Iron County news. [volume] (Hurley, Wis.) 1913-1950, 1914-05-23
Wisconsin Animals Healthy

Wisconsin, Animals Healthy
By A. D Campbell in The Milwaukee News.
From time to time the newspa-
per articles prepared by the Wis
consin Advancement association
have contained remarks regarding
the healthfulness of the State of
Wisconsin for farm animals, and
the comparative freedom of these
animals from disease.
1t is true that there is too much
loss from disease, and always will
be for the reason that we will never
be satisfied as'long as any number
of animals die from disease, yet we
may we'll congratulate ourselves
that Our losses are so far below
those of other states.
Farmers bulletin 500 from the
United States department of agri-
culture gives the losses in the vari-
Gus states from disease III the case
of sheep and cattle from diseases
and exposure Wisconsin people
will be surprised to learn that loss
es are much less i'll Wisconsin than
in the Southern states. For illus
tration: The combined loss per /,
900 OH the average for ten years in
sheep is reported as follows: Wis
consin, 81; North Carolina, AS;
South Carolina, 81; Georgia, 90;
Florida, II; Alabama, 65; Mississ-
ippi, 88; Louisiana, II; Texas, So;
Oklahoma, IS; Arkansas, 81: Ten
nessee, 81; Kentucky, 61 In the
/ Western states the loss IS very
/ heavy Montana, u; Wyoming SO;
Colorado, %; Utah, IS; and Neva-
da. II.
The loss i'll hogs per 1000 is
much less in Wisconsin than in
other heavy swine producing states:
Wisconsin, "a; illinois, IL India
ia, rs; Ohio, 49; Iowa, 65 Mis-
souri,, "a: Kansas, IS. Again we
find the maximum losses in some
Of the Southern states: Georgia II;
Florida, IS; Louisiana, 60; and
Arkansas, 101
The losses in cattle in Wisconsin
is slightly less than in the neigh
boring states, and materially less
than in the Western states. Again
il is when comparing with the
Southern states that the great dIt-
ference is seen. Wisconsin S annual
loss per j 900 from disease and ex-
posture for ten years was IS; Geor-
gia, 54, Florida, =; Alabama 81:
Mississippi, %. Louisiana, II.
Texas. 81; and Arkansas, %.
Such differences in losses as are
shown by these figures mean some
thing to the farmers. The loss in
hogs in 1914 in Wisconsin was 50
per 900; in Illinois, l40; in Min
nesota, PA: in South Dakota. go:
in Nebraska, Us; in Iowa, z55 If
Wisconsin S loss was 100 great
and there is no question about that
what a tremendous loss was sus-
tanned in the other states mention
ed
There can be no question on the
whole tkat Wisconsin is a very de-
srable place for the production Of
live stock--that there are less loss
es from disease and that the stock
can be produced at a minimum
cost and sold for the highest return
The people distant from the cen
trail markets have another loss
that sustained from loss in weight
of the animals while en- route to the
market-and one that is larger
than is generally realized With
. large. areas of cheap land in the up
( per portion of Wisconsin that are
the equal Of any portion Of the state
in productiveness and superior in
pasturage, it would be practical in
sanity to wander of to distant re-
gjous for land-we have the best
cheap land and the best conditions
. right here in Wisconsin