Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-04-17
ROUND.UPS.
Interesting Statistics on Cattle and Cat
tIe Values in the United States.
profits On Fine Stock as Against Inferior
Ulustra 'eG-ImpOrts and Exports
Notes and Personals.

scTbe recent report of the department OF agri-
suIture upon the number and value OF farm am
mails saws the Cincinnati Price Current, pre-
sents some interesting features, " and so 1t does.
There was an increase in number Of horses in
the United states in January, 1880, over 1883, OF
r-a 54g Of mules % 49, mich cows 654, 258, other
cattle including oxen SOC, 6O7, sheep 1876. 1913,
sy-ire / gUI lSs: total increase Of all animals
n e I9g GA This looks like prosperity, and so
+ ,rould be II prices had been maintained: put
when we turn TO the estimated values We nnu
that there was a depreciation IN all xmas
except mules and sheep. The "a agg gre gay
I'M in 1880 this had fallen TO
s. AS TEG OPS. decrease Of SIS, 2S4, ESQ, notwlth-
standing the large increase in numbers. That
IS 10 saw if all the farm livestock in the country
had been sold al the estimated values IN Janua-
" this wear II would not have brought as much
as 1t would have done one year preceding by
over SIS. OU0 600. This does not include the AMI
mails in towns and cities, but only those on
farms and ranches. Leaving out the mules and
sheen. the depIeciations Of other animals was
SOL L53. U4O, but the increase in value OF mules
was g $40, 6lS, ana of sheep $40 Ol9, 3S2 total
appreciation of Sl2 1853, 0l0, which deducted from
the aggregate depreciation leaves net depTe-
citation Of SIS, 2S4, OSO, as given above.
The average depreciation, according 70 the
estimates, was s.. per head for horses, 81. q
for cattle 81 so for mich cows and 81. o. for
swine. While these statistics look very unfay-
orable for the farming interest, 1t does not FOL
low that livestock production IS IN an especially
estimated but are probably sufficiently &C
Curate for purposes Of comparison. Going back
10 the year 1851 we find that horses were then
SIC. 30 per head lower than now, mules were S. 40
lower, hogs were two cents less, cows were 81. 81
higher, cattle 81 y higher and sheep fourteen
cents higher; since then prices have warned an
nually, but have generally been higher than
they are now, although swine and sheep have in
several years been lower.
The farmer does not sell all of his livestock in
anv one year, and 1t is only that which goes into
commercial channels that is subject to the vari-
ations of the market, and it is not improbable
that when he is ready to sell what was on hand
in January last he viii be able to realize much
more than the estimated value at that time; IN
fact prices OF cattle, sheep and swine have al
ready advanced materially, which is In strong
contrast to the course Of the market at
the corresponding time last year. when
there was a steady depreciation in value
especially OF hogs. Horses and mules al
most invariably appreciate in value when
the spring Op ems. ana they are generally more
depressed IN midwinter than any other season,
so that if the comparison was made At the time
when the demand was most active It would at
least show much higher values, If not less huc-
tuatons from year to year, and the exhibit
would have less depressing effect upon the
minds of farmers themselves.
The stock which farmer retains for his own
use is worth as much to him one year another
so that as regards that, its selling value does
not affect him. Considering all these things, it
is evident that the stat stCs of values are If not
misleading, at least more discouraging than the
circumstances warrant.