Wichita eagle., 1890-03-07
ADVISE WHICH Is NOT ADWISA a.
BILE"
To the Editor OF the Eagle.

; TO farmers through the newspapers can
not, even by the greatest stretch OF cour
: tesy be so designated.
By the way, is it not very remarkable
that the farmer should be the only per
son deserving these klndnesses in The
way OF advice and instructions as to how
to conduct his private affairs: Why dt
: these most wise and benevolent advice
and instruction givers neglect the printer
the banker, the baker, the lawyer, the
grocer and the candlestick maker: Are
they not just as deserving and in need oi
this sort of advice as the horny handed
farmer?
These kind friends and considerate
mentors of the farmer sometimes vary
their performance by telling US just how,
at sight, to distinguish the successful
from the poor farmer; how differently
the successful and the poor farmer dis
poses of their corn, and how much more
the successful farmer gets out of his corn
than does the poor one, and just how il
is done.
Due allowance must be made for the
refractlon in city atmosphere ii their ad-
vice and alleged facts are sometimes a
trItie out Of the straight line, as these
performances are often interesting and
afford the innocent granger a world
of amusement, even if lacking in all
the elements of practical usefulness.
People need amusement and we are
duly grateful for the attempt, often sue
cessful, of these wise city friends to
minister to our needs in this direction
and IN this original way.
One steoretyped form of newspaper
/ advise Is TO always and ever, under any
and all circumstances, convert each and
every bushel of corn into pork and beef.
! Pork however. seems to be their favor
ite article Of diet, as their advice relates
10 it four times out of five.
Have these kind friends ever spent
moment in rejecting what would result
| alike 10 the business man, the cattle
! grower and feeder, the hog raiser and
! the simple and contiding poor farmer,
We're such sage advice acted upon. Be-
| fore this ''piece" is concluded | shall
! try to indicate what sure enough far
mer would expect to result from the
adoption OF the course these friends ad-
wise, but first let Us see how one of these
wise people figure out the results and
how he distinguishes the successful from
| the poor farmer.
In the Eagle of the 23d instant, over
the sign Manual &C." one of the kindest
of the many friends of the farmer tells
us that Leroy Fosdick ''has just mark
eted sixty head of hogs eight months
old. AVERAGING 267 pounds. He fed
these hogs 56l bushels of corn, S33. 90
worth of slop. Five hundred and sixty
seven bushels Of corn TO siXty-threc hogs
makes nine bushel to the hog: 261 pounds
of pork at $3.50 (present prices) makes
SO q to the hog. Deducting 90 cents to
the hog for slop leaves him $1.02 per
bushei for corn" An analysis of this
lucid statement shows that in one place
&C" puts the number OF hogs in one
place at sixty and i'll another at sixty !
three. Which is correct? 1t is some !
what difficult to follow to follow the /
preacher when he thus tangles the |
threads of his discourse, but we will not |
mind such trivial inaccuracies. but pro- |
ceeding to divide the SCI bushels of corn |
between sixty hogs, we find that instead !
Of nine bushels, as &C. states, these hogs |
each consumed 9.45 bushels of corn, but |
such a tritiing mistake is of no Conse- !
quence to man as wealthy as the aver
age farmer.
Ii the hogs actually numbered sixty !
three instead of sixty, there was Just |
nine bushels OF corn for each animal but |
&C" having given both sixty and sixty |
three as the number of hogs, the ques-
tion arises did he tit the number of hogs
to the corn or the corn to the number of
hogs in order 10 reach the results stated?
Again, &C" says that $33 worth of
slOp was fed to this simultaneously num-
bered lot OF hogs. and then goes on to
deduct 80 cents from the value of each
hog as the cost OF the STOP fed. BY the
old style of computation | find that if
there were sixty of these porkers they
each consumed 50 cents worth of slop,
while if there were sixty-three hogs
each received % IA cents worth of slop.
How much slop did the hogs receive?
AS &c. states the problem it is not capa-
bic of solution except tv taking run
ming jump at it. &C. states that
these hogs We're worth 50. "a each,
and says after deducting 90 cents each
for slop 1t leaves $l.02 per bushel for
corn. As our kind friend &C." has taken
wonderful pains to figure this out for
the poor, advice needing farmer it may
be unnecessary to go over. his hgures,
but he certainly will not'object to one
of these same farmers (who takes deep
interest in matters, hoping some day to
find ont how he can make S1.02 out of !
such corn as he may raise,) verifying
them. and this farmer. III the old
fashioned way of computing, finds that
s.. - minus 80 cents for Stop leaves Just
IS. II which divided by nine bushels OF
corn makes such corn worth exactly
81 cents. instead of $1.02, as stated by
&C. This. however, IS upon the
assumption that sixty-three is the correct
number of hogs, but If there were bat
sixty swine, then each animal received
9.4j bushels of corn and it was worth
but 9248 cents per bushel. As the
farmer gets &C. s. information gratis he
can. presume, take his choice of these
figures and say the corn brought 92.4S,
o.. / or Sl02 1t is not this case, how ,
ever, ''you pays your money and takes
your choice but &C" throws in the
pnce Of $l.02
Had Mr. Fosdick no other swine that
were fed with these sixty or six5y-tnree
animals during at least the earlier stages
Of their existence: How did he arrive
at the amount of corn these sixty or
hogs consumed: Was it
weighed or measured: Did he write ;
down the amounts tby weight or
as the case may be) or
did he rely upon his memory: And last
y is it fact that Mr. Fosdick ever had
60--63 or any other number Of hogs
which if sold at S365 per hundred
pounds would. or did. return even 92.4S
cents per bushel for the corn consumed:
The way these figures turn out on the