Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1897-08-27
agricultural.
Live Stock in the Economy Of the
Farm.

tions of live stock to the general affairs
of the farms, says writer in Farmers
Voice. If every man were asked bis
reasons for keeping live stock. or for not
keeping it, as the case may be, the an
swer would make strange reading. One
keeps live stock to clean up the refuse
and residues on the farm another does
not keep it because it makes labor; one
keeps it from habit, and another stopped
because one year his crop was worth
more in the open markets than animals
fattened on it could have brought An
other class seem never decided and are
always buying and selling, and gener-
ally Just far enough behind the times to
be caught in the trough of the war Of
depression of every new thing he under
takes in the way of live stock.
1t is twice told tale already, but
when will the average American farmer
appreciate the fact that he keeps his live
stock as cheap means of marketing
crops and leaving the fertility, or most
of it, at home on the farm ? That his
crops may walk to market, if he so
elect; or if not, that most of the trans
portation may be saved =? That to sell
all the crops is to sell the birthrigbt
and to give away the farm, and that it
is policy which transports large guam
titles Of bulky food to be consumed at
centers where the residues cannot but
be wasted That in the interest Of pub
lie economies crops should be fed as
near as possible to the land that grew
them, which is entitled to the residues
and when will he learn to profit by the
fact that the white race has ruined by
grain farming every country it has ever
possessed ?
The world desires the products Of ami
NAL life, such as meat, milk, butter.
cheese, wool. These are all expensive
luxuries, and we could live without any
of them. Moreover, long before the
world shall have attained its maximum
population we shall be compelled to live
without them, because of sustaining life
upon the earth. Animal products are
expensive as compared with vegetable
because the animal cannot support his
own life and body activities, and return
the full equivalent of all that he eats
For example, it requires with the best
animals from ten to twenty pounds of
dry matter of food to make one pound
of dry matter, or desirable product, as
of meat Roughly speaking. meat is
ten to twelve times as expensive as
bread, because it is produced at the ex-
pense Of ten to twelve times its own
weight of vegetable food, and because
for nutritional purposes pound Of flour
is of about the same value as pound of
lean meat, all of which means that ami
NAL products are not concentrated" to
the degree that is generally supposed.
This being 50, the whole business of
keeding domestic animals is luxury
We, as nation, can afford, because We
have recently opened up lands that can
raise more grain than the world can con
sumo except as we first reduce some 80
per cent by sending it through the
bodies of our domestic animals. 1t is
good engine that can utilize and expend
in useful work eight to nine per cent
oi the energy Of the cost. Most Of it is
therefore wasted. The co-eficient Of
efficiency in the best animals is some
what higher than in the best engines,
hut that Of the ordinary scrub is dan
gerously near the zero mark. If our
people, as a rule, understood that when
We feed we may not hope to receive ten
per cent. in the form Of useful product,
they would realize better than they do
on what small margin we operate in
feeding.
This is an argument for the best ami
mails, for those Of the highest efficiency
that the skill Of man can produce by
breeding. If we may not sell our crops
without reducing permanently the fertil-
ity of the farm, aud if by feeding We
save transportation, as we do, then there
is still need to know that we are not
wasting our crop by feeding it to inferior
stock thatwill produce nothing to trans
port. To feed good crops to poor ami
mails is the height of folly, and is not
excusable under the plea Of good farm.
ing Land is worked for profit, and farm
ing is business. not q sentiment
While these things are true as to the
consumption Of bulky crops upon the
farm, as matter of fact it complicates
and does not simplify the problem, be.
cause it introduces another factor-the
which, if not good one, be-
comes a potent factor for evil.
Because the co-efhcient of efficiency
among all animals is so small. cease.
less warfare ought to be waged against
the scrub, meaning BY the scrub any
animal Of any breeding that is not able
to make good returns for feed. Meas,
ured in this way, the value of the bes,
animals is vastly enhanced and, ii the
worst is put at its true estimate. far be-
low par. Few Of us, indeed, but would
be benefited by destroying the worst
third Of our stock aud feeding the same
feed to those that are left.
Then why don't we do it2 For til,
same reason that we often keep more
horses than we need, or because we have
no ready meaus Of knowing which onel
te destroy. With most Of us. too, the
attention is not sufficiently directed to
what we are breeding, to the supply Of
young that is coming in to take the
place of the herd, and we fail to raise
our standard as the years go by. The
root Of it all is that too little value is
attached to the really excellent animal,
especially as burden-bearer. Il labort
for us faithfully year after year, but in
company with dozen others. The av.
erage is satisfactory, and we do not know
that we have carried all along two OF
three or more worthless brutes to cancel
the best efforts of the upper end of the
herd.
The best sign Of the times is that there
are coming to be enough excellent ami.