The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1885-06-05
MUTTON AND MERINos.
The Two Factors Which Render sheep
Raising Profitable.

The Two Factors Which Render Sheep.
Raising Profitable.
Sheep husbandry would not be profit
able if we saved the fleece only. Nut
ton and wool are the combined object
we seek. But as we once before stated
the larger the surface the larger the
quantity of wool; and thus far certain
ly the argument is on the side of size.
What argument can be urged against
it? That it requires more food to keep
large than small sheepP Without
saying and proving more than this, it
is no argument at all. Does it cost
more to keep large sheep than the
profits which its returns compensate
for. is the question. As to the differ
ence between the amount of food con-
sumed by two sheep of different sizes
the opinion must be largely speculative.
Indeed, we can not see how a definite
rule could be fixed. for all sheep of
one size do not make the same econom-
ical use Of food. One may assimilate
perfectly, and anothermay not tits true
that the digestion and powers of as
similation of the sheep are very strong,
and may be said to be almost uni.
versally nearly perfect. Still there is
a difference, and may be more differ.
ence than we are able to see. But We
do not believe that large Merino eats
more than it pays for; in fact, we do
not believe that the difference is
worth considering. At the Michigan
Sheep Breeders Association last year
we noticed it at the time-it was
stated that French flockmaster had
demonstrated that heavy sheep shear-
ing seventeen pounds of wool ate twice
as much as a light sheep shearing six
teen pounds of wool. As between two
Individual sheep this might be true.
but as we understand the statement, it
was that the FreDchman found this to
be true throughout a flock; ard if that
is the statement, though it may prove
nothing to say we do not believe it.
still we say it. The principle IN regard
to large cattle is equally applicable to
sheep, viz, that it does not make any
difference how large an animal is, if it
is symmetrically developed, compact in
form. A speaker at the convention re-
ferred to recognized this principle,
though he did not comprehend it. He
advocated sheep of medium size and
compact form. evidently believing that
we could not secure cOmpactness if we
went beyond the size stated. But we
all know that this is not true, for we
see large compact animals every day.
An angular sheep is not more desirable
than an angular steer. Such an ami
NAL will eat, and eat, but " Ill take on
fat very slowly, if it does st all. The
system will utilize that part of the food
consumed which makes bone and mus
Gle. or enough of it to keep the bones
and muscles in full strength. and will
excite the fat-producipg elements. 1t is
waste of resources to fed such an
animal t-producing fools. If they
are useful for other purposes than
meat production, they SHOULD be fed
the non-fat-forming foods as long a.
they can be made to servr the purposes
for which they are kept and then be
got rid of in the easiest way. If there
is no other. purpose in keeping
them than meat production, everyone
must Judge for himself what he will do
with them. As to the sheep. the bone
and muscle. of the angular animal will
secure the nOurishment. to the detri-
ment of the fleece to some extent. But
if we had sheep that was symmetri-
callv developed 1T would not be obiec-
if it was as large as an ele-
plant. In this country, where we have
so much feed that we desire to convert
into greater than its original value,
what we particularly want is an ami
NAL that will consume all that it win
give an account OF.
1t is fortunate T., at but few thought
ful breeders will agree with the gentle
man to whose remarks we have refer
red. Unless there is some special rea-
soc of a selfish character for different
advocacy, all breeders will advocate
large sheep. As one gentleman said at
Lansing, the champion shearer OF the
world was a large sheep. When a
man has family of high pedigreed
Merinos that are small, he will advo-
cate small sheep, of course; and'he is
pretty nearly the only man who does.
This was shown by the results of the
at this convention to deter
mine the idea of the members of the
in regard to the size OF q
stock ram. Those who believed that
one hundred and thirty pounds,
of fleece, was the prop
er size. were asked to stand up, but
none responded. The same request
with reference to hundred and forty
pounds met with no response. A hun
dred and fifty pounds drew four to
their feet, and six thought that a hun
dred and sixty pounds would be salts
factory. But already the reader. who
knows that MANY hlgh-priced merinos
will not come up to these higher
weights, have begun tOwonder how the
owners of such could consent to be put
on record as favoring large sheep.
This was the thought that came to us
as soon as we began to read the re-
port. Well, they would not be put on
record. The four who voted for $50
pounds. of course, had rams of that
weight, and those who stood up for 100
had rams of that size But when those
who believed 40 pounds were ind ca
tive of the proper size, the convention
against being put on rec
ord upon such a matter, and we think
very properly, for the merit of an ami
NAL, as already stated, depends upon
other things than size. At the sugges-
ton of 40 pounds, some one stated the
in the animal in a nut
shell, as we have stated it above:
sheep could not be too large. or, as the
speaker put 1t. scarcely too large" il
balanced up with other good qualities.
Rural.
Coait Ern1Arniac