Chapter XXII: Section VIII: The Congress shall have power (12)

7. That the duty of your committee is to bring about the things outlined above, or at least to suggest some means of doing so.

After careful consideration of what these seven points involve, your committee feels that the very fact that inadequacy in the past has prevented as wide an attendance as desirable, prevents us from conferring at this time as fully with all agencies involved as would be sure to get the best result, and that in particular we are at a great disadvantage in being unable to confer with the executive officers of the 1913 Congress not yet chosen.

For these reasons we recommend as our very best judgment that this meeting correct us as far as may be necessary in stating its beliefs and desires and then leave working out the detail until we can offer the executive officials of the next Congress the courtesy of consulting with them, with the understanding, however, that there shall be no negligence or unnecessary delay and that long before the next Congress all these matters shall be arranged in detail and given the necessary publicity.

Your committee consequently recommends further either that it be given instructions to act as suggested, or that it be discharged and the duties outlined be added to those of the committee of three already appointed to discuss similar questions. We believe that a faithful attempt to work the matter out in this way will be more satisfactory than trying to settle matters at this session. There is ample time if we do not waste it, and less danger of error.

The report was adopted, following the suggestion that the Committee on Permanent Organization be discharged and its duties imposed upon the permanent co-operative committee, including E. T. Allen, Prof. H. S. Graves and J. B. White.

Mr. Allen, being called out to assist in revising the resolutions of the general Congress, asked Mr. Sterling to take the chair, and suggested the reading of a paper sent by Chief Forester Graves, outlining the policy of the Forest Service.

Mr. Graves’ paper (appearing elsewhere in the proceedings of the Congress) was animatedly discussed, the meeting without dissenting voice approving the Forest Service policy and deploring any attempt to restrict its operation. Short talks urging its support by all forest interests, State and private, including the Conservation Congress, were made by Z. D. Scott, Minnesota; F. A. Elliott and H. D. Langille, Oregon, and W. H. Shippen, Georgia. A resolution was passed emphasizing the meeting’s endorsement of the resolutions commending the Forest Service then before the general Congress (and adopted the following day).

Mr. Langille spoke particularly against the turning over of the National forests to State control and Mr. Shippen of the necessity of Federal control of interstate watersheds.

A discussion of State legislation followed. Mr. Scott described the effort of Minnesota under its new law. Leonard Bronson, Washington, outlined the trend of attempted tax reform, dwelling particularly upon the yield tax system proposed by Professor Fairchild of Yale University, and urged concerted, harmonious effort by all forest States. Dr. Drinker and Mr. Wheeler reviewed the proposed Pennsylvania law for a nominal land tax and a yield tax from which counties are to be reimbursed for taxes lost during growing period.

Upon motion of Mr. I. C. Williams, Pennsylvania, the meeting went on record as considering tax reform to promote reforestation and better forest management, the most important problem and the one most in need of study and legislation of any before the forest interests of the United States today.

The Forestry Section of the Fourth National Conservation Congress then adjourned, leaving plans for more effective work in 1913 in the hands of the committee of three previously mentioned.

REGISTER FORESTRY SECTION MEETING.

E. T. Allen, Western Forestry and Conservation Association, Portland, Oregon.

Wm. G. Atwood, Chief Engineer L. E. & W. R. R. Representing American Railway Engineers’ Association, Indianapolis, Ind.

Hugh P. Baker, New York State College of Forestry, Syracuse, N. Y.

W. E. Barns, Missouri Forest Service, St. Louis, Mo.

F. W. Besley, State Forester, Baltimore, Md.

F. H. Billard, Forester, New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association, Berlin, N. H.

Leonard Bronson, Manager National Lumber Manufacturers’ Association, Chicago, Ill.

W. R. Brown, President New Hampshire Forestry Commission, New Hampshire Timberland Owners’ Association, Berlin, N. H.

L. S. Case, Weyerhaeuser & Company, St. Paul, Minn.

W. C. Darms, Wisconsin Forest Commission, Wisconsin.

Chas. C. Deam, Secretary Indiana Board of Forestry, Indianapolis, Ind.

Henry S. Drinker, Lehigh University, South Bethlehem, Pa.

F. A. Elliott, State Forester, Salem, Oregon.

E. G. Griggs, West Coast Lumber Manufacturers’ Association, National Lumber Manufacturers’ Association, Tacoma, Wash.

N. H. Guthrie, Indiana State Forestry Association, Franklin, Ind.

Henry E. Hardtner, Louisiana Forestry Association, Urania, La.

John W. Kellough, Ohio State Forestry Association, Mt. Sterling, Ohio.

H. D. Langille, Oregon Conservation Association, Portland, Oregon.

William R. Lazenby, Ohio State Forestry Association, Columbus, Ohio.

Henry Nelson Loud, Au Sable, Mich.

Frank E. Mace, Forest Commissioner, Augusta, Me.

Mrs. Joan E. Moore, Indiana State Forestry Association, Kokomo, Ind.

John Oxenford, Indianapolis, Ind.

Charles Lathrop Pack, President Fifth National Conservation Congress, 305 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, Ohio.

F. W. Rane, State Forester, Boston, Mass.

P. S. Ridsdale, Secretary American Forestry Association, Washington, D. C.

Z. D. Scott, State Forestry Board, Duluth, Minn.

W. H. Shippen, Hardwood Manufacturers Association, Ellijay, Georgia.

D. P. Simons, Western Forestry and Conservation Association, Los Gatos, Cal.

Geo. K. Smith, Secretary Yellow Pine Manufacturers’ Association, National Lumber Manufacturers’ Association, St. Louis, Mo.

E. A. Sterling, Forest and Timber Engineer, Philadelphia, Pa.

R. D. Swales, Union Lumber Company, Fort Bragg, Cal.

F. L. Throm, Forester, Wheeler & Desenburg, Endeavor, Pa.

William P. Wharton, Groton, Mass.

N. P. Wheeler, Pennsylvania Conservation Association, Endeavor, Pa.

I. C. Williams, Pennsylvania Department of Forestry, Harrisburg, Pa.

E. B. Williamson, State Foresters Office, Bluffton, Ind.

John M. Woods, Somerville, Mass.

R. C. Young, American Railway Engineers’ Association, Chief Engineer Munsing R. R., Marquette, Mich.

THE PRESENT SITUATION OF FORESTRY.

Prof. HENRY S. GRAVES, United States Forester.

A review of the work of forestry in this country during the past year shows that in many directions there has been substantial progress and positive achievement. On the other hand, the continued organized attacks on the National Forest system, and the efforts to break it down or cripple it, present a situation of real danger which the country should realize and vigorously meet. We have before us a task of constructive activity in practical work, extending and building on foundations already laid; we have also the task of preventing a destructive attack upon National forestry.

During the past few years public interest in forestry has been rapidly changing from a mere inquiry in regard to its purpose to a vigorous demand for practical results. This more intelligent public sentiment is now finding its expression in a growing appreciation of the need of better forest laws, greater State appropriations for fire control, and increasing interest in forest protection by private timberland owners. It often happens that public attention is caught only by the most striking new departments and developments, such as a change in public policy or important legislation, while but little is known of the steady advance in applied forestry. The past year has been signalized not so much by new undertakings as by marked accomplishment in the effective carrying out of work previously inaugurated.

PROGRESS IN NATIONAL FORESTRY.

Every year shows increased efficiency in the administration of the national forests. The most conspicuous advance has been in organized fire protection. The disastrous year of 1910 taught many lessons. While that disaster could not have been avoided in the absence of better transportation and communication facilities and without a larger patrol force than the Forest Service could put into the field, it nevertheless showed how, even under the present conditions, the work of protection could be made more effective. Full use was made of the experience gained in that year, and during the past two seasons the loss by fire has been kept down to a comparatively small amount through the efficient system now in force. The problem, however, of fire protection on the national forests is far from being solved. There still remain to be built some 80,000 miles of trails, 45,000 miles of telephone lines, many miles of roads, many lookout stations, and other improvements, before even the primary system of control will have been established. The funds at the disposal of the Forest Service are still inadequate to employ the patrolmen needed to meet more than ordinary emergency. There is even yet danger, therefore, that in the case of a great drought like that of 1910 some fires might gain the mastery and a similar disaster follow.

An account of the progress of the work of the Forest Service in the administration of the national forests would be an enumeration of the different activities in which the work is going on with constantly growing effectiveness. Many of the local difficulties of administration are rapidly disappearing. This is due to the steadily closer co-ordination of the interests of the Government with those of the people living in and using the forests. More and more these people are coming to appreciate that their interests and those of the national forests are one. With a better understanding of the aims and methods of the Forest Service, local difficulties are disappearing and local support of the service is largely replacing opposition. Those who are aiming to destroy the national forest system are not the settlers and others who use the forests, but rather men who seek for their own advantage special privileges to which they are not entitled, and who wish to acquire for little or nothing valuable resources for speculation and personal gain.

During the past year the Weeks law, authorizing the purchase of lands on navigable streams, has been put into effect, and the Government has already entered into contracts for the purchase of 230,000 acres in the Southern Appalachian Mountains, and about 72,000 acres in the White Mountains. These lands are being secured on the most desirable areas, and it has been possible to obtain them for reasonable prices. A special feature of the Weeks law is the co-operation between the Government and the States in fire protection on watersheds of navigable streams. The law provides $200,000, until expended, for such co-operation; but this money can be used only in States which have already inaugurated a system of fire protection under public direction. During the year 1911 there were eleven States which qualified under this law, receiving in the aggregate about $40,000. During the current year sums varying from $1,500 to $10,000 have been allotted to the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington. There is still sufficient money left from the original appropriation for substantial co-operation during another year. It has been the aim of the Forest Service to spread the money over three years in order that there may be a full demonstration of what can be accomplished, and at what cost. It will then be possible to present to Congress a satisfactory basis upon which to consider whether Federal aid to the States should be continued.

The most urgent need of the national forest work is more ample provision of the funds necessary for adequate protection of the forests against fire. It is especially urgent that the work of constructing roads, trails, telephone lines, and other improvements needed for fire protection be extended much more rapidly than at present.

PROGRESS IN STATE FORESTRY.

A very great obligation rests upon the State governments in working out the problem of forestry. Organized fire protection under State direction, the establishment of a reasonable system of taxation of growing timber, honest and conservative management of State forest laws, education of woodland owners to better methods of forestry, and such practical regulation of handling private forests as may be required for the protection of the public, are problems which require the immediate action of all States.

While no State is as yet accomplishing all that it should, a number of them are making very rapid progress, and are giving as liberal money support as perhaps could be expected under the present conditions. The feature of State forestry which stands out most strongly is that a number of States have gone beyond merely passing forest laws, and have begun to provide the funds necessary to achieve practical results. At last it is beginning to be recognized that the prevention of fire is the fundamental necessity, and that this can be accomplished only through an organized public service. In order to make laws effective there must be adequate machinery to carry them out. The fundamental principle of fire protection is preparation. A forest region must be watched for fires, both to prevent their being started and to reach quickly and put out such as from one cause or another may get under way. The new State legislation recognizes this need, and already there has been inaugurated a measure of watchfulness in the season of greatest danger, through patrol or lookouts under State direction. During 1911, which was a banner year in the enactment of State legislation, laws related chiefly to fire protection were passed by Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin; while Colorado created the office of State Forester. Since the beginning of 1912 Maryland and New York have amended their forest laws, and Kentucky has passed its first complete law.

It is exceedingly gratifying that substantial progress is now being made in the South. Unfortunately, however, none of the Southern States except Maryland has hitherto been able to qualify to receive Federal aid and fire protection under the Weeks law. It is hoped that during the coming year progress will be made in those Southern States in which practically nothing has yet been done.

One of the matters to which the Conservation Congress and all other educational agencies should devote their efforts is to bring about the protection of private lands from fire and the extension to them of forestry methods. While some may say that this is a matter for which the owner is personally responsible, the fact remains that private owners will ordinarily not work out the forestry problem on their lands without the participation of the public in the form of public regulations, co-operation and assistance. This is recognized in some States, but others are doing nothing whatever in this field, and a good many which have made a small beginning are abundantly able to do vastly more than at present. It has usually happened that the securing of good forest laws and the establishment of a State Forest Service has been brought about by the efforts of a small group of interested men, and frequently through the efforts of a single individual who has been able to arouse the interest of the people in his State. Enough States in different parts of the country have initiated State forestry to make it comparatively easy for a State contemplating new legislation to benefit by what has been done elsewhere. All that is really required in the extension of State forestry is to find the man or men in each State who will take the leadership and follow up the matter until the Legislature acts. It would seem that in the heavily timbered States the lumbermen are the men who should be most vitally interested in the conservation of our forests. In some States timberland owners have participated very actively in bringing about State forestry, as for example, in Maine, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and some of the far Northwest States. In other instances the timberland owners have been indifferent and in some instances proper State forestry has failed on account of the attitude of the very men who should be foremost in promoting proper legislation. We need in each State not so much advice from the outside as a few patriotic citizens in whom the public has confidence and who will devote time and real effort to this public task. If the men can be found to do this preliminary work they will have no difficulty in securing competent assistance from other States and from the National Government.

THE ATTACK UPON FORESTRY.

At the same time that forestry has been making steady progress in constructive work and in public esteem, hostility to the national forest policy on the part of those who would substitute private for public control of these resources has become more determined under a new form. The early attacks upon this policy openly sought its overthrow. They came to nothing because the country was emphatically for the forests. At the present time those who attack the national forest policy commonly profess allegiance to the Conservation principle even while attempting to break it down. There is great danger that the public may not understand what is involved in measures whose purpose and inevitable effects do not appear on their face. Two such measures are the proposal to require the elimination from the forests of all lands capable of cultivation, on the plea that this will increase settlement, and the proposal to turn all the forests over to the States in which they lie, on the plea that this will increase their benefits to the people of these States. In both cases quite the contrary is true.

An amendment which was attached to the Agricultural Appropriation Bill last June, and which passed the Senate but was rejected by the House, would have required, had it become law, the opening to private acquisition under the homestead laws of all lands “fit and suitable for agriculture” within national forests, irrespective of their value for other purposes or of their importance for public use. The result would have been not to facilitate but to block agricultural development. It would also have been to transfer to powerful private interests timberlands, water power sites, and other areas, possession of which would tend to private monopoly of resources now under public control.

This measure is not called for in order that agricultural development of lands in national forests may take place. The Forest Service has consistently favored and sought to bring about agricultural settlement of all national forest lands which can be put to their highest usefulness by farming. It urged and obtained, seven years ago, the law which now permits the opening of such land. Under that law about one and a half million acres have been listed for entry by over twelve thousand settlers; and more will be listed as it becomes possible to list the land without defeating the very purpose of the law.

To open land certain because of its superior value for timber, water-power development, or other purposes to be absorbed by speculators or powerful interests would not only defeat the purpose of the existing law but also constitute a breach of public trust and a betrayal of the fundamental principles of Conservation. That principle has often been misrepresented as a policy of present non-use for the sake of future generations. Its true purpose is two-fold: to prevent monopoly of public resources, and to secure their greatest use, both present and future, by scientific development. The national forests are administered with a view to securing, first, use of present resources; second, permanency of such resources; and third, greater and more valuable resources for the future.

Experience has amply proved that the elimination, under pressure, of national forest lands locally considered or alleged to be of agricultural value but in point of fact more valuable for other purposes has led to their early acquisition by timberland speculators, great lumber interests, water-power companies, livestock companies, and others who desire the lands for other ends than agriculture. In 1901 705,000 acres of heavily timbered land were thus eliminated from the Olympic National Forest. Ten years later only a little over one per cent of this land was under cultivation, while three-fourths of it was held for its timber, mainly in large holdings. Other examples might be multiplied. With a mandatory law the pressure for opening land sought under cover of the claim of agricultural value would be well-nigh irresistible in many cases. Local agitation and political influence would in the end break down all effort to maintain public control. Such piecemeal attack on the forests would be made without any opportunity for the public to know what was going on. In the end the dismemberment of the national forests would be effected.

The only safety for the maintenance of the policy which now receives and has long received the overwhelming support of public sentiment lies in a correct knowledge by the public of the actual situation with regard to agricultural lands in national forests. It must be made plain that all but an entirely insignificant part of the national forests is not susceptible of profitable cultivation. The forests occupy the most rugged and mountainous parts of the West. Topography, soil, and climate combine to make them natural forest lands, not potential farm lands. The areas which form an exception to this condition are not over four per cent. of the total; and such areas are now being sought out by the Forest Service and will, under the existing law, be made available for homestead entry as fast as they can be opened without defeating the purpose of the law itself. It is necessary that the country should understand the manner in which bona fide settlement is being brought about in the national forests, and also the motive of those who are trying to break down the system of forest Conservation under the guise of promoting settlement.

There has been during the past two or three years a steadily growing movement to turn over the national forests to the individual States. During the past session of Congress a rider to the Agricultural Appropriation Bill was offered in the Senate, providing for the grant of the national forests to the several States, together with all other public lands, including “all coal, mineral, timber, grazing, agricultural and other lands, and all water and power rights and claims, and all rights upon lands of any character whatsoever.” While the amendment was ruled out on a point of order, it received a surprisingly large amount of support.

The proposition so far as the national forests are concerned is to turn over to the individual States property owned by the Nation covering a net area of over one hundred and sixty million acres. This property has an actual measurable value of at least two billion dollars, while from the standpoint of its indirect value to the public no estimate on a money basis could possibly be made. These are public resources which should be handled in the interests of the public. Moreover, the problems involved are such that they should definitely remain in the hands of the National rather than be turned over to the State governments. The property belongs to the Nation as a whole, and every citizen has an interest in it. The Government has already made enormous grants to the individual States, but always to further specific objects of national importance. There should not be a moment’s consideration of the proposal to turn the forests over to the States unless it can be clearly shown that the interests both of the States and of the Nation are consistent with such action. In the case of the national forests, public interests both of the Nation and of the States require their continued retention and management by the National Government.

The scope of this paper does not permit a full discussion of this problem. It must suffice to mention a few cogent reasons for government ownership:

1. The property is now owned by the Nation, and should be administered from the standpoint of national as well as of local needs.

2. The problem of protection from fire and of timber production on the national forests is one of national scope and can be properly handled only by the Government; its solution is a national duty.

3. The problem of water control is no less a national duty. Nearly all of the national forests lie on headwaters of navigable rivers or interstate streams. The Government is now purchasing lands in the East on headwaters of navigable rivers because of the disastrous results to the public which are following abuse under private ownership. It certainly should not part with title to the same class of lands which it now owns in the West. Every interstate stream presents problems which can be properly handled only through the Federal Government. The Government cannot permit the citizens of one State to be damaged by the action or failure to act of citizens of another State. It is of vital importance for this reason alone that property at the headwaters of interstate streams be retained under Government administration.

4. Not only are the interests of the individual States and communities now fully protected, but in many ways far more is being done for local communities than would be possible under State ownership. In the long run, as the timber and other resources are brought into use with improving markets, the States will receive from the twenty-five per cent. of the gross receipts now allowed them and the additional ten per cent. appropriated for road improvements a larger amount than would come in from local taxes under private ownership.

5. The States are not as well prepared, financially or otherwise, to handle the national forests as is the Federal Government. If the forests were owned by the States and handled in the real interests of the public, there would be substantially the same system of administration as today, at a greater aggregate cost for supervision by a considerable number of independent State staffs of technical men. The financial burden would be far too great for the individual States to assume. The result would be either poor administration and lack of protection, or a sacrifice of the public interests in order to secure revenue to meet the financial needs.

6. The successful application of forestry demands a stable administrative policy for long periods. This can be secured far better under National than under State control.

7. A much higher standard of constructive and technical efficiency is possible under National than under State administration. The value of the forests to the public depends directly on the skill with which scientific knowledge is applied to the task of developing their highest productiveness. Both in ability to carry on the research work required for practical ends and in ability to command professional services of the first order the Government possesses a striking advantage.

8. As largely undeveloped property the forests need heavy investments of capital for their improvement. Their full productiveness can be secured in no other way. The Government is now investing yearly in the forests a considerable part of the appropriation made for them. Even if the States did not seek to make them sources of immediate revenue at whatever sacrifice of their future possibilities, they would be reluctant to expend much for their development.

9. The States both lack the civil service system and standards of the National Government and are exposed to greater danger of being swayed by private interests. In the hands of spoilsmen demoralization would quickly succeed the present high standards of the Forest Service, while the intimate relation of the forests to the welfare of great numbers of individuals would tend to make their administrative control a highly coveted political prize. At the same time the value of their resources would certainly arouse a cupidity which would be exceedingly difficult to control. Scandalous maladministration might easily follow. The Federal Government is better watched farther removed from local influence, more stable, and better equipped with a non-political system and machinery.

The underlying purpose of the proposed transfer of the national forests to the States is really not to substitute State for Federal control, but rather to substitute individual for public control. Its most earnest advocates are the very interests which wish to secure such control. The object of the whole states rights movement as it affects the national forests is to transfer to private owners for speculative or monopolistic purposes public resources of enormous value. Retention of these resources under public ownership is needed to protect the people from abuses which are every day being demonstrated on lands over which the public has already lost control. The proposition is one which the people as a whole would repudiate in an instant if they understood what is proposed. The only danger lies in the fact that some legislation adverse to the national forest system may be passed when the public as a whole is ignorant that it is planned or does not understand the meaning. Vigilance in the defense of its interests and intelligence in the perception of the true character of masked attacks upon those interests are of fundamental necessity if the public is to protect itself.

_FOOD SECTION._

The Food Section of the National Conservation Congress met in the Palm Room of the Claypool Hotel on the afternoon of October 1st. Dr. H. W. Wiley, late Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry, as Chairman, discussed the cold storage industry and pointed out that cold storage is a great blessing to the country, in that goods are placed in cold storage that they may be more evenly distributed throughout the year. He showed that there is still room for the investigation of the principles of storage and improvement of the industry. The condition of food entering cold storage is most important.

Frank A. Horne, Chairman of the Commission of Legislation of the American Association of Refrigeration, said there has been a remarkable reversal of public opinion in the last three or four years regarding the place cold storage and refrigerating has occupied with regard to the high cost of living.

He declared the cold storage business has been unjustly assailed, and that a series of investigations and hearings had demonstrated beyond doubt that the popular notion and sensational newspaper attacks were entirely unfounded and erroneous. He said these investigations showed that the cold storage warehousemen performed a useful public function in conserving perishable foods, preventing deterioration and waste by means of a scientific method by which the great surplus production could be wholesomely preserved for later consumption.

Before cold storage came into use a period of flush production meant a glut in the market, and large quantities of spoiled and utterly wasted foods. With cold storage at hand the contrary conditions prevail.

At the general discussion on the subject afterward, Dr. Wiley said the attacks made on the cold storage business five years ago were justified by conditions. He said as a result of an investigation of the business, the cold storage men themselves have joined with the Government to improve conditions.

Charles H. Utley, President of the Quincy Market, Cold Storage and Warehouse Company, Boston, said there would be no occasion for cold storage or the use of any other means for preserving food if human food was not to a greater or less extent perishable. If it were not perishable it would be the practice of every individual to conserve a sufficient amount of food as might be required. No better means of preventing waste of food is known at the present time than by the use of cold storage, and the use accomplishes most desirable results, advantageous to both consumer and producer, by the conservation of food, which is just as desirable as the conservation of our natural resources.

Dr. William A. Evans of Chicago, discussed the capacity of milk for doing harm even when it looks, tastes and smells right. He said milk is a great carrier of disease germs, and that for this reason it should be produced close to the point of distribution. The nearer the baby gets to the cow the more natural it is. Certified milk is all right when it is really certified by a noninterested person, but properly pasteurized milk is probably the safest for babies.

Dr. H. E. Barnard, Food and Drug Commissioner of Indiana, referred to the fact that Indiana was the first State to pass a cold storage law. He introduced resolutions pertaining to the conservation of food, which were unanimously adopted. The resolution follows:

Whereas, The Conservation of the food products of our country is of the greatest importance to our people, in order that they may have available the maximum supplies of wholesome food; and

Whereas, The subject is deserving of serious consideration, so that production may be encouraged and waste decreased; and

Whereas, The important function of the process of refrigeration is enlarging and diversifying the supply of perishable foodstuffs, as applied in the preparation, transportation and distribution of these goods, thereby giving consumers a larger and more wholesome supply, preventing deterioration and waste, is recognized as being desirable and necessary; therefore, be it

Resolved, That any legislation or administration restrictions or regulations that may be required to properly control the business and protect the public health should be uniform in the several states of the Nation, and be it further

Resolved, That the Congress recommends that the succeeding food committee of the National Conservation Congress be specially charged with the duty of studying the questions involved in the production, collection, sanitary preparation, transportation, preservation and marketing of perishable foods, and to report its findings to the succeeding Congress to the end that such report may be made the basis of measures to better conserve the perishable foods of the people, to improve the quality of such foods, increase their production, and to promote such relations between the producer, handler and consumer as will bring about a more nearly uniform price through each year.

FOOD CONSERVATION BY COLD STORAGE.

By F. G. URNER, Editor, New York Produce Review.

The conservation of food may be considered from two points of view—first, the safeguarding and preservation of the food currently produced; second, the maintenance of those elements of fertility upon which continuous production depends, and the improvement of methods of production to the end that maximum yield may be realized from the labor and material expended. Both considerations are of the utmost importance in the present conditions of changing relation between the domestic supply of food and the needs of nonproducers. In both progress toward higher ideals is dependent upon an increase of knowledge, and worthy of such educational forces as can be brought to bear by a wise government. In both directions the United States Government, through the Department of Agriculture and otherwise, is endeavoring, by investigation, study and the dissemination of ascertained fact, to foster progress for the common good.

In the United States the development of food production to keep pace with the needs of a population increasing at a rate beyond all precedent, has been crude and wasteful. Beginning with virgin soils the stores of primitive fertility have been drawn upon with little regard for their steady depletion. Methods of careful and conservative agriculture that have been forced upon older communities have been largely ignored until comparatively recent years, when an appreciation of the near approach of the inevitable results of waste has turned forceful educational efforts toward a reformation—efforts which, however, have been handicapped by the necessity of overcoming the prejudice of ignorance and long established habit of carelessness.

Considered broadly, the question of conservation of food is far-reaching and extends to innumerable details. It is the purpose in this paper to discuss simply some of the general principles underlying the subject from the first mentioned viewpoint—the safeguarding and preservation of the food produced—particularly in respect to preservation by cold storage.

It is hardly necessary to enlarge upon the general requirement of food preservation. In northern latitudes, where months of production are, in respect to a large part of the food supply, followed by months of nonproduction, this necessity is evident not only to maintain a satisfactory variety of food but to secure a sufficient quantity. In the United States differences of climatic conditions, although giving an almost continuous production of certain vegetable foods, do not serve to furnish an uninterrupted supply of fresh products of many staple kinds, nor are they sufficient to remove the necessity for utilizing the productive power of the colder regions far beyond the consumptive needs during the comparatively brief seasons of harvest. The practice of food storage from the season of natural production through the season of nonproduction is, of course, to some extent, as old as life itself; but the methods of preservation have shared in the improvements that have characterized a modern civilization. And the development of these advanced methods has brought into the question of food preservation new problems, some of which it is the purpose in this paper to discuss.

Methods of food preservation may be broadly divided into two classes—first, those which accomplish their purpose by changing the physical condition of the food, as by drying, or cooking and hermetical sealing; and second, those which preserve the articles in such manner that, when used, they shall be practically in their original condition. The latter methods depend for their effectiveness upon the provision of such environment as will check or retard the forces of deterioration or decay, and it is in the ability to provide such conditions by an artificial control of temperature and humidity that the preservation of food in apparently unchanged physical condition has been greatly extended.

So long as food products were chiefly preserved from the seasons of production, or maximum production, to the season of nonproduction by the use of somewhat primitive means, and largely by producers themselves, or by methods familiar to the household, the food so held was accepted by the people as a matter of course and recognized necessity. Canned and dried foods were, and are, used with general satisfaction as such; and such staple fruits and vegetables as could be carried in their original condition through the winter months were consumed with a general knowledge of their age, but with a full appreciation of the necessity for such holding and of the comparative excellence of the held goods. Butter and eggs also, when held by producers themselves, even by primitive and inefficient means, were accepted by consumers in seasons of natural scarcity with resignation as to their comparatively poor quality under a general knowledge that nothing better could be expected at prices within common reach.

These conditions remain unchanged today in respect to those forms of preserved food whose character is evident either because of their change of form or because of a popular knowledge that the articles, though indistinguishable from fresh products, must have been held from a crop harvested long ago. But the development of preservation by effective artificial control of temperature has brought some new elements into the situation.

Cold storage has enlarged the number of food products preservable in their original condition and created a new industry; it has largely removed the function of this class of food preservation from the scattered individual producers to large central establishments and thrown the business of accumulating and conserving surplus more fully into the hands of tradesmen. It has permitted the preservation of flesh foods in a raw state which were never before so preservable; and it has so improved the quality of stored products whose current production never ceases entirely that in many cases the held goods cannot be distinguished from the fresh production.

These facts have led to a popular apprehension that cold storage, being utilized largely by nonproducers and necessarily upon a speculative basis, is made a tool for extortion or unjust profits; also that deception is practiced, in respect to foods whose production never ceases entirely, by the substitution of stored food for fresh; and exaggerated statements as to the length of time foods are held in storage have brought in question their wholesomeness and created a popular prejudice.

It is important to know the facts in these particulars so that the true function of cold storage in the preservation of food may be understood, especially because legislative restriction of the industry has been effected in some States and is under consideration in others, as well as in the Federal Congress, in the enactment of which mistaken views have resulted and may further result in public injury.

COLD STORAGE ECONOMICS.

It is a self-evident proposition that, in respect to foods the production of which is seasonal, the ability to preserve a part of the yield to the period of nonproduction lessens waste and permits a material increase of production, thus increasing the available food supply. It is also evident that, supposing all the food produced to be marketed and consumed, an increase in the supply of food tends to a lowering of its average price. Apart from inevitable variations due to climatic conditions the production of particular foods increases or diminishes according to the relative profit realized from that production; and it is evident that a profit sufficient to induce production can be realized upon a much greater output if the period during which consumption is possible can be extended. A maximum production of any food can be realized only when the period of its availability for consumption is constant; and it follows that the maximum production of foods whose yield or greatest yield is seasonal, can be realized only by preservation of a part of the production for use during the season of natural dearth or deficiency which ends only with the beginning of the following period of maximum production.

Upon these simple truths rests the economic utility of cold storage preservation. Practically its benefits in the conservation of food, and in the encouragement of maximum production, are to be gained only through the opportunity for profit, and while the business of carrying foods from seasons of abundance to natural scarcity is open to all it is naturally conducted chiefly by the tradesmen who are permanently engaged in food distribution, and who are most familiar with trade conditions and the varying relations of supply and demand.

An important fact bearing upon the practical use of cold storage preservation as a feature of the distributing business is that no profit can be expected by holding products beyond the succeeding period of maximum production, when prices naturally fall to the lowest point. The variations in selling prices at that period are never sufficient to cover the cost of carriage of goods from a previous season and the lessened value of long stored products in comparison with fresh. There are occasional market conditions which have induced the holding of perishable foods in cold storage beyond twelve months in the effort to lessen a loss, but they are rare and exceptional, so much so that a legal restriction of the period of permissible holding to twelve months would have very little effect upon the inducement to utilize cold storage from a commercial standpoint. But so far as the purely economic interests of consumers are concerned it would appear that no restriction of the period of permissible holding of food in cold storage is either necessary or desirable. The inducement to hold is profit, and profit can be realized only by selling into final consumption. And when goods can be carried to a later date and sold at a higher price it is evidence that the relative scarcity which results in that higher price would have been more stringent had the goods not been so carried. In respect to the time of selling stored foods, therefore, the interests of consumers (as a whole) and of owners of the food, would seem to be identical; for it is the increased public need which results in the higher price, and profit, considering storage operations as a whole, depends upon a correct judgment as to that need.

There seems, therefore, no means by which tradesmen dealing in raw foods can utilize cold storage preservation for their own benefit at the cost of a public injury, but that, on the contrary, the profitableness of holding surplus depends upon the performance of a public service.

The ideal function of cold storage preservation is to carry just such amount of surplus from the time of greatest yield as can be consumed during the later period of relative scarcity at just sufficient advance in value as will cover the cost of carriage and afford a maximum satisfactory profit for the conduct of the business and the necessary investment of capital. But it is impossible that this ideal can be uniformly realized. Even if the operations of storage accumulation and withdrawal for market were uniformly governed in the light of the fullest possible knowledge and with the best of judgment, it would be impossible always to determine the quantity to be stored and the normal price thereof so that later deficiency at corresponding prices would be exactly offset. For the extent of later shortage can never be certainly known and the extent of demand at any particular prices is variable and uncertain. As a matter of fact, these operations of storage accumulation and later output, being carried on by thousands of individual and independent dealers, in the dim light of imperfect knowledge, even as to important statistical facts that might be known, can never result in ideal effects. Sometimes the quantity of certain foods stored at the prices paid proves to be excessive and a part of the surplus, toward the approach of the next flush season, has to be thrown upon the markets at heavy losses; sometimes the quantity put away is insufficient to offset the later scarcity and a part of the surplus, carried late, realizes for larger profits than normal. But these conditions are, to a large extent, inevitable, and while they show that the ideal function of cold storage preservation can not always be realized, they do not materially lessen its value. When a series of years is considered it will be found that the average profits are comparatively small in relation to the risks and the investment involved. And even when, during the flush season of accumulation, prices are sustained above the normal level by an amount of accumulation that later proves excessive, consumers get the surplus later at correspondingly lower prices. The reverse is also true, that when the quantity held is deficient, leading to relatively high prices in a part of the season of natural scarcity, a greater previous accumulation, sufficient to prevent so much advance, would have resulted in higher prices during the previous flush season.

The view that the economic effect of cold storage is to increase production and to lower the yearly average price of food whose production is variable is evidenced by such statistics as are available. In the manufacture of butter, for instance, the months of greatest production are from May to August, inclusive, and the months of usual deficiency are from November to March. In the New York market the average price of creamery butter from May to August during the period from 1880 to 1892, before cold storage preservation was generally used, was 21.9 cents. During the same months in the period from 1902 to 1911, when cold storage facilities were largely available, the average price was 23.4 cents. But while this comparison shows an average advance of one 1½ cents during the four months of normal accumulation of surplus the effect upon prices during the normal season of shortage was very apparent; for in the months November to March in the period 1880 to 1892 the average wholesale price was 34.3 cents, while during the same months in the period from 1902 to 1911 the average for fine fresh creamery was only 28.9 cents, and the average for fine storage creamery 26.7 cents.

THE QUALITY OF COLD STORED FOODS.

The quality of all perishable food products varies according to the methods of their production and the care taken of them during transit from producer to consumer. The more perishable foods, being produced in a very wide territory by a vast number of producers, and usually transported over long distances, are found in distributing markets to be of extremely irregular quality and condition. Usually qualities are best in the seasons of maximum production, and while goods put into cold storage are also of irregular quality most of those intended for long holding are selected, handled and packed with especial care. The effect upon perishable foods of holding in cold storage is various. It is less in respect to those carried hard frozen, as meat, fish, poultry and butter, and upon durable vegetables and fruit, as potatoes and apples, than upon animal products that cannot be frozen, as eggs in the shell. Yet in all perishable foods commonly carried in cold storage, quality, as judged by popular standards, is preservable up to the limit of usual commercial necessity, in a highly satisfactory degree. The more durable fruits and vegetables, carried in properly corrected and controlled atmospheric conditions, after months of holding, are often indistinguishable in point of quality, from those marketed soon after their harvest. Butter carried frozen for months loses very little of its original flavor and character. Poultry, also, if of fine quality and condition when frozen, may be so held for a long period without noticeable deterioration. Eggs in cold storage gradually lose the peculiar freshness of a new laid quality, but under proper conditions they remain sound, sweet and acceptable when carried at about 30 degrees temperature for at least nine or ten months. Scientific investigation conducted by the research laboratories of the United States Department of Agriculture has given no evidence of any effect of an unwholesome character upon the quality of perishable foods held in cold storage up to the limit of usual commercial practice when the products were sound and wholesome when stored.

The cold storage of surplus and the sale thereof in the markets adds not at all to the irregularity in quality of our food supply. On the contrary, the average quality of the supply is improved, for, without the facility of refrigeration, freshly marketed products would inevitably be poorer; they are now often poorer than similar goods of much greater age properly carried in cold storage. Furthermore, the length of time perishable foods are carried in cold storage is, within reasonable limits, no criterion of their quality. Perfect products, properly refrigerated for months, may be, and often are, superior in all the elements of quality to imperfect goods, freshly marketed or held only a short time. Again, because of the very widely spread sources of our food supply, the necessity for collection at innumerable points and transportation over long distances it is hard to say what goods are “fresh.” Even when collected at interior points, transported to distant markets and put into consumption with usual promptness perishable products are often two to four weeks in the transit from producer to consumer, and often under more or less unfavorable environments.

Under these circumstances it is seriously to be doubted that there is any real ethical foundation for the recent demand that, in the sale of perishable foods, there must be a stated distinction between so-called “fresh” and stored products, or for the feeling that consumers asking for broiling chickens in the winter, for instance, are deceived if furnished with acceptable goods frozen six months before. And this doubt is intensified, no matter how scrupulous we may be in standing for truth and fair dealing, when it is considered how difficult will be the enforcement of laws compelling such distinction in commodities of irregular quality and condition whose age and previous environment cannot be known by examination, and in respect to which a comparison of quality is often in favor of the older goods.

The writer’s conclusion from the foregoing considerations, based upon a long and disinterested observation of the practical use of cold storage preservation, is that artificial refrigeration furnishes the most important of all modern factors in the conservation of perishable foods, leading to an increase in their production, and to a consequent lowering of average prices. Also that governmental attention to the industry would be more usefully directed toward providing for continuous and frequent statistical information of the rate of food accumulation and output, to the end that operators may be guided by the largest possible knowledge, rather than toward any undue restriction of the industry or the imposition of costly and difficult requirements which, though seemingly designed to prevent deception, are, upon analysis, found to be unnecessary and impractical.

_NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION COMMISSIONERS._

This Association, consisting of Conservation commissioners and other persons connected with various departments of State development, held two sessions during the Conservation Congress. Several important subjects were considered, but most of the time was given to a discussion of the work done by certain departments connected with public service.