Crit. gs GugG seats Tate sereices Sikes S33 Sepeesbneaed Srstetir time airs ; re c 5 cpagatests itis = ets pth a pine lors eeksaeited attest CHbipigircginscaai caesar rnecgee reek o5t3t78; ipare qe Sees. a rete rat ieeeeien ron Ser ete! stitie fpeeteceterscsins rece pss yieer Rs egeot-teesesrstes thse ee iss Heiss ESS Cathedeeceneataeet ee pene ase Presets peice erasers Teepe pera cree piecetete Sette teticeses ce eer errr ern - *. see ines ne E SeteTeeSeE esate Bsr esas cseeednaz-orseersase fae a Laegesteessees plaretileliint settee se eS Ceieisisieietecneestct erprte mtr baiee. Te ipsoarses ite: LAS <233 DSiicetecete set espapenteareoe THING rar. Eseiecsrarr SEES, reiterate bgatepapreter terete te semaeies Seri ipe it tie nies SOLS i f=T5 POI HANNE 2 St rerictget steleteelitaertt ett tateces Sisif ay iis rinteea thn meigesterg terial E it vipkrd piped eBook meri nee a oz 2 a dis ties LETTERS os ey eee : a r Pith cipaset soos ga pee iptbinspaketetbent teetegeeetores aiaesiettstssteaeatseitse ; ro dececrs rs Bd Sadincie ton bt ste: Lara pecte soiree aoe relecelsrelsccersterits sereiee siecle 3 ae [ieo=e- t Sse se eee = tps, L 3 rare. o: eee, Posetetectiotets Setess aves eters cee eats ees St SaaS ro ota iteceamsenice sess es Seecterees beer ite tathiesar stall iostseeeees earl ‘ Dl ‘ >) i ‘\ MEE hz! —t i | (24 Se Thirty-Ninth Annual Report . OF THE MISSOURI : State Board of Agriculture A Record of the Work for the Year 1906. ALSO VALUABLE INFORMATION ON BREEDING AND FEEDING LIVE STOOK, IMPROVING THE FERTILITY OF THE SOIL, GROWING OROPS, DAIRYING, AGRICULTURE AND LIVE STOOK STATISTIOS, ETO. PUBLISHED, 190i. LIBRARY NEW YORK BOTANICAL GARDEN. THE HUGH STEPHENS PRINTING COMPANY, JEFFERSON CITY, MO. Officers of State Board of Agriculture, 1907. President—S. W. Hudson, Buckner. Vice-President—Norman J. Colman, St. Louis. Secretary—Geo.-B. Ellis, Columbia. Assistant Secretary—J. B. Rector, Columbia. Institute Clerk—S. M. Jordan, Stanberry. Treasurer—W. A. Bright, Columbia. State Veterinarian—Dr. D. F. Luckey, Columbia. State Highway Engineer—Curtis Hill, Columbia. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. S. W. Hudson, Buckner. W. C. Howell, Ulman. Norman J. Colman, St. Louis. W. C. Hutchison, Jamesport. H. J. Waters, Columbia. M. B. Greensfelder, Clayton. A. T. Nelson, Lebanon. EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS. Governor of Missouri—Jos. W. Folk. Superintendent of Schools—H. A. Gass. Dean Agricultural College—H. J. Waters. @) CORPORATE MEMBERS. LIBRARY NEW YORK dist. Name. Residence. County. oe : : CAR iARDEN., (Term expires July 20, 1907.) ....John Deerwester..... Butlers. at. Bates. ps ol ETA CUS en Mexico; anise. Audrain. ...M. B. Greensfelder....Clayton...... St. Louis. Pee Nd COMMA: .-0..6 ches St. Louis City..Colonial Security Bldg. oe Wie ea WKANSON ....-. s< St. Louis City..212 N. Main Street. (Term expires July 20, 1908.) moe. ©. Hutchison’. t:02%% Jamesport... .Daviess. meee Aden M.Thoempson... .Nashtia: «<4... Clay. VV. TLUGSON. sos. ss Buckners. =: 2. Jackson. Pb OWA 5s aes Farmington...St. Francois. suberd J. Hess. s.2). 6 sal Charleston. ... Mississippi. merle INCISON:; 4's... secs Kebanonis=. = 2. Laclede. (Term expires July 20, 1909.) | Mie We b. McRoberts. .2.:; Monticello... . Lewis. wevaonn I>. Christian». <. esas cies oe Sie eel ate 300 00 EDU eare eretes 131 By: American Express'Coz 2. 2 os oe ee |: ee oe eee 83 87 Paty ON 20, 132 Pacifics xpress \Co:;.ceocc0ee ticle co | eeche een ere ae 141 30 GRE cee Sees 133 Soe BIKING: c/o ci etecienseeceate aismeieioe le ciate eames 21 69 Sonat AR 3... ct 3 134 IMPaGIKS iche, Be RCO sec 5 a crcre So ate letmicteccente ee (pb | SORA Spee. cll opoce late nfevovelaus TO) TEQUISIGION '5y. 6 c/carives Glen ores eras sleNere 207 51 DCC! Migeise.c celle ne clea le re eee MOVGVELGTAIG «fale car oiaveine = Soler ea as-ssie 10, $807 61 $807 61 MONTHLY CROP REPORT FUND. { Date War. No. Name | Dr. Cr. 1905. iDiee, DE aed artes aeme sec Moxpalancese....'. sc ae eee | $125 39 OAD Choe) >,5 357 Byebl HE RBaAnks ep sewectcsste.> situetetterae lo otave cere ae her evevae $7 50 1906. JIT, 1D ere 358 SieHIKINS.. oo. fn ees eet | sae. adus Sree 2 87 pee ey cee 359 W, A. Bright, transfer of balance| from old to newtreasurer........|......++---- 117 89 REDE” eoisst- 5. cc6 359a BY ss AT COCKGIAIT.. o.oo 1s, a 1s ein tie te atte Chere te tensions _ 4 30 : reese i 360 (Sel 3 at 5) Labs Pea ee en 1S Oo eS yy SkS a 14 00 Fs ae 361 American ox Dress! GOc. o's s.0) stakes] eaeeeatelotstsaeinres 2 25 as ee 362 Columbia Typewriter Exchange....|............ 3 00 IMAL So see 363 SH se ate ee eee I soem se see 4 75 SO eee 364 Myeplt. (COLGOLSs cs ccieeis sic! s «0 ce Serna emiehn st oho terete 40 00 Selene Gis ites 365 Columbia Statesman. . s «s 7 17)9 ee 710 @SHIASH CIS ES Meet epee ery ated. cin a, ct arene) netretene ears seas 6 8 40 A RS es 711 GEV AAV TETAS ERS Pe te eis tn rchcica, anal Neraora eats oravene 81 54 Sm Leek Oey 712 Wala alent verry ster ceo a eval emevereraaiie: suave 89 55 SMPPPL Dyes Ste ate 713 Columtbiarbrimtine Coes so iecs sft aa l\chevare eee eercrsi 34 00 Ce Sh Pe ae 714 GeOwBWENistts cys a. fia s teonlolee tells es “aera nie 50 00 35 Pe 715 RACHICPEREPLESSCO reste cis acre sa choiaileve aiea crore -cherene 9 53 a ee 716 Ts ADULES HRM E400 YS icles chepyeees SIGE NI Oc Fete tee Perea 3 00 Po.) AAR en TAGs, SEB WC CLO ont cults can crater Ga cuega [eo atine aac eke 15 00 72. is ee 718 PREM SE CG Ulu ier eiere: sateen hese, State: re caica ett liaen ented siete terse pures 25 56 2 ta aaa 719 Tek AD RSTO Ue he «hale iain fp aul denier Ree erate SVE rt Ord Sraeee 33 00 0 1 es 720 W. A. Bright (transfer from old to Ne Wir svLeEASUTEL) (SOo2..09) sce cies laste cis eles sles Bee ees cePall Ue eh Syabanacs ores MOMEQUISHION acc eee ee see eee 500 00 MVC eds c/s cvs! 721 B YA Geo wee BLS cree tive cel cvecrereiaat liniereieke Slat kaes 50 00 SMMC Fels fs-<\re 722 Smith Premier Typewriter Co.....|............ 5 65 SMM eS. vc se 723 Tey Se GUS INIT, oralteeis acetate wate tye o) o [ate yee Cantenexe cone 17 05 ENS (S sie, 004s 724 COPE PIRNOLHNG Hh certs oivtaiete ahieterersie ne (relate) ereyecedenevorens 29 40 Spence cet 725 CROP AINE Present rain stove Alloramt rene, le teie ces 68 12 Choy 8G en es 726 CHR apt YON AVE Raila ch act al Re tg ret As! Se 74 62 Soe Gate caenaRe 727 AW bee Chien Greener cera sitet egeicy = « seeeteeere Pacific Express: Cos. sia seis sve.s'1s ails Saar ae en American Express: Cow... + see. ek ollie se eee S. H. Elkins. . Geos BR ais Saves otras a4 oc er h eee CoM aLOwellin gic. :ststevetescis's sie’. .cte aril Cree tee ait ELS Dice WADETS snccae acct ie: « bes. afecaichore tel Cetaain cme eats Henry SteinmMeschicten cs. «isi 50 scaell tee aeaeeers mine D. P. Ashburn BY A i GEMM IAIN « saccrcrate’ ovsis ca Wi%! capccrsiel | \eiararacansirats mente CLM. Lewelllues sisictick's 00s. fete oo ot ee sceee wrens 1 OP ORR OC Ta Tr ae ne ee SIRES (roe orersrt eo sr S. M. Jordan . J. W. Waller. . ee Report of Secretary. FARMERS’ INSTITUTE FUND—Continued. Name. eH @UISEM CLE aayaiers sii tice shee) cat MEH aMIT CT ater wa cose aaylatersi a ral onw on cliaiahe AW ise Sos STIS bach icarcen lawcel cake stare ¢reuere BiyAG COMB se En iSiayetsrencie osteo steke vate chee Clouds Savages aaron ot. s.stevee Te ES EMITS? Wea seeversie cl bwcyeuedaloeer s/o ate Bates County Democrat.......... Butler Weekly Times............. Pat Crap tree a niszsispsctsxeis ose eo ColumbiaperintineiCom ass... 4. cee CHE. Marb Ute ciaeicvaaietetiets iris tious ale Gilmanges Dorsey een st. eels Scie Das (Gaul foleriseaciela eee Bice Acie ers G 13S ley Wi fobaaliornclag «mec ee oo Gomes 3 C J PLC MVE GOMCsetic etasges) crehe-stcus os, aie DE SVVe Oe OT i a etn owen ays Sadtosaiaiees Se eT arn Sagan syn tacnts ehts Acc ns shi) suniese CriChMockwoOod saci esecsctsec eens: To requisition By balance Dr. $7,669 51 29 00 00 00 50 1 25 75 1 62 1 50 1 50 92 47 35 00 75 9 00 29 05 12 09 70 40 00 6 90 84 51 Date War. No. 1906. Ase «it 807 1 eas 808 CUE Stee 809 Ot OS 810 CN eines 811 AAS ers 812 APE re, oh 813 Ae Sana: sik 814 teen 815 AOE a's 26 816 Areva. srialte 817 Gee 818 A cate Smits 819 A Neate 820 vba teers 821 Aas 822 Uh aan 823 CM erie ea 824 Ae Te tse 825 a ea, 826 (, ee Toe 28 827 Br Byes 828 UNE RR 829 Ghee Geel (oR DORE US Reaeetcr-Psilic cic ietie fm cclers Date War. No. 1905. 1G) 5 o-8 Gra] | earone atten ene sen ZO Mee ae 575 JOR Eiscdee 576 1906. eves 577 Dives ear 578 Oita: 579 2 be yet 580 1 eerie 581 1 ee og shone Ge Seno awe ORE Gare tak 582 ekste vars 583 Biity rake 584 Girt 585 We SE Oc 586 (i ah 587 Gaeta: 588 RA rect sats 589 Ae yin ces 590 ABT wet Je 591 Dense 592 WPawenere's 593 ASR eat 594 Lae ae 595 Ns sees 596 Mit recarane rats ieteteys OFFICE EXPENSE FUND. Name. Moy balla Geta exterior aeielsrereiaveters By Columbia Typewriter Exchange... Smith Premier Typewriter Co.... DL REGLOLES a core iter imal | tteahslie teas W. A. Bright (transfer from old to new treasurer, $87.73) TOECMISIGION yawn cetera nese eveial es ait LVR ETIILS Ep We rsiaveteieet at tata vay arehavanerata RP vanes CLOUGH S ate vateveletajersviateNms etaetens lors We EPETATSNE). ne lekeievcieteveelaliets ais arcs. s See ver EM Se yarderctalen el ehentewevalis/ chet ere: says ay bo sh EVECLOM e sicisvoyain evclerSistateistvls)«:< c's Barnes-Crosby COs. .c.ccccsccese National Paper Coco... o6 cece se DEP eRCCLOLe aneie cieialsiteie s fs.s esisie © ER eS 1 weer nichratall yshe cress «) evelia Wints Columbia Statesman............- Parkervburniture CO. . «) io} | a National PaperiCos..7..- nest WabasheR. IROCOt sce access oe ROUTEGHISIEIONE ei eet eels eee tees By Kampmeyer & Wagner........ Bames-Crosby Co... i. -cecck eee it National "Paper Cos, oe eos. ea cok LOWeEQuISIbION ere Ae ete tote as IBA We pbilarsie. juris do arte & | Columbia BrintingiCos:..2.0 se sos CW Prien. dotinccie comico he ten GE. ROOHIS NO My cere were ches rae, TBS REeClOn we eee ea an ee eee Nifong Mie Cow: ocucees tar cae SinithePremier’Co:3 > secs e ase NationalpeaneriCon crete teas GROOMS satiate eee ante eet Alec) Sl Rie e( 7.8) Sale Pte Nae OES agrarian a. GAEL OODISMPING fos lide foto crore ica JAS EAMES 221.03 cr aus ee aceeieieae eG Barnes-Crosbya GOs, ste.1s dee tee er Me, Ke VIP ORR = ecient eee cee iPACIAICHE XPLEss!|(COem sarin c ete ine Strawn & Holland D. G. Co....... Columbia Typewriter Exchange.... SUB eBis PSs ae ects eee eek POVTEGUISULONM Ss efe a terse sitteters cle oe BYyg Jc wes ge CCLOR s 3.2) teitints seers eet exe eats DEV oth IS cyes'syatetoettere, kash os ele "TORE QIBISILION 5 scisiexre ietaeels wit togs len siete. IBY. LDL oMurphiy ats tices ae ber ccg cts Alex SlEwart.. «ccc. -ctee hie oe tome Dr. oa tole # oho, 2.610 = 2 c6. is wn) eins wpe $703 33 16 18 82 $703 25 00 00 45 00 50 44 50 40 63 58 00 00 00 02 05 50 00 00 00 75 00 18 00 00 48 75 00 00 75 95 27 80 25 22 12 20 35 37 87 25 50 67 35 91 33 Report of Secretary. By STATE VETERINARY FUND. Date War. No. Name. Dr. Cr 1905. MP CNBUOE icles ai liers stersveyele = sacs TLORD AIAN CE: mraetetietee, cites) sr eheueteva ali ei atalers $609 66 aoe OD Sa see 1719 IBY pee dele AMiCRe hehe ac, doh sca ciajcis vena staves eteauars aia $55 00 Semi (Dlet site acre 1720 Columbia! Telephone Coy oais ie 2.ccee||ctieo wicleveroe ea 9 60 DA erica 1721 SRE e abl xara Seep pee civil sisvers Gus coral nesndassiaieceeels 21 20 “Sy 2 0 Se 1722 Western Union Telegraph Co......|............ 4 23 TZU haseie av 1723 FLOTACCMBTACICY seeraaie ticiess G's asi etaakiciedelevarste ies 15 10 Seer’ 1724 UE ICON Carecc pare crcimenian aie ieee Phen teretatianl hg hats toe oneyers 27 50 0) eee 1725 IVER GOOUG ita en emer ie htres ays oscars lave pbainenel hiveceis 21 75 BOMEAU Sis 6G 1726 Peds COMIC ore cencte te patewa seers eine 6 Sell ciecteuavelecae stats 101 25 “SAG ea 1727 Nam Wise © OWN AWE: athete ot travectinsecrans csi lle elaie sieiels Se are 8 38 BeOS sieve « 1728 Lie STOW het oeubarettete ravak atavencrenersillecere bie, walalels: te 18 60 US 010 5 eaten 1729 ETE MCG COnne ler prpercteroetckevenc olor ere teerekeve tam tereis 4 50 1906. REA sD. otelens 1730 REC MOOLE eters gone ac ee ee ehedorare a al hensehel cesta 36 00 SB eubtD sere e\ e's 1731 DY ELC UL CG yee pate eaten extn Ah ey sac uc ie) ll echake sere edelte evaie 192 74 Pee 1732 Scale ya Smith severe neekcae sig meteor tle cekehe seatense 27 85 pe! (eae 1733 PPL en COMETS crate oy aie Nel sicieys suse eee cl eewiy va ieee sata 70 25 Sal IPS eee 1734 EL OLACEP BLAME yy atarh: otic aye oo pitta tel al shoe coeaiepa nee ae 19 55 eo IOs 1735 Aa Vice GOOG CRA ME arceninitek orc cuee ataatall teil otheuc Atehoke 12 60 Waasa (anaes 1736 PB ISU CK CY Nan co atn te dics suena Si Norell etoe acans otetoreie 101 02 “GS DM |p Pane 1737 Hy fed spd 8 EY ba ae By odes he Re EEN CT | fen Ree 50 00 mE ojsha le te 1738 W. A. Bright (transfer from old to new treasurer $349.15) aL rey oT ohel| ers tails: shake (hayes a ROME CUUSIUION mereteper feria ans) +285 te vole $1,000 00 REDS oa. ss 1739 BS Veer ES LO Willers, ereiveyoce cove cecses ic aya ceaveinliacctelamebaeere hee 37 45 LIE <2 Yee 1740 TRAWat CONMAW AV Atte oiorc cam an cin ll ctcieicelaunar 29 88 Be MER Os ioneerss 1741 Western Union Telegraph Co......|.......-.--- 3 61 O20. 1 (8 Mates 1742 PRC ee MLOOLO eetecam ei rce cee c ae hlsrele eal eeinehe wie iele aie 49 10 Hh Alagted ahexorrs tee 1743 IN RCP ELAN eve cr syatoyevehaie « niene cobs cece | oeherate are iene ate 50 00 ers ieee 1744 Ure MOAB Oe eae a Wii scl heset ctorete ievaereuaie ers tele 48 10 Beat teh Siay-ohrar s (e 1745 Stanle ys SmiiG ly crarcyses cose vesker ele oles eevee eke 44 35 AS eee 1746 DPPH STIS TIOK EY 7retyt fcr teak ore ay sac dchacs fcraiel | enche iatecere ss ake 228 55 seein liesls % i2.'s ois 1747 hes Natok @ 1 85 (oi 0 2. tue eB te Eee cha] Iau a Meet ata Aa 61 03 Seem eS Wels ache 1748 IOLA CORB TAGICY ace ncsyeccusrA cree cular anche lirekeioretahereiets ae 20 05 MITES eRe feta al|ishis citwrabwiene a-eheve PROSCEQUISILIO Wars srren tes cieie Shak ves setorereiiere 500 00 1) Eh eae ae 1749 SY MepeleS [WGN gen iar annette a tested aoetetallad wiskG Rune erates 9 33 Ctl ea a 1750 SPAMS VAS IOTb yt svey seer er aves staan eee wiqereveuclatevenste = 6 80 ONE Waren 1751 Dep EDA VVIELGE sel fc by acc erisweie eset er crane licks eeucitmestoaeiens 9 15 AIG fc aiets 1752 pr se ORR Meare Pee a tr ae eral ckaiateaccecbeteter oitahe 56 50 Cte aera 1753 18 fs] SPN COS bts rahe eet WA ER a ody | cree Se RS 9 00 Oe ee 1754 Samuel Shel don erpaderaucie see ast erore ole |e sree eae genet cere 28 00 Tamas \Sienereseee 1755 PACHHCHE XPTESS OO! merci pe ceyae sue earetevellia eevee eheretar ont 4 84 Brita (Os) 6) s:iar'axe 1756 BWV oe OMELET rene pene teeeaeticsta’s criltarers ciotnuateceete 12 50 Bae Oley vei o.:ai'e 1757 EL Wizy GOOG Gavara cuceaeakepsvsiftictaheishe Grailloataversloteds ee sveyg 14 60 BR Os foo ei'ay's 1758 EY) CSMLOOTE se rarcratao nee Tey ates hee ser sh kell otie See sistas 20 00 pera Or ad fe. 1759 IN eee Eel peer ae fee etced ne Mautilles hel ausholther ero) eas 50 00 a AE 1760 TRA Vist GOODE Mragvcbe tract el eaters ie etel licud erareie leteleieiae 41 15 Os ere 1761 Columbia Stavesmanis ee bia as os elcic| chev rer eseiete ois:= 5 00 0) (OPS 1762 sod s UU ches ce diy 6 ea oe Ion S| BEI oto GOTO 42 00 Fe RMLIOy? Ay itis 2 1763 Witla, BiCauc EE SOUS Sigh SO Aan MODELS NGS ces Eno 2 50 Bee SEOs so 1764 ism eoisT OW ererete Serer vs Laians og She eet all Siete ubttremmererere 70 88 ea AC eS eee 1765 eee AN eM epee thc erete cies che cues a's le-0ll vies creusieieth oases 91 80 Od OG eee 1766 Eee Mme LU GB Wri arcks istereians so acrars syelsorel| ora, s-etanene foraierere 174 70 oO Oy Sib ear ee TOLEGUMISIDION Ts even cteterescnsre 2s ede ae cet ers 500 00 AML) Bins ass 1767 DB Niu 3758 b BNL Ga emcee he © ary Oat CREAR RE Oc AIC oc 173 38 2 ie 1768 Columbia Telephone Cova. i s.- «sls setclepeete/areres 10 10 CA 7, Na 1769 Np iscre PRA eter tebe AS cietnslovate: «i a! 4's) | woldtareretnsceete 50 00 Sey Uae 1770 Western Union Telegraph... . «5 «|. «ees sisive 3 29 \ ke ee Ua eee 1771 Fic Cap MLOOTOL, sycyeveteleieneiciesa itl elds »,« diei|e, sin eheatebeneiate 15 00 Ligh ieee, 1772 RBS GCUDIBOM. fa eve, oy cscs) cs tid: <. a's 0 0; 0:6:0'| ba weet care 24 98 ae: ae 1773 Ma Hed ESE O WIL chiclicnes/ w SRMRIOS elm 6 16 20 32 Missouri Agricultural Report. STATE VETERINARY FUND—Continued. Date War. No. Name. | Dr. | Cr. 1906. | April 742 ¢% 3... 1775 Sad S (get 51 | a 0): eI rc Sh ra ai So Sab Gon ass $15 00 Sea ES. cares 1776 DY By Luckey::.::,. <6. cestawes ea aalee eee eee 192 82 MRI SPS ye Ms iene; cre fa eye aie RO WTEOUISIELON 0%. sus) eee renee $1,000 00 May Dee. k 1777 By Samuel Sheldon’... eases oe ol ck eee ee 52 03 OS ol crate 1778 IN IS. ET A). cna oS rerersieeie iotetirete tore acl okeke ean ete 50 00 Tea vy 9 ASR eee 1779 By Rs Alen. .1: eee eee eee fe Seeger 186 71 eer way a 1780 TDN Brown: ict cael ae Gene le lee eee eae 18 84 SS Divs ede 5 1781 J. ES SIRtenS Se hse eeepc 2 aes ee Ree ee pee (as)! CONE ht aera 1782 Be WO UBTeI N Seicec cela ocd os ela eee ee ees 15 55 os MF sheets 1783 So BIKing Sac0).c stone bern eno a ee one 14 00 Fath a Ieee 1784 DRY DUCKY. tere ences oto ale see aeeteete 186 55 Ajit. aes 1785 J Wis CODMAW AY: sce toy ee tothe ets oe || ne eeeieeancasiene 17 44 ASS ls Pee 1786 Western Uniontict, 5-78) tls 6 eae «lence eee 1 33 eho: fs 1787 He ES BORtiner a. cients sees satel eee eee 34 22 ae Oa) 5) Va fe 1788 Stanley Smithiwitres wck cee alee eas 9 30 ee fois 1789 Re CAMOOTC WE case: sion Diao cick eee er ee 97 50 Oe eee 1790 He ViiGOoodes neat ae NO ee eee 29 95 | ee) EES Bo 1791 le be Leah Co) Lee ees ROR A MD Pe Rhee SS aS aie e 16 00 oy eG 1792 ColumbiaiMelepiones Coreen ese eee ee ers 7 00 SC aes 1793 1s gel eam (1 ars a ee N 4 T STRDAC N O ee Be ee aN 50 00 OO 95 tere 1794 DEE SbUCKey:. ei eee eee ets Cees 284 75 Sean Gis? 1795 9 EE BPRS TIS 2272 eevee were sacree oeepete re a teas ee oem ee 5 50 nets 1796 WV Sie, WaT cic. ree ean an eats aes eee ce 10 00 aptal Oki-at cists 1797 IPAM PElen diy i). onic sek ae 17 25 re TEO!. 1798 Ry, eNO eh. auadere ns geen eee Hoe ee 198 32 OP 4 Deepen 1799 ESE OWIGOY be oc esge Sisal taped gta ote ee) | een net oe ees 5 85 Oe | 1800 Pacific’ W xpress’ Co. a ssneiae a ee eee 7 04 9 | Secu | 1801 Western Union Telegraph Co......|..........-- 1 94 Bah Mtoe, feos 1802 Florace: Bradley..is ccs odoin tte = | Se eee ee 19 45 Se EO eh eee ts vo 1803 Stanley Sms as si vessks) lexeracaec< sleet etal eed 17 35 BeOS setsie ve 1804 ColumbiansStatesman actrees -roclteieseeewene 2 00 28 WaSeeoe 1805 NSS AL) SPO Was ¢chcusl cope ate ates mactotar ace ornate uaa ee 66 20 eG +. 1806 JamesiCulhsone sere ee alate erent eee eae 8 88 CON JC ESOS, (Sepa one Rar TO MEQUISItI OMe rer) ues ctor ere 1,000 00 Sitti Agt Pier ae 1807 12 fa D ea] ail BA) Cel (oh nee a EAE AS init arcin ab 196 22 Ue 2 eho 1808 Westerm Tmion ooo. si. sa0 > Gyecakeyss sua) tone whauoeee terete 2 2) mi ME Dicasvateaece 1809 SDS BrO wis F056 eye oko eactedgehee Gite A ee Cea 63 27 ee RDS Ant sate 1810 Vas ACUTLSON TT oo ces vis ee OEE, Rie st eeeteaetetemeey sual 26 32 Rae ABD (et 1811 Re Tet Alleniens oo 25 cectsnee ater sacrebs rer oael] tars tate ee eke 205 35 Cap tee 1812 Je FA ASIAGER S, .< ci ate meeps taan edaneo\shacns| eeete tatnnets ett 19 53 Se ae eR oe nee 1813 RRs MOSMMIOOVE woh chevetereicucue coaches fers eel areca oi enema ate toms 10 00 og OF eae 1814 Ya He] cro ohees « abstelele Poe |. ates 16 40 Re, 2 ae 1821 Horace Bradley. < . «cures alters ape etel sala tee) pei es 85 55 oS aes 1822 Western Unions. co 0ccu sas aac) eee een 1 40 Sr RALS sirens 1823 JW CONNAWAY: 2 F.i5. 5000 « he cans =) axel] er a ee 17 05 ide De 1824 PONT, AMIENS S Shoo op risus mache) s rads ee 1834 Reglete Alletinaetes et sch tees eee eee le Site ares eens 276 65 hs See 1835 Columbian Statesmanercr.c cia cret creators cis eee are 5 50 AOI iat: 1836 Eee VEN OO Cia ree ec sascay octet biatene|| Scatareue et Stee: 32.77 MEAN. rece 1837 Columbrav tributes sok eae sek [ciees coe eres 3 00 oc a ee 1838 ColumbiarTelephonerCor.- oc... - cso eect eos ocxe « 7 95 oe, | er 1839 EUG DN OOTE eset ce eee ei creie a aol cues ain slave tats 65 95 6 i Gaeee 1840 Bee LAW KANS cpt aa er oe nea sb olllepdtetbisy«. 2 acer avers 40 00 “Joe ct i ene 1841 DE IMC KEY ere ee erie cte eerste site ores al|lolenspsneval'e are ae 227 30 Te ig Ne 1842 Bye WieSbern el mi onic ct sis si cyebate eve se) et | etoustacee ok oles aise = $1 27 CC i ee 1843 SE icp be Sin Seep a we were |fcct.cretsl| Seciatecesas sep alorets 35 00 iC" ¢: eee 1844 BTN ender mete ere eiele eth oa (ste ehavers oeeielereie 8 25 Og ee 1845 Sore SH KAN SS ea See ete wv creite ell cvetort: siya Feros 2120) (ORs 7 eee 1846 PEP EL a WAIES ap Ss oratories ai alan anes e |e mincleus bistawchels 40 00 CS 1847 SeeB eB Pm Seta. ornare eect nea silavseel [so steele wvevers 10 90 CD ete vs ksic hs 1848 Columbia Dypewriter Hx... -.. 2. .0|* 0+ = «1 5a 42 88 Ly ere 1849 Horace Bradley.......... Berto sad lace telers.o) arejete 18 45 VO ea 1850 Soplee a aS epencrsicta a sere ocaeie levers eiccellioisvecsltus@ eresekens 3 00 MRD revaits ran'ss' 1851 Thay) DESO Aes roe Aci OIS Dea a BO ODID HES) paca COSI OGIO 48 16 EMM Si seo Ove 1852 IEP HEPES OCE CNet ere cree ch taic swe rte aveter cue siete: oes 49 18 ee earch: 3.'c.045 1853 1D Fl tel NG Gs aks s OOOO AR GD Pe amon Seah 233 71 SO: oy 1854 Fr Oop MOOLG se eiersoieestire oc srthe ececsic ail elect Mae eran 58 70 eT ter |leve & a's: 6 ouece:ie te FROFLEQUISIDOW cy ccuthyae ciciceie ace ee tee $1,000 00 see: 1855 By A Jase CUllSOMertetsrse tease ss recvers © [arena eneieieeyeuate.e 48 62 pm aLlOE Rw yer. c« 1856 RE PEs LOM Gata terete aici sccta s cacre cio Siete ela mumiencia aueteme ci 107 15 EEO Sieve! 1857 Jotm lin PNIEINS 6 Som SR DAD OS etl oars bic ore 218 60 Cc 1 Casale sees 1858 Mia belvB ale yisretersici-s5 orate ol cyereSivove sil atrenee sh here sles 4 37 ee LO Hes st 1859 l2byvotite Uist (is Goueanhed on aeallobc eso onabd °, 12 18 IRON a 8 TES 1860 DH IEC KC Yee seysc cite clo isis cralledevetensleraireles iene 205 48 “a Nae 1861 EOracer Bra dleypcre ct iercseriters © Ste liperoes venetian ees 6 22 Bem bisa,» 1862 IGISEMEUICISIG Ysneteperars | ... cc eae tee ae ae 100 00 December 11: | occ. State warlallt. ctor. ates Serene ae oe 100 00 December 17s. 5 esses By watrants paid and icancelled......5-. «2 s|ae as ween $714 96 HWecemberi7. 05. .0- Balances se isis hts ahs tense creeks RCE | rrcpheacre weakens 102 92 $817 89 $817 89 Expense of Members’ Fund. January 13.........| To funds transferred from former Treasurer. .. $265 13 PALUALY LSS. 6 sss on SSUALSUWALTOIIE. (5 no's. 0.5 soe cco whole wi piegelw avevataietite 200 00 ALOR ets cos tne ce cle DSERES WATTAGE 605.5 0% 5li%.c wctsiciele.s 4 dlersls patents 100 00 ANIPUSGOL hs) cleteiceueiest SSPAUC{WRITEIEGs «s/o cisio ola ctels Mrcic'y. syatcceleisteberetate 200 00 Oectoper 20... ... 2.6. SSPAES WEATDAILG 5) «2.5, 0:0'opaisinte carta dln ei euaamieyenete 100 00 December 11........ DBEabe WAITANG,. .,..2 sie sc ten eis wip 0. o coe mi etebtet 200 00 December 17........ By warrants paid and cancelled..........00|....c.sssse. $784 11 December 17........ POIBTIOE 50) a.e a ores ois sie pele viv 6 pice btw teres [x erete eee a re etre 281 02 $1,065 13 $1,065 13 Report of Treasurer, Farmers’ Institute Fund. oT Date. Dr. Cr. MHA AL: LS... 02s ces To funds transferred from former Treasurer... $532 65 PaMUIATW? VS). 5 ec. ose « SCAtCswallamGinar tc ae stencicic, arene, Sake teyeheneini © 500 00 Mebruary 8........- State warrant....... ee once enttarel of eye ge Nes Echoes se 500 00 BMASEANN Ge st cbisvele as ees Stabehwarrant.. sac cake foaroals tes ever ete b 509 00 LATUEERVTS) Tits oon Cen States warrant’. .r. ao setae pases Seals oh 500 00 MOEROUETNS 0s. 5 cts sis 0 cr Staitenwarnalt: ter ce qoewe eae eres a aiees heed 1,000 00 November 8......... Sfahkenwarralte seminal sects roe re 1,000 00 WMecember 11. ....... CS EAREYA Cea Ry ats. Sip Gane cratos & Ele ttee ae 2,300 00 December 17........ By warrants paid:andveGancelleda ssc. 2 sre). |-)-t-)e 92ers $4,494 24 December 17........ alance ssc stent Beas ee e e eeeaats 2,338 41 $6,832 65 $6,832 65 Office Expense Fund. AMMAR VO VS. 21). vee To funds transferred from former Treasurer. .. $87 73 | PURLEY es US os, wi an a= Stavegwalrat.. re ocm ousie ca noe etal esas tet 100 00 INE Claes Aa eee States WALELAILG PARR PRES een aes nes MAR ots 100 00 | Toners TLS 2S aeers bate swat al fete ete kM rates D0 100 00_ JUIN) Noose cpigereee State warrant............. Ree ARE CaE 100 00 | OctoberlS: .... wee. ae. Statelwalrante pe eeerewn ee aera eter ee: on eerie 100 00 November 8......... Stave, warrants -ycstetqees cess eens che hse Sa 100 00 December a75.....%.. By warrants paidvand cancelled 72 False fede cilewe ss sects: $604 82 Decemiber 17........ Dalai Caun Svar ap eter tek A Leh Pea be ER 3 WO ke | 82 91 $687 73 $687 73 | State Veterinary Fund. January 13.........| To funds transferred from former Treasurer. . . | $349 15 RUCRILIREAT Yoo s 1 Feo ej3 = « Stateswarrant 65.2282. 2 seat eae len 1,000 00 Pebruary 8)... 0.02... SUAS sWwaLhamlaoes er teh.cs tees ox-tee, Hew a etre sats 500 00 IMiarsChie Ga sya )2y2812 Stace warranter wig pests cepetttl (tose lee | 500 00 PAULO rasa eytelions.c."08% DLALe;WaALGAMb ccm ccktrr ties ies oe dre Tey eee 1,000 00 PETC One. atta ntsc sl te Shale waLLanitiss - Qeuaces tc, sachets lk aan. : 1,000 00 UTS yaallenss 62 SEA fav xs Slatekwantamtretreeie ctl cee s e t a gee 1,000 00 PAITOUISER Oa nines: oh SEAUCHMALL ALE eerste cmos eee eeer ns coke at, | 1,000 00 Merober Sik nr vee tales Walhall bee wekene Send ro Pee ae ae dia costae 1,000 00 November 8......... SPALCUWABLLalbt sete he cei eS pe ee ae 1,000 00 November 11.2625. . Slateswarranienh poset athe tree ee 1,400 00 Wecember 17)... 2: By warrants paid and cancelled............ Whey eesepspeje ae: $8,366 46 December 17........ BIANCO eucron ae ms ee ee Aeneas ages, o's | Ae ee OLE 1,382 69 $9,749 15 $9,749 15 ” Respectfully submitted, W. A. BRIGHT, Treasurer. 38 Missouri Agricultural Report. Report of State Veterinarian. ‘Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Board of Agriculture: With the exception of a wide-spread outbreak of sheep scabies in Laclede county and Texas fever in parts of Jasper, Newton and McDonald counties, the control work by the Veterinary Depart- ment has been about the same during 1906 as in former years. Aside from attending to outbreaks of glanders and other diseases which require more or less attention every year in all of the states, this department has undertaken to completely stamp out sheep scabies and Texas fever, and an unusual number of tuberculin tests of beef and dairy cattle have been made during the year. The tables in another part of the annual report will show in detail the work done by regular deputies. In addition to the work shown by the tables, and aside from attending to work at the office, I have given my personal attention to testing cattle with tuberculin, and have spent a considerable part of my time in attending farm- ers’ institutes and other educational work. Although not requiring much of my time, the work of regis- tration of the veterinarians of the State has been completed, and it might be of interest to the Board to know something of the re- sults of the registration. The Veterinary Practice Act, which made it unlawful for anyone to practice veterinary surgery after the first day of January, 1906, without a license, provided for the registration of veterinarians on three conditions. Section 2 pro- vided for the registration of anyone who had practiced in the State for a livelihood for three years prior to January 1, 1906, regard- less of the qualifications of the applicant. Under this section 265 persons registered, many of whom are by no means qualified to practice. The privilege of registration under this section was provided on account of a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in connection with a medical act, in which it was held that to de- prive a man of the right of earning a livelihood by his usual voca- tion was unconstitutional. Section 3 of the Veterinary Act pro- vided for the registration of anyone who was a graduate of a regu- larly chartered veterinary college at the time the act went into ef- fect. Under this section 164 persons were registered. Nearly all Report of State Veterinarian. 39 of the veterinarians registered under section 3 are competent men. Some few, however, among this number secured diplomas from colleges which did not maintain a thorough course of instruction. Section 4 of the Veterinary Act provided for the registration of anyone after January 1, 1906, only on condition that he pass a satisfactory examination before the Veterinary Board. Under this section 37 persons have been registered. The examinations have all been held in writing. The questions have consisted of ten each on the subjects of theory and practice, medicine and surgery, and were so framed that their correct answer would require a knowl- edge on the part of the applicant of pathology, physiology and anatomy. All applicants have been required to make 70 per cent on each set of questions. While the Veterinary Examining Board has endeavored to make all examination questions extremely prac- tical, one or more applicants from each college represented so far has failed to pass. The papers of all of those who failed, enclosing in the handwriting of the applicant the questions which he at- tempted to answer, have been placed on file for reference, in case of dispute. I will add further that it has been the custom of the Veterinary Board to require each applicant for examination to sign his name to a secret list opposite some number which he used on his paper during the examination, and that all papers have been graded and the applicant passed upon, as far as possible, without a personal knowledge, upon the part of the Board, of whose appli- cation it had under consideration. In dealing with all applicants, the Board has made every effort to be impartial. Anticipating enough extra work to keep one busy, I advised the Board, at a meeting February 10th, to employ a deputy veteri- narian for constant work. Following this recommendation, the Executive Committee employed Dr. R. L. Allen, a graduate of the Kansas City Veterinary College, who at the time was in the federal meat inspection service. Dr. Allen began work February 15th and was employed until March 30th in making tuberculin tests of dairy cattle. From March 30th to May 15th he was employed in Laclede county in hunting up and quarantining sheep affected with scabies. From May 15th to June 15th he was again employed in making tuberculin tests. From June 20th to December 1st he was employed in Southwest Missouri in the work of stamping out Texas fever. During the time he spent in Laclede county, Dr. Allen placed in quarantine 129 bunches of sheep, including a total of 2,999 head. which he found affected with scabies. At the time of serving the quarantine notice, the owner of the sheep was supplied with writ- 40 Missouri Agricultural Report. ten directions for the preparation and use of the lime and sulphur and the tobacco and sulphur dips, and instructed to use either one of the dips twice at intervals of nine to eleven days, and that his sheep would be released from quarantine on an affidavit stating in what manner he had complied with these directions. All of the sheep placed in quarantine were released by Dr. Allen, by notice sent through the mail, on receipt of the proper affiidavit. On De- cember 1st Dr. Allen returned to Laclede county and remained until the 15th. During this time he re-examined, as far as possi- ble, the sheep which he had placed in quarantine. One thousand and seventy of these sheep were re-examined and all found free from scabies. The control of sheep scabies in Laclede county seems to be well in hand, and except for infected bunches, which were not found during the last spring, there seems little likelihood of any further trouble from this disease. The infected sheep were scattered over such a territory that it is barely possible that all of the diseased sheep have been located. In case of any indications of scabies in any part of that section of the State, its control will be promptly undertaken. ; In his work in Southwest Missouri from June 20th to Decem- ber 21st, Dr. Allen had instructions as follows: To place in quar- antine in dry lots all cattle found carrying fever ticks; to authorize the transfer of infested cattle from one pasture to another only after a thorough hand dressing of oil; to release such cattle from quarantine only when they had been personally examined and found free from fever ticks, and then on condition that they be re- moved to pastures or ranges which were not infested with ticks; and to quarantine all tick-infested pastures, forbidding their use for horses or cattle from date of quarantine to December Ist. During the time that Dr. Allen was engaged in this work he placed in quarantine 14 pastures and 164 lots of cattle, including 1,719 head. Up to December Ist, 51 bunches, including 1,248 head of cattle, were disinfected and released from quarantine. Qn De- cember Ist, 113 lots, including 471 head of cattle, still remained in quarantine. A good number of those still in quarantine had been disinfected, but were not released on account of the fact that no convenient place, free from ticks, was found in which to turn them. The remaining 471 head were released from quarantine December 20th by notices sent through the mail. These cattle were released from quarantine from the fact that the cold weather makes it improbable that they will spread any infection. The work of eradicating fever ticks will be renewed early in the spring, Report of State Veterinarian. Al and every effort made to completely stamp them out of the State during the coming year. In this connection it might be well to state that an unusual number of violations of the federal quaran- tine law was largely responsible for the increased number of tick- infested cattle in this State during the past year. Being a matter of interstate commerce, the enforcement of the quarantine line on the southern border of this State has been left to the federal department. The work of enforcing it during the past year, by . the federal department, has been very desultory, to say the least. As far as can be learned, no inspector has been assigned to any part of the line and allowed to remain on it long enough to get acquainted with the territory in which he worked. At least, quite a number of violations of the federal quarantine law have occurred, definite facts concerning which have been reported to this office. These violations occurred not only in Southwest Missouri, but in the vicinity of Taney and Ozark counties, and one shipment of ticky cattle originated at Mountainview, in Howell county. The spread of fever ticks became quite extensive in Ripley county, but their introduction was undoubtedly not due to quarantine viola- tions. Every indication points to the fact that they were carried into the vicinity of Doniphan on western horses. Of the contagious diseases with which this department has to deal, tuberculosis of cattle is of vastly more importance than any other one disease, and probably more than all others put to- gether. The proper control of tuberculosis in cattle in the future - will require an unlimited amount of work by this department. In August, 1905, a bulletin was issued explaining the tuberculin test and offering the services of the Veterinary Department of this State to the owner of any permanent herd in making an examina- tion of his cattle. Before this bulletin was issued there were some tests made, and as a result of the offer a number of applications were received at this office. Altogether 51 herds, including 1,405 animals, have been tested; 129 head of cattle were found diseased with tuberculosis in 15 of these bunches. These tests were con- fined to registered beef herds and grade dairy herds, to which registered animals were being added with a view of improving the herd. In tests of registered beef cattle, tuberculous animals were found coming directly from six prominent registered herds of this State, which have not yet been examined. On August 23rd, out of a shipment of 55 hogs to Kansas City, Mo., 23 head were con- demned on account of tuberculosis. I traced these hogs back to their origin, and found that they came from a farm on which a 42 Missouri Agricultural Report. large herd of registered Shorthorns was propagated, and on the premises I found the skeletons of cattle from which the hogs had eaten the flesh. I had had unofficial knowledge of the existence of tuberculosis in this herd for three or four years. Individual animals from this herd can now be found in many prominent herds of the State. This is mentioned as an example to show the situa- tion in regard to tuberculosis among the beef breeds. Tubercu- losis was found prevalent in the dairy herds in St. Louis county, where dairying has been carried on for a great number of years. In one herd, as an extreme example, 27 cows and heifers, out of 78 head, were found diseased with tuberculosis. One cow, showing the most doubtful reaction from the test, was slaughtered, and plain lesions discovered in the glands of the throat. Later in the summer another cow, which had gone down rapidly from tuber- culosis, was killed and found badly diseased in the udder and throughout the internal organs. A quarter of this cow’s udder, in which was found a tubercular abscess with a fistulous tract alongside of the teat, was brought to the Experiment Station and preserved for future reference. Of the reacting cows probably 20 head were giving milk; five of these showed marked signs of tuber- culosis. A notice, placing all of the diseased cattle in quarantine, was served on the owner, who is an ex-member of the Board of Agriculture, on March 17th. Since that time the owner of the herd has continued to ship milk from the diseased cows to St. Louis, where it is mixed with the general milk supply. The tests of dairy cattle have been carried far enough that we are able to state posi- tively that the milk supply of St. Louis, Kansas City and St. Joseph is contaminated with the milk from tuberculous cows. At a meeting of the Executive Committee, June 6, 1906, the State Veterinarian was ordered to make an investigation of the slaughter house conditions of this State and report the same to the Board. The investigation was duly made and a report rendered to the Executive Committee at a meeting at the State Fair, Octo- ber 6th. The results of the investigation developed some very im- portant facts, which may be summed up as follows: At public expense, the Federal government is furnishing meat inspection to ail packing plants doing an interstate business. The principal part of the interstate business is done by the four large packing firms usually referred to as the packing trust. These powerful financial institutes are getting the benefit of free meat inspection, and their products are now being given the preference in all the markets of the world. Some of these firms are filling magazines Report of State Veterinarian. 43 and newspapers with glaring advertisements, giving prominence to the fact that they are selling inspected products. Numerous retail shops in the large cities are posting signs stating that nothing but U. S. inspected meat is sold. The federal inspection stamp on dressed meats is a guarantee to the public of its wholesomeness and healthfulness. The system of inspection provided for by the federal government gives those firms engaged in interstate com- merce a great prestige over the smaller packers, and the indica- — tions are that this will be the greatest possible stimulus in favor of a meat trust. The public is now aware of the necessity of a thorough inspection of live animals and dressed meat, and there is no possibility of the discontinuance of federal meat inspection. It now devolves upon this State to provide, as far as possible, in- spection of meats for everyone engaged in the butcher business in this State. The only way to meet the competition of the trust packing houses is for independent firms to provide meats equal in quality to theirs. It seems that this State now has a golden oppor- tunity for providing inspection and offering other protections to the independent packer to encourage the extension of a number of thrifty independent firms. The result will naturally be a greater number of markets for live stock and a greater number of sources of meat supply, amounting altogether to a wholesome competition in the meat business. If the opportunities which are now at hand are neglected, the independent packer will have a slim chance for existence. The proposition before the Board is simply as to whether or not the independent plants in operation in this State shall be sustained and encouraged and others like them brought into existence, or whether the situation shall be let alone and slowly, but surely, resulting in the extinction of the independent packing houses. In order to accomplish what should be done, four acts by the State Legislature and one by the Board of Agriculture will be necessary. The first piece of legislation necessary is an act to prescribe a standard of cleanliness for country slaughter houses. This act ought to provide that every country slaughter house should be cleaned and disinfected after each killing, and forbid any offal of any kind to be left within 200 yards of any slaughter house to decay or to be eaten by hogs. If such an act were put into force, the public would feel more secure in regard to the quality of meat dressed in country slaughter houses. Most of the diseased food animals are shipped to the public markets; there is too much chance of detection for the country butcher to use diseased animals 44 Missouri Agricultural Report. to any great extent. It is well known that some country butchers make a practice of slaughtering diseased cattle and hogs, but this practice is very limited, and if the law requiring cleanliness in the country slaughter house was faithfully enforced, little fault could be found with the meat slaughtered therein. Another act of the Legislature necessary is one giving cities more authority in providing meat inspection. The present stat- utes only provide for cities to inspect the live animal. This statute should be extended to give any city authority to inspect and con- demn meats at the time of slaughter and to regulate the cleanliness and disinfection of the plant. The statute ought to be so compre- hensive as to provide cities with authority to establish a central public abattoir, and require all local slaughtering to be done there. Another important act of the Legislature necessary is one pro- viding for State control of ‘‘out of condition” animals at the pub- lic stock yards. The federal yard inspectors have authority to control only such animals as are affected with or capable of spread- ing a contagious disease. There are many conditions, aside from contagious diseases, which render an animal unfit for food and for which their carcasses are condemned by federal meat inspectors. Such animals are referred to as “out of condition.” Some of these are affected with non-contagious diseases, and some are unfit for food simply on account of such things as advanced pregnancy, too recent parturition and being too young. The federal meat in- spectors have no authority over these animals until they are pur- chased by a packer engaged in interstate trade and are within the abattoir pens. At the St. Louis, St. Joseph and Kansas City yards there are received altogether probably 1,000 head per week of this class of food animals. Unscrupulous butchers are now engaged in driving them from the public stock yards to slaughter. Unless prohibited by State law, this practice is likely to increase rapidly. The results are that the public is imposed upon with unfit meat, and the few who are engaged in this traffic are doing a great deal to injure the reputation of meats from all sources not covered by inspection. The State ought to provide inspectors at once, to be stationed at all of the public stock yards in this State, with authori- ty to control “out of condition” animals, and require them to be slaughtered, if at all, under competent inspection, where their car- casses would be permitted to be used for only such purposes as they were found fit. If any difficulty is found in making the pro- visions under the law necessary to obtain the desired end, the matter can be disposed of by a law requiring a permit from a State Report of State Veterinarian. 45 inspector for the: removal of each animal from the public stock yards. Permits for the removal of unsound animals may then be refused by the inspector in charge. Still another piece of legislation which, from my investiga- tion, I think would be of immense benefit toward encouraging in- dependent packers, is a law requiring all packing plants to quote meat f. 0. b. the same price for all points in the State. In any town where an independent packing firm attempts to operate to any extent, meat is sold by the trust packing houses much cheaper than the same quality is sold in other towns of the State. At Sedalia and Webb City, for instance, where independent firms are operat- ing, the carcasses of beef, in quality known as dressed beef, are sold by the trust packing houses for about the same price they charge in other towns of the State for a lower quality of meat known as ‘‘butcher’”’ stuff. This practice makes it next to impos- sible for any independent firm to do a profitable packing business. There is no assurance that an independent packer will not be closed out of business by such competition at any time. Under | these conditions, it is unsafe for any independent firm to invest much money in a packing plant. The law ought to provide that meat of any given quality should be quoted to all towns of this State at the same price. If this law is avoided by substituting meat of a higher quality in those towns where there is independent competition, the law ought to provide for federal inspectors at the packing plants to grade the meats, so that evasion of the law by this plan would not be possible. The act of the Board of Agriculture, which will help a great deal along the line of promoting independent packing houses, is to pass an order making it a policy of the Board to extend to any independent packing firm or city abattoir the privilege of handling southern cattle for immediate slaughter. This can be done with absolute safety. At Kansas City alone, in the year 1905, there were received in the southern pens for immediate slaughter 332,- 000 head of cattle. Out of this number, those that are classed as butcher stuff, sell for about 50 cents per hundred less in the south- ern pens than cattle of the same quality in native pens. This is equivalent to $5.00 per head for every 1,000-pound steer. The trust packing houses only have access to cattle in the southern pens. The independent packers must buy in the native pens or in,.mar- kets controlled by them. The privilege of dealing in southern cat- tle extended to the independent packer will do a great deal toward his success. 46 Missouri Agricultural Report. On account of a limited outbreak of mange in Worth county and scabies among sheep in Lewis county, I wish to recommend for appointment as deputies Dr. J. H. McElroy of Grant City and Dr. T. F. Arnold of Lewistown. Respectfully submitted, D. F. LUCKEY, State Veterinarian F armers’ Week in A ricultural College o January 7-12, 1907. Fourth Annual Meeting Missouri Corn Growers’ Associa- tion, Tenth Annual Meeting Missouri Improved Live Stock Breeders’ Association, Seventeenth Annual Meeting Missouri State Dairy As- sociation and First Annual Meeting Missouri State Sheep Breeders’ Association. (Held under the auspices of the State Board of Agriculture.) Abstract of the Addresses Delivered. OPENING SESSION. Farmers’ week in the Agricultural College has grown to be the annual event for the farmers of the State. The first meeting was held in the Agricultural College in January, 1904, with only one organization assisting the State Board of Agriculture—namely, the Improved Live Stock Breeders’ Association, and at that time the Missouri Corn Growers’ Association was organized. The sec- ond Farmers’ Week Convention was participated in by the Im- proved Live Stock Breeders’ Association and the Corn Growers’ Association,.with a much better interest and a larger attendance. The third meeting held in the Agricultural College, January, 1906, was participated in by the above-named conventions, with an at- tendance about twice as large as the year before. The fourth an- nual meeting was participated in by the Improved Live Stock Breeders’ Association, the State Corn Growers’ Association, the State Sheep Breeders’ Association and the Missouri State Dairy Association, with the largest attendance and greatest enthusiasm of any meeting yet held. The farmers of the State are just begin- ning to realize that the Agricultural College is their school, and that it is profitable to visit the college at least once a year. It is 48 Missouri Agricultural Report. hoped to make the college the home of all State farmers’ associa- tions, giving the members of the different associations an oppor- tunity to meet and get acquainted with each other, as well as to meet the members of the State Board of Agriculture and the facul- ty of the Agricultural College, and to visit the State Experiment Station and observe the experiments which are being carried on. The State Corn Show has become a fixed feature of these conven- tions, and at the last meeting prizes, aggregating nearly $1,000, were given for the best exhibits of corn. The first State boys’ corn growing contest was held this year, boys receiving prizes from the State Board of Agriculture amounting to $200, and from the Commercial Club of Columbia to the amount of about $150. The boys’ corn growing contest will be the principal feature of the meeting to be held in 1908. ADDRESS OF WELCOME ON BEHALF OF STATE UNIVER- SITY. : (Hon. Walter Williams, Member Board of Ourators.) Jt is my pleasure, Mr. President and gentlemen, to add a word to what the city government, through the president of the council, has said to you in the way of welcome. I recognize the inability on my part to follow two Christian preachers, and one a city councilman as well. I have always hesi- tated in speaking to an audience of farmers. It would seem natural that a man, after asking thirteen or fourteen or fifteen farmers for their daughters, should get used to it. (Applause.) But the first time he does a thing of that kind it is very embarrassing, and he hesitates always thereafter when he speaks in the presence of one or more farmers. . In the name of President Jesse, whose regrettable illness gives me place here in his stead, in the name of the Board of Curators, of the faculty and of the students, I bid you welcome. This is your University, if you are Missourians. It is here to serve all the people of all the State, as that which Missouri builds or bears or adopts should ever serve all the people of all the State. If you will note, on yonder portico you will see as the central orna- ment of this great building the central building of the University quadrangle and campus, the great seal of the commonwealth, which says to all Missourians that the welfare of the people is the su- Farmers’ Week in Agricultural College. 49 preme law of this University as of the commonwealth of which it is the chief school. It rests, as all Missouri rests, upon the broad and liberal sup- port of the men who make the real wealth of this agricultural State. Five per cent of the students here come from the homes of lawyers, and about five per cent come from the homes of physicians, and about eleven per cent come from the homes of merchants in the towns; but nearly forty per cent of the students here, in the college of mines, and in the college of law, and in the college of education, and in the college of medicine, and in the college of en- gineering, and in the college of agriculture, and in the college aca- demic come from the homes of farmers in this State—nearly forty per cent of the students enrolled in the seven colleges which make the University of today. These are your children and this is your child. May your coming here be an inspiration unto them and may it be pleasant and profitable unto you. May the education which they gain within these colleges make of these students worthier children of your homes and better fit for the duties of the highest citizenship in this great commonwealth. I bid you welcome. The doors of the State’s chief school swing open to you; the latch string is out to that which is yours and mine and all Missourians. Mr. President and gentlemen, I bid you welcome. (Applause.) SPEECH IN RESPONSE TO ADDRESS OF WELCOME. Dr. H. J. Waters, Dean Missouri Agricultural College.) Ladies and Gentlemen: It is impossible for me to appropri- ately and properly represent a man of Governor Colman’s ability as a speaker even if I had unlimited time for preparation. It is, therefore, still more inappropriate for me to attempt to represent him without notice or preparation. But speaking for the State Board of Agriculture, under whose auspices this meeting is held, it may be worth while to say something about the work of this department of the State, about its place in the commonwealth, and the relation it bears to the work of the College of Agriculture and of the University. In the popular mind there is not a clear distinction between the State Board of Agriculture and the College of Agriculture. This comes about because of the fact that the State Board of Agriculture is, A-4 50 Missouri Agricultural Report. by the law of the State, quartered in the agricultural building, and because of the further fact that the two lines of work are very similar, and that the Board of Agriculture and College of Agriculture have been engaged in not only somewhat similar work, but have been parallel and have in some small degree over- lapped. I do not mean to create the impression that there is any duplication in this, nor that there is any lost motion or any waste effort. For in all the years that the Board of Agriculture has been stationed with the College of Agriculture, so far as I know there has been the most cordial co-operation, the most friendly relation and absolutely no friction between the two bodies; and when the Board of Agriculture sets out upon a certain campaign of educa- tion, which might in some ways be considered the function of the College of Agriculture, it has always been with the fullest and fairest understanding, and with the most cordial consent. And then again, when the College of Agriculture should at any time begin the work of exploitation, or the extension and carrying on the research of some line for the improvement of agri- culture, which might by some be considered a part of the work of the Board of Agriculture, it has always been likewise with the common consent of the other party. And so these two institutions stand here to co-operate, to support and to assist each other. The College of Agriculture, with its Experiment Station, de- velops and discovers the facts, and the Board of Agriculture, with its machinery, and with its hold upon the people, reaching down to the farmers, is carrying this discovery, with its results and ap- plication, to the people of the State. Thus there is nc duplication, there is no friction, there is no lost motion in this arrangement; but it is an arrangement which permits the College of Agriculture to occupy one field, primarily discovering the truth in reference to practice on the one hand and on the other teaching it to the students who come here; and the Board of Agriculture to occupy another, that of carrying this information to the farmers direct. It is peculiarly appropriate in my judgment that the Board of Agriculture should come here once each year and hold a con- vention like this. It is also peculiarly appropriate that the farm- ers should get together once a year, at least. Standing isolated, as they are, they forget, if they ever fully realize, their own im- portance and the importance of their profession. Getting to- gether in this way, they begin to feel more proud of themselves and of their profession. Farmers’ Week in Agricultural College. 51 When I see any assemblage of farmers, I always think of the old fable that all of you have read or heard many times, of the peasant who thought he was going to die, and called his two sons to his bedside and said, “I am about to die, and I am go- ing to leave to you the little plot of ground behind the house, the vineyard. In that vineyard is buried a great treasure. All you need do is to dig for it, and you may find it.”” And he passed away, and the young men, strong of arm, set about to find the treasure, the pot of gold, and they dug the vineyard over most carefully and failed to find it, and thinking perhaps they had not gone deep enough, they dug again still deeper, and failing again, went still deeper, with the same result, and when they came to the conclu- sion that their father was beside himself at the time he had said these words, and that there was no pot of gold, no treasure buried there, and they went their way. But they came back the next sum- mer, and lo and behold! There was a crop of fruit on their vines such as they had never seen before, and they harvested it, and from that came their pot of gold. It was the treasure that had been buried in that soil, and that was what their father had re- ferred to. And so it is with agriculture. Yet, when we begin to think of the mineral wealth of our country, when we begin to survey our wealth, we begin to figure immediately the gold, the iron, the lead, the silver and that class of minerals which have been styled “the precious metals.” The truth is, however, that last year’s crop mined out of the soil by _ the farmers of the United States amounted to more than six bil- lion dollars, and was worth more than all the gold and silver mined in America since Columbus discovered it. The truth is that the greatest mineral resources of this country is the mineral plant food ‘within its soil. The greatest mines are our farms, the greatest miners are the farmers themselves. It is the only mining business that is permanent; it is the only business that is basic. Our silver mines work out and the cities based upon them pass away from the earth; but the cities, the universities, the churches built upon agriculture, stand; they are permanent; they are as everlasting as the hills themselves, provided the farmer who mines that soil mines it intelligently, appreciates its own limitations, and does not waste its resources. (Applause.) As illustrative of this very basic industry, let me cite another illustration. Just a few days ago I happened to be in conference with a gentleman who represents great millions of accumulated wealth of the eastern portion of the country, which had been 52 Missouri A gricultural Report. placed in his hands for the development of education. Rockefeller had placed at his disposal twenty-five million dollars; others addi- tional sums. He said he had gone into other portions. of this country, not Missouri, with a view of strengthening the universi- ties, and with a view of strengthening and upbuilding certain de- partments of that State, and the schools of which State were not well supported until they began to support them. He said they investigated the condition of the university-and found it was not the university which was at fault, and concluded that the fault must be with the preparatory or high schools, and they therefore made an investigation of them, as they knew it was necessary to properly build them up before they could support their university as they should. But it was found that the difficulty was not in the high schools; that it must be more basic than that, and the con- clusion was that it was with the primary schools, and that they must therefore look to these and the strengthening of them if they would hope to build a high school system, and rest a university upon it. And when they investigated the primary schools they found the fault was not there, but that they rested upon an agri- culture that was not prosperous, and therefore strong schools could not be made. They were thoroughly convinced the difficulty in the school system was with the agriculture, and they set about to spend their money strengthening the agriculture of the sec- tion which they had first sought to expend toward the strengthen- ing of the university, after they had finally seen that, when their agriculture was strengthened, the district schools and high schools and university would be supported and would take care of them- selves. That is a natural and logical conclusion anywhere you go; and anywhere the agricultural industry is basic, if that is false, if that is weak; if behind it is a man without nerve, without strength and without mental capacity, the whole superstructure of whatever kind is of the same sort. Fortunately, the Missouri farmer is an intelligent farmer, is on good land, is prosperous; and when those conditions prevail everything else prospers with them. And it is only when the lead- ing farmers come together like you gentlemen, in this way, and compare their experiences and get the best thought and the re- sults of the best study and investigation, that we will continue to have on the Missouri farm the best intelligence of the State, the most progressive men in the country and the most prosperous of all classes of people. (Applause.) Missouri State Dairy Association. Condensed report of the proceedings of the 17th annual con- vention, held at Columbia, January 10-11, 1907. STATEMENT. The seventeenth annual meeting of the Missouri Dairy As- sociation was held at Columbia, January 10-11, 1907, in conjunc- tion with the Improved Live Stock Breeders’ Association and the Missouri Corn Growers’ Association. By joining with these other two State Associations, better rates were secured on the railroads, and a stronger program pre- sented. Mention is made below of persons who contributed to the success of the program, but whose addresses are not included in this report: Invocation by Rev. C. H. Winders. Address of Welcome by Hon. W. S. St. Clair. Response for Dairy Association, Secretary R. M. Washburn. “What Have We a Right to Demand of Our Cows?” Prof. Oscar Erf, Manhattan, Kas. “Dairy Farm Crops,” Hon. C. D. Lyon, Georgetown, Ohio. “Does it Really Pay to Weed Out Poor Cows?” Hon. H. B. Gurler, DeKalb, Ill. , “The Future Dairyman,” Hon. W. W. Marple, Chicago, III. Debate (by agricultural students) —Question: ‘‘Resolved, That more profit may be derived from the special purpose dairy cow than from the dual purpose cow.” Affirmative—B. O. Brown and R. A. McCoy. Negative—H. P. Rusk and H. H. Krusekopf. “Eastern vs. Western Opportunities for Dairy Farmers,” B, D, White, Washington, D. C, 54 Missouri Agricultural Report. PRESIDENT’S OPENING ADDRESS. (Geo. O. Mosher, Kansas City, Mo.) Gentlemen of the Missouri State Dairy Association: The seventeenth annual meeting of our organization finds us in the most gratifying environment as compared with the past. We are beginning a new era, this being the first meeting under auspices which ally us with the other great agricultural and breed- ers’ associations of the State, and thus draw more attention to the dairy industry in the position it must occupy in our State, as land gradually becomes higher priced and farms cut up into smaller tracts. The experience of Missouri in the raising of cattle has been always along beef lines. As one gentleman recently expressed it, every effort was made to get fat on the animal.. Any cow that could have a calf was considered good enough to give milk. A good illustration of this is given in Professor Fraser’s object lesson, where he shows 19 good dairy cows worth 1,900 of the kind which give only enough milk to pay for their feed; or, as has been shown in Hoard’s Dairyman cow census, many of these cows were fed at an actual loss to the owner, not counting the value of his time in care of his herd nor the investment in the cows. A most lamentable picture. I believe one of the greatest boons to the farmer is the Ex- periment Station and the institute work under its direction. We have the men in Missouri who are doing this great work of build- ing up our agricultural wealth until she is an empire beyond ques- tion. Take the matter of corn breeding and selection. If followed out intelligently, it is not such a’ burdensome task; yet if each far- mer will adopt this system, it will add millions to our annual corn crop. The same statement applies to the work Mr. Ellis and Dean Waters are doing along the lines of stock breeding, and our own Professor Eckles, in the dairy division, is undoubtedly adding to the worth of our herds of dairy cows by advice in breed- ing and feeding which is hard to appreciate, unless one follows the history of the work which has to be done. The intelligent and painstaking care which Dr. Luckey, our State Veterinarian, has exercised, will minimize, and finally, prac- tically eliminate tuberculosis from Missouri herds. The good roads propaganda is a child of the Experiment Sta- tion, and bids fair to have a vigorous and valuable development, State Dairy Association. 5D It is a pardonable pride that points to these great movements in Missouri. We have been working for years as a separate entity. Now we come in close touch with the other great lines of modern farm- ing industry, and the result must be an increased impetus to all branches of agriculture. It is not out of place at this juncture to express our apprecia- tion of the great good fortune we have in the eminent gentlemen who have given their time, and who will devote their valuable thought to our advancement in the program to be enjoyed at this meeting. The dairy division of the National Department of Agriculture has been most generous, and year after year, sends of its best to our meetings—this year Professor White, one of the practical scientists of the dairy world. Not the least entitled to our thanks is the great dairy and agricultural press, which sends the lectures and teachings of all the best minds to every corner of the State. No dairyman can hope to succeed unless he takes and reads these most valuable newspapers. They are the encyclopedia of knowl- edge of dairying. The dairy industry in Missouri is fast assuming the import- ance to which it is entitled. This statement has reference to the various points where improvement has been wanting; a larger in- vestment in dairy equipment; better dairy cattle; higher type of finished product; and to the farmer, a better price for his goods. Why should Missouri be paying out $2,000,000 surplus to other states for her milk, butter and cheese? There is no better pasture in the world than our blue grass, and in the center of the corn belt. we have ensilage produced at the minimum cost per ton. The making of ensilage in Missouri is a new method of feed supply. Naturally it is looked on with some degree of question until its value is more thoroughly established. Who would need an argument if he were to realize that the chopped corn stalk has more feeding value than any roughage except alfalfa, and it is to be had at a cost of $1.25 to $2.00 per ton in the silo. This year in particular, when hay is selling at $10 to $16 per ton, it takes very little arithmetic to settle in the minds of the average man, what is profitable feed. The price of mill feeds is less by one-third than the dairymen in New England pay. We have the market within our own bor- ders. “Every prospect pleases.” There remains to be accom- plished only the education of our people to realize how valuable an 56 Missouri Agricultural Report. heritage is being wasted in the overlooking of these great oppor- tunities. On the high-priced land in Holland the dairy farmer has made fortunes which are proverbial. No doubt the same con- dition prevails in the channel islands. We have thousands of acres of rich pasture land, which could be brought to return big yields of profit if put to use in raising dairy stock. The advent of the great creamery concerns, with their agents ready to take cream at the door and return a monthly check to the farmer, reduces his otherwise financial business outlook to a system, which gives him ready cash to meet his obligations, and a margin to add to that received from the sale of surplus farm pro- ducts at the end of the year. In the vicinity of the great cities of the State the opportunity to participate in the higher-priced market for commercial milk and sweet cream, should make every small farmer essentially a farmer, and only incidentally a general farmer. In other words, his suc- cess will lie in his being able to feed his crops and. turn them into milk and butter; the by-products, the skim milk being converted into pork and veal, rather than to strip the farm each fall of its earned reward. The economic saving of the fertilizer contained in the manure of a herd of dairy cows will in many cases decide the chances between failure and success in farm operations. These statements, it is realized, are not new. They are none the less valuable because of this, because the truth is always mighty and never loses interest in being kept before us. We have many reforms to work out aside from the problems of balanced ration and season for breeding cows, the advantages of clean barns, clean cows and pure water supply. We would look to the State Legislature for help in many lines. We want changes in the dairy laws; in the laws with reference to the sale of artificial substitutes for dairy products; for the preven- tion of adulteration of our output after it leaves the farm in a pure state. We want a fair and reasonable standard for fat and solids in milk. The Pure Food Laws will harm no honest producer. It has raised the retail price of commercial milk in Kansas City to eight cents. The farmer should have his equitable share of this increased price for his wares. The subject of sanitary milk has received, through the press of Missouri, more attention than it ever before could boast. Keep up the agitation until every consumer is educated to demand bet- ter milk, but to realize that for a high class article he must pay r State Dairy Association. 57 an increased price commensurate with the increased expense of production. In closing, may I express my profound thanks to the Associa- tion for conferring on me the undeserved honor of being its Presi- dent during the year just closing. I look forward to the new administration, taking up the work with industry and enthusiasm, which will show 1907 the grandest year in our history. I am sure the present meeting will be one of much value, and an inspiration to every member to do his share to make Missouri the greatest dairy State. Gentlemen, the meeting is open and ready for consideration of business. THE INEVITABILITY OF DAIRYING. (H. J. Waters, Dean of Missouri Agricultural College. ) The subject, “The Inevitability of Dairying,” is not of my own choosing. I am not by birth, education or sympathy a dairy- man. My sympathies and tastes are all in the other direction—the production of meat, and primarily the production of beef. I like the Shorthorn, the Hereford, or the Angus much better than I do the Jersey or Holstein or Guernsey, and I like the beef business much better than I do the dairy industry. Nevertheless, I realize that the man who stands out against dairying as the basis of our permanent agriculture is standing out against an irresistible force, and will in the end be as effectual as he who with a broom attempts to sweep back the ocean tide. Either this country is going to be an exception to all human experience, or we must ultimately sur- render to the inevitable. There is no question that as population becomes denser, as land becomes higher, as labor becomes more abundant, and, there- fore, cheaper, we must produce on our farms products which will require and reimburse more labor. The beef business is primarily adapted to the newer condi- tions of a country, to broad acres, to cheap land, to scarce and high-priced labor, to transportation of products over long distances. As the country becomes more densely populated and land becomes higher, they look to something else. New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Connecticut were formerly the great beef producing centers of this country. Then the dairy industry was being nursed and carried along by its enthusiastic 58 Missouri Agricultural Report. friends as perhaps it now is in Missouri, and the beef business was able to take care of itself, as it yet is with us. Now the dairy busi- ness dominates in the east and they are trying to coax back the vanished beef industry. Thus, as the country becomes older, its land divided into smaller farms, and the people get on a more economical basis and con- servative basis in both production and consumption, the beef in- dustry is the first to wane. In its stead, as a rule, comes dairying. First, in combination with beef, it is true, but later, especially in the vicinity of the large cities and among the most congested cen- ters, it becomes a highly specialized industry. In the rural dis- tricts this combination of beef and dairying has thus far remained stable in the oldest European countries, with dairying as the prin- cipal feature and beef as an adjunct. Broadly speaking, the next class of beef products to diminish, vutside of the mountain and the strictly grazing regions, is the sheep. Then follows the hog, although on account of the use to which the hog may be put as a consumer of waste products around the household, he remains to this day a prominent feature in the agriculture of the most densely populated regions of the country. As countries become still more populous, vegetable diets sup- plant practically all forms of animal products, the one standing out to the last being poultry. While it is true that the fowl, when charged up with all the feed consumed, produces the most costly animal products known, at the same time it lives so largely off the products that would otherwise go to waste, is so well adapted to living in close prox- imity with people themselves, that it is perhaps the most perma- vent animal industry that we have. It is an interesting fact that this is the only animal industry that China has left. She has long since ceased to produce beef, if she was ever a beef producing country. The dairy cow has been driven out, if this industry was ever established there. But the duck and the goose and the chicken are still there in such quantities that this constitutes one of China's most important export products. Even as well adapted as the State of California is to the production of poultry, San Francisco buys eggs from China by the hundreds of thousands each year. The fowls themselves are exported in large quantities to this country. It is likewise interesting that much of the albumen used in sen- sitizing of photographic plates comes from China, and is made from the egg, State Dairy Association. 59 BEEF COSTLY TO MAKE AND SELLS AT A LOW PRICE. There is another and perhaps a more fundamental reason why the beef industry is the first to go. This reason, however, has not as a rule been made clear in our discussions of this subject. The cost of producing a pound of meat from the three prin- cipal sources would be about in this order: First, beef; second, perhaps, mutton; third, pork. In other words, pork costs less to produce than either of the others, although the difference between it and mutton is not large, and on the average is much less than the difference between either of these and beef. On the other hand, however, these animals bring on the mar- ket, when fitted as they usually are, taking the experience of the last twenty-five years as a basis, prices in just the reverse order. That is, hogs have perhaps sold highest, with sheep a very close second, and cattle considerably below either. It is evident, therefore, that in a strictly agricultural region, such as the Mississippi Valley, the margin between the cost and selling price has been lowest in beef of any of our meat animals. It is a striking fact that during the last twelve months there was not a sheep sold at the St. Louis market for less than $5.00 per hundred, while thousands and thousands, in fact, the majority of the cattle sold on that market, brought less than $5.00 per hundred. . We have not yet, however, approached the most cogent reason for the elimination of the beef industry when great economy must be exercised in production and consumption. THE EFFICIENCY OF THE BEEF STEER AND THE DAIRY COW AS A PRO- DUCER OF HUMAN FOOD COMPARED. The most striking fact in connection with this whole question is the inefficiency for the production of human food of the beef animal as compared with the dairy cow. Let us assume that we full feed a steer for 300 days, and that his average daily gain for that time is 2'4 pounds, making a total gain of 675 pounds. In the same length of time a dairy cow of quality equal to that of the steer above assumed would produce, at the very least, 6,000 pounds of milk. The dairy cow will require for the production of her annual milk output less grain, less hay, less grass and less range than will the steer in the production of its 675 pounds of gain in weight, 60 Missouri Agricultural Report. Let us, however, inspect these total annual products more closely. . Assuming that the 675 pounds gained by tlie steer will have the composition shown by Jordan in his studies of the composition of the gain made on animals from 17 to 27 months of age, *we should have the following detailed exhibit: Per cent. Pounds. AWiSUUON: crore rela alerelclotalstetelateieteietsieieve ereisieiaicistsis's o(cle-ntoinipierelatols olelnietetetelaisfoveistsiate 42.4 286 log taareabicnsasu d006 cododespbocdoodnddsoddeunponododnaboonpoduopdn cud 87.5 258 PEROGOUN cee ictrelecincieieicicisialejaiche sievsts's oleinrelevete\elererclea ni piorevoveiatnnia/aiefe otetotsteteye 14.1 95.5 DNS EL aay otateieiote ic ee ais claterelatevatatere’ olsverefotet sitet statatale\stols avoie(ofovelevals/sletelele’a aveteleletstete isl 6.0 40.5 Total dry matter .............ccceescceeccee scene eee ceescees ioe 386 The 6,000 pounds of milk produced by the cow in the same length of time might be safely estimated on the basis of: Per cent. | Pounds. BV VGS4 Tee ara ete ieyetate foiste la. a\ala/eleloyaio\ato[olelo'e s1o(sicloielelajsts eferelela{aVete’=/ofatateist ol steietalpya(= ie td 86 5160 PES PLUM BL EU tie ie ater eye tetole earsvalalaveleleieiaiciaistevaleselsraicioleicieicicte sleleieisiabsinver- tote tateteter als 4.6 276 AUIS SERRE Sh68 ooccd saego aan Oude dotocebonadnde Guamnoaotine Mono TOD ar 4.75 285 RCL CLIT CLA LIDULEND GIN: /asoin'o|a late oveie\elpieretesa\eleije/ala/s) svetnYo\olnlale/a(olelol=|s!»\=i-\> eislele 3.85 231 PASSE Meee tetercvers opeteteistetale oicis tele sists) ato’a/eveisiala/-ts atare-ojef=iasacoisiolere (oe |alers/elaiesaTaters elsyaie’=falsc 8 48 MUO CEVICHE VII AGL CTs. oan ciuteielalclole siaiclaletalalelereletolsincelelolel=t=inin\nlelsieiclo/eialous Lote et The water in the meat and in the milk is of no more value for food than that which comes from the cistern or spring, and © we are, therefore, primarily interested in the quantity of dry mat- ter produced. It will be observed that the cow’s annual output of dry mat- ter is 840 pounds, as compared with 386 pounds for the steer. A close scrutiny of the detailed figures given above will show that the whole story is not yet told. The steer’s product will need to be still further reduced, because a portion of the gain made is inedible, being in the form of increase in weight of bone, hoof, horn, hide, vital organs, blood, etc. We have no reliable data from which to estimate the amount of the annual growth of this ma- terial on a steer, but it is certainly safe to assume that the six per cent of ash shown by Jordan’s figures in the above table would not be an over-estimate of the amount that would be classed as *Jordan: “The Feeding of Animals.’’ Page 340, State Dairy Association. 61 inedible and of use only for the manufacture of leather or fertili- zers. On this basis there would need to be deducted 41 pounds from the total of 386 pounds of dry matter, leaving a total of 345 pounds of edible material produced by the steer, compared with 840 pounds produced by the cow. There is yet a difference to be considered: The fat produced by the cow is the most digestible of all the animal fats. The sugar in milk is perhaps the most easily di- gested and assimilated of all sugars, and is assumed to be all avail- able when used as food. In the case of casein and albumen, it is practically completely digestible, and the same is true of the ash. Therefore, not only is the edible material produced by the cow more than two and a half times as large in amount as that of the steer, but it is a significant fact that practically all of this is di- gestible and easily assimilated by people of all years, from youth to old age. In the case, however, of the production of the steer, there is a further waste. For when the animal is slaughtered the butcher is compelled to trim the carcass of its excess fat or tallow. In the average case this green tallow is not worth as much per pound as he has paid for the steer alive. This tallow has perhans cost the feeder ten cents or twelve cents a pound to make, and it has a value when sold as such, and not attached to a steak or roast, of perhaps less than four cents. Furthermore, when the butcher di- vides this carcass into steaks and roasts, the customer is constantly insisting upon having the excess tallow trimmed off before it is weighed. All of this tallow must, like that which was trimmed from the carcass when the animal was killed, go into the tub as low-priced material. Furthermore, when the steak or roast is cooked, a considerable portion of the fat is fried or stewed out, and this is likely to be poured into the garbage can or the sewer. Then, when the meat comes to the table, the first protest from the children is against being given too much fat. The portion of the steak or roast that is left uneaten is the fat, and this is es- sentially wasted or fed to the dog, the chickens or the pigs. Thus, this high grade material—that is, material that is most expensive of all animal products to make, is really of least prac- tical use for human consumption, because it, unlike butterfat, is of itself not especially palatable. In New York City so much fat is poured into the sewers that recently the city authorities set about to recover it, and millions of pounds are thus taken from the sewerage and sold at a low 62 Missouri Agricultural Report. price, chiefly for the manufacture of soap. This means that the corn of the Mississippi Valley is being converted into high-priced fat on our hogs, cattle and sheep, a portion of which finally finds its way into a soap factory through the sewers of our great cities. Just what number of pounds of the annual production of the steer would be actually left as digestible material it is impossible to say, but it is perhaps not unreasonable to say that the amount of digestible matter produced by the cow is about three times as large as that produced by the steer in the same length of time. Thus it is perfectly evident that the dairy cow is a very much more efficient machine for the manufacture of our grain, grass and hay into edible animal products than is the beef steer, or than is any animal producing meat, for that matter. Of equal importance is the fact that the cow will make the yearly product ascribed to her in the foregoing computations on grass alone without grain during the summer months. The rest ~ of the year she will eat less grain per day than the steer will re- quire. On the other hand, it will be necessary to feed the steer to the full limit of his appetite for each one of the 300 days figured ~ in the foregoing tables in order to have him make the amount of gain credited to him. All these figures for the cow are in every way conservative. It is likely indeed that the amount of food con- sumed by the steer to make the gains used in our computations would produce fully one-third more milk and total solids than has been credited to the cow. RELATIVE COST OF BEEF AND DAIRY PRODUCTS. Because dairy products have uniformly sold at a very much higher price than most other animal products, it has been assumed that the cost was proportionately greater. Professor C. H. Eckles, of the Department of Dairy Husbandry of the University, has been kind enough to supply the records of two cows in the Uni- versity dairy herd of fair to good quality, as follows: Cow 1. Male PROGU CCAM AV OAG is cWiecc chiseled dds bop vcldddeasVes¥ eres hseitthehen vrede 6988 pounds, BULLET DrOdUCceGHnary.CAT ts chincbopsrignsse «sad gar teabmivenessentenes ean Pees see 424 Milk SOMA PrOduCEd INA VATS. ds vcces ceive vpelkmicnsienduavaes ged sua Sak ombene 992 OSHOMTCEd FOr 12 N OMG ays gisclo.c nis ai0'e.oiv.c apple oiah sarc ous, a lav o.n9 cic AM seieaes $80.00 CORD OL PUULOL DOT DOU Ga stinaeinsivarsis siacigas A cee a0.c Sieve e eames melt as 7 cents. WOSGOLMUE SOMUGS POM POUNG is ccahiccic vids become’ oes o/c fod & meldegh meitelvab mentee ve 3 State Dairy Association. 63 Cow 2 ACT OCU CEO winlesy VL ete rete eyeyayerelfarelny ahafahol eialejayo/a/erel s/alete/cichata\esaie 01s syera hielo: uve sleie’ sleiaie 6910 pounds. ESCH USTROTOMUC COE In a yO evie acter oe clcie craters ele/accleielotersse eiel< sc\cielvieiolcialaie/siejsle dc aleieiele's, ole 366 Millkasollad's pProdiwGeG! bay Via os ce ccicrceies ais rise siawlocials ois ais cle:d.eintaicjalelele ere eisieje 918 WOR DOMmLOCE TOMACV ERI. rie «elese olelsileleleiae sie cineesie e cieimiscieide a «asc eheEnodoncnocdon $34.60 AMIErHe oO COST OL DU bb Gla OUl Ges cicinier.'ctelere'si ciate srelaletareve Pisses ianys. cleieis elolaieleysieielelels .094 cents. VOT AEE | COSMOL SOLAS PC DOUN Gis. recisifriclec sie eicss ses weieialsisicies sie riacies'siaewels 084 The feeds used in the six months winter period were: Corn chop, at 40 cents per bushel; clover hay, $8.00 per ton; corn silage, $2.50 per ton. During the six months summer period the cows were at pas- ture, received no grain, and were rated at $2.25 per head per month. These were not specially selected cows, but happen to be fairly representative animals of which Professor Eckles had a complete record. It will be observed that the cost of feed per pound of butter varied between seven cents and nine cents. This is not much in excess of the cost of gain on aged steers made thick fat or that are fed six months or more. The cost of gain on cattle of this sort could be safely figured at the minimum price shown here for but- ter, namely, seven cents. The low price for total solids of from 3 cents to 3.8 cents per pound is in striking contrast. We would need to about double this price for the gain of each pound in live weight of a steer. When it is further realized that fully one-third of this gain in live weight of a steer is water, and that still an- other portion is inedible, and still another portion is indigestible, and that these total solids produced by the dairy cow are free from water and are all edible and practically all digestible, one cannot fail to be impressed with the efficiency of the dairy cow in con- trast with a meat producing animal like the steer. FINANCIAL RETURNS FROM THE DAIRY COW MUCH LARGER THAN FROM THE STEER. The record of the University dairy herd of 34 cows, including all 2-year old heifers for last year, showed an average of 6,792 pounds of milk and 369 pounds of butter each. The average local retail price for the year for butter was 28 cents per pound. At this price the financial return per cow, without counting the calf, was: 64 Missouri Agricultural Report. 369 pounds butter, at 28 cents per pound................ BORO CCST G0 DODGE AC aeer $103 32 5,773 pounds skim milk, at 25 cents per hundredweight...............cceeeceeees 14 43 POA]: rEbUrwm POL COW «> sisic.c's civtceie ece'w's o/e'6.010/0i5,4% s,s a. dieinjen aes leieiciats aloe oioremole pinto sir wie 219 $117 75 CREAMERY VALUE. At the butter fat prices paid by the Dairy Department of the University for cream bought from patrons in different parts of the State this would amount to: p16 pounds putter fat, at26.cents per POUNG rte Neceg. bee cwcncies sale lsc cldlcisle tees $82 16 6,778 pounds skim milk, at 25 cents per hundredweight............cccceeeesececees 14 43 Total return per cow............-- Nteiels otareidia dd as bie Coles ables RE RO lel mee obese miner $96 59 From a few of the leading dairymen of the State Professor Eckles gives me these data: S. H. Pile, Glasgow, Missouri, reports a gross income of $120.00 per cow for 17 head. E. & E. J. Hosmer, Marshfield, Missouri, have 71 cows, which averaged over 340 pounds of butter, selling at 23 cents per pound, or $78.20 per head for butter alone, Squire Innis, Nevada, Missouri, sold products to the value of $119.50 per head for 22 head. E. B. Cooper, Trenton, Missouri, reports a return of $2,050.00 from 25 cows. S. W. Coleman, Sedalia, milks seven cows that average 400 pounds of butter each. This is sold at 25 cents, and the skim milk is fed to calves and pigs. He sold $850.00 worth of hogs and $700.00 worth of butter in a year. All from 10 acres of land. H. C. Goodrich, Calhoun, Missouri, sold 331 pounds of but- ter per cow for 32 head, at 23.8 cents per pound. Geo. Koontz, Carthage, Missouri, realized $3,161.00 from 31 head of cows for butter at 25 cents and 30 cents per pound, or an income of about $102.00 per head for butter alone. DAIRYING THRIVES IN HARD TIMES; THE BEEF BUSINESS IN PROSPER- OUS TIMES. Another way to illustrate the superiority of the dairy cow, or to emphasize the profits of the dairy business, is to consider the fact that when prices are low and times are hard, men leave other specialties in farming and engage in the dairy business. Upon the return, however, of good times, with high prices and State Dairy Association. 65 good opportunities for fair remuneration in all lines, dairying is _ neglected, because men can make more money comfortably in some other way. DAIRYING ADAPTED TO GOOD LAND. It is a popular notion that land too poor or too rough to yield profitable returns in other lines of agriculture is well adapted to dairying. While it is true that dairying will thrive on land on which most other forms of agriculture will fail, for the very rea- sons already pointed out, it is a fundamental mistake, however, to assume that because of this fact dairying is adapted only +o regions of that sort. The truth is, dairying is just as well adapted to the best land of the country as it is to the poorest, and the dairy- man ought to insist upon taking possession of the best of this land, where are already developed the best schools and churches, where he has the best roads, the best markets, and all the modern con- veniences. - The beef men cling tenaciously to these best regions, and will not surrender their business or their places easily. They are not built along that line. When they have not the dairyman to fight, they fight among themselves. But one thing is certain; that the average beef man must mend his ways or yield to the inevitable. THE BEEF MAN MUST IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF HIS STOCK. We are interested in extending as much as possible the con- sumption of animal products, particularly of beef, because the race that will dominate the world with its ideas, its form of government, its religions, its point of view, its language, its culture and its general point of view will be the race of people that eats meat. The role of beefsteak in the world’s civilization has been of tre- mendous importance. Last winter one of the graduate students in animal husbandry in the University collected statistics from a large number of cattle men in the corn belt, principally in Missouri, Iowa and Illinois. It was shown by the returns from these men that the average calf was worth at weaning time $15.00. For the production and nour- ishment of this calf a cow was kept the entire twelve months. It has already been shown that the gross return from good dairy cows, without counting anything for the calf, varied from $75.00 to $120.00. It is perfectly feasible, without materially increasing the expense, to produce calves that are worth at weaning time for beef purposes from $25.00 to $35.00 per head. A-t 66 Missouri Agricultural Report. It will be necessary, therefore, for the beef men, on the high- priced land of Missouri, Illinois and Iowa, to either produce this class of beef and feed it out as baby beef, or leave the raising of the cattle to the owner of cheap grazing lands in the west. This will mean, then, that they must become cattle feeders rather than cattle raisers and feeders if they wish to continue in the beef busi- ness. Or, if this be not satisfactory, to choose between the suicidal policy of selling the grain or engaging in the dairy business. THE COMING OF THE MILKING MACHINE MARKS AN EPOCH. In the past the chief trouble in the dairy business was the difficulty in securing labor of the proper sort the year round, 365 days in the year, to do the milking. If the milking machines are the success that they seem to be, so that the work may be done by machinery, and this labor problem thereby eliminated, the Mis- sourian is going into dairying. WHAT WE MAKE OUT OF OUR COWS, AND HOW WE DO IT. (S. H. Redmon, Tipton, Mo.) Gentlemen of the Missouri Dairy Association: You will no doubt realize my embarassment coming before this learned body, with its Gurlers and Erfs, its Lillys and Whites, its Eckles and Washburns, and many other of state and national reputation, to discuss with you the above subject. And yet believing, as I do, that grand old Missouri, with its natural and varied industries and resources, can be made one of the best dairy states in the Union, I feel that as one of her sons I would be untrue to the State of my birth did I not try to comply with the request of our Secretary to say a word in its behalf. Redhurst Datry—We, at Redhurst dairy farm, have, during the past year, the twelve months ending December 31, 1906, milked on an average of fifty cows, ten of which were cows with first calves, and sold butter fat to the amount of $3,231.95, or an average of $269.33 per month, besides three gallons whole milk per day for home consumption, and the whole milk fed to calves until they are six weeks old. We raise all calves except grade Jersey bulls, which are vealed. As to how this is done: We have a barn with double wall, the outside wall being lined with buifling paper inside and thoroughly State Dairy Association. 67 ventilated according to King system. Each cow has a good, airy, light and comfortable stall. We try to keep cow clean, barn clean and hands clean; milk into Gurler buckets, take direct to cream house, which is detached from the barn, separate it and bring it down to 40 degrees. Feed Silage—Our cows are fed from the farm, excepting bran. We give them, from October 15 to June 15, 40 pounds green corn ensilage, corn and cob meal, all the shredded fodder they will eat, and bran, and keep up the grain while cows are on the grass, but not in so great an amount. All the heifer calves which have good mothers are kept for future cows. All the bulls from thoroughbred high-class cows are sold for breeding purposes. The skim milk is fed to these young- sters until they are six months old. The balance is fed to hogs. The best way, I believe, is to give to the sow until pigs get large enough to drink, after which give to pigs and add cornmeal, making amush. In this way, we think, with very little corn, we are en- abled to bring the pigs to 150 to 160, when they can be turned off. Then, again, there is the manure of the herd. We get about one spreader load of manure per day from our cow barn. Then the horse barn, calf and pig pens furnish almost, if not quite, an- other load a day, or 700 loads per year, valued at $1.00 per load, which I think very reasonable, would make $700.00 per year. Expenses—Now, as to the expense of running such a place. We pay hands about $100.00 per month, except during siloing and harvesting, both of which is short. We buy bran, but sell wheat, the only grain we sell from the farm. We have the natural increase of 40 to 50 calves per year, as well as four to six colts and young horses and mules. We have the sale of 140 to 160 head of hogs each year, and all the time we are enriching our farms. So, taking everything into consideration, I think the one who would not be satisfied with this kind of showing would be hard to please. Start right—Now, a word of advice to those thinking of enter- ing this field would be, begin on rather a small scale, try only milk cows, and when you get one that is not a milk cow, sell her, no mat- ter how pretty, how well bred, nor what she ought to do, the fact is more money is lost in keeping the ones which are boarders than any other way in the dairy business. 68 Missouri Agricultural Report. WHAT I HAVE LEARNED FROM 3,000 YEARS OF PER- SONAL EXPERIENCE WITH A COW (30 YEARS WITH 100 COWS.) (By Hon. H. B. Gurler, De Kalb, Ill.) Mr. Chairman, Ladies’ and Gentlemen: I am glad to be with you again. I was talking yesterday but had to saw right off in ‘order to make room for somebody else. I think we ought all to feel mighty good this morning after feeding on that red roan steer last night, and the dairymen ought to get a lot of satisfaction out of it, if it is true, as I am told, that they actually fed that steer on the milk of a Jersey cow. Now if a shorthorn steer is allowed to nurse on a Jersey cow, and if you cannot get fine beef that way, I don’t know how to get it. I never had any finer beef, and I awoke this morning feel- ing mighty good. I got a good night’s sleep last night, and I feel like working this morning. At home, lots of my friends say it is so long since they have seen me work, that they have forgotten that I ever did, when the fact is, I was once one of the hardest workers on the farm. Babcock test—I gave yesterday a brief account of my early experience at testing cows. We had no Babcock test then. We used first a percentage glass and found the percentage of cream, and then we churned the cream from the milk, and I followed that up with my dairy, having some forty cows and having it all to do myself, and brought the thing up to the time the Babcock test came into use, and that simplified matters tremenduously. It cut the labor twenty times in two and was fully as accurate as the old way. I had worked many years trying to build up my herd, and I was always finding out something new. Abortion—I remember how surprised I was Less in Pennsyl- vania when I heard Dr. Pearson describe contagious abortion. It was a revelation to me. J remember how [ doubted it. I was so skeptical I said to Dr. Pearson, ‘Do you believe that is so,” right on top of his lecture. But I was convinced, and went home and on the strength of what he had said, the next time contagious abor- — tion started in my dairy herd, I knew just what to do. The first cow that aborted, I isolated her, and every cow that aborted from that time on, went to the stable over across the road, away from the herd, and then I cleaned everything up where she had been. State Dairy Association. 69 Out of the first experience with sixty cows, there were thirty- five abortions, and it just ruined that dairy. After I learned that it was a contagious form, and that was what was doing the mis- chief, I went after it and headed it off before it could hurt me ma- terially. Later I had a larger dairy and when the sickness attacked it, had eighty cows and twenty-one aborted before I cut it off. Now, as soon as a cow aborts, we do not wait to find out whether it is accidental or anything like that, but we isolate her right away and clean everything up. Q. (Audience) Do you sell that cow? A. If it is a good cow, I keep her, because I don’t know that she is any more likely to abort again than if she had not done so. I have in my dairy now a splendid young Holstein cow that has aborted two years in succession, but she is a fine cow, and I am going to try her again. Perhaps it would be good for us to have Dr. Luckey give us some of his ideas on this subject. I see him back there, come up and give us your ideas, as to the disease and its treatment, especially its treatment, Doctor Luckey. Doctor Luckey: The treatment of contagious abortion is one quite inexpensive and simple in its application, and which, if carried out, is almost sure to prove absolutely successful. The dairyman in charge of the Southern Hotel Dairy at St. Louis, had something like one hundred cows, and they all became affected with this trouble, but the year I was there they went through the year with the loss of one calf. The treatment consists first in washing the regenerative organs, and the rear parts, and of internal administration, of a solution of carbolic acid. As a wash I would suggest that you use pomanganate of potash, one ounce to eight gallons of water. It is not expensive, is very effective and is probably the best of all washes for this purpose. I will not stop to describe the fountain syringe for internal administration, and all that, which you can devise for yourselves. But I will say, if you want to handle the herd properly, build a place to handle them, by building a chute where you can handle them one at a time. I do not favor feeding carbolic acid, for you may have to starve your cows in order to make them eat it, and this will cut down their milk. You can get better results with carbolic acid by using a two per cent solution. That is equal to carbolic acid two parts and water ninety-eight parts. Use pure crystal carbolic acid in this proportion, because if you use a weaker solution you 70 Missouri Agricultural Report. will not get the strength. With a hypodermic syringe (and the ordinary black leg syringe will answer this purpose) inject every ten days of this solution thirty-five to fifty cubic centimeters or nine to twelve teaspoonfuls. Most syringes have the cubic centi- meters marked on the syringe handle. A cubic centimeter, for all practical purposes, means fifteen drops. Four cubic centimeters make a teaspoonful. Run the needle through the skin anywhere on the animal’s body. It is most convenient on the shoulder where the skin is easily pulled up and thinner, and while you run the needle through the cow’s skin, if you will have some one take hold of the nose and jerk the nose rather violently the moment the needle passes through the skin, she will not know it goes in and you will not have any trouble from that source. The nine to twelve cubic centimeters is a rather large amount to put in one spot, and it will be absorbed better if distributed in smaller quantities. This in- jection should be made in the cows of the herd that have not aborted as well as those that have, because we don’t know which ones are likely to become inoculated and abort. But I want to make this plain. In giving carbolic acid; be governed by the action on the individual. You want to give full doses. How can you tell how much you can give? If you will watch the cows closely, you will see when they have a full dose that the pupil of the eye is somewhat enlarged. That indicates you have given enough. If you do not get that result in the animal, the next time you administer the carbolic acid you had best do that. If you get too big a dose, you will cause temporary paralysis and the cow will lie twenty-four hours, probably, without being able to move, though without any material injury to the cow. I think this fairly well covers the case, and I think it unneces- sary to go into further detail right now. I might add that this treatment should be continued every ten days through the period of pregnancy. ‘ Mr. Gurler (continuing): We will go back thirty or thirty- five years when this trouble was so serious in New York State that the legislature appropriated ten thousand dollars for the purpose of stopping it. I remember Mr. Harris Lewis, one of the com- missioners who helped to spend the ten thousand dollars appropri- ated, said when they were through, “We don’t know so much about the cause of abortion as we thought we did when we commenced.” Cows put on their merits—There was a period of time after I left my farm that I dropped the testing of the cows individually, because I could not be there to try the churn test, and then the Bab- State Dairy Association. 71 cock test came along and we began using that. I always believed in setting a butter standard for my herd. In 1892 I made my standard 198 pounds. I had to sell twenty-one of the cows that I was using at that time. In 1894 I raised the standard to two hundred and twenty-five pounds, and I had only six cows to sell. In 1895 I commenced to get ready for the certified milk busi- ness. I was in the business for ten or eleven years, and then, with the risk that there was, I had to buy cows to increase my dairy to keep pace with the demand, and there was quite a risk on account of tuberculosis. We had to test the animals and I dropped my standard back to two hundred pounds on account of that risk. All I could do was to buy the cow and take her on my own risk, and whatever I had to slaughter were my own loss for several years. I put this dead line at two hundred pounds of butter or 172 pounds of butter fat, because when they dropped below that, there was no money for me in it. After I had paid for the feed and labor, if they could not make this, I had simply nothing left. If I had to depend upon that dairy I might as well have quit the dairy busi- ness and gone out to work for twenty-five dollars a month as to keep cows that would not come up to that. In the year 1900 I shipped milk to the Paris Exposition. Your secretary was practically right about what he said in regard to that. The milk was seventeen days on the road and kept sweet four days after it reached Paris, France. That milk was a revela- tion to the French people, and they could not believe it had not been doctored until they gave it a test. Major Alvord, at the head of that dairy commission, told me the milk produced near by was not fit for use after two days, and in hot weather was not fit for use after twenty-four hours. Yet milk shipped from the United States kept for twenty-one days. In the year 1900 I have the figures on a stable of my cows. The best cow in the stable made 472 pounds of butter and a profit of $50.74. The poorest made 174 pounds of butter and lost me $11.00. Now, what is the sense of an intelligent man going blund- ering along through life and not understanding their own cows as individuals? The best cow, it costs me to feed, $46.06, the poor- est cow $31.23. Some people have an idea that it costs no more to feed one cow than another, but that is a mistake. Because some cows have not the capacity to handle the feed that others have; and one cannot buy that capacity; it is bred in them. I remember a little incident in my own town. I knew the parties well. There was a young lady in school who could not get T2 Missouri Agricultural Report. along; she could not keep up with her classes. Her mother com- plained, and the teacher said, “Your daughter has not the capac- ity,’ and the mother said, “I will have her father go right down town and buy it.” The same is true with regard to cows. Now this stable of cows, where there were fifty cows in 1900, made an average of 298 pounds of butter. There is nothing im- possible about that. You have dairies here in Missouri that do that. I am told that there is a German in your state who gets his butter average up to four hundred pounds. You do not need to ¢o into Illinois, Iowa, Kansas or anywhere else for examples of this. You have them right here. I would like to emphasize this point and put it up before you in a way that you will see it. Ifa man has fifty cows that will make four hundred pounds of butter in a year, he can sit down and hire all the work done, merely super- vising it himself, and he can have an income of two thousand dollars a year and be a gentleman. Where is the average college professor in comparison with that? Of course, somebody like Dean Waters here will do better than that, but where is the average professor beside it. Especially do I want to impress this upon these young men who are getting their education here. Just stop and think about this, and if you do not get any other idea out of this whole convention except that one idea, the possibility of what you can do by studying your individual cows, and weeding out, and getting a good male of some of the special dairy breeds, your time has been well spent. Do not let any of this all-purpose stuff get in your way, and you will find not only that you are going to get your- self into the way of a good income, but you will think intelligently © and win the respect of everybody that knows what you are doing. You are laying the foundation to make yourself and your family comfortable and happy and have the respect of everybody that is worth having the respect of. Adopt a standard—When you start in this line of work, you should have a standard and make that standard yourself. In different localities there is a difference in the cost of labor and food and what you can get for the product, though not very much, but get at it and make your own standard. Draw your own dead line and then live up to it. The Bull—Do not forget that the bull is one half of the herd. Some may ask, how is that. It is just here. The heifer calves are most likely to take after the sire and back on the sire’s side than on the dam’s side. That is where the male is more than one- half of the herd. That is true not only of the bayine family, It is State Dairy Association. 73 true in a great many cases in the human family. Do not let a few dollars prevent your buying the most desirable male you can buy. When you stop to think of the project, figure up, from the size of your dairy, how many heifers you will get from that animal, and do not sell him until you have learned what he is worth to you. As an illustration along that line, about two and one-half years ago I bought a registered Holstein bull, and the man, from whom I got him, had had him a little over two years and a half and had not tested any of his heifer calves. I had not had him six months until that man called me up and asked me if I were not ready to sell that animal. Right away I was suspicious. I backed right up in the harness and would not sell him at all. He had been test- ing some of his two-year-old heifers and wanted to buy that animal right back. He didn’t use any policy at all about it; he almost feil headlong trying to get him back. N ow I prefer to buy a male of a few years use so I can know his get. I would rather do that than to buy a younger one where I[ cannot have an opportunity tc learn what the latter’s get is doing. ; I remember a few years ago I was up in Wisconsin to a dairy convention. I made a statement something like this, that I cared more for the butter record of the sire’s dam than I did for the cow’s own dam. Ex-Governor Hoard jumped to his feet and said, “Tt amounts to more.” There is no part of the work that will pay as well as looking after the individual cow and seeing that the cows are properly bred. The testing must be followed up faithfully. Do not go through your herd and test it once and then lie down and quit, because there will be conditions changing and the cows may change, there will be something happening most all the time, and you want to know when they are at a point that they are not proving profitable. You want to know what you must weed out every year. That is the only way you can improve your standard. I guarantee any of you people, who will start out with that kind of principles, that you will become facinated with the work. When you have got one year’s work done, you will want to follow it up. It is one of the most facinating things on the farm, and we are following.it up now, and I will tell you how we are con- ducting it. A three-day sampling period—We make a three days com- posite test (three consecutive days )every month, making it with the Babcock test and keeping the weight of the three days miik every month. It is an exceedingly interesting duty, and especially so to 74 Missouri Agricultural Report. see what the two-year-old heifers, that come in, are doing, and to follow back and see what their dams are doing and what their sires’ dams did. Q. Do you weigh the milk night and morning every day in the year? A. No, just three days a month, and take the average of the three days, and figure the cow as giving that average for the month. Q. Is it not advisable to take this test about the middle of the month? A. I had not thought about taking this test by the calendar month, but if you are going to take it by the calendar month that test is all right. Q. If a cow would calf the first of the month, no doubt the middle of the month would be all right. Suppose she would calf about the middle of the month, a test at the middle of the ment would not be all right, would it? A. If she calved about the middle of the month, I would let her go to the middle of the next month. If I were making my test at the middle of the month I would test the cow that had come in at the first of the month, but I would not test a cow that had just dropped her calf. You find, when you come to average it up, where these minor points do not amount to much, for the practical dairy- man. We do not want to get the thing so cumbersome that people cannot handle it at all. At the National Dairy Show last fall I made some remarks that provoked considerable discussion. I know at one of the institutes in Illinois last fall they had some of Gurler’s figures up, and thought he had shot pretty high. I made a state- ment that a cow that would produce four hundred pounds of butter per year was as well worth four hundred dollars as a cow that would make two hundred pounds of butter was worth forty dollars. I have a few figures here I am going to give you. I will put them on the blackboard. Example—We will put two hundred pounds of butter at twenty-two cents. I do not believe that is any too high, as a matter of comparison. We have forty-four dollars, and I suppose that cow will make four thousand pounds of skimmed milk. I shall put that at twenty cents, which makes $8.00. Here we have $52.00. We will suppose the cost of feed to be $35.00, which I think is about right. The labor we will figure at $16.00. A few years ago, when I left the farm and figured this thing all out, I figured it cost me per year per cow when milk went to the creamery, about $12.50. State Dairy Association. 75 Now labor is much higher than it was then, and I am putting the cost up to $16.00 for labor. Here we have $51.00. We have $1.00 on the right side—just $1.00. Now, I think you might as well work for $25.00 per month, or for the going wages, which would be $28.00 per month now, as to keep that kind of cows. Now we will take the four hundred pound cow. We have 400 pounds butter at 22 cents, or $88.00. We have 8,000 pounds of skimmed milk at 20 cents, or $16.00; making a total of $104.00. The cost of feed in this case was $45.00 and the labor $16.00; mak- ing a total of $61.00. We have $43.00 profit, or $42.00 more than we got out of the other cow. Now that $43.00 will pay ten per cent interest on $400.00; almost twice what we can get for our money any other place. Some of you will raise the question that there is more risk. Your loss would be greater if anything happens to that $400.00 cow than that $40.00 cow. Now we go on the other side of that. We have the heifer calves from that cow. We may have three or four that may be her equal, and this certainly more than pays for the risk. I am now through with the items I had noted here, and it is about time for me to close, anyhow. Q. I want to ask as to breeding a bull to his own get. A. I would not do that. Though I have had no occasion for that, because I have had a herd of a size to support two or three males. I do not like to discuss that question. That is a field in itself. I am not well enough informed upon it to go into it. Here is one point I want to tell you. I have rented my farm now to two men that have been superintendents on the farm, one for three years and the other five years, and one has a son eighteen years old, just out of the township high school, and we are applying this test now. Do you know that young man is so interested he is watching all this work. He is just as interested as he can be. He is going into the subject in earnest, and is to be one of two men, who with six milking machines, will milk the sixty-four cows which we are keeping. I know those men will follow my lead and are going to weed out those cows that are not doing what they ought, and hold the standard up where there will be some money in it for them and for me. Q. Does it do to mix the dairy breeds? A. Do not do it. I did that once and I had to pay for It. I bred a Holstein bull to grade Jerseys and grade Guernseys and 76 Missouri Agricultural Report. secured a very uneven lot of heifers, a few were good but more of them were not what pleased me. A Jersey or Guernsey bull may be bred to grade cows with good results. Q. Do you dehorn your cows? A. We dehorn by simply blistering those little buttons on the head before they adhere to the scalp. Q. What do you use for a blister? A. Caustic potash. Q. Would you dehorn a cow with long horns? A. Yes, it is a humane act. Several years ago I got to de- horning cows and the humane society got after me, but I tell you they got off in a hurry, when I told them a few things. Q. Do you useaclip or asaw? A. I usea saw, and I gen- erally cut down a little under the skin and start a little blood. They will usually heal right over, so you cannot tell the animals ever had any horns, and sometimes even an expert cannot tell they ever had any. I use a saw, because I think a clip has a tendency io crush the horn. Q. I want to ask you what influence the feed has on the milk? A. Well, if I live to be old as this man has represented me (3,000 years), I could not find that out entirely. Let us go back thirty or thirty-five years. I was on the farm, making my own butter, and I reached this conclusion: that possibly (I use the word “‘possibly”’) I could have the amount of fat in the milk somewhat improved by the condition of the cow, but I was never quite sure of that, and I tell you it is not worth fooling with. Q. You can increase the milk by that means, can you not? A. Oh, yes. Q. Why do so many people think the feed makes the cow give rich milk? Is that possible? A. I don’t think it is. I don’t think the food has much in- fluence on the richness of the milk. THE CARE OF MILK. (Prof. ©. H. Eckles, Columbia, Mo.) It is a well-known fact, that a great variety of odors and tastes are found in milk and dairy products at different times. Some of these are desirable and some undesirable. In fact, the market value of butter and cheese depends largely upon having the proper taste and odor present and avoiding the objectionable ones. State Dairy Association. 77 In order to handle milk intelligently, it is necessary to under- stand the causes of these odors and tastes, and to assist in this effort, it is helpful to classify the sources under three heads: 1. Absorption from the air. 2. From the cow herself. a. Feed. b. Sickness. 38. From the action of bacteria. a. sSouring. b. Gassy. ec. Putrifactire. d. Slimy. e. Bitter. Odors from the air—The absorption of odors from the air is a common occurence as every one knows, and so far as I know in no case are the odors absorbed, beneficial. Milk, cream and butter absorb odors readily, but cheese very slowly. On account of this characteristic of milk it is necessary at all times to guard against exposing milk or cream to any odor. This means that the barn and surroundings must be free from odors. It was formerly thought and even taught in the dairy schools, that milk would not absorb odors as long as it was warmer than the atmosphere, but scientific experiments showed this to be a mistake, and in fact that the reverse is true. Warm milk absorbs odors faster than cold. Every retailer knows that he is often blamed for odors and tastes which are absorbed from the refrigerator where the milk is placed by the consumer. The odors of fruit are especially easy of absorption by butter and milk. Injurious effects of odors from ~ absorption are small compared with the injuries from the third class, the bacteria. As soon as milk is taken from the source of the odors, the odors begin to evaporate and are less pronounced after a time. An absorbed odor may usually be driven off entirely by heating from 130 to 170 degrees. From the cow—The second source of taints in milk is the cow herself. These are of about equal importance with the first class mentioned. The most common of these are the tastes produced by certain feeds. Asa rule the tastes due to this source are objection- al, although not necessarily so. Just how much ordinary feed effects the taste of milk we cannot say definitely, but probably the effect is slight. Silage, as usually fed, gives milk a slightly char- acteristic taste which, however, is not objectional and in fact is liked by nearly all milk customers. If people be given milk from 78 Missouri Agricultural Report. silage fed cows after being accustomed to other milk, the difference is often noted and possibly objection made by some. However, no one objects to milk from silage fed cows when they are ac- customed to it. Any feed having a marked taste is liable to flavor the milk more or less, but the most common examples are onions, turnips, certain weeds and green rye. We can understand how these feeds affect the milk more clearly by considering what happens when a person eats onions. For about an hour after eating onions there is no noticeable effect, then the breath begins to smell of onions and soon the taste of onions is in the mouth. The odor of the breath comes from the onion products being given off by the lungs and the taste is due to the onion products coming into the mouth with the saliva. The entire circulation is filled with the volative product and it passes out of the body in every excretion and secre- tion. The same thing happens when a cow is fed a feed with a strong odor or taste. As soon as it is digested it passes into the circulation and into every secretion, including the milk. By think- ing of these facts we can see clearly that a feed liable to give a taste to the milk should be fed either immediately before milking so there will not be time for it to be digested, or at once after milking so it may get out of the body before another milking. If a cow is sick, has indigestion for example, the milk may have an objectional odor or taste which has been absorbed from the alimentary canal by the circulation. Clean milk from a healthy cow has no cowy odor or animal odor, as is fully believed by many dairymen. The so-called animal odor comes either from an un- healthy animal, or from dirt in the milk. Any taste or odor that milk has when freshly milked is due to one of the causes mentioned, but further, it should be clearly un- derstood that any odor or taste not present in the fresh milk but developed later does not come from the cow nor her feed. For example, if milk becomes slimy or bitter or smells bad after stand- ing some time, do not lay it on the cow, unless it has the same con- dition when freshly milked. Taints from the feed are driven off almost entirely by heating the milk. The smell of onions or tur- nips may be removed almost entirely by this means. In some lo- calities, especially in the South Atlantic States, milk is often pastureized with this object alone in view. Under usual conditions this source of tastes and odors is of comparatively little importance. As a rule the cow produces milk pure and the responsibility for the many troubles that appear in State Dairy Association, 79 handling it should be placed where it belongs, on the person hand- ling the milk. From bacteria—Practically all tastes and odors that develop in milk on standing, and we know there are an infinite number, are due to bacteria. Milk itself has no power of changing in any way. We speak very often of milk souring as if it were the only thing that happens to milk. It is the most common change, but there are several others. One kind of bacteria causes milk to sour, and another produces gas and, if present in large numbers may make the gassy curd and spongy cheese so much dreaded by cheese makers. Another familiar cause, ordinary decay or putrefaction of milk with the bad tastes and odors common with such changes. These are the cause of much of the bad cheese and butter. Others pro- duce the ropy milk or stringy milk so dreaded by the milk man- The feed of the cow has nothing whatever to do with this stringy milk. It is not uncommon for the milk dealer to be driven out of business by the ropy milk bacteria. Others produce bitter milk and bitter cheese. Occasionally a factory becomes infected with these bacteria and the cheese may be worthless. The bacteria which causes these changes in milk are as well known to the bacteriologist as are wheat and corn to the farmer. He separates them, grows them and studies them. The success of the dairyman depends largely upon how he treats these bacteria, al- though he may not even know there is such a thing. This is especially true of the butter maker and cheese maker. Under _ ordinary conditions the butter, whether it be good or bad, depends upon the kind of bacteria which have developed in the cream, and to only a slight extent on the feed of the cow. The first principle in handling milk, and perhaps the most im- portant, is to keep out as many bacteria as possible. This requires care and attention to a great many details, but it may all be summed up in one word—cleanliness. Wherever there is dirt or decomposing matter, there we have bacteria. Most of the dirt, and therefore most of the bacteria, get into the milk during the process of milk- ing. The cow herself is the chief source of the contamination to which milk is subject. Especially is this true when the cow is kept under the conditions found in some barns. The cow must, first of all, be kept decently clean, if it is expected to produce milk suitable for human food. In many cases the difficulty is to be attributed to the poor arrangement of the barn. Put the cow in a well lighted 80 Missouri Agricultural Report. stable with good floor, a platform the proper length to stand upon, a suitable gutter and a manger, and it is possible, at least, to keep the conditions fairly good. Then keep the cow decently clean. Curry her and brush off the udder and adjoining parts of the body with a stiff brush before milking. Do not depend upon a strainer to take out the dirt. Straining milk does not help the conditions of the milk in the least, except in © appearance by removing the visible dirt. It does not keep an hour longer when strained than it does, if not strained. My stu- dents have demonstrated this to be a fact several times. The only way to have clean milk is to keep it clean in the first place. Next to dirt in the barn comes improperly cleaned utensils as a source of contamination. A single dirty can may contain more bacteria than there are inhabitants in the world and as soon as milk is placed therein they are all ready for business. In cleaning utensils a brush is the only proper thing to use, a dish cloth is not only unnecessary but should not be allowed to be used in cleaning pails, cans or cream separators. All these and many more details are covered by the one word, cleanliness. Cleanliness is keeping bacteria out. But in spite of the best efforts at cleanliness many bacteria will find their way into milk. If we wish to have milk or cream to keep in good condition some time, we must check these bacteria from growing. The only practical harmless method of doing this is cooling. To get the real benefit of cooling, it must be done at once, after milking. It is very important that it be not delayed. Milk cooled at once to 60 degrees even, and kept there, will usually remain sweet 48 hours or longer. Of course the most effective cooling means reducing the temperature to 50 or under. When cooling milk care should be taken that it really is cooled. It will not do to set an 8-gallon can of cream in a tub of well water and think it properly cooled. A thermometer should be used often enough to make sure that the cooling really is effective. One of my students recently made an experiment that showed this point very plainly. He took two eight-gallon cans of milk, one he cooled to 50 degrees, the other was uncooled. The two were placed in a room at a temperature of fifty-five degrees. The cooled sample remained sweet six days; the uncooled soured in 48 hours. Cleanliness and coldness are the two great principles to re- member in handling milk. State Dairy Association. 81 MILKING MACHINES. (Prof. O. Erf, Manhattan, Kan.) Owing to the great progress that has been made in the dairy industry within the last few years, there has come such a great demand for milkers that dairymen are unable to secure them at a compensation that will allow a fair margin of profit. The con- finement and nature of the work frequently make milkers discon- tented and cause them to seek other work which perhaps is more pleasant to them. With this condition—one of the greatest draw- backs in the dairy business—it is quite essential for many dairy- men either to discontinue the dairy business or to secure an appar- atus that will do the milking, for this seems to be the most objec- tionable part of the dairy business. Within recent years a great many inventors have exerted their energies in this direction and milking machines have been invented that are practical under present existing conditions. The introduc- tion of milking machines has become a popular subject for discus- sion, and it is plainly evident that it will be a marked stimulus to the dairy industry. DIFFERENT KINDS OF MACHINES ON THE MARKET AT PRESENT. There are a number of milking machines on the market at present time, many of which have objectionable points and need to be improved. The Burrell-Lawrence-Kennedy machine, which is now manufactured by D. H. Burrell & Company, Little Falls, N. Y., is the machine that has been used largely at our station, and has proven to be one of the most successful and simple machines. The Globe machine has also been tested at this station, but it has _ not proven to be as practical and seems to be a little more difficult to regulate than the Burrell-Lawrence-Kennedy machine. A numbcr of other machines are being tried, but are not yet ready to report on them. THE CONSTRUCTION OF MILKING MACHINES. The Burrell-Lawrence-Kennedy machine consists of the fol- lowing parts: (1) An appliance for creating vacuum. There are various kinds, and they can be operated in different ways. (2) A vacuum chamber. A-6 82 Missouri Agricultural Report. (3) cor cece cisieeiseiiceessceieviacececes: 18.25 In Hebruary the average NUIMber DACteLIA WSs... ccecscccccseccecncevevccvecccccceececcs 13.75 imeMarch the average! NUMIUDEr DACTELIEA WASS.... ccs. cccccce cee cteccccvicss cobendceciecsies 12.00 eApril the averare Number DACTCLIA WAS). w.cccs cesses: cssincceccccecgcecscesectsceueace. 21.20 — ip May one avOLal e MUN Del DACCCTIA WAS >. seccecs css sc eee's scot eceecs ccs sedeedeudeuen 10.26 imine the average num ber DACCCrIa WAS... s.cssccnecceecceecetcececcccccilectebecwees 9.35 84.81 Or an average of 14.13 for six months, and all of these samples were plated at least 36 hours after the milk was bottled, and some when it was 60 hours old—it being held by the Board of Health. We have heard of certain dairies that produced milk with an aver- age number of bacteria of only a few hundred per c.c., but an in- vestigation revealed the fact that the samples of milk were taken from the milk pail immediately after it was drawn from the cows and plated at once. Results of this kind cannot be compared with those obtained in a fair manner. I shall now endeavor to outline what, in my estimation, is the proper method to pursue to produce certified milk economically. The first thing to be considered is the location of the farm, which should, if possible, be within driving distance of the city or town in which the milk is to be sold, because transporting milk in cases by express is expensive and the breakage of both filled and empty bottles is terrific, and the possible delay of trains, the extra labor and expense of drawing goods from the depot to the place of dis- tribution ; besides, the maintenance of a place from which the goods are distributed. If this is not possible, then the dairy should be located near a railroad or trolley line with good shipping facilities as near the trade as possible. The location of the buildings is the next consideration which should be given most careful consideration. I would recommend that they be located on an elevation which would afford good drain- age. The next is the number, style and size of the buildings, con- sisting of a barn, an ordinary structure for hay, grain and building for the dry cows and young stock, and room enough for the horses necessary to carry on the farm work; also storage capacity for hay and grain for the same and a one-story cow barn, a modern, sani- tary, well ventilated and well lighted building, which need not be expensive. This may be so built that it can be enlarged if desired without inconvenience or much expense. Then comes the dairy room, where the milk is cooled, bottled and stored, and where the A—7 38 Missouri Agricultural Report. empty bottles are washed, sterilized, ete. This building has been given so much importance and many have spent from $10,000 to $50,000 in such structure, and I here show you a plan of a building if constructed of wood with cement plastering will cost about $1,700, and if built of brick would cost about $2,000. I have taken into consideration the average cost of building material in different parts of the country. All the equipment necessary is a cooler, sterilizer, bottle washer, a small boiler and a few other utensils. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the more ap- paratus there is in such a plant the greater the danger of contam- ination, and the less unnecessary apparatus the less danger of con- tamination, and the easier it is to trace troubles. For instance, when we had in use all the utensils furnished by the machine men and the bacterial count ran high, we could not lay the blame on any one. The men in the dairy would say their work had been per- formed as usual, and the men in the barn would claim the same thing; but with the simple apparatus I have shown you, there is only one place to watch, and that is the barn; if the work is done carefully at that point, good milk will be produced every time. Now as to the cows for a certified dairy. So far as the ap- pearance goes, thoroughbred cattle will please the eye of the public, but I would advise keeping common cows. Ist, because a person having a herd of thoroughbreds is anxious to get as many as pos- sible into the advanced registry, and the extra washing the cows should get in a certified dairy seems to affect the flow of milk to some extent, and if a valuable cow loses a part of her udder the owner does not want to dispose of her, and in course of time the milk yield would be diminished; but when only common cows are kept, and one has a defect, she can be disposed of and another put in her place, and it is much easier to keep up an even flow of milk with a common herd than with a thoroughbred, and an even flow of milk is very essential, as the class of trade that uses certified milk is not the kind that will be put off with the simple statement that the cows have gone dry. That class of trade will either take the milk all the time or not at all. FEED FOR THE COWS. Cows must be fed somewhat differently when certified milk is produced than ordinarily, as that class of milk is largely consumed by infants, and necessarily must be good, or the reputation which such milk has in order to sell for a higher price would soon be de- State Dairy Association. 99 stroyed and the trade lost. The condition of the cows regulate the condition of the children consuming the milk; therefore, a change of feed, or too much feed of a certain kind, especially such as green oats, clover, alfalfa, corn or sorghum, which must be fed with caution; and when a change is made from one to another, it should be made gradually, and my experience has taught me that some dry feed should always comprise part of the daily ration. I have in mind one incident that cost me many an hour of worry and several days of investigation before the trouble was located. . We started to feed green corn in August, and in a few days we had numerous complaints from our customers that something was wrong with our milk; that it made their babies sick. Not knowing that the effect of feed has such a wonderful influence on small chil- dren we were at a loss to know the cause, and, in fact, discredited the claims of the customers; but finally a well known physician be- came hostile, and advised his patients to discontinue using the milk from our dairy. By that time we had found and overcome the trouble. This was an expensive experience for us, and I am giving you the benefit, so if any of you ever engage in the business you will not make this error. CARE OF THE COWS. Having a sanitary barn to start with, it remains for the dairy- men to produce the results. The cows should be tuberculin tested, and if there are any reactions the animals should be removed im- mediately and the barn fumigated with formalin tablets, after wash- ing stalls, walls and floors with a 4-per cent solution of carbolic acid. The cows should be made as comfortable as possible, but should be given as much fresh air and exercise as conditions afford. It is recommended by some that the cows should not be turned out to pasture, but it is my contention that there is no way of feeding the cows so satisfactory as letting them out to pasture; however, it may be advisable to sow some kind of soiling crop to have it on hand in case of short pasture, ete. Silage may be fed in the production of certified milk, but care should be taken and not over feed, and to reduce the amount as soon as the slightest indication of a silage flavor can be detected. It has been my experience that ordinary cows will consume about 40 pounds of silage per head in the fall, and that amount shoud be cut down to at least 30 pounds by spring. I believe that a cow’s system becomes saturated with the acid flavor of silage if fed for a long period of time, hence making it necessary to feed less. 100 Missouri Agricultural Report. The milk should be watched for garget, and if any is observed, the milk should never be used, as garget is an inflammation of the udder of the cow, and pus cells will pass with the milk, which is strictly prohibited by medical societies. Nothing will bring criti- cism from physicians quicker than milk that contains pus cells, bloody milk, or milk with deleterious bacteria. The cows should-be groomed in the afternoon, washed before milking, and the udder and flanks re-washed or gone over again with a damp cloth, to slightly dampen the udder to prevent dust from dropping into the milk pail. For one hour previous to milk- ing nothing should be done to stir up a dust, as that is the worst thing to contend with. In the morning the cows should be brushed off with a cloth slightly dampened, and the udder prepared the same as in the evening. The stable should not be cleaned in the morning - before milking, and no feed, bedding of any kind taken into or out of the barn. The floors should be sprinkled both morning and even- ing about 20 or 30 minutes before milking. The milkers should wear clean clothes, which are to be washed at least once a week, and only used during the time of milking, and kept in a clean place when not in use. All utensils should be sterilized, the hands washed be- fore milking each cow, and the milk taken to the milk room imme- diately after milking each cow and put through the cooler, which is placed in the milk room joining the barn. This cooler should be completely enclosed and a_pan like receptacle placed on top which should be provided with absorbent cotton discs, which are replaced for each milking with new ones after they are sterilized. With this method, if reasonably cold well water is used, no ice need be used until after the milk has been bottled. HELP. There is nothing so perplexing as the help problem, which is in the most aggravated form in a certified dairy where the work must be done scientifically. I believe no dairy can be so successfully operated as when in charge of the proprietor. Certified milk should not sell for less than 10 cents nor more than 12 cents per quart. It can be produced and sold for that price at a small profit, if produced under the economical conditions mentioned, but where milk must be shipped the price should be from 12 to 15 cents. The number of cows for a certified dairy should not be less than 30. State Dairy Association. 101 From what I have said you can see that the economical pro- duction of certified milk depends upon the location of the farm, the economical construction of the buildings, and economical operation of the plant as a whole, with good, intelligent, honest help. In conclusion, I will say if any one has more money than they know what to do with, they can be relieved of a nice little sum if they wish to take the advice of some promoters of certified plants; however, it is not necessary to go to such useless expense, as certi- fied milk can be produced at a reasonable expense. THE FARM HOME. (Dr. Edna D. Day, Professor of Home EHeonomics, University of Missouri. ) Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen—All this week you have been learning how to grow corn and feed cattle, how to raise pigs and make butter. From morning until night you have been learn- ing how to produce to the best advantage. But why? Why do you care whether the crops are good or the pigs well fed or the butter well flavored? What difference do any of these things make to you if you and your family are not well fed, well housed and well clothed? If your home is not attractive and comfortable? If you and your wife have to work so hard that there is no time to enjoy life? If your children are not always well, good and happy? But, perhaps, you say “It is because we care for these things that we have come here. We are studying how to make money in order that we may be able to provide the best things for our homes.” Or, perhaps, you say “We are not so selfish as to think simply of ourselves and our families. We are Missourians, we have a pride in our State, and we are ambitious that Missouri pigs and cows be the very best in the world.” You certainly are as ambitious that Missouri men, women and children should be the best in the world. But perhaps it had not occurred to you that, after you have learned how to make money, some suggestions on how to spend it in order to get from it the best possible home for your growing children might be equally profit- able. A few years ago it did not occur to farmers that they did not know the best way to grow corn or feed cows. They felt insulted if anybody suggested to them that they needed to study the subject. But men who have been learning the value of balanced rations for 102 . Missouri Agricultural Report. cows may not be surprised to have it suggested that it might be well to see if their children are getting balanced rations. . Possibly you say that the feeding of children is the work of women, and that if you had known anything was to be said on that subject, you would have brought your wife along. I am sorry you did not. She might have enjoyed the outing as well as you. Possibly in a year or two we shall have a Housekeepers’ Conference Farmers’ week that will make it seem worth while for her to come. But, in | the meantime, I am glad to have an opportunity to speak to you men, and suggest some things that you can do for the home. As I have been in different parts of the country, I have noticed that, on the average, men on farms are more interested in the de- tails of their homes than are men in the cities. Certainly their pleasure and their recreation depend more on the home than that of men living in more settled communities; therefore, I feel sure of an interested audience. I have been in this State but four months. I have not yet had the privilege of going into a Missouri farm home. Therefore, if any suggestions I may make to you are not applicable in this State or to your particular home, you may sit back comfort- ably and congratulate yourself on your progress. What then do I suggest? First, if you get so rich following the suggestions made in this conference that you decide to build a new house, be very careful in making the plans that you put more money into convenience than you do into size. Many a prosperous farmer, on rebuilding his home, has felt rich enough to make a house so large that his wife has not yet found time enough for its proper care. Not only are there more square feet of floor to be swept, but the steps necessary to do the ordinary routine work of the house have been multiplied many times. Perhaps in the old home the family ate in the kitchen. Now there is a dining room, and the dining table, the china closet, the pantry, the work table and the cook stove seem suddenly to have taken a dislike to each others’ company. Perhaps the bed rooms used to be on the first floor; now they are upstairs, and be- cause it occurred to no one when the plans were made that it would be much harder to heat a large house than a small one, they are cold in winter weather, and it is hard to persuade the children to stay in them long enough for proper bathing or tidy dressing. And the wife, who used to be bright and fresh of an evening to help the children with their lessons or to join them in a frolic, is now tired after her much walking back and forth and up and down. She has no energy left for her family, and certainly less for a party in the State Dairy Association. 103 new parlor. She who should be the mistress of the house has become its slave. But do not think for a moment that I am dis- couraging separate dining rooms and upstairs bed rooms. I wish only to remind you of the cost of their maintenance and the neces- sity of providing for their care. It is very hard these days to get satisfactory hired help in the house, no matter how much one is able or willing to pay, and it is especially hard in the country. The help must generally be in the form of convenient arrangements, machines and labor-saving devices of various kinds. Put the large- ness into verandas, for they need no furnace heat, are easily kept in order and are a great comfort in the summer. Perhaps the convenience most needed in the house is running water and drains. Some kind of power is necessary on most farms. If you have a windmill to draw up water for the stock, it will not cost much more to have it pumped into a reservoir at the top of the house and piped down into the kitchen. Some knowledge and skill is necessary in making drains to safely carry off the waste water from the house, but when you consider the wasted energy of the woman who has, with each dish pan of water, to walk across the kitchen floor, open the door, go down the steps and out across the land to find some place not wet from the last pan of water; when you think of the time wasted in- this way, and think of the things the house-wife might have had time to do, if it were not for these numerous dishwater-throwing expeditions, I am sure you will de- cide the drain is worth its cost. A recent farmers’ bulletin (No. 270) on ‘Modern Conveni- ences for the Farm Home” gives directions for making drains, It gives suggestions also for many other conveniences in the home. It certainly is well worth the price of a postal card to the Secretary of Agriculture at Washington. Since the men of the home generally have some responsibility for the stoves, I suppose I do not need to suggest to you that fur- naces save labor. Perhaps I might add that with a good hot air furnace we may ha‘ +a good system of ventilation in the house. Of course, you men a e out in the fresh air a good share of the time, but the women a .d young children have to breathe the air of the house most of tl 2 time. For them, especially, some system of ven- tilation is nece: sary, and the good hot air furnace is a convenient form. Of cou'se, it costs money, but fresh warm air in the winter time always costs money. But to rcturn to the subject of saving steps. The china closet ought to ke somewhere between the dining room table and 104 Missouri Agricultural Report. the kitchen sink. The kitchen work table ought to be near the stove and the sink, and it may well be a kitchen cabinet. If the food must be kept in the cellar in the summer time to keep it cool, a dumb waiter, with two or three shelves, run on pulleys between the cellar and the kitchen, is a servant well worthy of her wages. I wonder if you have ever stopped to count the number of times your wife makes the trip down and up the cellar stairs struggling with her skirt and a pan of milk, or with her skirt and a dish of butter, and a plate of meat, or, still, with the inevitable skirt and the vegetables or fruit. Are those stairs convenient stairs? Is there any chance that the skirt may catch on anything and cause a serious fall? Is there any danger of knocking her head? Are they light, so that they can easily be kept clean? With a dumb waiter, one trip to the cellar before a meal will be sufficient. If the vegetables are needed sometime before the cream and butter, the dumb waiter can be drawn up, the vegetables taken out and then the waiter let down again until the other things are needed. Sometimes all the food needed from the cellar in one day can be placed on the shelves in the morning and no other trip be necessary that day. Of course, an ice box on the ground floor would save all this effort. And a large ice box in the cellar would help very much with the fresh meat supply. As it is, most farmers have to depend on chickens for the greater part of their fresh meat, and unless one is in the poultry business, the care of chickens is another burden added to the household. In cold weather there should be a pantry on the ground floor in which the food is kept, and this pantry should be within walking distance of the dining room and kitchen. If this is not possible, a box can be turned on its side and fastened just outside the kitchen window and the food kept in it. If your house has been built without care to step-saving in the position of dining table, sinks and cupboards, a small table on rollers, especially if its capacity is increased by a lower shelf, will be found a great convenience. It can be used to advantage in set- ting and clearing the table. It is also helpful to have near the sink when the dishes are washed. They can be put on it and the table then moved to the china closet and emptied. Many a woman who is now tired of an evening would be fresh if she used a high stool at the sink and work table. And many a man would have better dinners if his kitchen floor was covered with linoleum instead of being of unfinished wood. It takes considerable energy on one’s hands and knees with the scrubbing brush to extract the dirt from State Dairy Association. 105 the pores of wood. It takes comparatively little energy with a mop to clean the smooth surface of linoleum, and there is plenty of strength left to prepare a good dinner. You men have been looking at the milking machine. Probably each of you have a separator. If you find it an advantage to buy the latest machinery for the farm, you will also find it an advantage to buy a carpet sweeper, a washing machine, and a bread mixer for the home. Of course, your machinery is for the sake of making money, but you want to make money so you can have more comforts and conveniences in your home. Have the labor saving machinery in your home and your wife will be able to produce for you com- forts and luxuries that money cannot buy. There are many little things such as egg beaters, palate knives, measuring cups, soap shakers, dish mops, sharp knives, and the like which are absent from some homes, partly, perhaps, because the wife does not like to ask for the money necessary for their purchase, and partly because not having studied physics or cultivated the mechanical side of her nature she fails to value until she has once used them. Until girls have studied something more of mechanics and manual training, we will have to depend on you men to see to it that the women have the mechanical help they need in the house and that they know how to use. There is much talk about girls learning how to cook. They need to do that, but they need fully as much to learn how to use and value sharp tools and good labor saving devices, and I hope you will use all your influence to see that manual training and domestic science are introduced into the public schools, and to see to it that your wives, if possible, and certainly your daughters, have some time and means to supplement the knowledge gained in the valuable but expensive school of experience. Lack of variety in foods is too common on busy farms. I have mentioned the fresh meat problem. Certainly in the country there should be no lack of vegetables, but the man of the family is so busy making money that he finds no time for a kitchen garden, and the wife is so busy in the house trying to get along without labor sav- ing devices, that she had no time for the garden, and consequently the meals and health suffer. But while the means of transporta- tion are no better than at present, the kitchen garden gives the only hope of varied diet. If only the men can do the first hard work in the garden and see that the indoor burdens are lightened most women will welcome the opportunity for work out of doors among the green things, and will be the better for it physically. 106 Missouri Agricultural Report. And one of the best kinds of education for the children is to give them each a small plot of land and encourage them to raise vege- tables for the house table. Sometimes it is wise to let the children thus earn money for some of their clothes and learn in this way something of the value of money. But even if the garden is a nuisance, even if it does take time from other things, remember that no amount of money you can make will compensate for the lack of these fresh vegetables for your growing children. It is not simply comfort and convenience that is needed in the home, health is of prime importance. According to the statistics of the United States Census Bureau for 1900, only 2.8 per cent. of the annual deaths in Missouri are due to old age. Just think, only 2.8 per cent of the people live to die of old age. Something is the matter. The larger part of our time is spent in the house. Is the home responsible? You may be perfectly well satisfied with the kind of homes your parents had, or the kind of homes you have. If none of your family have ever died of anything but old age, if none of them have ever been sick, Iam not talking to you just now, but to your neighbor. Most dis- eases can be prevented in one of two ways—either (1) by keeping the body in first class condition, by following all hygeinic laws in regard to eating, sleeping, drinking, breathing, working and resting that disease germs cannot find entrance to the body. Or (2) by keeping the body from contact with disease germs. Pneumonia and consumption cause more deaths in Missouri than any four other diseases. The present crusade against spitting is an attempt to prevent the spread of the bacteria causing pneu- monia and consumption. But until the crusade has gained much more strength than at present, the home will need to be very care- ful of all hygienic and sanitary measures sige cp to keep the body in good resisting condition. Many a death, but much more sickness, is due to malaria. I wonder if you have ever calculated the amount of money that is wasted by the semi-sickness that allows one to drag around and do only half a man’s work. We know that mosquitoes carry the dis- ease germs of malaria. Sometimes it is possible to drain the land, and greatly reduce the number of mosquitoes. Certainly we can put screens in the houses. But above all, we should look after the general hygienic conditions of the body, that it may be able to resist the entrance of disease germs. Typhoid fever is another too common disease. Its prevention in the country rests chiefly with the household. Care must be taken State Dairy Association. 107 that no surface water gets into the wells and that flies do not carry to food germs from the fecal matter in which they breed. Diarrhoea has the fourth place as the cause of deaths in Mis- souri, and here, again, it is chieflly the home that is responsible. Spoiled food, especially spoiled milk, is the common cause. The dis- ease is more common in the southern part of the State than in the northern. Evidently it is due to food standing in too warm places. Is it not possible to have an ice supply? From every standpoint we will all be thankful when the State has done something to use the limestone that it has in abundance, to make such good roads that communication with the market will be easy, not only to take produce to market but to get there the food, clothes, and tools that it takes too much labor to produce at home. And good roads mean more than material blessings. They mean better education, more regular church attendance, more social life. The isolated home needs not only to use special care to make its numerous duties easily done, and to be most careful of all health conditions, because the doctor is far off; but it has also, especial problems in educative recreation. There are any number of games that are possible in the farm home, no matter how isolated, but there are fewer friends to suggest them. Books are hard to get. I understand that Missouri is still without traveling libraries. Each home must be well supplied with its own choice literature. Art galleries are not near, but it is possible to get very good cheap copies of the best masterpieces of art. The Perry pictures at one cent apiece are a great means of education. After the family have collected a large number of these and studied them for some time, it is able to intelligently decide what two or three large pictures it wants for the walls. Concerts are hard to reach. Good music teachers are at a distance. But the farm home, as well as the city home, can have a Cecilian or some other of the modern piano play- ers. In this way the family may hear a concert of the best music at any time. It is a splendid means of education and certainly a most restful means of recreation when one is tired of an evening. Is all your money spent? Have you spent it before your chick- ens are hatched or your cows grown? I hope you have properly proportioned it, so that all the sanitary conditions of your home are satisfactory, that you have a variety in your foods, that you have every possible labor-saving device, that you have a good library, that on your walls hang masterpieces of art, and that your soul is being elevated by listening to the best of music. 108 Missouri Agricultural Report. SILO EXPERIENCE IN MISSOURI. (R. M. Washburn.) The silo was once a failure because not properly built; it is now a success because experience has taught what points are neces- sary. When it comes to changes in farm methods, the farmers of Missouri know a good thing when they see it. If there are any in Missouri who now doubt the worth of a silo for stock feeding and are willing to learn from those who have had experience, let them read the words of the following gentlemen who have learned by experience. Mr. Jesse Williams, Excelsior Springs, Clay county, Mo., has used a silo two seasons. He feeds silage to milk cows, horses, calves, hogs and chickens and says, “Last year I fed from 35 to 60 head of cattle out of the silo from October 7 to August 15. When the silage ran out it took 400 pounds of bran per day to take its place.” : Mr. Thomas Shields, Eureka, St. Louis county, Mo., has used a silo two years, fills it with corn, sorghum and cowpeas, feeds to dairy cows and heifers and says, “As to cost of filling, my farm is not sufficiently large to pasture my herd and raise sufficient feed to fill silos, so I have to depend on renting land anywhere I can get it. Some of the corn was hauled three and one half miles this last season. While I could not give the practical cost, I will say I was well paid for the hauling. My silo was filled as follows: Three feet corn then four feet cowpeas, then eight sorghum and finished filling with corn. My dairy herd gave best results with corn. I had intended filling one load of each but fields were so far apart and labor so scarce I could not do so.” Mr. J. E. Roberts, Bolekow, Andrew county, Mo., has used a stave silo one year, filled it with corn, fed to dairy cows with “excel- lent” results. He says, “I think a silo is a necessity to any Mis- souri farmer who has stock. I am satisfied the -increase of produc- tion of milk and cream has paid for my silo this year. My cows have milked the past winter just like they were on_grass.” Mr. Robert E. Mitchell, Woodlandville, Boone county, Mo., built a concrete silo a year ago, filled with corn, feeds to cows, steers, and young cattle and says, “This is my first year’s experi- ence with a silo and, farmer fashion, I have not kept a close account of everything either, as to the cost of building, filling or feed con- State Dairy Association. 109 tained, but feel that by approximating, I can safely say that it has saved me somewhere from 25 to 50 per cent on my feed bill (prob- able one-third this past winter, and the physical effect on the cattle would be very hard to estimate, but it has been very satisfactory. I think anyone wintering as many as 20 or 25 cattle, either milk cows or steers, would be compensated for building a silo.” Mr. E. L. Ensign, Cameron, Clinton county, Mo., has used a stave silo one year, filled with corn and sorghum, fed to cows with ‘fine’ results. He says, “It has saved me money. This being my first year, I cannot tell as well as I can after a little more experi- ence with the silo. The corn was pretty ripe before I got my silo ready. I put every sixth load, a load of cane and thought my silage had enough moisture, but believe it would have kept better if I had put several barrels of water in it.” Mr. Philander P. Lewis, Cresent, St. Louis county, Mo., has used a stave silo two years, fills with corn, feeds to dairy cows and young cattle and says, “‘Silage is the cheapest dairy feed we have. It increases the milk and improves the conditions of the cows. I would not try to run a dairy without it.” He adds, “I have found that silage is not only a cheap and splendid feed for cows but that horses, hogs and chickens do better from having it. I believe that every farmer who is feeding cows, horses, hogs, etc., would find the silo a profitable investment.”’ Mr. George Bothwell, Nettleton, Caldwell county, Mo., has used a stave silo one season. Fills it with corn and soja beans, feeds it to dairy cows with the ‘‘very best results.” He adds, ‘“‘“My cows ate | the silage with a relish, gave a heavy flow of milk all winter, and came through the winter with a soft coat of hair and mellow hide. in that respect they had the appearance of cattle in perfect show bloom. Of course, in addition, we fed some grain and other rough- ness.” Mr. Wm. H. Bruns, Concordia, Lafayette county, Mo., has a stave silo, used five years. He fills his silo with “corn and cowpeas grown together, planted together, drilled all at one time.” He says, “Corn and cowpeas make a silage that the cows like better than anything else I ever fed to them.” Just think of how much more feed the corn crop will make, if the whole crop is eaten by the stock, stalks and all.” Mr. Wm. Plummer, Hale, Carroll county, Mo., feeds silage to dairy cows and calves and says “Our cows milk fine all winter and come out in good order in the spring. I couldn’t get along without my silo now.” 110 ~ Missouri Agricultural Report. Mr. W. Guy Ensign, Cameron, Clinton county, Mo., has used a silo one winter, filled it with corn, fed to milk cows and calves, He says, ‘Our cows milk on silage about the same as on grass. Calves grow fine on it,’ and adds, “We started in last winter with more stock than we had carried through for some time, and on account of the dry weather we had less feed than usually, and we have got feed (hay and roughage) to carry over. Ensilage seems to be a very » healthy food. For instance, we had a horse that always stayed poor and not in good spirits till we started to feed him silage, and from that time he began to pick up. I think for a man who owns a farm and keeps either milk cows or who is growing young stock, cannot afford to get along without one. It seems to keep cattle healthy.” Mr. E. V. Mahaffy, Pleasant Hill, Cass county, Mo., has used a silo more than two years, fills with corn, cowpeas, sorghum and alfalfa, feeds to milk cows and hogs with “good” results. In answer to the question, “‘Does the money come to you enough faster with the silo to pay for the trouble?” He answers, “Yes,” and adds, “A great many make the mistake of letting the corn get too ripe. I think the best time is to cut the corn when it is just too hard for roasting ears. If you put good silage in the silo, and pack it well, it will come out good, as the silo makes it no better. It just keeps the feed. This is the only economical way of feeding. We feed silage the year around with good results.” Mr. Henry Logan, Sedalia, Pettis county, Mo., has used a silo eight years, fills with corn, feeds to “cattle, cows, hogs, calves and horses” with “good” results and adds, “I would not be without the silo under any consideration. I cut my corn in September when the weather is good, and in about five days I have 250 tons of feed in the silo. That runs me for 12 months. I feed my cows the year around. There is nothing on the farm that pays better than the silo.” Mr. H. M. Packard, Kenoma, Barton county, Mo., has used a silo eight years, fills with “corn fodder with a little shredded cane on top. That way it will keep very near perfect to the top.” Feeds to dairy cows with “‘good” results and adds, “I think it is the cheap- est feed I can get. I would not be without the silo. I thought one year I could get along without, but found that I could not. Built a concrete.” Mr. H. C. Goodrich, Calhoun, Henry county, Mo., says “No dairyman can afford to be without a silo. I consider it the best and cheapest way to save the whole corn crop. I have fed ensilage to dairy cows for 12 or 13 years.” State Dairy Association. 111 Mr. Joseph Elliott, Windsor, Henry county, Mo., feeds silage to cows and young stock and says “‘I like the silage for feeding very well. Would not like to be without one. It is not only good feed for cows but all kinds of cattle, and when it is put up in the fall it is so much easier to get at than to have to go to the fields for corn fodder ; with ensilage we get the whole corn plant for food.” Mr. Fred Parcher, Maryville, Nodaway county, Mo., feeds sil- age to cows and young cattle and says, “Results in a saving of one- half in feed store bills and over one-half in amount of hay eaten.” Mr. H. S. Hand, Appleton City, St. Clair county, Mo., says “I find it (silage) excellent for dairy cows. Our cows milk as well in winter as they do in summer; in fact, they usually gain when we commence to feed.” Mr. John Miles, Grays’ Summit, Franklin county, Mo., feeds silage to dairy cows and horses and says, “Results are good. I like it well and think it an ideal method of securing succulent food.” Mr. Fritz Sensor, Corder, Lafayette county, Mo., says, “I have been feeding it to all of my cattle. It is of most value to milk cows.” Mr. John Patterson, Kirksville, Adair county, Mo., has fed sil- age for many years and says of it, ““When I speak of the economy of putting corn into silos to feed cows, I don’t mean that it is good for cows only, it is good for all kinds of stock. All seem to like it and thrive on it, and when you get buildings and machinery for it, it does not cost any more to put it in silos than to cut and shock, etc., and it is much more convenient to feed in barns or sheds where stock can be comfortable and all the manure saved.” Mr. N. H. Gentry, Sedalia, Mo., says, “I put up a silo the past summer 30 feet high by 20 in diameter. We filled it with cut corn and it is proving a very cheap, economical feed. We are feeding it to all our cattle, and our work horses have had no other grain all winter, keeping in good condition. In thus consuming the whole corn plant it proves a very cheap food. We mix a little other grain with it in feeding milk cows and young cattle we wish to push along, but the dairy cows get nothing but it, and they eat very little hay. I think I will put up a smaller silo for summer feeding in case of severe drouth, and after carrying it through the summer and it is not needed, we can feed it out through the winter or fall.” Mr. C. T. Graves, Maitland, Mo., had charge of the Jerseys at the World’s Fair in 1904, and the excellent showing made there was partly due to the superior corn silage that was fed. Redmond & Hurst, Tipton, Moniteau county, Mo., use two “bin” 112 Missouri Agricultural Report. silos and says, ‘‘We are milking 50 cows in all stages of lactation, 10 of which are heifers with first calf, and our check for January cream was $265.00; not so bad for winter.” Mr. McNish of Brookfield, Mo., has two silos. He says, “I feed all classes of cattle with good results, especially for growing stock. I fed a car load of steers silage and ear corn and topped the market. The only difficulty in feeding silage with ear corn is that the cattle which are to be fattened will quit eating ear corn and eat silage alone. Corn, I believe, should be ground when feeding with silage for fattening steers.” The writer has personal letters in his possession from all of the above named men to prove that they said just what is accredited to them. Either the silo is a mighty good thing, or else it has a way of fooling a lot of mighty good men. About 100 were built in Missouri last year. RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE STATE DAIRY ASSOCIA- TION. | We, the State Dairy Association of Missouri, assembled in seventeenth annual convention, and representing 25,000 dairy farm- ers in Missouri, hereby resolve: First: We thank the Columbia Commercial Club for their liberal financial assistance. Second: We wish to express our obligations to the State Board of Agriculture for their financial assistance, and to the Honorable George B. Ellis, Secretary, for his efficient efforts in behalf of our meeting. Third: We appreciate the attendance of the representatives of the various machine companies with their exhibits, and wish especially to thank Blanke & Hauk, and A. H. Barber Companies for their unusually extensive exhibits. Fourth: We favor the holding of a National Dairy Show in Chicago next fall. Fifth: The thanks of the Association are extended to Pro- fessor Oscar Erf of the Kansas Agriculture College through whose courtesy was made possible the exhibit of the milking machine, and we also extend our thanks to Mr. S. Suzuki for his services in operating the same. Sixth: We favor the establishment of reasonable pure food State Dairy Association. 113 regulations and higher standards of purity for dairy products. Seventh: We appreciate the effective work of the present Dairy Commissioner, R. M. Washburn, and ask that he be re-ap- pointed, and the same appropriation be made by the General As- sembly as before to carry on this important work. Highth: We recognize the great importance of the Agricul- tural College of the University to our interests and appreciate the immense value of its past services. We further recognize that this work must now be expended to meet the rapidly growing argicul- tural and dairy interests of the State and the increasing demands made upon the College, and therefore ask that the General As- sembly grant the very reasonable request made by the Board of Curaotrs for appropriation for the next biennial period. Ninth: We ask the General Assembly to pass a law enlarging the scope and the power of the State Veterinary Department for the purpose of the better control and stamping out tuberculosis now found in some of the herds of cattle in our State. Tenth: For the third time we call the attention of the Board of Curators, and through them, the General Assembly, to the urgent need of a new dairy barn on the College ground. The present structure is a disgrace to the dairy interests of the State and to the dairy herd now owned by the University. D. A. CHAPMAN, Warrensburg, Mo. WM. A. H. OETTING, Concordia, Mo. B. O. TERRY, Greencastle, Mo. Committee. The nominating committee consisting of F. L. Austin, St. Joseph; A. Bergman, Concordia, and J, B. Berghaus, Billings, re- ported that it was their opinion that the officers of the last year should continue throughout another term. Mr. Chapman of War- rensburg took the chair and put the motion, thus electing the fol- lowing to office: President, Dr. Geo. C. Mosher, Kansas City; First Vice-President, J. M. Smith, Brookfield; Second Vice-Presi- dent, Thomas Shields, Eureka; Secretary, R. M. Washburn, Colum- bia; Treasurer, D. B. Matthews, Kirksville. SESSION Improved Live Stock Breeders’ Association. January 8-9, 1907. LIMITATIONS OF BABY BEEF PRODUCTION. (H. J. Waters, Dean of the College of Agriculture, Columbia, Mo.) Two quite independent classes of cattlemen are vitally interest- ed in the subject of baby beef. One is the breeder and raiser of cattle; the other the man who fattens them or fits them for market. In other words, the cattle breeder on the one hand, and the profes- sional feeder on the other. It is from the view point of the professional feeder alone that this subject is on this occasion presented. To discuss it from the standpoint of both parties would be quite beyond the scope of a single address. To deal with this subject from the view point of the cattle raiser is reserved for a future discussion. For many years the teachers and writers on agricultural topics have been strong advocates of baby beef. The professional feeder, whose livelihood depends upon his success in this business, has con- tinued to show a decided preference for older cattle. The teachers and writers have based their opinions on the results of experiments that have been somewhat numerous and extensive, and, at first glance, unimpeachable. The feeder has based his judgment upon extensive experience covering many years and with large numbers of cattle. It is scarcely to be supposed that both parties to this contention are right. Nor is it to be taken for granted that the man whose position is sustained by practical experience alone is necessarily the one who is wrong. 115 ation, Live Stock Breeders’ Assoc *oang[NoT IZV JO juemyAIedeg “¢ O 9%) WaT U0) B10do0 -00 UJ poJONpUOD Suyeq o.1B 9]94u0 Sut 184UTA JO spoyqjeul ysoq 0} JO ApNys oyVIOgBIS UB OTOTM ‘UOTIVIG JUSTITIOGXH OY} 4B SJO] PUG Spoys SUTpoey [wJUOMIOdXm ~T “DIA » — er = . le 116 Missouri Agricultural Report. During the past eleven years the Missouri station has con- ducted a great many feeding trials, and has taken great pains in the meantime to secure the results of the experience of thousands of the most successful feeders, and when submitting their prac- tice or conclusions to the most rigid experimental tests, we have found that in a large majority of cases they had reached the cor- rect conclusions and that their practices were well founded. WHAT IS BABY BEEF? Baby beef is now quite another thing from what it was fif- teen or twenty years ‘ago. Then a 30-months old steer weighing 1,400 pounds would have been classed as strictly baby beef, and he would certainly have looked the part of a baby by the side of the three or four or five-year-old bullocks, weighing from 1,800 to 2,200 pounds, thick, fat and hard. Our point of view has changed radically. These huge bul- locks are no longer on the market, and if some one should be so misguided as to make them now, there would be no one at the market to welcome or to buy. The demands of the market have changed. We have been gradually hastening our cattle to the market, cutting down their ages and their weights, until a twelve months old calf weighing 800 or 900 pounds will bring as high a price as any other age or weight, provided he be fat. So size or weight does not any longer constitute a limitation to baby beef produc- tion. According to our present understanding of baby beef, no steer would be so classed outside of his yearling form, and as a rule the maximum age would be from 18 to 20 months, and the maximum weight from 1,100 to 1,300 pounds. This means that the feeding operation begins with the calf at weaning time, approximately at six months old, weighing 450 to 500 pounds, and continues with- out interruption until the animal is fat. Some even go farther, and begin the feeding period as soon as the calf is old enough to eat and while it is still running with its dam, and place these animals on the market the following June or July at 14 or 15 months of age, and weighing from 800 to 1,100 pounds. THE PROFESSIONAL FEEDER’S PRACTICE. Some years ago the writer sent a circular to about 3,000 of the leading feeders of Missouri, Iowa and Illinois, interviewing Live Stock Breedeis’ Association. ELT them regarding certain phases of their practice in beef produc- tion. Three of the questions submitted were intimately connect- ed with the question of baby beef production, or dealt with the length of time the cattle were fed, weight at the time they were marketed, and the age at which they were put on full feed. Some- thing like 1,000 answers were received from the most experi- enced and successful cattle feeders of the corn belt—men whose average experience in feeding cattle was something like twenty years per man, and who had fed and marketed an average of about 2,000. cattle each, or an aggregate of something like two million cattle. A very brief summary of their replies to the ques- tions bearing upon the subject under discussion will be exceed- ingly interesting at this point. One of the questions asked was: “What is the average length of your feeding period, i. e., the number of days your cattle are on full feed?” The individual reports varied all the way from 60 or 90 days for a short feed on old cattle, to a full year for baby beef. The average of all the answers received to this question is as fol- lows: Average length of State Number of feeding period. reports. Days. ITSO LGD ecto A eeaee ina RIANA, conferees ha Ua yee ei ohana EO aI a thes 684 174 OW ater pets, «2, AAT ARN ED Te pee RNS Senses Sy At AA Ss ate anh cases 86 180 DTT LeNTS eth hear ee mar ren Ne ey trac ects Rene Rel 5 ie ene Sat MR oe deel fe A 35 190 INC EASA to SNP IReN mVU SES, WS oye ent ch ent sea is ida end, ae 1 200 AV. CTO Cee rate U wey wien epee l= tae Patt eae eye eich oe Led artes ake 806 UZit/ The close agreement in the average length of the feeding period between the various states, barring Nebraska, from which we had but one report, and, in fact, the close agreement between the individual reports on this point, is very significant. It is particularly interesting, when the answers to this question are considered in connection with the answers to the question con- cerning the weight of cattle that have returned the greatest profit, and to the question in relation to the age at which they put their cattle on feed. Clearly, the length of feed is most intimately related to the age of the cattle fed, and is likewise closely related to the quality of the cattle. It goes without saying that these men, in answer- ing the question as to the average length of their feeding period, 118 Missouri Agricultural Report. Pastures at the Agricultural College, where the summer feeding experiments have been conducted, Fi@, 2. Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 119 had in mind the making of good cattle into prime beef. It is furthermore clear from their answers to this question alone, and still further by their answers to questions 8 and 13, that they also had in mind cattle of from 24 to 32 months of age. A LONG TIME IS REQUIRED TO MAKE YOUNG ANIMALS FAT. The younger the animal] the longer the time required to make it fat. This is on account of the tendency of the young animal to utilize its feed so largely for growth instead of for fat. It is fat that makes the animal ripe and marketable. Clearly, the young animal, when on full feed, puts its food to three distinct uses: 1, maintenance; 2, growth; 3, fat. The rate of growth diminishes as the age of the animal increases. After a certain time, therefore, the animal would reach an age when growth would cease entirely. At such a time in the life of any animal all of the available food above maintenance would neces- sarily go to the production of fat. The presumption is that the requirement for growth diminishes, not directly witn the age of the animal, but rapidly from weaning time to 18 or 20 months of age. By this time the tendency to grow in the average well- bred and early maturing steer has so far diminished as to not affect the fattening process very seriously. It goes without say- ing that with the decline in the tendency to grow comes a corre- ' sponding increase in the tendency to fatten. These are all matters of common observation among feeders, particularly the ease with which older cattle may be made fat, and the comparatively short feeding period necessary to bring this about, and, on the other hand, the great difficulty in making young animals fat and the long time required to accomplish it. Starting with six-months-old calves in good flesh, twelve months time is required for making them strictly prime. Where- as, three-year-old or four-year-old steers, of similar quality and thinner in flesh to start with, may be made prime in six months. Or, the same principle may be illustrated in another way: To make a six-months-old calf prime will require the laying on of from 600 to 700 pounds of additional weight, making the finished animal weigh from 1,150 to 1,300 pounds, and requiring, as has been said before, some twelve months of full feeding. Whereas, a three-year-old steer, even thin in flesh at the outset, may be made strictly prime by the addition of 400 pounds, weighing at the close of the feeding period between 1,550 and 1,650 pounds. 120 Missouri Agricultural Report. RELATION OF LENGTH OF FEEDING PERIOD TO THE QUALITY OF THE CATTLE. It is only cattle of good quality that can be profitably made prime. Cattle of inferior grade bring too low a price when fin- ished to justify the expense of making them thick. This arises from the fact that the condition of the animal affects in a pro- found way the cost of gain, and the fatter the animal the slower the gains and the more expensive they become. Necessarily, therefore, the thinner the animal the more rapid and cheap will be the gains. Thus, beginning with a thin steer, other things being equal, the cost increases as the feeding period advances. It does not increase, however, at a uniform rate. The conditions of the weather and the character of the feed remaining unchanged, there is an enormous difference in the cost of the last 100 pounds put up on a steer if it is made fat enough to top the market, as compared with the advance occurring in the earlier parts of the feeding period. 3 It is obvious, therefore, that these costly gains at the end would not be justified on a steer that would sell at four and one half cents a pound, whereas they might be fully justified in a steer that could be made to sell when fully fat for six and one-half cents. The cost per pound of the gain made in the latter end of the feed- ing period is out of all proportion to the price it will in itself bring when the steer is sold. This additional fat, however, so increases the value of the whole carcass of the steer as to justify the practice and return a profit by making him prime, provided he is good enough. In this connection it will be interesting to note the answers to questions 8, 9 and 18: “About what weight at selling time has in your experience returned the most clear profit, and why?” A study of the detailed answers to this question will be ex- ceedingly profitable, and the summaries by different states and even by different counties in the State are very signifiicant. Note the unanimity with which these answers fall between 1,200 and 1,400 pounds live weight. Occasionally one drops to 1,100 to 1,400 pounds, which means that in the judgment of this particular feeder yearlings have been more profitable than older cattle, and occasionally there will be a feeder who still feels that he has made more money out of 1,500 or 1,600-pound steers, which means three- year-olds, than out of lighter weights. 121 Live Stock Breeders’ Association. “SJ UNUITIOd xe JANOSST OY} UT opvU Jooq AQ~Bq JO JO] 4S. OY JO 4Avd W "2 OI 122 Missouri Agricultural Report. The summary, by states, is as follows: State | Number of | Most profitable | reports | weight. IMISSOULI OT bicccvelat she eee ons cos ow eel 623 1345 Iowa a ep Sete SON a eR RS 0 es otc i NR 80 1358 DUinois: fate we ee Pare vs a 2 33 1390 INGDIASKRS bite seye tener eicie cee isisda. bolas [ale MvaRee ieee es 1 1400 | | tha ri Ne oe Suet SE 9 ee A > Ca | 727 1367 This means that these feeders have found the so-called “dressed beef” steer weighing from 1,200 to 1;400 pounds on the market the most profitable class to produce. This is primarily because of the steady and uniform demand for cattle of this class on the market, rather than because this particular age or weight of cattle were produced more cheaply than lighter and younger ones. For a full discussion of the relation of the selling qualities of the dif- ferent ages and weights the reader is referred to a bulletin of the Missouri Experiment Station on Beef Production, number 76. There has been during the past twenty-five or thirty years a marked change in the market demands of cattle. Formerly, added to the difficulties of making young cattle fat that have already been pointed out, was the further disadvantage that light weights would not bring as good a price as heavier weights. Before dis- cussing the bearing of these figures upon the whole problem of profitable beef production, it will be well to consider the answers to the next question and likewise the answers to the ones that are intimately related. “Have you found it profitable under ordinary circumstances to produce 1,500 to 1,600-pound steers?” The summary of answers, by states, is as follows: State Number of Yes No reports. MT SSOUITI Ge eee ee ake, eas ia cne Oe Oe ReCSES PAI Oates 614 196 418 TOW ae Hee cies cots eisai, Sis. ols oo elope ese tes ledevione etre % 73 19 54 VADER = a aes a a Rese. Ooo Oi orc 34 13 21 Total 721 228 493 PERCENTAGES. State Number of reports. Yes No “7 SUE 4 aioe cS 5 at eg eeien mains 614 31.92 68.08 CER) 2 Sey QE BEE Bee ROMA cca. ODOC Seana BARC 73 26.03 73.97 HUNTERS fsa DE OI Chere errno clo eet aio tear 34 38.23 61.77 PAIR ASB. Ne diets eck ah tuk fo ade hn ake behelece eles Wie ese aite:cls 721 31.61 68.39 Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 123 We shall also introduce the evidence in regard to the age of cattle preferred, as the weight, age and length of feeding period are all intimately related. In answer, therefore, to the question: “At what age do you usually put your steers on full grain feed?” We have the following interesting summary: Agricultural Report. USSOUNL M 124 TITO4 NO ATLLVO HIGAL Lod SHACHHA TVOILOVUd HOIHM LY ADV PLT 861 60°06 16°11 PLP 60° 8¢ PSF 09°¢ o9'€ OO Rie sc agen ela OSVIOAV Tama areat li5 5 Slufecarn se rss z9°01 ZS 01 60'1z $898 92'S 06°2 06°2 ge Donets esses grountT Pee cramer kellfche vs rete salen are. ace &%" OL GO" LI GO'LI 06° 0F 60°6 bo 'P PLT 88 Dotnet sess eeeepMoT 90°S GE°S 161% o& IT 8€ eI Os LE 96°F 66'E 89°¢ OSD! oe? | eae ere Nnosstl *sa6D]UII9 I as 9T 391 96 PIL LOE 6€ 66 66 90 So 2 ears [®1OL sPabeoice thes Gaia is!l is chal eesaaitesa cote p p 8 al Zz @ € se Rte eras P08 SOULE Seas Se ATS erohe NOR. ccalteneaey omcHoons 6 GI cI 9¢ g , I 8g Detter eee estes epMor FI 9T 6FT LL 16 LGZ 66 oS Go OSD.) gest a |r ie o r eS Tnosst “Splo “Sp[o “spo “Sp[o “Splo ‘splo BS) 8) (0) *sqylodeal *sose [[V -1v0h-f 03 & -1eak-¢ -Ivah-¢ 04% -1e94-FZ -1B9f-Z -1v9f-§T -1e94-T “SOATRO JaquInN “a4ye4S Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 125 FEEDERS PREFER CATTLE IN THE TWO-YEAR OLD FORM. As has already been pointed out, it is quite evident that the feeders, in filling out our blanks, had in mind cattle in their two- year-old form. This is evidenced by their stating that the aver- age length of the feeding period was six months, which is about the time required to make two-year-old cattle prime, is longer than is necessary for three-year-olds, and is too short for yearlings or calves. It is further evidenced by the average weight which they considered they had found most profitable, viz., approximately 1,350 pounds. This is too light for three-year-olds, and too heavy for yearlings or calves. Then, again, the question put to them directly as to whether they had found 1,500 or 1,600-pound steers profitable, as a rule, out of 721 replies, in round numbers, or practically 70 per cent, answered in the negative. . All of this is further confirmed by the answer to the question direct as to what age they usually put their cattle on full feed. A study of this age summary is exceedingly interesting and in- structive, as the results are very striking. For example, out of a total of 680 replies from Missouri, 257, or nearly 40 per cent, gave two years as the age at which their cattle were put on full feed, which would mean, with a six months’ feeding period, as was reported by them in answer to previous question, 30 months old cattle, when finished and ready for the market. Thirteen per cent gave two and one-half years of age, and 11 per cent gave essentially the same answer, namely, “between two and three years of age,” as their preference. Thus more than 62 per cent of the Missouri feeders reported that they put their cattle on feed at between two and three years of age, as contrasted with less than 4 per cent who put them on as calves, less than 4 per cent who put them on as yearlings, and but a fraction over 4 per cent who put them on at one and one-half years of age. What is true of the reports from Missouri is essentially true of Iowa, as will be readily seen from the summary just presented. It is a significant fact that in Missouri, Iowa and Illinois the number of men who put their catte on feed at three years of age was almost double the number who put their cattle on feed under two years of age. It is evident, therefore, that after all that has been said about the advantage of cheaper gains made by young cattle, the cattle ltural Report. tCU issourit Agr M 126 “‘qoy1euUr oy} doy 09 Apved ‘splO-1B9k-991U TL, ."F “OT Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 127 feeders of the corn belt are not yet making baby beef. There are three important reasons why this is so to be briefly considered in this connection. First, the cattle feeder is, as a rule, not a cattle raiser. At any rate, he raises only a small portion of the cattle he feeds. The cattle raiser, on the other hand, is, as a rule, not a cattle feeder, seldom even feeding those of his own raising. The raising of cattle and the fitting of them for market are two separate and independent operations, conducted, as a rule, by two different men, each operating independently of the other, and the one not especially interested in the scope or outcome of the other’s opera- tions. The cattle feeder is interested in the cattle raiser only to the extent of having him supply him with animals of the proper quality and at such price as will enable him to fit them for market with profit. Under the conditions of the feeder and stocker market that have prevailed in recent years, at least, the younger animal in an unfinished condition sells for enough more per pound to fully counterbalance any advantage it may possess in the cost required to make it fat. Or, to state it differently, the older animals may be bought for enough less per pound to overcome the excess cost required to finish them for market. Or, in feeders’ parlance, the margin of profit in older cattle is greater than in younger animals. This may be illustrated by statistics furnished the writer by a number of experienced feeders in Central Missouri, whom he has interviewed recently on this point. RELATION OF AGE TO THE COST OF FEEDERS. Taking calves of a quality that in the fall, say October 1st, would be worth 5 cents a pound, weighing from 350 to 500 pounds, cattle of the different ages could be bought for about the following prices, one year with another: Yearlings, $3.75 per hundred. Two-year-olds, $4.00 per hundred. Three-year-olds, $4.25 per hundred. These same cattle next spring would stand the feeder, in the judgment of these men, on the basis of the same market as in the fall, as follows: Yearlings (which are the calves referred to in the above table), $5.00 per hundred. Two-year-olds, $4.50 per hundred. 128 Missouri Agricultural Report. Three-year-olds, from $4.75 to $5.00 per hundred. It is likely that these figures represent extreme differences, but if they are even approximately correct, it shows an enormous spread between the cost per pound of yearling, two-year-old, and a material difference of three-year-old cattle, in comparison with that of calves in the fall, and between yearlings on the one hand and two and three-year-olds in the spring. The difference between two-year-olds and three-year-olds, as given in the above summary, if correctly representing the market, would seem to the writer, in the light of our feeding experiments, irrational, but the reader is referred to our bulletin on baby beef production, where this matter is discussed in detail. Secondly, they can make the older cattle fat in less time with more certainty, and they will fatten up more evenly and with less attention to the niceties of feeding. Third, the older cattle, when not fully finished, will come nearer selling for what they are worth than will young animals. Fourth, two of the cardinal principles of baby beef production are that the animals must be choice in quality, and they must be prime. This of very necessity eliminates a great majority of the cattle from the possibility of being made into baby beef. After all, the whole question of baby beef interests the breeder and raiser of cattle rather than the feeder, as these operations are now divided. This means that the raiser of cattle on high-priced land in the corn belt is the one who will lose whatever is lost on the three-year-old steer, or even on the two-year-old steer, or what- ever is lost in the entire operation by the failure to fatten and mar- ket him early. The professional feeder may be expected to con- tinue to prefer to feed cattle that have passed the period of rapid growth, and have gotten to a point where they will take on fat easily, rapidly and uniformly, so long as the breeder and raiser will consent to grow them to this age for him, and sell them to him with a sufficient margin, so that the feeding operation will prove profitable. If the raiser and the feeder of cattle were the same man, it would be but a short time until our cattle would be going to market at from 14 to 18 months of age, instead of from 30 to 36 months of age, under the conditions now prevailing in the corn belt. Already there has been a marked tendency on the part of the farmer on the high-priced land in the corn belt to go out of the business of raising beef cattle. This has been particularly true under the in- fluence of the high prices for corn that have prevailed in recent Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 129 years, and a steady advance in the price of land and labor. This is very strikingly true of the best corn regions of Illinois, Missouri and Iowa, and has forced the feeder to rely more and more upon western or range cattle, which, in the meantime, have been greatly improved in quality, so that a two-year-old range steer now is as large and almost as mature in form as was the three or four-year- old steer of twenty years ago from the same region. In the mean- time, however, land values have advanced enormously in the range country, and the ranchman is beginning to insist upon selling his cattle younger and thus reduce expenses in making them. -————— Fie.5. Three-year-olds about finished. It may, therefore, be accepted as final that so long as the cattle raiser, whether he be on high-priced land in the corn belt or on the ranches of the west, will supply cattle of moderate ma- turity, such as two-year-olds, to the feeder at enough less per pound than he will sell calves or yearlings to enable him to meet the in- creased cost of gain required to make them fat, so long will the feeder continue to feed this class of cattle in preference to younger ones. GAINS MADE ON YOUNG ANIMALS ARE CHEAPER. The baby beef advocate has had for his chief argument the fact that young animals make cheaper gains than do older ones, or that the cost of a pound of gain increases as the age of the animal in- -creases. This law is well established. This is primarily due to the fact that growth, or lean meat, requires less food for its pro- duction than does fat, for lean meat is a watery tissue compared A-9 130 Missouri Agricultural Report. with fat, and is not nearly so concentrated a product. In fact, fat is the most completely dried out and most concentrated animal product we have. In the whole realm of animals, when one is required by nature to store up energy in a compact and concentrated form, either for making long journeys without food, as is the case with the drome- dary; to subsist a long time without food in winter, as is the case with the bear and other wild animals; or the fortifying of the mother with young at side against the lack of food for the pro- duction of milk by the drying up of the ranges, and so forth, and so on, the form in which this energy is stored is always fat. This is true the world over with all classes of animals, both wild and domestic. The younger the animal, the larger the proportion of its gain in weight, is growth, and the smaller the proportion that is fat. There is nothing, so far as we know, to indicate that a young animal can manufacture fat from feed and store it up at any less expense than an older animal. A pound of fat contains a definite number of units of energy, and requires perhaps the same quantity of feed to produce it in one animal as in another of the same species and in the same condition. It is self-evident, therefore, that the greater the proportion of the total gain is of cheap material, the cheaper will the total gain become. It is a fact of perhaps considerable importance in this connection that the younger animals eat more in proportion to their live weight than do older animals, and, therefore, have a larger proportion of their daily ration to use for the production of growth or fat. Or, to state it differently, doubtless a smaller proportion of their ration is required for mere maintenance. Whether these are all or even the principal causes, the fact of most importance remains unchanged, viz., that the cost increases with the age of the animal. ADVANCE IN COST OF GAIN DUE TO AGE GREATLY EXAGGERATED, The earlier figures on the saving from feeding the animals young, or in favor of making baby beef, were really startling to contem- plate. In the face of these figures, it was absolutely certain that the man who fed anything except young animals was committing a stupendous blunder. The difficulty was the failure on the part of those who made the experiment to distinguish between the effect of age as distinguished from that of condition or fatness. In these Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 131 experiments the young animals were not made fat, while the older animals were, and thus in the case of the young animals really the expensive part of the feeding process was avoided. I shall speak more in detail concerning this matter later. The point is, that the combined influence of age and of fatness was by these earlier ex- perimenters ascribed to age alone, with the result that such data as the following were freely use in support of the baby beef con- tention.* Cost per hundred pounds of gain up to 12 months of age...5.........0..... 2c cece cc ees $ 4.03 aba = ae between ID. and’od. mot.\4 Seas hots pas ORAS oiet ae ake eterarene 7.98 HO ds ” between 24 and 36 mo..... SOON CE AND Ue OO UIC OL ints 12.54 In this connection it has always been maintained that older cattle could not be induced to make rapid gains, and that a gain of a pound and a half a day was a fair record for cattle two and a half years old and over, and that the young animals, therefore, not only made economical but rapid gains. This was tantamount to saying that the young animal could be finished in less time, or with a shorter feeding period, than the older animal, and that this wholly unwarranted conclusion was read into the figures by many inexperienced writers and advocates of this system of beef pro- duction. In contrast with these figures some results obtained at the Texas Experiment Station* with range steers, ranging from four to six years old, and very thin in condition, should be considered. They were well warmed, i. e., they were gotten well accustomed to their feed before the experiment began, so that no part of this gain could be attributed to what is ordinarily called fill. The experiment ran through 79 days, and the results are as follows: Lot I. Ten steers. Average weight, 671 pounds. - Ration: Cottonseed meal, silage and cottonseed hulls. Pounds. LANNE GLENNA FEE Galew eins AAA. UD Joteoe bl eae ie als Hoes 6 Sei A 7 A ela dn Jip cae 2 3.53 Ser AI TMT ETH cee OU Mc by it «. ale aRAR Teck arn he tavaiter ech Rie he its hs HERING Paes oAimttntaee hss walle eeamicia viens 1.54 RSE EC RTIC TRL aL IIe Lite eu ce econ ees ce acre oe Ue ete tates eee iey of chute ARE A Asktyawel Sle lvina ava: wolore hank datees 6.00 SS METIS SO CIM Walia 2 Mee yep La Nem en Rack She mC) cet Ah uhe Lae eas CELE Petra alin oncal Reghanceteees 3.70 *Chicago Stock Show results for 1882. Henry’s ‘‘ Feeds and Feeding,’’ page 369. *Texas Experiment Station, Bulletin No. 10. ay Missouri Agricultural Report. Lot II. Steers. Average weight, 662 pounds. Ration: Ear corn, silage, hay and cottonseed meal. ASV CLARE: Cailiye aT Biers i irecsyjopa cls howe, wh teach cle Rate ai. 5 Ae a ee oar ee cas co pes LA eee cee 2.81 Ibs. Costrof ain, so eee is ie ote ie PRs ch Dee CDE AOS TA OO 2.67 cts. Note the excellent gains made and the very remarkably small amount of feed required. The cost per pound of gain only was reported in the case of lot II, which, as will be observed, was 2.67 cents, or less than has ever been estimated even for calves, and yet these steers were from four to six years of age. The point is, these animals were very thin in condition, and were carried through a very small part of the complete fattening period, namely, 79 days, and were not fat when the experiment closed. If they had been made thick fat and prime, the cost would have mounted far above these figures. Fia.6. A good class of two-year-olds in prime condition. These data are presented merely to show that age in itself is not really so important a factor in the cost of gain as has been commonly supposed. In other words, the condition in which the animal is or the degree of fatness exerts a profound influence. This is clearly shown by some observations at the Kansas Experi- ment Station,* on three and one-half-year-old steers, warmed be- fore the experiment began. They were fed a balanced ration of corn, bran, shorts and oil meal, and the experiment lasted 182 days, or six months, and cattle of this age in that time on such a ration should have become thick and prime. *Kansas Experiment Station, Bulletin No. 34. Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 133 Average daily gain, 2.4 pounds; grain required for a pound of gain for the entire experiment, 10.0 pounds. It is likely that on calves or yearlings with such a ration the grain required for a pound of gain would have been between seven and eight pounds, so that the age does affect the cost of gain. But of great interest in showing condition of the animal upon cost of gain, note: First 56 days they eanieea only 7.38 pounds of food for a pound of gain. First 84 days they required only 8.07 pounds of food for a pound of gain. First 112 days they required only 9.01 pounds of food for a pound of gain. First 140 days they required only 9.27 pounds of food for a pound of gain, For the entire 182 days they required only 10.00 pounds of food for a pound of gain. Note how the cost increases as the animal becomes fat. In former times this increase, due to fatness, has been invariably at- tributed to increase in age. In ordinary cases the cost does not increase so uniformly as the fattening process proceeds, as is shown in this particular case, for the reason that the season in a Six months’ period changes very materially, and may have the effect of accentuating this upward tendency in case an unfavorable time of year is hit upon for the finishing process, or this tendency may be partially, at least, offset when the finishing period falls in the cool, crisp autumn weather. But the weather being the same, the law seems to hold that as the animal increases in fatness the rate of gain diminishes and the cost of gain increases. In addition to this increase in cost, due to fatness, there is, as has already been stated, an increase which appears to be due to the age of the animal, or, perhaps, more correctly speaking, due, prin- cipally, to the use to which the steer puts the feed, or the kind of gain he makes. When making sappy tissue, as in the case of the young animal, it is made cheaply; in making hard fat, as in the case of the older animal, it is more expensive. THE DIFFICULTIES OF MAKING RELIABLE COMPARISONS. It is evident that the problem is a complicated one, and that the difficulties in making reliable comparisons of the cost and value of production on cattle of different ages are both numerous and 134 Missouri Agricultural Report. great, or in other words, to accurately measure the influence of age upon the cost and value of gain made by beef steers, is a very difficult undertaking. It is owing to this fact that this question has not been settled in the public mind one way or the other long ago. There has cer- tainly been sufficient discussion and really enough experimenta- tion of a good character to settle an ordinary problem, but the work and discussions so far have tended to confuse rather than to crystallize public sentiment. It is not proposed that the new data presented by us will by any means settle all of the numerous questions involved. They will, however, throw light upon some very important phases of the problem and tend to settle some details of practice along this line. They will, furthermore, it is believed, make some progress toward the definite solution of the whole problem, and suggest, perhaps, what other work of a fundamental character is necessary to finally solve the problem. At this time, therefore, it seems that we are justified in under- taking a rather exhaustive and critical study of the data so far accumulated from all sources, as much to determine just where we are on this problem, and to mark out the proper course for future research as for the light these data will throw upon the feeders’ _ practice. DIFFICULTIES. At first glance it would seem that the selection of two lois of cattle of different ages and of similar grade, and comprising a sufficient number of animals to eliminate as far as possible the pecularities of individuals, and the feeding of the same on the same kind of feed for the same length of time, would give data upon which a definite and final conclusion as to the relative cost of pro- duction on young and old cattle could be based, especially if the experiment were repeated often enough to make sure of reliable figures. This, however, is precisely what has been done a number of times, and done well, notably by the Ottawa Experiment Sta- tion, Ottawa, Canada, and by the Kansas Experiment Station, and the results so far as they go are perhaps thoroughly trustworthy. If, however, the feeding operation be continued only long enough to make the older animals fat, the experiment closes before the young animals are finished, and they have, therefore, escaped the expensive period in the feeding operation, namely, the finish- ing: We have, therefore, introduced under this plan a disturbing Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 135 factor, namely, the difference in condition of the animal. That a difference in condition exerts a profound influence upon the cost of gain, need not at this point be supported with experimetal data. It is a well accepted law in feeding, abundantly demonstrated in the scientific experiments of the stations and by the experience of the practical feeder. Granting, therefore, that the young animals make gains at less cost, other things being equal, than do the older animals, it is equally true that the cost of gain on fat cattle is greater than on thin animals, and probably the difference between an animal thin in flesh and one that is thick fat is greater than that to be fairly attributed to difference in age, as between an eight or nine months old calf and a three-year-old steer, both being in the same condi- tion or state of flesh. Fieg.7. Beginning to show finish. Thus, by making the older animal thick fat, and stopping the experiment before the young animal is equally fat, we add to the increased cost due to age the increased cost due to additional fat- ness, and in the past we have ascribed this total difference to age dione, as has been already pointed out. The exact difference in the cost of gain between the two classes of animals would depend upon their relative ages and the relative degree of fatness to which they were carried before the experiment closed. Other things being equal, the greater the dif- ference in the ages of the cattle the greater would be.the difference in their condition of fatness when the experiment closed, provid- ed they were both fed an equal length of time. Therefore, the 136 Missouri Agricultural Report. maximum difference due to this fact would be involved in the re- sults of comparison of calves and three-year-olds, say. That is to say, the younger animals require a longer time to finish in, not because they make slower gains, but because they use a larger proportion of their food for the production of growth, and have left, therefore, a smaller proportion for the production of fat. The finish of an animal depends upon the amount of fat carried, and not upon the amount of growth it has made or upon its size. From the butcher’s point of view, an animal is finished whenever it is fat. The older and the nearer matured or grown the animal is, the shorter time will be required to make it fat, because of the smaller proportion of its feed that goes into the production of growth, and the larger the proportion that goes into the production of fat. In the case of animals that are fully grown, which are never met with in feeding practice nowadays, the entire digestible portion of the ration, except that required for maintenance, goes to the production of fat, and such animals, as is well known, fatten with great rapid- ity. - It has already been pointed out that growth is a cheap prod- uct, easy to manufacture, and commands a low price on the market, as witness the ease with which animals may be made to gain at pasture, likewise what a low price grazing or thin cattle bring on the market as compared with those which have been fed grain and have been fattened. A glance at the results of all the experiments seeking to com- pare the cost of gain in old and young cattle will clearly reveal the fact that the older animals were made uniformaly fatter. This is self-evident when we realize that they were all fed the same length of time. It is further evidenced by the fact that the old catile sold uniformly higher on the market. That is to say, taking the experiments at Ottawa, Kansas, and of Missouri Stations, there has been a direct and uniform relation between the age of the animal and the price that it has sold for on the market at the close of the experiment. Note the following summary of prices brought by all cattle fed in these experiments at the different stations: Selling prices of cattle at different ages in various experi- ments. Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 137 ONTARIO EXPERIMENT STATION. 1900—192 Days. Weight at Selling selling time. price. Ibs. Dollars. VOD iG “yee qeactone ce tes Ob OC Cre DEES OOD OCOD OU CeCe mee 1020 4.50 uMGeVEAL—OlGSHMR Maraarer Silom NClcul ie eabecsicteis contest ete rete a is. cite gus eicrs 1230 4.65 MNFINCE=YV.CAT-OlGS § (20 gc tenis svete siete clels ote slaiciticlaberet qiejetersiene « Ste eles 1405 4.70 1901—203 Days. ANCOR TE Meee Syl cake sds ees iare le avcliatsha Seheleych al acnemal Petal «! lalehavonvdetetse cole 780 4.50 VeSTTINIGS GS CUI OP te CR JD OIC EIDIO GET DIO CICIOI CCRC O ISITE, eRe ae TCrC 1187 4.77 WO VEAL-OLUS? © ots sche nee acces core Male, tise aiotsravaias g Sale cis oles 1302 5.00 TNareeaTEOHO Sho oe snes oo doo DD OC ORONO DD Ocicitd Docc BOIC.OD 1575 5.12% 1902—186 Days. (CRIES). “G.5.4.0 crac ec OR DHRC RORERottN IaIG One oe RIE DIRT ICICI eee 840 5.50 YOST) 1 4 wig thy cARCO Na Bee ORS CRIS: > CLRLC OR orci acne CORTE Airee eee eae 1298 6.17 MivonVcate Ol Smart. Mise sie es ro)o = iat takes ae act eae os “*SPp[O-1B9aA-OMT, eeerlewee Or siee a" eeeee 86° $ eee leew wee se'¢ eee eel eee eee 29° St eeeee eeeene GO I$/GLT° 9¢ 00'S Gg Ft Gg t GFE 8821 866 98T 6 ee eewee SBUTL.IBIL eeselrecee Ce celecccclerccefeseccl(ececleccces(scecclacoesleccccsl(ecccvslsesccsiescevel(ececen 0g" at 0g’ st 09's a ard Ggg OFS CGP OSI c Aside siel stele ealeiele meleisiac a> sO AN AS(S 2G06T GI '$\os"$ \29°$| ST's es TL'$/6L'$| LES | ZO'$l9S°SS/ST°ZE |OS TI$|99°$ | 09'S | ST°S$/SZT°S$) GZ" F$| LE"9$) 9L°T 8gs QLST LIGi | $06 | 6 tne gh Coa “Sp[o-1B904-9019,, “""(86"$ JOG" $)-°°*" 10°$ le | G0°-$| #8°$|"°°"~ 06° —$|06"8$ |""*** 90°-$) 2h°3$| 00°¢8| 09°S$) TL°S$) 89°T GSE GOST O16 062 | Ge hee oe me **sp[O-1B04-OM J, eee lewee 1E°$ ae eee ew eee 19°$ ee ee I6'$ eee eele ee wee 16°13 seeee eeeeee 2G°Z$ LL FS ge° et 11° S$ Go’ cle JSIT £18 806 6 er SAUT[IBOR ei | Savciscicteen||sanetirecies tee arse | ets cctehl inca cievell aan eis vesssa[eceeaslecseelesseesteeeeeel gaepg! ap-zgi paces] 60'S | ZIP | OBL oe | geri @ foc a ascaanecittice + S9ATBO 2 LO6L OT $/SS°$"}"°* "| @L°$. g8°$]- "°° tS} ah bet] at | pzio) EV ACKS J Ifo mes 09° $} OS" T$)""°"*” GL" F$| GL S$] 08°98) C°T 182 SOFT OZTAP SSTsNGie |e Pee Sp[0-1894-9014,], see Cc) eS ee cr z$ see anee te" $ wee we lee eee Gz‘ st wee eee weeee 0z'1$ wane Gg Ft 0G" Sf 0z 9 6P'T 12 OSZT 096 181 6 eee eee eee “SP[O-1B94L-OMT, se Oe . ee 0g F¢ GS ef 00°St Ill SIZ 0ZOT Ors 261 6 ee ed SZUT[1B9 x 1006T hal Pai Sas amt! ate Omri, ny Cay a a Vu Cn = iE 1 ck ud = DE [ne . . . = . ary hie : . ee) es an ee - | oH tla . . . ° . . * S . = ° . D . oO. Qo. ° Bee ee cele ive || Sine ee lee een eee lee eel a aite leeeat aul Pay sii st) eet ites, 291| Pa) ve eps mr. Zelich S:lqslegl] an a | eeremi lence : o n °°: 3: go 7 ifs : Riley : 3B le : fel} fee te ee ee Sy le tl ets Fen foyemalle foto . ) 2 « ° = : Nie mn O [Nes [g, - BIN 1 2 5 |\ac Buri aitlso Sica . . . oO Lass P- pee p= . Sea |pesten cee eek s eee AC et er aoe I Tey leeches ET Sl tg ; ~ id as o: q ; Sela] S (ss lea| S(Szl ca | Slut letieslesiazlec|S:(8:|a)/2] 8 | 8: ] 2:1 843 sOlPa pe leet cet : = C S Me c e o oO: += 6 * Ge lerimio ts lomo |Selre 5 oe SS) On |S9/ SS | Sal aia: S $ 2 a ates | ae a Sas | are Neale] SP leas S| es al) es m oe eget | o5 | Be ieslan | fs eee) oc ea Se Se | ep eee Be ih Bo) BV :sursyeut Su) BP S8l85|8e|8eiei|e:] S12] ee: 1 RB) o |. JO 4s00 ssa0 |:4s00 sseoxe | 2 | 65 | 45/45] gO Onl abs pon S lo haar Soh AE ieee ici, pee I°SQ[OOL tod |-xo oztrenbe jezijenbo 04 as HSUSS SHS SES” IIs lea MIELE a:| a: is ia) = a: to cS] i eoFId Sut lo A1Bsso |pormbor us |n, | mo | al |nB| aBl af] w:| w:| o _ a oe ape a a -[[98 UL ssad |-oou ‘say OOT |-1eum Buréng |20| 20/20/24) 25) a=) aer as) aA) § ] a cn: Ba | Sis -X 9 [BnjoVy}1od oop.id Suz ju; ssooxgMioS | o$|/ o$ jos] oS | oS) 38) A! ¥F . sg ers A . f -[[08 UT SSA0X 4m An Hn | 4a Aa As oo b= I ro) > ° r= > ° ° ca) cl Be Ie a ca n a ‘o) < a < < (4M A “U0UNdDIK, JUAULAdL AY DNDYO “NOILONGOUd AO LSOO NOdO HOV AO HONGO TANI 141 Live Stock Breeders’ Association. sees 00 $ wees cae. L$ o's Gh9 S\6FT'S egg'g}-00 yesh 1$ see eeleweee 61'$ 906 °$ 890°$ sees 10°-$ 68° -$ 16°$ ors sees ote "$ 628°$ Sol '$ ‘aan ¥0°-$ 96°$ 18°$ g1°$ Go's sts G'S see &@'$ sone 186 °$ |Gea'$ G90°$ \Ser°$ see eee PoP S$ weer eesleceee 60°-$ bP -$ 68S Laer 86 Gt OL 6S 10° 8h ween ages G08 "$ AT1-$ 1g °F-$ 66° F$ OFT 699 |FL'$ Sl Ff wena on eg [oo 81 Zs |26'$ eg—gh on ee fc 98°F |20°18 co'eg fron 09g fot: 8F0°1$| §0°3$ 808°$ | 08" 1$ rereeel oxerg weer rele enee OF —$) FL'$ 68 I-$] st’-$ vereeel gyreag 19°1$) 11°18 66S | 69° serees] Qaeg Pee ee 9° S$) 61 S$ 960° S$ 00° S$ 00° S$ cg t$ GL FS Go S$ GG S$ Go" St | 986 FS 198° 9$ 106°e8 210°98 eee GOI S$} Zo" F$ 00° FS) 26° S$ 06°83) 08 FS 0g $$) 29° S$ veeees| op iag 06° F$| GO° 1b 06°#$) 80° 9$ 06° FS) F9° S$ verses! gorge ShL T 891 T G09" T 81 866 &5°6 06°T SLi 8o'T G9'T g9°T OFT "og-F9 “dd ‘sulivy guolpiedxy yiodey [enuuy, “gl-)L “dd ‘06 ‘y10dey [enuuy, "9/431 dd ‘ZO6l ‘SULIBY JUOTIPIOdxY JIodey [wnuUuy, (1061) 186-086 “dd ‘suLIBy” JUouITIodxW y1odey [vnuuYy, *9)-G) “dd ‘Q061 1OJ SUTIBY JUOTUTIed x 410de1 [BnuUy, { 16 908 |18°TSST F8O1S |98 6TET 69°86 |ST 99IT P'8es | bSGL PEG O&ST LEE £061 GG OSOT 196 699 FRG &SST $66 LLET 866 S961 696 GO 81 9G6T 9S OTOL b° S88 F168 6 8241 8°91 1621 8°8L41 IDF FOOSE 00% - GO oe eo) sss" Splo-1B9 4-904 0,5 “ress *SDTO-1804-OM T, BOHEODOHSUGRION <5. ffi mic (si 10 Pretest esses seer BQ ATED “S[BLIJ [[B JO oOSBIDAY eae see eneee “Spl[O-189 4-90.10, 7, “""“SplO-1BAO4L-OMT, veers: gaUTTABA tteteeeeee es BQATEG o F061 ** splO-1B9 4-90.14], "***"Spl[O-1B94-OM J, torres saupaRe ee SQATUO) y806T — = © S Q .Y) a e s 3 2 e > x € Ss : 2 = cz ¢ lor’ $ | 024° $| St $) 68" $| 89° $) 14° $] 9G° $} eB" $| BT's] go°Ss] FE's$] IG” $] ISIS] F6°1$| S6°F$| OZ FS] G6 S$] TO°S | OSF | SEFI | SOOT | OIG | 0G J *SP[O-1B94-§ asia PS 19°SI$] Gp° $l°°-"*"| 26° $| SPS [°°] «Th S$] Gar Sl"° "| FE°Ss) 26°SS]" °° °°") O8 $) SFIS) OL° FS] 02°F) FHSS) BET | STF | 9ZZT | 808 | O1G | 06 seeeesesesSPIO-1BOA-Z ee 0g" Sipoaces eee lz See ee eee Lee eat seeeee 69°23 ee 89 $ Gg Fs 02° FS $9 FS 00°E LGF 166 01g O1Z 0Z es sZuT[ Bex wee eeeleeseesei sees seleceses sees er|seeeeeiseeseseisceseseiseesesieeesesiseessesiseeeesi ses eeeleeeeesisesese GZ ts 06° F$ 10’ F$ 6L'T 918 6ZL egg O1z 61 “**"sqquoul g *SOATBY) | 3 | 2 nese: | La 3 | a Soiree | en >| 6 | a cole ler mul ment oo) ee euer = crea os : a bo a ra oo a ra i) mi P= oo 4 = a0 eae ADE S|: sal ece|> : q : : ° & o =) q Fs ° A rs) ° q Es ° q al eee ee (coe |rcotec| einen || mel igsrece| i gare : : Sigs i le A= Ve et = el he ert a Vel lr fcr (cote a =e he > | a rm} = 3 hm} = 3 Pale is a hb | 2 S (Sie i] Til] e:t] 2 | Be) eel wk] A Cieg|eirae | Osis ias Bal We SP ery eat ON tx leat SS) hc a D> | oes bor teu ies 2 |-oe| OBE OA le : n eo: 50 — q q jer ee 22 o8/ 5 oO, Q cates! eo 5 , IOAO Aj | AS | od = og|oa| 2 5 I9gAO0 |9s00 UL ssod]} JIGAO OzI[Bnbs I9AO 1904S IdAO0 ‘SQT ws ws A:| we Seen a ees 3 o ‘sqrt O01 Jed |-xo ozijenbe 04 |0} upTs1BvUL Bur jaed ures jo {|00T 10d uyes jo ay | oh gS] So|/ So] = solid SBUI[[es |AIBSsseD9U BOT.Id |-ANq UT SsseoxXW/SOO UL sseoxq|}SOO UL ssooxH So holta] oo 8 of] of : : ssooxe [enjoy |5,([e8 UT ssoox@ oe ae on 2s & ae ie 5 5 142 ‘NIVD JO LSOO NO HPV AO HONHOTANT UOUYDIS, JUaWiwadxy sPsUDyT Live Stock Breeders’ Association, 143 It will be well perhaps to discuss the Canadian and Kansas results separately from the Missouri results, inasmuch as they are for winter feeding while ours are for summer feeding, and for the further reason that no attempt was made by these experimenters to have the condition of the animals at the close of the experiment the same. On the basis, therefore, of feeding the cattle of the various ages the same length of time and on feeds of essentially the same character, it is to be observed: 1. That, on the whole, the calves gained somewhat more rapidly than did the older cattle, although the difference in the rate of gain between the cattle of the various ages is very small and might be easily attributed to difference in their condition. It will be observed that the average of the five experiments at the Ottawa Station was as follows: Pounds Calves— IX GOP EGO RIK, Glen £ a6 5 aiee ab obs hacoodaa ooo dnaUStea pore CoGLe 1.84 Yearlings— us ” Bae Ly cis ae a PADS Li Ne Dreams all akar's ta 3 Je. st Srralet noel oe eee 1.61 Two-yeaf-olds— ” ¥ CEA Faget Me Gn en Sat I nS oO ROR OY tes ae Three-yea1-olds— ”’ se LN sah She ew LS ae ee iy MET CLe CleNG GENO O PRO OR ICO EG Gt 1.75 It is to be observed that in general the gains were low, which is to be accounted for by the fact that the feeding was done in the winter and the cattle were kept in a barn and were tied up, all factors affecting adversely the rate of gain and increasing some- what the cost of gain. In the case of the same experiment made at the Kansas Sta- tion, the younger animals gained less rapidly than did the older ones, as is shown by the following exhibit :* Pounds Calves— PGROEG GC EMKGENL 5 Oddo ca ae OOO Ce IGOR OCOD OG > POOR OA DD c 1.79 Yearlings— a ie ALO Men eI SR ee ttn 3 NRE Ook ERAN i Der VICE rope ot 2.00 Two-year-olds— iH ? DSi Hae Sha 8 A MVEENS Sis oh Ree aCe SARS, BER PRN a SRR REE BaTY. os 1.99 Three-year-olds— _ ”’ oF ie Wap Ek: a DERE OREN he STTRRA Ot 8 ae FEY ERE NRA RAPE Oo 2.01 This, taken in connection with the Missouri results, clearly contradicts the old notion that the rate of gain is necessarily much more rapid in young animals than in older ones when on full feed. This is only true when the older animals are fat. EFFECT OF AGE UPON COST OF GAIN. A study of these tables clearly reveals the relation between the age of the animal and the cost of gain. While it is true that 144 Missouri Agricultural Report. not all of the difference shown in these experiments can be fairly attributed to difference in age, because the older cattle were un- doubtedly fatter at the close of the experiment than were the younger ones, as is clearly shown by the increased price at which they sold, at the same time there is a definite relation between the cost of gain and the age of the animal. Fic. 9. A part of the breeding herd of the Agricultural College. It is entirely feasi- ble to make calves from such cows into baby beef. For example, taking the average of all the Ottawa experi- ments, it is shown that the cost per hundred pounds of gain was as follows: AS AL VES Brereb re re 1d Glade eiSoa ss ore seinen < hele Momus Mops, A ERS coats oS ee Sk eee $4.22 VCH TIINI OE Saree St i cbsvo a ee cle boas tis UE OS ese Ce Beenie ee cae ey en nee ae 5.31 ELWO-VERT-O1US aise peicisys ork Sean eee nee RE ORE Siok ne oe bee wees ee See 5.62 SEETER“VCATH—OlGS hires 2 cicero. 6 ck SAE aR, Cts ae Rie Se le td ate We Abate ORS ee ck: ey 6.36 In the case of the Kansas results, the rank in cost of gain was as follows: MO MEV ERS toisrah teh ois GRE acta wa hE EL: SR Oe Se Pe ee oe ee ae ee ee cer eee $4.01 Gos He On eae ES Sn Re Se es Me eee oan tee Re rf oh ae ope eS 4.64 Two-year-olds......... OP SS ATRIOS I eB Oe ee dine St a une 5.44 BEHECE-VCAT=O1UH:, c's isa oo hE RE Ray Ae tris PEE de, RENO Lae See One mE era 5.95 Thus, in the case of the Ottawa experiments, as between calves and three-year-olds, for example, the difference was $2.14 per hun- Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 145 dred, In the Kansas results the difference was $1.94 per hundred in favor of the younger animal. COST OF THE GAIN NOT THE ONLY FACTOR AFFECTING PROFIT. The trouble heretofore in discussing the question of baby beef has been a failure, to recognize the fact that the cost of gain is not the only factor affecting the profits of the feeding operation, nor even in most cases the most important one. A small differ- ence in the cost per hundred in buying the steer will easily offset what on the face of it is a large difference in the cost of gain. Or even a smaller difference in the selling price of the steer, due to superior condition, may easily offset what is at first glance a start- ling difference in the cost of making the animal fat. A difference of even $1.00 per hundred in the cost of gain seems so large as to be unsurmountable. At first glance, therefore, a practice carrying this great a difference is to be condemned. It should not be forgotten, however, that this difference, even large as it may seem, applies only to a limited number of pounds. For example, a gain of from 375 to 500 pounds in weight will fit the ordinary steer for market, and a difference of $1.00 per hundred on-this number of pounds in the cost of fitting the steer would affect the total cost of the animal only from $3.75 to $5.00. This means that on a steer weighing 1,000 pounds at the beginning of the feeding operation, if bought at from 3714 to 50c per hundred less on account of his age than another steer, this difference in cost would fully offset the difference required to fit him for the market. Or by feeding the animals of the different ages the same length of time, a difference in the selling price of 25 cents per hundred on a 1,400-pound steer would about offset the extra cost of gains made in fitting the steer for market. _ The relation of age to the selling price of the feeder has al- ready been discussed at some length, and the student is at this point referred again to that part of the article. The question arises: what differences in the buying margin or in the selling price are necessary to fully offset or overcome the increased cost of the gains made in the fattening process by the older animal? Or, in other words, the practical question is: how much cheaper will a man be obliged to buy the older cattle than the calves or yearlings in order to offset the increased cost of gains, or how much more must the older animals sell for per hundred in order to overcome the increased cost of making them fit for market? A—10 146 Missouri Agricultural Report. I tiave figured these factors out for each class of cattle in each of the foregoing experiments, and the results are clearly set forth in the preceding tables. This phase of the tabular data, already presented, will bear the most careful study of the feeder and stu- dent of beef production. These tables show: That the increased cost due to age is most rapid during the first eighteen months of the life of the animal. That after that point, while the cost increases, it mounts less rapidly than in the earlier life of the animal. This is perhaps more clearly revealed by the Ottawa experi- ments, where the average of all the trials showed that the increased cost of SVMEATINOSVOMEL CALVESIWVAS scr. «sists ys ocular eeans Pore TOtOe Sine eaoee $1.25 per hundred pounds. EWwO=Veat-Olgs Overy Carlings!s..: 5 stare t chssre Stsalute siete wleterae aa © cha eretenele Fon’: * a *LHTee-yeur-Ol1ds OVer, tWOLyeaT OlUSS ycy-sces seus tleciaraielnieisiosiciotata dispveia hh Sal us INCREASED BUYING MARGIN REQUIRED TO OVERCOME DIFFERENCE IN COST OF GAINS DUE TO AGE. Calves and yearlings contrasted.—_In the Ottawa experiments the difference in cost of gain on calves and yearlings varied all the way from 20 cents per hundred, in 1903, to $2.53 per hundred, in 1901. The average difference between these two classes of animals for all trials was $1.23 per hundred. On the basis of the actual gains made by these cattle, this difference in cost per hundred would make a difference of 60 cents per head in the one case and of $7.67 in the other, or an average difference for all trials of $3.76 per head for the entire fattening period. This figure is obtained by applying the excess in cost per hundred of gain on the yearlings to the actual number of pounds gained by them during the experi- ment. The results of the one trial at the Kansas Experiment Station showed a difference of 63 cents per hundred in the cost of gain between calves and yearlings, which means, on the basis of the gains made by them, a difference of $2.69 per head. To overcome this excess, taking the average weight of the cat- tle used in the Ottawa experiments, it would have been necessary to have bought the yearlings at 42 cents per hundred less than the calves. In the case of the Kansas trial, it would have been necessary to have bought the yearlings 47 cents per hundred cheaper. In other words, on the assumption that the calves would cost in the fall $5.00 per hundred, the yearlings would have been Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 147 equally cheap, according to the Ottawa experiments, at $4.58 per hundred, and according to the Kansas experiment, at $4.53, pro- vided, of course, that both classes of cattle brought the same price on the market when finished. Or, assuming for the moment that the buying price per pound on the two classes of cattle was the same, it would have been necessary to have sold the yearlings 32 cents per hundred higher, on the basis of the Ottawa experiments, or 27 cents per hundred higher, on the basis of the Kansas experi- ment, to have offset the difference in cost of gain. This means that with calves bringing $5.00 per hundred, the Ottawa yearlings would have had to bring $5.32 per hundred. In but two of the five years covered by the Ottawa experiments is the selling price of the calves given in the published reports. In one of these years (1901) the yearlings brought 27 cents per hundred more than did the calves, and in 1902 they brought 67 cents per hundred more, making an average of 47 cents, or more than enough to offset the whole difference in the cost of gain. The 20 yearlings fed in the experiment at the Kansas Station brought on the Kansas City market 30 cents per hundred more than did the 19 calves used, both lots being sold on the same day and in direct competition, one with the other. This is also slightly more than was necessary to fully offset the excess in cost of gains. CALVES AND TWO-YEAR-OLDS CONTRASTED. As between calves and two-year-olds, the cost of gain shows even a wider variation than between calves and yearlings. In one season (1904) the cost of gain on two-year-olds was 18 cents per hundred less than that required for calves, whereas the maximum difference of the other was shown in the season of 1901, when the cost for calves was $2.47 per hundred less than for two-year- olds, or an average for all trials of $1.30 per hundred. This means that it cost all the way from minus 60 cents up to $8.20 per head more to make the gain required to fit the steer for market on the two- year-old animals than on the calf, the average difference being $4.18. This would make it necessary to have an excess buying margin of 43 cents per hundred on two-year-olds, or an excess selling margin of 33 cents per hundred. Again assuming that calves cost in the fall $5.00 per hundred, the feeder would have to buy the two-year-olds at $4.56; or, if the calves, when finished, brought $5.00 per hundred, the two-year-olds should sell at $5.33, in order to exactly overcome the difference in cost necessary to prepare them for market. It should be under- 148 Missouri Agricultural Report. stood, of course, that this is on the assumption that the feeder will buy his cattle, and does not take into consideration any of the dif- ference in cost required to raise the calves in the one case up to six months of age and the others to the age of two years. The difference in the selling price of the calves and two-year- olds fed in the Ottawa experiments can only be determined in two trials, inasmuch as the selling price was reported for calves only in these two seasons. On the basis of these two, in the season of 1901 the calves brought $4.50 per hundred, and the two-year-olds brought $5.00 per hundred, or 50 cents more than the calves. In the season of 1902 the calves brought $5.50 per hundred, whereas the two-year-olds brought $6.17, making a difference of 67 cents per hundred, or an average difference for the two years of 58 cents. It will be observed that, according to our calculations above, a margin of only 33 cents was required to compensate for extra cost of gain on the older cattle. On the basis of the Kansas results, the two-year-olds cost $1.43 per hundred more than the calves, or $5.97 per steer. To offset this it would have been necessary to have had an excess buying margin on the two-year-olds of 73 cents per hundred, or a selling margin of 48 cents per hundred to have fully equalized this differ- ence in cost. As a matter of fact, the 19 calves used in this experi- ment sold on the Kansas City market, as has already been said, for $4.25 per hundred, while the 20 two-year-olds sold for $4.70 per hundred, making a difference of 45 cents in favor of the older cattle, or lacking three cents per hundred to fully offset the in- creased cost of gain. CALVES AND THREE-YEAR-OLDS CONTRASTED. Here the variation in cost in different years in the Ottawa experiments is likewise great and shows an extreme range of from 74 cents per hundred more for gains made on three-year-olds than on calves in 1904, to $3.13 per hundred, in 1901. The average difference in all the Canadian trials is $2.08 per hundred, or $6.69 per head in favor of the calves. In order to overcome this excess in cost, it would be necessary to buy the three-year-olds for 53 cents per hundred less than the calves, or to sell them for 34%4 cents more. Thus with calves at $5.00 per hundred in the fall, the three-year-olds would be, accord- ing to these experiments, equally cheap, considered on the basis of the cost of gain alone, at $4.47 per hundred. Or, if the calves brought $5.00 per hundred on the market, it would have been Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 149 necessary for the three-year-olds to bring $5.3414 to fully offset the excess cost in making them ready for the market. As has already been stated, the selling price of the calves in the Ottawa experiments was reported for only two seasons, Viz., in 1901 and 1902. The prices brought by the calves and the three- year-olds in these two seasons were as follows: ete Calves Three-year- Differ- olds. ence. LG: So Cet a OBE Ee ee OR aenniG c OL CICe Dipiae $4.50 $5.124 . 624 TOPS ind AO ore OCC Onn OO Inco aioe 5.50 6.174 67% The average difference for both seasons was 65 cents, or more than sufficient to offset the increased cost required to make them ready for market. In the case of the Kansas experiments, the three-year-olds cost $1.94 per hundred more than the calves, or an average of $8.54 per head. This would have required a buying margin of 85 cents per hundred for the three-year-olds, or a selling margin of 58 cents per hundred. The calves, as has already been reported, brought $4.25 per hundred, while the 20 three-year-olds brought $4.95, or a difference in favor of the older cattle of 70 cents per hundred. This, as in the case of the Ottawa experiments, was more than sufficient to offset the increase required to fatten them It cannot be too strongly emphasized that the older cattle did not bring this extra price, because they were older or bigger, but because they were fatter. YEARLINGS AND TWO-YEAR-OLDS CONTRASTED. As has already been pointed out, the difference between year- lings and two-year-olds is less than between calves and yearlings, probably because the bulk of the growth of the animal (the pro- duction of proteid tissue) has taken place, and there is less dif- ference in the composition of the gain between yearling and two- year-olds than between calves, and yearlings. Be this, however, as it may, the extreme range in cost between yearlings and two-year- olds varied from $1.32 in favor of the two-year-olds in 1904 to $1.20 per hundred in favor of yearlings in 1900. The average difference in all the trials at the Ottawa Experiment Station was only 31 cents per hundred in favor of the yearlings. It should be borne in mind, however, that in one of the trials at the Ottawa 150 Missouri Agricultural Report. Experiment Station, 1904, for some unexplainable reason, the cost on yearlings was excessively high, whereas the cost on two-year- olds was abnormally low. At least, these figures seem to be out of all proportion to the results in other years at the Ottawa Ex- periment Station, and at variance with the results obtained at Kansas and Missouri. Too much reliance, therefore, should not be placed in an average figure that involves results of this trial. It would really be better, for the sake of accuracy, to throw it out. Leaving it in, however, as has just been stated, the average differ- ence was 31 cents per hundred in favor of the yearlings, or a total of 80 cents per steer. This would have necessitated a buying margin of six cents per hundred, or a selling margin of five cents per hundred. In other words, if yearling steers in the fall had been worth $4.50 per hundred, two-year-old steers, on the basis of these experiments, should have been bought for $4.48, or if the yearlings, when finished, had brought $5.50, it would have been necessary for the two-year-olds to have brought $5.55 to fully equalize this difference in cost. As a matter of fact, the two-year- cld cattle brought, on the average, 10 cents per hundred more than did the yearlings. Eliminating the results of the 1904 experiment on the ground that they are abnormal, we have an average cost of gain on year- lings of $5.21 per hundred and on two-year-olds of $5.79, or a difference of 58 cents per hundred, or approximately $1.78 per steer. This would necessitate a buying margin of 17 cents, or a selling margin of 13 cents. On the basis of the Kansas results, the two-year-olds cost 80 cents per hundred more to make than did the yearlings, or an aver- age of $3.34 per head. Thus it would have required, taking the actual weights of the cattle used in the Kansas experiment, an excess buying margin of 41 cents per hundred, or an excess selling margin of 27 cents per hundred. The selling margin was 15 cents per hundred, or an insufficient amount by $1.50 per head, or 12 cents per hundred, to counterbalance the excess in cost. YEARLINGS AND THREE-YEAR-OLDS CONTRASTED. Here is likewise a wide range in different years on the basis of the Ottawa experiments. In 1904, as has already been pointed out, for some reason the yearlings seem to have cost excessively high, and the cost of the two-year-olds and the three-year-ods was, curiously enough, very low. Thus it happened that it cost 40 cents per hundred less to put gains on three-year-olds that year than Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 151 on yearlings, which is contrary to the results of all other years. The maximum difference in favor of the yearling was in 1900, when the yearlings showed a cheaper gain than three-year-olds by $1.80 per hundred. The average of all the experiments at Ot- tawa was $1.05 per hundred, amounting to $3.14 per steer, and requiring 26 cents buying margin, or 21 cents selling margin to overcome. The three-year-olds actually sold for 17 cents per hundred more on the average than did the yearlings, showing that not all the difference due to increased cost of gain was counterbalanced by the extra selling price, and that some of it was left to be made up in a cheaper buy for the cattle. Disregarding the superior selling qualities of the three-year- elds, if one had the opportunity of buying yearlings at $4.50 per hundred, computed on the basis of increased cost of gain alone, the three-year-olds would have been equally cheap at $4.24 per hundred. On the other hand, if it had been necessary to overcome this increased cost of gain by the extra selling price with yearlings bringing $5.50, it would have been necessary to have sold the three- year-olds at $5.71. The Kansas results show a difference between three-year-olds end yearlings of $1.31 per hundred in favor of the latter in the cost of gain, or $5.63, necessitating a buying margin of 56 cents per hundred, or a selling margin of 39 cents per hundred. The 20 head of three-year-olds used in the Kansas experiment sold on the Kansas City market for 40 cents per hundred more than did the 20 yearlings used. Thus the older cattle, by reason of their superior selling quality, just offset the increased cost of gain. As has been before stated, the three-year-olds did not sell better, be- cause they were older, or of a weight that was more desirable, but because they were fatter. TWO-YEAR-OLDS AND THREE-YEAR-OLDS CONTRASTED. If the reason already assigned for the smaller difference be- tween yearlings and two-year-olds than between calves and year- lings is sound, then we should expect a smaller difference between two-year-olds and three-year-olds than between cattle of any younger ages, and such is the case. The Ottawa experiments show a range of from 52 cents per hundred to $1.02 per hundred, with an average of 74 cents per hundred, all against the three-year-olds. This means that the three-year-old on the average cost $2.28 per head more to make 152 Missouri Agricultural Report. ready for market than did the two-year-old, taking the actual gains made by each lot as a basis of computation. To offset this differ- ence, it would have been necessary to have bought the three-year- olds at 18 cents per hundred less, or to have sold them at 15 cents per hundred more. In these experiments the excess in selling price of three-year-olds over two-year-olds was only seven cents per hundred, leaving about half of the difference yet to be made up in some other way. Thus, if the two-year-olds could have been bought at $4.25 per hundred in the fall, three-year-olds would have been equally cheap at $4.07, on the basis of cost of gains alone and disregarding any greater ease with which they might have been fattened, any greater uniformity with which they would be- come fat, ete. In the case of the Kansas experiment, the difference was 50 cents per hundred, or $2.19 per head, and required an excess in buying margin of 21 cents, or an excess in selling price of 15 cents per hundred. It happened that the 20 three-year-old steers used in this experiment sold for 25 cents per hundred more than did the 20 two-year-olds, thus fully offsetting the $2.19 excess in cost of making, and leaving, on the basis of the actual gains made in the experiment, a margin of $4.30 per steer in favor of the three- year-olds, due to the superior condition, no doubt, in which the older cattle reached the market, all having been fed an equal length of time. Before considering the Missouri results, which are on a differ- ent basis, it is obvious that if cattle of equal quality and in the same condition of the various ages, calves, yearlings, two-year-olds and three-year-olds, are fed alike on good nutritious feed, and are all fed the same length of time, or until the older cattle become fat, and the whole put upon the market, the increased cost due to age and to increased fatness will apparently be fully or practically offset or counterbalanced by the increased price commanded by the older cattle. If these experiments point to the truth, that is, if the differ- ence in the cost of gain is fully or even approximately offset by the superior selling quality of the older cattle, then the greater cheapness with which the older feeders can be bought on the mar- ket, as is well known by any professional feeder, and as has already been pointed out in this paper, leaves a very decided advantage in favor of feeding the older cattle, even when we disregard the sreater uniformity with which the older cattle will fatten, the less Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 153 risk from failure to fatten, from loss due to dehorning or vaccina- . tion against blackleg, and so forth, and so on. Attention has already been called to the fact that this is not a fair test of the baby beef question, because the intelligent feeder will not send his younger animals to market in the unfinished con- dition that these younger animals were, but will feed them until they reach as high a selling price per hundred pounds as the older cattle. In that case, however, as will be very strikingly shown by the Missouri results, the difference in the cost of gains between younger and older cattle is very much reduced, because in that case we have only the manifestation of the influence of age, whereas in the experiments in Canada and Kansas, as just cited, we have the combined influence of age and condition. This phase of it, however, will be discussed more in detail in connection with the Missouri results which are to be presented. MISSOURI RESULTS. (This is a part of a series of experiments to ascertain the feeding value of different forage plants, carried on by the Missouri Experiment Station, in co-opera- tion with the Bureau of Plant Industry of the United States Department of Agri- culture, and under the management and direction of Professor F. B. Mumford, Professor of Animal Husbandry.) As has already been stated, in the feeding trials conducted at the Missouri Station an attempt was made to eliminate any dif- ference in condition of the animals of different ages, by feeding the younger animals a longer period of time, or by feeding all classes of animals until they were prime. To do this we had choice of two methods, viz.: To begin all of the cattle at the same time, which would neces- sitate the finishing of them at different times, and the marketing of them at periods somewhat remote one from the other, so that the selling price could not be accurately gauged. The other plan was to begin the older cattle enough later in the season, so that they and the younger cattle would be finished for market together. This had the advantage of enabling us to market the cattle at the same time, but had the disadvantage of having the earlier feeding period of the younger cattle extend back into a season of the year that is less favorable for making gains than that of the main experiment. Throwing the records of the feeding period of this time of year out of consideration entirely, and considering only the results during the period when the older cattle, as well as the younger cattle, were on full feed, introduces an error, inasmuch as the condition of the two classes of cattle is somewhat different at the beginning of the test. Inasmuch, how- 154 Missouri Agricultural Report. ever, as these are inevitable conditions in any attempt to finish cattle for a given time, it was decided to choose the latter method and to attempt to finish the cattle together. Accordingly compari- sons were made with yearlings and two-year-olds and with year- lings and three-year-olds. It was planned to finish both classes of cattle in each season for the Christmas market, being actually put upon the market about the first week in December. In order to have the yearlings in prime condition at this time, it was necessary to begin feeding them at least as early as December 1st of the previous winter, and to practically full feed them until grass, and to continue full feed- ing at pasture until they were shipped to market. On the other hand, the three-year-olds were roughed through the winter, many of them on only sufficient food to maintain their weight without making any gain, and the others so fed as to make but slight gains. When pasture was good, say about the first of May, they were turned into good bluegrass pasture and put on about half grain feed for May and June, and full fed from July until the first week in December, when the experiment closed. : In the case of the two-year-olds, essentially the same method of wintering was employed as with the three-year-olds, but they were rather more than half grain fed, on the average, during May and June, and were full fed the rest of the season, in each case, of course, on bluegrass pasture. For the purposes of the present discussion, and to avoid com- plicating the problem unduly, we are considering only the results of the feeding trial from the time all the cattle went to pasture, about the first of May, until they were marketed. The gains made, the cost of the same and the profit or loss of each class during the preceding winter bear intimate relation to the outcome of the whole undertaking, but will be considered under a separate head. In other words, we are dealing with this experiment as though the professional feeder bought his animals on May lst for the summer with the determination to fit them for the Christmas market, and that in order to do this it would be necessary, if he chose the younger animals, to buy them fatter than if he took the older ones, These experiments covered three years’ work, as follows: In 1904, a comparison of yearlings and two-year-olds, on four different rations. In 1905, a comparison of yearlings and three-year-olds, on four different rations, a. — as ail Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 155 In 1906, a comparison of yearlings and two-year-olds, on four different rations. INFLUENOE OF AGE UPON THE OOST OF PRODUOTION. (Missouri results in co-operation with Bureau of Plant Industry, U.S. Department of Agriculture.) Summer feeding on bluegrass pasture. Length of feeding period, 211 days. First trial, 1904. Yearlings and 2-year-olds compared. Z >| =n paleo Seles Sree = ce ° 4 4 oo eee o) Srlssulesn SO SM 5 : ; S 2 a \pZSlp2ClpPBaolpagrc aa len Sen eee ea BOG RIAOB lm 6 Bee + % - uo) ~ | op 2 | a)" o=oZ BCP AR eae Wilts Natal eb oe enor nel sore filmime} & | & | 2 meme siacton|: Rose a = > 3] fey = ebiar ia wS\: 2 Fe _ Bs t+ | og ©. Ss Bol: eS: me Sie io I>) © 5 oO = = fo) ao no 3-1 oO — et = 5 < S On|: gt mael: OFe=S roa = ae co ed Ot 4 Sul sacl: 4265 cS ) 5 ct ra) [e) oO _ oO On|. COn 5 Pol emily eter anita tee |e sty |e oan ie ae B eS Pete WS oS ote toes S : : : 2 @ ols Bel aeie le O- ears 8 5 PS ool: ofS]: Feaao S © Fit) (Sar cer 2) CL er ee eC I Oe) Linseed meal, 3 lbs. per head ; daily, and shelled corn ad libitum. YGHENIM OS eh castle aici SU TEDa TOON, 207. OSB SOe4G es Sec. c, een arars eens eis Two-year-olds............:- 7 | 932 | 1490 | 5657 | 2.64 |$6.78 |$ .27 |$1.50 | § .16 ¢ .10 Cottonseed meal, 3 Ibs. per head daily, and shelled corn ad libitum. RGAE S wef sic ns ses sfele'sisieiaieva See ale 200N wAb Qe ees SGS2S. [eee lito. ete labalelere walemecteel ne one Two-year-Oldsi sic. hastens. 7 | 942] 1481] 589 | 2.55 |$6.78 |§ .50 |$2.69 | § .27 Cy alte Gluten feed, 8 Ibs. per head daily, and shelled corn ad libitum. PSGD RINDI S 5 ccs qaistievele siete ierer= Ta TAROT 448 OSIOs ISGR20 lan oa. eatresloesoea neater TDW O-YiCBTSOLGS oz010/010 eles 2.10 7 | 940 | 1456 | 515 | 2.44 |$6.66 |§ .46 |$2.87 | § .25 $ .16 Shelled corn alone. VG SUITE Se clsie.s crestevie's Hlareee ele TOON el OOSe ls 444s ORDER ISH ASIN G = ee oe IE ee al ee er Two-year-olds.............- 6| 948 | 1488 | 490 | 2:32 |$5.88 |$ .57 |$2.80| § .29 § .19 Average of all rations. NViGR ITM SH soos s cwicieras soni SOMME TES P1225 41" AGC (2 SISH E6306 Sect | ats cal ees oP trarctelete eta TwWO-¥ear-OldS.2.....c6c05525 27 | 939 | 1466] 526 | 2.49 |$6.52 |$ .44 |$2.32 | § .24 $ .18 } *In computing cost of gain, the following prices of feed were assumed: Oorn, 40¢ per bu. j Cottonseed meal, $24.00 per ton. Linseed meal, $28.00 per ton. Gluten feed, $22.00 per ton. No charge was made for cost of pasture, and no credit was given for hog gains nor for value of manure, 156 Missouri Agricultural Report. INFLUENOE OF AGE UPON THE OOST OF PRODUOTION. . (Missouri results in co-operation with Bureau of Plant Industry, U. S. Department of Agriculture.) Summer feeding on bluegrass pasture. Length of feeding period, 210 days. Third trial, 1906. Yearlings and 2-year-olds compared. 8 C 8 é ers IE >) e127 1/2 {6 sh] o leet sheen Bly eof] oP oe Ee ‘ + Salmo 5) DLKIo KOPF Ook! SS Sox S : : & |S2| o In@Sle"slecbols (Aol Ss |Ska = = = = a) go | | tn Zep8 ERM ae oe | ae Z oO ® m | ° 0 ® |? melPaleooul—Oe Sa| ae gu z fae fae © 24 ra er bet ry [alt rc = S og 09 = |S Soi S| to mig TH me! LS = a Cy =3 5 f=] .- | 5 sr ia mM mDim mesi. (StS. a = = Aa) = ai: - Bol oa “One = s o = 5 S -: Bl) eS ce @Ql Bol: horn). Sie ® ct a mols Mah OS etl mel: mae ele eee asiolo miim|]* [ ot: » Bent! Seselig | ae Pas} — + i fo) aes £’'0}- Hop mp OS . =| ees > 09 fo) © . = ele ed) ac Sposa s BPoOonR > oe 1S gg 5 as B o |: De ese Ais Oo uals Lad 5 oO — - Bp lie} o) Sails mi. 2 . ~ Dr) + @ : Wg “ : . . ry :@ |: Qe: OG B|: CO@Ee : eS 0Q : o uke em | owl: dol a<55|: aB&e| oo i se 7 oO 5B |} Sol; OO], Of 5). OCG! @ | 8a : sme : _ 1S BRI RTT HB Oo@eol. = i. to Linseed meal and shelled corn. Yearlings....... © |) 3859301320) 46a eos c|S5enSnl)scsies leeeeen| ine aaa ie (| o/le.asernisiprae IDO ss OM airmen Two-year-olds . 7 | 875 | 1440 | 566 | 2.69 |$5 58 |$ 00 /$ 00 /§ 00 $ 00 |$7.00 | $ .25 Cottonseed meal «& shelled corn. Yearlings...... M)| S8b8i0 | 1299) e441.) :2 Os $5: Gaul wicca saeecr |e acura seeeeeetios $6.60 |...... Two.year-olds. 7] 861 | 1431 | 570 | 2.72 |$5.67 |$ .04 1$ .23 | § .08 $3 .02 |$7.00 | $ .40 Corn with linseed meal last 60 days. Yearlings...... Col peSO Lal Psa A50U 24s $5226) | ee eee eee eee ee | ee ee $6.75 |..... ‘ T wo-year-olds.. 7 | 886 | 1470 | 584 | 2.78 |$5.37 |$ .11 |$ .64 | § .07 $ .04 /$7.00 | $ .25 Shelled corn. | Yearlings....... Ca) @859%) 12505) S91 40-86: $5 028) |Eae wscllleeesice laeemierec ARB BOOSOOS [UT arias Two-year-olds.. 7 | 886 | 1488 | 552 | 2.63 |$5.52 |§. 24 1$1.82 | § .15 $ .09 |$7.00 | § .40 Average of all ra- tions. Yearlings ...... 28:3) F859) 1206 4|) 485/207 |$bc4s3: |). erae sll wretctern| creas ers eee $667 | sceen Two-year-olds..| 28 | 877 | 1444 568 | 2.70 |$5.53 |$ .10 |$ .54 | $ .05 $ .04 |$7.00 $ .33 *On December 3, 1906, Mr. John Alexander, of the commission firm of Alexander, Ward & Conover, Ohicago, placed the above values on the cattle of the various ages fed that season. They were sold on the Ohicago market December 10, 1906. The 28 head of yearlings brought $6.35, and the 28 head of 2-year-olds brought $6.85. SUMMARY OF FIRST AND THIRD TRIALS, Live Stock Breeders’ Association. TWO-YEAR-OLDS. Influence of Age on Cost of Production. 157 1904 AND 1906, YEARLINGS AND (ory oS es! Sa me we cS eS a ler lek lek EE |S bebe otiosatlarnl 26 jeez Bleue |oule lol” 2 Sias@csPess| se as el Sys) Shee ‘S 5 ee ic to | 2 co |2 a8 te Osn| oD Sum. 2)ec|e4|Se| 2 | 2 | 8 twee aibaseigas®| 4, | 3" ° 5 = | Bog 5 “ 5 Peles lo PF orlolor|: o le aO | fe | o 3 = Seine an 42biIR gus I =) a “Sl ae | Se 0g S - BO|S G2 On = [soe hot : ge | ae ® ra) S |} oft pOlISSe&oltbeu 5 an © 2 oO mie 6s wu = a 708 “ZAII*P KR KHlDORO R SOs ® Se zine || Sey te 5 S | Sal: gH ES G|SE CSE - Se ji etal sess = ko} CY nay ae B\O te |2ear oii <5 3 3 a ie: ° 2 © : SE SS sens aera a @ 6 > aa) oo — oO = 09 - Ol BrRiag m5 Gl: =& |; 3 5 — fo} rs: =) . oO —eH oO Oo - @ |e Se Pa = (RS ae Ce oe S| & Pb aob om oehleaey) 2 | oa : ; SAielll © : :4olmogsl e285/: 9 | o& aide erH alse Sib pesos letras eal: 8 bins Linseed meal & corn, Yearlings..... 15 910 | 807 | 1287 ZASIO) | Person MOA) || Saoabullacsorn||a0ec0cccllagoqdoLc SOON tetetetete Two-year-olds 14 210 903 | 1465 561 | 2.67 |$6.15 |§ .13 |$ .70 $ .08 § .05 |$7.00 | $ .25 Oottonseed mealand corn. Yearlings ..... Tepe 2LON | SOn leo lore A4GH i 2I 2 SC LOS ee yercs al eleiwrcie’e |[oceceiereiela1=\|lr-n\o/elelntsl- \$6.60 |...... Two-year-olds| 14] 210] 901 | 1456 | 554 | 2.63 |$6.20 |$ .27 |$1.46 | §$ .15 | § .10 \$7.00 | $§ .40 Gluten feed and ; corn(1904 only ) Yearlings..... 7 211 760 | 1204 CPO A ayes hae ee ed cosa coodnode (boorocloosect Two-year-olds 16 911 | 940 | 1456 | 515 | 2.44 |$6.66 |§ .46 $2.37 | § .25 | § .16]......)...... Linseed mea] last 60 days and corn (1906 only). | | Yearlings..... 7 | 210 | 861 | 1811 | 450 | 2.14 ed PAP EIA Al Aco atas RRR S6uipulue oes | Two-year-olds 7 | 210] 886 | 1470| 584 | 2.78 $5.37 |§ .11 3 64] § .07 | § .04 $7.00 | § .25 | | | Corn alone. Yearlings..... 1A ZO SOON PLES | hea ON A OS Soe SO Mees rclelevetalaeral|'sleteleiefelele|| (a, erelaleratet= I$6:(60) |i cco. | Two-year-olds 13 210 912 | 1485 | 523 | 2.49 | 5.69 |§ .39 |$2.00 Sue21 $ .14 $7.00 | § .40 Average of all rations for both years. Yearlings..... 58 210 | 810 | 1257 YAS ei OAes csellananodllocochooalaacogdon COMO lGgacoe Two-year-olds| 55 | 210| 907 | 1454 | 547 | 2.60 fae 1S 27) | SIE S15 eS) al $7200 eho *The value of the cattle at the close of the experiment in 1904 was not determined for The selling prices in the table above are for the differ- ent lots fed in 1906, as determined December 8rd of that year and just before the close of the experiment, by Mr. John Alexander, of the commission firm of Alexander, Ward & A week later all the yearlings and all the two-year-olds were sold on the Chicago market on the same day, and brought: yearlings, §6.385; two-year-olds, $6.85. either yearlings or two-year-olds. Conover, Ohicago. 158 Missouri Agricultural Report. INFLUENOE OF AGE ON OOST OF PRODUOTION. (Missouri results in co-operation with Bureau of Plant Industry, U.S. Department of Agriculture. ) Summer feeding on bluegrass pasture, Length of feeding period, 210days. Second trial, 1905. Yearlings and 3-year-olds compared, : Bio | SS (aP| SORReben mate Since = Oo} 2 |/s|8 | 5/8 Egxissxsstxlssogu Se EEE wD 4 z 2, a Ole yy Os ~Ol260 © ae jen 36 + < < D ko) : Sl\—oZ\—ObaleSown! oD |Pum ® @ ® ed _ oO PMeISSePOow/s Oe on Be oe ©) m | = |G | 2 ft Sei eeineselpote on: 2 = a Ble 1B le | Sb BPE Poe one |: wan Phe |e |3| 2] =. 68k ae MBs tora): ol ee — + = S i=} 5 of wt me Ro-=|: * . Oe Sale Seale | ee : : e°| Sul Bee! SeOb 9 a5 : 9, & o ee ef “SYOOM FS ‘90, “aq 04 ‘G0, “AON $199}s p]O- Ivaf-OM J, ‘GO, “Atnf 0} “go, “ue S199]S P[O-1vaA-OM J, IO YSNY 9} UIY}IM Ivo 94} SI UIOD poddeug, 99 $$ ses Wold yO FO 9$ LG 8$ OF SI 00°LT OL‘*P os'9 OZR oS OT 02 °6 04'S O€ ST O$ FI Z65T ce't 808 108 “RI[Vj[e “AVY otaireid pue u109 pue u109 Peleus pelfeqs “SOOM FZ ‘pO, ‘ounf 04 ‘gO, ‘00d $190]S SUT[Ivd XK ++++++++(Cg3uIddorp wosy paonpoid *******y30d Zulpnpoutl ‘peay ied ssor 10 yyoid) 4aN BOE OOOO ROOIGO ORO WIC OG Oly Frits ovatqlefol (gfy tain) Glz(org" “sees sssat ‘ured JO punod Jod pauinsuov poos [ejoL sreeeeesess ssaT ‘ures Jo punod Jed pauinsuod Avy see ewes see e eee . ‘sql ‘ules Jo punod Jod pauinsuoo ulein sreeresssesar ‘ep Jod pay Avy asv1eaAy ssreeessecar ‘Aep Jod pas Ulvis oavloay sisiejeieie steele * “8g, “ACP ded Ules) Ootion vy ** “gq] ‘1909S Jod JUSIOM [VI}UI ostloAYy ‘VAITVATY CNV NUOO ‘SA AVH AIWIVUd GNV NUON Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 181 It is never safe to accept as definite the conclusions drawn from a single experiment, but when we have, during a succession of three years, the marked contrast in daily gains, cost of production and net profits in favor of alfalfa, as compared with prairie hay, which the above table indicates, there would seem to be little room to doubt the superiority of alfalfa when each is fed with corn alone. There may be several reasons for this. Perhaps first in import- ance is the fact that alfalfa is a so-called legume, having, like clover and cowpeas, the power to take nitrogen from the air, storing it within its cellular structure in the form of proteids, which material is needed by the animal in the formation of lean tissue and bone. Alfalfa in itself contains more protein than the average fatiening animal requires, an excess sufficient to compensat2 for that lack- ing in corn, the two together, therefore, making a balanced ration for fattening cattle. Prairie hay, like corn, lacks protein, and when fed singly or together, they do not supply enough of that nutrient to meet physiological requirements. This is best shown by examining the following chart, the black lines representing the digestible protein (lean formers) of each food and the white lines the digestible carbohydrates (starches, etc.) and vegetable oils, both of the latter forming animal fat and body heat. Nutritive ratio. PETAL OPI EY) | ate) atolase) «csyetcrs’s\siarorosete | 115) is | | nS ea Corn and prairie hay....... 1:10.2 | . | | (ODIND ce géancbsobn cdodhuondeD ces 1:9.66 | r Corn and alfalfa hay.......- 1:734 | Balanced ration for cattle = a ; (approximate) ............ 1:7.00 {I/II | | DR chil in: 13. ll | What is approximately a well-balanced ration for the average two-year-old steer is indicated by the line having the nutritive ratio 1:7, by which is meant one pound of protein to seven pounds of carbohydrates and fats. It will be noted how closely the ration 182 Missouri Agricultural Report. corn and alfalfa—two pounds of the former to one of the latter— approaches this proportion. In fact, we are not sure but that 1:7.3 is just as suitable as 1:7 for an average two-year-old steer. The corn and prairie hay combination, however, is decidedly lacking in protein, which is no doubt one of the chief causes of its failure as an economical ration. But the composition of a food is not the only factor which determines its value. Alfalfa is very much more relished than prairie hay and it is less difficult to masticate. Steers crowded for the largest possible consumption of grain can also be induced to eat a little more corn with alfalfa than with prairie hay. fe In determining the cost of producing 100 pounds of gain, alfalfa and prairie hay were figured at $6.00 each per ton for the three years. Corn was 33 cents per bushel in 1903, 39 cents in 1904 and 35 cents in 1905. It is unfair to make comparative values on a roughage like alfalfa which balances well with corn alone and prairie hay which does not, but when thus fed, as in these three experiments, the alfalfa returned values ranging from $10.80 to $15.70 per ton, as compared with prairie hay at $6.00. The experiments show, however, that we can not afford to feed prairie hay at $6.00 per ton even if we include in the profits all pork made from droppings, as was done in these computations. At least we can not afford to do so if corn alone makes up the grain ration. Referring to the net profits per head as given in the table, it is of interest to know that the net advance of seiling over cost price for the twenty-four weeks period was $1.30 per hundred on the corn and prairie hay steers in 1903, and $.78 in 1904, while the advance on the alfalfa steers was $1.65 per hundred in 1903 and $1.00 in 1904. The larger advance received for the alfalfa steers was due to the higher finish made by those steers. It is apparent that good profits can be made by feeding corn and alfalfa, even though the selling price of the cattle does not greatly exceed the cost price. In these experiments the feeding of alfalfa at $6.00 per ton with corn made this grain bring, when converted into beef, 51 cents per bushel in 1903, 44 cents in 1904 and 60 cents in 1905. It would take a larger advance than our markets afford to make corn and prairie hay profitable at existing prices for corn. Clover was not fed in this series of experiments, but because it is similar to alfalfa in composition, though somewhat lower in pro- tein, it would not be unreasonable to expect good gains on corn and clover. Experiments made in other states show this to be true. With any other form of roughness with the exception of Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 183 cowpea hay, which is also a legume, we would hardly expect satis- factory gains unless some protein concentrate is fed with corn. THE USE OF CORN-STOVER WITH CORN AND ALFALFA. From the experiments already described it is apparent that a ration of corn and alfalfa is capable of producing large and profitable gains, enough so to make corn bring more in the form of beef than as a cash crop. But with corn there is also the stalk upon which it grew. Do not these stalks, grown in such large quan- tity on our corn land, possess sufficient nutritive value to make it worth while to harvest them for feeding purposes? Left standing in the field they become woody, and are useful only as winter forage for stock cattle and horses, their value being estimated at from 25 cents to $1.00 per acre, a price not to exceed 50 cents per ton. When cut and put in shocks immediately after the corn ripens they remain fairly green, retain in the leaves the nutritive properties which they possessed when harvested, and are much relished even by cattle on a full grain feed. For the purpose of securing data upon the above question two experiments were con- ducted in which the ration corn and alfalfa was compared with corn, alfalfa and stover (stalks without the ears). The stover was fed unshredded in racks provided with vertical slats wide enough apart to permit the steers to enter their heads, thus pre- venting the stalks from being pulled out and trampled under foot. The coarse butts refused, approximately 40 per cent of the stalks fed were thrown out for bedding purposes, but charged to the steers as so much feed consumed. The stover was fed each morn- ing in order that the steers might have the entire day to work over the stalks, and the alfalfa was all fed at night. Following is the record of the steers—ten two-year’ olds in each lot—fed as indicated ; Missouri Agricultural Report. 184 ee 5 0 0c SS eee 9L¢ IZ € 0G F 9g € GE € 98 Z cso 9$ Gh 9$ 10 ¢$ 6F SS 6h 9$ 68 9$ 6¢'FI GLE FE OT Ge ST GP GL 9T ST 00°8 SEZ tr It GL’OL 99°? 6O0'P 6€°9 ZE°9 06°F 09°F 68°2 F's LI'9T L9°ST GPSS GL°GS 6°6 66 0O°FT £0 °FT 19°6 LP 6 v'StI 9ST SI'S SL°S 96°T 90°S BG GEG LS6 296 FL6 216 1?6 16 a *J9A04S-UL09 *JOAO4S-UI00 *IQA04S-UI09 pur | “eqyeyTe pue “ey eTe pue “ey[VI[e | ejrejye ‘ul0d | pur usoo | ejyej~e ‘uI0D | pure ur09 eyeye ‘u1og | pure u109g peddrug peddeug pereus perleus sjueuIlIedxe Z% SY90M ZT *SYOOM FZ QSRIOAV 90. ‘FG “UL 07 GO, “T “AON ‘gO, ‘8 Aine 04 ‘GO, ‘1g “Uee tee eww eee wee **'s0d Surpnyoutr ‘pray sad qyoid JON ry ules Jo spunod QOT Jo 3809 stresses eesssar ‘mies Jo punod sad pauinsuod pooj [e40.1, *** "sq, ‘ules Jo punod Jed pouinsuod ssouysnoy tresses eseesessssar ‘ures Jo punod Jed peauinsuood ulein sreeeeessees-sar ‘kep Jod pay ssouysnol osvisay “** **sqy ‘Aep Jod paj Uleils asvi0Ay teereeseesssssesqr ‘ep Jod ales ostioAy "see" "sqy ‘19048 Jod JUSIOM [BI}IUI OsRIBAVY SC i ey ‘MHAOLS-NUOO CNV VATVATV ‘NUOO ‘SA VAIVATV GNV NYOO Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 185 The table shows that in the first’ experiment equal parts of alfalfa and stover produced a slightly larger daily gain than alfalfa fed as the sole roughness with shelled corn. In the second experi- ment, when snapped corn was fed, the reverse was true. A ration consisting of corn and alfalfa is often too laxative, especially with the later cuttings of alfalfa. In the first experiment it is very probable that the stover lessened the tendency to scour, while in the second experiment the presence of husk and cob served the same purpose. There may have been also some advantage in hay- ing stover with alfalfa for variety. In this connection it may be said that prairie hay will answer the same purposes. In a 1905-06 test equal parts of alfalfa and prairie hay, with a light feed of snapped corn, gave an average daily gain of 2.01 pounds, compared with 1.96 pounds for stover and alfalfa, and 2.06 pounds for alfalfa. The prairie hay, however, cost as much as the alfalfa ($6.00 per ton), so there was nothing saved by using it. In both the experi- ments tabulated above, the use of corn-stover at $2.50 per ton as half the roughness reduced the cost of gains—in the first’ 40 cents per hundred, and in the second 48 cents. The stover proved to be actually worth $3.55 per ton with snapped corn and $4.16 per ton with shelled corn, worth 39 cents per bushel, as compared with alfalfa fed alone at $6.00 per ton. Nebraska produced last year, in round numbers, eight million tons of corn-stover. If one-half of this amount could have been converted into beef, bringing $2.50 per ton from the shock, instead of 50 cents in the stalk fields, eight millions of dollars could have been added to our earnings, and no losses from cornstalk disease would have come from feeding the stalks thus harvested. FEEDING CORN FODDER (ENTIRE PLANT). The objection that is usually raised against the practice of cutting and shocking corn for feeding purposes is the labor in- volved in husking it from the shock. The fact that a great deal of corn may be fed to cattle in the stalk unhusked is entirely over- looked. During the first part of the fattening period a large part of the corn may be fed in that manner. In a 1905-06 experiment one lot of ten two-year-old steers was fed corn fodder for a period of twelve weeks in comparison with the same amount of snapped corn and stover fed another lot. Two-thirds of all the corn given the one lot was attached to the stalk, the remainder consisting of shelled corn fed at night. Charging four cents per bushel for 186 Missouri Agricultural Report. husking, the cost of gains was the same. In 1906-07 this compari- son was again made, though half of the corn was then fed on the stalk. Here again the cost of production was practically the same, being only 10 cents per hundred less for snapped corn. The feed- ing of corn on the stalk in the morning with shelled corn and alfalfa hay at night has proven to be a very economical system of beef production. For such purposes corn which has been drilled a little thicker than usual is best, because the ears are somewhat smaller. It should not be planted so thick, however, that the yield of corn will be reduced. By feeding corn fodder we utilize the stalk, and at the same time are put to no extra labor husking it. In fact, corn can be cut with a harvester and put in the shock cheaper than it can be picked and cribbed. Three men with .a team and har- vester can cut and shock seven acres per day. Records from the Farm Department of this Experiment Station show that it costs $1.18 per acre to cut and shock corn, which figure does not allow for wear and tear on the machine. Three cents per bushel should cover the cost of harvesting the: corn by that method. THE USE OF LINSEED MEAL WITH CORN AND PRAIRIE HAY. On many farms alfalfa or clover is not available in sufficient quantity to form even half of the roughness supplied fattening cattle. Under these circumstances the use of some commercia! protein concentrate would seem desirable. In order that this might be given a practical test, three experiments were conducted in which the ration corn and prairie hay was fed with and without the protein concentrate linseed meal (oil-meal). The latter food was made but 10 per cent of the grain ration, because of its high protein content and relative cost. As in all experiments described in this bulletin, ten steers were fed in each lot: 187 Live Stock Breeders’ Association. ST eh 3S Wold T9 L$ $3 Gl 18° 86°8 b's 8°61 81'S £16 “ABY otIIeid pur [eaul-{10 ‘u109 Peleus | mw onl wa & i mkt ri tt Ko) f=) Avy otareid pure u109 Peleus “sjusUWIIed x9 ¢ BSVLIAV ~ort- WoOonr~-ry to © i “XBY olireid pue [vaul-[1o0 *u109 Peleus “Avy otareid pue u1o09 PeTPUs “AVY olTeid puv [vaul-[10 ‘W109 peTleus Avy oreid pure ur09 peleus “AvY otresid puv [voul-[10 i uso. pefeus “Avy olteid puv u109 Peleus *Sy99M § ‘90. TMdy 04 ‘90, “Gam *SMOOM FZ ‘co, ‘Ange 04 ‘go, “uee *"SYOOM FG ‘70, ‘oun 04 ‘gO, “09d seen tena eee eee cere eres ss sOrpr QAIWINN *+ yrod Surpnyjout ‘peay Jod ssoy 10 yyoud oN FIED CHEN HO TNE CIO 99 EFC) spunod 00T jad 4sop ‘sql ‘ulvs Jo punod sed peuinsuod poo; [ej0O,.L, s+eses* sar ‘ured Jo punod sod pownsuos Avy “+++ *sqt ‘ures jo punod Jed peuinsuod ulRIpD Sr aspWete tease ted oleh hao (i ‘ep jod poy Avy QStIOAV . sreeee essay ‘kup Jod poj Uleis esvleAV “**sqy ‘Aep dod ules osvi0AVy tteeeeeesees essay ‘79048 Jod JYUSIOM [VIPUL VstIOAY ‘AVH GIUIVUd GNV IVAN-GAASNIT ‘NUOO ‘SA AVH GAIMIVUd GNV NUOO 188 Missouri Agricultural Report. That linseed meal is capable of supplying what corn and prai- rie hay lacks is readily apparent when we note the marked increase in daily gains effected by its use. Each year the steers fed lin- seed meal took on a more thrifty appearance, as indicated by the coat of hair a few weeks after the experiments were begun. They ate their grain with greater relish, and when on full feed consumed somewhat more grain, which, of course, partly accounted for the increased gains. This was especially noticeable in the short period of heavy grain feeding in 1905-06, when the steers were crowded with grain throughout that entire period, the oil-meal steers tak- ing 5.5 pounds of grain per day in excess of the lot not receiving it. However, in the two previous experiments, when both lots were purposely kept on the same amount of grain per day for the first three months, the linseed-meal steers, particularly the yearlings in 1903-04, gave much larger gains. It will be noted also that much less grain was required to make a pound of gain each year. the average for the three years being 23 per cent less. This is equivalent to saying that four pounds of corn with linseed-meal produced as much beef as five pounds without linseed-meal. With corn averaging 35.7 cents per bushel and linseed-meal $28.33 per ton for the three years, the cost of producing one pound of gain was'10.7 per cent less by the use of the linseed-meal. The experi- ments show the urgent need of some protein concentrate with corn and prairie hay, providing its cost is not too great. Had the aver- age cost of the linseed-meal been $45.00 or more per ton for the three years, there would have been no advantage in using it. PROTEIN CONCENTRATES COMPARED. Having shown the importance of using with corn and prairie hay a small quantity of some protein concentrate, in this case lin- seed-meal, we next compare three protein foods, commonly sold in Nebraska, viz., wheat bran, linseed-meal and cottonseed-meal. Gluten feed, a by-product in the manufacture of starch, glucose, etc., from corn, would have been included in these tests if the cost of freight from eastern factories were not such as to make the price of this food prohibitive for stock feeding purposes here. Just as soon as starch and glucose are manufactured in quantity in this section, gluten feed will, no doubt, become a formidable competitor of the protein foods mentioned. Owing to the lower protein con- tent of wheat bran, this food was made 25 per cent of the grain ration, whereas linseed-meal and cottonseed-meal were each made Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 189 10 per cent of the grain ration. It will be noted in the table to follow that the basic part of each ration in the first experiment was corn and prairie hay, while in the second it was corn and corn- stover. Stover is even more deficient in protein than prairie hay, and a supplementary food rich in this nutrient is just as badly needed. In fact, one lot of steers on corn and stover in 1905-06 made an average gain of .2 pounds per day below the gains made by another lot on corn and prairie hay. Missouri Agricultural Report. 190 9°L:T 89°93 89'1$ 92 '8$ $0 'ST I3'P €8 Or 68°8 €8°GS 1) Gare 886 *19A04S-U10D % OT [eeul 6°81 €e°9$ TE TS 49° L$ ELT c8°é 88°6 96°8 60°83 €E°G 926 *I9A04S-UI0ND -peesuo0}jop |%OT [veul-{1O %06 Ulop %06 U10N 8°81 61'8$ 08 °3$ 6FO1$ Go" 6L 90° 61° PT 16°8 L6°9G 9Z°T £16 “I9A04S-U1ODY %6S UvIg_ %8L ULOD "Syoom OZ—LO, ‘TIdy 04 ‘90, “AON 8°9:T 16° 2$ so° $ 69 °8$ 6p ST ELS LL° OT 6'9 9° FS 66°6G SIT “AVY VIeIg % OT [eau -p9asu0}jop %06 Ul0p “AVY OMIVIg %OL [veut-[1O %06 ULOD 8:1 T§'°8$ 00°T$ IE 6% GL°ST 8L°S L6°CT cag 6 G6 86°T 9FIT “AVY IIIVIG %Gs uvig %GL U1oy ‘syooM S—90, ‘[Mdy 01 ‘90, “qeaq eee e ee ene shapers hes letede esas ts sle.sgee. s/s ricisis OP HSTOn Aq Olel dATpIIgNN Shsliehion ohevapaseisheieieashelcl™ Vsleeiee aT TORS DONOC OO, Jad pooj jo 4800 JON *s190]S UO UIeS Jo Spunod QOT IO} Onpord-Aq ev se poonpoid y1od jo anjVA Fteeeeeeeesees sues Jo spunod OOT Jo 4809 ‘ees *sq7 ‘ures Jo punod [ JOJ pauinsuod poo; [vqOJ, sresesss sar ‘ures Jo punod Jod peuinsuos sseysnoy trereseessssesar ‘ures Jo punod Jed pesumnsuod Ureip **+sqr ‘Aep sad 1004s 19d pauinsuod asvysnol ssv10AV sql ‘Aep Jed 1904s Jed poulnsuod uleIH terres seeeeeesesgar ‘kep Jed 1Jee4s Jod uled asvi0AVy rrrssereeeeeess scar ‘79048 Jod JYUSIOM [VI}IUI oSRIOAV ‘"IVAW-CAASNOLLOO ‘SA IVHN-GQHUSNIT SA NVUd LVAAHM Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 191 In both of these experiments bran gives a much smaller daily gain than either linseed or cottonseed-meal. In order to furnish the desired amount of protein, it was necessary to feed from five to six pounds per day to each steer, which quantity of this food, rather laxative in its effects, caused the steers to scour both win- ters. Several steers in the bran lot became more or less rheumatic or stiff. This was also observed both winters, but it was more pronounced in the second trial. No doubt, these difficulties were partly responsible for the unsatisfactory gains on corn and bran. No other lots were similarly affected, and it looks very much as if the bran caused it. The bran put on the market today is ap- parently less valuable than formerly, no doubt, because of its high crude fiber content, due to modern methods of milling, which effect a more complete extraction of the valuable portions of the wheat kernel. While cottonseed-meal is slightly higher in protein than lin- seed-meal, the latter gave the larger gains in both these experi- ments, though the difference was not great. The cattle did nct eat the mixture of corn and cottonseed-meal with the same relish that was conspicuous when the ration corn and linseed-meal was placed before them, and this, no doubt, furnishes one explanation of the superiority of linseed-meal in producing not only larger daily gains, but also larger gains from the same weight of food. The feeds used in the first experiment cost as follows: Corn, 35 cents per bushel; bran, $15.00 per ton, linseed-meal, $32.00 per ton, and cottonseed-meal, $32.00. Those used in the second experiment cost as follows: Corn, 86 cents per bushel; bran $18.00 per ton; lin- seed-meal, $29.50 per ton; cottonseed-meal, $27.75 per ton, and stover, $2.50 per ton. The prices given for commercial foods are on the basis of car lots delivered on track F. O. B. Lincoln. At the above prices it will be noted that the cost of producing one pound of gain was much greater with bran than either of the other foods. In the first experiment the linseed-meal proved to be three times as valuable as bran. The difference was even greater in the second experiment. It would not be wise, however, to place any relative values upon these foods until after further tests are made. In examining the above table, it is interesting to note that the gains made in the second experiment where corn-stover was used as the roughness compared favorably with those made in the first experiment on prairie hay. We can not, however, formulate any estimate of the relative value of the two forms of roughness from the above table, because the first experiment was of only eight 192 Missouri Agricultural Report. weeks’ duration during the finishing period, while the second test lasted twenty weeks, practically the entire fattening period. Fur- thermore, grade Shorthorns were used in the first and grade Angus in the second experiment. LINSEED-MEAL (A PROTEIN CONCENTRATE) COMPARED WITH ALFALFA (A PROTEIN ROUGHAGE). The two experiments with protein concentrates conducted to date favor the use of linseed-meal as a food supplementary to corn when the roughness consists of either prairie hay or corn-stover. The question now arises, would it be possible to supply sufficient protein by making half of the roughness alfalfa, dispensing with the use of the concentrates, and still be able to secure just as satis- factory gains? This would make it possible to utilize a great deal of stover or prairie hay, and at the same time obviate the neces- sity of purchasing the commercial food. Two experiments in which the ration corn and linseed-meal was compared with corn without such a food when alfalfa forms half the roughness are here re- ported. 193 Live Stock Breeders’ Association. *% 0g ‘I9A0}1S lod $% og ‘Avy eyeyTy ‘ur109g 916 ; "I9A04S -ui09 §=*%01 ‘[vewl poesuly *%06 “ul0p POL‘T *% og ‘key aed +% 0 ‘Avy VjTVITV ‘109 paT[eus L8T‘T “ACY VIIVIg “YO ‘Tea peesul] +*%06 ‘u109 poa[[aug SYM OZ—LO, ‘THdy 04 ‘90, “AON a ee a *SY99M S—9O0, ‘[MdV 04 ‘90, “qoq see eee Penne eee eect eee eee cece cess ee eeeee esse es “OBI QATTLIINN sreseeeeesssecssniddoip woij peonpoid yiod Surpnyout ‘prey sed yyoig gra Biola) ele Pech ee leis ie}e)*) = see ielomiteteem an tle tele celei octet ee 5685) 1181 |... 116} .89) 9.7 | 15.60 26 | Corn, wheat, oats and brani (self feed)............ 1460) 924 |...... 206 | 1.58 | 7.6 | 10.04 ii MOOMN Yas ATI. WEA DYD. « scice cis «eis ieencep cee cle. sete 1232 | 1209 |...... 249 | 1.91|5.9 | 8.48 *Silage. +Sugar beets. Values used in computing cost of gain: ODN Sec cies $0.40 per bushel. Osts) oc. fo ciac Oras, <=. a Wheat...... 0.60 ‘* Se Oil meal....$25.00 per ton. IBYAM ce acetcos 14.00 ad MEROOUS.. 0s sasen 2:60 Silage ..... eet ,!) - Clover hay.. 7.00 a Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 207 CONCLUSIONS. 1... Lots receiving corn in the fattening ration, either in whole or in part produced the best gains, were apparently in better finish, and in general were fed at a greater profit than the lots fed any other ration. (See lots 1, 4, 5,10, 11, 14, 22, etc.) 2. A grain ration made up exclusively of wheat bran proved to be inferior for fattening lambs. (See lot 3.) 3. Feeding by means of a “self feed’”’ is an expensive method of fattening, and is not to be recommended either from the stand- point of total gains made or the amount of dry matter required to produce a given gain. (Compare lots 7 and 10, 11 and 18; 15 and 19, and 21 and 26.) 4. Wheat bran is more valuable, pound for pound, than corn, and hence can be fed profitably in this State, except when it ap- proaches very closely the value of corn. 5. When roots are fed in a ration better gains are made and less dry matter is required to produce one pound of gain. 6. Shearing lambs late (March 8) in winter during feeding period increases the rate of gain. 7. Shearing in fall (December 1), was not followed by good results, and in these experiments was not as profitable as feeding unshorn lambs. (Compare lots 21 and 24). 8. The animals, fattened on rape during the fall and in good condition at the beginning of the experiment were essentially as successful feeders as those in poorer condition that were pastured on grass during the same fall period. (Compare lots 21 and 27.) 9. Small gains are not necessarily unprofitable, nor are large gains a sure index of profitable food consumption. 10. Roots were a valuable addition to every ration to which they were added. THR ONE HUNDRED PER CENT PROFIT ANIMAL—THE SHEEP. (A. T. Grimes, Greenwood, Mo.) History teaches us that sheep keeping was the earliest of the arts. Abraham, according to scripture, viewed his flocks from his tent door; Laban sheered sheep; Isaac had vast flocks; Jacob used the wool to make his favorite son, Joseph, a coat of many colors. In ancient times a man’s wealth was reckoned by the size of his 208 Missouri Agricultural Report. flocks. Sir J. B. Lawes, the first agricultural experimenter in. Lhe world, in the reports of his work of more than fifty years proved that sheep may be made to yield fifty per cent more profit than any other animal. A well fed flock of sheep is the most profitable property a farmer can own. It is sometimes said that the dairy cow is this. If that be true, why is it that the number of sheep has increased over three millions in Great Britain in the last few years, until now there are over three hundred sheep to every square mile? Sheep raising is looked upon by many as a primitive industry, suited only to poor lands and undeveloped agriculture. If sheep were suited only to rough and waste lands, why is it that in Great Britian ‘the tenant looks upon his sheep as the surest rent payer on land that is worth from three to five hundred dollars per acre? The sheep business has passed the primitive stage. We can count on a well established and increasing demand for our mutton products. The people of the country, and in fact the consumers of all the American Packers’ products, are demanding more mutton, and those who never ate the flesh of the sheep before, once having tasted its fine flavor and discovered its high nutritious value, are becoming steady consumers of it, and not only is this the case, but when this best of all fresh meat is introduced it stays and the demand for it in- creases. We have always advocated that any farmer in our State can keep a small flock with satisfactory success. Failures in the keeping of sheep invariably happen in having too large a flock to begin with, for if one is able to keep successfully a small flock, which any person with good judgment and good common sense miay do, is no reason that he can keep a thousand with the same success, for in all arts appertaining to agriculture there is no branch so difficult to become proficient in as the shepherd’s art. This does not apply to sheep alone. Let any man overstock the capacity of his farm with hogs or cattle, and disaster is sure to follow. In my thirty years of experience in the sheep business I have always found that my sheep have always made me more profit for the feed consumed and the capital invested than any other stock. I have made one hundred and fifty per cent profit on grade ewes raising early lambs for the Easter market. MANIFOLD SOURCES OF PROFIT. Sheep in fact turn into money in various ways: First is the meat, whether from hot house lambs, ripe weather or fat ewes that ~» Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 209 have raised several lots of lambs; then there is the wool, which is commanding a good price and which is harvested in the spring of the year, so to speak, when the farmer has the least to sell from any other source, and as our wealth and population increases, greater is the demand for the best of woolen goods. Good, warm flannels are and always have been one of the first and most essential things in man’s infancy, and as we pass the prime of life and enter our second childhood and these old, frail and decaying bodies become rheumatic, there is nothing that revives, stimulates and makes us feel like the spring of life more than the good old flan- nel shirt. And last, but not least, is the constant improvement of the land which sheep, with their ‘golden hoof” and rich manure, never fail to bring to the tired and worn out cultivated field. Sheep is the one hundred per cent profit animal, whether it be grazing on the rocks of the Ozarks, or on the rich and rolling blue grass pas- tures, or fertile fields of this great State of ours; and there is nothing that beautifies, or excites the artistic eye or makes the farm more attractive and pleasant than a well cared for flock of sheep. It is not my intention to tire you with dry figures of what some in- dividual has done in the sheep business to prove that the sheep is the one hundred per cent profit animal, but if there is a “‘doubting Thomas” here, if he will come to me personally, I will prove to him, beyond a doubt, that the sheep, properly cared for, is the most profit- able animal that walks upon the face of this green earth. BRIGHT PROSPECTS. The shepherd’s star never shown brighter in the State of Mis- souri than it does today. There is every encouragement for a pros- pective shepherd to start in the sheep business. If you have never had any experience in the business, let me warn you to go easy, and buy few ewes and figure on improving in the future. One of the principles of success is to raise each year lambs that are better individuals than their mothers. Have your ideal. You know the ones that answer to the accepted type and to your ideal. Study your flock; you know the ones that raise the best lambs and shear the heaviest fleece, you learn to discard the coarse head, the heavy ear, the long leg, the cloudy wool and dark skin. Hold on to the ones that conform the nearest to your ideal, and the most essential and important part is good care. As some one has said, “A wise shepherd feeds his lambs a month before he sees them and the fool- ish shepherd a month afterward.” I want to impress upon the A—14 210 Missouri Agricultural Report. minds of all that in all my experience the one essential and most important thing to remember to make the sheep business profitable is care. Care will make constitution; care will ward off diseasas; care will make size; care will save feed; care will make fat, and fat makes more and better wool. Yes, and with care will convince any man that the sheep is the one hundred per cent profit animal. Now in conclusion let me say, that the aim of every farmer in our State should be to keep a small flock of sheep, and it can be shown by figures of the most truthful character, and that can not lie or deceive, that this can be done on what is now wasted on thousands of Missouri farms and the profit from the flock well cared for will be one hundred per cent, if not more. ADVANTAGES OF PURE BRED OVER GRADE SHEEP. (J. W. Boles, Auxvasse, Mo.) In the discussion of this question, whatever may be said in favor of pure bred sheep may. be applied to almost any other pure bred stock, so, if I get off the question, you need not be surprised. I am glad to know that the sheep industry is becoming more interesting in Missouri, and hope the time will soon come when she ‘will rank where she should in the production of good sheep. Sheep are nice to handle; they are the cleanest stock on the farm; they are the best weeders we have. Sheep can be kept more cheaply than any other stock; they will come as nearly making one hundred per cent a year as any stock kept on the farm. Now the question arises, ‘““‘What kind shall we raise?” I say the best, for we all know the best is the most profitable and gives the most pleasure. ur ein starting in the sheep business, then, shall we lay a founda- iton with pure breds or with grades? Without a solid or sub- stantial foundation we can not build a permanent structure. Good seed must be sown in fertile soil in order to reap a_ bountiful harvest. The purer the seed the more perfect the offspring. Per- fection gives value and appreciation. The breed of sheep that distinguishes itself from all other breeds by its type, form, markings and general make-up is a pure bred, for in pure breds only of all classes of stock do we find such marked distinctions. Live Stock Breeders’ Association. Zit Our foundation stock must be pure if we wish to establish a distinct herd. I presume there is not one of this assembly who breeds stock that uses a grade sire, yet a very large per cent of the farmers of the State of Missouri do breed to grade sires. Especially is this true of sheep, and for this reason, I presume, it has been said that “Even Missouri, which raises more mean lambs than any other state in the Union, sends a few convincingly good lambs to market.” I wish I could say something, and in such a way, that I could impress everyone present so deeply that he would advocate the importance of using pure-bred sires with his sheep. Think of one of the most productive states in the Union and one of the best sheep states sending the meanest lambs that go on the Chicago market. I am truly ashamed of the condition of the sheep business in our great State. There are no states that excel us in the production of good horses, mules, cattle and hogs. Some- thing must be wrong. If there is a remedy, let us find it. I believe we can, by using pure bred sires and dams, when it is practicable, raise the standard of our sheep. I use both pure bred sires and dames with all the stock I breed, and have never had to sell an animal for less than a grade price. Even the chickens, dogs and corn are pure breds. I have formed the habit of trying to improve my herds by using pure bred breeding stock. I believe that there are many farmers that just drift along and breed grades simply from mere habit. We have to be educated to paying good prices for pure bred stock before we can see the importance of it. When we get in the habit of getting good prices for our sheep we feel all right. It takes the same care to save a grade lamb that it does a pure bred. The same quantity of feed keeps each alike. If a grade will make you one hundred per cent a year, it will be from one- fourth to one-half of what a pure bred ewe will make you with a little more money invested for the breeding stock. A five-dollar grade ewe will raise you a $3.50 lamb; a $20.00 pure-bred ewe will raise you a $12.50 to $15.00 lamb. On the road to the station last fall I overtook a neighbor who was driving 100 breeding ewes worth $5.50 each. I had in my wagon six ewes worth $35.00 each, and I could not see why my one ewe was not more valuable to me than six and one-third of his would have been, as she ate one-sixth the feed and brought as much money. 212 Missouri Agricultural Report. The man who saves from 90 to 95 per cent of his lambs can not afford to breed grade sheep. His labor is worth too much and his time is too precious. It is as easy to raise a $25.00 lamb as it is a $5.00 lamb, if your foundation stock is right and you give them the proper care. A careless or negligent person would better breed grades, if anything at all, for he has not so much money invested. I would not advise every farmer to raise pure bred sheep to sell as breeders, but I would insist that almost every farmer ought to keep a few sheep and use a pure bred sire. One great hin- drance to the pure bred business is that we sell too many inferior animals for breeders. Though the pure bred scrub is better than a grade scrub, neither should be used. With the demand we have for better class of mutton and wool, we can not afford to raise an inferior kind. Karly maturity and easy fattening qualities are other features in favor of pure breds over grades. The time is at hand when we must pay more attention to our breeding stock. The demand for high-class material is upon us in every department of business. The moneyed classes are eating more mutton than ever before. A superior quality of wool is also demanded. The grade sheep will no longer supply our wants. We must improve our herds or quit the business. I feel that we are awakening to a keen sense of the demand for better sheep, and that it is only a matter of time before every flock-master will use a pure bred sire and that many will have pure bred herds. Cross-bred sheep are good for specific purposes, but not proper for breeders. Let our motto be “Purify our herds.” By improving our herds we not only elevate our great State in the estimation of the world, but we educate ourselves to a higher appreciation of things that tend to make men good. The most energetic and progressive and up-to-date men that we have today in the live stock business are men who have long since quit the scrub. The prosperity of our country depends very largely on the improvement of our farms and herds, and it be- hooves us to use the best breeding stock obtainable. I would say in conclusion to any one who is thinking of start- ing in the stock business, to study your own disposition and char- acter, your environments and your capacity for business, and then buy a few of the best of the kind you like, and make it a life-time business if you would attain the greatest success. Read some good sheep paper and keep posted. Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 213 A WORD TO THE NEW BREEDER. (Hayes Walker, Kansas City, Mo.) Your program committee asked for a paper on the data of pure bred live stock, filled with figures and statistics, but it would be a very dry subject, and worth nothing unless one could remem- ber all the figures—a task both tiring and almost impossible. In considering such a subject and the figures pertaining to it, apart from other and parallel facts in contemporaneous industries, the breeder of pure bred stock or the beginner is very apt to be fright- ened by the apparently “bearish” figures at hand. The most recent estimates obtainable of the number of pure bred cattle recorded that are now living are 260,000 Shorthorns, i20,000 Herefords, 62,000 Aberdeen Angus and 16,000 Galloways. The young man who contemplates going into the pure bred stock business argues to himself that with so many registered cattle now living and the present magnitude of the industry the business cannot continue, that it is not on a stable foundation and that it is liable to be overdone. The figures given look big. They are, and they are growing larger each year. Yet this, so the older ones tell me, was the same argument against the pure bred business twenty and forty years ago. Yet it continues to thrive, with the demand and values on about the same plane. In England where they have been breeding pure bred stock for many, many years, more than in this country, their values now are higher than ever. We hear the prophecy every day from men of affairs, from people who study conditions, that the growth of this country has barely commenced, and that in fifty years or less our population and resources will be doubled. If this be true, and few doubt it, this “bearish” argument of our doubtful friends has no place now, and will not have, at least, until we have reached our largest growth. In my own brief experience as a fieldman on live stock papers and in the larger experience of others with which I am familiar, I never have known of any failure of breeder of pure bred live stock through any weakness or fault of the business. There have been failures, and many of them, but the cause can be traced in- variably to some gross mismanagement or poor business judg- ment of the breeder, aside from any fault of the pure bred. We will suppose, however, that our friend has overcome all 214 Missouri Agricultural Report. - arguments and fears, and proposes to buy a few pure breds and become a breeder. I do not pose as a know-it-all, and do not wish lo appear presumptuous. I wish simply to make a few sugges- tions from my experience “‘on the road,” during which I have visited several hundred herds of pure bred stock. I hope some of them may be of value and that the breeders will take them for what they are worth. My first suggestion to the beginner, whether he is breeding cattle, hogs, sheep, horses or other stock, would be: start with good animals. Start right at the top today—and keep going higher, This is possible. You can commence with good ones just as easy as with poor animals. If you start your herd with the other fel- low’s culls, just because they don’t cost much, you are handicapping yourself. You are not getting a “start,” but are really buying something that will hinder you. If you commence that way you will never have anything to sell except “‘culls,” and you can’t sell them except to some one else who knows as little as you did when you began. You can “breed up,” of course, but it will take a long time. You will be ten or twenty years that way in securing what you might have had at the beginning, and it’s the exceptional breed- er who “‘breeds up” his herd without buying something better than he already has. It’s not only quicker and easier to start right up at the top, but it’s more profitable, and there’s more satisfaction in having as good stock as anybody else has. Start your herd with as much uniformity of type and individu- ality as you can secure. That generally means, just as truly, a uni- formity of pedigree. Visit as many good herds as possible. Visit the big live stock shows. Study the animals and select a type that suits you, and stick to it. Your herd will always look better and the produce will sell better. Don’t have a miscellaneous collection of different types or too many families. One good breeder recently told me if he were again a beginner he would secure for his breeding herd females all sired by the same bull. He did not mention any particular sire and did not mean any certain one, but he meant in that way to secure his brood cows all of a particular and individual uniformity. Some sires do not breed uniformly, it is true, and the buyer should be careful in that regard. My friend reached that conclusion after ten years of experience trying to “‘breed up,’ discarding culls and making sub- sequent and wiser purchases. He has succeeded, finally, and now has a fine herd, but at a loss of ten years of time, and has just now Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 215 reached the degree of excellence he might have started with ten years ago. Ten or twelve good cows are better than two or three times that many of the ordinary kind. The produce from a few good ones will bring two or three times as much money, and you have less to feed and handle. My most earnest suggestion to the beginner is this: Don’t be afraid to ask for advice and information from. people who are competent to advise. The man who knows that he doesn’t know is the wisest, they say. There are so many points in individuality and pedigree that the uninformed may make irreparable mistakes. You can unintentionally buy unfashionably bred animals or ani- mals otherwise good but lacking in breed type or other characteristics that you do not notice and will not notice perhaps until you come to sell their produce. You can never sell them un- less to another uninformed breeder. It is unnecessary to be a “pedigree crank,” but it is just as unnecessary to burden yourself with a lot of unfashionable pedi- grees simply to prove your independence and freedom from fash- ion’s decrees. Life is too short to try to educate the world to your way of thinking, especially when there may be some doubt as to your own education. It is just as well to ride in the band wagon with springs and cushioned seats, especially when the fare is the same, and you are sure of a speedier and more comforiable ride. It will take some money to start a pure bred herd. You will have something at stake, and should give them good care. To im- prove them requires more thought and more attention than you think. Don’t imagine that pure bred cattle require no feed. I have seen some herds that made me think their owners believed their cattle were a kind of supernatural animals and could live on their purity of breeding alone. They can’t do it, and you can’t “orade up” a breed that will. Keep them in good condition all the time. They will create a better impression, they will bring better produce and will always command a price that means great- er profit. If you keep them in poor condition you can expect no improvement, but a retrogression. But one must love the business to make a success of it. He should study it carefully and continuously. He must keep up-to- date. He can improve his own stock, but others improve theirs, too, and in different points. One man cannot learn it all in his own experience, but he can be in the world and of it, and learn to profit by the experience of others. There is a fascination about 216 Missouri Agricultural Report. the pure bred business, aside from the commercial feature, that appeals to me, and I believe most of the actual breeders find it so. This thing of improvement—of doing something better than it has ever been done before—of making a better animal than its ancestors—brings a sense of satisfaction and pride that is of itself its own reward. AN EXPERIMENT IN PORK PRODUCTION. (E. B. Forbes, Assistant Professor Animal Husbandry, Missouri Agricultural College.) In the spring of 1905 the Missouri Experiment Station made a comparison of several of the best concentrated supplements to corn for dry-lot fattening of hogs, and the practical outcome of this test is set forth in the following table: 217 Live Stock Breeders’ Association. vss 5+9 + -Te9uTIO WIED ‘oseyuey, “*7****(pauinsse) suvaq Log **[Vaul[IO pessurTyT “"*""SSUITPPIUL 4VOt AA “** [vaul WI0D iSpsej JO ysop ee ee eee as wisle. 6 6 qe sew wee Toceeceeeeereerss 6S ‘TVOUNIO UIIEs $% Tg ‘[eou uI0D 9 Pretteeeeeeeeeesersss+ +009 ‘ogeyuey !%76 ‘[eaul UI0D ¢ Tresseeseeesseeess++0/ 02 ‘gueaq £08 $%08 ‘Teaur W109 ; Teese ceeeerers*s SST ‘[Vaul[lo pessuly '% zg ‘eau ur0p € Torres cesses "% G8 ‘SSuppIu yvoya %8T ‘Tver u10g G oibeatasathave te fae hte iene ectiprere (eA s Neproe ty “tae are a I *SUOTILYT “u04 ad 00 92 SEAR ORC O Lead O: CoRR T Stree suet o Be Meaincen Beis Crepe syar's Fane Sess s é Mh cvehereve ney tahoe ane Ohio “u0} Jed 00 ¥F Soa ORNL OnE OFGED OfceG, OLOMDEN ERED CAPR CVCIONE lo RS AEC cee a eee asrehes ile Fiecssees Renan ers : ‘uoj ed OO FE SO cnet ICIACRRONORAO'O DIRS lbs nct Smee eae PI Chto cr cetao. Ronen oA Dare ot R ake Beeler als *u04 rad 00 FE ater Deo ONS GODS GING tia ockors es See ath Sa Coo Soma Se Dec oar eno PEROT ETO Oo ADC “104 ad 00 02 By aN akst uel Mer svaKte rar ashn MMI ote ce axes PhS cho BISaae OI Os enc Mor Ae eat ket aero ; Ciao ionag ‘nq zed OF OOF tT Rha tio fal és afayeloriay shel ome tseayene. Ox SAO OOTREa apenel seven oseneverecove- ¢ erate ; SOD 8 onion Sh ea a Ee ee Ee ee 8° E8T TL 0GT 89 06 62 € 92°F 90° T IT TOP 0° L1% 9 9IT PE GL L6G S6°¢S Z9°T 8°Scé & 063 9° SIT TE GP 66 9L°¢ 69°T v OPE 6066 8611 90 OF SI € 00°9 89°T 9° LSE ¥ S61 | PLIT 90 L41$ $9 € S3°P 26°T €°§8e 0°69T 6° PITt ee We ake eee Se Ié'P 16° LILP *spunog ‘ud, “spunog *spunog ‘spunog | “qUSIOM [VUy | “4USTOM eT} | “yuomerddns |-ures ‘sq_ OOT| *posy Aplep | ‘ures Ajrep “ares *YMo QSVIDAY j-IUI odtavAV jo on[vA jo 4sog asVloAV VSVIOAY! Jod ulery a a he ee ee eee 218 Missouri Agricultural Report. The rations are in each case, except the first which is corn meal alone, “balanced” in the sense that the proteids and carbohy- drates are furnished in the proportion in which they are required by the animals. In each of the mixed rations the nutritive ratio of the digestible nutrients was 1:6.5—that is, each contains 6.5 times as much starch equivalent as protein. Five young hogs were fed in each lot, and at the beginning of the experiments they weighed between 114 and 120 pounds each. They were fed for sixty days and sold at weights of from 170 to 220 pounds. The feed was all ground and fed mixed up with water into a thick slop, and each ration was fed twice daily to the limit of the appetite of the lot receiving it. ; The first column of figures in the table shows us that lots 3, 4 and 5, in which the corn was supplemented by linseed oilmeal, soy beans and tankage, required just about the same amount of feed to make 100 pounds of pork. These three rations were considerably more efficient than those containing wheat middlings and germ oil- meal as fed to lots 2 and 6. All of these mixed rations were de- cidedly more efficient than corn alone as fed to lot 1. The second column of figures shows that the average daily gain per head corresponded very closely with the efficiency of the feeds as shown by the grain requirement per hundred pounds of increase in weight. The linseed oilmeal, soy beans and tankage rations each produced average daily gains of about 1.7 pounds per head, while the three other rations were much inferior to these. The more efficient rations were also the most palatable ones as is shown in the third column of figures. Since the hogs regulated the amount consumed to suit themselves, these figures show which feeds were relished best. - The feeds are considered to have cost at the farm, as indicated by the prices given below the table, allowance being made for freight in the case of those food stuffs requiring shipment from a distance. The soy beans were assumed to have a cost the same as the linseed oilmeal just for comparison, it being considered that if the beans produced pork as cheaply as the oilmeal, when figured at the same price, attention might be called to the profitability of producing this feed upon the farm. The soy bean and tankage rations produced pork at 3 cents per pound, while the linseed oilmeal ration produced pork at $3.18 per hundredweight. The ration of corn alone was not as profitable as the three Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 219 above mentioned ones, but because of its cheapness produced pork at a lower cost than the rations containing middlings and germ oilmeal. The fifth column of figures shows the values of the supple- ments. These are the values at which it is an even thing, whether they be fed with the corn in balanced rations or whether the corn be fed alone. As long as these feeds cost less than the values as here stated, pork may be produced more cheaply from the use of the supplements than from corn alone. One must also bear in mind the fact that the supplemented rations produce pork much more rapidly than corn alone. The middlings costing $20 per ton were worth but $17.06; the germ oilmeal costing $26.00 per ton was worth only $20.68, but the linseed oilmeal, soy beans and tankage all returned handsome profits. The tankage was bought from Swift and Company at Kansas City, Missouri. It is dried and ground meat scrap, is thoroughly sterilized and is a safe and profitable food. It is so concentrated that but little of it need be handled. The less concentrated supple- ments, wheat middlings especially, require too much labor in haul- ing from town. The showing made by soy beans is especially favorable to the farmer since he can produce this feed himself. The beans may be cut a little early and stored as hay for winter feeding or they may be hogged off in the fall, corn being fed in addition. This last method has much to commend it and will grow and fatten hogs very rapidly at a minimum cost in feed and labor. GALLOWAY CATTLE. (R. W. BROWN, CARROLLTON, MO.) Galloway is the name of a province situated in the southwest part of Scotland. In ancient times it was composed of six coun- ties and enjoyed a sort of independent government. Its surface is very irregular, but among the high hills are many fertile valleys and numerous small lakes. It borders upon the North Channel and its climate is mild and moist. In the histories of this province, as early as the twelfth cent- ury, we find mention made of a breed of polled black cattle. Ortel- lios, the celebrated geographer, writing in 1573, says: “In Car-. 220 Missouri Agricultural Report. rack (a part of Galloway) are oxen of large size, whose flesh is tender, sweet and juicy.” The fame of these cattle gradually reached out into England and Scotland, and they soon became known as the Galloway cattle. After England and Scotland became united the farmers of Galloway found a market for their cattle among the feeders and graziers of England. This trade grew until toward the end of the eighteenth century as many as thirty thousand head were sent annually to the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, where they were fitted for the London market. Smith, in his agricul- tural survey of Galloway, says: “What above all may be regarded as decisive of the merits of the Galloway breed is the uniform testi- mony of the Norfolk graziers, who have long given them the pref- erence to every other breed of cattle. Their average price is two pounds per head above that of any other breed the same weight.” Aiton, speaking of these cattle, says: “It is well known that the Galloway breed of cattle have, by the attention of the inhabitants, been brought to a degree of perfection for feeding equal or superior to any breed in Great Britain. They possess all the excellences of shape, size, constitution and qualities that can recommend them to the English graziers. They are of a tolerable size and very handsome. They are spirited, strong, very healthy and hardy, and no cattle whatever feed better or yield beef that is more relished at table, as can be well attested in all parts of South Britain.” The object of the breeder at that time was to raise as many good animals as he could for the market. The best heifers were retained in the herd and the rest sent south with the steers. Thus the breed was improved by the systematic mating of the best speci- mens of each sex, and not by the crossing of any other breed. In winter the cattle ran out, much as they do here on our western ranches. This improved the hardiness of the breed. With the introduction of turnips and modern methods of farming into Gal- loway, improvement became more rapid, and after the advent of railways many of the cattle were fattened at home. About this time a trade sprang up with the farmers of Scotland and England for bulls to cross on other breeds, mostly Shorthorn and Ayrshire cows. This was the birth of the pure bred business, and it became apparent that to maintain the purity of the breed some kind of a record must be kept. Unfortunately, all early records and docu- ments were lost in the fire that destroyed the Highland Agricultural Society’s museum and records in Edinburgh in 1851. In 1862 the _ Polled Herd Book was published, and it contained the records of the Aberdeen Angus and the Galloways. In 1877 the present Gallo- Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 221 way Cattle Society was organized. In 1853 was made the first importation to America and in 1872 registration was begun, and a few years later the American Galloway Breeders’ Association was organized. ' ince the first importation to America many improvements have been made upon the type of the Galloway, but many of his characteristics remain unchanged. Nothing is known of the origin of this breed of cattle, but from time immemorial they have been hornless. The unvarying test of the purity of a Galloway is, there must not be the slightest trace of a horn or scur. In color, the Galloway is black, not a pure black, but with a brownish tinge. The calves with their first coat of hair are usually a dark mahogany brown. Many families have more or less white on the underline, but above or below that any white may not be, but is considered a sign of impurity, and debars the animal from registration. Accustomed as the Galloway has been for cen- turies to an outdoor life; he now has a soft undercoat of thick, mossy hair, with a long, wavy outside covering. Coarse, curly hair is very objectionable. The hardiness of the Galloway is proverbial. If necessary, he will face the wind and the snow, and travel miles for food or water. They acclimatize readily and feed on a large variety of plants. In Scotland herds are maintained where no other breed can exist. Quite recently Prof. C. C. Georgeson, who has charge of govern- ment experiments in Alaska, shipped a car load of breeding cattle to that cold climate, and recent advices from there inform us that they are doing even better than Prof. Georgeson had expected. He says there is no other breed of cattle that will stand the Alaska climate. On the other hand, there have been several shipments to the Republic of Mexico, and they are doing equally well there. As a beef producing breed, the Galloways have a reputation that is excelled by no other. They topped the market centuries ago, and are topping it today. Joseph Hill, the English butcher, says: “As a beef producing breed, there are no other cattle equal to the Galloway. The quality is superior to any I ever killed.” John Cross, another English butcher, says: “It is my opinion that Galloway cattle are the best butcher’s beast, both as regards quality of beef and proportion of offal. They are without doubt what is wanted at present—beef, not bone and fat.” From the fact that the meat is evenly marbled and laid on the best cuts arises its superiority. The statement is sometimes made that the Galloway is not an early maturing animal. The nature of the country, the 222 Missouri Agricultural Report. diverse methods employed by the farmers of Galloway, originated or developed two distinct types of the breed. Away up among the hills and mountains was developed a type that matured at two to four years of age, while in the low lying valleys, where pastures are more luxuriant and other feeds plentiful, the calves remain fat the year round, and thus originated the modern Galloway, the popular, early maturing type of to-day. The former has almost been eliminated, but we occasionally see specimens of this High- land type today, but I dare say no more often than we see the same specimens in other breeds. The Smith field fat stock show has records of Galloway two-year-old steers weighing over two thou- sand pounds and yearlings over fourteen hundred, and even in the early days of the breed they frequently topped the London market, weighing from nine hundred to fourteen hundred pounds as year- lings. In our own feeding experience, we have purchased range bred steer calves weighing less than five hundred pounds, and re- turned them to market in a year’s time weighing over thirteen hundred. Mr. Leslie Smith, manager of the Meadow Lawn herds of Shorthorn and Galloway cattle, told me during the recent In- ternational Live Stock Show that in his judgment (and no man is more competent to judge) that the four Galloway female calves exhibited in their young herd this year were the equal of and were as well matured as the four females of any young herd of any breed in the show. One of the other important characteristics of the breed is the prepotency of the bulls and their ability to impress their character- istics on the offspring. Ninety-five per cent. of the calves from any cross will not only be uniform in quality, but will be black and with- out horns. There is no breed of cattle that will breed up a scrub herd quicker than a Galloway. It is also a fact that tuberculosis is almost unknown in this hardy breed of cattle. The true index of what a breed is doing is shown by its associ- ation records. This tells us that the Galloway is spreading out in every section of the United States and Canada. Recent shipments have been made from the corn belt to Utah, California, Alaska, Virginia, Florida and into the Republic of Mexico. It tells us the increase in membership in 1905 was double that of 1904—that the receipts of the association were thirty-five per cent. greater in 1905 than in 1904. It tells us that the range men in the west, south- west and northwest are picking up good Galloway bulls as fast as they are produced. The Galloway is making a name for himself today, as he did centuries ago, when he was driven four hundred Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 228 miles across Old England to the market of London. On the range, in the feed lot, in the breeding herd, he is proving his merit, but it is probably in the show ring that he has made the most improve- ment in recent years. One of the most frequent remarks heard at the show is: “The Galloways are making better progress than any other breed,” meaning, of course, improvement toward show yard conditions, for it is only a few years since the Galloway breeder, a novice to the art of fitting for exhibition, sought en- trance at the gates of our national shows. Today there are more good Galloways seen at our shows, in proportion to the number of animals, than any other breed. For example, at the recent Inter- national, there were about seventy-five Galloways in breeding classes. Had the exhibits been in proportion to the number of registered animals in each breed, there should have been fifteen hundred Shorthorns, six hundred Herefords, three hundred Angus. In classes where they come into competition with other breeds, they win their share of the honors. In the range-bred feeder class, Galloways won three of the six grand champion prizes offered by the American Royal and the International since these shows were established, or as many as all the other breeds together. Few Galloway steers have been fitted for these fat stock shows for two reasons: first, the breeders have always had an active market for their best bulls and the steers that come from this source are second class animals. Secondly, the great majority of Galloway steers are marketed by feeders who are not interested in any particular breed. The popularity of the Angus breed today has been made so by such men as Funk, Kerrick, White and Krambeck, men who make it their business to raise high class steers, whose sires and dams are the best specimens of the breed. Mr. Jacob Funk said of his champion load of steers: “The foundation of this load was laid over fifty years ago by Isaac Funk. Some of these steers were from pure bred cows and all of my own breed- ing.’ Mr. Deane Funk, commenting upon this load, says: “During a series of efforts to capture this trophy, extending over six years, I have ridden the country night and day, always with both eyes open, for a promising animal. Frequently I have secured one that looked a part of a winner, standing alone, but he degenerated to the value of about thirty cents when turned in with the rest.” As the Gazette puts it: “You must be a breeder as well as a fitter,’”’ and the Galloway breeder, as well as any other who aspires to cham- pionship honors, must adopt similar methods and sacrifice their very best bulls. In the carcass contest, the Galloways, with their finely 224 Missouri Agricultural Report. marbeled meat, have been more successful, always standing well up in line and have won championships both in this country and at Smithfield. — | The remark is frequently made that “there are not so many men going into the Galloway business,” but it is equally true that there are not so many going out. “That they do not bring as high prices’’—neither do they bring such low prices as some of the other breeds. It is a fact that we hardly ever sell a bull in our own county, because the farmers can go out and buy pure bred bulis of some of the other breeds at from thirty-five to fifty dollars. I am sure if we could get at the returns of the sales of pure bred cattle, you would find that the Galloway averages as high, if not higher, than any other breed. I attended two dispersion sales of pure bred cattle in my home county last year, one a Galloway herd, the other of another breed. The Galloway herd had not been kept up and had dwindled down to three old cows from thirteen to fifteen years old, that averaged over sixty dollars. The other herd was as well kept and as well bred, some of the animals having been added to the herd at a cost of eight hundred dollars per head. This herd was just in its prime and their average was not quite seventy dollars. I am not giving you these comparisons in an unfriendly spirit. If there is anything that the Galloway is proud of, more than another, it is of the company he keeps, the white face, the doddie and the red, white and roan. Not a competitor but a co-partner with these magnificent breeds in their fight against the scrub. Mis- souri for pure bred cattle and better beef. “THE RED, WHITE AND ROAN.” (Address by Col. W. A. Harris, of Kansas.) Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: I cannot tell you how pleased I am to have an opportunity to be with you this after- noon. I did not know what I was to talk about until a day or two ago, when I came across a copy of your program. I found that I had been put down as W. A. Harris of Chicago. I felt somewhat aggrieved at that, because that has been the means of inflicting some very deep scars upon my political body in the past; in fact, it has inflicted more than any other one thing. I am glad, how- ever, that your chairman has located me properly in introducing me to you. Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 225 I am from Kansas. Let that be distinctly understood. The subject of the romance I am to relate to you broadens out, as I think of it, more and more, and it seems almost impossible that in a brief off-hand talk I could give you any idea of the wonderful romance, of the wonderful extent and the wonderful interest con- veyed by those simple words, ““The Red, White and Roan.” - Jt has been said that the beat of the British drum salutes the rising sun around the globe incessantly. It may also be said that wherever the British have beat the drum to salute the rising sun, they have taken with them the red, white and roan. It is a well- known fact that there is no island in the sea, no corner of any continent, no land or realm where the English race have entered, but where you will find the blood of the red, white and roan. It seems to have been a perpetual custom on the part of the English- speaking people to carry with them this magnificent animal, and I think the world is a great deal richer for it. After having devoted nearly a lifetime to the study of the red, white and roan, and endeavoring to upbuild its fortunes as well as I could in this great new west of ours, I had the pleasure of traveling over the wonderful country where this great animal first came to light, and a remarkable country it is, indeed. That portion of England lying in Cumberland, Yorkshire and Durham counties, extending from the city of York north, until you reach Durham, situated on a magnificent bluff, overlooking a beauti- ful stream, towering above everything with its wonderful cathedral, is a perfect garden; a beautiful undulating country, filled with rich meadows and gently flowing streams. There seems to be no broken or worthless land anywhere. And as I traveled along from spot to spot, connected with the early history of the shorthorns, it seemed to me the birthplace was worthy of its offspring. It was a wonderfully rich country, and, as you know, away back in the early ages those regions were seized upon by the monastic orders, and all through this portion you find traces of the wealth and power to which those monasteries reached. The monastery of York is probably the most worthy example of cathedral archi- tecture to be found anywhere, and as you go north from York to Durham you find everywhere traces of its institutions. The monks were intelligent men for their time; they understood good living and knew how to practice it and enjoy it; they understood good farming, and they sought the richest and best land; they culti- vated it to the highest possible extent known to that day; and A-—15 226 . Missouri Agricultural Report. they took up the subject of improved cattle and horses, and it is simply wonderful to go away back—as far as we can—in the old records and find that for thousands of years those old monks, by careful selection of grades, built up new standards in live stock, and to study the elements that were to be found at the beginning in the herds of large white cattle which were to be found in Chilling- ham Park, and one or two other places in England. They are typ- ical shorthorns in many respects—white, with red ears and white noses; straight hind leg and quarter; and, except for their diminu- tive size, one would think they were more or less of the shorthorn blood of today. Probably some importations from Holland were made a good many centuries ago, and thus additional milking quality infused in the strain. They went on century after century, but all the way through we can trace their growth. The cathedral at Durham was founded in the year 1099, nearly a thousand years ago. The present structure is a reproduction of the original or old build- ing, and yet on the walls of the main entrance there is a cow, with two dairy maids by her side, and she is to all intents and pur- poses of shorthorn type. This shows that at that early day they had a conception of the same qualities that we note as desirable. It has the old double udder, but seems to lack size and scale. The illustration shows it was not as large as we would have cattle to- day. But there was, nevertheless, the beginning of this wonder- ful progress, the beginning of this wonderful change, and as I spoke awhile ago of the tastes of those old monks for good roast beef and the good things of this life, it seems to me the most perfect hotel, so far as comfort is concerned, I ever saw in my life is the station hotel at York, the center of the clergy in England. The Archbishop of York is the great ecclesiastical agent of the king, and there attend upon him clergy of all ranks, and I find the clergy of today equally as fond of the many comforts of this life as the monks of the olden day must have been. That is a most delightful hotel; it is most beautifully furnished; it is quiet; at- tentive servants with limp slippers attend them; beautiful wax candles complete the effect of the scene at night. They feast upon the finest wines and the finest meats it is possible to produce or obtain. So I imagine this love of luxuries has been handed on down from the old monastic orders in the vears five and six hun- dred. Was this not a fitting birthplace for the greatest of beef ani- mals? The work of carefully selecting and breeding these animals Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 227 went on for centuries, and was no doubt somewhat similar to what weare doing today. It went on until gradually these characteristics that were desired came to be almost fixed in the animals, and this thing we call “prepotency” became impressed in this breed of cat- tle as in no other. No other cattle, no other tribe of domestic animals has it to such a wonderful extent as the “roan.” About the end of the eighteenth century, however, they began to preserve what we call pedigrees instead of mere tradition, as that a certain ani- mal was from F. Brown’s red bull or J. Dixon’s bull. Those are the only sires, as you know, at the bottom of shorthorn pedigrees today. Charles and Robert Colling deserve, more than any other two men, credit for bringing all this scattered material into one sys- tematic compact whole, and they did it by introducing novel ideas in regard to breeding. About that time Mr. Blackwell, in the southern part of England, had achieved considerable success in improving the long horn cattle of that day. He had also wonder- fully improved the Leceister sheep of that day. Charles Colling was an enterprising young man who had just taken the beautiful farm of Quentin, which I viewed with a great deal of interest, as it is today just as he left it. He spent a week with Mr. Blackwell, and finally that gentleman explained the mystery of his operations and success, which was simply a scientific application of the prin- ciples of in-breeding. It was the beginning of his breed, but Mr. Blackwell found that by breeding sire to daughter and brother to sister for generation after generation, he absolutely fixed the type he desired to hand down. Charles Colling went home with that idea. He had been suc- cessful, as you know, in finding a wonderful red bull called ‘“‘Hub- bard,” but he was recognized as a pure short horn bull. His dam was a cow recognized as possessed of wonderfully mellow skin, beautifully developed form and symmetry, and it was known that he was out of a beautiful short-horn bull. Mr. Colling took this bull “Hubbard” and used him freely. He did not continue to breed him as long as he should have done, but parted with him. How- ever, he found that the descendants of Hubbard were remarkably fine and similar specimens, and, as you know, when he obtained “Favorite,” a direct descendant of Hubbard, he actually used three crosses in succession of Favorite upon his own offspring. The result was the bull “Comet,” the most wonderful animal that had been seen up to that time. And when Mr. Colling, because of failing health, retired from the business, he sold Comet for six thousand pounds. The introduction of Comet was a nepot in short- 228 Missouri Agricultural Report. horn breeding. The doctrine that like produces like or the likeness of some ancestor was thoroughly substantiated, and from Hub- bard on down to Comet it was shown that pedigree, rightly used, was the only safe plan for breeding improved cattle. When Mr. Colling’s herd was dispersed, we see wonderful de- velopment again, when Mr. Bates, who lived hardly five miles away from the Colling brothers, went on with the work. He had ridden over to the Colling’s one morning and found Miss Colling milking a beautiful cow called “Lady Maynard,” and Mr. Bates was much impressed with the cow, and he succeeded afterwards in obtaining her and her heifer calf called “Duchess.” That was the foundation of a wonderful herd of cattle. About the same time Booth brothers, in Northumberland, ob- tained some Colling blood, so we see Mr. Bates and the Booths, who were destined to become leaders of two great rival factions of shorthorns, obtaining their material at the same fountain head. Bates was proud of the milking qualities of his shorthorns, and was also fond of their style and fashion; and he was prouder of those qualities than of their thick, heavy flesh. T. C. Booth laid greatest importance vpon the thick, Heaae flesh, and asked his friends if the broad backs of his cows were not worth a few pints of miik. He cared little about the shape of the head, and the result was that the Booth cattle grew to have homely and unprepossessing heads, while Mr. Bates carefully watched the development of the finer points of beauty of his cattle. The quarrel between the Bates idea and the Booth idea grew to be almost as bitter as the War of the Roses, which had so ter- rificly crossed England. Men became alienated from each other, and friends lost their friendship for each other, because of devo- tion to one or the other of these strains. I wandered all one sum- mer afternoon over the fields of Northumberland with one of the descendants of Mr. Booth, and found that those cattle were at that time absolute facsimiles of those which had gone before. On the walls of their plain and unostentatious dining room there were pictures of Matchmaker, Tim, Brother Ben and bulls that had lived seventy-five to eighty years before, and yet out in the pasture was the precise prototype and facsimile of those bulls. And that is proof positive that it is to pedigree alone that we can trust for good succession, and I allude to pedigree, gentlemen, because I was amused this morning at the discussion of this question. (Ap- plause.) Mr. Bates and Mr. Booth continued breeding the same cat- Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 229 tle, introducing fresh blood when required and inbreeding, sooner or later, going over to the other side and securing fresh blood. While it is absolutely impossible to dispense with inbreeding in founding a herd, if carried to excess it tends to reduce the strength of the animals, and-ultimately to sterility and weakness in every possible direction. Mr. Bates used fresh blood over and over in order to restrain the waning fertility of his herd. The Booth family had been more careful, but frequently were compelled to introduce fresh blood, again welding the material together by in- breeding stronger and stronger. You know the history of the two strains in this country. Shorthorns were brought over at an early time. With the colonists came to this country good Shorthorn cattle. I can remember hear- ing my grandfather talk about the “Roan Durhams” in Loudoun and Fauquier counties, Virginia, one hundred years ago or more. So we see everywhere the English people have gone they have car- ried the Shorthorn. We began at first with the most catholic idea. We accepted anything that was brought over here. When Felix Rennick went to England in 1733, he cared little for family or pedigree, so far as a particular strain was concerned, and Mr. Bates attempted to convince him no strain other than his was worth bringing to this country. He labored with single eye as to purity and individual- ity, but not with regard to any particular strain. And he secured some of the best individuals in England. We have brought over immense numbers of cattle from that time on. In 1817 Sanders’ herd was composed of splendid cattle and well bred, but that was prior to the establishment of a herd book. About 1815 old George Coates rode around Northumberland picking up information in re- gard to the pedigrees of cattle, and in 1822 he published the first English herdbook. That was the first time anything had been given out as a guide to people in purchasing cattle; and these cows brought over to this country in 1817 had no record, but it seems fairly certain that they were carefully selected and purely bred in every possible way. We had other importations, and from time to time other enterprising men went over. It was a serious propo- sition in those days to go to England and import cattle. We have gone on and we have discarded the line-bred Bates cattle and the line-bred Booth cattle, because we found that a limit had been reached in this line-breeding and in-breeding; that it was coming to be detrimental and injurious, because these cattle would not respond to the demands we made upon them and did 230 Missouri Agricultural Report. not possess the essentials we must have in our western cattle. About the same time there had been discovered an old Quaker way up in Scotland. Shorthorns were not indigenous in Scotland, and it is, therefore, absolutely absurd to talk about straight Scotch cattle. There is no such thing. You might as well talk about straight rail fences. They cannot exist. Captain Barclay of Ura was about the first to take the Shorthorns into Scotland from Eng- land. About 1819 Mr. Cruikshank bought some cattle of Captain Barclay of Ura, and he bought them absolutely without reference to pedigree or fashion or family. He said he must have cattle in Scotland which the average farmer could not afford to be without, and it seems to me in that little sentence is all the law and gospel in regard to cattle. Shorthorn breeders today must breed cattle which the farmers around us can not afford to be without. (Ap- plause.) - Mr. Cruikshank bred them wrong for a great many years. He told me that himself. At the time I was over there on this visit I spoke of, I went to see the old man. -We found “Siterton” to be a plain, unpretentious stone house with five or six rooms. On the north side was a plain, substantial stone barn with a few enclos- ures about it. The old man was wandering about them. He had dispersed his herd, but told us the history of each one of the indi- viduals that had made his herd complete and his name famous. Now, I commenced importing in 1882 cattle direct from Mr. Cruikshank’s herd. I found the cattle I got sired by Roan Gaunt- let, by Pride of the Isle, by Quarantine, were very much superior to those sired by their sons and grandsons. I found that the blood - was a little too delicate, was a little infertile, and I brought the question right up to Mr. Cruikshank himself. I said, “Do you not think the time has come when your cattle need fresh blood? Have you not carried this inbreeding to its absolute and extreme limits?” He said, “There can be no question that that is the truth,” but he said, “The younger men must do that. I am too old to go out and try the fresh blood, which must necessarily be done.” As I recall that instance, I vant my friends here to remember that we must do as Mr. Cruikshank did and told us we must do, and not continue to inbreed and inbreed, or we are going to reach the same end precisely. This herd, however, had obtained about that time absolute supremacy over the Bates and Booth herds. Notwithstanding their wonderful character and purity, and notwithstanding the de- votion and friendship I would lavish upon them, yet the question Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 231 of practical utility, as put by the old Quaker at Siterton, became absolutely the thing of all things to be desired in this country, and in England as well. And though we had adopted this standard before it was adopted in England, today it is the blood of this herd which is supreme over all the world. 1 The question is, what is the duty of the Shorthorn breeder of today? We are using this Scotch blood because there is no purity in any Scotch blood except as it came from Siterton. Mr. Cruik- shank was the man who established the separate and distinct type for what we call Shorthorns. We must not follow the examples of Mr. Bates or Mr. Booth in continuing to inbreed and to liiie- breed, but we must use fresh blood, in order to preserve the scale, size and fertility of our cattle. And there is another reason why we must do that. I dislike, when I attend a Shorthorn sale, to hear it said that an animal is “pure Scotch,” when, perhaps, it traces back to the herds of Mr. Rennicke or Mr. Warfield or Mr. Ellis, because those gentlemen purchased the very best cattle to be found in England at that time, and the descendants of those herds compose nine-tenths of the cattle in this country of this breed. I dislike to see their value absolutely destroyed and men breaking their necks, and their bank accounts as well, in an effort to buy what they call “absolutely straight Scotch.” I have seen cases where absolutely inferior individuals reputed as “pure Scotch” commanded higher prices than superior individuals not so reputed. But I believe in pedigree. I believe it is the only possible means we can depend on in the production of good qualities. I be- lieve like produces like; but we must not be slaves to pedigree. We must not carry it so far that it absolutely destroys the whole pur- pose and aim of pedigree, which is improvement all the time. When an animal is inbred, or by some means becomes inferior, it is the most dangerous thing in the world to our herds, because its in- ferior qualities have just as much prepotency as its superior quali- ties, and we are as sure to propagate the inferior qualities as the superior qualities it may possess. I remember reading a few years ago an article written by Mr. Maynard himself. He said the whole art of breeding lies in studying the fitness of certain individuals for interbreeding with other individuals; in other words, that the key to success lies in being able to arrive at a correct conclusion as to how certain ani- mals will nick with each other; what will be the result of breeding a bull of one shape to a cow of another shape. You can not select an animal] with one marked superior point and expect it to be repro- 232 Missouri Agricultural Report. duced the first breeding. All the operations of nature are in the shape of compromises, and so are all changes of grade in our cat- tle. You can not produce a giant from a pigmy. You must do it by degrees. In breeding cattle this is a slow process; you must add here a little and there a little. You must refine and build up, and gradually improve those points that are weak. Now, in doing this we have more or less to do with pedigrees. You may ask, what do I get out of looking at a long list of names; what does that mean to me? By so doing you will be able to find out the peculiar characteristics of each individual in that pedi- gree. Of course, it is very difficult for anybody, by studying a pedigree, to find out from his own observation, or from men who have seen the animals, the characteristics of more than a very few top crosses. By history you may find out about the peculiarities of some of the older sires, but all that should be threshed out and carefully noted. Then you should arrive at a sensible conclusion as to what type of animals compose that pedigree, and then you can judge with reasonable certainty what you are doing. But mere pedigree without more means nothing. A scrub has a pedigree, an unwritten pedigree; it has ancestors just like any other animal. But it has ancestors that have not possessed qualities worthy of record. So we see we must appreciate pedigree in the proper way. I do not like to see this disposition to talk about closing the herd books. We must have herd books. It is the compass by which the breeder is guided upon an otherwise un- certain sea. But the servile worship of pedigree is as dangerous as anything that can possibly be conceived. It is above all things to be avoided. We find the same thing—this servile worship—in love, in religion and in politics. Men and women love often not wisely, but too well. We find men who become so wrapped up in religion that they have no tolerance whatever. If Methodists they will not speak to Baptists; if Baptists they will not speak to Meth- odists; if Protestants they will not recognize Catholics, and if Catholics they will not recognize Protestants. We find Democrats who pronounce curses against the Republicans, and we find Re- publicans who declare bloody warfare against the Democrats. (Applause.) Now, all these things are good. They are all neces- sary. We must have parties in political work; we must have creeds in our religious work. For somehow or other, we do not all like to travel in the same narrow road, however even and smooth. But we do not want to all try to become masters and to forget our reason in all these things, and this is true of breeders. Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 233 We must preserve our pedigree for what it now is, and we must not be afraid to introduce fresh blood, because every man who has achieved anything worthy of historical mention in the way of breeding Shorthorns has used fresh material right and left at times. Mr. Bates, who anathematized everybody else’s cattle, found himself obliged to resort to Red Rose blood and Princess blood, and finally to taking the old Oxford cows blood into his strain, in order to build it up and strengthen the resisting power of his decaying Duchess tribe. The Boothes did the same thing. Mr. Cruikshank did the same thing. But, of course, a man who has built up a herd until it becomes a family has pride, and a great amount of it. He can not help but feel that it is somewhat of a recognition of the merit of the other people’s herds to go to them and take a bull or a cow from them; because the best way is to introduce new blood through a cow. Breed your own bull toa good cow of some other blood, and then breed the produce. That is what Bates, Booth and Cruik- shank all did, and that is what they all told us to do. We seem in- clined to repeat the errors of the past and to tie ourselves to one particular strain because it is fashionable. Often because a com- paratively inferior strain is fashionable it may bring a higher price than a more worthy strain, and men discard all their, perhaps, more worthy and magnificent material for it. Nine-tenths of their stock we sometimes see men discard as worthless. This is all wrong. I want to see the American Shorthorn—not the Scotch Shorthorn or the English Shorthorn. (Applause.) I believe that by properly using this great mass of new blood we have in this country and by properly breeding them, regardless of family or strain to which they belong, we can produce animals superior to those of all other countyies, just as I believe the Ameri- can citizen is superior to all others, just because he is bred in pre- cisely the same cosmopolitan way. (Applause.) The American citizen is composed of a tremendous aggregation of bloods, and he has all the vigor and vitality that necessarily comes from that kind of intermingling. And I want to see this great strain of cat- tle brought up the same way, until we can show the old world what we have wrought out ourselves. In 1882, as I said awhile ago, I was importing, and for a num- ber of years thereafter, cattle from Mr. Cruikshank. I never dreamed of carrying those cattle along in the way they had been. But I wanted to infuse new blood that would strengthen my herd and give our cattle a better constitution. It was simply an addi- 234 Missouri Agricultural Report. tion to the great mixture we had in this country. And the best cattle that I have ever bred, and the best, I believe, that have ever been bred up to this time, have been bred with that kind of breed- ing and that kind of blood, all wisely and properly mingled to- gether. That is my prescription for breeding good Shorthorns. That is what I would dearly love to see all through this country. The time is coming when we are going to have an immense market opened up. We have not in this country a one-hundredth part of the pure bred cattle which we are going to and must have. Why, there are not enough Shorthorns in the United States today to properly sup- ply the needs of Missouri, and as land becomes more valuable and rises in price, and gets to be one hundred dollars and upwards in all regions, the time is coming when there will not be a section of farm land in one of our States that does not maintain upon it a pure bred bull of some description. We will be forced to do it. We can not afford to use inferior feed or inferior stock on such valu- able farms. We must pay interest on all this rapidly rising land, and they are already going back to cattle breeding in the Eastern States to do it. - T have often thought about the needs of Kansas. She has in her limits eighty thousand square miles, the eastern half of which is all farming country—forty thousand sections of farm land. Up- on all those sections should be maintained a pure bred bull. Illinois has fifty-nine thousand square miles of land. Upon every acre of that land, outside of the cities, should be maintained a pure-bred bull. Much of this land has come to be worth $100, $150 and $200 an acre in many parts of Illinois, and it is only by using early maturing cattle, with the highest possible feeding qualities and the greatest amount of utility in every direction, that we can afford to grow stock at all. We must grow stock; we can- not escape it. God has made the world so there is no other way of keeping up the land and sustaining the human race upon it ex- cept by raising live stock. I remember an incident on my visit to Eastern England that impressed me most forcibly. I was walking upon the field of.... PR ah thes ita se ere tee Colonel Godfrey said that land had never been broken since the Scotch and English were locked in the throes of their dreadful conflict upon it. He opened up a drain and found there a great accumulation of stag horns, which, he said, were from the stags driven there in great droves after the Scotch army. That land had maintained its fertility. It was as rich : Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 235 three years ago as eight or nine years ago, and all over England we find out that the soil has maintained its fertility to a marked degree because of her devotion to live stock. Everywhere in England it is grass, grass. The proprietors of grass land worth five or six hundred dollars per acre find that by using the proper kind of stock the most profit can be made from stock, and in most counties there is a severe penalty for breaking up the pasture lands, so devoted have the English become to the rearing of live stock. In fact, it is only in cases of emergency that this land is broken, and the result is that the average of wheat throughout Great Britain is forty bushels per acre. Doesn’t that humble our pride and check our braggadocio a little bit? The average for Missouri is about thirteen bushels, and for Kansas about sixteen. But if farmed properly, as we will have to do, as this country grows greater and the value of property increases more and more, there is no reason why we cannot do equally as well as England. The time is rapidly approaching when there will be no more cheap land, and we will have to increase our yield in every possible di- rection. We are doing a wonderful work in this direction—your professors here and everywhere are doing a wonderful work, and it is all going to come into play in the vast future that is looming rapidly before us. It is estimated that in twenty-five years we will have one hun- dred and twenty million people in the United States. Just think what it will be in fifty years. What will we do when we have two to three hundred people per square mile in this country? There is not likely to be any catastrophe to wipe out thousands of human lives, and we must begin to think what we will do to enable this country to maintain in comfort those people and to maintain the fertility of our soil. In doing this we are serving ourselves at the same time. No man need be afraid there is any scarcity of good improved cattle to meet the emergency. But there are entirely too many poor improved cattle, and this is the kind of cattle we can not afford to breed when our population has become so thick, nor can we afford to now. Discard the worthless and save the good stock, and that is the lesson the Shorthorn men above all others need to learn. We have a strange superstition that every calf that comes male must be preserved for breeding purposes, while in truth there are not more than two out of five that ought to be preserved. I admit that in a way it is a tendency in the right direction. I ad- mit there is something in the saying that “even a poor pure bred 236 Missouri Agricultural Report. animal is better than a scrub.” That is true, but we must look after the interests of the breed if we would develop it in the proper way. | We must have more steers, too, in the large stock shows. Now coming right down to our own affairs, we had the most wonder- ful exhibit of Shorthorns last summer, gentlemen, that I have seen in all my life. I think the exhibit at the International last De- cember was the most magnificent display of pure bred Shorthorns the world has even seen. And yet there was not more than two or three pure bred steers there worth sending to any market. It was quite plain that practically none but the scrubs had been uti- lized for that class, and I think we were almost disgraced. . But fortunately for us, the other breeds did not do much better. The Herefords, nor the Angus, nor the Galloways had done much bet- ter, and that saved my feelings to some extent, but I want to see the Shorthorn men get together and put their shoulders to the wheel in that particular line and show what they can do. I cut an article out of the London Livestock Journal the other day that contained a grain of comfort to the Shorthorn men. It happened that a pure bred Shorthorn steer was the champion of the great show. It also happened that the junior champion was a pure bred Shorthorn. The champion heifer, called an An- gus, had a Shorthorn sire. That is a peculiar thing which I want to say to my Angus friends. (Applause.) Last year there were fifty-two entries in the Smithfield Livestock Show. Fifty-one had Shorthorn blood on one side or the other. Whenever a Hereford man wants to produce a wonderfully good steer he takes a Short- horn cow for its mother. Whenever you see the Hereford man getting anxious to produce an extra fine animal you see him come to the Shorthorn. (Applause.) Why? Because the Shorthorn cow has had bred into her these good qualities until they are prepotent. Here is a little testimony from the “Argentine.” This is a pamphlet published in Argentina. These gentlemen have handled four-fifths of the improved cattle that have been taken to the Ar- ‘gentines. Of all the European cattle represented in the Ar- gentines the Shorthorn is the most generally favored, and the English name ‘‘Durham” is used in preference to Shorthorn, The undoubted success of this breed in that country and its value in grading the cattle of other breeds is another proof of the wonderful and unique characteristics of the Shorthorn. That is the testimony that is communicated to us from Aus- - tralia, from New Zealand and from every part of the world. Even — Live Stock Breeders’ Association. o37 out in the range country, where they have used Hereford bulls, be- cause they believed the Hereford could rustle better than the Shorthorn, they find their cattle are losing scale and size and qual- ity, and they are all resorting to Shorthorn blood in every direc- tion to stay their declining herds. And as that country becomes more developed and worked up, they are going in more and more for Shorthorn cows everywhere. Beside these facts, there is another thing I will mention about the Shorthorn, and I intend to object to a remark I heard another gentleman make this morning. He said we must not breed an ani- mal for milk and beef at the same time. I don’t know whether he meant an animal could not give milk and get fat at the same time, or whether we could not combine the power of production of beef and butter in the same animal. As a matter of course, when an animal is devoting its entire domestic energies to producing beef, it is not going to give a great quantity of milk, but that an animal can do both at different periods does not need any proof. I know of two cows, one of which had made 417 pounds of butter, and the other year before last made 415 pounds and last year 416 pounds. The last cow is as fine a specimen as I ever saw. She is a Young Mary, and when she is dry she puts on flesh as rapidly as though the whole end of her existence were the butcher’s block. Mr. Bates and Mr. Booth separated the two qualities, but Mr. Masog#and Sir Charles 2... 0.0.5.0... and Mr. Knightly prided themselves upon the milking qualities of their cattle, and the beef qualities as well. It is the emasculated son that we want to de- velop into the great beef animal, and we want the daughter to be maternal in this function and be capable of filling any number of buckets of milk. We can do it; we must do it. The high-priced land we are sure to have throughout this country will not pay un- less we have the dual purpose animal. An experiment was tried in England for four years, and concluded last year, between a herd of Jersey cattle and a herd of Shorthorns. You will find the record in the London Livestock Journal. The Jersey cattle did not pay, notwithstanding their great yield of butter. They were delicate _ and infertile and produced few calves. The Shorthorns did not pay as milk producers only, but the early production of their calves came to their rescue, each cow having to her credit a good yearling bullock every other year, at least. We must have one cow raising two calves and another giving milk for the creamery in order that they may be most profitable. All these things are going to be forced upon us. We will have to do this. Why, I noticed the other 238 Missouri Agricultural Report. day that Mr. J. J. Hill made a very able speech about the first of March, and then repeated practically the same thing in Chicago. He said we were exhausting the fertility of our soil. The Ameri- cans are commencing to look to other countries to feed our popu- lation. There is no necessity for anything of the kind. All that is needed is one touch with the magic wand of good prices and intelli- gent agriculture and we can develop our agriculture, and the op- portunity is standing before us today. Missouri is not half set- tled and not half farmed, let me say to you. (Applause.) I tell you there must be a change. We have a number of great big prob- lems before us, and the biggest of all is that we shall hand down to future generations the land unimpaired. We have no right to skim the cream off of this fertile land. We must keep up the fer- tility. We must use intelligent rotation of crops, and graze and breed our live stock intelligently, not in the old haphazard way. I remember when I used to waste more corn than my cattle ate, and the cattle were of every sort and description. Why some of them could eat and eat and eat and not a bit of change would be no- ticeable in them. I remember I had one Holstein steer that I would fill up just as I would a corn crib, and he would not get a bit fatter. We must discriminate. I cannot say a word against breeding dairy cattle, and in proximity to towns, the specialized dairy cattle are of great value, and let me tell you right here that all the great dairy herds in England are Shorthorns. They are bred there for the perpetuation and development of that quality. Why cannot some of our Shorthorn men fall in line and do in this country what they have done over there. Let us have a Declaration of Independence again. We cut loose from Great Britain in 1776 and started out to breed citizens independently of her, and now let us breed cattle independently. (Applause.) WHY I PREFER THE ABERDEEN-ANGUS. (Geo. Steveson, Jr., Waterville, Kansas.) There may be some here who are not familiar with the origin of Aberdeen-Angus cattle. They are a native Scotch breed, in- digenous to the northeastern districts of Scotland. There this breed originated, and there it has been brought out as one of the handsomest and most valuable of the living varieties of cattle. From evidence obtained, the loss of horns occurred about one Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 239 hundred years ago. The attention of enterprising agriculturists appears to have been directed to them about seventy years ago. The prominent qualities which attracted the attention of breeders were their quietness and docility, the easiness with which they were managed, the few losses incurred from their injuring each other, the disposing of a greater number of them in the same space, their natural fitness for feeding, and the rapidity with which they are fattened. A new ideal was formed, representing a maximum of beef and a minimum of bone, prime in quality and with little offal. Perhaps if I briefly relate my own experience it may give you some idea why I prefer the Aberdeen-Angus. I was born and raised on the farm, and being the youngest boy, it naturally fell to my lot to herd the cattle and milk the cows while my elder brothers and father did the farm work. We afterwards moved to a small town to get better school privileges, but kept the farm. I attended school during the winter and herded the cattle in summer, until I took a clerkship in a general merchandise store. After doing this for a few years my father and I engaged in busi- ness, at the same time feeding cattle on a nearby farm. We re- mained in business over a quarter of a century in the same town, and I still reside there. I relate all this to show that I had a fondness for cattle, no matter if my mind was principally taken up with the merchandise business. I sold it a little over a year ago, and now have no other regular business but the breeding and raising of Angus cattle. Some eight years ago I decided I wanted some better cattle than the average grade; in other words, some registered, purebred cattle. Living in the corn-belt, I thought I wanted the beef type, but spent more than a year investigating whether that type should be Hereford, Shorthorn or Angus. My first inclination was to purchase the Hereford, as there were so many in my county, Marshall, which I think has been styled the Herefordshire of America. This had its influence, as you know we are always prone to follow the leaders, like the sheep that finds a gap in the fence—through it goes—and the rest all follow. At about this time I was taking the Chicago Evening Post, a general news and market paper, and in looking through the live stock notes that were not set in large, bold type, but in even smaller than the general reading type, I found these items: “Dec. 21, 1899.—There are three distinctly beef breeds in which there is little choice. These are the Shorthorns, Herefords and Aberdeen-Angus. The Angus cattle are apt to sell the high- 240 Missouri Agricultural Report. est, and are extremely popular. They are generally considered the handsomest.” “April 16, 1900.—Thirteen black polled Angus steers, aver- aging 1,526 pounds, brought $6 per hundredweight today, the highest price paid in a long time. They were sold by George Adams and Burk. F. D, Moses of Wayne, Neb., fed and marketed these cattle.” “April 30, 1900.—Nelson Morris, the large packer, says: ‘I am breeding the hornless Aberdeen-Angus. I am growing them on my farms in Indiana and Nebraska, and on my ranch in Texas. I have bred them for ten or twelve years, and the more I see of them the more I am convinced that they are by all odds the best beef breed. They have a larger proportion of lean to fat when ready for the market than any other. They feed more quietly and their hides are worth more because free from scratches and horn thrusts. I do not raise fancy breeding cattle for sale, but grow the best practical beef cattle. Everybody knows that horns are not only useless but a detriment. Years ago I felt this to be so and began dehorning my cattle, when I was fined $500 for cruelty to animals. Now a vast majority of the cattle that come to market are dehorned. I prefer the natural process of dehorn- ing, which is by the use of breeds that do not have them.’ ” These items and many more of same import made me think and wonder why these cattle were getting such favorable notices, and especially from the people who were engaged in the buying and selling of beef products on a large scale in the largest open markets of this country, or the world, in fact. I therefore con- cluded to better inform myself on my next trip to Kansas City or Chicago, and talk with the commission men, their salesmen, and others, as to why these Angus cattle were such favorites, fat or poor. The general answer I received was that they were regarded by the packers and butchers as dressing out the highest proportion of marketable beef according to their gross weight. In addition to this, the dressed products was of the very best grade, was even and marbled. They were thickest and largest where the high- priced cuts were located, and in almost every manner were as near the butcher’s type as could be found. On the other hand, they said in regard to the stocker or feeder, that they were as much the feeder type as the finished steers were the ideal butcher’s type. On account of their wonderful early-maturing qualities, the greatest gain for amount of hay and grain consumed and no horns to con- Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 241 tend with in the feed-lot, or to be discriminated against by the order buyer for the eastern cities. The Chicago Post of April 11, 1901, contained this view of the live stock market by Rappal Brothers & Co.: “While the stocker and feeder market advanced about a dime Monday, in sympathy with beef steers, it has lost all and more of its early vigor, especially for such kinds as class below good to choice. The best is always wanted at $4.50 to $4.75, but they are the kind you seldom see. Good Angus steers would have no trouble to reach the 5-cent mark were they here.” This investigation and research decided me in favor of the Aberdeen-Angus, and I have never regretted this choice. They are still my preference, for they have kept up the high standard of their reputation, and every year, from 1899 to present time, their record has grown more brilliant with their achievements in the show-ring, open markets and slaughter tests. Facts should allay all doubt and end all controversy with you, as they did with me. For instance, at the first International Show in Chicago, 1900, the Aberdeen-Angus, in competition with the other breeds, produced a yearling steer that was grand champion, and sold in the stock yards at the public auction for $1.50 per pound, $150 per 100 pounds live weight, or a total of $2,140. The next best steer was reserve champion, which was also Angus. They won three-fourths of the prizes throughout the fat-cattle classification of this great show, including the grand champion car load of fat steers, over all breeds. They were fed and exhibited by the Hon. L. H. Ker- rick of Bloomington, IIl., and sold for $15 per 100 pounds live weight. I had the pleasure of witnessing this sale, and it was the highest price ever paid for a car load of cattle on any market at that time. The same year, a month previous, A. A. Armstrong of Illinois received the grand championship award in competition with the other beef breeds for the best car load of fat steers at Pittsburg, Pa. They sold for $9.25 per 100 pounds live weight, which was $1.25 more per 100 pounds than any other carload brought. At the second International, 1901, the Aberdeen-Angus made a pretty clean sweep of it on the block, gaining the cham- pionship and four out of five awards on the 2-year-old carcass tests. At the third International, 1902, I quote from the Breeder’s Gazette: “There is no mistaking the portent. It was black year. It was a very black year. Not only did breeders of the Doddies pre- sent a memorable collection of their favorites in this section, af- A-16 242 Missouri Agricultural Report. fording some of the sharpest competition on record, but the tri- umphs of the Blackskins in the grades and crosses in the champion- ships and in the car load lots seemed to invest with somewhat pro- phetic character our comment at the opening of the season on the approaching black cloud. In competition with all beef breeds they won grand champion on grade Angus steer, Shamrock, as the best individual fat animal of the show. Chas. Escher was award- ed the grand championship on the best carload fat steers. The Angus also won the first and second prizes in the 2-year-old slaughter test; also first prize in the yearling test.” At the fifth International Show, 1904, it was Angus year again. If Clear Lake Jute 2d, who was reserve champion the year before, came back and demonstrated, he should have been first and reserve in 1903. C. Krambeck, Marne, Ia., was there with a car load of fat Doddies that won highest honors over all breeds, and also demonstrated that he should not have been technically protested the year before when all conceded he had the grand champion car load. Messrs, Kerrick and Funk, each with a load of Angus, were close contestants for this award. The sixth International, 1905, was history repeating itself. It was Angus again. “Blackroces grade Aberdeen-Angus steer was made grand champion over all individual fat steers. C. Kram- beck was there again, and still more forcibly demonstrated that he was a feeder and a breeder of the right sort, by being awarded the grand championship over all breeds for the best car-load of fat steers, An Angus steer was again champion in the dressed car- cass test. The account of the fat car-load at the last International Show of last month, as published by the Breeders’ Gazette, is strong enough to make anyone unprejudiced appreciate the greatness of — Angus cattle. The first four car-loads contesting for grand cham- pionship honors were Angus. Such a quartette of carloads of fin- ishéd beef was never before under the critical eye of a judge. A load of Angus steers was awarded grand championship. This was 4 foregone conclusion even to the layman surveying the ex- hibit. The Funk car-load first, the Krambeck second, the Kerrick third, the Escher fourth, making a constellation of Angus steers the like of which had never been presented to the public before. The champion slaughter test was won by an Angus 2-year-old steer. The Daily Drovers’ Telegram, Kansas City, Mo., April 26, 1901, contained this article: “To say of a breed of beef cattle that it has topped our mar- Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 243 kets in car-load lots for eleven successive years comprehends a great deal to the man that is raising cattle. The end and aim of all breeds of beef cattle is the butcher’s block, and the breed that dresses the highest per cent is the breed that appeals to the cattle raiser.” This statement was made and can be proven to the Aberdeen- Angus breed. This you note was published in 1901. They have done so every year since that time, and now it is seventeen years, and they topped the market at the last International at $17.00 per 100 pounds, live weight, the highest price that a car-load of cattle ever sold for in Chicago. Nor are their winnings confined to this country, for they won the London Smith field show, wich is the International of the British Isles. The Angus breed for the year 1906 made the most imposing section of the show. The record of this great beef breed at this Lon- don show is nothing short of marvelous, for prior to this year’s show, over a period of fifteen years, the breed has produced a grand champion on no fewer than seven occasions, which is quite a remarkable feat, when the many different breeds of cattle comprised in the inter-breed competitions which take place at Britians leading show are considered. At the 1903 Birmingham Show, England, out of four classes, Aberdeen crosses won all the first prizes, three out of four prizes, all of the third prizes, besides an extra prize of thirty pounds for the best cross bred. Therefore, the Angus won eleven out of the twelve prizes. Truly a flattering illustration of the potency of the Aberdeen-Angus, when mated with the other breeds. Now, doesn’t this strike you as being significant—topped the market in car-lots for seventeen years without a break, nearly always furnishing the grand champion car-load and single fat steer in open competition; and that, too, when there were propor- tionately 100 head of the other breeds to one of the Angus from which to select these prize winners, the Angus being comparatively a new breed in this country, the first importation being less than thirty years ago? I hope I have made myself understood as to the market top- ping qualities of the Angus cattle. And now I wish to say some- thing of horns, or rather no horns. Other things being equal, isn’t it much better to have no horns? I remember well the first winter I kept my pure-bred herd. Many times before retiring for the night I would take the lantern and go out to see that they were all under shelter, especially so when there was a hard storm or bliz- 244 Missouri Agricultural Report. zard. It was a board shed open to the south, and invariably I would find them lying down close together like a flock of sheep, chewing their cud and apparently unmindful of the storm or cold. My experience in caring for horned cattle was that there would be several in the lot that were bosses, and would assert their au- thority by taking possession of nearly all, if not quite, the one side of the roughness rack, the feed box and a majority of the space under the shed. All of these conditions meant expense to me, and because of the loss in gain from the unrest and the grain and hay fed to them. Then, again, if you are fattening them for the open market, you are discriminated against 25 cents per 100 pounds on account of your stock having horns. The eastern order buyer does not want them for his customers in the large eastern cities; hence you lose the competition, and about your only market is the local packer. Late years some get around this horn proposition by dehorning, but that is troublesome, expensive, and, besides, not nature’s way, and in this busy world it is easy to neglect it. Then you might be justified in handling horned cattle if they were so much superior in every way to the Angus except the disagreeable horns. But are they? Do the competitive awards bear us out in this deduction? Do the price they sell for fat or lean in the largest live stock mar- kets in the world justify our belief? Think it over. Here is what Rappel Brothers & Co. say, who are one of the leading firms at the Chicago yards: March 22, 1901. “A bit of advice that can be acted on with good benefits is to beware of all horned cattle without getting liberal margins, for as the days wear on when this class of stock becomes less noticeable, buyers fear them most on account of the bruises, etc., which de- tract doubly from their value in the carcass, and therefore ignore them entirely, unless at prices that are low enough to insure against all possible loss. At least 15 to 25 cents on natives and 20 to 40 cents on westerns is not too much reduction to make in comparison with those which are dehorned, for that is about the ratio of dis- crimination which buyers are making.” Secretary Coburn, in his report for 1902, says: “It is esti- mated by those who have paid most attention to such statistics that not less than 200 persons in the United States each year are seriously injured by cattle horns; and that by the same means a hundred thousand cattle, horses and colts and innumerable sheep and swine are annually destroyed. That two-thirds or three- Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 245 fourths of all the tremendous losses by abortion, especially among cows, if carefully investigated, could directly or indirectly be traced to the presence of horns.” Converted into dollars and cents, the foregoing represents truly an enormous sum. I tsometimes think we agriculturists and stockmen are a slow lot. We just go along breeding a certain kind of cattle because our grandfather, it was said, had some grades of that breed. Then we come to the father. He had a bull or a cow that could have had the papers if he asked for them, and then on down to the son, who makes up his mind to get some pure-bred stock, and without investigating, says the same kind is good enough for me that was good enough for dad and grandpap. The same applies to improved methods of farming, etc.; therefore, I repeat, are we slow and heedless? In conclusion, I wish to state that it took considerable time and investigation before I became convinced of the superior merits of the Aberdeen-Angus cattle. I do not want to leave the impression with you that I am prejudiced and cannot see the good qualities in any of the other breeds. I delight in viewing a first-class animal of any of the other kinds, and shall cultivate that disposition, al- ways striving to be broad-minded enough to give credit where credit is due. The other beef breeds are being conformed to the Angus type, which is a hardy, low down, hornless animal, that will take on more flesh for the same number of pounds of feed in a shorter space of time, will be smoother, evener, more uniform, take excellent care of their calves, and the butcher’s delight when on the hooks in his market. Then why not be an Angus breeder, for life is all too short to waste time and labor experimenting to bring about that which is already here. MAINTAINING SOIL FERTILITY IN SYSTEMS OF PERMA- NENT AGRICULTURE. (Dr. 0. G. Hopkins, Experiment Station, Urbana, III.) To permanently maintain profitable systems of agriculture is the most important material problem of the United States, because every other important industry in America depends upon agricul- ture for support. Every form of agriculture rests, first of all, ~ upon the fertility of the soil, whether it be grain farming, fruit growing, market gardening, or live stock husbandry, / 246 Missouri Agricultural Report. In our present prosperity and abundance we almost forget the latest famine in Russia; can scarcely realize that much of the time more people are hungry in India than live in the United States; and will not remember tomorrow President Roosevelt’s call of today for help to relieve the wide-spread famine now exist- ing in China. Meanwhile we go on, as a people, ignorantly, care- lessly or wantonly robbing our soil of its fertility and American posterity of a rightful heritage. Among all the nations of the earth, the United States stands first in rapidity of soil exhaustion. The improvement of seed, the use of tile-drainage, the invention and immediate adoption of labor- saving agricultural machinery, the wonderful development of cheap and rapid means of transportation, and the opening of the world’s markets to the American farmer have all combined to make possible and to encourage the rapid depletion of American soils; until practical agricultural ruin already exists over vast areas in the older parts of these United States, while it is common knowl- edge even in the new rich states of the central west that the lands that have been under cultivation for half or three-quarters of a century are much less productive now than they once were. Farm manure always has been, and without doubt always will be, the principal material used in maintaining the fertility of the soil; but it is an unquestionable fact that the greatest source of loss to American agriculture today is in the enormous waste of farm manure. } If corn were worth $1.05 a bushel, then the average annual value of the corn crop of the United States for the past ten years, including 1906, would be equal to the average value of the total farm manure annually produced in this country. This statement is based upon the careful estimates of the United States Depart- ment of Agriculture, placing the average annual corn crop at near- ly two and one fourth billion bushels, and the average value of the manure annually produced from 20 million horses and mules, 61 million cattle, 47 million hogs and 52 million sheep, at more than two and one-third billion dollars. The evidence is sufficient to fully justify the conclusion, and practical observing farmers will all agree that at least one-third of the manure produced is wasted on the average American farm. If this is true, then the total value per annum of all commercial fertilizers used in the United States (amounting to about 75 mil- lion dollars) is equal to only one-tenth of the annual waste of farm manure, This is no argument against the intelligent and profit- Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 247 able use of commercial plant food by those who make and save and use farm manure to the greatest possible practicable extent, but it serves only to emphasize the tremendous loss to the country from the waste that is permitted. The value of farm manure can be, and has been, determined by two entirely different methods: ; First, the manure may be analyzed chemically to ascertain the kinds and amounts of plant food it contains and its value then computed from the cost of the same amounts of these plant food elements if purchased in the world’s markets in commercial form. Second, the manure may be applied to the land in a series of soil experiments where a suitable crop rotation is practiced, and its value determined by computing from the value of the increase which it produces in the different crops. The amount of plant food contained in a ton of farm manure varies considerably and depends largely upon four important fact- ors, which are probably correctly ranked in the following order: 1. The condition as to dryness. 2. The kind of feed and bedding. 3. The state of preservation. 4. The kind of live stock. The plant food in a ton of manure varies with the dry matter content. Thus, manure containing 85 per cent of water, is only half as rich in plant food as the same manure after the water content has been reduced by evaporation to 70 per cent. This may seem impossible at first thought, but a careful consideration will show that it is true. If the manure contains 85 per cent of water, it can contain only 15 per cent of dry matter; whereas manure containing only 70 per cent of water must contain 30 per cent of dry matter. Very erroneous conclusions are frequently drawn re- garding the comparative value of different manures because of ap- parently small or moderate differences in water content. Average fresh mixed cattle and horse manure with an ordinary amount of litter, or bedding, contains about 75 per cent of water and 25 per cent of dry matter. Thus, a ton of such manure contains 500 pounds of dry matter and 1,500 pounds of water. The plant food in a ton of manure varies greatly with the materials used for feed and bedding. Thus, wheat straw contains per ton about 10 pounds of nitrogen, 2 pounds of phosphorus and 17 pounds of potassium; while clover hay contains about 40, 5 and 30 pounds respectively of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. At 12 cents a pound for nitrogen, 12 cents for phosphorus and 6 cents 248 Missouri Agricultural Report. for potassium, the value of these elements is $2.76 in a ton of wheat straw, $5.40 in timothy hay, $8.40 in clover hay and $9.42 in a ton of alfalfa hay. The following facts may well be kept in mind: 1. In grain crops about two-thirds of the nitrogen, three- fourths of the phosphorus and one-fourth of the posassium re- required for the crop will be contained in the grain, while about one-third of the nitrogen, one-fourth of the phosphorus and three- fourths of the potassium required for the crop will be found in the straw of stalks. 2. In nitrogen and phosphorus clover and other legume crops are about as rich as grains, nearly twice as rich as timothy or red top, and more than twice as rich as straw or stalks. From these facts it becomes very plain that the quality of richness of manure must depend very largely upon the kind of feed used. The plant food in a ton of maunre varies greatly with the ex- posure it has suffered under the weather conditions. If ordinary fresh farm manure contains 10 pounds of nitro- gen, 2 pounds of phosphorus and 10 pounds of potassium per ton of manure with a dry matter basis of 25 per cent (and 75 per cent water), the manure that will result from holding such fresh -ma- nure until it becomes more or less rotted will vary greatly in com- position, depending upon the conditions to which it is subjected. If the fresh manure is exposed for a few weeks to the leaching of heavy rains, half of the nitrogen and potassium may be leached out, while smaller losses of phosphorus and dry matter occur, so that a ton of the resulting manure, in which the urine (which usu- ally contains about half of the nitrogen and potassium) has been replaced ky rain water, may contain only 6 pounds of nitrogen, 2 pounds of phosphorous and 6 pounds of potassium. The differ- ence of 4 pounds each of nitrogen and potassium does not repre- sent the total loss, because if the pile contained 10 tons of fresh manure, there will be left perhaps only 8 tons of the leached ma- nure, even with the same percentages of dry matter and water. If, however, the pile of manure suffers less from leaching but more from fermentation and heating for several months, the loss of dry matter or total weight will be great and the loss of nitrogen con- siderable, while the loss of phosphorus and potassium will be less. Thus, after six months of such conditions, the 10 tons of manure, with 100 pounds of nitrogen, 20 pounds of phosphorus and 100 pounds of potassium, may be reduced to 5 tons of manure, contain- Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 249 ing 60 pounds of nitrogen, 18 pounds of phosphorus and 80 pounds of potassium. This rotted manure (with the same per cent of dry matter as the fresh) would contain in one ton 12 pounds of nitro- gen, 3.6 pounds of phosphorus and 16 pounds of potassium. Rotted manure produced in this way is usually richer per ton than fresh manure, but the total amount of manure has been so reduced that the actual loss is very great. These simple principles should be kept in mind: 1. In leaching fresh manure there are great losses of nitro- gen and potassium and moderate losses of phosphorus and organic matter, the materials lost being carried away in the leach water. 2. In fermentation and heating there are great losses of nitrogen and organic matter in volatile products which escape into the air, but if no leaching occurs there is no loss of phosphorous or potassium. In an exact experiment conducted at Cornell University, 4,000 pounds of ordinary manure from the horse stable, worth $2.74 per ton for the plant food it contained, were exposed in a pile out of doors from April 25 to September 22 (less than five months), but at the end of that time the total weight had decreased to 1,730 pounds, and that was worth only $2.34 per ton. In other words, the value of this pile of manure was reduced from $5.48 to $2.03 during five months’ exposure. In another experiment, manure ex- posed for six months lost 56 per cent. of its dry matter and 43 per ’ cent. of its plant food value. In this case the fresh manure was worth $2.27 a ton, while the rotted manure was worth $3.01 a ton, but the loss in total weight and in plant food was such that for each ton originally worth $2.27 there remained only $1.30 worth after six months’ exposure. - The plant food in a ton of manure varies somewhat with the kind of live stock. Thus, young, growing animals and animals giving milk will retain a larger proportion of the nitrogen and phosphorous than fattening stock, work horses, or other mature animals. On the other hand, it is well to understand that the differences in value commonly recognized and most frequently considered, as, for example, between sheep manure and cattle ma- nure, are due almost entirely to differences in water content. As a matter of fact, manure from work horses or from fattening steers fed on clover hay and heavy grain rations is fully as rich and valuable as sheep manure, if both are reduced to the same per- centage of dry matter, Of course, sheep manure, containing only 250 Missouri Agricultural Report. 60 per cent. of water, is twice as rich as cattle manure containing 80 per cent. of water. The information given above, based upon the records of chemi- cal investigations, will enable one easily to understand and appre- ciate the scientific and practical reasons for avoiding some methods and for adopting other methods for handling farm manure. Average moderately fresh cattle or horse manure, made from clover and timothy hay and some grain, with sufficient straw bed- ding to absorb and retain the liquid manure, will contain per ton of manure about 10 pounds of nitrogen, 2 pounds of phosphorous and 10 pounds of potassium, on the basis of 25 per cent of dry matter. Computed at the present market values for these elements—15 cents a pound for nitrogen, 12 cents for phosphorous and 6 cents for potassium—such manure would be valued at $2.34 a ton. Some will argue that the plant food in farm manure is not so readily available, and consequently should not be valued so highly as that in commercial forms, but experiments show that when a series of years is considered, the farm manure may be worth about as much as the commercial materials on the basis of plant food content. Thus, at the Rothamsted Experinient Station, an appli- cation of 14 tons of farm manure, furnishing, according to the above averages, about 140 pounds of nitrogen, 28 pounds of phos- phorous and 140 pounds of potassium per acre per annum, has maintained the yield of wheat at 35.6 bushels per acre, as an aver- age of 50 years; while an average yield of 36.9 bushels has been maintained during the same years by an application of commer- cial plant food furnishing 129 pounds of nitrogen, 27 pounds of phosphorous and 84 pounds of potassium per acre per annum. If we disregard potassium (which is not very important, be- cause of the richness of Rothamsted soil in that element), the amounts of plant food applied and the average yields produced during half a century are not markedly different. The yield of the fertilized plot averages 1.3 bushels higher during the fifty years, but .7 bushel lower during the last ten years, than the ma- nured plot. It is a very common and very erroneous belief that crop rota- tion produces about the same effect as the application of farm manure. The great difference between these two processes is that crop rotation is a stimulant and ultimately reduces the fertility of the soil to such a degree that the crops fail, especially the crops that have the most stimulating effect, as clover; whereas, by the addi- Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 251 tion of farm manure, there is a positive addition to the soil of the materials of which crops are made, so that with sufficient manure the soil may be made richer and richer for an indefinite length of time. The only element of plant food that can be added to the soil by crop rotations is nitrogen, which can be secured from the air by clover and other legume crops. It should. be understood, however, that the most marked and most common effect produced by clover, by which increased yields of succeeding crops are secured, is not due largely or primarily to the addition of nitrogen, but rather to the power of clover to liberate mineral plant food from the soil for the use of the following crops. This process may be continued successfully until the supply of phosphorus (or of potassium, in some cases) becomes so reduced that even the strong-feeding clover plant cannot secure enough phosphorus for its own growth. When this condition arrives the clover crop begins to fail, and the only recourse is to begin to re- turn the exhausted plant food. It may be returned in bone meal, in raw rock phosphate, or in sufficient amounts of farm manure. Indeed, the most marked and beneficial effect of farm manure is often seen when it is applied for the clover crop. This fact sicne, which is a common observation, is sufficient to show that farm manure has a value not possessed by clover or by crop rotations. We should not discourage the rotation cf crops, because crop rotation helps us to grow larger crops, and to be successful in farming requires that large crops shall be grown, even though correspondingly large amounts of plant food are removed from the soil. On the other hand, we should plan always to return in some form the kind or kinds of plant food that are becoming deficient in the soil. Let us consider in further detail the effect of crop rotation upon soil fertility. Suppose we are practicing a four-year rotation, in- cluding corn for two years, oats with clover seeding the third year, and clover for hay and seed crops the fourth year. Let us assume such crop yields as have been produced, and as can be produced, in normal seasons on the richest, best-treated land with good seed and good farming; namely, 100 bushels of corn per acre, 100 bushels of oats and 4 tons per acre of clover, including perhaps 8 tons in the hay crop and 1 ton in the seed crop. If we do not succeed in se- curing these yields, we should at least try to make such yields possi- ble, and we should approach as near to them as we can, 252 Missouri Agricultural Report. Let us first consider the phosphorus required for this rota- tion. The two crops of corn will each require 23 pounds, 17 for the grain and 6 for the stalks; the oat crop will require at least 15 pounds of phosphorus, about 11 for the grain and 4 for the straw; and the 4-ton crop of clover will require 20 pounds of phosphorous. Thus we see that 81 pounds of the element phosphorus will be re- quired for the rotation. If we leave the stalks on the land the re- quirement is reduced to 69 pounds of i aca or to about 17 pounds a year. Suppose the soil contains in the first 7 inches 1,200 pounds of phosphorus per acre, which is about the average of the principal ~ type of soil in the Illinois corn belt, how many years would be re- quired to remove this amount from the land if it could be drawn upon at this rate? Only seventy years. On the other hand, sup- pose with this crop rotation we can secure from the soil the equiv- alent of only one per cent of the phosphorus contained in the first 7 inches. This would be only 12 pounds of phosphorus a year, which would necessarily reduce the crop yields to about one-half the amounts suggested above, and with the further reduction in the total amount of phosphorus year by year, the crop yields must be reduced accordingly. Ultimate failure is the only future for this system of farming, even if we consider the phosphorus alone; although, as stated above, the phosphorus may be returned in bone meal, in rock phos- phate or in farm manure. If we consider the element nitrogen in this system of farming, we find that 200 bushels of corn require about 200 pounds of nitro- gen, aside from that required for the stalks, which must be re- turned to the land without burning, otherwise the 96 pounds of nitrogen required for the two crops of: stalks will also be removed from the land. The oats crop will remove 90 pounds of nitrogen, mak- ing 290 pounds for the corn and the oats. The four tons of clover'will contain about 160 pounds of nitro- gen, and the clover roots and stubble about one-half as much as the tops, or 80 pounds per acre. If all of the nitrogen contained in the entire clover crop is taken from the air, the rotation would add only 80 pounds of nitrogen to the soil, while the corn and oats would remove 290 pounds. How then is it possible to maintain the supply of nitrogen by this rotation? It is not possible. Under such a rotation, with all crops removed except the corn stalks, the supply of nitrogen grows less and less. Where this rotation is successful for a time it is due Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 253 to the fact that the soil nitrogen has been drawn upon year by year while the chief effect of the clover has been to extract phosphorus from the soil for its own growth and for the use of succeeding crops. There is another point to be considered in reference to nitro- gen. On land that is capable of furnishing sufficient nitrogen for even a 50-bushel crop of corn, the clover crop will undoubtedly draw a third of its nitrogen from the soil and not more than two-thirds from the air. Consequently, since two-thirds of the nitrogen in the entire plant is removed in the tops, the roots and stubble will leave no more nitrogen in the soil than the plant takes from the soil. How then can we maintain the supply of nitrogen in the soil? By plowing under clover or applying farm manure, or by both of these means. If all the crops grown in the rotation are fed, including the corn stalks, containing a total of 526 pounds of nitrogen from four acres, and if three-fourths of this, or 395 pounds, are returned in the manure, we have sufficient to replace the 386 pounds removed in the corn and oat crops, and we may assume that the 160 pounds removed in the clover came from the air. Of course, some addi- tional nitrogen will be saved in the straw and stalks which are used for bedding, as compared with the crops fed. How shall the grain farmer maintain the nitrogen in his soil? Possibly this can be done by growing an additional legume catch crop in the corn and plowing under everything produced except the grains and the clover seed, preferably only one corn crop being grown in the rotation. The problem of maintaining the nitrogen becomes easier if we extend the rotation to include about two ears of pasture, using a mixture of red clover, alsike, timothy and red top, instead of seed- ing red clover, only, with the oats. In this case three-grain crops, as corn, oats and wheat, or corn two years and oats one year, could be grown during the six-year rotation, the farm being divided into six different fields. In England and in other progressive agricultural countries of Europe the value of feeding stuffs is commonly figured in two ways: First, for the feeding value; and second, for the fertilizing value of the manure produced. Among the most successful and up to-date farmers in this country these two values are also carefully considered. It is one thing to say that farm manure has a value, but quite another thing to say what that value is or to what it is due. 254 Missouri Agricultural Report. The positive or intrinsic value of farm manure lies in the amounts of valuable plant food which it contains. It also possesses an important indirect value as a soil stimulant, due to its power, as it ferments and decays in contact with the soil, to liberate from the soil plant food that would not otherwise become availabe so quickly. There is still another distinct value in farm manure due to the fact that it makes the soil more porous and spongy, and thus increases the power of the soil to absorb and retain moisture and to resist surface washing. In other words, this third value of farm manure is due to improvement in physical condition. The value of farm manure for its physical improvement of the soil is commonly fully appreciated and frequently even overesti- mated by popular agricultural writers, while its value for the plant food which it supplies and for that which it liberates from the soil is sometimes almost ignored. There is no good excuse for erroneous teaching regarding these different values, because there exists a vast amount of posi- tive information, both from practical experience and from exact scientific investigations. Thus, organic matter from peat beds hauled out and spread on the land and incorporated with the soil produces no such effects on crop yields as are produced by good farm manure. Why? Be- cause the peat does not decay readily so as to furnish plant food, either by its own decomposition or by liberating it from the soil; and yet the peat has as great power as farm manure for physical improvement of the soil. Manure made from clover hay and heavy grain rations has much greater value than manure made from wheat straw. Why? Is it because they affect the physical condition of the soil in differ- ent ways? No. The great difference in value is due to the dif- ference in plant food and in rapidity of decay. At the famous Agricultural Experiment Station at Rotham- sted, England, on a field to which no manure and no plant food have been applied, the average yield of wheat has been 13.1 bushels per acre for more than half a century. Land treated with a heavy annual application of farm manure has produced 35.7 bushels of wheat per acre as an average of 51 years. Another field treated with commercial plant food, without organic matter, has produced 37.1 bushels of wheat per acre as an average during the same time. The latter field received a little less plant food than was furnished in the manure, thus furnishing ample proof of the value of plant food supplied in manure, and Live Stock Breeder's’ Association. 255 showing that the physical effect of the farm manure was by no means so important. Nevertheless, the physical effect should not be overlooked. Under certain seasonal conditions this physical value may be very important. Thus, in the very dry season of 1893, the land fertilized with commercial plant food produced only 21.7 bushels of wheat per acre, while the farm manure plot pro- duced 34.2 bushels the same year. In semi-arid regions the physical condition of the soil and its power to absorb and retain moisture may be the controlling factor in crop yields, but where the average annual rainfall is 28.21 inches (as at Rothamsted), or 37.39 inches (as in Ulinois), with a fairly uniform distribution during the growing season, the physical con- ditions of the soil in relation to crop yields may be compared to the shelter and other physical surroundings provided for live stock. In other words, under normal conditions the controlling factor is food for crops as well as for live stock. While manure has some value for physical improvement and a larger value for its power to liberate plant food from the soil, it should be clearly understood and always borne in mind that the great value of farm manure, especially in profitable systems of per- manent agriculture, is due to the plant food it contains, and that the greatest problem in the handling of farm manure is to prevent the loss of plant food. The value of average fresh farm manure is about $2.25 a ton, either when determined by chemical analysis on the basis of market values for the plant food contained in the manure, or when de- termined by the value of the increased crop yields produced when the manure is applied to the fields in ordinary crop rotations. This means that a pile of average fresh farm manure, con- taining 100 tons, is worth about $225. If exposed to leaching from heavy rains during only two or three months in the spring, the value will be reduced, as a rule, from $225 to about $150 by the loss of plant food, without much reduction in total weight. Indeed, the total weight is frequently increased under such conditions be- cause the rain water that remains in the manure may be in greater amount than the urine that has been washed out. Fermentation and additional leaching during the summer may easily reduce the value to $100 or less. There are two satisfactory methods for handling manure: One of these is to haul and spread the fresh manure daily, or at least two or three times a week. For this purpose a manure 256 Missouri Agricultural Report. spreader, or at least a wagon used for this work only, is very use- ful and almost necessary. The other method is to allow the manure to accumulate in the stall or covered feeding shed while it is constantly tramped by the animals and kept moist by the liquid excrement, sufficient bedding being used to absorb the excess and to keep the stock clean, and then to haul and spread it on the land when conditions permit. It should not be left, however, to dry out and heat and decompose in the stalls or sheds long after the animals have been turned out to pasture. Every system of farming should be so planned as to be both profitable and permanent, which requires that the productive capacity of the land must be maintained. We must understand then what the soil contains, what materials are required to produce crops, in which parts of the crops these different materials are de- posited, so as to know what part of the produce may be sold off the farm and what should be retained; and also what is done with these important materials when the crops are fed to live stock. The older prairie and timber soils of the states of the Central West are exceedingly rich in potassium, but deficient in both nitro- gen and phosphorus. In the worn hill lands nitrogen is usually more deficient than prosphorus, while in the average long-culti- vated prairie soil phosphorus is more deficient than nitrogen. When grain crops are produced, as corn, oats and wheat, about two-thirds of the nitrogen and three-fourths of the phosphorus, but only one-fourth of the potassium required for the crop are stored in the grain or seed; while about one-third of the nitrogen, one- fourth of the phosphorus and three-fourths of the potassium are stored in the straw or stalks. Thus a large crop of corn (100 bushels to the acre) will con- tain about 100 pounds of nitrogen in the grain and 48 pounds in the stalks; 17 pounds of phosphorus in the grain and 6 pounds in the stalks; 19 pounds of potassium in the grain and 52 pounds in the stalks. Quite similar relations exist between the grain and straw of other crops. Now, with these facts in mind, it is plain to see that a system of farming in which the grain is sold and only the stalks and straw are kept on the farm and returned to the soil carries off in the grain much of the nitrogen and phosphorus, in both of which these soils are more or less deficient, and which should be returned to the land; while the potassium, of which the soil contains an “inexhaustible supply, is largely returned in the straw and stalks. Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 257 It should be remembered that legume crops, as clover, cowpeas and soy beans, are rich in both nitrogen and phosphorous, three and one-half tons of clover hay containing as much phosphorus and 40 pounds more nitrogen than 100 bushels of corn. If the crops are fed to live stock, it is well to know that about one-fourth of the nitrogen and one-fourth of the phosphorus are retained in the flesh and bone of the animal, while three-fourths of the nitrogen and phosphorus and practically all of the potas- sium are returned in the solid and liquid manure. Thus we have another process of separation by which part of the needed nitrogen and phosphorus leaves the farm with the ani- mals, while the potassium is again returned, even though it may not be needed. It should be a plain fact that manure made from animal excre- ments with straw or stalks for bedding must be deficient in nitro- gen and phosphorus, but well supplied with potassium. In the case of nitrogen, the difficulty can be overcome by mak- ing a liberal use of clover or other legumes in the crop rotation and as catch crops, turning under these crops and crop residues so far as practicable. Legume crops may also be used in pastures to a considerable extent, and in three different ways it is possible to secure sufficient nitrogen from the air to balance the deficiency in the manure. With the phosphorus the difficulty is greater, because the proportion contained in the manure is less, and there is no such ever-present inexhaustible supply as in the case of nitrogen. It must be apparent that to increase the value of farm manure we should add phosphorus to it. Thus we can balance manure, and when used on soil rich in potassium in rotations with nitrogen- fixing legume crops, we can provide plant food in a balanced ra- tion to meet the needs of the maximum crop yields. By these means we can check the progress of soil exhaustion and even grad- ually increase the fertility and productive capacity of the land. Indeed, we can thus profitably enrich such land even beyond its virgin fertility. By far the cheapest form of phosphorus is fine-ground raw rock phosphate. This material is but slightly available for the use of crops if applied to soils deficient in decaying organic matter ;. but if applied in intimate connection with rotting manure, it is thus made soluble and available for plant growth. Certainly one of the most profitable, and probably the very most profitable, method of maintaining the necessary supply of A-17 258 Missouri Agricultural Report. phosphorus in the soil is to put back into the manure, in the form of fine-ground raw rock phosphate, somewhat larger amounts of phosphorus than the animal has retained in his bones. It is well, for a time at least, to put back larger amounts than the animals retain, because the soils are already deficient in phosphorus, and also because there may be some waste of manure. These statements are based both upon the chemical analysis of soils and crops and manures, and also upon carefully conducted field experiments covering many years. _ The Maryland Experiment Station furnishes some valuable data from probably the earliest systematic investigations, still be- ing continued, and a large amount of information is rapidly ac- cumulating from our more extensive work in Illinois, but the most complete experiments of long duration are reported by the Ohio Experiment Station. Where 40 pounds of fine-ground rock phos- phate, costing about 16 cents, were added to each ton of manure and 8 tons of manure per acre were applied for a three-year rota- tion of corn, wheat and clover, the value of the increase in crop yields was equal to $2.66 for each ton of manure used, in case of yard manure (which was worth only $1.64 per ton without the phosphate) ; and, in case of the stall manure, its value was in- creased from $2.22 a ton to $3.42, by the addition of the 16 cents worth of rock phosphate, these results being the average of nine years’ experiments on three different series of plots, based upon increased yields, valued at 35 cents a bushel for corn, 70 cents for wheat and $6.00 a ton for clover hay. If we deduct the cost of the phosphate used, we still have what might be termed a net value of $2.50 for the phosphated yard manure and $3.24 a ton for the phosphated stall manure. Of course, it would be equally appropriate, and possibly more so, to speak of “manured phosphate” instead of “phosphated ma- nure,” because the rock phosphate actually furnishes the needed and deficient element, phosphorus, while the manure helps to make it available. On this basis we may say that the value of 40 pounds of rock phosphate is increased from 16 cents to $1.02 by mixing with a ton of yard manure, and from 16 cents to $1.20 by mixing with a ton of stall manure, after deducting the value of the un- treated manure in each case. The most important fact to keep in mind, however, is that both the manure and rock phosphate are much more valuable when used together than when used separately, because manure is de- ficient in phosphorus and rock phosphate does not act except in Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 259 connection with rotting organic matter. As a rule, it is better to use from 50 to 100 pounds of rock phosphate with each ton of ma- nure. There are two very satisfactory methods of mixing the rock phosphate with the manure. One is to sprinkle the phosphate over the manure from day to day as it is being made in the stall or cov- ered shed. The other method is to fill the spreader box part full of manure, then sprinkle phosphate over it sufficient for the load, finish loading with manure, and drive to the field and spread. This pro- duces an intimate mixture and a very uniform distribution, and re- quires practically no extra work to get the phosphate spread on the land. Care should be taken that the manure is not too dry when the phosphate is sprinkled over the load, otherwise the dry rock dust may get into the gearing or bearings of the spreader and cause them to wear rapidly. There are some extraordinary or abnormal soils. Thus, there are soils exceedingly rich in nitrogen and well supplied with phos- phorus, but very deficient in potassium; as, for example, certain peaty swamp soils on which the application of potassium produces an increase in the corn crop usually amounting to more than 30 bushels per acre, and on which Illinois farmers are already using about twenty thousand dollars’ worth of concentrated potassium salts annually, and with a net profit of more than 200 per cent. There are soils exceedingly rich in phosphorus and well sup- plied with potassium, but deficient only in the element nitrogen, and which require only a liberal use of legume crops to be turned under as green manures or returned to the soil as stable manure in order to render them highly productive and profitable soils. Ab- normal soils of this class exist in considerable areas in the geo- logic neighborhood of phosphate regions, as in certain sections of Tennessee and Southern Kentucky. Indeed, some of these soils contain twenty times as much phosphorus as the average Illinois corn-belt soil. But, when we consider the ordinary, normal upland timber and prairie soils, covering the vast areas of the Central West, the so- called “granary of the world’’—soils of glacial and loessial forma- tion and of granitic origin, there are two substances always to be kept in mind and always to be provided in abundance, for any and every system of permanent agriculture to be practiced on these soils. These two essential substances are phosphorus and decaying or- ganic matter, which will, of course, also supply the nitrogen. It is not of great consequence by what methods or in what 260 Missouri Agricultural Report. forms these materials are supplied. Phosphorus may be purchased in grain, or in other concentrated foodstuffs, to be fed with clover hay, it may be, and then applied to the soil in the form of farm ma- nure; or phosphorus may be applied in the form of bone meal, which is also a farm product, or it may be obtained from the great phos- phate mines of our Southern States, as we obtain coal from our own extensive mineral deposits. The decaying organic matter may be supplied in farm manure, or in sufficient quantities of legume crops, not harvested and re- moved from the land, but turned under as green manures, includ- ing the use of rotation pastures, or still better and more easily, and usually more profitably, by a combination of these methods. But there can be no permanent agriculture for these soils by any system under which the phosphorus is removed and sold in grain and bone in larger amounts than are returned to the soil, nor under any system by which the organic matter of the soil is worn out or destroyed more rapidly than it is replaced. On the other hand, systems of permanent agriculture for these soils are not only possible, but they are more profitable than any system under which the soil grows less productive. ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND SOIL FERTILITY. (O. E. Thorne, Director Ohio Experiment Station, Wooster, Ohio.) Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: I konw that many of you are tired and that some of you, at least, have errands outside that must be attended to, so you will not offend me by leaving if you desire to do so. I had the pleasure of speaking to this audience a year ago on practically the same subject with which I come to you again, and if I should offer an apology for coming back the second time with the same subject, it would be the one that Dr. Hopkins has already given you, that upon the soil rests all industry, and that the maintenance of the fertility of the soil is the fundamental problem in agriculture. A year ago Professor King, in his address to you, called atten- tion to the fact that, notwithstanding our greater knowledge of the soil and its management notwithstanding our vastly improved methods of tillage and husbandry, today we are producing no greater yields of corn and wheat than we did fifty years ago; and this not- withstanding that in addition to the facts before enumerated, we Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 261 have resorted to a large use of new sources of fertility—the com- mercial fertilizers. I have in my own State taken the statistics of crop production, which have been kept for a little more than half a century, and I. have compiled these statistics for every county in the State for 50 years, both as to crop production and as to animal husbandry, and a graphic summary of these I put before you in chart I: CHART _I. : CEREAL ACREAGE AWD LIVE STOCK /N QHio. 16350 /§60 L7G /8 §0 1890 1/900 ie iba. Ye aalassne teal eT [iden Ifo E Hus. = PER 2) CoRN Pre ACRE te = ————_J ah Sian S 2 ee rae < Se ae 30 a : ceealarar S : R is 2 ty > ACRE ys = r : <= /0 : dod K& un Seon a : van or = In 1850 we were keeping the equivalent of nearly two million cattle in the State, if we count two sheep or hogs equal to one head of cattle in manure production. We were cultivating about three and a half million acres in cereal crops, or less than two acres to each cattle beast. At that time very little grain was sold off the farm except wheat, the corn being practically all fed out at home. During the next thirty years our acreage in cereals rose to nearly seven million acres, and our live stock population to the equivalent of about two and three-fourths million cattle, or a little more than two and one-half acres in cereals to each cattle beast. For the last twenty-five years our cereal production has con- tinued to increase, but with the development of the great range in- dustry of the West and the low prices consequent, which prevailed 262 Missourt Agricultural Report. during the eighties, our animal population not only failed to make any further increase but began to fall off, so that we began the new century with but few more animals on our Ohio farms than we had at the middle of the century previous, while our area in cereal crops had increased to more than eight million acres, giving four acres in cereals for every cattle beast kept. About the middle of this period we began the use of commercial fertilizers. At the beginning of the eighties we were expending three or four hundred thousand dollars a year for commercial fer- tilizers, but during the last twenty-five years this expenditure has steadily increased until it has reached a total amount for the whole period of twenty-eight million dollars, an average of over a million dollars a year, and now amounting to more than two million dollars annually. In 1850, and for twenty years following, our corn yield was a little over 35 bushels per acre; during the eighties it fell to 344 bushels, and during the nineties to 30 7-10 bushels, but it rose again to 35 8-10 bushels for the final ten-year period. Our corn yield for the entire State stands at the end of the century practically where it stood at the middle. In some portions it has materially fallen off, in other portions it has increased.The tendency, however, on our older lands is toward a steady and marked decrease in the yield of corn in Ohio, as will be shown further on. Our wheat yields began the period with an average of 1314 bushels, falling within the next twenty years to considerably below that point, rising again with the use of fertilizers to 14 bushels, and standing practically the same from that time forward—that is, for the twenty-five years past. Notwithstanding the expenditure for fertilizers, the bulk of which were used on the wheat crop, we have only maintained our wheat at the level at which it stood when these fertilizers came into use. For your own State, I have compiled statistics as far back as I can get them. I have used for your crop yields the estimates of the United States Department of Agriculture, which are less accurate than those in Ohio, collected by the township assessors, and for crop areas and live stock numbers I have used the National Census statistics. It is not pretended that any of these statistics are abso- lutely correct, but they can be used for relative comparisons, for the comparison of one district with another and one period with another. The Missouri statistics are shown in chart II.* *The live stock statistics for 1880, 1890 and 1900, shown on Charts I and II, have been compiled for animals on farms, excluding stock under one year old, following the estimates of the Twelfth Census, Vol. V, page CLXIII. Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 263 CHART Zr. CEREAL ACGREAGE AND L/VE STOCK 4M MissoauRi. /¢@50 /$60 Lid Deen 1890 79700 x i otha Bi pa. ee on ase oo Sra a i= E o n eS fe nn Y = Say 4 N R og Seeks) pas Sass K WY ae a cc Eo te Sa - 3 ~ 5 ee yz w 8 i~t< a period since the statistics began to be collected—that is, in 1865, the yield falling from 30 bushels at that time to twenty-seven bushels and a half during the last ten years. The yield of wheat has re- mained almost stationary. Beginning at nearly thirteen, it now stands at a little over twelve bushels per acre. Your live stock popu- lation increased steadily for the first thirty-five or forty years, but you have not maintained your numbers of live stock in proportion with your acreage in ‘cereals, which has increased by leaps and bounds. © During the period following the war your country filled up rapidly. You are now cultivating something over ten million acres annually in the cereal crops, and you are keeping, according to the census statistics, the equivalent of less than three million head of cattle in the State, or less than one cattle beast to three acres in cereal crops. So long as the Ohio farmer kept about ‘he equivalent of about one cattle beast to two acres in cereal cultivation, the cereal yield 264 Missouri Agricultural Report. was maintained with a slight increase. When the proportion of cattle decreased, then the yield fell off, and Missouri is giving us the same history over again that we have experienced in Ohio. I said that about 1880 we began to use commercial fertilizers. On chart III I have shown the amount expended annually for fer- tilizers in the different sections of the State during the ten years, 1880-89. This expenditure is calculated per acre of wheat, because the fertilizers were used almost exclusively on the wheat crop. You will notice it is in Eastern, and to some extent in Southern Ohio, that these fertilizers have been used. In the northwestern part of the State, in what was once known as the Great Black Swamp, there was practically no expenditure for such fertilizers during this per- iod. CHART III. ENG aw ; . : SORES DEFIANCE HENRY woop SSS 2 | LS er O PAULDING HURON : a itn wen 67 YANDOT|CRAWFORD, p : is oO | OF ; MORRO! 46 IRFIELD | PERRY 7 00 MORGAN [| + OF Average cost of fertillzer per‘acre sown in wheat, 1880-8). Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 265 On chart IV is given the history of fifty years of wheat culture in Ohio. The figures here given show an increase in bushels per acre for the last twenty years as compared with the first twenty years of the half century period. You will notice the increase is CHART IV. aes WiLLiAMs | FULTON j 2.7 o.7 < Ba SANDUSKY nea f PAULDING SENECA _ | HURON BE? HANCOCK 23 a 2 3.3 YANDOTIORAWFORD au A) ie Eater arp aiee ere siat CKSON 2.f 0 MARRISON| “of 2.3 Fifty years of wheat culture in Ohio: Increase or decrease of yield for the 20 years, 1880-99,, as compared with the 20 years, 1850-69. practically as large over the western counties, where no fertilizer has been used, as where its use was most extensive. It is smaller in the middle than in the northern third of the State and is smaller in the southern portion than in the middle. Evidently, better drain- age and better tillage have contributed nearly as much to increase of wheat yield as use of fertilizers. 266 Missouri Agricultural Report. CHART V. wittiams | FULTON 32 64 PAULDING sl BENECA HURON alee 25 Lo VAN mae ro ORAWFORD : 10, ier 1.9 MERCER ie! DARKE Lickina FAIRFIELD yack ee TRUMBULL PORTAGE QO. 3 COLUMBIANA 7-0 LORAIN — 3.6 TUSCARA aE er = Oornin Ohio. Increase or decrease in yield per acre, 1850-59, to 1890-99. Chart V is the history of the corn crop in Ohio, the crop which responds most readily to farm yard manure, and upon which fer- tilizers have been least used, and the figures show the increase or de- crease in the yield per acre for the last as compared with the first 20-year period. You will notice that in the northwestern counties there has been a marked increase in the yield per acre. There has also been a large increase in some of the middle-eastern counties of the State. These counties represent the territory where sheep have been most largely kept. The great sheep region of the State lies there, while the great corn region of Ohio, formerly in the Miami and Scioto valleys, is now found in the flat northwestern coun- ties, and Illinois farmers are selling their black, rich farms around Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 267 Bloomington and other places at $200 to $250 per acre, and buying these lands for one-half the money. The improvement in yield here has been brought about by drainage. You will notice the minus sign before some of the figures in the northeastern and many of those in the southern part of the State. Those in the northeastern section are confined to the twelve coun- ties comprising what is known as the Western Reserve, a territory originally settled by immigrants from Connecticut, who brought CHART VI. CULT/VATED ACREAGE AND LIVE STOCK 4NW GREAT BRITAIN. 1860 1870 1880 $70 °~ (Foo ~ Livi STOCK EQUIVALENT TO MILLIONS GF CATTLE AND with them the custom of measuring corn by the bushel of ears and not by the shelled bushel. Of late years the yields have been more generally reported as shelled bushels, and it is probable that the ap- 268 Missouri Agricultural Report. parent falling off in yield is due largely to the fact that they are now counting their yield by the bushel of grain instead of by the bushel of ears. But where the increase has fallen off most largely is in the rich valleys of the Scioto, the Muskingum and the Miamis— regions where farmers have grown corn year after year on the same lands for fifty to seventy-five years, or longer, and where they say their yields are as large as ever. The statistics show, however, that they are mistaken. All this means that these farmers are neglecting the keeping of live stock and the careful handling of manure, but are attempting to replace that natural source of fertility with com- mercial fertilizers, and the soil is losing its fertility. When I talk on this subject in Ohio our farmers answer by saying that they can not keep stock enough to furnish the manure necessary to maintain the fertility of their lands. But their fathers did keep enough. I have shown on chart VI the history of cereal production and the live stock industry in Great Britain. The British people did not begin keeping statistics of crop production until about 1865, but there are statistics of the yield of wheat per acre which go back beyond that period. Sir John B. Lawes, the founder of the Rotham- sted Experiment Station, estimated that in 1850, when he was be- ginning his work, the annual yield of wheat in Great Britain was 2814 bushels per acre—a yield to which it had been brought by the use of animal manure. Sir John B. Lawes was himself the first per- son to engage extensively in the manufacture of artificial fertiliz- ers. His investigations led to the establishment of the great Roth- amsted Experiment Station in 1843. The cultivated area in Great Britain at that time was nearly thirteen million acres. It rose in 1870 to a little above that point. From that period up to the present time it has steadily fallen, until there is now in cultivation only ten million acres. The British farmers raise no corn, but grow wheat, oats, barley and forage crops. They had in 1865 a live stock population equivalent to a little more than seven million cattle. They have steadily increased that population until they have now the equivalent of nearly ten million cattle in that country. You have a larger amount of waste land in Missouri than we have in Ohio, so the actual population does nct vary much between the two States. Great Britain, the center of the world’s agricultural in- dustry, where land is higher in price than any other agricultural land in the world, is keeping today fifty per cent more cattle and Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 269 from two to three times as many sheep, although practically only about one-third as many swine, but as between the three a very much greater live stock population than either of these States, where land is far less valuable. The British farmer does not do this for fun. He does it because it pays him better than raising cereals. And while he is doing it his‘yield of wheat is increasing. The average yield for the entire country of England, Scotland and Wales is estimated now at more than 31 bushels per acre, and the yield for the harvest just closed is reported at 334 bushels for the entire country. THE VALUE OF FARM YARD MANURE. What is the value of farm yard manure? That question has already been discussed here today, but I wish to take it up briefly from another standpoint and to give you some of the results of our work on this problem at the Ohio station. We have for several years been feeding steers, with an especial effort to learn the amount of manure which might be expected to be produced by the animal, as well as its worth. We have attempted to determine the value of the manure, on the one hand by chemical analysis, on the other by actual test in the field. These tests are now going on side by side. Some of the results of this work are shown in table I: TABLE I.—FEEDING TESTS: FEED CONSUMED, GAIN IN WEIGHT AND MANURE PRODUCED. Average live Feed consumed per day per 1,000 weight. Ibs. live weight. Test. Animals in test. | Days fed. Initial. | Final. | Concen-| Rough- | Silage. /Total dry trates. age. substan’e No. No, No. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. | Lbs. Lbs. Lins eS ASISCECESE c/o 390 448 1,150 11.9 6.5 (Jo7/ L2G Ly oe eee SUC ener 182 868 | 1,260] 11.9 COs eat, Dk 18.8 iL tae Device “tt” Fatayeteterevens 182 874 1,230 UP AT / 6.8 11.8 USL DIVE Shuster 5 ieee ROMO Eee 49 1,089 1,234 15.45 SHOGalearaeae 20.0 Dry substance} Manure Average gain in live | consumed for | produced. Per day per 1,000 ibs. Test. weight. 1 Ib. gain in live weight. live weight. Per head. | Per day. Total Including | Excluding straw. straw. No. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Tons. Lbs. Lbs. ese ars Ne c cateha hatabes eons 729 1.87 9.41 350 39.3 33.2 STREP Sr oy ceg o's) Biteve o\eya.aess 360 1.98 9.49 118 41.4 34.6 MS Fret scchsis toes atuntesetars 356 1.96 9.03 128 42.6 36.1 MiVeech porate sige heheh sade "ove fs 145 2.95 6.78 89 49.9 42.4 270 Missouri Agricultural Report. In one feeding test we fed a lot of 48 Angus calves, born in the Panhandle of Texas and sent through to our Ohio farm, We fed them 390 days. Their initial weight was 448 pounds and their final weight 1,150 pounds. They consumed during the period 11.9 pounds of grain per day per 1,000 pounds of live weight, and 61% pounds of hay, with 6.7 pounds of silage, the whole ration contain- ing 17.6 pounds of dry substance. Two other lots of western cattle, one containing 30 and the other 28 head, were fed 182 days, and a fourth lot of 63 heavy cattle were fed for 49 days. In the second part of this table is shown the average gain per head in live weight for each of these lots, both for the total period of the test and per day; the dry substance consumed for each pound of gain in live weight, and the amount of manure produced, both over the total period for each animal, and per thousand pounds live weight per day, calculated both with and without the straw used as bedding. The chief purpose for which I have prepared this table is to bring out the actual amount of manure produced. It shows that there was a daily production of 39 pounds of manure per 1,000 pounds of live weight by the young cattle, that is, the calves and young stock, to nearly 50 pounds of manure per 1,000 pounds of live weight for the older cattle. In other words, the older cattle have produced more manure, not only actually but relatively, than the young. In table II is shown the quantity of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium contained in the feed and bedding consumed in these tests, as calculated from average analyses; the cost of the feed and bedding; the quantities of these elements recovered in the manure, as determined by analyses of the manure by Mr. J. W. Ames, chem- ist to the Ohio Station, and the value of these constituents at the rate at which they are valued in tankage and muriate of potash by the Secretary of the State Board of Agriculture, who is charged with inspection of fertilizers in our State. TABLE II.—Fertilizing elements contained in feed and bedding and recovered in manure, cost of feed and bedding, and chemical value of manure. Contained in | Fertilizing elements. | feed and bed- | Recovered in manure. | Cost of feed ding. 'and bedding. Pounds. Pounds. Per cent. Value. INGtYOEEN.. S.4f. | Wes werd 15,577 5,795 37 IPHOSPROLIS).§ 2. 3% sles > Be 3,095 1,862 60 $1,122 | $5,610 POPASSLUIT 5-3, 20.5 olen. 0d 7,229 5,137 71 Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 271 These analyses indicate that nearly 40 per cent of the total ni- trogen given in feed and bedding has been recovered in the manure; 60 per cent of the total phosphorus, and more than 70 per cent of the total potassium. If we give to the elements thus recovered the val- ues given by the State inspector of fertilizers in Ohio to the same elements, when carried in tankage and muriate of potash, they would have a total value amounting to about 20 per cent of the cost of the feed and bedding given to the cattle. 3 I would call attention to the fact that the quantity of manure produced, as indicated by our figures, is smaller than has been re- ported from some other sources. The cattle producing this manure were in part kept on a dirt floor and in part upon a cemented floor, and the manure was collected and weighed about once each month, so that there was some loss before it was weighed. The figures, there- ‘fore, are below the possible attainment in manure production. Not only have we subjected the manure to chemical analysis, but for ten years past we have been conducting field experiments, in or- der to determine whether the results indicated by chemical analysis could be realized in actual farm practice. These experiments I de- scribed here a year ago. Briefly stated, when manure has been re- enforced with materials carrying phosphorus, thus bringing out the full effect of its relative excess in nitrogen and potassium, we have been able to secure as great an increase cf crop from the pound of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium carried in manure as from the same weight of the same elements carried in the most effective combination of chemical fertilizers as yet discovered in our ex- periments, thus fully realizing the theoretical value of manure, when properly balanced, as indicated by chemical analysis. To put this matter in another way, we have realized from each ton of phosphated manure, applied to corn which has been followed by wheat and clover without further manuring or fertilizing, a 7-year average increase of nearly 4 bushels of corn, more than two bushels of wheat and more than 300 pounds of hay. The average Ohio farm contains 8814 acres. Half of this area is occupied with cereal crops, about one-third of the cereal acreage being given to corn. There is a live stock population on this aver- age farm, including horses, equivalent to thirteen head of cattle beasts. The average farmer buys fertilizer to the cost of about $8.00 annually. If he kept live stock today on the basis on which his father kept it, up to the seventies, instead of thirteen head he would have twenty-two head. Instead of having only three and a half tons of manure for each acre in corn, he would have five and a half 272 Missouri Agricultural Report. tons; that is, he would have manure enough to bring him in eight bushels to the acre of corn more than he is now getting, four more’ of wheat, and nearly 700 pounds more of hay. In other words, his present yield of corn, which is thirty-five bushels per acre, would be raised to: forty-three; his wheat yield would be increased from 14 to 18 bushels, and his hay yield would be brought up to nearly a ton and a half per acre. The annual value of the produce of each of the 275,000 farms in Ohio would be increased by $100.00, an in- crease amounting to twenty-seven million dollars for the State as a whole. I estimate that our farmers are now paying out something like two million dollars a year in the purchase of commercial fertilizers. And while they are paying out this enormous sum for these fer- tilizers, they are washing into the Ohio river, and thence to the cot- ton fields of the South, to the extent of ten or fifteen million dollars annually, the valuable waste product from their barnyards, and are thus losing a possible increase in the production of their farms to the value of fifteen or twenty million dollars more. This gigantic waste is wholly unnecessary and inexcusable. Its prevention would require only the intelligent exercise of a little more care and skill. I do not forget the fact that farm labor is becoming more and more an unsolved problem all over our country perhaps more so with us than with you; but as Professor Smith has shown us, I doubt whether in the long run the keeping of live stock is not a saving of labor instead of an operation involving greater labor. You can harvest your crops with less money if they go through your feed lots than if they go through the elevators, and live stock husbandry means the distribution of labor over the entire year, as against its concentration during the summer months. It seems to me, farmers— and I am one of you, and know what it is to feed live stock on the small farm— it seems to me that in this question of the intelligent handling of live stock and the careful saving of manure lies the only road to successful agriculture in all this broad land of ours. WHAT CLASS OF HORSES SHALL WE BREED? (E, A. Trowbridge, Assistant in Animal Husbandry, Missouri Agriculture Collage. ) The range of prices for good horses and mules during the past few years is gradually bringing a realization of the vast importance of this industry to not only the people of Missouri but to all the ; Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 273 world. During the past thirty years the horse has met and success- fully competed with the electric car, the bicycle and the automobile. In the early part of the nineteenth century the railroad began to perform a considerable part of the labor, which up to that time had Four registered Percheron mares and colt, owned byiMissouri Agricultural Oollege. furnished a reason for the existence of a.certain class of horses. But this class of horses, whose labor was from that time on to be performed by steam power, soon adjusted themselves to the new en- A—18 274 Missouri Agricultural Report. vironment, and today we no longer think of the horse and the rail- road train as competitors. The number of horses produced in America at present is greater than ever before, and the prices average higher than in any time past. This is due to two permanent and potent factors. First, that as colonization and civilization advance, the horse becomes more indispensable to the people of our country; second, the people of other parts of the world are realizing the value of America as a breeding ground for good horses and mules. Consequently, the . yearly export of these classes of animals is a heavy drain on the stock in the country. Supply and demand are the factors which regulate prices in all kinds of business, hence the great demand of our own and foreign countries upon the limited supply has brought about the present high prices. There is another reason which, though of somewhat different nature, was very important in its temporary effect, namely, the shamefully low prices paid for horses during what is now come to be termed “The horse market depression” of 1895-6-7. This re- sulted principally from two causes. First, and of little importance, the passing out of use of the horse-street-car. Second, and vastly important, the financial panic of 1893 and the subsequent years. The bicycle had only a very slight effect upon the price of horses. The first brought about only a temporary derangement of the mar- ket classes and the prices. Its effect was felt when the great num- ber of light horses previously used for car service were thrown upon the market to be taken up by a new class of buyers. They had to ‘be sold at a sacrifice, because the market which they were intended -to supply had ceased to exist. Hence, this fact started the down- ~ward course of the prices on the horse market. The second of these reasons, namely, the business panic, was first felt when buyers re- ‘fused to take horses at any other than sacrifice prices, and more -severely when scarcity of money began to stop business to some ex- tent, and thus decrease the demand for horses. When men who had horses for sale became aware of the lower- ing price of their stock they did, in most cases, the thing which only tended to aggravate the already congested condition, by placing their horses on an over-supplied market. The result of their action could be nothing other than to add impetus to the already descending market, consequently the extremely low prices and slight demand for horses during 1895-6-7. The prices were at their lowest when the salable horses ‘throughout the country had been hurriedly thrown upon the mar- Live Stock Breeders’ Association. 275 ket and had left the farmers and horse breeders with only a com- paratively small number of horses on hand. This condition was ex- aggerated greatly by the demoralized condition of the finances of the nation. Then came the reaction. As the panic began to clear away business sprang up, and the horse market became active in propor- tion. But the demand increased at a much greater rate than did the supply, and prices rose rapidly. The exportation of American bred horses began shortly after the Columbian Exposition of 1893, and served to strengthen the market greatly. The great mass of horse breeders of the country, who had only a short time before sold at a sacrifice their likely young brood mares, as well as the older ones, now found themselves looking about for animals with which to again start into the business. To regain the breeding stock necessarily took three or four years, and to get horses to a marketable age and condition took three or four more years. Dur- ing that period of time the demand has been constantly growing be- cause of the advancement and improvement in all parts of the coun- Rex McDonald, perhaps the greatest living saddle horse. Bred by Joseph McDonald, Mexico, Mo. Nowowned and kept in Columbia. try which can not be carried on successfully without vast numbers of horses and mules, and we find the prices for these animals higher than ever before. From the experiences of the past and the outlook for the future there should be for the man of good judgment a profit far above 276 Missouri Agricultural Report. that of the average business, accruing from the horse industry. But the question naturally presents itself, “Where are the horses to be raised, and where used?” The United States Census Report of 1900 states that 86.2 per cent of all the horses in the United States are owned on the farms, and that 13.8 per cent are owned in cities and other places. The same report gives the number of mules owned on the farm as 95 per cent, the remaining 5 per cent owned in cities and various other places. From these figures, and from what we all know to be the congested condition of affairs in cities and towns, we are forced to turn to the farm for the production of horses in America. If we were to divide the people interested in horse business they would fall into three classes. First, those who rear no horses but use them to a greater or less degree. This class includes grain farm- ers, lumbermen, miners, city haulers, liverymen and people living in cities who drive for business or for pleasure. Second, those who make the breeding and rearing of horses the first object of their business. This class includes the breeders of pure bred horses al- most entirely, and their product nearly all gces to supply the breed- ers’ market. Third, the class of men who breed and rear a few horses in excess of their own demand. From this it is evident, since the first class mentioned rear practically no horses and those bred and reared by the second class of men furnish the supply for the breeders’ market only, that the great mass of horses produced in this country must come from the average or general farmer. ) With the average or general farmer to »roduce the horses for our country the question arises “What kind of horses shall he breed?” He must have a two-fold object in view, that of supply- ing his own demand as well as the demand of the market. These reasons will vary in importance according to the extent that he has taken up the business. In supplying his own demand he will choose the class of horses which he naturally prefers and which best suit his environments, but to meet the market demand he must breed horses which will come within the bounds of the regularly de- fined market classes. Although there are many classes recognized on the market, there are a few which are of far more importance than the rest. The horses which fill the less important classes are the results of attempts to produce horses of better kind, or else they are an out- growth of the mating of animals with no object in view other than that of raising a foal, whether it be good or bad. The greater num —r —~ ee SS. | Acid phosphate, 300 Ibs. }| - 49.3 27.1 3.6 5,800 | 1,660 } | sulfate potash, 100 Ibs. } | | This experiment illustrates very clearly a fact known to ex- perimenters, but often overlooked—that when there is a lack of plant food the vegetative part of the plant uses it at the expense of the grain. A comparison of plat 2 with plat 3 shows that the bal- ancing of the fertilizer produced an increase of 17.2 bushels of sound corn with an increase of only 210 pounds of stalks, The corn grower is interested in producing corn rather than stalks. Your President in his address urges you to select, breed and Corn Growers’ Association. 339 show corn. The live stock men said to feed corn. But if you will feed the corn plant right you will have more and better corn to feed to the live stock. Moreover, the breeder of seed corn should pay attention to feeding the plants. For in one season proper feeding of the plants will produce more difference in the amount and con- figuration of the product than many years of selection alone. Many corn breeders believe that manure and clover are all that is necessary to produce the best seed corn, and in most of the dis- cussions and addresses about improving corn little or no attention is given to the matter of providing the right kind of plant food in available form. It is on this account that buyers of well bred seed corn often fail to get the expected returns. The cuts will illustrate this better than any argument or long description. The corn was planted on the same day, from the same seed, in Showing the part of corn field which has received repeated applications of manure, clover and bone. Note short weak stocks and nearness of ears to the ground. the same field and received the same cultivation. The pictures were taken on the same day, and the points photographed are not over 200 feet apart. The repeated application of manure and clover has put the soil of the field in excellent mechanical condition, and the repeated application of the bone has more than maintained the supply of phosphoric acid. 4 340 _ Missouri Agricultural Report. The land with the short stocks and badly filled ears has received all the things that most corn raisers think necessary for raising Characteristic ears from field which received repeated applications of manure, clover and bone The tops of the ears are all chaffy from lack of starch. Showing the part of corn field which has received the same application of manure, clover and bone as the part shown in previous picture and one application of muriate of potash. Stalks and ears of normal size. . a Corn Growers’ Association. 341 good corn, and an ample supply of phosphoric acid beside. Yet it will not produce satisfactory corn. The land raising the normal corn has received the same treat- ment, and a moderate amount of potash in addition. The experiment illustrates very forcibly the fact that for the formation of starch available potash is required. The land has been badly worn, like lots of Missouri clay loams, but has been brought back to a fine mechanical condition again by =| Characteristic ears from field that received repeated applications of manure, clover and bone and one application of muriate of potash. Note that there has been enough starch formed to make every kernel a good one. the coarse manures and clover. It contains a large amount of total potash, so much that an analysis would indicate that it was “in- exhaustible.” It is really “inexhaustible,” not because there is so much of it, but because it is so unavailable, and three rotations with manure and clover in each has not apparently increased its avail- ability. The pictures contain a striking demonstration that the corn breeder must be a plant feeder, for the owner of this farm was following approved methods of breeding up his corn, but with little success until he fed the plants properly. Examples of the above effect; mights be multiplied indefinitely, but, perhaps, enough has been presented to induce you to take into consideration some points that are too often neglected in your efforts to improve your corn or your soils. CORN VARIETIES. (M. F. Miller, Professor of Agronomy, Agricultural College.) The wide variation in the adaptation of different varieties of corn to soil and season is fully recognized by the observing corn grower. A corn that is well adapted to rich bottom lands rarely 342 Missouri Agricultural Report. does so well on thin uplands, while a corn that will produce satis- factory results on a soil that is well worn is usually too small for the bottoms or more fertile soils. In selecting corn for seed, therefore, it may be given as a general rule that the soil on which a variety of corn has been grown should be as nearly as possible like that on which the seed is to be planted. There has been considerable discussion on this point by practical farmers, many contending that in order to produce good seed corn the best ground on the place should be selected for growing it. Others contend that corn grown on thin land will have greater feeding capacity, and, there- fore, greater possibilities for a large yield. Experiments and the experience of plant breeders, however, point to the conclusion that for corn to do its best the soil should not be far different from that on which the seed was grown. The climatic differences, of course, have a great effect on the character and growth of corn, while the effect of season is too well known to need comment. As a general proposition it can be said that for the highest yields the variety grown should have a growing season sufficient to just use up all of the time before frost—no more, no less. Should the variety be early, and should there follow two or three weeks of good corn weather, after it has matured, the yield will not be so great as with a variety which had this extra time for growth and the production of starch. On the other hand, a late variety, caught by the frost, will not fill out its full amount of starch, and the grains will be shrunken, usually low in vitality, al- ways loose on the cob. Should a locality be subject to drought, however, the variety best adapted will depend upon the time the drought comes. If it comes early, a rather late corn that will not reach the critical time (the shooting stage) until after the drought has passed, may be best; if the drought is late, an early variety that will pass this critical time before the drought comes on will doubtless prove best. Since one cannot forecast the weather, the only thing that can be done is to prepare for the weather that is most common by planting the variety which will come nearest fitting average seasons. The problem of finding the variety best adapted to any particular soil or locality is one of great importance to the farmer, and one which it may take years of experimenting to solve with perfect satisfaction. One of the most important tasks of the cornbreeder is the developing of strains that are perfectly adapted to certain conditions of soil and climate. A corn may have finish and style, so far as the score card is concerned, and still lack an adaptability on this soil or that which can be imparted to it only Corn Growers’ Association. 343 by continual selection through a series of years. This does not mean that a corn must necessarily be grown in the same neigh- brhood to be best for seed, as well-bred varieties from a distance frequently do much better than home grown varieties, although as a general rule this is not the case, and the nearer home seed corn is secured the greater the chances for a profitable crop. With the average man, however, who has given very little attention to the matter of careful selection of his corn, the variety is usually of more importance than the locality where it has been grown. It was with the idea of determining those varieties of corn which were best adapted to the various parts of the State that the experi- ment station began two years ago a co-operative variety test of corn with farmers living in various parts of Missouri. These men were sent a number of varieties of corn representing all the promising types for the State, with instructions for planting these side by side on uniform soil, and for giving them the same care throughout the season. Notes were taken on the time of maturity, character of growth, and other characteristics that indicated the adaptability of the varieties to the conditions and the yield per acre of each variety was determined at harvest time. The first year’s test was preliminary and included reports from only about 25 men, but the test for 1906 included 100 men, most of whom reported their results. The varieties under test in 1906 showed the following rating when all the tests were averaged. This rating was secured by giv- ing a percentage valuation to the ranks which the various varieties held, as reported by the various men, and dividing by the number of reports received: Variety. Rating. PEPE OONC COUNTY a Wi LOme cop rerecuctetare eet cee = inte ctciat eteo/ eal reser Macavere, Motaravetaua cis (en drashs 4% 348 DRS PR CHATICS CHO Wreie arat enteral te ett ewe eke sonics othe carers aie Seeks wis elas: svewe Sele et dblacacae 194 PD AEINICT Sas TMLCLES bore oreus setoicoey ater cred arava So. aye valor syeqslantegs: ea Aute evenmne a avnie orereele eae eve 162 AMMPECOIGSEVELIOW sD EINE. cWepee areteerae eterst elem fiers endl oharstererer a eleta Klaus Creve ite Grete Shel oe Aiea es 156 PEO TSO OO) SAV IGE IU) CN Ge cyan vehekarotae pe bavotete ete vol ove ehei@rsyaiiesOGi eke) aueFe Gngietls » Gnd ier dhe «Syn oo 122 Gant Sin CHADICSs WHILLG cre cyaioie chores atelere ceva ciao ee @eeie et celtic nels sian eto iofsct6l oie o's wm alevansta 118 MeESCOm NEMCED tes ain stlete steve uiays clkatonts s eicta ate inks bieeie tg vids yee abcd die gels Kelsiels saps 108 So eMmMM DES RTTLITL eet ee etan tater aati oy exe Yellay omeue a Mana oheteROR CEL steerer om ensues, Sire, Sua e.8) Olsust ocakee ushers 74 2h STING IN TCE Cols es OIE IOOn tO ere OF eC. CIS D.6 ISIE Aa ne eR Ine ee rie ie Carte 56 HO ee REC ATION, SHV EMILE yD CTUE 1 .crcpoyausvarns auc leuev one tel ered a ere ete) ofa Rint orate el oveua' Sone shave aria faate Dee 22 Boone County White, as is commonly known, is a large white corn, rather rough in indentation and inclined to coarseness. It is 344 Missouri Agricultural Report. a late variety, adapted to rich land, and is especially valuable along the Missouri and Mississippi river bottoms. It has yielded far ahead of the other varieties both years of the test. A part of this may doubtless be accounted for from the fact that the average man, when sent corn for test, wants to make a good showing, and even when requested to plant it on land that will represent the country in which he lives, he will usually select the richest piece. Under such conditions the Boone County White will naturally show great su- periority over most of the other varieties. St. Charles Yellow is another rather large corn somewhat inclined to roughness and coarseness and seemingly best adapted to rich lands. It is also a late corn, and therefore has practically the same adaptations as the Boone County White, although it is somewhat inclined to a softer cob and poorer germination, which interferes with its yield. For a large yellow bottom land corn, however, it stands well toward the top. Farmers’ Interest is a large white corn, resembling very closely the Boone County White, but a little rougher and later in maturity. It has practically the same adaptations as the Boone County White. It is not so well adapted to Missouri conditions, however, the seed for the test being secured from Indiana. Reid’s Yellow Dent is a medium-sized yellow corn, very com- pact, with well-filled butts and tips as a striking character. The depth and size of kernel are only medium, and it inclines to a smooth indentation. It has a special adaptation, according to indi- cations thus far observed, to be particularly adapted to the prairies of North Missouri. It is of medium early maturity, sound, has a fine appearance, and shows careful selection. Johnson County White Dent is a large white corn, closely re- sembling Farmers’ Interest in general character, and with the same adaptations. The seed for the test was secured from Indiana in 1906, which may partly account for its low average. St. Charles White is a native Missouri variety, familiar to most farmers in the southern half of the State. It is a medium-sized variety, with a rather rough indentation and a blood red cob. It matures rather late. Experiments seem to indicate that it has a special adaptation for those regions subject to an August drought, such as the tier of counties along the Kansas line, south of Kansas City. Experiments are not conclusive as to this point, however. Legal Tender is a rather large, coarse yellow corn. It has little type except to be rough, rather wide grained, and uniformly yellow. Its peculiar adaptations are not clearly indicated, but Corn Growers’ Association. 345 probably it will require rather rich land and a fairly long season, as it is somewhat late in maturity. Leaming is a standard corn of Illinois, which does not seem to have gained much favor in Missouri. The tests do not show a high yield, nor do they indicate its adaptations except that it seems to be at its best on the prairies of North Missouri. It is a medium to large variety, inclined to a decided tapering ear and to irregularity of kernels. These characters are rapidly being bred out of it, however. It is of medium maturity. Silver Mine is a medium small white corn, early in maturity. It is particularly adapted to those regions where a late drought is common. It is small of stock, and the earliest in maturity of the varieties under test. The test was not quite fair to the Silver Mine, since not all the co-operators received this variety, thus cutting down on its general average. McAuley’s White Dent is rather a coarse, wide-grained medium late variety from Kansas. It had the same disadvantage as the Silver Mine, in that only a part of the co-operators received it, thus cutting down the rating. Little can be said at this time regarding its adaptability to Missouri conditions. _ This test is by no means conclusive, but it offers suggestions as to the adaptations of these varieties to the various regions of the State. The test for 1907 is being planned along the same general lines with the introduction of one or two more varieties. The variety of corn which a man grows is of great importance, and an- other year should see-certain varieties of corn recognized as stand- ard by the Corn Growers’ Association, the eligibility to recognition being based on performance in field and show room. The import- ance of growing standard types of corn is as great as the importance of growing standard types of animals, and should not be overlooked by the progressive farmer. RESOLUTIONS. We, your Committee on Resolutions, beg leave to submit the following resolutions, and recommend their adoption: 1. That the Missouri Corn Growers’ Association, in fourth annual convention assembled, announce our appreciation of the great value to farmers of this State of the work that has been done for the improvement of our leading grain, corn, by the State Board 346 Missouri Agricultural Report. of Agriculture, through our State Meetings and the Farmers’ Insti- tutes. 2. We recommend that the 44th General Assembly make pro- vision for the extension of the work now in progress at the Experi- ment Station in the test of corn varieties, crop rotation, fertilizers and methods of cultivation in combination with a State Soil Survey. 3. That the Legislature increase the amount appropriated to the State Board of Agriculture for Farmers’ Institute work, so as to make it possible to hold a Boys’ Corn Growing Contest and Corn In- stitute in every community where such a meeting may be desired. 4. That we should admit to compete for prizes at the State and county corn shows any corn that shows unmistakable evidence of having been systematically bred to a definite type and for a reason- able time. 5. That we appreciate the work of Dean Waters, Secretary Ellis, Prof. Miller, for the able and efficient manner in which they have contributed to the success of this meeting. 6. That all corn growers and farmers who are interested in the improvement of the greatest grain crop of Missouri are invited to become members of this Association. ‘ 7. That a regular business session of the next annual meeting be held on the second day of Farmers’ Week. 8. That the members of the 44th General Assembly be urged to make an appropriation of not less than $200,000 for the erection of an agricultural building for the use of the State Agricultural College, the State Board of Agriculture, and which building shall contain a suitable assembly hall in which may he held our State agri- cultural conventions and corn shows. We would call to the atten- tion of our legislators the inadequacy of the present agricultural building, which is entirely too small and not at all suited for the purposes for which it is now used. 9. That we express our appreciation for the valuable assist- ance given in contributions of the Commercial Club of Columbia, the Missouri Jamestown Commission, the State Board of Agricul- ture, and the manufacturers who have furnished money and im- plements for prizes. Corn Growers’ Association. : 347 THE PRIZE WINNERS FOR THE CORN SHOW WERE AN- NOUNCED AS FOLLOWS: In the best 100 ears of white corn, first, second and third prizes went to J. P. Hendricks, Columbia, Mo.; E. T. Long, Fayette, and Hopson Park, Lowry City, respectively. H. R. Scott of Tarkio carried off first honors with his 100 ears of yellow corn; second prize in this section was won by H. T. Crane of Elmo, while S. H. Riebel came in as a close third. The much coveted grand sweepstakes: a Great Western manure spreader, valued at $120, was won by H. R. Scott of Tarkio, Mo., on his 100 ears of yellow corn. J. P. Hen- drick of Columbia, H. T. Lane, Herman Schultze, Warrenton; J. B. Inman, Columbia; P. E. Crabtree, Hannon, and G. H. Sly, Rock- port, were the winners in the order named for the best 20 ears of white corn. The prizes in the yellow corn class fell to F. H. Reibel, Arbela; H. C. Crane, Elmo; J. H. Sly, Rockport; J. C. Curry, Rock- port; H. R. Scott, Tarkio; E. B. Crane, Elmo, respectively. This _ show still maintains a class for mixed variety. In this contest first prize was captured by E. L. Hewitt, Harrisonville; second, Hopson Park, Lowry City; third, E. J. Hughes, Glasgow; fourth, Fritz Ohlendorph, Boonville; fifth, C. C. Sullivan, Lamar. In this class grand sweepstakes prize was awarded to F. H. Riebel, Arbela. The prize consisted of a Black Hawk corn planter, valued at $40.00. J. H. Sly, Rockport, won the sweepstakes prize for exhibiting the best 10 ears in a contest where six varieties were exhibited. The $50.00 silver trophy, offered by the Missouri Commission to the Jamestown Exposition, was won by Wm. Johnmeyer, Boonville. The cup was offered for the best display of 10 ears for a number of varieties. Mr. Johnmeyer had ten varieties on exhibition. His closest com- petitors had only six varieties. This corn, together with the trophy, will form a prominent part of the Missouri exhibit at the James- town Exposition. CLASS C, SECTION 1. BOONE COUNTY WHITE. First—J. E. Matheny, Miami. Second—Hopson Park, Lowry City. Third—J . P. Hendrick, Columbia. 348 Missouri Agricultural Report. LEAMING VARIETY. First—James B. T, Edwards, Bowling (Giteen. Second—Wmnm. Johnmeyer, Boonville. Third—P. E. Crabtree, Hannon, FARMERS’ INTEREST. First—Ernest L. Hughes, Glasgow. Second—Chris. Lynn, Centralia. Third—I. G. Wiggington, Warrenton. REID YELLOW DENT. First—R. B. Johnson, Boonville. Second—H. C. Crane, Elmo. Third—J. K. Fifer, Pierpont. ST. CHARLES WHITE. First—J. H. Sly, Rockport. Second—Ray Harmon, Eastman. Third—Wmnm. Johnmeyer, Boonville. CARTNER VARIETY. First—C. Ohlendorph, Boonville. Second—Chris Smith, Bunceton. Third—J. W. McFarland, Bunceton. THE IMPROVEMENT OF MISSOURI HERDS. WHY AND HOW. (From second annual report State Dairy Commissioner of Missouri, R. M. Washburn, Commissioner.) The increase in the standard and cost of living of the Ameri- can people, the greatly increased demand for higher education and the increase in the price of land in this State, have all worked to- gether to make it necessary for the farmer to make more money. With his farm gradually becoming less productive, while at the same time being taxed as though worth more, how is he to do this? He must keep stock in order to save his land. Most farmers now possess a goodly number. How to handle this stock in order to realize the most from it is now the most vital question before the Missouri farmer. The time has passed when he can afford to keep a cow the entire year for her calf only. She must do more. About twenty-five thousand farmers of this State have already solved this question in a measure by using the cows that they have in a dual capacity. Those cows must now produce milk and cream for market as well as raise their young. This group of dairy farmers, or balanced farmers, have learned that by milking their cows and selling the cream they can and do receive from twenty- five to seventy-five dollars a year from each cow, and still raise the calf as well as before. The following table shows sums actu- ally obtained by the patrons of different small creameries in this State: ahr . nines No. No. of | Money | Cow per | Cow per cows. |months. |received| month. year. JccAcerosyics : PKS Vie yeep theta stots yaoke 8 12 $393 $3 98 $47 87 Feu Crom october tale es tn © Sere sstetcy cictene arse 6 4 113 4510 |sienaus enencdauthe Gr Werssemaaili. Meee iE | "Reclonyacaecr ets 9 10 233 2; OB) cceteteheyontotene VW op bse arerstey a) UO VELRICE 2). cae leionelciola/elolcle.ataistetersts 6 9 149 PIAA O88 ob EAS EE. Sisavatavsiei she OS vol ee ee Goma aaibee th bo CoebOL 12 12 572 3 87 47 66 isbn .5::: dik hanes ata et 12 12 673 4 67 56 08 1054 Caginaolane 1s Cis aA ae CROAU OBA COMO UOT 20 12 1,002 417 50 10 USING Apo obe Vo odddencactpoogne 8 12 413 4 27 51 25 350 Missouri Agricultural Report. Imported Comassie, rear view. Imported Comassie, 11,874. A high producing Jersey, side view. Improvement of Missouri Herds. 351 5am ante No. | No. of | Money | Cow per | Cow per cows.| months.| received| month. year. : | Reine. « Sweet Springs. ..-. 0... sa 8 6 $173 $3 58h ae ae AnH AK : Sua \stera)octises cater Shalev oats 10 6) 233 Be tele] aio Soot S W. L. H ? Babyy i csicia toh sbi saci ond Sane elas 10 6 215 vt op ca adc JEeBs Beis: SITS Sree sea caeee yciciws ee osaleicsstee 2 12} 94 3 91 $47 00 dns cls 1 Se Ononen See Ray Tuncvs Syeatcha tens siepsuslor hax eeame 7 12 276 3 28 39 42 (Gp is bs oaaiocs Igoe. 0 Goad OCOD ERIE 7 12 335 3 98 47 85 W.A i RI Ge COS WES. OC PR ee 10 12 427 3 50 42 00 ASD ere cie's Cn PSE OE Sots SoC CAE eT 10, 12 336 2 80 33 60 (GOMES Rone (Pailin yess raeeeteuchage tere) cccorvesnysucsokcns 28 12 1,550 4 61 5b 3D Is B60 Sane Teck Obiom 1 enka oor 16 12 1,052 5 47 65 75 BAG er sk: ee as oh oe ee 18 12| 1,228 5 59 67 11 ln Ceas cee sae ee Mra FU slcateiafeycnter axe rele ocueer ere < 12) 12 780 5 41 65 00 WE. B (Carrol Contes ctncis, cosye's allele e syareusie 25 12 918 3 06 36 72 dS \veoocopue eG E ia auaats cane olen erel oa eerehs) 548 7| 12 216 2 57 38 85 ERB arene rave «re EV Cua GOW er ors tue wre ae spae atsrerevereyele « 14 12 563 3 35 40 21 1: oC ene iat elastase AER sale ale Sure 12| 12 495 3 43 41 25 UGS es eign WAUITV ATH ors: o/ ai o1'ok ercyiny she eseveve iors cetans: aia: 8) 9 289 n(0hln pecanno ah ©. B.B.s: ss SEUSS a core, c acre yarsveneaerarsiaiste aie 15 12 659 3 66 43 93 BE Boys rar ets Teint tore see os 16 12 685 3 56 42 81 IN GoM occa ois MTS ASURENS cv or sk cyetovereai@ilexexetayevo ote 15 4 180 33) (00) a sigotim otrec R. W.S Walleysarksscscucwccaccesiose fe 3 22 43 eA Os ys eee Tease Ae Mie ts. EMM Braves «does kstevcre cies eee oe cce 8| 12 461 4 80) 57 62 CSWe ae. ee We TaD as lola varstareheueveks wie rets, 0! adh evere¥e 11 12 507 3 84 46 09 eS 5 be Geom EAA GEANE Chictoras nerd cperecsre oterate ceises 6 12 447 6 20 74 50 AvoMS EE TD 8 robo SSUES oes lz 12 1,258 6 31 75 76 The above figures show only the money actually obtained from the sale of cream, not what the cows produced. We do not know how many people consumed milk, cream and butter at home. It would naturally be expected that those cows in a large herd should show a better average record than those in a small herd because of this home consumption. Notice in the above table that the smallest yearly return for one cow is $33.60. This figure is not great, neither does it repre- sent the entire year’s earning of the cow. Her calf, raised on skim milk, was worth as much as it would have been had it con- sumed that $33.60 worth of fat. Moreover, pigs were fed on the excess milk, which would again raise the real valuation of the cow when used in a dairy manner. 352 Missouri Agricultural Report. We ips =, 4 This cow gave in one year—milk, 3, 186; test, 3.64; butter fat, 133 Ibs. . (Courtesy of Hoard’s Dairyman.) Improvement of Missouri Herds. 353 COST PER HUNDRED POUNDS’ GAIN IN PIGS. Corn at 40 cents per bushel, skim milk at 15 cents per cwt. Bordton | Gentes: 100 Sean te ee er. ee SE a $3 92 (Croitia) TGP AOE ete Eee Oot Peet GPa ORS GG Cea o GIO OG DIS So iain chor Nsicnc a eaeea | 3 49 CORMAN GV CLOVET eo: a\cie ei «(a ses torstlane B slhera(isti ssi eh airs ame cevtarepstettenedsate 'oatemas sits ater ar garniat ate abe letahare 3 20 Correale nelle etrens rarceet ache ete ay ctanahewiey ov 4¥e assim, cleans Cha atatengeuel spnleievassle,2 6 shay ov eie) svausle eyeidle 2 96 SOUOTTIN UI CES KA TINTIUD oanse eta ist ofa fete oss, Recs sce ass coke Coraiclene Mtereters Cialis Gel ycrenefolert selec sent el 2 84 If, by milking a cow, she may be made to produce $50.00 a year, or even $30.00 a year more cash than when she is not milked, there certainly should be more men engaged in the business. Notice that A. M. H., LaGrange, Mo., realized an average of $75.76 cash per cow per year. These men are they who pay for their groceries at the time of purchase, so that when the corn crop and the hog crop are sold that money may be used for payment on the farm or in the improvement of buildings. Big Difference With Same Market.—But notice what a differ- ence there is between H. R. and C. B., both of Corder, with the same number of cows; C. B. receiving $101.00 more than his neighbor. Again, this is apparent in the case of A. D. and W. A. of Billings, each with ten cows milking for one year, yet W. A. receiving nearly $100.00 more than his neighbor. Both these, mind you, sold their produce at the same factory. It is quite apparent that either W. A. has better stock or that he gives better care, for he made a third more during the year than his neighbor, with the same number of cows. Glancing down the column giving income per cow per year, we find a great variation; the yearly income varying all the way from $33.60 to $75.76. Though this variation be great, the net income would show a greater difference. It may reasonably be figured that the manure, and the skim milk for the feeding of pigs and calves, pay for the work bestowed on the cow. Assuming that ii cost $35.00 a year to feed a cow, the net loss on the lowest would be $1.40, while the net profit with the highest would be $40.76, one cow being over forty times as profitable as the other. Select the Cows Within the Herd.—Oniy a few years ago it was thought that a pedigree was a guarantee of profit, but not so today. Although the dairy-bred herds have a much higher per- centage of profitable individuals, it yet remains that all breeds A—23 354 Missouri Agricultural Report. have some inferior members. Cows belonging to the “no breed” breed are far more likely to be inferior than their better bred neighbors. Unfortunately, but few records have been kept as yet by the farmers of the State. Notice the following records. These men feed the skim milk to calves and pigs, thus greatly increasing their actual profit: HERD RECORD OF T. G, HALL, WINDSOR, HENRY CO., MO. No. of| No. of | Amt. of |Aver. %| Lbs. Cost Profit cow months milk. of fat. | butter of Profit. per Remarks, milking. in lbs. food. fat. mo. 10 mos. 1. ..| 24 days. 7,878 4.75| 373.2 $29 15 $28 02 $2 60} This cow is a reg- istered Jersey. 2...| -9mos: About This cow was 8 days. Aeatatit 5 205.55) same 7 84 22| poorly handled above last year. 3.2. || 15) 10S. This is a two- 20 days, 4,766 5.5 262.13) 30 00 17 18 1 98} year-old. 4...| 4 mos. This is an Island 20 days. 3,432 6 205.92 12 75 24 31 5 20, bred Jersey | wi nie her third Notice that cow number 4 gave more than three times the net profit obtained from number 2, and in half the time. HERD RECORD OF R. L. HARBAUGH, LIBERTY, CLAY CO., MO. No. of Amt. of No. of : Aver. % Lbs. Cost of Profit or cow painears bags) of fat.| fat. food. loss. Remarks. EH 7k ASSDA Noe cal stele To July 1st. An old cow. Have no record. fy SA 45 8DSCl. chess ¥ Ss s Sent to the block. Sree Al S26) | sialsretto, ote Y : ‘ Still milking. (ee ee 63 SHSLSM|teee eee ss Bi iY Sold for beef. Bsatisiie 134 6,144 2 yr. | old cow first calf. Calved June 7, 1905, any i milked to July 18, 1906. Geers 84 3,559 2 yr old cow first calf 7 53 4,265 To July 1st. Freshened in January. Senses 23 2,441 of ee ee Dy aiateter 14 1, 268 5 ae US “IT do not test each cow, but ship my cream to creamery. Amount butter fat for six months ending on June 30 was 707 pounds, and we churn for our own use besides. The above record, though not complete, shows that unless No. Rh. Ts, eae 6 can offer a very good excuse for having given only 3,559 pounds of milk in 814 months, she could be disposed of. No. 7, milking only 52-3 months, gave considerably more milk. C. S. Russell, Ironton, Iron County, Mo., says: “I had nine Improvement of Missouri Herds. | 350 This cow, DeKol Hengeryeld Belle, gave in nine months 11,261 lbs. milk, which con- tained 456.07 lbs. butter fat, equal to 582 lbs. butter. (Courtesy of Hoard’s Dairyman.) 356 Missouri Agricultural Report. Jersey cows when J began testing and weighing the milk from each cow separately. BestoCOWaucecwaet seems | lyear. 272.25 lbs. butter fat. 6,050 lbs. milk. test 4.5 97.20 ‘ 2,700 ~ HeanBe® POOTESTICOW: nase naeenes | be I found only four out of the nine that were worth keeping.” Wesley P. Lummis, Pleasant Hill, Cass Co., Mo., took charge of a herd of well-bred Shorthorn cows and placed every member of the herd on her own merits, and says: “After two years of weigh- ing and testing, giving the cow credit for everything she gave me, and charging her with all I gave her, I found that only one-third of the number paid their way.” A. J. McDowell, Fordland, Webster Co., Mo., says “In 1905 I milked 15 cows. Six yielded less than 150 pounds of butter fat each. One only 90 pounds. Seven between 150 pounds and 250 pounds, and two over 300 pounds. I kept four of the best cows and sold eleven, tried to buy some better ones, but failed, and am now break- ing in heifers, which I have raised. I cannot tell exactly what it costs me to keep my cows, but I have approximated it, and I think they cost me about $30.00 a year each, besides the pasture. HERD REPORT FOR 1966. Name of cow. Age. ait Test. ‘utter TROBE Spe ee tea By en RE Vi cae ye. 5,670 5.5%| 311.85 MEATY: 5 -Shaters cteve steechehe tous le ctare whe avers etenets 3 yrs. 5,507 5.6% 308.39 EVAUELIO'. tye hebsree meres teh oyyalapaaiers: ayers etereeye 3 yrs. 5, 102) 5 % 255.10 i {YoR SAS SS GOD DAAC IAST S| Heese Mature cow. 6,792! 4.8%| 326.01 LONE Min > Bio ODORoe Mane odaie Gee e hone ae cy 5,889 5.5%| 323.89 UES o.0 Oo Rdoe OR OO DROEG Ny Bede Lin or = 4,340) 6.1%) 264.74 UB ESS 2 Fete ote neyste euajs ARs aie ayes exd aera toiey iene tens os | 5,326) 5.2% 276.95 I milked several cther cows during 1906, but none during the whole year, as I was buying and selling, trying to improve my herd. I have given that up now and am raising a herd from a registered Jersey bull. I think that is the only practical way to get a good herd.” Improvement of Missouri Herds. 357 HERD RECORD OF C. J. W. JONES & SONS, ROANOKE, HOWARD CO., MO. No. of} No. of Amt. of eran. %| Lbs. Cost Profit cow. | months milk. of butter of or Remarks. milking. in lbs. fat. fat. food. loss snag / 104 2,490.9 453 |e wl OSPillserareterse Bist Palen Lost calf and did badly. Never recovered. Record better this year. Dita o.0 11 Sao 4.5 SAA AINE rereictercleterscvais or Record this year will be better than last. sisFereks Ze lonGose 4.1 OB alk tercrteteralinie A eveiet se Missed one day’s milk in the year. Aare 9 3,002.1 4.0 IPD) Sllss tts oma laolaoiao orn No good. Sold to butcher. 9 mos. 4 5.....| 20 days. 7,394.3) CLO ASE ls dam asaallss co noe Best cow in herd at present Grade Shorthorn. Gisieters 10 4,384.8 Seo One: bell G liaye%, aie cote lWenenacomaretste Grade Jersey. Fair performer. 10 mos. Geran undays. 4 597.4 Bi TOORD Se wrote atellieatacron es Goad grade Shorthorn. Second calf. 10 mos. : Seater | eel daysen|| a, S095 PG PMURL Si epL versttycte aye lara’ ohevrslcovs Has one-quarter of udder ruin- | ed. Cut by wire. Qe nae 9 3,833.8 4.1 US (aed Reicks Heoinl |S cia pine ae Her record will be 1000 Ibs. bet- ter this year. LOS. 10 5 9oLn5 Br Jl SY ENG | eee ees eter lecreemec sy Cie Grade Holstein. Bought her and she was milking one month. MS oe 10 6,060.8 BG BO ses.5 a. 66 ouiellon ovale Grade Shorthorn. A good cow with stricture in one quarter. 1 ei a 10 6,086.3 OSH le PAG hatets lacey orca need Sl eRRNOR RDI Had this cow been trained when young she would be a better cow at least this year. Svea. 10 4,863.3) 4.3 ZOD ES avante sretcnn |tepscenaohe ots A promising heifer. Mother being No. 12 and father an Angus. VaR sete 9 3,739.1 See SARE cect eerall ecateie a svehs Grade Jersey. Record this year much better than 1905. Moth- | er is No. 6. See 10 4,058.0 5.2 DUO Heras eho ale chsteners, ot Grade Jersey Has improved during 1906. 165.5% 8 4,294.5 Ae Sle. S466 lhranye 0 cieglllsarecituoners Angus. Sold for beef. Poorer than last year. 10 (Sree 6 2,744.0 3.5 QO MOAMN, ccneps: sehodlecheastenr ars Angus. Sold for beef. *Unfortunately, I have no record for the above two items . “From experience in my herd I find: First, that the color of the milk does not indicate the richness of the milk, as might be expected; second, the cows that you may pick as your best will often rank low in butter fat and yield in pounds; third, each cow should be tested for richness of butter fat and the milk weighed twice daily during the lactation period; fourth, read all available dairy literature and take the advice of authorities.” Respectfully, sh C. J. W. JONES & SONS. 358 Missouri Agricultural Report. View of a portion of the model dairy at Hillcrest Farm, Greenwood, Mo., showing sterile receiving tank for milk which is emptied from the outside, the wrator, turbine sep- arator and automatic bottler. The turbine bottle washer, the sterilizer, the refrigerator and the icing room are not shown in this picture. Improvement of Missouri Herds. 359 Just notice the record made by No. 4. Only 120 pounds butter fat during the same period of time and on the same food as No. 5, who yielded 295 pounds butter fat. Notice also No. 17. Ninety- six pounds butter fat in six months. She certainly was not in- tended for dairy purposes. S. W. Coleman, Sedalia, Pettis County, Mo., says: “I have never made a record of any one cow. It has been inconvenient for me to do so, although I expect to at some future date. The only record is on the herd, which is 400 pounds butter to the cow in tweve months.” HERD RECORD OF P. THEISS, WARRENSBURG, ‘JOHNSON Co., MO. Name No. of | Amt. of |Aver. %] — Lbs. Cost Profit Remarks, of months milk of butter of Profit. per cow. milking. given. fat. fat. food month aon aad Betty <3... 5 36 34 | 179 $11 00 $24 80 $4 69 BeSSYui:... os 5 35 4 210 11 00 31 00 6 20 Pearly. : . .: 5 34 6 306 11 00 | 50 20 | 10 04 NVIBC eters 6 ove 5 30 4 180 11 00 | 35 00 7 00 | First calf. BOSS 2 55 0:3 50: 5 28 43 189 11 00 36 00 % 20 ght a BSUS Sia, «6 o's 5 28 43 189 | 1100 | 36 00 CA al a Kate s.c 2 28 5 168 | 9 00 24 60 6 15 eA ay Daisy...... 4 32 6 230 9 00 | 37 00 9 25 Topsy.... 10 20 a 240 | 22 00 | 26 00 2 60 | First calf. Tally). 2” 10 20 5 300 200; 3800; 380) “ “ JETSCY.\. «< «'s 14 20 6 504 32 00 | 68 00 4 85 | “From experience in my herd I find that it is the only way of doing business, and that a man don’t know what he is doing any other way.” As a whole, the above record is a good one; so also is the con- clusion reached by this careful gentleman. Professor C. H. Eckles, Department Dairy Husbandry, Agri- cultural College, Columbia, Mo., says regarding the College herd: MACSEGICTSC YE, 0 ace: e) sue.se) sees sane ANE 4S VEALS: fers ace tas ate $065) lbs; milks.) 3); 376 lbs. fat. Poorest Jersey. .- .) 2. ook AD YORU s sta sretcte cs 3,290 Ibs, milk...... 186 lbs. fat. Single milking period records of above cows: IRGREWENSOY Port sis ciel cinteters LCV CAT sts olelevejelete sicjare's 10,200 Ibs. milk..... 465 lbs. fat. Poorest Jersey.......cccec; IS VEGAN, sc. ciaievelele-cueratere.e 2,443 Ibs. milk..... 124 Ibs. fat. 360 Missouri Agricultural Report. Best and poorest records of entire herd above three years of age: TOTSCY Te iis.ciesihkes Geeee NEVERT Sepia cic ¢nisistercta 1O#200) lbs. milk see. et 465 lbs. fat. MOLBSY. s/s cite trace lestoeeinic UAV, CAD ele saserete ie) tristers ais 2,607 Ibs.milkes. 2 115 Ibs. fat. Best Holstein. ............ iveat ie 8S. Rte 12,096 Ibs. milk.....| 410 Ibs. fat. Poorest Holstein........... | ll Weal aie aom: sae eee 7,705 lbs? milks. 2) |245 lbssta- Age. Lbs milk|Lbs. fat.|/Cost feed. Amount profit on butter fat. j | INOse2T es ccereits crane: | 2 years. ..%. 6,750 337 $35 00 $52 62. Cuca: Scher eases tin 3 years..... Aaa 364 38 00} 56 64. NGG. 2 srercrenn ie eveaeens ZVEATS. clcice 878 44 30 00} 18 56 loss. SauaRbevebars sie oust int 3 yeats..... 2,607 115 32 00} 2 10 Loss. “No. 21 and No. 62 are both registered Jerseys, raised on the College Farm. They were sired by the same bull, and their moth- ers were somewhat related. Both were raised under the same conditions and have had the same kind of food and treatment all their lives. During the two milking periods both have received practically the same ration, except No. 21 was given somewhat more on account of her greater appetite. The difference in the production of these two animals can only be attributed to their in- dividuality. The average production of the cows above two years old in dairy herd in 1906 was 85 lbs. of butter fat more than the average production in 1901. This improvement has been brought about by culling out the inferior animals. About one-third of the herd on hand in 1901 was sold on account of their low production.” ILLINOIS, AS REPORTED BY W. J. FRASER. Comparison in Milk Production—“‘The cows in the better herd were picked up here and there at moderate prices. They have been producing milk throughout the year at the rate of 18 cans to 45 cows, or 215 cows to a can (8 gallons). The latter herd has been yielding at the rate of 54 cans to 34 cows, or 6.4 cows to the can. “When milk sells at $1.15 per hundred pounds, this means that the average cow in the better herd produces 2914 cents’ worth of milk per day, or $88.50 worth as the total for a year of ten months. The poorer herd yields 1114 cents’ worth of milk per cow per day, Improvement of Missouri Herds. 361 or $34.50 worth for the year. There is some difference between these cows and their incomes. (See figs, 12 and 13.) “If it costs $32 per cow for feed in the poorer herd, just $2.50 per head is left as the profit for one year. But if the better herd is fed at $40 per cow, it leaves $48.50 per head as a profit. Here is a difference of $46 in clear gain, or, in other words, it takes 19 cows cf the one kind to eqzial one cow of the other kind. In a herd of 40 cows this difference would amount to $1,840. “If a man desired to make $1,000 per year profit in the dairy business, he would have to keep 400 of these poor producers. But ke would get the same results with 21 cows like those in the better herd.” IOWA. Comparative records of the cows kept at the Iowa Experi- ment Station, Ames, Iowa, as reported by Mr. C. H. Eckles, who had charge of the herd during the time this record was made. BUTTER FIGURED AT 20 CENTS PER POUND AND SKIM MILK AT 20 CENTS PER CWT. Description of Lbs. of milk Lbs. butter Net cow. produced produced per | Cost of feed.) profit. per year. year, Beserltoisienn gs (ay order a sh A oeev ls Ponies | 538 | $2983 | $97 15 EGOLestPELOlstella acc hele tase eee | 6,667 | 246 PAL fal 38 16 IDEAS Slam oe aple cama auoce Seaolde | 5,444 292) |), $8 12 $58 99 ESI SOhOrthomnenecns acte choot om aerreries | 9.869 474 | $27 38 $83 25 Pourest: SHOPPROri s.1.% +. der s > ie > ae g B4 sg g 8s oO aS op oO op Beos'| see oe Z Bee ae ES ‘ 2 = 3° “2. “3 =) aa = +m = a | 2s ae es a . La} ba} BSUERLE ren ote ce cde. 3 cues onsvayeterel Grehertanene 6,983,335 | 33.4 233, 209,625 3,288,111 2,201,577 County. ING RIT esta et Stee Cree 64,535 35 DE 25S eD 66,645 33,322 ANTALIS, re bite tacts cutee ere 123,491 28 3,457,750 57,946 34,767 INWVONEWsie ert ete eee See en 90,244 35 3,158,540 30,470 21,329 EXONS) ieee pakod ap Orecmr oo ee 168 , 425 44 7,410,700 17,880 17,880 FRAILTY 25 saci a. = ioe siete sevens oe eee 51,929 33 1,713,655 13,950 13,950 NSAECOM pe ccccere Pace Mic osucee tatees 2 PG 95,755 28 2,681,140 29,760 ~ 23,808 BAD ESiets canis are alte te ae peer 146,105 32 4,675,360 67,600 67 , 600 TBAEVOTLI 0) ORs Gach cecnercaek ieee Aes a ac 56,551 31 1,753,080 27,100 21,680 IB GING Crop rks deci ole 32,296 31 1,001,175 11,325 9,060 SO OIC cerassre ever esOea oe 84, 108 34 2,859,670 48,700 29,220 IBTCh awa Osceeeon hte pickers 66,054 38 2,510,050 20,600 14,420 1310 Die saa co ae eos BOI oc 22,385 35 783,475 6,600 6,600 Cal Well rc tiekocptine.s aiaeretencte 83,459 25 2,086,475 45,060 18,024 Callaway: s Stas coike cccn hoe 82,575 34 2,807,550 51,440 25,720 Caniden A. fers se ee se 30,780 35 1,077,300 11,400 6,840 Cape Girardeau: ...07) <2 << «2.9 33,426 38 1,270,190 20,540 20,540 Carrolls > 4 > : gow ine 4 8s g so County. isd as ep © ic ‘cd Es a3. : a4 = 2 8, : “6 = od. Che. se Ke] a Pe : 8 ae MASCOMAGC Seiac sreverajetelaiesesicieve ars 22,318 40 892,720 12,460 8,722 KGETUD TV io cct oe less) basic cetetotels inte. tela eave 88 , 847 35 3,109,645 52,495 31,497 RO TSCIIC ater te fane hereiost 1/6) «soso ave eilesorye (3 41,740 36 1,502,640 20, 140 18,126 RUUETISOM TE operotck ore aye< ererenene voi cvios eee 102,708 40 4,108,320 54,970 54,970 GTO Seapets eiavoneteta at tev oelase arabe arate 60,073 28 1,682,045 58, 460 29,230 PEACE M Cisse cheese teres wiseroie eene. 34,357 32 1,099, 425 24,100 19, 280 MGB AV CULE) win ropite.« oleteter's evs-ans) shone 114,435 42 4,806, 270 35,070 28,056 NEPEWIBETA CE cceietercitaicls, stiscac aj nieve, 6 recs 59,781 35 2,092,335 13,060 13,060 NBEWIS ee icis ele sicloxs oreusich eae ouscsy eae 52,847 30 1,585,410 48,188 24,094 WBICO LU Meyerel ters nce iain ties oe hes 68 , 405 29 1,983,745 20,978 18,880 GLEE EVO dce st stsichonsycccyeutvere eliaret sua oitans 80,090 32 2,562,880 81,928 | 40,964 ELVES SUOMsteist oreteln cis joy sete el wsic ers 91,865 29 2,664,085 50,650 20, 260 IVCIVOM AIG: Gatetagey. ete opeiayetese-sr close 27,195 32 870, 240 8,700 7,830 WEKCOMS 26 eee Orie eto OtaotOe Oren 82,161 28 2,300,510 82,520 33,008 VT SOM acd ccasetever shar PGvereasianae. vee? 15,290 30 477,600 10,780 8,624 WWI AMIES ere eae eda aictiece: sepeta ies 8dserahe 26,904 28 AOonoOLO, 12,200 | 9,760 VET ION. fever systehneropercrekeyeiaie ons Seatiane 50,695 28 1,419,460 29,989 17,993 ACT CEL erate tora tr aetna aia) cusvenatery 62,944 30 1,888,320 58 , 630 29,315 AVE Ae caver. Jolsjtaietiane ait = oe cueet 32,923 35 1,152,305 16,630 9,978 IMSSISSUD Dil mer helaraaaes 3) cherenes ac 39,051 40 1,562,040 4,470 4,470 IMEGTUIDERA Us aro te cerrexe aie,c eto .cne ie ees 41,944 36 1,509,985 25,500 | 17,850 MVEOIIT OC sa cleiecehane ols, saree. ole wnt ep er nice 92,065 29 2,669,885 54,160 27,080 MOMCEOMECT Ya occ ce cae «ciate ete otters 12;003 30 2,169,990 27,580 13,790 VOTE 7 on sua erates. 2 he: chee aha ete Rehass 37,455 30 1,128,650 23,520 16, 464 ING ere arid: fo cer... cise Cleve tees tas 39,278 35 1,374,730 2,610 | 2,610 UNE WOU ars: fers istatin sin ¢ Groton, syacennys 42,410 32 sor L2O 11,000 11,000 INOGAW BY > sictersieva.c apsschn citun etelotets 236,173 38 8,974,575 56,500 50,850 OTEL OW serie icicle a eid sot nie He, 4 apse s 26,054 30 781,620 5,170 4,136 SALE) paeiy. cial avevarerote sieve sae avecens 28,840 37 1,067,080 14,250 ’ 11,400 (OVATION ety Sho hPean Ane cd paOienerO aa 30,875 25 771,875 3,670 2,936 EIEISCO bets cotarcte:Sie.ate,srejane.o over srs 19,329 35 676,515 960 960 IOUT aet ete cyercre’ el svalaicieaste'e ote staneres's 25,980 36 935, 280 11,224 11,224 LETHE) ono Ag BPN BNO AOR AE Peeves 98,035 38 3,725,330 45,163 31,614 392 Missouri Agricultural Report. CORN, HAY AND FORAGE—Continued. Corn. Hay and forage. > 4 > 4g Be | Ra oe 3 ee County. is ee BF a Be Lo} Cc o <¢ B 3° “5 es 5 = A a e Sas e me Phelps sji5524 aise ta spans Selene 27,592 30 827,760 16,130 12,904 WIRE Se iew celts. so ahs eia aeehe one mee 76,322 29 2,213,340 41,725 37,552 PLATES lacto < cis ate «ser asdie he aeons 56,703 42 2,581,525 15,000 10,500 NES Oe ee: «Fsbo dicsaviorapa ota sone 70,895 31 2,197,745 29,540 23,632 TEAOUENE| fe a a Sen REE GIG, oon ce 28,060 32 897,920 11,800 8,260 PUIG TER Po snereseie borne anetenerees 60,244 31 1,867,565 67,760 33,880 IRR Seysvaratsvats) eiays ms !srarsuete Wawetel ame 63,510 31 1,968,810 32,000 19,200 Randolph ace cae oe pales 54,873 ol 1,701,065 21,650 10,825 RCN eer eT RMI ME CD IA | iityAssiol 30 3,520,530 43,760 21,880 IRGYNOGS Fase kes eke cee eee 13,685 28 383,180 8,730 6,984 IRIPIOY savers cictag wus taye os Sens antes 23,527 35 823,445 4,580 3,664 SEE G (D8 Sheet pelea Ae aioe Se sat 157, 450 41 6,455,450 36,100 25,270 SGHiUyleretoe lth. oaks: eee of, 201 33 1,229,945 37,000 18,500 SCOplamG:c hy cseacreie oe cash eee 58,074 33 1,916,440 51,430 25,715 DCO lUaacseacls es mies Be aiei see Sis ae ye 35,460 38 1,347,480 7,240 _7,240 STATEMOH 2 eee kat ce te tees soem akin : 21,418 28 599,705 5,330 3,731 Sifel byin. te atone eaclect sugar 69,778 32 2,232,895 53,865 21,546 SpOG Gander. 05 ware ota ale olen | 51,553 30 1,546,590 8,050 8,050 SPOON nee 5 ase, caret tee sta ce Sirens 30, 463 30 913,890 7,525 6,020 Sie. GH arles a. on erdieue oe See 42,302 50 2,115,100 16,800 16,800 Die Clabes cect», eater nic eens 70,110 31 2,173,410 ( 30,540 27, 486 St aN COS aware, Senos 18,715 30 561,450 [. 15,140 15,140 * Ste: Genevieve. 0. ssh. eens 15, 236 32 487,550 9,230 9,230 Ste eteOU Sia, ch ceo toil akeas enn cane 39,163 40 1,566,520 32,060 32,060 SiTblivarie ers taecenceoacas ee aera 67,622 30 2,028,660 94,200 56,520 PRATIOY 5 cararaeinc sR ee POET aT nS eae 27,280 30 818,400 3,545 2,836 ROXAS Ssh eter cnet eae aise eirenecs 47,514 Pye Ts 1,140,335 25,200 20,160 \YSTe 0) a en ee ar id Ghee en no 142,035 32 4,545,120 58,770 58,770 IWiGET ON ie center tate: @ < «c/o 25,612 38 973,555 10,130 10,130 NY VEN) gb oeg 0) ve i) ee ea 25,603 33 844,900 12,340 12,340 \T Re ese ae ie Seach CNEL ee ne 26,225 28 734,300 10,860 8,688 DWIEISSEOD 2m ok. cicteer, lots ecs ia aaa 39, 283 33 1,296,340 21,630 17,304 WWGKUN Swe mice Berets wicloaen s 52,076 35 1,822,660 26,040 18 , 228 NVM bis tase tetanic Paces ake % ares oe 33, 236 30 997,080 19,400 15,520 Statistics. 393 WHEAT AND OATS. Table giving acreage, average yield per acre, and total product of wheat and oats, by coun- ties for the year 1906: : : Wheat. Oats. > > 8 > > 5 g Ba Sg g Ba ss oO BRA op oO By op lig 4) eae Te ee, ro) ae 8. fo) Ca ites. ca diss 38, 347 15.5 594,378 5,258 20 105, 160 1S DITION Ai cue roots Ole ceo eee 12,425 13.5 167, 737 9,760 18 175,680 BGO op Behe eee Sa ene 15,082 15 226, 230 || 14,110 24 338 , 640 TVEIUGOMM ata seve eas Ginicwant cst heer. 10,510 13 136,630 7,897 18 142,146 OUR eI Bs tae ee ones woke 23,890 12.5 298 , 625 4,959 20 99,180 TEXOYFVGs,, | 5 ee ee See een 21,615 15 334,922 7,025 Pai 147,525 IBIGMAW amen a .cccte ase enece ee 33,570 22 738,540 4, 203 24 100,872 TITER rahe Stee nas nache Ao onde aeons 1,895 11 20,845 1,373 20 27, 460 Garcwre ltrs §, or sesceton tats vito 2,295 18.5 42,457 2,308 18 41,544 Callawaryecdalt s.r. et teclsv erate 26,585 15 398,775 10,911 20 218,220 (CHyadG ein Hee AGG Dibtooneries 6,457 ab Wet} 74,255 || 2,990 21 62,790 CaperGirardeaw. 2. se. oss = 60,610 13.5 818,235 || 5,844 20° 116,880 (Gyan (0i10 Ps ARN cea eee aie enV nee ae 22,195 16.5 366, 217 5,700 22 | 125, 400 OUT HE Tanta Taree taiscaae crake apsiceise oink 1,200 10 12,000 540 PAN 10,800 CASS Rete Ber ihe shires 5) sichac duc, o ey, ote « 19,125 20 382,500 || 11,939 25 298,475 (CLO EAS 96 GI ACR SORES ORS Ieee 11,191 13 145, 483 8,466 20 169,320 AOE OR eae iia esis oilers Noo aioe 24,970 17 424,490 3,750 20 75,000 MOTAIEISDI AM sc fie Sucre. vets suerevers loess 22,160 19 421,040 5,705 22 125,510 eeepc a teeia. seu eeretehant uy cles 7,556 22 166, 232 22,875 19 434,625 AULA Vasrete tei ete eka ceiases exter averse venere 8,400 19 159, 600 2,038 25 50,950 MOLI OM eawer. teres cbeisesis. lel Sacasnens, ous 3,190 19 60,610 4,654 20 93,080 em artes ait aiaercic terete ateparevensn's 30,082 15 451,230 3,785 22, + 83,270 (8/c(0) 0 a eee ner SE rin or 52,142 14 729,988 7,151 22 157 , 322 ROT W GEG sce isso Afs.< cioPe alee suet arehé 15,630 10 156, 300 2,246 24 53,904 NDS OT GS oacie vit ast shaustetays tele ries easterly « 26,895 15 403,425 9,984 20 199,680 PETALS oper steven, chassis, cle austere, ste eae 8,210 10 82,100 6, 306 16 100,896 IDE AVIGSE ORR GOA een ee otic iene 5,573 17.5 97,527 2,848 20 56,960 1D 21 RG) Oh ee ea mn Ae en 1,785 21 37,485 3,180 19 60, 420 ID.GIERR. ord COS ee IOS eee ge 12,625 8 101,000 2,000 15 30,000 VE aiseretecd Patho cise; ates hevchpr cuss 3 15,340 Val 168,740 | 3,320 20 66,400 Praca er tareceleven secs) eyeieidiews «e 4,083 Tine 71,452 884 25 22,100 Branihine Ais on. SOR AD EOC. 78,189 15 LP i2.835 6,827 | 25 170,675 394 Missouri Agricultural Report. WHEAT AND OATS—Continued. Wheat. Oats. 5 we] ef B oe @ fo | es o ae - County. 2 2s Bo & 2s be @ ae She ® 3° os om ect eo og So. : & g _ GascGonade:-. siEr wis, kets 36,069 | 13 468 , 897 4,575 23 GeHULY:, 5.2) si8 clots oraeerehor es 1,420 20 28 , 400 5,499 23 GTCOIC Ps cjerd. cine islols 0 ice oh ponent 42,995 15 644,925 11,740 23 GhattiGhe AemiacecamaOA Macias oes 2,905 23 66,815 2,435 30 PUuETASOWs-c.< 6. oe ne ees 2,240 15 33,600 7,619 25 LTA (eS ince or eee es codinlps 23,820 14 333, 480 13,723 18 EMG OUY Sievers «.ecsfels wilco) ahonatche otis 7,157 12.5 89, 462 4,467 18 1810S (id 3 CHRD TRA aon eycion Sec 7,381 19.5 143,929 14,328 25 Prowabde nc eet ac cre oe 42,095 18 757,710 | 1,804 20 15 (a5) 7 SUE ome tea ERIE chi RRC onc 18,291 10 182,910 3,184 15 OMe teachers Sisreacle- stern fever nas 2,020 9 18,180 1,053 20 RPROKSO Me roreiaieravereisre cs) Glebtiecel etn 24,280 25 607 , 000 5,279 20 JE Solita Oa eae an od 59,885 ibys 1,018,054 14,545 25 METTOESOIL «2. fais sanete connie atte hou 27,861 14 390,054 2,192 18 AVe\its Co tee SOOO ene oaks 48 , 407 20 968,140 8,237 Za PRUE tare area hoes eis cotiereleme eae 2,035 14 28,490 4,140 16 Weaede. 2°. oe ae eee eee 8,825 10 | 88, 250 4,174 18 ILA RA Neem oloito 6 dist aocicion 6 6c 50,130 22 1,102,860 11,543 25 WAU WRETICE: eae) yeretece sae Cheeni 68 ,620 17.5) 1,200,850 13,473 25 WS Error ea lence evarster ce eee eee 5,990 20 119,800 5,436 16 WRIT OLA Ss ee tsi ale oo os is ace nis cesar 44,436 18.5 822,066 10,931 25 TOTNES 50S ate pets cone ercmee aa 3,880 | 18 69,840 3,163 22 WGEVANESUOILS. 3) 5 oy5 are eisiseie ees: 6,744 18 121,392 3h. T88: 22 MIG DOM AIG's 12 tet tecure ciemne aidc 15,630 11 171,930 2,050 21 MACON: -7Aceoee moro nical cele 5,430 13 70,590 2,597 19 MIAGISOMS.< pp eet Se aie.s siakerae 8,360 14 117,040 1,076 19 IMATICS et tren ee a end ake 13,732 10 137 , 320 2,727 20 1 TET TC) Bly Aloe Ako isch or a 16,834 23 387 , 182 2,929 16 NAS OER, ere Ae a 1,565 16 25,040 4,470 eg) BUS Toa eee Gant ane eee core 14,543 12-5 181,787 3,885 25 IMASSINST DDI oer: geeks ae atte 36,505 17 620,585 140 25 WEGTIIL OAs eettevedeur isc, a -oie natant 3 28,644 11 315,084 7,884 19 IMONTOC cee cheats ee oe eines | 8,707 18 ; 156,726 8,404 22 MOntZOmeryseen i tt. Seale. 18,366 15 275,490 14,666 21 Le REG cc ea 11,992 | 13. | 154,596 5,865,| 18 INGw. IMACTIONN tes weeers ote a cs | 16,850 18 303,300 266 25 WG WiLOMLs cterslexsiahe Sorte: tate ie Neots 42,193 15 632,895 6,850 22 INGURWEY s1.0 css een seein 5,820 18.5 107,670 21,828 | 25 Gree Mths. a: 5, Soe See en 12,890 se, 90, 230 2,368 | 17 OSREE ovens ciate ioe tie rete 36,598 15.5 567 , 269 2,265 | 20 OZAN Keroro ition ae ee eee Oe 7,875 8 63,000 1,634 | 22 IPERMRCUL does cit iteeraie Soe 5,495 18 98 ,910 62} 25 Perry ab Ss, ble ee 53,052 | 16.5 875,358 4,698 | 25 IPGHUIBG a tera orchesero ates. ws or sites ites 22,350 14 312,900 6,902 | 20 “*nq ‘&quno0o rod plaré [e@q0.L 190,475 247,014 80,406 358, 200 36,080 47,760 21,060 105,580 363,625 39, 456 189,451 66, 240 75,132 288,575 336,825 86,976 273,275 69, 586 77,726 43,050 49,343 20,444 54,540 46, 864 111,750 97,125 3,500 149,796 188,888 307 , 986 105,570 6,650 150,700 545,700 40, 256 45,300 35,948 1,550 117,450 138,040 gg eh li ee ee ae Statistics. 395 WHEAT AND OATS—Cotninued. Wheat. Oats. e i og e 3 eg g Se} 28 g ee £5 County. = ee a= = 28 ee i @ is} oO aa. @ Sa aa 3 2 apres : i Pies roy : ro gS En a Erg ei 72 ao eo NBHEID Soy - x cic. + ele crareisiens 6.2 e's sis 10,217 11 112,387 3,905 18 70,290 IETID 2. oo OOO ERSERORIAS e In DOE lorie 46,157 19.5 900,061 12,113 20 242,260 BETES i ay tar ci 2) 0.e7e-e, x ohel arate etal tebe 39,850 22.5 896,625 2,631 25 65,775 Ie acs ichs.ctletste celetele sis’ 21,143 13 274,859 10,996 18 197,928 SOMES Aes occ) cdc le, tle ster cieteoals oie 8 7,158 10 71,580 2,066 18 37,188 PETE ELE chavs: oo cacao toes ana) are aeons: one 1,501 16 24,016 5,430 24 130,320 PEPE eset 0. cco lecicne oushexershelers ie © 11,553 22 254,166 5,584 22 122,848 PEP ATCONP Ns ere arse rae sist Screneises tea. 3,070 16 49,120 2,441 23 56,143 LRICINZS, SGC Clo IO COL EHC ECR Me a 12,865 24 308 , 765 1,995 20 39,900 RE VATOIGS Ey cys We susveeve cis. o's ec 2,205 8 17,640 790 18 14,220 TEBE DR eG Veterelngieu: esses Baise !s ere Zils, =. hie 5,260 11 57,860 3,290 20 65,800 Lee OMAMIES Se notette ts aycuctaveraye reves 69,378 21 1,456,938 7,344 30 220,320 Sits (CHEN ud tare eras canner Ace ann 7,905 13 102,765 8,903 18 160, 254 PSLCUAGCILOVECV Gs a -foneccle ielecae eo 32,771 14.5 475,179 1,268 18 22,824 SMR ANICOIS 55). er eetheraysters ates es 15,656 12 187,872 1,528 18 27,504 (STF MLO Tea eredths B SR cne rele Sacre 52,860 14 740,040 2,478 24 59,472 (S15) HSS Ghee CHORD: CR ISRORS Ee ORD CEE es CRE PIES 54,700 19 1,039,300 5,933 20 118,660 SIDI. ator prea eS eCnee 2,815 20 56, 300 4,573 23 105,179 SSC OM IATE Cates a sto uanays Gr oisraes apeisy 30 1,360 16 21,760 9,714 20 194, 280 ‘S{Q0 ia Oats eee se OR een eee 55,905 17 950,385 232 20 4,640 SS fren OMe eyerst ene ts sis seis bce ae ees 2,907 8 23, 256 915 15 13,725 SHOE LN as Gre Ge CHER Ree ene aeaes 13,736 14 192,304 6,622 15 99, 330 DSLOM GUNG Sacre tk ocyeeicyclawee si a wens 26,481 14 370,734 1,940 20 38,800 DEORE ree cos lecs 02 Poe Ris ae es se 8,883 14 124, 362 1,485 21 31,185 SUITE A ator Bae ea acinar ice Renee 835 17.5 14,612 || 2,657 30 79,710 NANA CU Ee Ne site Graitencron Ticisiedelel sve 6,736 10 67, 360 1,733 22 38,126 PRES Mele ct kel tus hoesseciermiceens: oe oe 19,018 8 152,144 3,316 15 49,740 AWERTIONIS sis crocus ees arotsioe wie ate a3 12,088 13 157,144 |) 11,130 20 222,600 A/T tk te ote ey ea 23,796 ales 404, 532 | 7,058 30 211,740 WOESINITR ES TOM ps eke ela, eae chetn se 16, 630 13.5 224,505 || 2,199 24 52,776 WHEY TIC career. tert ares cele pes 7,286 10 72,860 || 1,404 20 28,080 WEISEL GI ee ie. he. a tiecreiee nie ae 19,505 10 195,050 || 6,377 20 127,540 \/CEUL Ds oe pun enc te ane a 1,080 20 21,600 | 3,380 25 84,500 \WIGRHEE] 9 oti a Re AP 12,910 10 129,100 3,150 20 63,000 } 396 Missouri Agricultural Report. SUMMARY OF THE ACREAGE YIELD AND VALUE OF FARM CROPS FOR THE YEAR 1906 FOR THE STATE AND BY SECTIONS. CORN. Acres Average Total yield Section. planted. yield per bushels. Total value. acre, bu. INOLEHEASE 21s arent eer te ereeneeeer eee tome 1,339,064 31.3 41,843,900 $15,952,989 NOTED WESC c:. sic. s:ctana ck oxeternetteteeeor ners 2,133,099 35 74,525,705 27,445,159 Centrallc iis os, gee oe Ree 1,122,656 34.9 39,140,795 14,722,251 SOUPNWESEs crs \s,5.5/: 015 5 sae een | 1,536,394 ogee 49,527,190 16,119,575 SOULREASt ic. wis: 4c. Soap ee eee 852,122 33 28,172,035 11,077,225 MIPALCR ate. sats sit eeyett encen Rene RRT EN 6,983,335 33.4 233,209,625 $85,317,199 WHEAT. Acres Average Total yield Section. Acres sown. | harvested. yield per bushels. Total value. acre, bu. Northeast: § sco. ce 297,920 287,585 18.8 5,413,145 $3,707,973 INGEN WES... ct. os ee 245,265 245,868 21.4 5, 264, 202 3,410,700 Gentralle here ast ce 451,355 441,572 14.7 6,509,155 4,235,326 OULAWESTicwa ar eree eae 580,895 559, 360 15.9 8,593, 436 5,365,733 SOUpMeASt as ae a sihele 663,975 652,494 13.8 9,019,231 6,178,447 Statee crn eee 2,239,410 2,266,799 15.8 34,799,169 $22,898,179 WHEAT SOWN, FALL 1906. Acreage com-| Average con- | Previous five- Acreage pared with pre-| dition crop, year average Section. sown, 1906. vious year, Dec. 1, 1906. con. Dec. I, % 1906. NiorbHeastiis mpte cee oer omiect scien 300,787 100 82 89 INOrtWeStveesioei igen. ce cee 254,979 104 75 92 Centrale we cctentey cic icce Gc vein cene ogee 465,721 103 86 86 DP OUDNWESUAtevcre eawd rsa aale! aisle ate 602,657 103 82 84 BOMUMEAStiN es panic ow Stee ocd oe ee 657,813 99 85 86 UAVS ae eeteme beara. Se eos oh eee 2,281,957 102 82 87 OATS. Average Total yield, Section. Acres yield per bushels. Total value. harvested. acre, bu. INODENCASE Aisin oemterceint eaten Cel nite 161,358 21.5 3,465, 246 $1,104,553 IN ODUIIWERE: (huis soo. es meee eee 137,983 23 3,344,690 1,042,301 OT) Dicer eter ME oR AGRA ORT See, 58 104,133 20 2,051,489 703,758 PIGUENWESU. eo r.ter tetcis, ink x Sno eee CE 184,568 21 3,956,131 1,173,860 BOUtNCRStH te atiaiy nc chs tlw keene 63 , 647 20 1,311,931 470,575 SPALGR lai iiste cpus dtr aires 651,689 21.1 14,129, 437 $4,495,047 - Statistics. HAY AND FORAGE. 397 { | | Acres Average Total yield Section. harvested. yield per Tons. Total value. acre, ton. | PUCHGIGU SE sccsarersucte rate Se efelecas st Gro eG 981,184 .6 | 536,913 $5,660,743 MMOTIELBRU ESL tcesrals see ereisiere ecg ocals wigcaare 846,055 .6 482,637 5,173,393 MGesece Maltese veto scscestesd cy'esl ge eke a ew ale glee s 546, 443 ath 360 , 603 3,620,889 OTELINUES bie retinas oe teeiars e's cogs ates 587, 240 9 528 , 468 4,271,854 MERIC ASU so te'o cin RA okie 0k Leet 327,189 .9 | 292,955 3,626,811 SoS nae eRe aos ale GU 6B: ORS eee 3,288,111 STi 2,201, oan $22,353,690 PRAIRIE HAY. Acres Average Total yield, Section. harvested. yield per tons. Total value. acre, ton. INGOTRING Shey Stas arctay ene 7= ae alrero: bale cee. shee 16,709 1 16,709 $130, 866 INGUUMW CSE cheveelcvslors ayes isles carers creme 33,848 1 33,848 262,777 MST Tall epebets fsck s, asa s <.crate cee ee ee 15,496 1 15,496 113,751 GUD WES tier en- creiehev shes svateelsiererelalarsaves abe 99,679 1 99,679 714,950 OUBNeR Sis, correcta. stexcevelela a0. Se lets 2,213 1 Da SPALS ya 22,106 Stabs water aersiavveve, dave svertetele 167,945 1 167,945 $1,244, 450 FLAX. Average Section. Acres sown. yield per Total yield. Total value. acre, bu. INGTON EASE eee PAs aynai Soetlone a hoes Fea onthe 382 9 3,438 $3 , 094 INST WE OS Ureteyeha day ot aus oh es = Shokercaee oe asso one 540 10 5,400 5,400 Geri Tallleemarcsiees ca soya fs opaveorirers ce osc ous 1,370 8 10,960 11,179 BOLUM WEST net et vo sucesaiala ere ober 16,425 fy 114,975 | 102,328 SMUD. Se bas boc pees Dela HeuEe o/s plabine 5600 6|coseeccn Speal pcino ciclo cinccmicd pcmianicr scr 0, | SUIS «irae. ciete a Co tena 18,717 8.5 134,773 $122,001 RYE. Average Total yield, Total value. Section. Acres sown. yield per bushels. acre, bu. “Tah 2 ge a ea a eae ge 4,000 14.8 59, 200 $33,744 THEBES bare lars ei sleverelajele, rere nioueve.dp' sie.s 7,500 19.5 147,225 85,390 Went halen retrersbac mcls.suecn aisle deans oe 1,850 13),7 25,345 14,953 SOUIPELWV CBD rs yeretetetat osapauee syencrs/eyaie s¥sle., 01+ 2,300 12 27,600 16, 560 BSOILGNIEAS bisa cralioast oteralena)aie vas idle’ eievielae > 2,850 13.4 38,190 24,823 Est Ore emer ct wave lontattiss eVeroratet tious 18,550 14.6 297 , 560 $175,470 398 Missouri Agricultural Report. BROOMCORN. Average Total yield, Section. Acres sown. yield per lbs. Total value. acre, lbs. NOTEHGast & sac e etele cinta 465 300 139,500 $4,185 Northwests:s; <:. 2 Ase stesniesro ne eres 450 300 135,000 3,510 Gentralissaie. oc-nn so eee oe eee 550 375 206, 250 8,869 Southiwests.%.°:.). steerer 2,805 350 981,750 35,343 Southeast: \..3o. Ae eee eter 150 300 45,000 1,530 Stabe. c ou ian. Oe eer 4,420 325 1,507,500 $53, 437 COTTON. Average Total yield, Section. Acres sown. yield per lbs. Total value. acre, lbs. INOECHEASE 5 cts :c ste ,cte hater tetarakew wie a oudtal [tee Srevete orejieue oe] etere Reuter tae care Oe | lovedtakes Go ecmelcorcterensiet| Siente see aaa NOTE WES bis oisesg ics, cil eee Eiatolis) 5, shim are! onus en | rete eecoperren cuaretell ate tage tettey.cl-ssartev eve, | ecel-ah atte remencatie patter Sentral oss viie sce Pete ore 5 nie hava aillete ww: © a: due laters | eeomehabel se ares es tie ohaee ceey tate tara otarel| tate ne SOUCMWeESts 5... ¢ 5/5 Pach hestesandoree othe 5,997 225 1,349,325 $121,439 Saoupheast. £.5 1. pestotteh aes siete 65,366 307 20, 067, 362 1,705,726 SLUG fated c cicccrerete titers eer eae 71,363 300 21,416,687 $1,827,165 POTATOES. Average Total yield Section. ¢ Acreage 1906,| yield per bushels. Total value. acre; bu. INOREHCAST 0 3:dclors raters are: a eoai srersneveucte 13,900 71 986 , 900 $631,616 NOEL WESbi.s% sotto carton « «a mtacctoretecs 18,950 67 1,269,650 876,058 Central o.ccldee args siaaee cin aioe 12,400 101 1,252,400 663,772 SOUUMWEStic ete tats c's ac seers 15,680 92 1,442,560 620,301 SOubWeast comer teectsteoissc o's hel Uacitieiers 20,055 89 1,784,895 981,692 SET eerhrn. fo. Rae 80,985 84 6,736,405 |” $3,773,439 F TOBACCO. | Average Total yield Section. Acreage 1906.| yield per lbs. Total value. acre, lbs. INOUE eAShi.1-yot te eet aiele tie nie shereke 510 660 336,600 $37 , 026 INOLPHWESE i \.:5,0:5 ets totele steric clerne Ciclo ae 530 600 318,000 38,160 Cemtiraliye'S 5 c-ctiveungyteus, wateticuverons Slate 1,030 697 717,910 86,149 MIOUPTWOSE:..< hyets «hex cisue abate hice lenelaravete 465 675 313,875 31,387 SOMPMOASE:., iat sRreieusfeisiav clave ouaenveras 590 650 383,500 38,350 BUBLOX! Ra cchele crsineye,creltiois setters 3,125 656 2,069,885 $231,072 Statistics. 399 SUMMARY OF TOTAL YIELD AND TOTAL VALUE OF FARM CROPS PRODUCED BY MISSOURI FARMERS IN THE YEAR 1906. Acreage. Yield. Total farm value. ROOSTER RN ein heat Calc ee ciate, tele, @.8.6. 9) 88 eer oo vemuarevene 6,983,335 233,209,625 $85,317,199 \AUCNEYE 5. ARS ge ang oc ba 2,266,799 34,799,169 22,898,179 (CAIs 2 3,6 S GRR cc ratene NRE tc oh See ena 651,689 14,129, 437 4,495,047 HACDV BATION EOTAL Gan shoe srcic Wem eieesi Gicle ae oh etki’ we.a oe 3,288,111 2,201,577 22,353,690 SUITE MELA Vic. ean -o.540 coef Reieinc @ eos teniescvs,gletehe 167,945 188,010 1,244,450 EST cist meyers cs lane ape aye ceasanate mcticeions «a oceletespeite: ave. 18,717 134,773 122,001 LESVGA, 2 cc SOPRA ORC, CSRS Ce eee ee en 18,550 297 ,550 175,470 ISTE GEN AG craleicrcreotois otis ort eee Ree ene eae eee 2,450 36,750 35,647 STG Vie geetc: sioner ate ah sila tchavaveh fasecaes Siew oi ace oe ee 1,970 43,340 24,270 SRT COMI 5) oreo ayes Sy eeve wire Braces Sin Sheraos Navener’ 4,420 1,507,500 53,437 OLEH LONE. oS, Geta cS Rt. cao a ee 71,363 21,416,687 1,827,165 EAU ULOCS Mer tatneetarecahos) ov oxecetaes.e) ss1si ora ees ts Oreos 80,985 6,736,405 3,773,439 SRG eC OMPa eer dae titrate ataveicval cietwsn ova ttehehea Slee duanals 3,125 2,443,255 289,995 RSQUOMAMTIAGS VT ire «cones ots ciciSue, averdie ctl aleve, ans 32,000 3,936,000 1,574,400 SCRE ESEMETTINES CO peers cictans ty cuss cua aicieoe ute cheer lore ssuaner’s 32,000 768,000 583,680 WIGMETESCEU ee citer sich actarnl « ord sczee tive She sions ie: ace 28,080 56,160 393,120 Timothy and other grass seeds................ 40,800 150,880 295,045 Mmninicorn, millett. cowpeas castor beams. et@...||..<...sss7es<-|eecsseaceccee. 1,000,000 WESCE AMC OMSRVESeLdD ESS saw ceric ecr mney © ee sceyat last a sr'aya eo c: aseeayelllevencetus enateretn easvee 6,250,000 ROTM aIUeKO fra lleCLOPS mn aporcwctaiie cre erate ais exes. akors)s sve ni 's}s |lacereue.c 9m enerore lene $152,711,634 CROP YIELDS 1906. AVERAGE PER ACRE BY CROP SECTIONS. N. E. Sec. | N. W.Sec.| Central |S. W. Sec. |S. E. Sec. Whole Crop. 20 21 Pil 2B: 29 State, 114 ‘counties. | counties. | counties. | counties. | counties. | counties. Gorn, bushels... 3: .......00:5 =< Sli 35 34.9 S2ee, 33 33.4 Wheat, bushels........... 18.8 21.4 14.7 15.9 113}, 15.8 Oats, bushels........ of eae Zino: 23 20 21 20 PALL eth Timothy, tons....... .6 .6 5 if 9 if [esac LOWS Se. arc siere 1 a 1 US PU Rist acess eiscsts.< 1 HayA Clover. sis si. 2 tons... 1 1 1 1 1 1 COWDEASE siecle) ores, 010.6 2 2 2 2 2 2 (Alfalfa, tons........ 3 3 3 2 2 2.6 aA DTISWCIS sie teic «oars sore 9 10 8 GUM erslore tehicecatone 8.5 FRYER DUSHEIS conc 2% 2.5. 0 rs 14.8 19.5 WSi57/ 12 13% 14.6 Buckwheat, bushels....... 17 18 18 9 14 15 Barley; bushels.........:. 25 19 QT Bee vere vats, 38 26 227 Broomcorn, pounds....... 300 300 375 350 300 325 CUE TIM GIGIIE ty) TIO UIUC Sits aye tase arate avet's ele |llafoveve ose s, sie) si|lols's oce%ssiiey evs 225 307 300 Potatoes, bushels......... 71 67 101 92 89 84 ‘Tobacco, pounds: ......... 660 600 697 675 650 656 Sorghum syrup, gallons.... 100 98 101 87 101 97 Sorghum seed, bushels..... 33 26 28 25 20 26 Kaffir corn, bushels....... 30 22 22 30 23 25 Cowpeas, bushels......... 15 12 15 13 15 14 Clover seed, bushels....... 2 2 2 2 2 2 Timothy seed, bushels..... 4 3 4 4 3 3.6 400 Missouri Agricultural Report. AVERAGE FARM PRICE, NOVEMBER 1, 1906. The prices given in this table are governed by local conditions and are the current local prices prevailing in the country. Corn, per bushels... 7. seer Wheat, per bushel........ Oats, per bushel.......... Flax, per bushel.......... Timothy seed, per bushel. . Clover seed, per bushel.... Cowpea seed, per bushel... forghum seed, per bushel... Kaffir corn, per bushel.... Rye, per bushel Buckwheat, per bushel.... Barley, per bushel Potatoes, per bushel Sweet Potatoes, per bu.... Winter apples, per bu..... Timothy hay, per ton Clover hay, per ton Broom corn, per ton Cotton (Lint), per lb...... Leaf tobacco, per lb Wool, per lb = OR Nunn re Central .37 - 66 .34 -02 -40 -00 .42 -83 -59 -59 aur 52 -53 -64 -30 Bae mm ON es - 26 LIVE STOCK—AVERAGE FARM PRICE PER HEAD, DECEMBER 1, 1906. Horses. Spring COlts..ccewhewe eae ee Wearing. oc eae ties se Two years and over....... Mules SDMUELCOltSpetamsess:. +o. « WEATHNES eater eleie se <0 Two years and over....... Cattle. BLECr CAIVESS actece es Sec 0308 Wearling Steers.6 osc... o's Yearling heifers. .%% «0.5 .: Steers, two yrs. and over.. Cows, two yrs. and over... Sheep. Lambs under one year.... All other sheep........... Chickens. Average price per pound... Turkeys. Average price per pound... N. E. Section. «13 { N. W. Section. bi Central Section. $48 -07 oa Ss. W. Section. $48 “kal { S. E. Section. $43 «11 —~ State. yb | Statistics. 401 {LIVE STOCK—CONDITION AS TO THRIFT AND HEALTH, DECEMBER 1, 1906. N. E. N. W. Central. Ss. W. S. E. State. Section. Section. Section. Section. MG AD re a, ai o)'evs nies ePeye,sveie ore 95 95 95 95 93 94 PELRIE Seley yore Mel ci sy et suet epsite hayes 95 97 97 97 97 96 WENO Ser) etfe obits lela aviace ere ts o)ay'2 97 98 98 98 96 97 [RICEE GB An Gols: Teo OR teenies 95 90 96 92 88 92 SLi@) 013 MaSigd AO IeGer aerate 94 96 95 95 93 94 A—2%6 Missouri Agricultural Report. 402 *paurjuriend “zouMO Aq poe[DT *pauryurienyd -rauMO Aq pai “‘pourjuviney “*praqd “poutyurienyd ‘gUOJSAN{q WOryNTos yinow “ses ulosdy postapy “*praqd “ABP B IOIMY ‘ayeiqiu unissegod *z0 [ paslIApy “pouljueiengd *P®9p ITV *paulyurient) *JO pasodsip MOTT ” eee eee ew eee ” @ 9) ¢ We 6.6)0 6.00 ” SOIUCIOIOIOO n=) 01112909) seeeeee ees grapuRly Shi gegen ons * sorqey i tress ss agpasip ON seep creat "** “sorqeyy «|e = 0 « se 8.0 *sIsO[Oo1eqn T, = bL8 arb bake eee *SIopurly “+++ + -a9A97 snoyydy Src ee CREE "* *sorsuelyg Series Taney Ss SO OUUOU ODA yo}0 4179) “asvasi( << Sarplad faos T° “+ Suiptas Aoq tT |" og “sny + Surpjes yotlq 1 |*°'sz “sny “s-Surpjes Aeq T|°'9 ‘any “sss -oreur ABIZ T|*"g “ANY teeeeesscgmuarp|isgg oung Batic din “ama tl zt Ate i aa dooys 0OT | 6T eunr Sogient p cic brio MOO T Q ‘ NOD eT < pie eeet oe : 6 tir OOO -+«gmoo g |: Sas PWo}s) (3) 1/0 % acson se -**smoo Z : FCihock re. Orie s8oy ¢ |: 7 a6. db aototo M00 T 4 Reeavecn sven: ** M00 T : seeessss-gmoo Z]* OT oun Soe on ago sso |*-9g £tqy * * SUIp[es £013 I i mr HDS CTO VLG fa a) itd ‘Idy ***SMOO Z ‘SsOY Z ez “ady vss s++sgggroy @ |**e¢ “qaq eters sgoszoy gz |" oe “ure > boob be : cote Mae EO TPOOR atyyeo oz |'°9 «cue ‘+ *-SuIpjes Aveq T|/°°9T ‘uer 906T “yO04s JO PUI ue | = oe) SOE IO TRO GSO, beter eens sergagary esyeretsie RST MONS M ‘0 “Ad ‘weise[aL apAsoy Iq ‘weisela,, eee een ee *WIRIs9[9,L Gate apannte lens * "79901 Ripe ers. 2 2 a. 6. s asessoy ****oJOedsUT “S “ ier sais “+ -YOKMeg Dade ta ON Ioqoodsuy SpieX YO ‘10449'T olaniclis a isi JISIA UINJOYY riers e ees -oSessayyy ee eee tle 8. “osRssay asessoul suoydeay, ipAVTT “Iq ‘Weis9[aT, spepsen res JISTA WIN YOY . ES 00 Hef) EP By jelage Avie ederauets 0101 "TS “AR BOUDRY ZFS “"T 9S “98 SuUepV 8TZs “"T “49 JS OUIG pue 410% “"'T 49 ‘ydjopury geez “"'T 49 ‘YrRUSTE “S 008% “T “49 4S UOSIPeW G06 sete eee OW ‘AAOID OTT SER Leash, eke . OW ‘suvdsig Bivefimi stein ahs uur mn ‘OW ‘RIgaZ 2 A OW ‘Yeetg uury oeeve ooe “OW ‘A10UIPIyS “*smo'y 4S UIST “S LELT bleleneyels . “OW ‘preysunds “e929 -oW ‘praysuldg eevee oW ‘S19q UIT], SsoIp SINO'T 49 ‘UOSIPL SFEz "so" 9:-OW ‘DIpRyT MON “''T “490 “AY UVM LOPF “ported MOH “a0OISOg 1110 <~ SOTO HA 148+ RotRD “aN "+!" 20) “sny . UVMIVUIIO}0 A 23219 sees eeaee ow ‘JoysvouR'yT ee piojng eS i “906T ‘JO pasodsip MOTT “asvasiq *y04s JO Pury | a1Vq | * paleo MOFT *g0NJOISOg *IOUMO ‘9061 ‘Sl UMANAOAC OL ‘SO6T ‘OZ UAANAOAC UVAA AHL UOA ‘NVIUVNIUALAA ALVIS ALNdAC ‘CUANIVU ‘A Ud JO LUOdAU TVONNV *pouinq pue fou) |= > 2. siopur[s ouo01yO ee) sels, 6) ms sasioy Z Saar “ydag a (nla 9 se <4 0.81109 Tolaralieues ON ‘urequnoyy NOME | tse rosuyjowus 3 f “M ‘guoisfy Jodoid postapy |" ST}LSUT -udy jeurds o1qa.i199 Sere) 6 0) 00) ene .« eeu ue) oe € ‘Idy i WIeISIII Cee ce wep ee « OW ‘younig sae ‘kV ‘TH “M “UUTAL “M “9061 ‘JO pesodsip Moy “asvosiq *y004S JO PUT ‘ayreqd *pal[eo MOF “20WJOysOg *IIUMO Missouri Agricultural Report. ‘906T ‘8ST UAANAOAC OL ‘S06T ‘02 UAANHOAG UVAA AHL WOA NVIUVNIUALAA ALVLS ALAdAC ‘UANLLEOd “dH ‘Ud JO LUOdaY TVONNV *pourjurieng? © 6. 66,0 98.8.0 (056,86 soIqeog Sv) 6) © p 8) le) D: aso T “* eke Arne > BD 60/16 )0. 6) 8 eee. 6 134J9T ee .e78 ges Coy iN ‘UOUIOA “VIN “eee eww ee spleyony TOPVA “9061 *JO pesodsip MoyyT “osvasiq, *yooys JO pulyT ‘aqeq *payqeo MOTT “90IOIsog “IQUAO ‘906T ‘81 UAAWAOAC OL ‘S06T ‘03 UMAWHOUG UVAA AHL UOA NVIUVNIYVALAA ALVLS ALAM ‘AUUA “AM “Ud JO LUOdAU TVONNV 404 405 eCTUNaATIaN. Report State Vet *‘[WATIIV WO peed |°""" ~*~ IOAVJ SVXOT, poleeAer wlojIoulysog |°""******* MOO T Siar eiaravoueieie: wroneSsyer svatene a7cr orate senator afcmalltOcesisesMenedalels qooqd Testn [°° °° OreU T ‘ouTJUvIeND WOIJ pasvofey |" ee\SIODUCTO) I eae Sosioy Z ‘payors | sseosqy [°° °° 7" Sony 1 "4S04 UlOT[VIW | °°” silepurls oynoy |" SasIoy Z SDIMMUGIUNO) en oe |. SIopuvis oyNoV | SosIOl] Z Se avay/ev tray SEN cle efor ed cite ok sucnrotho Goma atoten aval lheManreel ve. elielivin ss Oe qniy |*°°"° doays Fz *qUOUI}V81] POsIApY |°°' °°" “YdlIeywo TeseN |" ** e1VUI T ‘Jo posodsip MOFT asvasiqd. *yoojs JO puryy “$3 “ydesg og Aine “eg Ane “6g AVN “"Q¢g ACI -* hit ‘idy lk UsGh. ‘9061 oyed ” ” eaeietey = SII“ "00D -**faxyony] “FC ‘Id ” ” “poytvo MOT sian eWanane OW ‘sIMoT “Oy ‘ouUAT Jsey 7s OW ‘O[[TAUOSTIIV ET afevey celeste OW ‘OT ” ” "OJ G01], VUOT "+> OW ‘IOSPUIAL slimes ow ‘ern *90tJo sod Seesaw oe we we auealy “IN Sree a100It ‘a ‘0 sal siersrece AIUIBAODIW ‘TV BfaatelaMeeiee-e) erate aI00W ‘a ‘0 Syenewstseieis nie rele> aI00Ww “a ‘0 “" "ss" "TOSUIPITIIM Ulsniy, eS elaelee ce WIM HL *IOUMO eee es eS et eee eee a "9061 ‘ST UAANAOAC OL ‘C06T ‘02 UMAWAOAG UVAA AHL UOT ‘NVIUVNIYALAA ALVIS ALNdaAG ‘AATIAGVUE AOVUOH “Ud AO LHOdHA IVANNV *pouing s pues ued JoAO poovjd Metis pvyy | °° SHOMIONO Ho oe Se sued -yoojs Ul 999%) "4inod Aqunod Aq PIII Pelepio |" SOP TODILE TS) (eer a caee SOSIOy Z *quowljevel} Jedoid pestApy |°°*""****"* VZUINPUT |Se[NUl 2 soesioy ZT *yinoo AYUNOD 04 pay1oday |°°" SiapuR[s oTUOIYH | o[NuI T ‘sesioy ¢ "JO pasodsip MOTT “asvasiq *yOO4s JO PUTS, “"2T “4dag "eg oune “ST Your ‘9061 -ayeqd / VOT HOGG DOO oon ONeT BOO ADT oer OC 101}0'T Ie bop ow weiso[aq, “*PeT[vd MOTT ‘ow ‘uvydimod ‘sow ‘ueydtuod “OW ‘UATV UeTD ** OTTAsuotNIVD “a0TJOSOT *+*-urydtuoqg jo ueuly001g9 “** "saTsog ra “M pue sudacdqg “]T “¢ ‘URUT -19UIWTZ, ie) ‘ad ais aa sara we ena Ou JOUIWIOY “IW *O “SIN *I9UMO ‘9061 ‘8ST UMANAOUAC OL ‘S06T ‘02 UMANHOAC UVAA AHL VON ‘NVIUVNIVGLOA MLVLS ALNdAC ‘NOSITTOAO SAWVL “Ud JO LUOdAU IVONNV 4 *posoljsap aq 03 pourjueienyd ‘aulquRIRND WOIy pesva[oy *poururiend *OTU04 g[qvjesevA ‘pooj snolijnu poaslApy ” *poulyuriene? “UOIJVAIASqO IO} plaH ‘ouTjuRIeND W101} posve[axy *pouTjuriene? “UOT}VALASqO LO} play *poulqurieny ‘UOTJVAIOSGO IO} Play ‘PIL Petepio ‘pouljurient Missouri Agricultural Report. *SoTU0} PUL BSNJIWIIGA PasIApY “JO pasodsip Moy 406 ****sarqevos posoddng |**********daayg | gt 4ydeg | Aoyony “Wg ‘id "+" “SiepuRps d1U0IYOD ** “slepur[s pesoddng ” “soIqros “ss SrepuRls oTUOLYO ip taut custeaietevots sxapur[y ***Slapurts oynoe-qng “**fOIBl pue siepurpy Rites orale - +++ =g91qrog siepury )/2).0) 8.6) ae 6m e Slepurls 0} pasodxe usveq pry Sr aenterre “++ -siapurry “*“Ssiepurls pajoodsng rene: *-s3apurp S[@SS9A POOTq pur sja -MOq SUIJOIL SUIIO AMA -asBasiq "* “sosroy % ceuenteaeen sas1o} ** “sesi0y Z *** *S9sI0TT Fee ee eee sgraaeg Seana oan asioy T asi0y T Fssss +s sgagz0y ¢ eoebie ‘sasz0y ¢ SosIO}{ asi0y T as10y T “*Sa[NUI 3p sesI0FT “+ -a[qyeo prey IF e170) tresses g9gr0q & Freee ees sggzoy J oT Onan Orcageneory ovo sasloyT asi0y T “esi0y T wees ees + sggroy J Poy t. ++ “sgsroy ¢ ame cos Ore “Sos lop “3904S JO PUTS, g “4dag 9 “Shy “"0% oun OT -30nye [sou Sung Bx} oun “61 AvW “OL AVW “TT ACW “IT Ar . ‘Pp ABW . we “1dy . BC} “1dyv . 6 “1dy "1% ‘IRIN "0% “IR "0% JIeW “eT “Ie ““27 “Ie “OT “Ie “CT ‘qaqa 6 ‘qeq 92 ouer “og “une -6T cuee 9 “wep “9061 "*¢Z ‘eq “GO6T aqeVq seer es AISIA UINJOIY saiegg fo JISIA WINJOYY Pact oe yIg{O AyuNOD sso eeaISIA UINjOW . * oon] “A ‘d Id Forman ens uolied “JISTA UINJOY ““4ISTA WINJOY UOl Od Co Oath Oa *oyon'T nih vers ss oToydeaay : * £oyon'T eal rat eal =>" 91ST Tange “PISTA UIN4oYy Once STITH ‘a “Oo “9ISTA WaNqoy TONNE “SIIM “a “09D “Pel@o MOTT OW OW OW OW oN ‘A119 xouy OW ‘sinqsyyeg |" "* OW ‘s1ngsy47RId | “20qJoysog | “OW ‘low Avig “ow ‘Ayoqry |** ‘OUTIOYID “4S “" "stared UWeiTTTM trees ss uOsRaIO *M “a eae OBE cl mS | ‘ues “10 “OW ‘WNTLOOOW “VL Peis Noe nite JOIN CM “EL UOSvAID "MM “A SN yoolg janwueg ee as Fie “qoang “EL UOStAID “M “A WNTLOOOW “V “L UINTTODOW “VL ie seis okra eine uRSIOW ‘0 “W © €0e>/ RAs Ghelans. A1Iqsugy RCUEE § Fete e eee uuRMg “TT “a UOstalg *M “ot yooig jenwieg OW ‘O10d * OW ‘UIping ae OW ‘O[0d ‘auIIayyeyD “49 | ‘QUMIAYIVD “49 | ‘QULIOyIeO “4S | “OW ‘UWpPpng "OW ‘eVulpy ee ee OW ‘olod OW ‘pur[panqy | “OW ‘euoed | "OW ‘YIePMON ‘OW ‘lowARIg “oy ‘AOUINE opp) ape ne'e, 9 4e- 6 a ate JOT “UAL Jesse ececerecsecvne IOUl ‘g (c ee SIAR “UM. eee meron eee IO[AB,L “M Ay, OW ‘aT[Apvaw “OW 'VUIpA SMOUWRN “UW “L Wey ‘uoysulg ‘unqyeeyO ‘ssOY ‘SASSET Cat at PI ea IO[ARL “Mh ar ‘IasuTIeA “SO row Cir eer I0[ AVI, “Mh uO . ev asereelee vyasuey “SOUL, Aone oan SMOUNRN “WL oy; ‘Aouiny, “* OW ‘BUuIpy ow ‘Aoumy OW “SUITOOT MA OW “T[Apeayy oy ‘urpang |******* “W0TIG “¢ Aerpuy *IJUMO ‘9061 ‘ST UAANAOAC OL ‘S06T ‘0G UAANAOAG UVAA AHL UO ‘NVIUVNIUALAA ALVLS ALOdAC ‘NMOU ‘A “I “Ud JO LUOdAU TVANNV 407 Report State Veterinarian. ee as es ere oe ‘Jo pasodsip MoFT “asvesiq Ree soy [oe cong “ona [eee OR “a0yjojsod | *IOUMO 9061 ‘8ST UMANAOAC OL ‘SO06T ‘0G VAANAOAC UVAA AHL YOM ‘NVIUVNIUALAA ALVIS ALNdaC ‘AGNAH WA “Ud AO LUOdAY TVONNV Ne eee eee ee ee 0 (0 00 050500 ee ‘spivd “ZY “YW peulureienyH ‘Pe usaq pe “spivd “YY poulurieny *pouljurieny ‘spivd “YY "YW pouturieny *poddiys 9[3}89 peyoojuy ITV TIO JuOUINveg YIM poddip pa ep1O ‘sued Yyoojs pouljurieny *JO posodsIp MOF, ” a¥er tel e\cofel vile é:ete ote S9IIQBvIS STéebetteite sreieteue) ite SIIQBIG “aseasiqy SHoudb oo Or apnea |" ***"MOO T ‘sd0y & so0onmmoor 911480 ZZ soMoteor alyeo gg | see wee eyeuue) $L GCGCGO oO On doaoys &Z "04s JO DULY 6 | oe ee ae Aayony “aC ese onr ‘omer |: soudedd “oT Das? De) la) STILL ‘a ‘09D we! eo! os8)6 #8 Une) s OW ‘U04seay se eee ‘jeydoysuyO [PMO avd A a |PReRee Be Pay wae Wilco nmasa hea) (amma on nig On KOON Gok 2 ae OW ‘ormiey |o7 UWOSUdAIIS “gq ‘OUL” pect od md Sum “qf 005 [°° °° OW ‘doryqury, ss eeeee ss KQAIeT pRIUOs o- Ki 5. ISRO SS 38 a On Kee |e ee SVUIOUT, “VM. e [Pe seecere cape One CoV, [o 2OP ee Ow Bese: uoOpi0y *0ay> *. 5). PPP Beige Oct OM OMe eee ee ees usaly ° NN “Golly bone ona good ow ‘ommey |H “Ss pure ued ‘NL . ‘£oyon'T “A ‘a Id se eee i= OW ‘OT[IASHIBMaq9 ee aT AM “IN “pol[e@o MOF, “IOWjO sod “IIUMO *Q06I ‘81 UAANAOAC OL ‘G06l ‘02 UMANAOAG UVAA AHL YOM ‘NVIUVNIYALAA ALVIS ALNdC ‘AGOOD “A “H “Ud AO LUOdaU TVONNV Missouri Agricultural Report. 408 *y.n09 £4uUNOD 04 payiodai pue pouljurieny “yano09 Ayunod 04 payioder pure pouyuriend *qyno0o 44jUNOD 04 payiodal puv pouljurieny auljuvienb Woy pasvaleyy *41n09 AqyUNOd 0} poayodoai pue pouurieny *4an0o £juN0d 0} poyiodei pue paururieny “4804 Uld[[VJ{ WAALS oq 0} pauTjURIeNy “4.109 A£junN0d 04 paysodei pue peurjurseny ‘poutyuriengd *4.1n09 AjunN0d 0} pajiodal puv pouljurieny “41no09o AyunNod 04 payiodal puv pouljurieny “y.1n09 4juUNOD 0} pey1odai puev paulyurieny “poulqurient? -y.n09 AjunN09 04 payiodal puv pouljyuriend *41n00 4£4un09 03 payiodal puv pouljyurient "JO pasodsIp Moy, [e19j3ns jo . “*slopurls o1u01gO ““slopuRl[s 07 posodxnT “***"Sl9puRls oTUOIYO Fetes sees ees -gnutg AreyIxeu jo yiieyeg ***srepurls poyoodsng “****slopurls dUO1YO “7s IIeqyeg o1u01yO 8). 6.0), Sele 16) pis o* yonod YsIVyep “*"Srlepurly eee Slopur[s ITUOIYO "Toes **pullq pus pio **slapurls dTU0IYO “soIqevos poqoodsng **siopurls ou0I1yO “aSBOSIC ‘see SEU MOURN [os ts ee es ” OIOS ‘ gs10y 1 "*** “s9sr0y Z% - +5 -9g70y T ***914989 OOT ** ‘9sroy T +++ -somur z *Y904S JO PUNT “ZT “ew "Gs ” “St “Got y TS ” LLG ” SiC Ge es, SG ss "PS ” *"€Ss » ays) | ” eae? 4) § ” Pail ’ EOL w 2G » ar ” ret!) ” oP. ” “2 cure “906T "L1G ‘09d “SO6I a4eq see eee ***IQUMO “*"*"TIUMO . £oyon'y “aA ‘a ‘Id tees) -9MO Kg *pol[eo MOT ” ” ” ” 4S SOMM[OH F UID 48 SOWM[OH ZIST POIA “M *S PROE IS NUVM FHTS pueipy Y Pls AV yoodsoig 018% qse1og FP IS “48 NUTVAA FTCT “AV Joodsoig O18Z @AOIE) G1FZ qoyIeW AIO 98 UIOT “AA €Z “AV SMOTIIVW PIES UOJSUISUOY 2 PAgp “4S wUleM TO6T ‘£0 “M CAV MOXSV EESZ BNC OS TOOL 3) ‘Aqsoyq “AV yodsoig O18Z “£9 “uey “48 WI9T “A OOSE “20qgoysog “*puog sour -"Ssou "H +9) OITUSMAI “H “A + SuexoId *T Coe heuer **ppoiquioy “LO tees UMOURUQ se eee * SULIONIIG ‘} “""qpoiquioy “1 ‘0 "t'***-g9uLg WRg - ++ -uMouqUA * JeyRuIV0YS “WL “uel ‘a'r 5 aqg UaTTy -q70qIeL “WW “OUIONTRYON “S “AL be **spor1quioy “LO vane’ KOTO. 2 =P *IZUMO ‘9061 ‘81 UAAWAOAC OL ‘S061 ‘02 UMAWAOUA UVAA AHL UOT ‘NVIUVNIUALAA ALVIS ALAdaa ‘TUOON ‘9 ‘a Ud JO LUOdaAY IVANNV 409 Navan. Report State Veter 489} UlI[VY ‘poulyurivny *4.1n00 Aqyunod 04 pojiodals pue poulyursrendy *41n00 Ajunod Of poyiodal pue pauljyurien? *pouljurien? *ouTJUvIeND penulyUuoD *q1no0d Ajunod 03 payiodal puv poulyurien?d *pouTjyuRient) *4.1n09 AjunNod 0} pajiodal puv poeuljurieny suljuvienb Japun psor[ gq *poso1jsoqd “41n00 AjuN0d 03 pay1odal pue pouljurien?y ZOUMO JO JUaSUOD YIM paefo1seq *ponuljuos sulyuRIend *poulqurien? ‘auljuvienb Jepun play "IJUMO JO JUABSUOD YIM pasOo1soq *pouljurient “auTjuvienb Ul ple *41n09 Ayunod 04 pajiodai pure pourjurieny “4ano0o &junN0d 04 poajtodei puv pouljurieny *qan0o AjunNod 04 payiodai puv paulyurien? PO Oyo CDBG Ch OC) DbONO Coola O Drcnt@e ic Bcr onc) CUoOlD WV .Sl\u (810. 0: ©) 6 6..8) s\\e/el/u .ehels) est) sixenge) ale ele)» vi «10 “UOTJOVAI OU ‘4S9} UlI[VI *4an0o £yunod 03 payiodai puv poulmurien?y 4ano0o Ajunod 04 peyiodat pue poulurieny ***srepurps pojoodsng SETS siepurls o1u0IyO ” ” *“**slapur[s peyoedsng se" sjapurld oynoy **slopurts poyoodsng ‘58, Sey 6 eke. Pate) | jo Ainfuy “***"srlapurls oTUu0IgO ***slepur[s pojoodsng a sstavatete are slapuryy SOS GIO sy qgtone SulyjoN “**"SIopurls d1M0IYO ees +++ +srapuR[D **Slepur[s poyoodsng CASO DA IOET 10 hg ” ” see "> siapurls pejoedsng “*"siapurls pojoodsng “ss "sJopurpls d1U0IYO Sree Pate ee eee TO Ae a Pol Lt A COLOUCs) & | ***Slopur[s poyoodsng cere ” ” “**s"sTopurls d1U0IYO ” ” asI0Y T gnu T ” ” asi0y T ” *sasIoy Z asioy T ” ” eaiL i one 2) t- 9 py aetit ” Coo Oar * £o[PeH Id «ele av --yJayoyey “IG “***Ieoqjo suvUIN FL BONG JoquedieyO “IJ ” “IIUMO A +++ I9UMO "++" I90MO Sees sere ROLLS ‘Id “***J90TgO ouvUUNT_T meee “++ I9UMO “***TOUMO FOOMIOO ODDO aI G) ed re “ay ytd Sle SK LMM Lap tp | es ‘ UIST “WT 9082 |°° °° °° °° °° °° *Z49IG WOQTY es A® PUueIy TI6 PORTS E IY My 07 GRRL YO 1 aouspusdaput 0089) caevee BOURIIIGS ) eye po) Ib x ‘spied yoo [See ees Curae Seay ” “4S 1416 “M SET ” “qSOO1L, 3 P1Eg 7 “AV ‘depul 901T o “48001, Y P1E9 | » Sparvf yo04s “D “M “kO ‘uey ‘JSOOLL, WY UIFL SR oaTaice * "OW ‘Q10d4saA4 Re ‘SoWOH] 6E0E ss ‘SompOoH FY WI6T “7 |£Q ‘uRy “AW PuURIDH TT6 ‘OW ‘vUepuUsdspUT ‘G “37 ” ‘sompOH 3 UI6T ” ‘puriy x» pig AQ ‘uvyy ‘sau[oH] 2 YI6T » “48 889D9W TOTS "MOD JUBID‘SIB9g ‘7J00TO AL "* +09 JOJsuvIL, UvOLIOWYy ate tee ULUNOxOV “H ‘a er ets +++ -yoouy uoulIg ere atte qUrIn 3 sida ‘7400[OA, ce Sc ae 5. 3 aoe *TOSTONURUIG “II ***"JOLMBG 9) “WI [Fae siasren wae “** -TEpMOg ite “7 sviasgie Teron nes yes vehel AT As acoA Re Ee “Selo evade TG ot 9) SMO ECESDIO OO 52) ool e lel PEG | srecerekansiers e\Siehe! SABA Sey SIO 12) oY Nols fat te Se ORONO IU Lap iaLO ES | ‘Vv ‘9 % » - $$ BONO TOTS |" HENOVIE “VO n "48 WIV TE6e |" "** mosIqo’ “V “f ; purip 7p pig | hore “a “a be Teqduryp CIP a Sere Le = B © UdLEre (0\/6 “uIRO ‘IN a "AW ‘depuly 908.4)" 0,670. @) 0,0, 0850 we *uasey SIO] " teqdureg FIOT | FOUL “UT a 7 WOSHOVL WP UIST *wosuyor sower . Missouri Agricultural Report. 410 *q1n09o Ayun0d 03 paqiodal pue poutjurien?y ‘auljuRiIenbd Jepun play *qno0o £yuN0d 0} pay1odal pue poulurien? “4anoo Ajun0d 03 pey1odai pue pouyurien?y *qano0o Ajyunod 0} payiodal puv pouljurient) *4.n00 A£yun0d 03 peyioder puv pouryurieny ‘auTyuRIeNnb Ul Play ‘ouTjutienb Ul prey [YS *pouljurien? -41n09 £4unN09 03 peyiodal pue pouljurien? “yano00 4jun0d 0} peyiodeai pue peurjurien? “quowido[eAep IOJ play *yn09 Ayunod 0} pajy1odal pue poulyurien?) oul} -uvienb Ul play “A10JOVJsTyesuN 4saT, “I9UMO JO JUASUOD JIM pasOI4sacqT ‘JO pasodsip MOF "ss" Sropurps oTUOIYD “snus AIR] -[Ixeur Jo eweskydug “**slopur[s pojoodsng "+ **-srapurls oTU0I1yO Fees eee ess eszopuRpg Acne aiehevsies2*°*B1O Ga -eyiiomey winding Seanhet S1opuv[s IIUOIYO ‘**Siepurls poyoodsng Fe eeee sees pzuanguy “''"I9Aey sprek 49099 “*"slapurls poyoodsng “**srepurls peyoedsng S8 Suess JaAey Sulddiys ae Slopur[s OTUOIYO “s'siapurls dTUO0IYD “**siapurls pojoodsng eae. Slepur[s oTUOIYO ‘**siapur[s peyoodsng Pusan Slopur[s OIMOIYO CRIP PR Poca Pat try) Ui) * “OSU *JLOIYY 910s [VYIIVYLO “asvasiq ” -asi0y T ++ 9InUI T **Sosioy ¢ sees ee es eggioy T FSH BOO OURAN Oa fe ” * QsI0y T Fees e eee sgmur asioy 1 "+ 9mMul T ” ” ams 8 ewes asioy T “4904s JO Puls “sosioy Z |° "8 : ‘P ” ia ” "SG ” . OE ‘Sny pec) aes SRGCe st GBs Se WS2 oy Sop ” “8ST ” eM ” eH! ” aca: ” ue ANE “Or Ane 0 ” SoC ATONE “"6r 9une GG 45 pdt ” “oT ACW “906T ‘ayeqd ” ” “4S SBDOW OTL UATOoIg 3 YIST “49 qnUleA\ POET ‘qnure A 3 pug ee iat *1OUMO *kO SI ‘avjopurs Ay LEOI +95 sis “gg ‘oan ““SMOUICI “CH ” raumo | ts TOSUT OR aNIAl ‘payivo MOT OOo tree on . ‘STH S UBWYxSIH “9E “UY ” ” . ko: ‘OW “AQ uey ‘sousy 3? WISE “AV [e.1]U2D S06T ‘oqjopuvd MM LEST “AV [e1qUa) OT6T “49 OULA OSES ‘gyouroy » pige | “4S MURA FOET “48 1416 “M OOST MIS Fung = Esgz) “49 a1j0opueAM TEES » “49 yung €z¢z “4s InNUTe AA FOET Iq uoJuvg T98T ury ‘4S V8HOW 120% ‘gouepusdapuy ‘¢ “yY “aotgo sog ei gitia thette re UvUI}IeEL “VW "++ ATPUOS “H *URUTeYOW “Ld ‘rst 95:Q9 og ‘s P's reeeeesSMOnqTEN “fo UUSOREECS: 6) ib gn Ay cece cers sve.s uMOUyUQ, “+s -SMOuqeIy ‘fa “+++ -suaMO ‘08D So Ct G THAouoS “aH ” ” ” UvUIOYON “Ld "+09 asevredo0p uoSs[aN Se eae co “- "VWs “gH sce wer STUSIUM “W ‘SIV Aa SoM OTe yw “q@ “H ** "UVUUOON “Ld +++ -TosuyOr ‘O rah a Che “qyayoog “V¥ “+ yorqeg “*"QYWS “fa *JQUMO panulju0p—'906T ‘ST WAAWAOAC OL ‘S06T ‘06 UMA NAOUG ‘UVAA AHL VON ‘NVIUVNIYVALAA ALVIS ALNdAC ‘AYOON 0°U Ud AO LUOdAU IVONNV 411 Marian. Report State Veter *y.n09 £qun0d 04 paliodar pue paulyurien?) *11n00 AqyunNod) OF pejlodai pue pourjurieny *q1n0d 44juN0d 0} pajiodel pue pouljurieny "41n09 Ayunod 0} payiodar pur poururieny Ce a er rr) *y1n09 A£yunod 04 payiodar puv peuurieny *489} UlO[[VI UIATS puv pouTyURIENy *yno0o £juN0d 03 pey1odal puv psutjurienyd ‘auTjURIVND WO pasvoafery *4.n00 4£1UN0d 0} payioda1 pay ae) ‘auTgUvIVND WOT, pasve[ay “4.n0o £yuno0d 04 payiodas pur Bouuucen© “4yIn00 Ajyunod 03 payiodai pure pourjurrendy *padsorsoq *41n00 Ayunod 04 pagrodar pay peuTyurren? |* od OO rho s co 0 suojdwiAs OU pa[VaAel UOTJVUIWIe XT ‘pouljurien? “4.an09 £juN0d 04 paylodar puv pouyuriene “4897 LoTR ” ” oe ” ” ” ” “**Slepur[s o1UO01YyO *SIJ14SOLlod Iv[OIATV “*"slapurls oTUOIYO “*“Ssrlepurls poayoodsng ***slopurls oTU0IYO **slapurls poyoodsng “*Ssiapurls ITUOIYO ***ommding Soe 9 = TONoy SBXOT, “*slopur[s dIUOIYO *sutuosiod euuopryjeg “114903 peg SSepanE B)toCon dere) ~* yorid sosmnig “*yqreye9 IDAVJ SVXOL eee eee ee ** IQA] SUXOT, ” ” ee eee ” ” as10Y T “*o[nul T *9S10Y T gnu T ” ” ” “9S10Y T ** MOO T ** -9INUI T ae) B16) “9inur T “* *9sl10y T “gnu T - + 9mnur T ” **< -9g10]] T “sasi0y Z% ” ” ” ” IOUMO UMOIG “Id eee ee eee dye Id oe 6 6 ele SILLA g ‘085 AMO Oar G IOUMO Aq TWO: a Moke Do Sen **TOUMO CSO ON OTE IUANG) 220" AYO svsuey “AW uATYOOIg 2 4S 4ST | » AW VIUISITA STET | “O° M 4S WuIUING ZTST suo “MUCAV purip 7 4S UIST Sinica wade oy ‘Saureey » ‘a}jopurfA\ LE9T ‘OM “AV UOJYSIIG ShPS Fi “{NUTVAL 3 pus ‘uued Y UIFT 7 ‘SOUSY 2 Plgy ‘£0 “SM “IS 199 “Hl SPE OW ‘qaeysteN +f “aw SOBIL $Z0G ” “4S UIET “HOT ” “AW Mit SII % AV ADVIL, SIGS » IS U9ZT 2A SZOr . “AW pueiy ggg » ‘PURTPAITN Y UIFF " ‘SoUSY PY UIP » “FS 2990]12UD 90F “Ty, "°**"gnuyeM 3 pug *uOTUNY ‘seyg Mvysprig *O ‘Lf se vie os ove ge ole Yquey Aue “AY IS uLppodo1eyy Le eRe Oe OISSOW “Y © Sees ce eae SMOUIVIL oP “7 wisi (6-6 8\i8) « ale ayae JIasueiy 79) 7 YOON sTIVyD ““ul[quoD “H “0 "** “yOsIeqed “A San OOD Aydiny, Ulgieyy POODSESTOR Aguvys “JT uyor sie, 61s feral |e eile wriv irate aspoM “IN SnD OU RO “*sOMpey “gd “H "SOM "TV “yyus “§ “f UNO “Vv “Aydin wop tee gsogy Ww NBOR ora wosioleg “at ee aul “A ee oo gedetacn. ts Missouri Agricultural Report. 412 *poulquRieny JUIUIYVaAl} BACH ‘JO pasodsip MO}FT ‘9061 ‘ST UMANAOAC OL ‘SO6T *4n09 £4yun0d 03 payiodel puev pouljyurien?y *4y1n09 Ayunod 073 payiodal puv pouryurient *yano0o 4yun0d 03 pajiodai puv pouljursien?y *4noo AyUNO0D 07 payiodal puv pouryurieny ‘JO pasodsip MOF] be Slopuv[s DIUOIYO |* anu T ‘sesioy F © gene lols ieceverens . % er ay “alyyeo £61 see ee eee . ar . apyyRo proy CLT sete ee ** *JOAOJ SEXO, sreesiennis i* OT gRh) S060) e160 Rhee efeiele osuryy . “so[nur x sosIO PT -asvasid “3004s JO puly “Or 1g 9g pe cGren: ‘~O "0S 4 *ydag “IRIN “9061 ‘ayrq WON We ACD mee * £1%491099 “UVLIVULIOJOA 9984S $8) o) ue ee 6A AIvJIINIG *poy[vo MOTT “OW ‘yonorg ot Crt et ey OW ‘STIIUN @aSsTy se weer ew cene Oo ‘eqieds tee oe ee OW ‘UOUIO A “JIN 20qJOSOg *IJUMO “7 "sTapuRps o1U0IYO ‘asvasiq eetscoteleton nts asiol] T "30048 JO PUIST Oars: “"GT °90 “9061 ‘aged ” “4S U16E “MA 0Z8 » “4S wodsoig Z1LT » IS ajjopurdé\M LEOT Be ae: KCus eee) a6 lel > is) Vets “LUO YT “49 4snoo'y FCT “Polvo MOFT “90NJOIsSOg ‘0G UMANAOAG UVAA AHL UOA ‘NVIUVNIUALHA ALVIS ALNdAC ‘AAOT “a “U “Ud JO LUOdAU TVONNV Ivoy “a “f Saonto cae? SqqHO “AA ‘f rreree sees ssmouqely “fo eiaeianlenm ashe uosuIqoY “gd “oT *I0UMO panulju0p— 9061 ‘8ST UMANAOAC OL ‘S06T ‘06 UAANAOAG ‘UVAA AHL UOT ‘NVIUVNIUALAA ALVIS ALNdAC “AMOON ‘0 ‘U “Ud AO LUOdAU TVANNV a} Marian. ° Report State Veter ‘9061 *punoj osvasip ON *pouljueieny ‘daays pourjurient ‘peaq “peep § ” ” ” *pourjuriend “pred *pouljurienyy ‘JO posodsip MOTT eee ewe wea . *SsoIqvog see eee eee “SHOI} IVAIT sewer eee eens o. “sty -ISUIUDU ~pUuv soIqrog sete ener “sIyTTeydvug OOo, OND. ONG worse -Ipul put sI}IsuTUSTY er ay "* *soIqevog see e eens *(uor4d110s -op wio4J) styTouoIg *****B9IqQROg “asvasIqd ***919780 3 dosyg ween omnes eee ee SONS N OF) TE +++ SMoo F see ee daayg ***daays 2Z Cece *dooys I ***doays og TOROS A (he ( 91 "3904S JO UIST "ST “400 ; "GS ” “BC = as I sme € ‘adv Z “ARI “OL “eq ime aes . “OL ” ¥ Shed ” ‘9061 “2 ‘uve *04eq ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” “URLIVULMAJEA 94049 sreeeses + KyeI19I0E9 ” ” ” ” 7 ” “URTIVUIIOJOA 99219 HeLoerei IB oTOeS “URIIRUIIOIOA 99249 "pay[@o MOH see ween C0 OOOO OUT ay ‘QT[9A eT ec ecee ‘OW ‘AYO 9sOIUOyy SOOO ig ‘xolIg eval avaterkhebetene - OW ‘OlOny POO BES HOM iy Yecopeyent:{al "es - om ‘ArIOqSTy ‘asplig s,uvounqd sae ‘OW ‘aTl9ade't “ado sod ee i ee *SnOLIvA Pichardo ***-T099IS9 [BH “INUMO ” Snowe, ‘SI UMAN AOAC OL ‘S06T ‘0G UAANHOAG UVAA AHL UOT ‘NVIUVNIUALAA ALVIS ALNdAC ‘NAIUG.O “M ‘A “Ud JO LUOdAU IVANNV, Missouri Agricultural Report. 414 *pourjueiend asvasIp WOIJ va1y punog “PITTED ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” “poutjurien? *JO pesodsip Moy "prod os 5b AERA PON OIOG a . Soketecetaeie Cahre a Sora bere antes ¥ Wie) ata eh ahckares se 5 Seater 5 ; a Reeralatece ea ceshenene 7 see) Siaiabaaiete is are sarqvog Bol Sent te REC OATENS s1apur[y PRCT EAE ARE ‘sarqrog fig +3 : ” ” es ” ” Sneeshene a - aaiege cs * % ” ” ed : ” ” Sova % x sees ” ” ” ” nein a - ‘s 7 ” ” ” ve Preree ee ISUVUL UPOIXOTW soshau pekeoreeeee ayoyo MoT ‘asvasiq oc lds 1 he : C os ES Seba awyeg |‘'9 ‘4ydag |" “g0T}OVIg VAN Se Coousnos Sloye i. a = BBD OE (21290 (2) 0z% “OT sj & eee wee *doays OF . ‘OL An om *. Yrs ae --daays 2 {OL a es bigs wees ‘daays IGT |" OL ,, | ‘UelteuTIa4e, 04R19 ‘a pee) © ale doays O&Z . ‘OL mBYe) Ae) WU 8 Shee a Ble). * oo da9ays OFZ “Gz 4 per et . .. ‘s+sss-dgays got l‘oe ,, [ect eres 160, chev e676 dooys og . OS “ydag (ey et nthe Peer ust *19}40T Lire cree asioy T|'"¢z Atne | SII “@ “aD Ole un .a 8 . ‘dooys SI . ‘6% “snV OC VAt Tet de var) *19})0T LPL Oo veeeseseggsion gies 4, [etc i Simoer ed asioy T|''#g oung ccs, - Aner “s*sgsnoye|"'eT og, [to ,, - So[NUI A ses1oy 2Z|"'GT ,, |°°°°° “SIT ‘| ‘005 WinG nae sesroy9|''eT 4, jot, esteeseggsioy giset 4, fectte ets >< raxcune “-gosroy pi eT 4, ttt, atom “sasioy g[-eT gett sseseeseggsion pfter 4, [ects i veosessssosroyue | Gr Latent ces oa hacen oth asioy Ter, [ttt MESON sesioyg| er ,, [ccc tapeeratertssccuc sasioyz|''¢t 4, [ttc anne nite asgou tot, [ttt aanerty ices cre nye sesiou# |''0g tt * = Sao One sasioy "02g, | STE “1009 ecieaegeutienete asioy T |**6L ‘qaq |°**** +: ‘euoydaray, ‘9061 "yO04S JO purlyy ‘oyeq ‘pay[vo MOTT Pee Shieh OW ‘uoyuary, mm ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ’ ” sess sow ‘sSoryduinyy Dit avetatet cucaeehars OW ‘ste teers on UenHW Sa eae ees OW ‘UOJIOULI RRR Re Coe: Co OW “4eD sus che TeCRS TING - OW ‘apqse9 6.s)p @ 6 e808 pen) OW *poosso he ooh heks ow ‘sAoryduinyy € fe) 6 ana ee brers OW ‘poosso geeks ee ie: OW ‘UOJBDUNIG Oa cate tae ON ‘poosso Bina’ (6) 6) be ane us. OW ‘pieyoidg S aged quel cee etostely OW ‘WeD e1é) orp) 0? eal eels, OW ‘paexyoidg Bie, 4) ee. 5, a, Ge me) a OW *‘poosso irene «ateepoes “on ‘q[e5 Mi Cotry yc aCe OW ‘poosso SW Mires lis som OJ ‘opare’y a: (a)calwirey syle 8 mike OW *poosso fees) i dae OUIAT “OT[IASIOULIR “OOJOISOT Cone ee te Aw Wet Pa SNOMIVA xx sence ee sees ‘ayeyg "T ‘O spre S008 +%0) > ea ONT STA AAG SE OGL ie (5) Gf and siete eererey » tem UdILV "iT “M ¢ $10 (C kere ee cee “yurag ‘O ‘da cece ea tee nee a 8 JON “I WV a e010) chs 'e *‘uIopulO “SISSOTT snour A aireroinacaneans ULUIYNVY, “PAL xx eteeerreeessHoaON A Meabatetorn: exaistes uopurig yuesq treeesesssTOsMORe “VW “AL $4 ies WeyPRIsuy “A thn o “++ TaUUN “Me SrO4b edb ee Mi Nene . “AVIV “aT ae See “-ueysnea Wo ove. @..8 oor elvere QOS ATS | “WU *M SG WeYsulUUNg “fA saa Beale -* 1OISOM “A “A Sa OC SMOPRIW ‘SVL ‘SIJT PME bee uosuyor qt “Y vssses sss Kaxsorgow uyor “ToJaM “SBD F sshaxs, kere “UOSyoUr T “AL Fea at a1ful9q410IS “ff O ORT Sin eC iohalg “WA, “IOUMO ‘906T ‘ST UMANAOAC OL ‘S06 ‘OZ UMANAOAC UVAA AHL WOU ‘NVIUVNIUALAA ALVIS ALOddd ‘NOGTHHS ‘8 ‘Ud AO LUOdaU TVANNV A15 INAvidNe Report State Veter “PITT seq pe *pourjurient ‘JO posodsip Moxy “asvasiqy asioy T ote Siac SuIplas T 6 O80 Osbetsr3 dooys 908 see eee . ‘dasys FZ HO OrcnoedG daays OLT ‘904s JO PULST “TE AVI "3 ‘adv "2 -‘qoq “92 ‘ues “9061 "3s “eq “GO6T ‘aed “URIIVULI9}9 A 91R19 SULA IC | “URIIVULIA}A A 91219 *pay[eo MOTT ” ” Vie wie eve Oe OW “elperquag | waar suMOg pue uosdwoyy, “a0WJOISOg Oy ‘WoasIny¢g |° siaique * S[OUDIN “IN cee eee eee ‘asIpuRig a c *IQUMO ‘9061 ‘81 UMAWAOAC OL ‘S06T ‘0G MAANAOAG UVAA AHL UOd ‘NVIUVNIUALAA ALVIS ALNaaa ‘HLINS AWINVLS Ud JO LUOdAY TVONNV ‘ouTJUvIVND WoL posvelary ” ” “UOTJVAIOSGO IO} Play ‘pourljuriene) *‘[BATII2 UOdN [9M S.19]40 ‘peop T ‘TeATIIe uodN [Ta JO pasodsip Moy “***"s9rqei pajoadsng ‘**Silepurls peyoedsng “"**"s9rqei poyoodsng ” aSvasl(T *-9[nuI T Richa **-sgnul Z ere vesenshe tay ear asioy T sasioy 6 O cheap .0 Surpjes I *Y904S JO PUL “or Ane pees, ei Soe ‘Go ount . oan “Idy a CO ‘906T ‘aed PES SOCI SHON ouHMUeE NY “**TIUMO | ” ara shers SIA “@ 005 "pay[eo MOFT ” ” OW ‘UONLOIIRD OW ‘A1uoFT Ce pl DICH OO 7) ‘OW ‘UO[[O1IRD eas) ete Ee ee ow ‘Aruayy ” ” sie kpitome vanes OW ‘UOT[OLIeD ‘-UMOIg: “tq Ae Lae uinqAay WdIIe A, uMOIg “J Sraligtesesiope metas 2 sqoove “Ht ‘a anvedePegouepepcunts suryuer “yy “5 ws elelecaite ec) slahete Aglurqg "T a ‘aoJOsog “IJUMO, ‘9061 ‘8ST UAANAOAC OL ‘S06T ‘0 UMANAOAG UVAA AHL UOT ‘NVIUVNIUALAA ALVLS ALOddC “UULVIS ‘H “Cf 'Ud AO LUOdAU TVANNYV ‘dip ieydins pure owry ‘pourjurien? *pojevol] pure pourjuerent pourjueient? ‘JO pasodsiIp Moyy ” CeCe RCC arr Crear) ” ” *“*sarqrog “esvasiq 60.0.5 99 OG BRIE CCl ” Oc tech . *dooys 66 igelrajrel eweriiona daays 2 BT STOIC = 0 (= ‘9048 JO PUL ‘ayeq ” “UVMRUIIEJ9A 04249 *pay[eo MOFT ” ” ” ” ” cee ee eee OW ‘QTTTAsyang Risttene Mirey/ Were OW ‘paeu0eT ooanDouU ‘OW ‘aouareo “doo sog ” *IQUMO ‘9061 ‘ST UMANAOAC OL ‘S06I ‘0 UMA NACA UVAA AHL YOM ‘NVIUVNIUALAA ALVIS ALNdaG ‘ADVOd dU “Ud AO LUOdAU"IVANNV Missouri Agricultural Report. 416 ‘suod yoojs pouryurieny eee eee eee seas saIqrog Le) asshole meni a1 “en ‘20d “URIIBUTIO}0 A. 04849 ead OW ‘purl yey Cee ee SMOPBIV “IN “GO6L ‘JO pasodsip MoyT “aSBosiq “0048 JO PUlT avd “‘poy[eo MOT *201IJOISOg *I2UMO ‘9061 ‘SI UAANAOAC OL ‘S06T ‘0G UMANAOAC UVAA AHL UOA ‘NVIUVNIUALAA ALVLS ALOdAC ‘AIOM ‘H “H ‘Ud JO LUOdAU IVANNV “quaulyevel4 AARY) aroye (autoiute Ylieyeo jesen aur aasletsisian« asioy T |. “LT Av | sa saa . We | eres OW ‘QT[ASOySN yy C66: bie tecelale (ee ae: 4SIOA “Ti “AV *UOT}OAJUI JO-adInOs Woy AVM JnYS |*** “sTyurUeueuIdg |°+ +++ +++: SMoolg |° <9) “nep ios: Filer Fan ceri) |e Berea Se SINGSUSLUBA\G Lt ase urwyoH pso'y | ‘9061 “JO pasodsip MOTT "asvasiq *y/04s JO PULYT | ‘aed | *pay[vo MOTT "Q0IJOISOg ** JOUMO | ‘9061 ‘ST UAANAOAC OL ‘S06T ‘0 UMANAOAC UVAA AHL UOT ‘NVIUVNIYVALAA ALVIS ALNdAC ‘ALIHM ‘AL ‘Ud JO LUOdAY TVANNV A Pages. Beaar ARH CERIN ALT EUS CALEY 5) “e\-chratre) oinils Toe Torisir POT aU CREME M ET Cr ee) '6'e\\0) 0.6 abe te sonrapeneyraite vasticw oh cle eee 238-245 PMTMES TELCO LIT) loor0 ke (ol aY cust Me Woteiiais, o:'e: ere ia /sie tebe ifeht ated PaReeMen =) Sila) Biids- aie. '0 5S. ey'e rey diene be foneure (GU aE 68-70 PemMciricunal (ColexeyerepOnt, OMe iors o> ceoverererM eres oie: 0-b lev: ole evallard) a/lchavas olane pe eherneieae 9 mPImemigural Colleze’ tappropriatior) ol oor HONEEG sfetiede' s” sfiell Syonokaitelete 153-158 Barley, average farm price........... eheueceWe) hor oietoNepete/c, scr elakenetetetaks. ovopsseunyehope tebe rotre 400 ECM OS te OCa/ TT) AICI Sette ettolta ol snenairabay eves lcval eve 0\ eiveveuelscteaneisi'e) i's ella isi Ona’ etaite collet tele rquepeiaeererere 59 incetmbees and: dairy production: (Compared... << aie ls a-« 4: ois ousie «+ ra,eper ui may cvecoruseiey ee 59-60 Board of Agriculture— FOTICORS £O lows n yen cuersden cooiepeme ater cal ete coved ater ere) of o:70i5i arsar/ay ouanohil sland pavepenre teach archaea secanome tele 2 ERECT EH COMMITULEE: jay piiereleber sh olelsl chek Wonat oiissacagsi ebayer aocheusepetsaregsgaiei \vanekeue ane aie ‘ 2 WOrVOrALG! MEM PES) saws) elevate rehesetocc eters: < sksconodsl sheneteretareie lew exess cctorenaleekacranerct ets Bf StaterHait GineCLoryau cian sleraetosatole cls aversi os eve, ssauiateyel Santyercnencpseleohen, GR seats 3 State Fair executive committee............ Rye sokepentere Yopckaetsnmratnien cee ee 4 DIGLOPINAT IY) SOMLCIANS lrg. cawatens, stone cal eaurey al aie a. SYar oPutreca alate aan Maca tsdave hoc stares SEN ae 4. A—27 IL Index. Pages Broomcorn, acreage, yield and value by sectionS...........0....c-++++ceers 397 BTrOOMCOIN, (AVELALCS “LAWN MOEICS aisle ae s/s. 0.0 o,< 0 lo sicvetaleyeiouaiel 16.5 ole se ase ateioe nee 400 Buckwheat, “average (farmigpercerysaics cs 0 se selene: otiee cee ode eee 400 Cc Cattle; farm | Price ers sais clei iaiaia o/c 0: s's v's'0,a ste (ove *etate ‘aval nic ctareheywreieteia.s) sia). ete 460 CWAEUSS SCATO’ OL, cick otrc nie) oiseieteta tele cic: wis sie 40 ehele eveiaeteinie|)sieletsieleueis eketetetsts ieee. sega 99-100 @erealvacreage and) live (stoclttin JONI. « <.< sc: ses sveve so ie-0 nels © wiplsieial ale s/c + oioteenem 261 Cereal acreage: and live stockvin Missouri 1 3). << 1s sl cjete «ele wie eyalsipiv = «s » ci6 «) eee 263 rOfsiaabitets Wes vail eee ees A SiO oc) <5, COE DER Oa cep do a0 ont ess 71, 95-101 Chickens,“saverage farm epriCeiye. = 3% 2 aera ee 400 @Wlover’ Seed; VAVeragses LALM GOLICE sie is acs. os «is s,6:a.e ose wfeislisyapsiereyevel'ors sisi es) hele whe vreraaene 400 WIGVEr NAY, “AVELARO - LALIT TCC isco. « aisieletalacelsielstaisictstalerass) «| +)elsls ateerieaete ats | ocala 400 CONLAEIGUS > GISCASES ie. ).cieexetoimiticreialstols\s 6 <0 wie; swims lela (ove eitietelare =. c elehacslnkt eae at enn 41 Contributors— IERDIES ds VWs) ie sialclore eicieleierel alle «(o/s 016 ole )s\evels\isioie)steletin siete) setels\ 91 alate ele vals tava 210-213 PEt) Wi tA coteceles ein eesia alas inie' sis (av'olis fe) aust stele/ekeratalcielspalsis ele << )ele ta eet Mannan 36- 37 ABSTO WI) CRS GWWa) ete ei cleln al erevotte wie lor ove\'el sync stexelclecallohereleNarel stele less s tere (ater te taeenenm 219-224 Craberees Me cir erin lore ietetcraiare sim? aie) se) ol eieLereuebal afeholie o's ite tetel feta 'ca eect tana 319-326 TO chp 1D) aie Of bate ad DIE Reet 8 SOOM COO AGU POORUO A Mana anensiahe 54 101-107 i Do) fl (fie OLS 5 MAAC OIOOODIE IU DOIOOOr 00 Un Obic Minima 5 ara laid cise 5 76- 80 LIST GOs m Basi yesccelsie efehess erelain alaleln otal eveelolers iol eueyslelee fella leleteteyaie Tamera 18-35, 389-401 POE WErOL OW cc ole cis) cleinsols.6. ie: &. 5 o- Discha tere iaiecnr a ERE La 322-323 ANAS SSG MOE: 34.55 Sonim GOO COROT 0.0 oo DIRE IRIs Ac OReLa a id cue one 5 323 ETA VE SPUN Se tcvexeteveler isc inie.e epaleholete s Gia CR ORETee so eveveve 3 Rohe eats Enea 2» 024-326 MIIEMNEES Ol BDRCCOIN Sis oye erorere siete eitieiens cis scape sid ehe econ ease eet 326-335 Hxperiments! with, fertilizers: On Corns © «<0 2 «aie m+ . sige lekeiaoaame 48- 49 Response to ‘addressmore welcome. « . <5 5 © ale © eheclg vinis se > sie) oe) stnls/ oie 49- 52 Massourl State) WalimyaeASSOCIATION(. |« cic sietsin ice siatelete] dele isis ofelpioleielacleicis teeete 53-113 Improved Live Stock Breeders’ Association..........-6...+--+s++-e- 114-295 Missouri State Corn Growers’ Association......................++.+ «296-348 gpk, Je kereceyy iM Yee eno 5.5.0 So SOU SIO IC IO DO aos Jao asda gk oe 101-107 WO = LOM! OWS ccs cinch ei eels arene RS Pe cl. eie sc) » 0 1s) cus wiayakel aPetelauanelteteteuetal ects wicteis of tainaienenm 98- 99 IBUNANGIAly StCAtCINCNE. faispaietoleteevobener ier Ws).e, 01:6) s/cve)e\e}ie ole iohohel shel ekotislictieletienely, of -eialehatan te neeam 24- 37 Blax acreage, yield ‘and valuempya SECTIONS. 121 Breeding herd of the Agricultural College. .............%.ccceseuens-srs 144 Cattle—Vearlines, “thick: ‘ange Warde. 101s) c lees) siniete =) rs)e) eels fells) akoi=) ene 138 Three-year-olds ready to top the market................-.e-2s-++-+s-0: 126 MHTES-Vear-OldS) AVOUEL, LIMISHOO Mein « aie! eis selon cieile)eleiealelelelelel tate -1-)-i= nie iaiataiea 29 TwOo-Vear-OldS) in) Prime CONGIEIOM sn. <1he olsiers che eles) eistels slo = iat=) =i) tetas 132 Beginnines to SHOW fiMiSh ociccreie.c «ic. s+ sie) obolio\e oie o.6) 1 ofe) a) toflstaliel seinen ieloaaiele ies 135 Comparative produces Ole sic erershis\- «aisle ein) oalsls)olele) sleletahelsieis s/t ein 302-309 Comparaviviemyieclas: Of: (COLMM. <¥-iteleis) sic 'eie ausiciens ste) «leteilelelessietal stats 336, 337, 339, 340,341 Experimental feeding sheds and IlotsS..........ccceccececcsssncsseceses 115 Groups of cows showing comparative profit...........2...essseeeeeeees 362-363 Holstein cow owned by Agricultural College............6022-+sscesesss 365 Milk testing apparatus....367, 371, 372, 378, 374, 875, 376, 377, 378, 384, 385-387 Modeleadainy sat, Greenwood se MO. oe csye wie cleo: + ate solace sy anel olepelsieteiebelviensle nena 358,368 Percheron mares and colt owned by Agricultural College............... 273-279 Pasturesotsche Agricultural Colleges c.tejsieicisiels eles) «le)sie (een) eisieiiel ei = otal 118 Rex McDonald, greatest living saddle horse..................--.+-se-: PME K Keatit (COM MAVErAase LATIN, DLICE Sse sls taibiete aiatoyg pieee 400 L eat tobacco, average farm price.........cccrscscce am eleva bok ae ot Bi eee 490 Tiere Ea ye Se 9 cep AAO RROD le 56 Tor aoe cere aiols ews winter ecareco ei intevecs atest denen 43- 46 PANSECO SP IMGAI Prius bh) stale /c)c 0 \eisisle blots ioieleieisinic/ole is) cise Mieke vielvisinlstalels Ssh eyaiturs le\nied biel heme 186 Live Stock Breeders’ Association, Improved........... SME a1 orion) re cola San wee ee Banat ie 114-295 BAD ys DESL DIOGUCTION: %