The Farmington times. (Farmington, St. Francois County, Mo.) 1905-1926, 1919-05-02
WEEKLY NEWS NOTES
(By County Agent.)
st. Francois County Poultry Flock
Ranges Fourth in State Contest
During January.

butiHS JaHuhIy.
One hundred and fifty White Leg
horns owned by Mrs. T. B. Chandler
of Pennington vicinity, ranged fourth
in State Egg-laying Contest, dur
ing the month of January, according
to a recent report of Mr.. T. S. Towns
ley on the Missouri Farm Flock Egg
laying Contest. The county agents all
over the State are endeavoring to Sc
cure a POULTRY keeper in each COM
munity as co-operator. These poul-
try keepers are to be average farm
ers with average f1ocks. They then
recommend to these farmers the best
methods of handling their focks and
the co-operator keeps accurate rec
ords on what it costs 10 feed his
flock and on the results secured. There
are now between 300 and 400 such
co-operators in the State. Each
month the name of the owners of the
ten hocks with the highest average
production Of eggs is published. Dur
ing the past year, st. Francois coun-
ty has had only two co-operators; re-
Gently, it has increased to ten and be-
fore this year is over, we are going
to find some of the new co-operators
ranging right up to the top in our
Farm Flock Egg-laying Contest. 1t
might be interesting to give some of
the averages taken from the records
of 300 farm POULTRY co-operators.
These averages certainly show that
there is a great work to be done in i'm
proving the care and management
given to farm flocks. During Novem-
Der, these 500 farm flocks averaged
81 eggs per hen; during December,
they averaged 3.5 eggs per hen; dur
ing January, they averaged as eggs
per hen; during February, they av-
eraged 81 eggs per hen. These low
averages are going to be brought up
by culling out poor individuals in the
fall and by proper care and feed.
Prices Received and Paid by Farm
ers During the War.
While farmers are getting higher
prices for the products they sell than
they received in 1914 or at the begin
ming of the war, they are also paying
higher prices for the things they buy,
and it is of special concern to them to
know just how they have Jared in
the general price movement Of things
sold in relation to that of things
bought. This comparison is made pos
sible by recent investigation of the
Bureau of Crop Estimates, United
States Department of Agriculture.
In 1915, farmers received per cent
less than in 1914 for crops and live
stock in their composite price, but they
paid per cent more in the composite
price of the many articles that they
bought. The list of articles bought
used for this purpose contains 85
items Of textiles and garments, lum-
Der, wood products, agricultural i'm
plemCnts and machinery, metal pro-
ducts, coal, petroleum products, foods,
fertilizers, household furnishings, and
other farm and family supplies. Rel
ative loss in the second year of the
war also was suffered by farmers.
What they sold in crops and livestock
advanced in joint price, it is true, but
only by IL per cent, while what they
bought advanced 81 per cent.
In the next year, 1917, the relative
character of these price movements
was reversed, and the farmer faced
prosperity instead of disaster since
the price that he received for crops
and live stock gained IA per cent upon
1914, while he paid 49 per cent more
in the composite price of his purchas-
es. War time is a period of rapid
changes in prices and of sudden and
often painful maladjustments. Al
though the farmer lost ground in
1915 and 1916 in comparison with
| 1914, and regained the ground in 1917
and gained much more, he lost his
relative lead in 1918 and found him
self where he started in 1914 in the
comparison of price of crops and live
stock with that of things bought. The
advance of price received in 1918 above
1914 was 81 per cent, and that of
price paid was SO per cent, or sub
stantially the same,