Chapter 19

THE POULTRY PRODUCING COMMUNITY

The builder of air castles in Poultrydom invariably starts out with a resumé of the specialization of the world's work and the wonderful advances in the economy of production of the large corporate organization, compared with the individual producer.

The lone blacksmith hammering out a horseshoe nail is contrasted with the mills of the American Steel Company. The fond dreamer looks upon the steel trust, the oil trust, the department store, the packing house, the chain groceries, the theatrical trust, and the colossal enterprises that dominate every field of industry save agriculture. Here, then, lies the neglected opportunity for the industrial dreamer to hop over the fence, awaken the sleeping farmer, and fill his own purse with the wealth to be made by applying modern business methods to agriculture.

The knowing smile--the farmer may be asleep and he may not be. Suppose that he is, does the fond dreamer dream that he is the first man from the industrial kingdom of great things to look with hungry eyes at the rich field of agricultural opportunity, basking in last century's sun? Alas, fond dreamer, your name is legion. Every farmer who has sent a son to college has known you and the Hon. William Jennings Bryan has met you, called you an agriculturist and defined you as a man who makes his money in town and spends it in the country.

But the dreamer is right in his first premise--great economies in production are the result of specialization and combination. Why not then in agriculture? I'll tell you why. There is a touch of nature in the living thing that calls for a closer interest on the part of the laborer than the industrial system of the mine and factory can give.

Why is combined and specialized production more economical? It may be because it gets more efficient work out of labor, it may be that larger operations make feasible the employment of more efficient methods and machinery. The cost of production may be lowered, by either or both of these means, or it may be lowered by an increased efficiency in machinery, even with a decreased efficiency in labor.

Combination and specialization so commonly cut down expenses because of large operations and the use of better tools, that we may take this saving for granted. When it comes to labor there is a different story. The negro working with boss and gang, or the machine-tender in the factory work as well or better for large than for small concerns, but the labor of a poultry plant is different. It is made up of a great many different operations well scattered in space and time. For the most part it is simple labor, but it is essential that it be performed with reasonable concern for the welfare of the business.

In other industries, as with men working at a bench, the presence of a foreman keeps them busy and their work may be daily inspected. To have foremen in poultry work would require as many foremen as laborers, and even then they would be as useless, for when the last round of the brooders is made at night a foreman standing three feet away could not know whether the laborer who had placed his hand in the brooder had found all well or all wrong.

It is useless to carry the argument farther. The labor bill is one of the biggest items of expense in poultry production. With a system where the efficiency of the labor decreases with the size of the business, large industrial enterprises are impossible. Such savings as will be made in buying supplies, selling, etc., will be wasted in the reduced efficiency of labor.

The bulk of labor in poultry work must be self-reliant labor and the only test for such efficiency is number of chicks reared and the weight of the egg basket. Even this will not be a complete test unless from the income be subtracted the feed bills.

A system of renting or working on shares that will gain the advantages of centralization without losing the individual interest of the laborer, will go a long way toward making the poultry business one wherein large capital and large brains can find a place to work. I expect to see in the future some such system evolved. In fact we have to-day a profit-sharing plan between owner and foreman on many of our best plants. To extend such to each laborer requires more system and better superintendence, but it is feasible and must come. But, better still is it for the worker to own the stock. Best yet if he owns both stock and land, leaving to larger capital only such phases of the business as involve great saving when done on a wholesale basis.

Just as the manufacturer of farm machinery, the packing of meat and the manufacture of butter have successfully been taken out of the control of the individual farmer and placed under corporate or co-operative organization, so the writer expects to see certain portions of the process of poultry production removed from the hands of the farmer and controlled by more specialized and expert labor. Far from meaning the lessening of the earning power of the farmer, every one of such steps means larger production and more profits. The ideal of agricultural economics is to give the farmer the smallest possible proportion of the work of agricultural production in order that the most may be produced and the farmer's share along with the others may be largest.

Established Poultry Communities.

In a previous chapter we spoke of the South Shore roaster district of Massachusetts. Here is a community where, in lots of from a dozen to four or five thousand, are annually produced seventy-five or one hundred thousand market fowls of one particular type. While this business was not built up by the efforts of a corporation or individual who planned definitely the entire project, yet we find a central influence at work in the person of the firm of Curtis Bros., who for years have bought the majority of South Shore roasters, and who have done a great deal to advertise the product and encourage their neighbors to a larger and more uniform production.

At Little Compton, R. I., is a very similar parallel of the South Shore district in the shape of egg farms. Here we find within a radius of two miles about one hundred thousand Rhode Island Red hens owned in flocks of two thousand or less. The methods used throughout the community are all alike and are simple in the extreme. There are no incubators, no brooders, no poultry houses, no long houses, no dropping boards to be scraped every morning, nothing in fact, but board-walled, board-roofed, colony houses, scattered over the grass fields and similar though smaller fields covered with coops for hens and chicks. Feeding is equally simple; a mash of meat, vegetables and ground grain mixed once a day and hauled around in a one-horse cart and hoppers of whole corn exposed in the houses. The houses are cleaned twice a year. Little Compton is, indeed, a community where all the rules of the poultry books are regularly violated, and yet a larger number of successful egg farms can be seen from the church spire at Little Compton Corners than most poultry writers have ever seen or read about. Strange it is, as Josh Billings puts it, that "some folks know things that ain't so."

An illustration published in a recent issue of the World's Work tells a remarkable story. A pile of egg shells as big as a straw stack certainly indicates "something doing" in the chicken business, and it is a very proud monument to Mr. Byce who, some twenty odd years ago, established an incubator factory at the town of Petaluma. Petaluma is in Sonoma County, California, forty miles north of San Francisco. In the census year of 1899, Sonoma County produced more eggs than any other county in the United States. To-day there are in the Petaluma region close to one million hens.

Like the Little Compton district, Petaluma is a one-breed community, White Leghorns being the breed used. The individual flocks range larger than at Little Compton, chiefly because the milder climate, smaller breed, and establishment of the central hatchery enables one man to take care of more birds.

When I asked Mr. Byce for a list of the people in his neighborhood keeping over one thousand hens, he replied by sending me a list of twenty-two men who keep from 8,000 down to 2,500 each, and said that to give those keeping from one to two thousand, would practically be to take a census of the county. The methods of housing and feeding used are simple and inexpensive like those at Little Compton.

The chief reason why Petaluma shows a more advanced development in the poultry community than the eastern poultry growing localities, is to be found in the climatic advantages which favor incubation (see Chapter on Incubation) and the consequent development of the central hatchery. Outside of this, the location is not especially favorable. The temperature is milder in the winter than in the East, but the Petaluma winter is one of continual rain which develops roup to a greater extent than we have it in the East. The prices received for high grade eggs in San Francisco is in the winter about equal to the top prices in New York. In the spring and summer New York will give more for fancy goods. The cost of corn on the Pacific Coast is about 40 cents a hundred more than on the Atlantic Coast. Wheat, however, is cheaper than in the East, but not cheap enough to substitute for the more staple grain.

The eggs from the Petaluma region are at present marketed largely through a co-operative marketing association.

Developing Poultry Communities.

I have shown why the large individual poultry farms with hired labor have not proven profitable fields for the investment of capital. Again, I have shown that in a few localities where the business was incidentally started, communities of independent poultry farmers have grown up which are very successful, and that there is no apparent reason why similar communities elsewhere, if intelligently located, could not do as well or better.

This looks like an excellent field for corporate enterprise. Certainly there is no more reason why the poultry community cannot be as successfully promoted as an irrigation project, or a cheese factory, or a trucking community. In such a community there are many functions that can be better performed by a capitalized body managed by experts than by individual poultrymen acting alone.

These functions are:

First, the selection of a location and the purchase of the land in large quantities.

Second, laying out this land into suitable individual holdings, with regard to economy of water supply and the collection of the product.

Third, the partial or complete equipment of these farms at less expense and in a more suitable manner than could or would be done by the individual holders.

Fourth, the sale or rent of these places to poultrymen at a reasonable profit on the investment, but at a rate which will still be below the cost at which the individual could have acquired the land. Fifth, the selection of the stock that would not only be better adapted to the enterprise than that which would be acquired by the individual farmer, but would possess the uniformity necessary to the maintenance of a standard grade in the product.

Sixth, the centralized hatching of the chicks by which means chicks can be more cheaply hatched and better hatched than by the imperfect methods available to the small poultryman.

Seventh, the purchase of all outside supplies with the usual savings involved in large purchases.

Eighth, a teaming system of delivering such supplies.

Ninth, a general protection against thieves and predatory animals by an organized war on all "varments."

Tenth, maintenance of the best methods in feeding and care by the employment of skilled advisers, or the operation of demonstration farms under the direction of the central management.

Eleventh, the enforced daily gathering of all eggs and their lodgment that same evening in a clean, dry cooler, with a thermometer hovering around 29 degrees Fahrenheit.

Twelfth, the strict enforcement of penalties against the man who attempts to sell bad eggs.

Thirteenth, the prompt dispatch of the product to its final market.

Fourteenth, the final sale of the eggs with opportunities for fancy prices made possible by an absolutely guaranteed product in quantities sufficient to permit of a regular supply and of advertising the product.

Fifteenth, the conduction of breeding operations along any desired line, with the opportunity of combining the principle of great numbers for selection with the comparison of all progeny from ancestry, a method that will bring results a hundred times more quickly than the efforts of the small breeder.

Sixteenth, the advantage of the sale of breeding stock to be acquired from the free publicity which is showered on all unique industrial enterprises.

In these sixteen functions there is ample opportunity for capital, backed by ability in organization, to reap an ample reward. Is it a dream? In a sense yes, but a dream made possible by the observation of the actual results achieved in similar lines, and of the present tendency in the poultry producing world.

Why has not this thing been done before? Because no one knew enough to do it. Why did not the wonderful trucking regions develop earlier in the South, and why does it still take northern settlers, backed by railroad advertising, to develop the wonderful modern industries which enables every city dweller in the North to have strawberries in February and fresh vegetables any day in the year?

Why did the California fruit trade develop? Did anyone suppose forty years ago that the unsettled valley around Pasadena would ever produce one thousand dollars per acre in one year? These orange groves, too valuable for agricultural purposes to be used as town sites, were precarious experiments until the trans-continental refrigerator car and the California Fruit Growers' Exchange paved the way and put each day in every eastern and northern city just the quantity of oranges that the people could consume at a profitable price.

Mr. Harwood, in the World's Work for May, 1908, after describing the "City of a Million Hens," raises the question, "If in Petaluma, why not anywhere?" I would like to answer that question by saying that while anywhere is a little broad, the reason the industry has not developed elsewhere has been because of the diversion of interested capital towards impractical large individual poultry plants, manned by hired labor. Another reason has been the lack of the technical knowledge necessary to construct and operate efficient hatcheries.

The poultryman has been a disciple of the poultry papers and poultry fanciers of the day. The poultry papers and poultry literature has generally been supported by poultry fanciers and manufacturers of incubators, patent nests and portable houses. The good folks have vied with one another in complicating the business. They have built steam-piped houses, with padded walls and miniature railways with which daily to haul away the droppings. A few famous fanciers selling eggs at $10.00 per setting have made such business pay, but alas for the luckless investor in what the visiting poultry editor would style a "handsomely equipped modern poultry plant."

A few years ago a Government poultry expert paid a visit to Petaluma. He came back and reported, "It is a great disappointment, the methods are very crude." The case is most pathetic. Here was a man employed by the people to teach them how to make poultry pay. His carfare is paid across the continent that he might visit the only community in the United States where at that time any considerable number of people were making their living from poultry, and because he did not find lightning rods on the poultry houses, he came back with the look of Naamen who, when he was requested by Elisha to bathe seven times in the river Jordan, replied, "It is very crude."

Will Co-operation Work?

That magic thing, "Co-operation," while utterly lacking in the Utopian qualities with which the word artist paints it, is a decidedly bigger factor in American affairs than the average man realizes.

The chief difficulty with co-operation is that the manager, if not incompetent, has an excellent opportunity to be a grafter. In Europe co-operation in agricultural and mercantile enterprise is older and better developed than in this country. Perhaps the Europeans are less inclined to be grafters, but a more likely explanation is that the members of such associations as these have learned how to prevent and detect graft, just as our business men have learned to avoid losses from the dishonesty of employes. That this is the true explanation is substantiated by the fact that when co-operation once becomes established in this country, it succeeds even better than in Europe.

When the creameries were started in the West several years ago, there was much complaint of swindlers, fake stock companies, and co-operative ventures in which the manager absconded with the butter money. To-day more than half of the American creameries are co-operative and the number is constantly increasing. They are efficient and successful in every way, and to-day make the finest of butter and pay the highest prices to the farmer for his cream. But their way was first paved and the business developed by successful private concerns.

Co-operation is entirely feasible and successful where the people behind the movement have enough interest in the enterprise and good enough business sense to run the proposition as efficiently as similar private enterprises are run. The idea that co-operation must always result in a big saving is a misconception. Employes will not work any harder for an association than for a private employer, sometimes not as hard. Certainly no employee will work as hard for an association as he will for himself.

Why people should expect to buy out the grocery store and hire the grocer to run it and save money for themselves, is a thing I could never understand. But if there is some great waste that co-operation will prevent, as where seven milk wagons drive every morning over the same route, or where the market of perishable crops is glutted one day and starved the next, centralization, corporate or co-operate, will pay.

I know of no better way to impress the reader with American co-operation in actual practice than to quote from a brief account of the California Fruit Growers' Exchange.

The Exchange was founded upon the theory that every member is entitled to furnish his pro rata of the fruit for shipment through his association, and every association to its pro rata to the various markets of the country. This theory reduced to practice gives every grower his fair share, and the average price of all markets throughout the season.

Another cardinal provision of the plan was that all fruit should be marketed on a level basis of actual cost, with all books and accounts open for inspection at the pleasure of the members. These broad principles of full co-operation constitute the basis of the Exchange movement.

The Exchange system is simple, but quite democratic. The local association consists of a number of growers contiguously situated, who unite themselves for the purpose of preparing their fruit for market on a co-operative basis. They establish their own brands, make such rules as they may agree upon for grading, packing and pooling their fruit. Usually these associations own thoroughly equipped packing houses.

All members are given a like privilege to pick and deliver fruit to the packing house, where it is weighed in and properly receipted for. Every grower's fruit is separated into different grades, according to quality, and usually thereafter it goes into the common pool, and in due course takes its percentage of the returns according to grade.

Any given brand is the exclusive property of the Local Association using it, and the fruit under this brand is always packed in the same locality, and therefore of uniform quality. This is of great advantage in marketing, as the trade soon learns that the pack is reliable.

There are more than eighty associations, covering every citrus fruit district in California, and packing nearly two hundred reliable and guaranteed brands of oranges and lemons.

The several local Exchanges designate one man each from their membership as their representative, and he is elected a director of the California Fruit Growers' Exchange. By this method the policy-making and governing power of the organization remains in the hands of the local Exchanges.

From top to bottom the organization is planned, dominated and in general detail controlled absolutely by fruit growers, and for the common good of all members. No corporation nor individual reaps from it either dividends or private gain.

So far we have dealt almost exclusively with the organization of the Exchange, its co-operative aspects, and general policy at home. Equally important is its organization in the markets.

Seeking to free itself from the shifting influence of speculative trading, by taking the business out of the hands of middlemen at home, the Exchange found it quite as important to maintain the control of its own affairs in the markets.

For this purpose the Exchange established a system of exclusive agencies in all the principal cities of the country, employing as agents active, capable young men of experience in the fruit business. Most of these agents are salaried, and have no other business of any kind to engage their attention, and none of the Exchange representatives handle any other citrus fruits. These agents sell to smaller cities contiguous to their headquarters, or in the territory covered by their districts.

Over all these agencies are two general or traveling agents, with authority to supervise and check up the various offices. These general agents maintain in their offices at Chicago and Omaha, a complete bureau of information, through which all agents receive every day detailed information as to sales of Exchange fruit in other markets the previous day. Possessing this data, the selling agent cannot be taken advantage of as to prices. If any agent finds his market sluggish, and is unable to sell at the average prices prevailing elsewhere, he promptly advises the head office in Los Angeles, and sufficient fruit is diverted from his market to relieve it and restore prices to normal level.

Through these agencies of its own the Exchange is able to get and transmit to its members the most trustworthy information regarding market conditions, visible supplies, etc. This system affords a maximum of good service at a minimum cost. The volume of the business is so large that a most thorough equipment is maintained at much less cost to growers than any other selling agency can offer.

The annual business of the California Fruit Growers' Exchange amounts to over ten million dollars, and the Exchange handles over half the citrus fruit output of the State. Yet there are people who say co-operation in America will not work.

Co-operative Egg Marketing in Denmark.

I have discussed at length the work of the California Fruit Growers' Exchange, as the best example in the United States of the co-operative marketing of farm produce. We have thus far but little co-operative work in the marketing of poultry products. Canada has a few examples, but it is to European countries that we must go for a full demonstration of the principle of co-operation when applied to the products of the hen. In England and in Ireland co-operative efforts in the growing, fattening, and marketing of poultry and eggs are quite common. It is to Denmark, however, that we must go to find the most wholesale example of this truly modern type of business effort.

The Danes are co-operators in the fullest sense. They have co-operative creameries and co-operative packing houses. The Danish Egg Export Society is an organization, the plan and work of which is very much like that of the California Fruit Growers' Exchange.

The local branch of the association buys the eggs of the farmer, paying for them by weight. Collectors are hired to gather them at frequent and regular intervals, and are paid In accordance with the amount of their collections, but must stand the loss of breakage. Each individual poultryman's eggs are kept separate until they reach a centralizing station. There are a number of these central stations at which the eggs are carefully crated and packed for shipment to England.

The individual farmer is fined or taxed for all bad eggs found in his lot. This fine is deducted from his receipts and he has nothing to do but to submit to it or get out of the association. The latter he cannot afford to do because the association has its established brands and can pay him more for his eggs than he could secure by attempting to market them himself. As a result of this strict system of making the producer responsible for weight and quality of the eggs the Danish eggs have become the largest and finest in the world.

Although the writer firmly believes in the co-operative marketing of farm produce, and considers that the success already secured in this work is conclusive evidence of the practicability and desirability of co-operation, it would not be fair to infer that co-operation has entirely driven out private or corporate enterprise. Just as a goodly per cent. of the citrus fruit of California is still handled by private dealers, so in Denmark we find that nearly one-half of the eggs sent to England are handled by private companies. Let it be noted, however, that these companies maintain a system of buying on merit which enforces high quality that is not to be found where private buyers are without the spur of co-operative competition. Before co-operation entered the orange regions of California, the fruit was poorly packed and handled and the markets at times so glutted, that shipments of fruit sometimes failed to pay the freight, and this was actually charged back to the unfortunate grower. Co-operation has done away with this waste. In like manner the great loss from decomposed eggs and half hatched chicks is unknown to the egg trade of Denmark.

Corporation or Co-operation?

The community of farmers producing a large quantity of a single kind of product is the coming form of agricultural enterprise. Will this community be promoted by corporation or by co-operation?

Arthur Brisbane says, "As individual control of the Government has been superceded by collective control, so individual control of industries will be followed by collective control. That is the natural order."

Brisbane is right. The individual, or the corporation, which is an individual using other men's money, foreruns co-operation, because the individual knows exactly what he wants to do and the big group of individuals does not know what they want or how to do it until individuals have, by concrete successes, shown them.

When the creameries were started, co-operative creameries were unsuccessful and could not compete with privately owned creameries. The farmers have now become too wise to be "easy-marks" to the fake creamery promoters or to trust their butter sales to a comparative stranger and co-operation is a success.

Poultry communities cannot be made out of whole cloth by the co-operative plan. Private corporations will be necessary to launch these enterprises. When they have reached the stage of development now to be seen in Little Compton and Petaluma they are ready for co-operation.

I have emphasized the point that the private corporation is the natural forerunner in this matter in order to discourage premature or over-ambitious efforts at co-operation. Whenever a community of poultrymen or, for that matter, a community of growers of any perishable form of products, who are already successful in the producing end, wish to take up co-operation and will see that men are selected to manage it who will use the same precautions to guard against incompetency or graft that they, as individuals, would use in their own business, there is excellent chance of success.

Go slow. Do not expect to get rich quick by "cutting out the middleman's enormous profits," for the middleman's profits are not enormous, and if you see that your co-operation is not paying, give it up and confess to yourselves that you do not know as much about the business as your private competitors.