61 .71 .74 .74 1.71 1.59 1.92 .991 July .63 .63 .72 .64 .72 .79 .81 2.00 1.65 2.19 1.078 August .63 .64 .78 .73 .80 .79 .85 1.97 1.71 1.95 1.085 September . . . .55 .67 .74 .75 .78 .72 .87 2.10 1.59 1.53 1.030 October . . . . .50 .72 .64 .70 .74 .63 1.00 1.99 1.38 1.39 .969 November . . . .50 .73 .54 .73 .70 .65 1.02 2.10 1.37 1.47 .981 December . . . .48 .70 .51 .70 .65 .72 .92 1.73 1.45 1.47 .933 Yearly aver. .584 .592 .689 .626 .699 .730 .832 1.650 1.608 1.628 .964 120 Agricultural Prices CHICAGO CORN-HOG RATIOS BY DECADES. January . February March April , May , June . July . August September October . November December 1860- 1869. 11.5 12.2 12.6 11.6 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.3 10.4 10.0 9.5 10.5 1870- 1879. 11.9 12.6 12.3 11.5 10.3 10.1 10.7 11.4 11.8 11.3 10.6 10.9 1880- 1889, 12.6 12.4 11.9 11.3 11.3 11.7 11.4 11.1 11.0 10.2 10.9 1890- 1899. 12.3 12.6 12.3 11.8 10.8 11.2 11.4 10.9 11.6 11.6 10.5 11.2 1900- 1909. ~U^ 12.2 12.2 12.1 11.0 11.1 11.0 10.7 11.1 11.0 10.5 10.9 1910- 1919. ~11A 12.0 12.4 11.9 11.4 11.0 10.4 10.3 11.1 11.0 10.6 10.5 Appendix CHICAGO OATS PRICES. 121 Ten- 1860. 1861. 1862. 1863. 1864. 1865. 1866. 1867. 1868. 1869. yr. av. $ ? $ $ $ ? $ $ $ $ $ January . . . . .37 .17 .16 .46 .65 .64 .24 .43 .59 .50 .421 February . . . .33 .17 .17 .57 .65 . 61 .23 .42 .57 .55 .427 JMarch .32 .15 .18 .56 .64 .53 .25 .47 .58 .56 .424 April .31 .17 .19 .59 .67 .42 .28 .58 .60 .56 .437 May .30 .18 .25 .56 .68 .39 . 32 .70 .69 .62 .469 June .28 .14 .26 .58 .73 .48 .32 .65 .67 .62 .473 July .27 .15 .16 .27 .32 .56 .38 .78 .69 .44 .42 .30 .28 .62 .53 .67 .56 .68 .52 .474 August .20 .406 September . . . .20 .14 .31 .47 .65 .33 .33 .50 .54 .47 .394 October . . . . .18 .16 .35 .60 .62 .29 .39 .55 .51 .42 .407 NoA'ember . . . .17 .16 .34 .65 .64 .28 .41 .55 .49 .43 .412 December . . . .17 .18 .39 .66 .66 .26 .42 .55 .49 .44 .422 Yearly aver. .259 .161 .266 .554 .672 .424 .314 .546 .580 .531 .431 CHICAGO OATS PRICES— Continued. 1 1 1 Ten- 1870. 1871. 1872. 1873. 1874. 1875. 1876. 1877. 1878. 1879. yr- av. January . . , . 1 .42 .43 .34 .27 .42 .55 .31 .35 .24 .20 3.53 February . . . .41 .49 .34 .28 .44 .55 .31 .35 .24 .21 .362 March .39 .52 .33 .28 .45 .56 .33 .33 .24 .23 .366 April .45 .51 .33 .29 .47 .60 .32 .37 .24 .22 .380 May .51 .50 .39 .51 .41 .34 .31 .49 .48 .65 .60 .30 .30 .42 .46 .26 .24 .27 .32 .413 June .52 .415 July .51 .50 .29 .32 .30 .31 .29 .49 .44 .53 .48 .29 .31 .31 .25 .25 .23 .31 .24 .379 August .42 .328 September . . . .38 .32 .27 .31 .46 .38 .33 .24 .20 .24 .313 October . . . . .38 .33 .24 .32 .50 .36 .33 .23 .19 .29 .317 November . . . .41 .33 .23 .32 .50 .33 .32 .25 .20 .32 .341 December . . . .41 .34 .26 .39 .55| .32 .34 .25 .20 .35 .341 Yearly aver. .434 .425| .311 .309 .474| .493 .316 .318 .228 .267 .357 CHICAGO OATS PRICES— Continued. 1 1 Ten- 1880. 1881. 1882. 1883. 1 1884. 1885. 1886. 1887. 1888. 1889. yr. av. January . . . . .38 .31 .44 .37 .33 .27 .32 .26 .30 .25 .323 February . . . .32 .31 .42 .39 .33 .28 .29 .25 .29 .26 .314 March .30 .32 .44 .42 .31 .29 .30 .24 .29 .25 .316 April .28 .35 .49 .41 .30 .32 .27 .25 .30 .23 .320 May .31 .38 .52 .41 .32 .34 .28 .25 .35 .23 .339 June .29 .38 .52 .351 .32 .33 .27 .26 .32 .22 .326 July .25 .41 .57 .32 .30 .27 .30 .26 .31 .22 .321 August .25 .36 .48 .27 .27 .24 .26 .25 .28 .20 .286 September . , . .29 .42 .34 .27 .25 .26 .25 .25 .24 .19 .276 October . , . . .31 .45 .34 .28 .27 .25 .24 .26 .24 .19 .283 November . . . .31 .44 .36 .30 .26 .29 .26 .28 .26 .20 .296 December . . . .31 .45 .38 .33 .24 .28 .25 .30 .26 .21 .301 Yearly aver. .300] .382 .442 .3441 .292 .285 .274 .259 .287 .221 .308 TOO 1 «^rfV Agricultural Prices CHICAGO OATS PRICES— Continued. 1 Ten- 1890. 1891. 1892. 1893. 1894. 1895. 1896. 1897. 1898. 1899. yr. av. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ January . . . . .21 .44 .29 .31 .28 .29 .18 .16 .23 .27 .266 February . . . .20 .46 .30 .31 .28 .28 .20 .16 .26 .28 .273 March .21 .51 .29 .30 .30 .29 .19 .17 .26 .26 .278 April .24 .53 .29 .28 .31 .29 .19 .17 .28 .26 .284 May .27 .50 .40 .33 .30 .31 .32 .32 .33 .31 .29 .26 .24 .35 .42 .38 .31 .30 .28 .24 .21 .19 .17 .17 .17 .18 .18 .18 .18 .28 .24 .23 .21 .26 .25 .22 .21 .295 June .28 .283 July .31 .264 August .37 .253 September . , . .37 .28 .33 .26 .29 .19 .16 .20 .21 .22 .251 October . . . . .41 .28 .30 .27 .29 .18 .18 .19 .23 .23 .256 November . . . .43 .32 .31 .28 .29 .19 .19 .21 .26 .23 .271 December . . . .42 .32 .31 .28 .30 .17 .18 .22 .27 .25 .272 Yearly aver. .310 .389 .309 .283 .317 .243 .181 .184 .247 .245| .271 CHICAGO OATS PRICES— Continued. 1900. 1 1901. 1902. 1903.11904. 1905. 1906. 1907. 1908. 1909. Ten- yr- av. January . . February . March . . . April . . . May .... .23 .23 .24 .24 .23 .24 .25 .26 .27 .29 .28 .33 .36 .35 .36 .41 .45 .42 .43 .43 .43 .45 .44 .43 .28 .27 .29 .29 .31 .33 .35 .33 .34 .36 .39 .39 .35 .37 .37 .36 .36 .39 .43 .40 .39 .42 .41 .42 .36 .32 .30 .31 .30 .30 .31 .31 .31 .30 .32 .31 .27 .28 .29 .30 .31 .31 .30 .30 .32 .33 .38 .35 .31 .32 .34 .34 .34 .35 .39 .41 .44 .47 .45 .44 .49 .54 .50 .47 .49 .50 .51 .53 .53 .55 .52 .56 .48 .49 .48 .49 .49 .50 .53 .54 .55 .59 .56 .49 .40 .43 .40 .39 .43 .357 .373 .375 .382 .399 June .... July .... .24 .23 .399 .395 August . .' . .22 .22 .22 .22 .22 .352 September . October . . November . December . . .359 .355 .358 .370 Yearly avei r. .229 .321 .373 .359 .371| .301 .329 .454 .511 .484 .373 CHICAGO OATS PRICES— Continued. 1 1 Ten- 1910. 1911. 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918| 1919. yr. av. January . . . . .47 .32 .49 .33 .38 .54 .47 .56 .82 .65 .503 February . . . .48 .31 .52 .34 .39 .57 .46 .54 . 87 .60 .508 March .45 .30 .53 .33 .39 .57 .45 .59 .91 .64 .516 April .43 .31 .57 .35 .38 .56 .44 .67 .86 .71 .528 May .40 .34 .40 .54 .52 .39 .41 .40 .39 .53 .48 .44 .39 .67 .66 .76 .76 .71 .71 .518 June .38 .510 July .42 .43 .50 .40 .37 .54 .40 .77 .75 .76 .534 August .36 .41 .33 .41 .41 .53 .44 .68 .70 .76 .501 September ' . . . .33 .44 .33 .42 .48 .37 .46 .59 .72 .70 .484 October . . . . .31 .46 .32 .39 .47 .38 .50 .59 .69 .73 .484 November . . . .31 .46 .31 .38 .49 .39 .54 .66 .73 .76 .503 December . . . .31 . .47 .32 .39 .48 .42 .50 .76 .71 .84 .520 Yearly aver. 1 .388] .388 1 .440 1 .379 1 .419 1 .490 I .458 1 .644 1 774 .714 .509 Appendix CHICAGO WHEAT PRICES. 123 Ten- 1860. 1861. 1862. 1863. 1864. 1865. 1866. 1867. 1868. 1869. yr. av. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ ? $ January . . . . .98 .76 .66 .96 1.11 1.40 .87 1.95 1.63 1.14 1.146 February . . . .97 .75 .72 1.08 1.11 1.25 .84 1.90 2.01 1.16 1.179 March 1.01 .77 .73 1.08 1.10 1.16 .91 2.04 1.95 1.13 1.188 April 1.04 .86 .72 1.03 1.19 1.03 .96 1.93 1.96 1.07 1.179 May 1.06 .94 .63 .71 .72 .95 .94 1.22 1.56 1.05 1.06 1.77 1.19 2.14 1.96 2.02 1.92 1.13 1.16 1.299 June 1.04 1.218 July 1.00 .62 .67 .79 .87 .92 .86 2.02 1.91 1.03 1.17 1.00 1.41 1.49 1.75 1.47 1.72 1.31 1.38 1.165 August .83 1.257 September . . . .85 .69 .81 .94 1.87 1.24 1.78 1.79 1.54 1.23 1.274 October . . . . .83 .71 .87 1.05 1.58 1.22 1.89 1.90 1.29 1.02 1.236 November . . . .77 .66 .77 1.04 1.76 1.13 1.89 1.76 1.12 .89 1.179 December . . . .74 .64 .83 1.08 1.52 .92 1.85 1.46 1.14 .86 1.104 Yearly aver. .927 .725 .767 .994|1.495 1.138 1.361 1.839 1.647 1.123 1.202 CHICAGO WHEAT PRICES— Continued. 1 1 Ten- 1870. 1871. 1872. 1873. 1874.|1875.! 1876. 1877. 1878. 1879. yr. av. January . . . . .79 1.14 1.23 1.23 1.22 .89 .99 1.28 1.06 .83 1.086 February . . . .81 1.24 1.24 1.23 1.19 .85 1.02 1.29 1.05 .89 1.081 March .58 1.24 1.21 1.201 1.19 .91 1.01 1.25 1.08 .92 1.059 April .80 1.29 1.25 1.19 1.24 1.00 1.02 1.43 1.10 .89 1.121 May .95 1.27 1.48 1.29 1.23 1.01 1.03 1.62 1.10 .97 1.195 June 1.10 1.26 1.45 1.22 1.20 .96 1.05 1.48 • .97 1.04 1.173 July 1.12 1.20 1.04 1.25 1.37 1.18 1.22 1.14 1.02 1.12 1.21 .96 .89 1.42 1.14 .95 .99 .99 .86 1 1 33 August 1.09 1.083 September . . . .99 1.11 1.21 1.10 .97 1.13 1.02 1.13 .87 .94 1.047 October . . . . 1.06 1.22 1.13 1.04 .89 1.11 1.10 1.10 .81 1.12 1.058 November . . . .81 1.23 1.07 1.01 .88 1.08 1.11 1.08 .82 1.16 1.025 December . . . 1.06 1.19 1.14 1.12 .90 .98 1.19 1.09 .83 1.29 1.079 Yeai'ly aver. 1 .930 1.202 1.252 1.189 1.089 1.020 1.03211.275 .969 .992 1.093 CHICAGO WHEAT PRICES— Continued. 1 Ten- 1880. i 1881. 1882. 1883. 1884. 1885. 1886. 1887. 1888. 1889. yr. av. January . . . . 1.25 .98 1.30 .99 .92 .79 .81 .79 .77 .98 .956 FebruaiT . . • 1.23 .98 1.27 1.08 .93 .77 .81 .75 .77 1.01 .960 March 1.21 1.01 1.30 1.07 .88 .77 .79 .77 .76 1.00 .956 April 1.11 1.02 1.35 1.07 .85 .85 .78 .80 . 77 .91 .949 May 1.15 1.04 1.27 1.11 .90 .88 .76 .85 .86 .88 .968 June .97 1.10 1.30 1.08 .87 .87 .74 .81 .82 .83 .937 July .92 1.14 1.30 1.01 .82 .88 .77 .70 .82 .81 .917 August .89 1.29 1.09 1.02 .80 .84 .76 .68 .88 .78 .903 September . . . .91 1.28 1.01 .96 .76 .82 .74 .89 1.45 .79 .941 October . . . . .98 1.36 .95 .93 .76 .88 .72 .71 1.11 .80 .920 November . . . 1.06 1.28 .93 .96 .73 .87 .75 .74 1.09 .80 .921 December . . . 1.01 1.27 .93 .97 .73 .86 .77 .77 1.01 .79 .911 Yearly aver. 11.057 1.145 1.175 1.019 .829 .840 .765 .7551 .926 .862 .936 IM Agkicultural Prices CHICAGO WHEAT PRICES— Continued. 1890. 1891. 1892. 1893. 1894. 1895. 1896. 1897. 1898. 1899. Ten- yr. av. January . , February . March . . . April . . . May .... June .... July .... August . . . September . October . . November . December . . $ .76 .76 .79 .85 .95 .89 .90 .99 1.00 1.00 .95 .90 $ .91 .95 1.01 1.09 1.03 .96 .92 1.00 .95 .96 .94 .91 $ .87 .88 .84 .81 .83 .83 .78 .77 .73 .72 .71 .71 $ .75 .74 .76 .79 .72 .65 .60 .60 .66 .63 .61 .62 $ .61 .58 .58 . 61 .57 .59 .55 .55 .53 .54 .57 .58 $ .55 .54 .57 .62 .73 .77 .68 .65 .60 .61 .59 .59 $ .62 .67 .65 .66 .62 .60 .58 .58 .63 .73 .83 .84 $ .83 .80 .80 .81 .83 .75 .74 .91 .93 .94 .96 1.01 $ 1.00 1.02 1.03 1.12 1.51 .98 .77 .70 .65 .66 .67 .66 $ .71 .72 .70 .73 .74 .74 .72 .72 .72 .72 .68 .67 $ .761 .766 .773 .809 .853 .776 .724 .747 .740 .751 .751 .749 Yearly avei [■. .895 .969 .790 .678 .572 .625 .668 .859 .898 .714 .767 CHICAGO WHEAT PRICES— Continued. 1900. 1 1901. 1902. 1903. 1904. 1905. 1906. 1907. 1908. 1909. Ten- yr. av. January . . February March . . . April . . . May .... June .... July .... August . . . September . October . . November . December . .65 .66 .66 .66 .66 .77 .78 .74 .76 .74 .72 .72 .74 .73 .75 -.72 .73 .71 .67 .72 .70 .69 .72 .76 .77 .75 .78 .73 .74 .74 .75 .72 .83 .72 .74 .75 .70 .77 .73 .75 .78 .80 .80 .84 .84 .82 .81 .82 .87 .98 .96 .94 .97 .99 1.03 1.07 1.14 1.16 1.15 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.15 1.03 1.00 1.07 1.03 .96 .87 .88 .88 .86 .86 .83 .80 .85 .88 .85 .79 .74 .74 .72 .73 .74 .73 .80 .80 .81 .93 .96 .98 .93 1.02 1.07 .93 1.02 .97 .95 .96 .94 1.05 .95 . 88 .93 1.01 1.03 1.05 1.03 1.06 1.16 1.22 1.32 1.40 1.45 1.23 1.18 1.08 1.12 1.12 1.17 .853 .882 .881 .875 .914 .929 .894 .883 .899 .895 .885 .904 Yearly ave r. .710 .720 .752| .789 1.035 1.008 .793 .915 .979 1.209| .891 CHICAGO WHEAT PRICES- Continued. 1 1 Ten- 11910. 1911. 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918| 1919. yr. av. January . . . . 1.19 1.02 1.04 1.02 .93 1.41 1.29 1.85 2.18 2.35 1.428 February . . . 1.19 .97 1.05 1.01 .94 1.57 1.24 1.76 2.19 2.30 1.422 March 1.19 .93 1.07 .98 .94 1.51 1.14 1.93 2.19 2.36 1.424 April 1.14 .94 1.11 1.00 .94 1.58 1.21 2.00 2.19 2.63 1.474 May 1.09 .97 1.17 1.00 .96 1.50 1.15 3.02 2.19 2.73 1.580 June 1.06 .95 1.13 1.00 .89 1.30 1.08 2.67 2.19 2.39 1.466 July 1.14 .92 1.07 .90 .89 1.31 1.18 2.55 2.28 2.26 1.450 August 1.12 1.01 1.01 .89 1.01 1.15 1.43 2.56 2.29 2.25 1.472 September . . . 1.07 1.01 .99 .92 1.16 1.08 1.56 2.24 2.26 2.54 1.483 October . . , . 1.03 1.06 1.01 .89 1.10 1.10 1.80 2.19 2.26 2.55 1.499 November . . . .99 1.01 .96 .91 1.15 1.09 1.83 2.19 2.26 2.73 1.512 December . . . 1.00 1.01 .98 .92 1.22 1.17 1.66 2.19 2.32 2.92 1.539 Yearly aver. 1.100 ,984 1.059 .954 1.010 1.314 1.381 2.262 2.240 2.500 1.480 Appendix 125 PRICES DURING 1862-1878. Prices during the 1862-1878 period are generally given in currency, and the currency of that period, unfortunately, had a fluctuating gold value, just as the British pound has today. In order that our readers may be able to convert the currency prices of 1862-1878 into terms of gold, we are publishing the following table: AMOUNT OF GREENBACK CURRENCY NECESSARY TO BUY ONE DOLLAR IN GOLD IN UNITED STATES, FROM 1862-1878, INCLUSIVE. 1862, 1863.1864. 1865.11866. 1867. 1868. 1869. 1870. January . February March . . April . . May . . . June . . . July . . . August . . September October . November December $1.02 1.03 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.07 1.14 1.15 1.20 1.28 1.31 1.32 $1.48 1.63 1.56 1.52 1.50 1.45 1.34 1.26 1.35 1.49 1.49 1.51 $1.56 1.59 1.64 1.76 1.79 2.22 2.54 2.47 2.23 2.09 2.35 2.28 52.16 2.02 1.75 1.49 1.37 1.42 1.43 1.42 1.45 1.47 1.48 1.47 $1.35 1.38 1.37 1.38 1.37 1.38 1.40 1.41 1.43 1.43 1.41 1.36 $1.38 1.42 1.40 1.39 1.40 1.40 1.43 1.47 1.43 1.38 1.35 1.36 $1.36 1.34 1.32 1.33 1.40 1.38 1.36 1.34 1.43 1.30 1.28 1.22 51.21 1.18 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.13 1.17 1.18 1.15 1.13 1.12 1.11 GREENBACK CURRENCY— Continued. 1871, 1872. 1873, 1874. 1875. 1876. 1877, 1878. January . February March . , April . . May . , , June . . . July . . . August . . September October . November December 1.11 1.12 1.11 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.13 1.12 1.14 1.14 1.11 1.10 1.10 1.11 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.13 1.13 L13 1.14 1.17 1.18 1.18 1.17 1.16 1.15 1.14 1.10 1.09 1.11 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.12 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.16 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.14 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.15 1.14 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.12 1.11 1.10 1.11 1.09 1.08 1.06 1.06 1.05 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.06 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 CHICAGO TEN-YEAR AVERAGE DAILY PRICES, 1904-1913. Compiling the tables on pages 126-133 involved considerable work, but it is believed that for studying seasonal trends and normal relationships at different times of the year, these figures are very valuable. As a mat- ter of interest, a few future contract prices are averaged. It will be noted that the future prices differ considerably from the cash prices until the date of the delivery month draws near, when the future and the cash prices become almost identical. Before the war, the future contract sys- tem worked very well, but during the war it was rather unsatisfactory. There is an interesting field of study in the seasonal trend of northern wheat (spring) as compared with red wheat (winter). 126 Agriculturai. Prices CHICAGO TEN-YEAR AVERAGE DAILY PRICES, 1904-1913. JANUARY. P g o o3 o O M O o m c o m ft CD m m Q to ►-3 m a; o 6 _ '-''2 TO *-* 3 4 51.2 51.2 $6.32 6.34 $5.81 5.85 $8.94 8.97 $8.26 8.31 38.7 38.9 ^99.0 99.4 99.0 99.2 5 51.3 6.37 5.84 8.97 8.32 38.9 100.0 99.1 6 51.4 6.37 5.85 9.01 8.35 39.0 100.2 99.9 7 51.6 6.42 5.90 8.99 8.35 39.1 100.2 99.3 8 51.6 6.41 5.90 8.96 8.33 39.0 100.1 99.2 9 51.5 6.40 5.90 S.94| 8.34 39.1 100.2 99.4 10 51.9 6.3.4 5.87 8.93 8.33 39.0 100.4 99.2 11 52.0 6.28 5.81 8.94 8.35 39.4 100.2 99.3 12 52.2 6.31 5.81 8.95 8.38 39.3 100.2 99.4 13 52.3 6.34 5.84 8.97 8.38 39.4 100.0 99.2 14 52.3 6.37 5.85 9.00 8.40 39.5 100.3 99.5 15 52.2 6.40 5.87 8.97 8.43 39.5 99.9 99.3 16 52.2 6.39 5.88 8.97 8.42 39.7 100.0 99.3 17 52.4 6.39 5.88 9.00 8.44 39.8 100.1 99.3 18 52.1 6.40 5.89 8.96 8.45 39.7 100.3 99.3 19 52.3 6.41 5.89 8.96 8.45 39.7 100.1 99.1 20 51.9 6.38 5.87 8.97 8.46 39.8 100.1 99.3 21 52.0 6.39 5.88 8.97 8.46 40.0 100.3 99.5 22 52.0 6.38 5.88 8.92 8.43 40.0 100.1 99.1 23 51.9 6.36 5.87 8.91 8.43 39.8 100.1 99.6 24 51.9 6.38 5.90 8.94 8.46 39.9 100.1 99.6 25 51.9 6.41 5.92 8.93 8.48 39.9 100.0 99.3 26 51.9 6.40 5.91 8.95 8.48 39.9 99.9 99.2 27 51.8 6.42 5.92 8.96 8.50 39.9 100.0 99.2 28 51.9 6.41 5.91 8.95 8.47 39.7 100.2 99.5 29 51.9 6.41 5.90 8.95 1 8.48 40.0 -, iOO.4 99.7 30 51.9 6.44 5.91 8.97 8.50 40.1 100.4 99.7 31 51.8 6.48 5.94 8.90 8.50 40.0 100.1 99.5 Av. 51.9 6.38 5.88 8.96 1 8.40 39.5 j-100.1 99.3 FEBRUARY. 1 51.6 6.49 5.95 8.89 8.49 39.9 100.0 100.2 2 52.0 6.48 5.95 8.95 8.54 40.1 100.2 100.4 3 52.4 6.47 5.97 8.96 8.54 40.2 100.3 100.4 4 52.8 6.49 5.99 8.97 8.54 40.4 100.6 100.6 5 52.9 6.52 6.00 8.95 8.53) 40.4 100.6 100.9 6 52.7 6.53 6.03 8.96 8.521 40.6 100.7 101.0 7 52.6 6.53 6.02 8.95 8.52 40.7 101.0 101.1 8 52.5 6.56 6.08 8.92 8.51 40.7 100.9 101.0 9 52.6 6.56 6.07 9.02 8.56 40.8 101.0 101.2 10 52.5 6.60 6.12 8.98 8.54 40.9 101.0 101.3 11 52.4 6.63 6.16 8.98 8.55 40.8 101.0 101.3 12 52.4 6.61 6.13 8.96 8.53 40.8 100.9 101.1 13 52.4 6.62 6.13 8.94 8.52 40.8 100.7 101.0 14 52.5 6.61 6.13 8.96 8.53 40.9 100.5 101.0 15 52.7 6.62 6.15 8.96 8.52 40.9 ' 100.9 101.3 16 52.7 6.64 6.17 8.94 8.51 40.8 101.0 101.4 Appendix 127 CHICAGO TEN- YEAR AVERAGE DAILY PRICES, 1904-1913— Continued. FEBRUARY— Continued. o o bJO O' CD o 52.7 52.8 52.7 52.7 52.8 52.7 52.9 53.0 53.1 53.1 53.4 53.3J $6.65 6.67 6.67 6.68 6.69 6.71 6.74 6.73 6.75 6.76 6.72 6.80 $6.18 6.18 6.19 6.21 6.21 6.23 6.25 6.26 6.27 6.29 6.28 6.33 $8.96 8.95 8.96 8.95 8.96 8.98 8.99 8.98 9.00 9.00 9.03 9.04 $8.53 8.53 8.55 8.54 8.56 8.56 8.56 8.56 8.58 8.58 8.62 8.64 40.7 40.7 41.1 41.1 41.1 41.1 41.1 41.2 41.3 41.5 41.7 41.6 100.7 100.3 100.5 101.3 101.3 101.4 101.4 101.6 101.3 101.4 101.5 101.4 101.1 100.8 101.0 101.6 101.8 101.8 101.3 101.7 102.0 102.1 102.0 102.0 52.71 6.6J 6.14 8.96 8.52 40.91 ^ 100.9 101.2* MARCH. 1 53.21 ! 6.79 6.32 9.04 9.36 8.50 41.2 101.3 101.2 2 53.4 6.79 6.33 9.07 9.37 8.60 41.6 101.1 101.3 3 53.2 6.80 6.34 9.07 9.39 8.60 41.3 101.0 101.0 4 53.4 6.80 6.34 9.08 9.39 8.61 41.0 100.7 100.8 5 53.6 6.80 6.35 9.13 9.41 8.64 41.1 100.1 100.4 6 53.6 6.87 6.39 9.17 9.45 8.66 1 41.2 99.9 100.3 7 53.5 6.90 6.43 9.13 9.45 8.68 41.0 99.6 99.7 8 53.81 6.89 6.40 9.15 9.42 8.69 41.2 99.3 99.2 9 53.8 6.96 6.45 9.20 9.47 8.72 41.1 99.0 99.0 10 54.1 6.98 6.45 9.15 9.44 8.69 41.1 99.3 99.6 11 54.1 6.97 6.48 9.14 9.43 8.71 40.9 99.2 99.7 12 54.3 7.01 6.52 9.16 9.44 8.72 40.9 99.5 99.9 13 54.5 7.03 6.52 9.17 9.45 8.75 40.9 99.4 99.8 14 54.5 7.00 6.52 9.18 9.47 8.77 41.1 99.9 100.1 15 54.5 7.01 6.52 9.16 9.44 8.76 40.8 99.9 99.8 16 54.2 7.02 6.53 9.19 9.41 8.76 40.7 99.7 99.6 17 54.4 7.05 6.54 9.18 9.42 8.77 40.5 99.6 99.7 18 54.1 7.05 6.55 9.18 9.42 8.77 40.5 99.6 99.6 19 54.5 7.06 6.57 9.17 9.42 8.78 40.9 99.8 99.7 20 54.4 7.06 6.54 9.17 9.40 8.78 41.0 99.7 99.7 21 54.2 7.10 6.61 9.18 9.39 8.81 40.9 99.5 99.5 22 54.6 7.10 6.62 9.20 9.40 8.84 40.9 99.4 99.6 23 54.8 7.11 6.63 9.22 9.41 8.84 40.8 99.4 99.7 24 55.0 7.11 6.64 9.23 9.40 8.81 40.8 99.8 99.8 25 55.2 7.14 6.66 9.21 9.41 8.82 40.7 99.9 100.0 26 55.2 7.19 6.70 9.26 9.44 8.85 40.8 100.1 101.4 27 55.3 7.26 6.76 9.32 9.49 8.94 40.9 100.2 101.4 28 55.3 7.29 6.79 9.32 9.51 8.95 40.9 100.3 101.4 29 55.5 7.31 6.81 9.28 9.49 8.92 40.9 100.0 101.0 30 55.7 7.28 6.77 9.28 9.44 8.88 41.1 99.9 101.0 31 55.9 7.29 6.77 9.28 9.47 8.91 41.1 100.5 100.7 Av. 54.5 6.99 6.55 9.18 9.43 8.76 41.0 99.9 100.2 128 Agricultural Prices CHICAGO TEN- YEAR AVERAGE DAILY PRICES, 1904-1913— Continued. APRIL. p o s o o H o o m o |1h t3 OS m o m 03 m >-3 m 03 o m -t-) 03 O ^3 - -t-i ■S3 cr^ CD 1 2 55.6 56.0 h $7.33 7.33 $6.80 6.82 $9.28 9.25 $9.47 9.46 $8.91 8.91 4L3 41.3 100.7 100.5 101.3 100.1 3 56.1 7.31 6.79 9.23 9.44 8.90 41.3 100.6 100.1 4 56.2 7.32 6.82 9.22 9.41 8.88 41.2 100.8 100.1 5 56.4 7.30 6.80 9.19 9.39 8.86 41.2 100.9 100.2 6 56.3 7.30 6.79 9.13 9.36 8.82 41.2 101.3 100.5 7 56.6 7.28 6.79 9.16 9.35 8.80 41.2 101.4 100.8 8 56.4 7.26 6.77 9.14 9.34 8.80 41.3 101.5 100.5 9 56.7 7.27 6.75 9.19 9.35 8.79 41.4 101.7 100.9 10 56.9 7.25 6.75 9.18 9.36 8.81 41.6 101.7 100.9 11 57.2 7.26 6.76 9.16 9.35 8.78 41.7 101.9 100.9 12 57.4 7.25 6.74 9.17 9.36 8.77 41.8 102.1 101.2 13 57.6 7.24 6.75 9.17 9.38 8.79 42.1 102.6 10L2 14 57.5 7.22 6.73 9.16 9.38 8.79 41.9 102.6 101.3 15 57.4 7.18 6.68 9.15 9.36 8.76 41.9 102.6 101.6 16 57.2 7.15 6.64 9.10 9.32 8.71 41.7 102.4 100.9 17 57.4 7.15 6.63 9.09 9.33 8.77 41.7 102.6 101.0 18 57.4 7.15 6.64 9.08 9.32 8.76 41.9 102.6 101.4 19 57.3 7.07 6.56 9.06 9.31 8.76 42.0 102.9 101.5 20 57.4 7.06 6.55 9.07 9.31 8.74 42.0 102.4 101.1 21 57.6 7.04 6.53 9.09 9.31 8.78 42.0 102.2 lOLO 22 57.7 7.03 6.55 9.09 9.32 8.81 41.8 102.3 100.4 23 57.5 7.00 6.52 9.09 9.31 8.81 41.8 102.2 99.9 24 57.5 7.00 6.52 9.09 9.31 8.78 41.6 101.8 99.5 25 57.8 6.99 6.51 9.13 9.33 8.79 41.9 102.0 100.0 26 57.6 7.00 6.51 9.15 9.36 8.79 42.0 101.4 99.6 27 57.9 6.96 6.48 9.18 9.35 8.80 42.0 101.3 99.1 28 58.1 6.97 6.46 9.16 9.37 8.77 42.2 101.2 99.3 29 58.3 - 6.93 6.43 9.17 9.38 8.78 42.1 101.3 99.4 30 58.1 6.92 6.40 9.17 9.37 8.78 42.2 102.0 100.7 Av. 57.1 7.15 6.65 9.14 9.36 8.80 41.7 101.8 100.5 MAY. 1 58.5 52.3 6.88 6.36 9.18 9.36 8.82 8.96 42.5 35.5 102.6 100.5 2 58.9 52.3 6.86 6.33 9.18 9.36 8.83 8.97 42.6 35.6 103.1 101.2 3 58.9 52.2 6.85 6.33 9.19 9.36 8.84 8.98 42.2 35.4 103.8 100.8 4 58.9 52.0 6.86 6.34 9.25 9.39 8.88 8.99 42.5 35.3 104.2 101.6 5 59.2 52.2 6.89 6.38 9.27 9.41 8.90 9.03 42.8 35.5 104.6 102.0 6 59.3 52.2 6.91 6.40 9.23 9.39 8.91 9.01 42.9 35.4 104.8 102.0 7 59.6 52.2 6.87 6.38 9.25 9.39 8.89 9.00 43.0 35.5 104.7 102.2 8 59.6 52.1 6.88 6.38 9.26 9.40 8.93 9.04 43.0 35.5 104.8 102.5 9 59.6 52.3 6.89 6.40 9.27 9.41 8.98 9.07 43.1 35.6 105.0 102.8 10 59.8 52.3 6.91 6.40 9.26 9.40 8.97 9.06 43.3 35.6 105.4 102.7 11 60.2 52.5 6.95 6.44 9.29 9.41 8.97 9.08 43.6 35.9 105.4 102.9 12 60.2 52.6 6.94 6.44 9.31 9.41 8.99 9.08 43.7 36.1 106.0 103.1 13 60.3 52.7 6.94 6.45 9.32 9.42 9.02 9.09 43.5 36.0 106.6 103.7 14 60.4 52.5 6.96 6.44 9.33 9.45 9.04 9.11 43.5 35.9 106.7 103.6 15 60.5 52.5 6.93 6.41 9.33 9.45 9.03 9.10 43.4 35.8 106.6 103.7 16 60.4 52.5 6.92 6.39 9.31 9.45 9.04 9.09 43.3 35.8 106.5 103.6 Appendix 129 CHICAGO TEN- YEAR AVERAGE DAILY PRICES, 1904-1913— Continued. MAY — Continued. m ^ !M ^ m o g o o m 03 03 73 m CO o ^ 2 m 6% O O^ Eh B J hJ a s O O ^S Q 1^ o3 o o ft CO ui O q3 ■Si ^3 ^e4 Si C 17 60.9 - 52.6 $6.95 $6.43 $9.36 $9.47 $9.09 $9.13 43.5 35.9 106.4 104.0 18 60.8 52.4 6.93 6.42 9.31 9.46 9.06 9.12 43.5 36.1 106.8 104.4 19 61.0 52.6 6.89 6.37 9.28 9.43 9.06 9.11 43.6 36.2 106.9 104.6 20 60.7 52.6 6.89 6.33 9.26 9.42 9.05 9.10 43.4 36.2 107.2 105.0 21 61.1 52.7 6.91 6.38 9.26 9.42 9.07 9.10 43.7 36.3 107.7 105.2 22 61.3 52.8 6.91 6.37 9.27 9.42 9.05 9.10 43.9 36.5 108.8 106.0 23 61.2 52.7 6.88 6.34 9.27 9.40 9.05 9.09 44.0 36.5 108.3 105.4 24 61.4 52.7 6.86 6.31 9.24 9.40 9.08 9.10 44.0 36.4 108.7 105.6 25 61.4 52.8 6.83 6.29 9.26 9.40 9.12 9.11 44.2 36.6 109.2 106.0 26 61.9 52.9 6.82 6.29 9.30 9.44 9.13 9.15 44.4 36.7 109.3 106.1 27 61.2 52.9 6.84 6.31 9.31 9.44 9.14 9.18 44.3 36.7 108.7 105.7 28 60.3 52.6 6.84 6.31 9.30 9.45 9.16 9.20 44.3 36.4 107.9 105.5 29 60.4 52.6 6.82 6.29 9.31 9.47 9.19 9.22 43.3 36.3 107.8 105.4 30 60.4 52.7 6.84 6.30 9.32 9.48 9.20 9.24 43.1 36.4 106.8 104.9 31 60.5 52.7 6.86 6.31 9.33 9.49 9.22 9.24 43.1 36.4 106.4 104.2 Av. 60.3 52.5 6.89 6.36 9.27 9.42 1 9.02 9.09 43.4 36.0 106.4 103.8 JUNE. 1 60.1 53.2 6.86 6.34 9.28 9.47 9.19 9.22 43.2 36.5 105.8 105.0 2 60.4 53.5 6.85 6.32 9.27 9.43 9.18 9.20 43.1 36.7 105.5 105.4 3 60.5 53.5 6.84 6.30 9.26 9.42 9.20 9.21 43.1 36.6 105.3 105.4 4 60.3 53.6 6.83 6.30 9.27 9.44 9.18 9.21 43.3 36.8 105.2 104.8 5 60.1 53.5 6.81 6.26 9.29 9.45 9.19 9.23 43.3 36.6 105.1 104.8 6 59.9 53.6 6.84 6.30 9.35 9.50 9.29 9.31 43.3 36.5 105.0 105.1 7 60.1 53.8 6.88 6.33 9.35 9.55 9.30 9.36 43.0 36.5 105.1 105.5 8 60.0 53.9 6.92 6.37 9.36 9.56 9.32 9.38 43.2 36.6 104.5 105.9 9 60.3 54.0 6.93 6.38 9.40 9.57 1 9.35 9.42 43.4 36.6 104.8 105.5 10 60.1 54.1 6.94 6.39 9.39 9.58 9.39 9.44 43.0 36.7 104.6 105.4 11 59.9 54.1 6.95 6.40 9.41 9.58 9.43 9.45 42.9 36.4 104.2 104.8 12 60.1 54.2 6.96 6.41 9.40 9.58 9.43 9.47 43.0 36.6 103.9 104.6 13 60.1 54.3 6.95 6.40 9.40 9.58 9.46 9.47 43.0 36.7 103.3 104.4 14 60.0 54.2 6.95 6.41 9.40 9.59 9.44 9.47 42.9 36.7 102.6 104.1 15 60.0 54.3 6.95 6.40 9.38 9.59 9.44 9.48 43.5 36.9 102.6 103.9 16 60.1 54.7 6.99 6.44 9.41 9r61 9.46 9.52 43.6 37.3 103.1 104.5 17 60.2 54.8 6.95 6.43 9.43 9.60 9.48 9.52 43.5 37.3 102.2 104.4 18 60.2 54.8 6.97 6.45 9.47 9.64 9.51 9.57 43.5 37.5 102.4 104.0 19 60.3 54.8 7.03 6.43 9.46 9.66 9.53 9.60 43.8 37.6 102.1 104.7 20 60.4 54.8 7.08 6.52 9.47 9.67 9.54 9.58 44.0 37.8 100.8 105.2 21 60.6 55.1 7.09 6.54 9.48 9.66 9.53 9.57 44.3 38.2 100.0 105.6 22 60.5 55.1 7.07 6.51 9.44 9.63 9.51 9.55 44.1 38.4 99.5 105.7 23 60.2 54.9 7.06 6.49 9.46 9.62 9.53 9.52 43.8 37.9 99.5 105.9 24 59.7 54.7 7.08 6.50 9.46 9.65 9.56 9.56 43.2 38.1 99.2 105.5 25 59.8 54.7 7.08 6.49 9.48 9.66 9.58 9.57 43.4 38.0 99.0 106.2 26 60.0 54.8 7.09 6.51 9.48 9.65 9.58 9.57 43.5 38.1 98.7 106.5 27 60.6 55.3 7.09 6.54 9.50 9.67 9.60 9.58 43.8 38.4 99.6 106.7 28 60.7 55.4 7.10 6.53 9.48 9.64 9.59 9.56 43.5 38.6 99.9 106.5 29 60.7 55.4 7.11 6.54 9.51 9.66 9.59 9.58 43.3 38.5 99.3 107.0 30 60.6 55.6 7.15 6.55 9.52 9.68 9.60 9.59 42.9 38.6 98.6 106.5 Av. 60.2] 54.41 6.98] 6.43 9.41| 9.58 9.43 9.46 43.4 37.3 102.4 105.2 1J30 Agricultural, Prices CHICAGO TEN- YEAR AVERAGE DAILY PRICES, 1904-1913~Continued. JULY. w ^ C. ra^ o'iS ^ 3 03 m >> Is ^3 ^t ^5 P o3 ^S o c3 O m 9 1-5 o3 5 ^2: 1 60.9 55.6 $7.17 $6.58 $9.55 $9.70 $9.62 43.0 38.6 99.3 105.7 2 61.1 55.9 7.16 6.55 9.56 9.71 9.63 42.7 38.6 98.5 105.6 3 61.1 55.8 7.18 6.55 9.56 9.73 •9.65 42.8 38.6 98.1 105.9 4 61.0 55.8 7.20 6.57 9.57 9.73 9.64 42.7 38.6 97.6 105.7 5 61.1 55.9 7.22 6.59 9.57 9.73 9.62 42.7 38.7 97.2 105.6 6 61.0 55.7 7.25 6.62 9.53 9.69 9.60 42.3 38.7 96.6 105.7 7 61.4 55.8 7.25 6.59 9.54 9.65 9.58 42.7 38.6 97.1 105.8 8 61.5 55.7 7.23 6.52 9.50 9.62 9.59 42.8 38.5 96.5 105.8 9 61.9 55.7 7.23 6.53 9.51 9.64 9.61 43.0 38.4 96.8 105.8 10 62.0 55.4 7.18 6.51 9.54 9.65 9.62 43.1 38.3 96.9 106.2 11 62.1 55.5 7.23 6.51 9.54 9.65 9.64 43.2 38.4 96.7 105.9 12 62.3 55.1 7.23 6.48 9.53 9.64 9.59 43.5 38.3 97.5 106.2 13 62.3 55.3 7.25 6.50 9.52 9.63 9.59 43.6 38.5 97.5 106.7 14 62.5 55.1 7.26 6.51 9.49 9.61 9.55 43.6 38.4 97.5 107.7 15 62.4 55.0 7.26 6.52 9.47 9.59 9.56 43.4 38.2 96.9 107.9 16 62.4 54.8 7.29 6.54 9.46 9.57 9.54 43.2 37.9 96.2 108.0 17 62.5 54.8 7.30 6.56 9.44 9.57 9.53 43.0 37.8 95.7 108.0 18 62,0 54.6 7.33 6.59 9.45 9.56 9.55 43.1 37.5 95.5 108.7 19 61.8 54.5 7.37 6.61 9.45 9.56 9.53 42.9 37.5 95.2 108.4 20 62.0 54.5 7.36 6.55 9.46 9.56 9.49 43.0 37.3 94.9 108.3 21 62.1 54.8 7.31 6.51 9.49 9.57 9.52 42.9 37.4 95.0 108.0 22 61.9 54.7 7.29 6.50 9.49 9.58 9.53] 42.7 37.4 94.5 107.8 23 62.2 54.7 7.33 6.51 9.51 9.59 9.52 43.0 37.4 94.4 107.3 24 62.4 55.0 7.36 6.52 9.50 9.59 9.53 43.4 37.6 94.0 107.2 25 62.6 55.2 7.39 6.52 9.52 9.59 9.52 43.7 37.3 93.8 107.4 26 62.5 54.9 7.43 6.55 9.53 9.60 9.50 42.9 37.1 93.3 107.5 27 62.4 54.8 7.43 6.54 9.55 9.62 9.52 42.6 36.9 93.2 107.7 28 62.1 54.5 7.41 6.51 9.47 9.59 9.50 4L6 36.8 93.3 107.2 29 62.5 54.7 7.39 6.48 9.49 9.57 9.52 41.7 36.9 93.4 107.3 30 62.6 54.8 7.41 6.48 9.48 9.56 9.48 41.7 36.9 92.6 107.4 31 62.5 55.0 7.42 6.46 9.46 9.55 9.48 40.5 36.7 92.4 106.8 Av. 62.0 55.2 7.29 6.53 9.51 9.62 9.56 42.8 37.9 95.7 107.0 AUGUST. 1 62.9 55.3 7.41 6.45 9.47 9.54 9.44 38.6 36.7 92.1 107.1 2 63.4 55.8 7.41 6.47 9.52 9.56 9.52 38.3 37.0 91.9 107.1 3 63.5 55.9 7.41 6.45 9.51 9.58 9.50 38.6 37.3 92.4 107.2 4 63.1 55.8 7.43 6.45 9.53 9.57 9.53 38.2 37.3 92.3 107.2 5 63.1 55.6 7.44 6.44 9.52 9.58 9.56 38.1 37.2 92.4 106.8 6 63.1 55.3 7.45 6.40 9.51 9.58 9.56 38.2 37.1 92.2 107.1 7 63.1 55.2 7.44 6.39 9.51 9.56 9.57 37.8 37.1 92.1 107.3 8 63.7 55.5 7.41 6.37 9.46 9.55 9.56 38.0 37.4 92.1 108.0 9 63.7 55.7 7.43 6.39 9.47 9.54 9.53 37.9 37.4 92.1 107.9 10 63.8 55.6 7.43 6.39 9.47 9.54 9.51 37.9 37.3 91.7 106.9 11 64.1 55.8 7.41 6.39 9.51 9.54 9.52 38.1 37.3 9L8 106.5 12 64.3 55.9 7.41 6.43 9.54 9.55 9.50 38.0 37.4 9L7 105.8 13 64.3 55.8 7.42 6.45 9.55 9.57 9.54 37.8 37.2 91.4 105.7 14 64.2 55.8 7.40 6.41 9.54 9.57 9.54 37.8 37.3 91.8 103.9 15 64.4 55.7 7.40 6.40 9.56 9.59 9.57 37.8 37.4 91.5 102.9 Appendix 131 CHICAGO TEN- YEAR AVERAGE DAILY PRICES, 1904-1913— Continued. AUGUST— Continued. w ^ (M '-I m !-i a o m be p3 c3 02 +-> g3 g3 |S O O o c J a P4 Pi O O ■^.2. 4J- fl 03 5-. Q 1^ W) o O a O ^3 ^T3 ^5 16 64.2 ■56.0 $7.44 $6.41 $9.58 $9.61 $9.57 37.9 37.6 91.7 103.1 17 64.4 56.1 7.42 6.42 9.61 9.62 9.62 37.7 37.3 92.1 102.6 IS 64.4 56.0 7.43 6.42 9.63 9.64 9.64 27.6 37.6 92.3 103.0 19 64.4 56.0 7.46 6.44 9.65 9.66 9.68 37.6 37.6 92.4 102.9 20 64.5 55.9 7.47 6.43 9.65 9.68 9.62 37.7 37.6 92.6 103.0 21 64.9 56.3 7.46 6.44 9.65 9.67 9.63 38.0 37.9 92.9 103.5 22 64.9 56.1 7.47 6.45 9.65 9.67 9.71 37.8 37.8 92.9 103.3 23 64.8 56.2 7.50 6.47 9.67 9.67 9.70 37.9 37.7 92.9 103.6 24 64.7 56.2 7.52 6.48 9.73 9.72 9.70 37.6 37.6 92.5 103.8 25 64.7 56.3 7.56 6.50 9.76 9.77 9.69 37.6 37.6 92.6 103.6 26 64.7 56.3 7.57 6.50 9.76 9.75 9.70 37.4 37.6 92.9 103.5 27 64.7 56.5 7.58 6.51 9.74 9.75 9.68 37.5 37.6 93.2 102.7 28 64.8 56.4 7.60 6.53 9.74 9.76 9.66 37.2 37.4 93.4 102.3 29 64.6 56.4 7.57 6.53 9.77 9.77 9.67 37.1 37.4 93.1 101.9 30 64.6 56.5 7.57 6.50 9.81 9.79 9.70 37.3 37.3 92.6 101.6 31 64.2 56.5 7.57 6.51 9.81 9.80 9.68 37.6 37.4 92.7 101.5 Av. 64.1 55.9 7.47 6.45 9.61 9.64 9.61 37.9 37.4 92.5 104.6 SEPTEMBER. 1 64.7 56.8 7.55 6.49 9.82 9.69 1 38.11 1 93.6 101.5 2 64.7 57.0 7.54 6.48 9.84 9.70 38.3 93.8 101.6 3 64.7 57.0 7.55 6.49 9.87 9.73 38.3 93.9 101.8 4 64.9 57.3 7.59 6.51 9.87 9.74 38.3 94.3 102.1 5 64.7 57.3 7.60 6.51 9.88 9.72 38.2 94.0 101.8 6 64.7 57.1 7.62 6.52 9.87 9.69 38.5 94.0 101.6 7 64.7 57.2 7.65 6.54 9.86 9.68 38.3 94.1 101.7 8 64.8 57.2 ■ 7.65 6.54 9.87 9.67 38.4 94.2 101.6 9 64.6 57.5 7.70 6.58 9.86 9.64 38.2 94.3 101.6 10 64.5 57.0 7.73 6.61 9.84 9.64 38.3 94.4 101.1 11 64.3 57.3 7.69 6.59 9.86 9.65 38.3 94.5 101.2 12 64.1 56.9 7.67 6.60 9.88 9.67 38.4 95.0 101.1 13 63.9 57.1 7.64 6.58 9.85 9.67 38.6 95.7 101.2 14 63.7 56.9 7.60 6.55 9.85 9.67 38.5 95.8 101.3 15 63.4 56.6 7.62 6.57 9.85 9.64 38.5 96.0 101.5 16 63.2 56.3 7.62 6.53 9.81 9.61 38.6 96.1 102.1 17 62.9 56.3 7.60 6.57 9.79 9.62 38.7 96.0 101.9 18 63.0 56.2 7.60 6.58 9.80 9.63 38.6 95.8 101.4 19 63.3 56.3 7.60 6.58 9.85 9.71 39.0 96.5 101.3 20 63.7 56.7 7.64 6.59 9.90 9.77 39.1 96.3 101.3 21 63.2 56.6 7.59 6.60 9.93 9.77 38.9 96.7 101.2 22 63.0 56.3 7.61 6.61 9.93 9.77 38.8 96.9 101.6 23 63.0 56.3 7.64 6.63 9.95 9.77 38.6 96.9 101.8 24 62.9 56.1 7.62 6.63 10.00 9.77 38.6 96.9 101.7 25 63.0 56.2 7.61 6.65 10.00 9.78 38.3 97.0 101.8 26 62.7 56.2 7.60 6.66 9.97 9.70 38.4 96.7 101.8 27 62.5 56.0 7.57 6.66 9.94 9.70 38.4 96.9 101.7 28 62.3 56.1 7.53 6.60 9.93 9.67 38.7 97.1 101.5 29 61.9 55.9 7.54 6.60 9.87 9.61 39.1 96.9 101.2 30 61.6 55.7 7.53 6.60 9.88 9.57 39.3 96.9 101.4 Av. 63.6 56.6 7.61 6.58 9.88| 1 9.68| 38.5 95.7 101.5 132 Agricultural Prices CHICAGO TEN- YEAR AVERAGE DAILY PRICES, 1904-1913- OCTOBER. -Continued. Q o |S TO o o a o o o a o •p d O ►J m OS o m 9 1-5 +-> m CO w 6 ^ ■S3 ^2 IS 1 61.4 55.6 $7.54 $6.60 $9,911 $9.56 38.3 97.2 100.8 2 61.3 55.8 7.52 6.59 9.941 9.58 38.3 97.? 100.8 3 61.3 55.6 7.53 6.60 9.95 9.55 38.2 97.2 100.5 4 60.9 55.4 7.53 6.59 9.931 9.60 38.3 97.6 100.6 5 61.1 55.4 7.54 6.61 9.93 9.62 38.5 97.3 100.3 6 61.1 55.4 7.50 6.58 9.92 9.59| 38.4 97.3 100.3 7 60.8 55.1 7.47 6.54 9.88 9.60 38.4 97.5 100.4 8 61.0 55.3 7.43 6.51 9.91 9.50 38.3 97.8 100.5 9 61.1 55.6 7.43 6.53 9.92 9.47 38.6 98.0 100.6 10 61.1 55.4 7.40 6.51 9.88 9.43 38.4 98.2 101.0 11 61.0 55.5 7.39 6.50 9.90 9.43 38.4 98.1 101.1 12 61.2 55.6 7.37 6.48 9.86 9.39 38.3 98.5 101.4 13 61.1 55.7 7.31 6.47 9.82 9.42 38.3 9.90 101.5 14 60.4 55.6 7.30 6.44 9.87 9.42 38.4 98.8 101.7 15 60.3 55.5 7.29 6.45 9.89 9.39 38.1 99.2 101.7 16 59.8 55.3 7.26 6.44 9.86 9.35 37.9 98.9 101.7 17 59.6 55.0 7.24 6.40 9.81 9.29 37.8 99.3 101.3 18 59.9 55.0 7.25 6.39 9.82 9.24 37.8 98.8 101.1 19 60.2 55.2 7.25 6.39 9.89 9.20 38.8 98.9 101.1 20 60.2 55.2 7.18 6.33 9.90 9.15 37.8 99.0 100.8 21 60.2 55.2 7.17 6.30 9.92 9.13 37.8 99.2 100.8 22 59.8 55.0 7.13 6.28 9.90 9.09 37.8 98.9 100.9 23 60.0 54.9 7.09 6.26 9.86 9.09 37.8| 98.9 99.6 24 59.7 55.0 7.08 6.20 9.84 9.11 37.8 98.7 99.1 25 59.7 55.1 7.05 6.16 9.82 9.10 37.8 98.9 99.0 26 60.0 55.2 7.00 6.13 9.81 9.07 38.0 98.9 99.0 27 60.0 55.3 6.99 6.12 9.78 9.04 37.8 99.0 98.8 28 59.8 55.2 6.99 6.12 9.77 9.07 37.7 98.7 98.7 29 59.5 55.1 6.95 6.12 9.73 9.08 37.4 98.8 98.8 30 59.4 55.0 6.91 6.05 9.72 9.03 37.6 98.4 98.7 31 59.5 55.0 6.88 6.02 9.68 9.00 37.6 98.1 98.7 Av. 60.4 55.3 7.26 6.38 9.85 9.31 38.2 98.4 100.2 NOVEMBER. 1 59.5 55.0 6.88 5.99| 9.58 9.01 37.6 97.6 98.2 2 58.8 55.0 6.88 6.00| 9.57 8.96 37.5 97.9 98.0 3 58.9 54.9 6.91 6.03i 9.59 8.93 37.51 97.5 98.5 4 58.9 54.9 6.93 6.07 9.56 8.93 37.7 97.1 97.3 5 58.9 54.7 6.86 6.02 9.61 8.91 37.5 97.2 97.7 6 58.5 54.6 6.81 6.01 9.63 8.89 37.5 97.1 97.1 7 58.6 54.5 6.80 6.01 9.65 8.93 36.8 97.1 97.1 8 58.4 54.4 6.78 6.00 9.66 8.95 37.4 96.9 97.0 9 58.4 54.4 6.78 6.02 9.66 8.95 37.7 97.0 97.0 10 58.7 54.5 6.79 6.05 9.63 8.92 37.8 97.1 97.3 11 58.7 54.4 6.77 6.04 9.63 8.91 37.8 97.6 97.6 12 58.7 54.5 6.77 6.05 9.64 8.91 37.5 97.8 97.9 13 58.9 54.3 6.75 6.04 9.60 8.93 37.7 97.9 98.1 14 59.1 54.5 6.71 6.01 9.67 8.95 37.7 98.1 98.2 15 59.1 54.5 6.69 6.00 9.72 8.94 37.7 97.8 98.1 Appendix 133 CHICAGO TEN-YEAR AVERAGE DAILY PRICES, 1904-1913— Continued. NOVEMBER— Continued. CO ^ Oi ^ en o s p< o m V m CO "cS CO +-) g3 Z to |S Q O^ H ^ a k3 Pi pri O o ^s Is S O Oh m Q 4.J m 1-5 16 59.4 54.5 $6.63 $5.97 $9.66 $8.97 37.8 97.9 98.4 17 59.2 54.6 6.62 5.97 9.63 8.98 37.8 98.0 98.6 IS 59.0 54.2 6.61 5.95 9.63 8.98 37.7 97.8 98.4 19 58.6 54.2 6.57 5.91 9.61 8.92 37.6 97.3 98.4 20 58.2 54.1 6.55 5.91 9.60 8.95 37.2 97.4 98.2 21 58.2 54.1 6.52 5.88 9.54 8.94 37.7 97.1 98.0 22 57.9 53.9 6.49 5.84 9.59 8.93 37.6 96.8 97.9 23 57.7 53.9 6.46 5.82 9.48 8.88 37.7 96.6 98.2 24 57.7 53.8 6.43 5.80 9.43 8.84 37.6 97.0 98.1 25 57.5 53.8 6.38 5.74 9.41 8.83 37.6 97.2 98.3 26 57.1 53.8 6.40 5.75 9.42 8.84 37.7 97.3 98.1 27 57.1 53.9 6.43 5.79 9.45 8.85 37.7 97.2 98.1 2 O a a; o (D P Steers — 1,500 pounds and up . . . 1,300 to 1,500 pounds . . . 1,100 to 1,300 pounds . . . 950 to 1,100 pounds .... 950 pounds and down . . . Western, etc .236 1.492 8.709 16.368 3.790 8.623 5.674 2.066 46.956 2.930 2.947 1.904 7.781 13.940 1.584 17.874 33.398 6.820 1.076 1.904 2.053 11.853 .209 1.276 8.134 13.421 2.801 17.432 1.592 1.049 45.914 2.270 .581 1.001 3.852 11.450 6.782 21.972 40.204 7.060 1.854 .399 .821 10.134 .427 1.550 6.548 11.573 2.994 17.091 1.756 .661 42.600 2.180 1.366 .990 4.536 11.890 5.234 12.050 29.174 6.820 4.342 11.734 .719 23.615 .104 1.241 6.047 9.524 2.263 17.358 2.261 .452 39.250 1.760 .748 .806 3.314 10.600 7.566 29.077 47.243 6.550 2.558 .476 .608 10.192 .068 .844 6.796 12.174 2.819 13.762 1.572 .847 38.856 1.570 .774 1.694 4.038 10.510 9.195 26.097 45.802 6.880 2.706 1.166 .533 11.285 .058 .738 6.255 13.387 4.131 7.425 Canners 3.582 Baby beef 1.673 Total steers Bulls- Native 37.249 1.720 Western, etc .687 Canners .428 Total bulls Cows — Native or shipper ' Western 2.835 15.990 6.488 Canner 25.176 Total cows Heifers — Native 47.654 9.340 Western, etc 1.846 Canners .718 Baby beef .353 Total heifers 12.257 The above figures were compiled by Stephen Chase, of the Food Ad- ministration, for the last half of 1918. No other years are available. Note the large proportion of our beef supply which comes from canner cows and light steers. Appendix 185 YEARLY SHIPMENTS OF STOCKER AND FEEDER CATTLE FROM OMAHA. (000 omitted) 1904. 1905. 1906. 1907. 1908. 1909. 1910. 1911. Nebraska 131 137 125 Ill 114 125 135 155 Iowa 92 1 122 2 143 1 160 1 125 4 148 3 176 10 202 Kansas Illinois ........ 8 8 9 32 36 56 62 47 Missouri 11 19 12 18 24 35 35 26 South Dakota . . . . 5 22 13 31 12 7 3 1 Colorado 1 1 1 Wyoming 1 1 1 1 1 1 Other states 9 6 5 5 3 4 9 8 Totals 257 316 308 359 318 380 432 443 YEARLY SHIPMENTS OF STOCKER AND FEEDER CATTLE PROM OMAHA— Continued. (000 omitted) 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. Nebraska 150 126 171 224 279 284 229 293 Iowa 182 2 213 1 152 1 172 1 207 1 199 2 190 1 282 Kansas 3 Illinois 39 27 20 27 18 22 36 31 Missouri 21 10 11 19 7 11 9 13 South Dakota . . . . 8 16 9 15 12 22 33 16 Colorado 4 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 Wyoming 6 4 4 10 3 3 7 4 Other states 5 8 4 7 5 16 9 11 Totals 416 405 375 475 533 561 517 654 186 ACRICULTURAIi PeICES MONTHLY SHIPMENTS OF STOCKER AND FEEDER CATTLE FROM OMAHA. (000 omitted) 1904. 1905. 1906. 1907. 1908. 1909. 1910. 1911. January February March 18 13 19 16 11 9 6 14 40 49 36 25 18 13 30 16 13 21 10 24 49 64 39 28 19 22 20 14 13 13 11 23 42 55 49 27 26 19 22 17 18 31 16 33 58 75 24 20 25 19 22 16 12 18 11 25 49 55 32 34 32 22 25 19 14 12 13 38 69 63 46 28 18 21 34 22 16 15 22 51 87 68 45 30 36 29 27 April 15 May 14 June 21 July 24 August 56 September October November December 64 81 49 28 Totals 257 316 308 359 318 380 432 443 MONTHLY SHIPMENTS OF STOCKER AND FEEDER CATTLE FROM OMAHA— Continued. (000 omitted) 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. January February March 23 24 20 22 16 11 15 39 73 98 38 38 30 24 21 20 18 10 11 41 78 80 43 29 30 24 27 22 15 11 10 31 72 72 23 37 35 20 29 32 16 13 10 28 75 104 70 44 42 42 44 24 16 15 13 49 72 105 67 44 43 32 34 29 24 22 17 39 78 100 101 44 32 27 33 31 32 19 18 45 91 80 65 44 40 30 31 April 27 May 22 June 11 July 31 August 75 September October November December 123 135 88 43 Totals 416 405 375 475 533 561 517 654 Appendix 187 YEARLY SHIPMENTS OF STOCKER AND FEEDER SHEEP FROM OMAHA. (000 omitted) 1907. 1908. 1909. 1910. 1911. 1912. 1913. Nebraska 286 306 263 82 27 19 9 6 1 10 326 331 281 34 55 28 6 8 6 5 5 2 316 294 198 22 66 18 4 19 8 7 7 2 571 551 279 96 116 3 18 20 9 18 8 4 474 545 264 94 62 9 23 21 10 17 305 483 383 57 50 4 26 10 12 20 304 Iowa 715 Illinois 275 Missouri 52 Michigan 35 Minnesota 33 19 Wisconsin Kansas 3 Indiana South Dakota Ohio 23 Other states 12 Totals 1,010 1,087 960 1,704 1,519 1,350 1,469 YEARLY SHIPMENTS OP STOCKER AND FEEDER SHEEP PROM OMAHA— Continued. (000 omitted) 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. Nebraska 328 434 81 47 14 26 5 3 12 17 273 443 130 56 67 6 10 4 11 67 389 479 70 37 7 12 3 7 14 7 555 538 98 42 8 22 6 4 20 8 463 711 207 54 8 53 9 7 38 15 638 Iowa 744 Illinois 140 Missouri 85 Michigan 23 Minnesota 22 Wisconsin 11 Kansas 14 Indiana , South Dakota 57 Ohio Other states 25 Totals 967 1,067 1,026 1,302 1,566 1,757 188 Agricultural, Prices MONTHLY SHIPMENTS OF STOCKER AND FEEDER SHEEP FROM OMAHA. (000 omitted) 1907. 1908. 1909. 1910. 1911. 1912. 1913. January . . February March . . , April . . . May . . . . June . . . July . . . August . . September October . November . December . 17 42 79 88 16 7 18 69 250 298 120 28 17 38 51 72 42 16 19 87 331 221 140 53 25 30 49 23 4 12 22 110 237 315 100 34 18 18 37 32 25 19 82 227 479 483 255 28 29 34 46 33 12 14 30 180 443 470 198 31 26 23 94 94 21 12 29 132 273 425 154 56 43 42 47 43 12 2 28 122 504 465 120 40 Totals 1,010 1,087 960 1,704 1,519 1,350 1,469 MONTHLY SHIPMENTS OP STOCKER AND FEEDER SHEEP FROM OMAHA— Continued. (000 omitted) 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. January . February March . . April . . May . . . June . . . July . . . August . . September October . November December Totals . 35 32 26 20 5 5 81 118 302 317 52 25 25 18 5 4 1 10 42 148 378 274 122 39 16 23 13 7 1 14 26 170 327 302 91 30 18 18 11 7 3 10 46 174 409 357 150 97 31 30 28 28 14 17 58 256 545 419 89 51 41 23 27 27 18 28 143 433 605 248 78 80 967 1,067 1,026 1,302 1,566 1,757 Appendix 189 SHIPMENTS OF FEEDERS FROM KANSAS CITY. (000 omitted) 1903. 1904. 1905. 1906. 1907. 1908. 1909. 1910. 1911. 1912. Jan. . . . 57 36 50 35 Feb. 44 25 47 35 Mar. 45 47 45 25 Apr. 33 27 34 33 May 30 26 28 23 June 30 26 35 16 July 34 32 48 23 Aug. 67 73 62 74 Sep. 108 107 77 117 Oct. 120 115 127 162 Nov. 86 87 87 76 Dec. 54 54 35 63 Totals 708 655 675 682 SHIPMENTS OF FEEDERS FROM KANSAS CITY— Continued. (000 omitted) 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. 1920. 1921. 1922. Jan. . . . 58 72 53 56 62 41 86 Feb. 46 45 32 54 51 54 66 Mar. 46 47 50 56 49 65 62 Apr. 34 47 54 41 54 59 84 May 28 28 33 46 49 62 60 June 28 27 24 40 55 42 50 July 56 39 29 42 63 60 41 Aug. 139 55 56 113 94 120 92 Sep. 172 114 134 123 132 159 127 Oct. 3 61 152 186 178 131 175 167 Nov. 91 84 161 101 143 141 121 Dec. 54 69 88 42 66 76 70 Totals 913 779 900 892 949 1,054 1,026 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 1 May 1 June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Totals 1 190 Agricultural Prices BUREAU OF MARKETS REPORTS ON LIVE STOCK MOVEMENTS. (000 omitted) 1916. 1917. 1 1918. 1919. 1920. 1921. 1922 Hog receipts at 54 markets Shipments of stocker and feeder hogs from 16 mar- kets Cattle receipts at 54 markets Shipments of stocker and feeder cattle from 35 mar- kets Sheep receipts at 54 markets 43,112 142 17,553 3,843 20,434 35,733144,534 640 22,210 4,705 18,671 683 24,977 4,688 21,720 43,780 617 24,313 4,900 25,882 At this date, in early 1920, the Bureau of Markets is reporting for about 69 markets. Hog receipts as given are 97 per cent of receipts at 69 markets; cattle, 98 per cent; sheep, 95 per cent, stocker and feeder cattle, 93 per cent; stocker hogs, 69 per cent. ^'ARGENTINE WHEAT PRICE. (Per bushel) 1910. 1911. 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. January $ 1 1.S $ .92 .91 .88 .88 . 91 .90 .92 .97 1.06 1.06 1.04 1.12 $ 1.02 .97 .95 .93 .89 .91 .90 .91 .89 .91 .86 .90 $ .89 .89 .91 1.04 1.03 1.04 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.02 1.07 1.03 $ 1.00 1.00 .99 .97 1.01 1.03 1.06 1.07 1.09 1.06 1.12 1.13 $ 1.24 1.42 1.40 1.43 1.50 1.28 1.44 1.45 1.44 1.38 1.30 1.16 $ 1.08 1.08 .99 .95 .87 .85 .86 1.11 1.21 1.46 1.68 1.42 1.60 1.60 1.66 1.71 2.00 2.18 2.20 2.05 1.90 1.89 1.82 1.37 $ 1.44 1.48 1.52 1.52 1.47 1.46 1.35 1.28 1.26 1.28 $ February March 1.07 1 07 1 26 April 1 01 1.26 May June .91 .83 July 1 18 August September October .97 .91 .92 1.92 1.92 1.68 November December .89 .86 1.70 !=ARGENTINE CORN PRICE. (Per bushel) |1910. 1911.11912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919, January 69 $ .56 .55 .53 .60 .70 .75 .87 .95 1.01 .99 .95 .98 ? 1.04 .94 .63 .58 .52 .50 .49 .50 .48 .49 .49 .57 $ .52 .51 .52 .52 .54 .53 .51 .54 .60 .58 .59 .58 $ .55 .55 .56 .52 .57 .54 .56 .53 .50 .45 .50 .50 $ .52 .58 .56 .59 .53 .49 .49 .49 .48 .50 .52 .50 $ .55 .58 .53 .49 .42 .40 .44 .50 .52 .67 1.05 .87 $ 1.01 1.00 .94 .99 1.21 1.38 1.37 1.40 .93 .85 .86 .77 $ .70 .71 .69 .55 .73 .70 .56 February March .68 .66 .56 .49 April .62 .54 May .57 June .48 July .51 August September October .52 .51 .49 1.13 1.03 85 November December .48 .61 .85 *Prices for both wheat and corn are taken from the Year Books of the Rosario Board of Trade. Rosario is the Chicago of Argentina. The Argentine unit of weight, the quintal, is taken as equivalent to 3.67 bushels of wheat and 3.936 bushels of corn. The Argentine dollar is taken as equivalent to 42.6 cents. After July of 1918, prices are taken from the International Institute of Agriculture. Appendix 191 EXPORTS OF PORK AND PORK PRODUCTS FROM THE UNITED STATES— IN POUNDS. (000,000 omitted) 1903. 1904. 1905. 1906. 1907. 1908. 1909. 1910. 1911. 1912. Jan. . . . 119 121 109 162 129 124 104 75 75 99 Feb. 89 97 108 137 115 156 88 66 79 103 Mar. 88 87 121 109 101 135 105 60 85 105 Apr. 68 80 111 120 93 105 83 34 87 86 May 63 76 99 108 95 79 78 92 101 93 June 85 98 106 107 97 83 87 50 97 66 July 80 75 111 114 160 81 63 62 84 72 Aug. 85 83 111 124 114 73 68 69 82 79 Sep. 95 98 99 121 83 82 60 58 107 79 Oct. 93 101 105 94 83 78 55 50 80 66 Nov. ■ 95 88 119 79 88 78 63 51 77 67 Dec. 120 113 158 97 75 112 66 74 97 82 Totals 1 1,080 1,117 1,357 1,372 1,233 1,186 920 741 1,051 996 EXPORTS OF PORK AND PORK PRODUCTS FROM THE UNITED STATES— IN POUNDS— Continued. (000,000 omitted) 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. 1920. 1921. 1922. Jan. . . . 92 102 106 133 199 93 198 135 Feb. 107 74 119 162 123 114 236 Mar. 97 70 169 120 168 308 342 Apr. 83 61 114 134 138 286 349 May 84 66 89 148 127 281 185 June 76 67 122 112 103 169 400 July 82 53 95 77 46 253 241 Aug. 83 54 90 93 71 170 179 Sep. 74 59 100 106 79 115 117 Oct. 77 73 113 95 54 132 116 Nov. 80 74 108 114 99 123 129 Dec. 87 74 143 157 90 206 143 Totals 1,021! 828 1,368 1,451 1,298 2,251 2,635| Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Totals 1 192 AGRICULTURAIi PrICES EXPORTS OF WHEAT.* (In bushels— 000,000 omitted) 1903. 1904. 1905. 1906. 1907. 1908. 1909. 1910. 1911. 1912. Jan. . . . 16 12 3 10 11 19 8 5 7 6 Feb. 12 8 3 9 9 13 6 3 5 5 Mar. 12 7 3 7 9 9 5 4 6 6 Apr. 15 5 3 7 11 8 4 5 5 5 May 15 4 4 7 13 9 5 5 6 4 June 12 4 3 6 11 9 3 3 4 3 July 10 3 2 7 7 8 4 3 6 3 Aug. 12 4 4 13 10 17 9 5 10 9 Sep. 15 4 7 18 15 18 12 6 11 17 Oct. 16 5 11 17 20 18 14 7 9 21 Nov. 13 5 12 14 21 12 13 7 7 16 Dec. 15 4 16 13 23 11 9 8 8 15 *Flour exports converted into wheat at the rate of four and one-half bushels of wheat to a barrel. EXPORTS OP WHEAT— Continued.* (In bushels— 000,000 omitted) 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. 1920. 1921. 1922. Jan. . . . 13 10 32 21 24 12 22 Feb. 9 8 31 21 14 10 16 Mar. 9 7 28 24 12 12 20 Apr. 11 7 29 22 19 12 31 May 11 11 20 21 16 11 26 June 9 11 13 12 21 11 33 July 13 30 12 11 8 11 14 Aug. 28 28 20 15 10 19 19 Sep. 18 31 26 18 7 28 25 Oct. 13 26 24 16 11 25 21 Nov. 10 26 19 19 11 22 23 Dec. 11 37 20 19 15 34 15 *Plour exports converted into wheat at the rate of four and one-half bushels of wheat to a barrel. Jan. 1 Peb. Mar. Apr. May 1 June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. 1 1 Dec. Totals Appendix 193 EXPORTS OF CORN. (In bushels — 000 omitted) 1903. 1904. 1905. 1906. 1907. 1908. 1909. 1910. 1911. 1912. Jan. . . . 11,026 5,059 16,440 27,257 9,151 6,441 6,216 6,105 9,947 7,646 Feb. 13.070 6,842 14,214 17,795 11,446 9,519 5,342 4,547 11,033 7,022 Mar. 15,644 7,879 14,617 12,870 12,277 4,507 4,856 5,229 9,773 5,267 Apr. 10,302 3,139 12,275 8,932 9,656 2,476 4,900 3,628 5,374 1,815 May 5,973 1,388 6,546 5,034 7,446 1,153 1,110 2,131 3,715 830 June 5,903 1,738 4,431 2,648 5,553 737 685 1,997 4,650 687 July 5,185 2,086 4,113 3,173 7,305 430 739 2,181 2,410 747 Aug. 3,180 3,088 4,844 3.185 4,970 391 810 2,390 1,314 561 Sep. 3,707 3,304 5,711 3,388 2,892 523 1,019 3,607 3,778 829 Oct. 7,136 2,563 4,028 6,036 3,770 1,795 2,200 3,587 2,934 1,154 Nov. 5,984 1,325 5,861 4,837 4,131 3,154 2,351 2,018 1,229 1,102 Dec. 4,623 8,098 18,373 7,093 4,545 6,453 5,930 5,206 5,043 3,274 EXPORTS OP CORN— Continued. (In bushels — 000 omitted) 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917; 1918. 1919. 1920. 1921. . . .111,317 1,148 5,224 3,498 7,253 1,953 1,177 12,307 928 7,855 5,151 6,597 3,203 976 10,109 1,170 8,815 4,837 10,834 7,658 683 5,596 709 9,105 5,107 6,463 8,645 699 1,252 538 3,735 5,536 4,838 3,793 878 743 926 3,845 4,811 3,720 3,279 910 926 560 2,161 5,483 3,146 2,009 588 709 491 959 6,700 2,670 1,850 816 670 1,152 888 3,760 980 2,496 1,210 404 1,052 1,019 3,886 1,602 2,335 868 444 2,153 1,642 2,290 1,622 1,700 962 773 4,781| 2,790 2,891 2,445 991 1,525 1922. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. 1 i Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Totals 1 1 194 Agricultural Prices IOWA CORN PRICES. (Prices on farms or nearest shipping point, first of eacli month.) Ten- 1910. 1911. 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. yr. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ av. January . . . . .51 .36 .52 .36 .58 .57 .57 .80 1.21 1.36 .684 February . . . .54 .37 .55 .38 .56 .66 .62 .88 1.21 1.25 .702 March .52 .37 .56 . 39 .56 .65 .61 .92 1.34 1.22 .714 April .51 .38 .61 .41 .59 .64 .65 1.11 1.36 1.40 .766 May .48 .41 .44 .69 .70 .45 .50 .59 .63 .68 .68 .66 .68 1.40 1.46 1.40 1.35 1.54 1.63 830 June .50 .857 July .53 .49 .67 .52 .63 .69 .69 1.56 1.37 1.66 .881 August .55 .56 .65 .54 .64 .71 .73 2.02 1.47 1.84 .971 September . . . .56 .56 .67 .66 .72 .71 .77 1.65 1.50 1.69 .949 October . . . . .49 .57 .61 .66 .69 .66 .76 1.70 1.38 1.32 .884 November . . . .39 .57 .50 .60 .61 .59 .78 1.36 1.15 1.11 .766 December . . . .36 .53 .35 .60 .55 .51 .80 1.08 1.22 1.20 .720 Yearly aver. .495 .467 .590 .506 .612 .646 .693 1.328 1.330 1.435 .810 IOWA OATS PRICES. (Prices on farms or nearest shipping point, first of each month.) Ten- 1910. 1911. 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. yr. av. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ January . . . . .38 .27 .41 .28 .35 .43 .36 .46 .71 .64 .429 February , . . .41 .27 .44 -.28 .34 .48 .43 .51 .76 .54 .446 March .41 .26 .45 .28 .34 .50 .39 .51 .83 .54 .451 April .41 .26 .47 .29 .34 .51 .38 .56 .84 .58 .464 May .37 .27 .51 .30 .34 .50 .38 .63 .82 .64 .476 June ...... .37 .29 .48 .32 .35 .48 .37 .61 .69 .62 .458 July .36 .35 .46 .34 .34 .42 .36 .62 .71 .65 .461 August .35 .35 .33 .34 .31 .43 .35 .68 .67 .70 .451 September . . . .29 .86 .26 .36 .39 . 32 .39 .51 .62 .63 .413 October . . . . .28 .39 .27 .36 .40 .30 .41 .54 .64 .60 .419 November- . . . .27 .41 .28 .34 .39 .31 .45 .54 .62 .61 .422 December . . . .27 .41 .27 .34 .41 .32 .48 .63 .64 .64 .441 Yearly aver. .348 .324 .386 .319 .359 .417 .396 .567 .713 .616 .444 IOWA HOG PRICES. (Prices on farms or nearest shipping point, fifteenth of each month.) 1910.1911. 191^ 1913, 1914.1915.1916. 1917. 1918. 1919, Ten- yn av. January February March . April . May . . June . . July . . August . September October . November December 7.80 8.10 9.60 9.50 8.60 8.80 8.20 7.60 8.40 7.90 7.30 6.90 Yearly aver. I 8.23 7.50 6.90 6.40 5.80 5.40 5.40 5.90 6.90 6.60 5.90 5.70 5.60 5.60 5.70 6.00 7.20 7.10 6.90 6.90 7.60 7.80 8.20 7.20 7.00 6.90 7.50 8.10 8.50 7.70 8.00 8.30 7.90 7.70 7.60 7.30 7.101 $ 7.70 8.00 8.10 8.10 7.80 7.50 8.00 8.50 8.30 7.20 6.80 6.50 6.40 6.20 6.20 6.50 6.90 7.00 6.90 6.40 6.70 7.40 6.10 5.80 6.17 6.94 7.721 7.71 6.54 6.20 7.50 9.00 9.00 9.10 8.80 9.10 9.30 9.90 9.00 9.10 9.00 9.80 11.40 13.80 15.30 15.10 14.80 14.50 15.70 16.90 16.90 15.80 16.20 15.60 15.30 16.20 16.40 16.60 15.80 16.30 18.00 18.40 17.00 16.40 16.40 16.40 16.50 17.40 18.70 19.50 19.30 20.80 20.10 15.50 13.40 13.50 12.30 8.99 9.31 10.08 10.50 10.38 10.23 10.49 10.80 10.62 10.05 9.52 9.28 8.75114.68 16.53 16.95110.02 Appendix 195 IOWA BEEF CATTLE PRICES. (Prices on farms or nearest shipping point, fifteenth of each month.) Ten- 1910. 1911. 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. yr. av. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ January . , . . 5.40 5.10 5.40 6.50 7.00 6.70 6.90 8.20 9.90 12.40 7.35 February . . . 5.00 5.00 5.40 6.80 7.30 6.50 7.20 8.90 10.30 12.80 7.52 March 5.80 5.00 5.60 7.10 7.40 6.50 7.60 8.70 10.40 13.50 7.76 April 6.20 5.10 6.00 7.40 7.40 6.60 7.70 10.10 11.90 14.10 8.25 May 5.90 4.90 4.90 6.20 6.20 7.10 7.10 7.30 7.40 7.00 7.30 8.00 8.50 10.20 10.30 12.70 12.60 13.60 11.90 8.29 June 5.60 8.18 July 5.30 4.80 6.50 7.20 7.70 7.80 8.20 10.20 12.80 12.30 8.28 August 5.10 5.20 6.80 7.00 7.80 7.40 7.80 10.20 12.30 12.60 8.22 September . . . 5.201 5.00 6.80 7.20 7.70 7.10 8.10 10.60 12.90 11.80 8.24 October . . . . 5.00 5.10 6.80 7.10 7.40 7.20 7.80 10.40 11.90 10.10 7.88 November . . . 4.90 5.10 6.40 7.10 7.00 6.80 7.80 10.10 11.90 11.50 7.86 December . . . 4.70| 5.20 6.70 6.90 6.90 6.70 7.90 9.70 11.70 11.60 7.80 Yearly aver. 5.34! 5.04 6.24 7.04 7.36 6.97 7.79! 9.80 11.77 12.35| 7.97 IOWA WOOL PRICES. (Prices on farms or nearest shipping point, fifteenth of each month.) Ten- 1910. 1911. 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. yr. av. $ $ ? $ $ $ $ $ $ $ January . ; . . .26 .19 .17 .19 .17 .18 .24 .30 .59 .59 .288 February . . . .26 .19 .18 .19 .17 .19 .27 .30 .60 .53 .288 March .26 .19 .18 .20 .17 .22 .26 .35 .60 .51 .294 April .24 .18 .18 .19 .17 .23 .28 .39 .60 .52 .298 May .24 .16 .19 .17 .18 .22 .29 .43 .60 .51 .299 June .20 .16 .20 .17 .19 .25 .31 .52 .60 .49 .309 July .21 .16 .20 .18 .20 .25 .30 .57 .61 .54 .322 August .21 .17 .21 .16 .20 .25 ,30 .56 .61 .54 «21 September . . . .20 .17 .20 .17 .19 .25 .30 .58 .60 .52 .318 October . . . . .19 .17 .20 .17 .19 . 26 .30 .56 .59 .50 .313 November . . . .19 .17 .19 .18 .18 .24 .30 .55 .61 .52 .313 December . . . .19 .17 .20 .18 .18 .24 .29 .57 .58 .51 .311 Yearly aver. 1 .221 .174 .192 .179 .183 .232 .287 .474 .599 .525 .307 IOWA BRAN PRICES. (Prices on farms or nearest shipping point, fifteenth of each month.) 1910.1911.11912, 1913.1914. 1915.1916. 1917. 1918. 1919, Ten- yr. av. January .... 24.30 24.10 February . . . 25.80 24.40 March 26.50124.00 April 25.60!23.90 May 23.90|24.70 June i24.70j25.10 July 124.50125.10 August 24.20|25.20 September . . .23.80124.80 October . . . .23.50125.40 November . . .|24.10|25.80|24 December . . .23. 90125. 90!24 80 60 80 20 60 10 30 10123 00124 00|24, 30124 10124 10|24. 60|25. 60|25. 90127. 50|26. 70|26. 00124, 30|25, 40|25, 70|25, 70124, 20!25, 30126 25, 25 25, 25 24 90123 2023 29.31 29.89 30.69 30.63 30.79 30.25 29.95 30.00 29.66 29.20 29.56 30.04 Yearly aver. |24.56|24.86[26.41|23.74|25.48!25.51 25.45|38.30 39.46 46.22 30.00 196 Agriculturai. Prices ILLINOIS CORN PRICES. (Prices on farms or nearest shipping point, first of each month.) 1910. 1911. 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. Ten- av. January . . February . March . . . April . . . May .... June .... July .... August . . . September . October . . November . December . . $ .55 .59 .59 .57 .54 .54 .57 .58 .57 .51 .43 .38 $ .39 .40 .40 .40 .43 .47 .51 .58 .60 .61 .60 .55 $ .55 .59 .60 .65 .74 .77 .73 .71 .72 .66 .50 .41 $ .41 .45 .46 .47 .51 .55 .58 .61 .73 .71 .64 .63 $ .64 .60 .60 .64 .63 .68 .68 .72 .78 .74 .67 .61 $ .64 .70 .68 .69 .74 .73 .72 .76 .73 .68 .57 .54 $ .62 .65 .65 .65 .69 .69 .70 .76 .80 .80 .84 .84 ? .84 .92 .98 1.09 1.47 1.54 1.60 2.06 1.72 1.80 1.42 1.10 $ 1.16 1.25 1.36 1.30 1.33 1.25 1.32 1.39 1.47 1.39 1.18 1.20 $ 1.34 1.20 1.23 1.42 1.56 1.67 1.74 1.89 1.84 1.41 1.24 1.30 .714 .735 .755 .788 .864 .889 .915 1.016 .996 .930 .809 .756 Yearly avei c. .535 .4951 .636 .563 .666| .681 .724 1.378 1.300 1.487 .847 ILLINOIS OATS PRICES. (Prices on farms or nearest shipping point, first of each month.) Ten- 1910. 1911. 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. yr. av. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ January . . . . .41 .29 .43 .30 .37 .45 .38 .49 .72 .67 .45 February . . . .44 .30 .45 .31 .37 .52 .46 .53 .77 .56 .47 March .45 .29 .■48 .32 .37 .52 .40 .54 .86 .56 .48 April .43 .29 .51 .31 .38 .55 .39 .60 .86 .61 .49 May .41 .30 .54 .31 .37 .54 .41 .67 .83 .67 .51 June .40 .31 .52 .35 .38 .50 .39 .61 .71 .66 .48 July .39 .38 .49 .37 .36 .44 .37 .62 .71 .66 .48 August .36 .36 .34 .37 .35 .40 .36 .68 .66 .74 .46 September . . . .31 .39 .30 .39 .42 .33 .40 .51 .66 .68 .44 October . . . . .30 .41 .30 .39 .43 .31 .41 .56 .67 .64 .44 November . . . .31 .42 .30 .37 .44 .33 .48 .56 .63 .63 .45 December . . . .30 .42 .30 .38 .44 .35 .51 .65 .67 .70 .47 Yearly aver. .376 .347 .414 .348 .390 .437 .414 .585 .729 .701 .47 ILLINOIS HOG PRICES. (Prices on farms or nearest shipping point, fifteenth of each month.) 1910. 1911. 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. Ten- yr. av. January . . February . March . . . April . . . May .... $ 8.10 8.20 9.50 9.70 8.90 $ 7.40 7.00 6.50 6.00 6.50 5.50 6.00 6.80 6.70 6.00 5.70 5.70 $ 5.80 5.80 6.00 7.10 7.10 6.90 6.90 7.50 8.00 8.30 7.20 7.00 $ 6.90 7.50 8.10 8.50 7.80 8.00 8.30 8.20 8.10 7.90 7.30 7.10 $ 7.70 8.10 8.10 8.10 7.80 7.50 8.10 8.80 8.40 7.40 7.00 6.60 $ 6.40 6.20 6.30 6.60 7.00 7.00 7.10 6.80 7.10 7.50 6.30 6.00 $ 6.40 7.40 8.90 8.80 8.90 8.80 9.00 9.40 10.00 9.10 9.10 9.10 $ 9.80 11.30 13.70 14.90 14.80 14.60 14.50 15.70 16.90 17.00 15.80 16.20 $ 15.60 15.30 16.30 16.40 16.60 16.00 16.20 17.80 18.50 17.10 16.30 16.30 $ 16.20 16.30 17.00 18.40 19.10 19.00 20.50 20.40 16.10 13.60 13.40 12.20 ? 9.03 9.31 10.04 10.45 10.35 June .... July .... August . . . 8.70 8.40 7.90 8.70 8.30 7.50 7.00 10.20 10.50 10.93 September . October . . November . . December . . 10.85 10.22 9.56 9.32 Yearly avei r. 8.41 6.24 6.97 7.81| 7.80 6.69 8.74 14.60 16.53 16.85 10.07 Appendix 197 ILLINOIS BEEF CATTLE PRICES. (Prices on farms or nearest shipping point, fifteenth, of each month.) Ten- 1910. 1911. 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. yr. av. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ ? $ $ $ January .... 4.40 4.90 5.10 6.10 6.80 6.50 6.50 7.90 9.50 11.70 6.94 February . . . 5.10 4.90 5.10 6.30 7.00 6.40 6.50 8.50 9.50 11.70 7.10 March 5.00 5.00 5.30 6.80 7.00 6.40 7.10 9.00 10.10 12.10 7.38 April 5.50 5.00 5.60 6.80 7.00 6.50 7.40 9.60 12.00 12.50 7.79 May 5.70 4.80 6.00 6.50 7.10 6.70 7.50 9.60 11.70 12.50 7.81 June 5.40 4.80 6.10 6.80 7.00 7.00 7.80 9.60 11.90 11.40 7.78 July 5.20 4.90 6.40 6.70 7.00 7.20 7.80 9.40 11.70 11.90 7.82 August 5.00 5.20 6.30 6.70 7.50 7.10 7.70 9.40 11.30 11.80 7.80 September . . . 5.20 5.10 6.50 6.70 7.40 7.00 8.00 10.40 11.70 10.20 7.82 October .... 5.10 4.80 6.40 6.80 7.20 7.00 7.40 10.10 11.00 10.00 7.58 November . . . 4.90 5.10 6.10 6.60 7.10 6.50 7.50 9.40 10.50 10.00 7.37 December . . . 4.80 5.00 6.10 6.50 6.80 6.50 7.50 9.70 11.30 10.10 7.43 Yearly aver. 5.11 4.96 5.92 6.61 7.08 6.74 7.39 9.39 11.01|11.32 7.55 ILLINOIS WOOL PRICES. (Prices on farms or nearest shipping point, fifteenth of each month.) Ten- 1910. 1911. 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. yr. av. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ January . . . . .29 .20 .17 .21 .16 .20 .26 .32 .58 .59 .298 February . . . .28 .20 .18 .21 .17 .21 .26 .32 .59 .60 .302 March .27 .19 .18 .21 .17 .21 .28 .35 .60 .56 .302 April . . . . . .24 .18 .18 .20 .17 .22 .27 .37 .60 .56 .299 May .26 .16 .20 .17 .18 .24 .30 .44 .61 .44 .300 June .22 .17 .20 .17 .20 .26 .32 .53 .61 .50 .318 July .21 .17 .20 .17 .20 .27 .32 .56 .62 .53 .325 August .23 .17 .20 .17 .20 .27 .31 .57 .62 .54 .328 September . '. . .20 .18 .21 .18 .20 .28 .31 .55 .61 .50 .322 October . . . . .20 .17 .20 .17 .20 .27 .32 .58 .62 .51 .324 November . , . .20 .17 .20 .16 .19 .26 .31 .58 .62 .51 .320 December . . . .21 .17 .21 .17 .20 .26 .32 .60 .61 .53 .328 Yearly aver. 1 .234 1 .178 1 .194 1 .183 1 .187 ! .246 1 299 .481 .608 .531 .314 The price of 44 cents in May of 1919 is probably a mistake, altho it is the price as reported by the Bureau of Crop Estimates. ILLINOIS BRAN PRICES. (Prices on farms or nearest shipping point, fifteenth of each month.) 1910.11911. 1912.11913. 1914. 1915. 1916, 1917, 1918. 1919, Ten- yr. av. January . February March . . April . . May . . . June . . . July . . . August . . September October . November December 23.90 26.20 25.60! 25.70' 25.30! 24.90 24.40 23.50 23.20 22.20 22.80 22.80 23.30 23.80 24.00 23.80 24.20 24.10 24.00 24.30 23.90 24.60 24.80 25.40 25.80 27.70 27.00 27.80 27.80' 26.90 25.80 25.40 25.40 25.50 24.50125 24.50125 25.70 26.40 26.50 27.00 26.70 26.50 24.20 26.00 26.00 25.60 25.20 24.80 26.70 27.20 26.90 27.20 27.80 25.90 25.90 25.70 24.70 24.70 24.90 24.30 48.70 49.40 46.70 48.00 47.10 46.60 46.80 48.10 48.10 46.10 47.00 47.10 29.57 30.50 30.50 31.08 31.28 30.36 29.81 30.05 29.89 29.41 30.09 30.52 Yearly aver. 124.11 24.08126.07124.10 25.88 25.99125.92 38.48 40.11 47.47 30.22 198 Agricultural Prices FARM PRICES OF BUTTER. (Per pound, average for all United States — first of each month.) 1911. 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. 1920. January .278 $ .281 .290 .272 .261 .260 .248 .234 .237 .242 .256 .269 .288 $ .284 .276 .275 .276 .270 .255 .247 .249 .259 .275 .282 .292 $ .292 .274 .260 .249 .238 .228 .229 .237 .253 .260 .263 .284 $ .287 .279 .268 .258 .257 .248 .242 .242 .245 .253 .264 .276 $ .283 .276 .271 .276 .279 .265 .257 .261 .274 .290 .311 .344 $ .340 .335 .341 .335 .361 .350 .335 .340 .361 .389 .409 .419 $ .431 .437 .434 .407 .399 .386 .382 .397 .414 .472 .497 .527 3 .549 .496 .438 .476 .503 .491 .472 .482 .497 .515 .560 .600 $ .613 February March .241 .227 April ?,?,(^ May 214 June ?m July ?,04 August .217 September October .231 .238 November December .252 .274 FARM PRICES OF EGGS. (Per dozen, average of all United States — first of each month.) 1911. 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. 1920. January .304 $ .295 .291 .245 .178 .171 .167 .167 .174 % .268 .228 .194 .164 .161 .169 .170 17« $ .307 .284 .242 .176 .168 .173 .176 .182 .210 .235 .253 .297 $ .316 .292 .213 .166 .171 .166 .168 .170 .187 .223 .263 .306 $ .306 .268 .212 .179 .181 .190 .197 .207 .233 .281 .322 .381 $ .377 .358 .338 .259 .300 .311 .283 .298 .332 .374 .394 .433 $ .463 .494 .404 .312 .310 .298 .307 .344 .364 .416 .472 .550 1 .572 .483 .331 .343 .368 .386 .368 .393 .410 .447 .540 .619 $ .648 February March .221 .165 April 149 May .147 June 145 July .142 August .155 September October .174 .200 .191 .195 .220 .234 November December .235 .287 .259 .297 .274 .330 FARM PRICES OF POTATOES. (Per bushel, average of all United States — first of each month.) 1911. 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. 1920. January $ .541 $ .845 .944 1.020 1.171 1.273 1.197 1.036 .865 .650 .511 .455 .505 $ .506 .531 .520 .503 .482 .552 .498 .692 .753 .739 .696 .687 $ .684 .697 .707 .700 .714 .713 .815 .871 .749 .647 .528 .487 $ .497 .504 .504 .478 .505 .508 .521 .563 .505 .488 .608 .617 $ .706 .880 .944 .976 .948 .988 1.023 .954 1.093 1.120 1.357 1.461 $ 1.473 1.724 2.407 2.347 2.796 2.740 2.479 1.708 1.391 1.221 1.278 1.228 $ 1.210 1.229 1.203 .926 .801 .755 .949 1.416 1.488 1.436 1.272 1.192 $ 1.161 1.144 1.094 1.054 1.189 1.214 1.284 1.928 1.875 1.642 1.528 1.614 $ 1.786 February March .551 .553 April .555 May .625 June .633 July .963 August ........ September October 1.360 1.137 883 November December .763 .799 Appendix 199 RETAIL PRICES OF SIRLOIN. (Per pound — fifteenth of each month.) 1911.11912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. 1920. January $ .202 $ .207 .207 .213 .220 .235 .240 .243 .245 .243 .240 .235 .233 $ .238 .238 .245 .256 .256 .258 .263 .263 .261 .256 .253 .250 $ .250 .250 .253 .253 .258 .261 .268 .278 .271 .261 .253 .256 $ .253 .248 .245 .250 .256 .261 .266 .263 .263 .261 .256 .250 $ .256 .256 .263 .268 .276 .286 .286 .283 .281 .273 .268 .268 $ .276 .286 .293 .316 .321 .326 .326 .329 .331 .329 .314 .319 $ .326 .331 .336 .364 .397 .425 .420 .412 .415 .407 .402 .402 $ .410 .410 .417 .435 .443 .430 .433 .420 .409 .398 .393 .391 .405 February March .202 .202 April ^0^, May .204 June ^04 July .207 August .207 September October .204 .202 November December .202 .202 RETAIL PRICES OF ROUND STEAK. (Per pound — fifteenth of each month.) 1911. 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. 1920. January $ .172 $ .177 .177 .179 .188 .201 .206 .206 .210 .206 .203 .199 .199 $ .203 .206 .212 .219 .221 .223 .230 .230 .230 .230 .225 .223 $ .225 .225 .228 .228 .232 .234 .241 .250 .243 .236 .232 .228 $ .225 .221 .219 .221 .228 .232 .236 .236 .234 .230 .225 .223 $ .225 .225 .230 .239 .248 .259 .256 .254 .254 .245 .239 .236 $ .245 .259 .263 .287 .294 .298 .303 .305 .294 .305 .294 .296 $ .303 .312 .316 .343 .376 .402 .400 .393 .393 .387 .382 .378 $ .387 .385 .391 .402 .413 .400 .404 .391 .379 .369 .362 .359 $ 870 February March .172 .175 April 175 May 175 June .177 July .177 August .177 September October November December .170 .175 .172 .172 RETAIL PRICES OF RIB ROASTS. (Per pound — fifteenth of each month.) 1911. 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. 1920. January $ .166 $ .168 .170 .172 .180 .192 .196 .194 .196 .192 .190 $ .188 .188 .194 .200 .200 .202 .202 .202 $ .198 .200 .200 .202 .202 .204 .208 ^14 $ .200 .198 .196 .198 .200 .204 .206 .206 .204 .202 .200 .198 $ .200 .202 .206 .210 .218 .224 .222 .220 .218 .214 .210 .210 $ .216 .226 .234 .251i .257 .261 .257 .255 .259 .257 .251 .253 $ .257 .263 .267 .293 .319 .335 .333 .327 .327 .323 .321 .319 $ .327 .327 .335 .347 .352 .339 .325 .312 .312 .306 .302 .303 $ .314 February March .168 .168 April .170 May .168 June .168 July .168 August .168 September October .168 .168 .200 .208 .200 .208 November December .166 .166 .188 .184 .198 .198 .204 .200 200 Agricultural Prices RETAIL PRICES OF PORK CHOPS. (Per pound — fifteenth of each month.) 1911. 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. 1920. January $ 184 $ .171 .162 .173 .192 .194 .192 .194 .211 .222 .222 .196 .181 $ .188 .190 .205 .217 .211 .209 .217 .219 .228 .226 .215 .205 $ .209 .211 .211 .217 .224 .217 .224 .251 .238 .232 .219 .196 $ .186 .179 .179 .198 .209 .207 .211 .217 .226 .232 .209 .184 .188 .194 .219 .226 .230 .232 .234 .245 .264 .249 .234 .224 $ .238 .264 .281 .308 .308 .312 .319 .346 .390 .390 .348 .340 $ .344 .338 .340 .359 .369 .377 .380 .424 .464 .456 .435 .416 $ .407 .380 .388 .416 .433 .426 .464 .471 .460 .443 .421 .381 $ .373 February March .181 181 April 175 May 175 June 175 July .179 August 190 September October November December .192 .188 .169 .162 RETAIL PRICES OF BACON. (Per pound — fifteenth of each month.) 1911. 1912. 1913. 1 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. 1920. January $ $ J $ .235 .257 % .268 .268 .270 .270 .270 .273 .276 .292 .295 .289 .284 .281 $ .276 .270 .268 .268 .268 .270 .273 .273 .273 .276 .276 .276 ? .276 .276 .281 .284 .287 .292 .292 .295 .300 .300 .303 .300 $ .300 .311 .336 .385 .423 .431 .434 .437 .448 .486 .489 .494 $ .491 .489 .494 .500 .511 .521 .530 .546 .568 .584 .590 .592 $ .592 .560 .554 .579 .573 .579 .587 .584 .556 .528 .510 .503 .504 February March .254 .251 .232 .232 .240 .243 .246 .259 .265 .270 .273 .276 April .248 May .248 June ^48 July .251 .246 .284 .248 .287 .257 .284 .265 .281 August .254 September October .251 248 November December .240 .238 .265 .262 .276 .270 RETAIL PRICES OF HAM. (Per pound — fifteenth of each month.) 1911. 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. 1920. January $ .236 $ .231 .229 .229 .237 .239 .242 .245 .245 .247 .250 .250 .247 $ .247 .250 .258 .263 .263 .271 .277 .282 .277 .271 .266 .263 $ .260 .263 .263 .263 .263 .266 .274 .287 .287 .279 .271 .266 $ .261 .255 .253 .250 .253 .258 .261 .261 .258 .263 .266 .266 $ .269 .271 .277 .285 .290 .293 .295 .295 .303 .303 .303 .303 $ .303 .314 .333 .362 .383 .386 .391 .391 .404 .423 .423 .428 $ .431 .434 .436 .442 .452 .460 .481 .479 .513 .513 .519 .527 $ .529 .513 .508 .524 .524 .545 .561 .564 .552 .524 .505 .499 .503 February March .236 .234 April .234 May '',34 June .239 July .245 August .247 September October .245 .239 November December .234 .231 Appendix 201 RETAIL PRICES OF LARD. (Per pound — fifteenth of each month.) 1911.fl912 1913, 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. $ $ $ $ $ $ .158 .153 .147 .215 .329 .333 .156 .153 .149 .218 .330 .321 .156 .152 .152 .239 .332 .333 .156 .152 .158 .264 .330 .352 .155 .152 .167 .278 .329 .389 .153 .150 .171 .280 .325 .401 .153 .147 .174 .275 .325 .420 .156 .141 .175 .278 .330 .420 .156 .139 .186 .297 .337 .382 .155 .144 .194 .313 .341 .361 .156 .145 .213 .327 .341 .364 .153 .145 .216 .333 .341 .349 1920. January . February March . . April . . May . . . June . . . July . . . August . . September October . November December .155 .155 .145 .139 .136 .134 .133 .134 .137 .137 .137 .136 .136 .136 .136 .141 .147 .149 .149 .150 .155 .160 .160 .158 .153 .155 .156 .158 .158 .158 .1601 .161 .161 .160 .160 .198 .340 RETAIL PRICES OF WHEAT FLOUR. (Per eighth barrel — fifteenth of each month.) 1911. 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. 1920. January February March April $ .835 .819 .811 .803 s .827 .835 .835 .843 .875 .883 .875 .859 .843 .827 .819 .803 $ .803 .803 .803 .803 .811 .811 .811 .803 .803 .795 .795 .795 1 .787 .795 .795 .795 .795 .795 .787 .851 .907 .891 .899 .907 $ .996 1.108 1.092 1.100 1.116 1.044 1.004 .996 .940 .907 .907 .915 $ .964 1.004 .964 .956 .956 .940 .931 1.076 1.188 1.245 1.397 1.341 $ 1.373 1.373 1.397 1.654 2.136 1.975 1.767 1.839 1.791 1.718 1.670 1.646 $ 1.614 1.614 1.614 1.614 1.614 1.630 1.630 1.654 1.654 1.630 1.630 1.630 $ 1.606 1.630 1.554 1.751 1.823 1.823 1.823 1.799 1.775 1.775 1.799 1.871 1.968 Mav .803 June .803 July .803 August .811 September October November December .811 .827 .827 .827 RETAIL PRICES OF CORN MEAL. (Per pound — fifteenth of each month.) 1911. 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. 1920. January $ .270 $ .284 .284 .284 .290 .299 .302 .302 .302 .302 .305 .299 .290 $ .287 .284 .284 .284 .284 .284 .284 $ .302 .299 .299 .299 .299 .299 .299 $ .316 .319 .319 .316 .316 .316 .313 .313 .313 .313 .310 .310 $ .310 .313 .310 .313 .313 .313 .313 .319 .328 .339 .365 .380 $ .383 .394 .397 .447 .516 .528 .566 .635 .789 .673 .682 .682 $ .676 .678 .696 .687 .676 .647 .637 .658 .667 .658 .629 .618 $ .600 .580 .574 .580 .600 .609 .629 .638 .670 .660 .660 .660 $ 660 February March .270 .267 April .270 May .270 June .270 July .273 August .27r, .290 -305 September October .278 .281 .296 .299 .302 .302 .316 .316 .316 .310 November December .281 .281 202 Agricultural Prices RETAIL PRICES OF EGGS. (Per dozen — fifteenth of each month.) 1911.11912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. $ $ $ $ $ .436 .415 .534 .659 .737 .331 .341 .496 .598 .497 .246 .277 .341 .432 .473 .253 .267 .378 .415 .483 .256 .277 .392 .415 .521 .263 .294 .402 .415 .524 .273 .314 .412 .479 .554 .297 .354 .452 .523 .588 .341 .405 .513 .574 .619 .395 .446 .540 .628 .706 .449 .503 .587 .727 .794 .456 .520 .621 .794 1920. January . February March . . April . . May . . . June . . . July . . . August . . September October . November December .398 .316 .267 .243 .239 .242 .261 .286 .317 .355 .426 .443 .429 .392 .269 .258 .253 .259 .278 .303 .341 .382 .439 .412 $ I $ .3651 .425 .3091 .358 .303 .250 .262 .276 .296 .326 .361 .381 .442 .469 .259 .247 .258 .273 .292 .323 .368 .408 .486 .466 RETAIL PRICES OF BUTTER. (Per pound — fifteenth of each month.) 1911, 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. ? $ $ $ $ $ .400 .388 .386 .454 .569 .708 .360 .377 .381 .469 .581 .574 .352 .361 .404 .465 .554 .670 .331 .361 .415 .512 .508 .716 .328 .350 .373 .469 .512 .681 .337 .346 .365 .473 .512 .635 .343 .346 .358 .462 .527 .631 .363 .338 .365 .477 .542 .643 .379 .338 .392 .496 .596 .662 .378 .354 .419 .512 .654 .716 .396 .365 .438 .531 .670 .758 .396 .388 .454 .546 .731 1920. January . February March . . April . . May . . . June . . . July . . . August . . September October . November December . .365 .343 .330 .303 .296 .298 .308 .328 .337 .359 .385 .411 .431 .400 .371 .378 .387 .340 .338 .342 .360 .377 .392 .415 .411 .415 .415 .408 .361 .353 .350 .356 .379 .384 .388 .400 RETAIL PRICES OF MILK. (Per quart — fifteenth of each month.) 914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. $ $ $ $ $ $ 092 .091 .091 .102 .137 .160 092 .091 .091 .102 .137 .158 092 .090 .091 .102 .137 .151 091 .090 .090 .104 .135 .154 091 .090 .090 .107 .135 .152 090 .090 .090 .108 .132 .154 090 .090 .091 .114 .136 .154 091 .090 .091 .117 .140 .159 091 .090 .092 .120 .146 .160 091 .091 .095 .130 .151 .164 091 .091 .099 .131 .158 .167 091 .091 .101 .134 .160 January . February March . . April . . May . . . June . . . July . . . August . . September October . November December .088 .088 .088 .087 .085 .085 .085 .085 .086 .087 .088 .088 .088 .088 .088 .088 .088 .088 .088 .088 .088 .090 .091 .091 .091 .091 .091 .090 .090 .090 .090 .090 .091 .091 .092 .092 Appendix 203 RETAIL PRICES OF POTATOES (Per peck — fifteenth of each month.) 1911 1912, 1913. 1914. 1915, 1916, 1917.1918. 1919, 1920. January . February March . . April . . May . . . June . . . July . . . August . . September October . November December .259 .259 .259 .275 .313 .427 .510 .420 .357 .311 .318 .339 .378 .393 .422 .468 .438 .438 .329 .287 .246 .235 .232 .259 .236 .234 .228 .226 .237 .269 .285 .282 .285 .274 .277 .275 .280 .280 .277 .272 .290 .341 .401 .287 .271 .230 .214 .217 .220 .218 .212 .222 .230 .256 .220 .212 .204 .243 .251 .275 .352 .365 .363 .332 .363 .433 .347 .365 .417 .427 .513 .513 .583 .492 .769 .878 .912 .948 .637 .534 .445 .461 .474 .461 .486 .486 .380 .334 .334 .442 .593 .593 .593 .534 .502 .487 .487 .471 .443 .471 .502 .580 .730 .761 .655 .580 .593 Jan. 1 Feb. 1 1 Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Totals 1 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. ^ep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Totals 204 Agricultural Prices PACKERS' CHICAGO HAM PRICES.* (No. 1 Reg., Smoked, 16 pounds.) (Per hundredweight) 1910.11911, 1912. 1913. 1914.1915, 1916, 1917, 1918. 1919. Ten- av. January . February- March April May . " June . July . August September October . November December Yearly aver. 14.80 15.60 17.60 17.60 16.80 17.20 17.20 15.60 15.40 15.20 14.30 13.70 13.70 13.70 12.00 11.90 13.50 14.50 15.30 15.30 15.00 14.00 13.00 13.00 12.70 12.70 13.30 13.40 13.40 13.40 13.50 14.50 14.70 15.40 15.20 15.20 15.20 15.50 15.80 16.50 17.00 17.60 17.80 17.80 17.00 16.00 15.10 15.10 15.30 15.30 15.20 14.80 14.80 16.60 16.60 18.20 18.30 16.30 15.00 15.00 14.70 13.70 13.30 13.00 14.00 14.70 14.70 16.20 16.20 17.30 18.00 18.20 17.70 17.70 14.10118.50 14.10|18.70 15.70119.30 15.70119.40 15.7019.60 19.70 20.50 22.50 25.00 25.30 25.30 25.30 24.50 26.30 28.30 28.00 28.00 30.00 30.50 30.50 31.50 31.50 30.00 31.00 33.25 33.25 34.50 37.00 37.50 37.00 34.00 35.50 37.50 38.50 38.50 39.00 39.00 37.00 33.50 29.25 29.25 18.93 18.77 19.30 19.92 20.30 20.55 20.91 21.07 20.97 20.82 20.19 20.20 15.92113.74 13.95 16.37115.95114.45118.07 24 32.54 35.66 20.15 *These figures, previous to 1917, were taken from charts furnished by Dr. L. D. H. Weld, of Swift & Company. Since 1917, the source has been the Daily Trade Bulletin of Howard Bartels. The top price for the month is used in every case. PACKERS' CHICAGO BACON PRICES. (No. 1 Bacon, smoked, 10-12 pounds.) (Per hundredweight) 11910, 1911.11912. 1913.1914.11915.1916. 1917. 1918, 1919. Ten- yr. av. January . February March . April . May , . June . . July . . August . September October . November December Yearly aver. 16.30 17.00 20.20 20.10 20.00 21.50 21.50 19.70 20.80 20.80 20.80 18.00 17.00 16.40 15.40 15.30 15.30 15.30 15.30 15.50 15.50 14.20 13.70 13.40 19.72115.19 15.19 12.50 12.50 14.20 14.70 14.70 14.80 14.80 15.70 16.30 17.50 17.50 17.00 16.30] 17.00 17.50: 17.801 18.70' 18.70 18.701 18.701 17.60 17.20 17.001 17.10' 16.20(17.20 17.00116.301 17.20ll5.30i 17.20 17.20 17.70 18.60 20.40 20.40 20.30 19.70 19.00 15.00 15.60 16.60 16.60 16.20 17.00 17.70 17.70 16.70 15.40 16.40 18.50 19.70 19.70 19.10 19.00 19.00 19.10 19.10 19.10 19.00 21.00 23.50 26.40 30.60 33.30 33.30 31.20' 33.50 35.70 36.70 35.50 35.40 36.50 37.00 38.50 39.50 39.25 39.00 '39.00 42.50 42.50 45.50 47.00 47.50 44.00 38.50 40.00 40.00 41.50 41.50 41.00 41.00 37.50 35.50 33.00 33.00 21.24 21.16 22.32 22.99 23.52 23.75 23.57 24.22 24.24 24.45 24.10 23.61 17.69118.41116.49118.59131.34 41.15 38.87 23.26 *These figures, previous to 1917, were taken from charts furnished by Dr. L. D. H. Weld, of Swift & Company. Since 1917, the source has been the Daily Trade Bulletin of Howard Bartels. The top price for the month is used in every case. Appendix 205 PRICES OF COTTONSEED MEAL AT MEMPHIS. .(Per ton, in car lots) 1908. 1909. 1910. 1911. 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. January . February March . , April . . May . . . June . . . July , . . August . . September October . November December $ 22.50 22.50 22.63 23.25 23.38 23.75 24.00 24.50 24.00 23.75 23.63 23.63 23.50 23.63 24.25 26.25 27.50 28.50 29.00 28.25 27.50 27.38 28.50 28.50 $ 29.63 29.50 28.50 28.00 27.13 27.13 26.50 26.00 25.75 25.25 24.38 24.38 24.13 23.25 23.38 23.88 23.88 24.50 25.38 26.50 25.00 24.63 24.63 24.38 2526, 0028, 32.75 29.00 28.38 28.87 28.12 26.75 26.75 28.75 30.75 35.25 00|39.25 7539.00 37.50 36.25 35.75 38.00 40.50 40.50 42.00 44.00 42.00 44.00 47.00 46.50 46.50 46.50 46.50 46.50 46.50 46.50 46.50 46.50 46.50 46.50 Previous to February, 1916, the price is for 41 per cent protein meal. From February, 1916, to November, 1917, the price is for 38.5 per cent protein meal, and from December, 1917, on, the price is the government fised price for 36 per cent protein meal. Quotations are averages of high and low for month, taken from the News-Scimetar of Memphis. AVERAGE PRICES OF MILL-FEEDS, 1908-1915. (Per ton) 41 per ct. protein cottonseed meal at Memphis. CD ^ Q * 1—1 +j 5c. * a; ^^ ^ g S a 3 ^1 a pi a m 0) m 1=1 CO 01 ^^ -C pj be g^ -O a OS i^ t3 ^4 C3 ■4^ i ■*-> m Pi ■4-J 6 =3 a |3 CB o 03 g S >H * fc " Q fH * fe ^ Q !>^ * fc " Q 1860 .41 .97 1880 .59 .91 1900 .73 .76 1861 .41 .85 1881 .62 .94 1901 .73 .77 1862 .43 .99 1882 .63 .63 1.02 1902 .77 .73 .85 1863 .49 1.44 1883 .65 .89 1903 .80 .83 1864 .55 2.33 1884 .64 .83 1904 .80 .81 1865 .61 1.62 1885 .64 . 60 .76 1905 .82 .82 1866 .64 .89 1.73 1886 .64 .74 1906 .85 .88 1867 .67 1.58 1887 .64 .78 1907 .89 .95 1868 .68 1.53 1888 .65 .60 .79 1908 .89 .90 1869 .68 .85 1.38 1889 .67 .75 1909 .90 .99 1870 .68 1.24 1890 .69 .61 .77 1910 .93 .91 .99 1871 .68 1.27 1891 .69 .80 1911 .95 .95 .98 1872 .68 1.26 1892 .69 .61 .75 1912 .97 .98 1.02 1873 .68 1.19 1893 .69 .63 .76 1913 1.00 1.00 1.00 1874 .67 1.19 1894 .67 .58 .69 1914 .95 .99 1.00 1875 .65 .66 1.13 1895 .67 .58 .69 1915 1.00 .99 1.04 1876 .62 .97 1896 .69 .62 1916 1.20 1.08 1.21 1877 .59 .92 1897 .69 .60 1917 1.40 1.33 1.76 1878 .58 .80 1898 .69 .64 .65 1918 1.75 1.55 1.94 1879 .57 .54 .81 1899 .70 .67 .71 1919 1.85 1.85 1.95 *From 1860 to 1890, wages are based on the investigation made by the Department of Labor for the senate committee investigating prices and wages, and reported in Senate Document 1394. Wages from 1890 to 1907 are based on Bulletin 77 of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and from 1907 to 1913 on unpublished data of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, prepared for the San Francisco Exposition. Figures since 1913 are estimated from reports of manufacturing establishments in New York state, reports of wages paid by the United States Steel Corporation, and reports of the Bureau of Labor Statistics as to wages existing in cotton goods, men's clothing, lumber, and furniture industries. It is believed that the figures since 1913 are roughly accurate, but that they may have to be revised to make them comparable with the preceding series. Fann-hand wages are derived from the December, 1919, Monthly Crop Reporter of the Bureau of Crop Estimates. Appendix 211 PIG IRON. (No. 2 foundry, per ton, at Birmingham, first of month.) Compiled from Bradstreet's Journal, by the Babson Statistical Organization. 1903. 1904. 1905. 1906. 1907. 1908. 1909. 1910. 1911. 1912. Jan. . . . $21.50 $10.00 $13.50 $14.50 $23.50 $13.50 $13.50 $14.00 $11.00 $10.00 Feb. 21.50 10.00 14.00 14.50 23.50 13.50 13.00 14.00 11.00 10.00 Mar. 18.50 9.50 14.00 14.50 23.50 12.50 12.00 13.00 11.00 10.25 Apr, 18.50 10.00 14.00 14.50 23.50 12.25 11.00 12.00 11.00 10.50, May 17.50 10.00 13.50 14.50 23.00 11.00 11.50 12.00 11.00 11.50 June 15.50 9.50 12.50 14.50 22.50 11.00 11.00 11.50 10.50 11.50 July 15.50 9.50 12.00 13.50 23.00 11.50 11.00 11.00 .10.50 11.50 Aug. 13.50 9.50 12.00 13.50 21.50 11.50 13.50 11.00 10.00 12.00 Sep. 12.00 9.50 12.00 16.00 20.00 12.00 14.00 11.00 10.00 13.00 Oct. 12.00 9.50 12.50 17.00 1.8.50 12.00 15.00 11.25 10.00 13.25 Nov. 10.00 12.00 14.00 22.00 18.00 12.50 15.00 11.00 10.00 14.00 Dec. 9.25 13.50 14.50 22.00 15.00 13.00 14.00 11.00 9.50 13.50 PIG IRON— Continued. (No. 2 foundry, per ton, at Birmingham, first of month.) Compiled from Bradstreet's Journal, by the Babson Statistical Organization. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. 1920. 1921. 1922. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. $14.00 13.50 13.00 13.00 12.00 11.00 10.50 10.50 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 $10.50 10.50 10.75 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.25 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 9.75 5 9.50 9.50 9.50 9.25 9.50 9.50 9.75 10.25 11.00 11.50 13.00 14.00 $15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.50 17.00 23.00 $23.00 24.00 26.00 33.00 37.50 40.00 47.00 47.00 47.00 30.00 33.00 33.00 $33.00 33.00 33.00 33.00 33.00 33.00 33.00 33.00 33.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 $31.00 31.00 31.00 26.75 26.75 25.75 24.75 26.75 27.75 28.00 28.00 34.00 Jan. 1 Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Totals 1 212 Agricultural Prices COPPER. (Electrolytic, per pound, at New York, first of month.) Compiled from Bradstreet's Journal, by the Babson Statistical Organization. 1903. 1904. 1905. 1906. 1907. 1908. 1909. 1910. 1911. 1912. Jan. . . . $ .119 $ .122 $ .151 $ .187 $ .241 $ .138 $ .145 $ .137 $ .128 $ .143 Feb. . . . .126 .126 .152 .181 .252 .139 .139 .138 .126 .142 Mar. . . . .134 .124 .151 .185 .252 .129 .129 .136 .126 .146 Apr. . . . .150 .129 .153 .186 .253 .131 .129 . 135 .123 .156 May . . . .148 .131 .150 .186 .253 .129 .129 .129 .123 .159 June . . . .144 .128 .148 .188 .248 .127 .136 .129 .123 .168 July . . . .141 .124 .148 .187 .238 .127 .135 .127 .127 .175 Aug. . . . .129 .125 .153 .187 .213 .133 .133 .126 .127 .176 Sep. . . . .135 .125 .161 .187 .179 .138 .133 .128 .126 .178 Oct. . . . .130 .127 .164 .201 .149 .135 .132 .127 .124 .178 Nov, . . . .136 .137 .164 .223 .145 .139 .130 .128 .124 .176 Dec. . . . .119 .150 .176 .228 .138 .144 .134 .129 .133 .176 COPPER— Continued. (Electrolytic, per pound, at New York, first of month.) Compiled from Bradstreet's Journal, by the Babson Statistical Organization. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. 1920. 1921. 1922. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. $ .177 .162 .148 .153 .146 .156 .146 .150 .164 .169 .165 .146 .149 .148 .144 .144 .142 .140 .134 .130 .124 .118 .113 .128 .130 .148 .146 .156 .186 .188 .200 .183 .178 .180 .179 .199 .229 .254 .271 .275 .285 .280 .265 .263 .280 .285 .285 .345 .295 .330 .365 .340 .310 .325 .318 .290 .253 .235 .235 .235 .235 .235 .235 .235 .235 .235 .235 .260 .260 .260 .260 .260 .230 .188 .155 .154 .153 .165 .190 .235 .228 .215 .218 .183 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Totals Appendix 213 CRUDE PETROLEUM. (Per barrel, at New York, first of month.) Compiled from Bradstreet's Journal, by the Babson Statistical Organization. 1903. 1904. 1905. 1906. 1907. 1908. 1909. 1910. 1911. 1912. Jan. . . . $ 1.54 $ 1.85 $ 1.50 $ 1.58 $ 1.58 $ 1.78 $ 1.78 $ 1.43 $ 1.30 $ 1.35 Feb. 1.50 1.85 1.39 1.58 1.58 1.78 1.78 1.40 1.30 1.50 Mar. 1.50 1.77 1.39 1.58 1.63 1.78 1.78 1.40 1.30 1.50 Apr. 1.50 1.68 1.36 1.58 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.40 1.30 1.50 May- 1.53 1.62 1.29 1.64 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.35 1.30 1.55 June 1.50 1.62 1.27 1.64 1.78 1.78 1.68 1.35 1.30 1.55 July 1.50 1.57 1.27 1.64 1.78 1.78 1.63 1.30 1.30 1.60 Aug. 1.56 1.50 1.27 1.61 1.78 1.78 1.58 1.30 1.30 1.60 Sep. 1.56 1.53 1.27 1.58 1.78 1.78 1.58 1.30 1.30 1.60 Oct. 1.62 1.56 1.51 1.58 1.78 1.78 1.58 1.30 1.30 1.60 Nov. 1.77 1.56 1.61 1.58 1.78 1.78 1.53 1.30 1.30 1.65 Dec. 1.82 1.60 1.58 1.58 1.78 1.78 1.48 1.30 1.30 1.85 CRUDE PETROLEUM— Continued. (Per barrel, at New York, first of month.) Compiled from Bradstreet's Journal, by the Babson Statistical Organization. 1913. 1914. 1 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. 1920. 1921. 1922. Jan. . . . $ 2.00 $ 2.50 $ 1.45 $ 2.25 $ 2.85 $ 3.75 $ 4.00 Feb. 2.40 2.50 1.45 2.35 3.05 3.75 4.00 Mar. 2.50 2.50 1.50 2.40 3.05 4.00 4.00 Apr. 2.50 2.50 1.40 2.60 3.05 4.00 4.00 May 2.50 2.00 1.35 2.60 3.10 4.00 4.00 Jime 2.50 1.80 1.35 2.60 3.10 4.00 4.00 July 2.50 1.75 1.35 2.60 3.10 4.00 4.00 Aug. 2.50 1.65 1.35 2.50 3.10 4.00 4.00 Sep. 2.50 1.45 1.60 2.30 3.50 4.00 4.25 Oct. 2.50 1.45 1.70 2.40 3.50 4.00 4.25 Nov. 2.50 1.45 1.80 2.60 3.50 4.00 4.25 Dec. 2.50 1.45 2.00 2.60 3.50 4.00 4.50 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 1 May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Totals 1 214 Agricultural Prices LUMBER. (Combined quotation on 1,000 feet each of yellow pine, Pennsylvania hem- lock and eastern spruce.) Compiled from Bradstreet's Journal, by the Babson Statistical Organization. 1903. 1904. 1905. 1906. 1907. 1908. 1909. 1910. 1911. 1912. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Jan. . . . 58.00 61.00 58.50 74.00 78.00 68.00 68.00 71.00 66.00 71.00 Feb. . . . 58.00 61.00 59.50 74.00 74.00 66.00 69.50 69.00 67.50 71.00 Mar. . . . 58.00 61.00 59.50 74.00 74.00 66.00 69.50 69.00 68.50 71.00 Apr. . . . 58.00 60.00 59.50 80.00 70.00 65.00 69.00 70.00 70.00 71.00 May . . . 59.00 60.00 60.00 80.00 71.00 61.00 69.00 70.00 70.00 71.00 June . . . 59.00 60.00 62.25 80.00 71.00 61.00 69.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 July . . . 59.50 60.00 62.00 78.00 71.00 61.00 69.00 69.00 70.00 69.50 Aug. . . . 61.00 60.00 63.00 78.00 71.00 61.00 67.75 66.00 70.00 70.50 Sep. . . . 61.00 60.00 67.00 78.00 71.00 61.00 70.50 66.00 70.00 71.00 Oct. . . . 61.00 59.00 69.00 79.00 71.00 62.50 71.00 66.00 70.00 71.50 Nov. , . . 61.00 59.00 70.00 79.00 71.00 64.50 71.00 66.00 70.00 72.50 Dec. . . . 61.00 59.00 73.00 79.00 68.00 66.50 71.00 66.00 70.00 75.00 LUMBER— Continued. (Combined quotation on 1,000 feet each of yellow pine, Pennsylvania hem- lock and eastern spruce.) Compiled from Bradstreet's Journal, by the Babson Statistical Organization. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. 1920. 1921. 1922. ^.. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Jan. . . . 75.00 71.50 71.00 80.00 80.00 98.50 117.50 Feb. 77.00 71.50 71.00 81.00 82.00 100.50 119.00 Mar. 79.50 71.50 71.00 83.00 83.00 100.50 119.00 Apr. 84.00 71.50 71.00 84.00 83.00 107.50 112.00 May 80.00 71.50 71.50 84.00 87.00 120.50 112.00 June 79.50 71.00 70.50 84.00 86.00 121.50 112.00 July 76.50 71.00 70.00 78.00 96.00 124.00 112.00 Aug. 73.50 71.00 70.00 73.75 96.00 124.00 128.00 Sep. 73.50 71.00 70.50 73.75 96.50 114.00 140.00 Oct. 73.50 71.00 70.50 73.75 97.50 114.00 139.00 Nov. 71.50 71.00 72.50 73.75 98.50 114.00 144.00 Dec. 71.50 71.00 79.00 79.00 98.50 117.50 162.00 Appendix 215 * Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May- June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Totals 1 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May- June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. 1 1 Totals 1 1 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Totals 216 Agricultural Prices Jan. Feb. . Mar. . Apr. May . June . July . Aug. . Sep. . Oct. . Nov. . Dec. . Totals 1 1 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Totals 1 ! Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Totals 1 1 Appendix gl7 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Totals 1 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. ■ Totals 1 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 1 May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Totals 218 Ageicultural Prices Jan, Feb. Mar. 1 Apr. May- June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Totals . Jan. . Feb. . Mar. . Apr. . May . June . July . Aug. . Sep. Oct. Nov. . ■* Dec. Totals 1 ^ Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Totals 1 Appendix 219 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May- June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. 1 Totals Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May- June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Totals 1 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Totals 220 Agricultural Prices Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May- June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Totals i 1 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. .1 May June July Aug. Sep. 1 Oct. 1 Nov. 1 Dec. 1 Totals 1 ^ Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. . 1 Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Totals 1 Appendix 221 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. 1 Totals 1 Jan. 1 Feb. 1 Mar. 1 Apr. [ May 1 June 1 July 1 Aug. 1 Sep. 1 Oct. 1 Nov. 1 Dec. 1 Totals 1 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Totals I i Index to Tables in Appendix :DC= Bacon prices, wholesale 204 Bacon prices, retail 200 Bran prices in Illinois 197 Bran prices in Iowa ' . 195 Bran prices at Kansas City 208 Bran prices at Minneapolis 206 Butter prices on the farm 198 Butter prices at Elgin and Chicago 161 Cattle grades, percentage of each slaughtered at central markets 184 Cattle prices, average native beef, 900 to 1,900 pounds, at Chicago ... 147 Cattle prices, average native beef, 1,200 to 1,500 pounds, at Chicago.. 148 Cattle prices, average fat cows and heifers, at Chicago 149 Cattle prices, average canners and cutters, at Chicago 150 Cattle prices, average native calves, at Chicago 151 Cattle prices, average grass-fed westerns, at Chicago 152 Cattle prices, average feeders and stockers, at Chicago 153 Cattle prices in Illinois 197 Cattle prices in Iowa 195 Cattle receipts, monthly, at six markets 172 Cattle receipts, monthly, at Chicago 173 Cattle shipments of stockers and feeders from Omaha 185-186 Cattle shipments of stockers and feeders from Kansas City 189 Cattle weights at Chicago : 182 Chicago ten-year average daily prices 126-133 Copper prices 212 Corn exports 193 Corn-hog ratios by decades 120 Corn prices in Illinois 196 Corn prices in Iowa 194 Corn prices, monthly, at Chicago 118-119 Corn prices in Argentina 190 Corn receipts, monthly, at Chicago 176 Cottonseed meal prices at Memphis 205 Crude petroleum prices 213 Daily prices, ten-year averages, at Chicago 126-133 Dun's index number, yearly 134-135 Dun's index number, by months since 1903 135-139 Egg prices on the farm 198 Exports of corn 193 Appendix 223 Exports of pork products 191 Exports of wheat 192 Greenback currency values 125 Ham prices, wholesale 204 Ham prices, retail 200 Hog prices, in Illinois 196 Hog prices in Iowa 194 Hog prices, heavy, at Chicago 116-117 Hog prices, average, at Chicago 140 Hog prices, average, at Sioux City 140 Hog prices, light, at Chicago 141 Hog prices, pigs, at Chicago 142 Hog prices, top, at Chicago 143 Hog prices,- top at St. Louis 144 Hog prices, top, at Omaha 145 Hog prices, top, at Kansas City 146 Hog receipts, monthly, at eleven markets 164 Hog receipts, monthly, at six markets 165 Hog receipts, monthly, at Chicago 166 Hog receipts, monthly, at Kansas City 169 Hog receipts, monthly, at Omaha 167 Hog receipts, monthly, at St. Louis 168 Hog receipts, monthly, at Sioux City 170 Hog receipts, monthly, at St. Joseph ; 171 Hog weights at Chicago 178 Hog weights at Kansas City, St. Joseph and Sioux City 180-181 Hog weights at Omaha 179 Hog weights at St. Louis 179 Horse prices on farms 163 Horse prices, draft, at Omaha and Chicago 163 Lard prices at Chicago 160 Live stock movements, yearly, Bureau of Markets 190 Lumber prices 214 Middlings at Kansas City 209 Middlings at Minneapolis 207 Milk prices in Elgin-Chicago district 162 Mill-feed price averages 205 Oats prices in Illinois 196 Oats prices in Iowa 194 Oats prices, monthly, at Chicago 121-122 Oats receipts, monthly, at Chicago 177 Packers' prices of ham and bacon 204 Petroleum, crude, prices 213 Pig-iron prices 211 Potato prices on the farm 197 Pork exports 191 Prices, daily ten-year averages, at Chicago 126-133 224 Agricultural Prices Retail prices of bacon 200 Retail prices of butter 202 Retail prices of corn meal 201 Retail prices of eggs 202 Retail prices of flour 201 Retail prices of ham 200 Retail prices of lard 201 Retail prices of milk 202 Retail prices of pork chops 200 Retail prices of potatoes 203 Retail prices of rib roasts 199 Retail prices of round steak 199 Retail prices of sirloin steak 199 Sheep prices, average of native lambs, at Chicago 155 Sheep prices, average of native sheep, at Chicago 156 Sheep prices, average of western lambs, at Chicago 157 Sheep prices, average of western sheep, at Chicago 158 Sheep prices, average of yearlings, at Chicago 154 Sheep receipts, monthly, at Chicago 175 Sheep receipts, monthly, at six markets 174 Sheep, shipments of stockers and feeders from Omaha 187-188 Sheep weights at Chicago 183 Short-rib sides, prices at Chicago 159 Shorts, prices at Kansas City 209 Wages on city and farm 210 Wheat exports 192 Wheat prices at Chicago 123-124 Wheat prices in Argentina 190 Wool prices in Illinois 197 Wool prices in Iowa 195 . »* A "^O^ <5^ "o , »^ ..^''^ "^c »<»v vr»%' •• /\ •■ V-^' • *^ ^* »^ ^ - ^^. ^'^:^^'> /^'^tX ''^'J^m;S ,. ^0 ^^^ ^.ifflm£?i ^n .19' *. 'oK \* . » • «. ♦ "^ A^ » •a,* *- ,. 'rfj. * . . ^ ' .«: ^n S- ^"^^C,^' "^0^ C, vP „ ♦ aY a* » ^^L% ° t: *^d^ ; "^o^ 44t • «>* 41 bV % ♦^ •.^^'- ^o^