The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1889-05-15
SOUTHERN AGRICULTURAL
Poultry as Food Product Practic-
ally Considered.

FouitrY as ROOD PRODUCT PractIc.
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 I recognize as
only means to the end-practical
poultry culture for food supply, home
and market.
shall consider poultry culture as a
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 [
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 faok, 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. Sufi-
cient 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.. l. X. 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. 100000. He assumed that there
were then nine million families in the
United States. and estimated each fam
lily would consume annually 500 OF
poultry and two dozen eggs each week.
This made $405, 100000. He estimated
consumption of public houses, chem
ical use and exports, and concluded
that the product was at least $500, 00o,-
| 900.
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 1878, which on imperfect
data valued product at $3.50, O00,-
600. Mr.. White valued product
of 1882 at $eoo.ooo,ooo. He ascer-
tanned that New York State in 1882
consumed $45. O00,0 900. The population
of New York was 100000, which
made a per capita consumption of So.
He then concluded 55,000,000 would
consume $495, O00,0 900. He added 5000,
600 fancy fowl trade, and 1854, 900, 900
stock fowls, making in round num-
bers. say $600,000,000. 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, 910916; stock fowls ca
hand June 1, 1880. barn-yard, 102,270,.
600, all other 1926. 900; total fowls,
123,5O5,000. The fowls maketed and
consumed were estimated at 150, 000,-
900 to 100000, 900 pounds.
Eggs valued at IL cents per dozen... &55 900, 00(
1870, OOO, 900 pounds of meat at 10 cents 18,00O0G
125.t05 600 fowls at 3S cents. ........ H,S35, 0o
Total census value. &1l4, $685. OO
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 SO per capita
The better average condition of New
York citizens, and the large transient
consumption, ] will concede, make tn
average consumption of all the State
much less. / will therefore assum
only IS per capita for all the States
This is certainly reasonable, when yo
consider the fact that none are so poo
as to be without few hens about thei
homes, however humble the homes.
550OOOO0 ut IS per capita. 1915 900 o.
Stock for breeding, say .............. 42OOO,O
Fowl manure ........... ..n....... 5,WO,U
| .--L-
no<,, ,,,,,,o ,,,r on,nro 5000 mn N