The weekly Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1911-1922, 1911-09-14
BETTER FOR INDIANA
Number of Farms Reporting Sheep
Decreases-Number Of Fleeces
OF Wool and Pounds Per Sheep
Produced

The recent attempt to take the
tariff off wool by the congress just
adjourned will make OF more than
ordinary interest the statistics IF
sheep raising i'll this country. St1-
tistics relative to sheep and albs
reported on farms and ranges the
United States, by states an. geo.
graphic divisions, at the Thirteenth
Decennial Census, April ID, 1910, are
contained in an official statement is
sued in July by Acting Director
Falkner. 1t is based on tabular sum-
maries prepared under the direction
of DIR lie Grand Powers, chief sta
.tistician for agriculture in the Bu-
reau of the Census. The figures are
preliminary and subject to slight re-
vision later, when a few other farms,
whose, returns are now incomplete,
are included in the final tables.
1910 and 1900 Compared
In summing up the results Acting
Director Falkner states that, for the
country as a whole, there was no ma
terial change in the sheep industry
in the 10 years between 1900 and
1910.
The total number of sheep and
lambs in the United States reported
for 1910 was 5I,63S. $50. made up of
20, 707 900 ewes, 7,14S,366 rams and
wethers. 12,16S,27S lambs, ands2, 614,-
946 sheep and lambs not classified by
age or sex in the 1910 reports. In
1900 the total number reported was
61,503,713, comprising 31,857,652
ewes, 7,995,315 rams and wethers,
and 21,650,746 lambs.
Excluding the lambs from consid-
Grafton, the other figures are fairly
comparable. Such action would leave
net total of 39,47O,312 wool-pro-
dueing sheep for 1910, as compared
with 1885,, 967 for 1900. The 1910
total will be slightly changed in the
final reports of the Thirteenth Cen
sus by the tabulation Of supplement
tai schedules for Arizona and New
Mexico, which will add approximate
ly 100000 to the number. stated.
Hence, it is seen that there was ac-
tualfy decrease of only i per cent
in the net total number of wool-pro-
ducing sheep in 1910 as finally to be
compared with the corresponding to-
tai for 1900.
The figures in the present state
ment do not include the number of
wool-producing sheep reported for
cities and towns as distinct from
those on farms and ranges given
herein. Their total in 1900 was 49,
900, while the preliminary tabulation
now in progress indicates that the
total for 1910 was approximately
255.6OO.
In the North Central division the
number of wool-producing sheep re-
ported for Ohio was 2,892,272 in 1910
and 2,648,25O in 1900; Indiana, S12,-
APT in 1910 and 1,010,64S in 1900;
Illinois, Gel, 484 in 1910 and 629, $50
in 1900: Michigan, 1,545,241 in 1910
and 1888 in 1900; Wisconsin,
628,539 in 1910 and 9S6212 in 1900;
Minnesota, 452,043 in 1910 and $780,
32S in 1900; Iowa, 769,917 in 1910:
and 657, 1868 in 1900; Missouri, lila
PIG in 1910 and 663,7O3 in 1900; N.
Dakota, 239,114 in 1910 and 451 ,437
in 1900; South Dakota, 502,5o5 in
1910 and 5O7, 1893 in 1900; Nebraska,
245,19 in 1910 and 335,950 in 1900;
and Kansas, 2O6,498 in 1910 and 49,
COZ in 1900.
In the Western division the num-
Der of wool-producing sheep reported
for Montana was 4,978,963 in 1910
and 4,215,214 in 1900; Wyoming, A.
&c., O6 in 1910 and $780,, 185 in 1900;
Colorado, 1.313,048 in 1910 and l.
352, 1923 in 1900; New Mexico, 1881,
2O1, in 1910 and 3,533,743 in 1900;
Arizona 843,383 in 1910 and $685.
458 in 1900; Utah, 1,67O, 800 in 1910
and 1853, 134 in 1900; Nevada, 810,-
973 in. 1910 and SIS, PSI in 1900; Ida
no, 2,160, O29 in 1910 and 1865, 467 in
1900; Washington, 3O8,S62 in 1910
and 558,O22 in 1900; Oregon, 1882,
$50 in 1910 and 1861 1856 in 1900;
and California, ], 440,532 in 1910 and
1,724, 1868 in 1900.
Number 81 Farms Reporting Sheep
Although the number Of mature
sheep decreased very slightly during
the decade the number Of farms re-
porting sheep decreased from 1885,