The Colfax chronicle. [volume] (Colfax, Grant Parish, La.) 1877-1981, 1889-07-06
SOUTHERN AGRICULTURAL
Poultry as a Food Product Practice
ally Considered.

ally Considered.
Man has been facetiously divided
into two classes: those who live to eat,
and those who eat to live. To the
credit of man it can truthfully be
said. that the great majority eat to
live. Divide man as you please, how
ever. all must eat; and all who can
will eat chicken. Hence all men are
interested in poultry fowl, meat and
eggs to eat. shall confine myself to
that branch of my subject of interest
to all men-poultry for food. The
culture of fancy fowls / recognize as
only a means to the end-practical
poultry culture for food supply. home
and market.
shall consider poultry culture as q
source of profit to the individual,
wealth to the community, and as an
essential element of the rural home.
shall treat it as peculiarly
a farm industry, and inseparable
from that provident thrift needful
to make the rural home independent,
attractive and permanent The per-
manent and prosperous rural home l
shall contend. is the foundation OF
community, prosperity, purity and
power, social, moral, industrial and
political The poultry product OF the
United States has never been accurate
ly ascertainsd. The first census at
tempted OF this product, was that OF
1880. Necessarily this census was
comparatively failure. The people
were not prepared to give the desired
Information. In fact, the careless
culture of poultry. rendered it almost
impossible to get the facts upon which
to base accurate figures Then the
census purposely omitted towns and
cities. Various other efforts have been
made to determine this product, but
all have been more or less estimates.
rather than statements of facts. Suffi-
Gent has been learned. however, to
approximately estimate the true fig
ures. These figures have amazed the
public. The proportions of this prod
uct are so vast as to stagger and make
incredulous the minds of many.
| Mr.. /. K Felch, of Natick. Mass,
the poultry patriarch OF America, first
called the attention of the public, in
addresses to the farmers of Massachu-
sets, to the magnitude and Importance
| of the poultry product. In the year
1873 he estimated the money value to
be $405. 900, 900. He assumed that there
were then nine million families in the
| United States. and estimated each fam
| lily would consume annually $40 Of
poultry and two dozen eggs each week.
This made $405. 900. 600. He estimated
consumption of public houses, chem
ical use and exports, and concluded
that the product was at least $500, 000,-
| 600.
Mr.. James E White. of Englewood,
Ill, in 1883 called public attention to
estimate OF convention of butter. cheese
and egg producers, held in Chicago,
in 1873, which on imperfect
data valued product at $3.50. 000.-
000 Mr.. White valued product
of 1882 at $500. 200. 600. He ascer-
tanned that New York State in 1882
consumed $45. 900, 600. The population
of New York was 5000. 600. which
made per capita consumption of 50.
He then concluded $1,000, 900 would
consume $495. 200. 900. He added $500, :
900 fancy fowl trade. and $4,000, 900
stock fowls. making in round num-
bers, say $500, 000. 900. The census of
1880 was the first official effort made
to determine value of the poultry prod
ucts. The figures are eggs, dozens
laid. 1879, 456. 910, 916; stock fowls on
hand June l. 1880. barn-yard, 102, 270,-
600, all other 23. 235. 900; total fowls,
12S, sos, 600. The fowls maketed and
consumed were estimated at $50, 000,-
600 to $50, 900, 900 pounds.
Eggs valued at 1s cents per Dozen. 5000, 900
10000 900 pounds of meat ut 10 cents 100000
ls5. EOS 900 fowls at 33 cents. 1856 900
Total census value. S14, S35 600
In this estimate no mention is made
of feathers or manure. This census of
poultry product was confessedly mac
curate and unsatisfactory. A simple
calculation on reasonable data will
prove these figures to be far too low.
New York consumed 50 per capita
The better average condition Of New
York citizens, and the large transient
consumption, Twill concede, make the
average consumption Of all the States
much less. I will therefore assume
only IS per capita for all the States.
This is certainly reasonable, when you
consider the fact that none are so poor
as to be without a few hens about their